INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

GAME ON!

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: GAME ON!

#21 Postby Dave B » October 27th, 2015, 11:03 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Altfish wrote:I notice that Boris has (by his standards) been fairly quiet on this issue. I think he is a big winner in the Tory Leader race
Is he trying to be the "Soft Face" of Toryism (to the Cam/borne hard one) without actually rocking the boat?

Boris playing statesman?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24031
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: GAME ON!

#22 Postby Alan H » October 27th, 2015, 1:42 pm

Alan H wrote:(However, I did see someone saying that the Tories flew in (at taxpayers' expense?) Lord Webber to bump up Tory numbers.

Musicals millionaire Lord Lloyd-Webber votes to cut tax credits for the poor after flying in from New York
Musicals tycoon Andrew Lloyd-Webber broke his near-silence in the House of Lords to vote for tax credit cuts for Britain's poorest people.

The ultra-rich Tory peer took part in last night's crunch vote during a break from commitments in New York, where his School of Rock musical launches in two weeks.

Previously he had voted just 30 times out of 1,898 during his most recent 14 years in the House of Lords, around 1.6%.

His last was more than two years ago to back gay marriage, according to voting record website The Public Whip.

But last night he trooped through the Lords lobbies with hundreds of other Tories, including a line-up of millionaires, to try and defeat three challenges to George Osborne's cuts.

In a statement the seldom-seen peer defended his choice and told the Mirror he was 'pleased' George Osborne is 'reviewing the tax credits situation'.
His spokesman said he had flown from New York 'at his own expense' - and not specifically for the vote but to attend tonight's opening of Cats at the London Palladium.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: GAME ON!

#23 Postby thundril » October 27th, 2015, 6:25 pm

Much as I am relieved that somebody had the opportunity to stop Osberon's lunatic plan I would rather not leave our future defences in the hands of a bunch of bishops, millionaires and ex-celebs.
We need some sort of second chamber, , but direct election would change the primacy of the commons, and selection raises the question of ' Selection by whom? The goverrnment?'
I have a suggestion.
Suppose everyone over (say) fifty could put their name forward as a second-Chamber juror. Suppose every year from then on, 12 names were picked at random from that list, and the lucky persons were offered (subject to some health and CRB checks, and maybe a test for appropriate level of numeracy and literacy) a ten-year contract, on a very good salary, and with use of a central London flat. They would be required to attend every meeting of the upper chamber. It would be a proper, full-time job.
Of the present Lords, the longest serving ten percent could be retired each year. We would end up with a 'Senate' of 120 people, varying in experience from newbie to old hand. Of course the Senate would need a decent budget to call in a spectrum of experts to advise on any complex issue, but we would have a probably quite mature, attentive body of people, truly representative of the UK, to examine, revise etc the decisions of the Commons.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24031
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: GAME ON!

#24 Postby Alan H » October 27th, 2015, 7:54 pm

I see the review of the House of Lords after last night will be carried out by Thomas Galloway Dunlop du Roy de Blicquy Galbraith, aka Baron Strathclyde of Barskimming,
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: GAME ON!

#25 Postby Fia » October 27th, 2015, 8:54 pm

thundril wrote: We need some sort of second chamber
Do we? When Scotland becomes independent why would we need a second chamber?
thundril wrote: I have a suggestion.
Suppose everyone over (say) fifty could put their name forward as a second-Chamber juror. Suppose every year from then on, 12 names were picked at random from that list, and the lucky persons were offered (subject to some health and CRB checks, and maybe a test for appropriate level of numeracy and literacy) a ten-year contract, on a very good salary, and with use of a central London flat. They would be required to attend every meeting of the upper chamber. It would be a proper, full-time job.
Of the present Lords, the longest serving ten percent could be retired each year. We would end up with a 'Senate' of 120 people, varying in experience from newbie to old hand. Of course the Senate would need a decent budget to call in a spectrum of experts to advise on any complex issue, but we would have a probably quite mature, attentive body of people, truly representative of the UK, to examine, revise etc the decisions of the Commons.


Great idea Thundril.

User avatar
lewist
Posts: 4402
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 8:53 pm

Re: GAME ON!

#26 Postby lewist » October 28th, 2015, 8:31 am

I agree with Thundril and Fia. However, it's too sensible to be paid any credence by the present bunch of crooks and shysters.
Carpe diem. Savour every moment.

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: GAME ON!

#27 Postby Nick » October 28th, 2015, 11:37 am

thundril wrote:People are tired of the kind of school-playground nonsense-politics we've been fed the last couple of decades, where every politician has to obey the Party's press enforcer, fearing that any disagreements will be met with breathless reports of 'revolt within the (name your party) ranks', and any (God forbid) any changes of mind will be howled down as 'u-turns', and therefore signs of weakness.
Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters are trying to get away from the kind of rubbish.
Really? On the one hand, Corbynites are threatening to deselect MP's , and will have an ideal opportunity to do so when the boundary changes come in. On the other, Corbyn has voted against his own party on more occasions than any other MP.... except for the Shadow Chancellor.... :popcorn:

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: GAME ON!

#28 Postby Nick » October 28th, 2015, 11:47 am

Fia wrote:
thundril wrote: We need some sort of second chamber
Do we? When Scotland becomes independent why would we need a second chamber?
thundril wrote: I have a suggestion.
Suppose everyone over (say) fifty could put their name forward as a second-Chamber juror. Suppose every year from then on, 12 names were picked at random from that list, and the lucky persons were offered (subject to some health and CRB checks, and maybe a test for appropriate level of numeracy and literacy) a ten-year contract, on a very good salary, and with use of a central London flat. They would be required to attend every meeting of the upper chamber. It would be a proper, full-time job.
Of the present Lords, the longest serving ten percent could be retired each year. We would end up with a 'Senate' of 120 people, varying in experience from newbie to old hand. Of course the Senate would need a decent budget to call in a spectrum of experts to advise on any complex issue, but we would have a probably quite mature, attentive body of people, truly representative of the UK, to examine, revise etc the decisions of the Commons.


Great idea Thundril.
Need I bother to comment....? :laughter:

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: GAME ON!

#29 Postby Altfish » October 28th, 2015, 12:54 pm

I'm a great believer in a second chamber but am not sure how best to choose/elect the members. The UK system is currently failing; the US system isn't any better.

I'd like it to be non-political but that's just a pie in the sky wish and would never happen. The jobs should not be for life.

Some sort of proportional voting system, similar to the EU elections may work.

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: GAME ON!

#30 Postby thundril » October 28th, 2015, 1:47 pm

Nick wrote:
thundril wrote:People are tired of the kind of school-playground nonsense-politics we've been fed the last couple of decades, where every politician has to obey the Party's press enforcer, fearing that any disagreements will be met with breathless reports of 'revolt within the (name your party) ranks', and any (God forbid) any changes of mind will be howled down as 'u-turns', and therefore signs of weakness.
Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters are trying to get away from the kind of rubbish.
Really? On the one hand, Corbynites are threatening to deselect MP's , and will have an ideal opportunity to do so when the boundary changes come in. On the other, Corbyn has voted against his own party on more occasions than any other MP.... except for the Shadow Chancellor.... :popcorn:

Exactly. Some Labour leftists are calling for deselection of Right-wingers, but some others, (including Corbyn himself) are against it. Their difference of opinion is out in the open, for everyone to join in the discussion. The Labour leadership are not pretending, or attempting, to keep all Labour spokespeople rigidly 'on message' for fear of what the Westminster Village Idiots might say about them.
*It's nice when we agree on something, Nick. :smile:

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: GAME ON!

#31 Postby thundril » October 28th, 2015, 2:18 pm

Perhaps we might agree on THIS? :D

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: GAME ON!

#32 Postby Altfish » October 28th, 2015, 2:44 pm

thundril wrote:Perhaps we might agree on THIS? :D

Well, it is from Private Eye, so assuming it is correct; that should be good ammunition for next week's PMQs.

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: GAME ON!

#33 Postby Tetenterre » October 28th, 2015, 3:31 pm

Re 2nd chamber. 1/7th of the members PR elected each year on a 7-yr "rolling ballot".
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: GAME ON!

#34 Postby Nick » October 28th, 2015, 11:58 pm

thundril wrote:Perhaps we might agree on THIS? :D

As someone with some professional experience of personal and corporate taxation, let me assure you that the whole thrust of this article is complete twaddle, and reveals a worrying ignorance of the topic under discussion.

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: GAME ON!

#35 Postby Altfish » October 29th, 2015, 6:25 am

Nick wrote:
thundril wrote:Perhaps we might agree on THIS? :D

As someone with some professional experience of personal and corporate taxation, let me assure you that the whole thrust of this article is complete twaddle, and reveals a worrying ignorance of the topic under discussion.

It was Private Eye for heavens sake.

But rather than asserting can you please explain the errors for us less well informed.

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: GAME ON!

#36 Postby thundril » October 29th, 2015, 10:31 am

Altfish wrote:
But rather than asserting can you please explain the errors for us less well informed.

+1

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: GAME ON!

#37 Postby Nick » October 29th, 2015, 2:10 pm

Altfish wrote:
Nick wrote:
thundril wrote:Perhaps we might agree on THIS? :D

As someone with some professional experience of personal and corporate taxation, let me assure you that the whole thrust of this article is complete twaddle, and reveals a worrying ignorance of the topic under discussion.

It was Private Eye for heavens sake.

But rather than asserting can you please explain the errors for us less well informed.
First of all, yes, it was Private Eye. And as such, should perhaps be treated as satire. Sadly, the appalling comments on Facebook, it is treated as gospel, and furthermore, misunderstood. In my defence, I have not always been ...ahem.. thanked for shedding light on such matters, and when I replied, it was already nearly midnight.

But I've had a sleep, and as I have been requested, I'll comment further.

Private Eye's contention is that tax is not being paid, when somehow, it should be. Let's examine that proposition.

So, Sir Peter received a whole bundle. On which tax is paid. Income tax, mainly at 45%, National Insurance at 12.% on 41,000 or so, plus 2% on the rest, Employers NI at 13.8% on the whole lot.

If it had not been paid, then corporation tax at around 20% would have been paid instead. If profits were distributed by dividend (which they were not, NI would not be due.

No need for tax credits; no tax credits received.

The Corporation Tax charge, per this article, is £179,000 on profits of £722,000. Which is above the Corporation Tax rate. This may well be true, as various expenses are stripped out of a set of accounts to arrive at taxable profits, but are added back by capital allowances and such like. All according to strict rules. Likewise, as there are difference between when a tax charge has to be recognised, and when it has to be paid, these are reflected in "timing differences". Most of the time, such calculations mean that tax is not paid, merely to be claimed back. The objective is that the correct amount of tax should be paid over the medium term. There is no "loss" of revenue because of timing differences.

And the idea that capital allowances are in some way just a tax wheeze is preposterous. It is merely the way the tax authorities allocate the expense of a capital item over its useful life. Corporation tax is a tax on profits, and the cost of capital items directly affects profits overall.

Similarly, tax law specifically allows losses in one tax year to be carried forward to be set against profits in later years. It is the overall profits of the corporation which are being taxed, not the amount of apparent profit in any 12 month period. An example: suppose it takes a year to design, print and distribute a new range of wallpaper. In year one, there would be a stonking loss, as there is no revenue. In year 2, they manage to sell all their sock at market value, and make a profit. Should Corporation tax be based on overall sales revenue, less overall costs? Or should costs be arbitrarily be disallowed, just because of the calendar?

They then go on to quote the amount of turnover the company has achieved over the past 7 years. So what? There are plenty of companies with larger turnovers who have made losses. Corporation tax is not payable on turnover.

But what is payable on turnover is VAT. Which will be charged at 20% of the value added by Osborne and Little. But that is not part of a set of accounts, as it is handled separately, in VAT returns, which have different rules to Corporation Tax. To conflate the two is either an attempt to mislead (which seems to have been successful) or sheer ignorance, which seems as equally likely.

We learn that Osborne & Little have receive a Corporation Tax credit of £12,000. In other words, either they have paid too much tax in previous years, (hardly tax avoidance, is it?) or they have complied with tax rules which allow losses to be carried back in certain limited circumstances. Why? To try to help the company keep afloat and maintain jobs, at a time of difficulty. But it is not giveaway; either it truly reflects the non-profitability of a dying company, or subsequent profits with reflect the carry-back when calculating CT.

So, you see, (or at least I hope you do) that the whole article is nonsense.

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: GAME ON!

#38 Postby Nick » October 29th, 2015, 2:11 pm

thundril wrote:
Altfish wrote:
But rather than asserting can you please explain the errors for us less well informed.

+1

So, waddya think? :)

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: GAME ON!

#39 Postby thundril » October 29th, 2015, 4:14 pm

Nick wrote:
thundril wrote:
Altfish wrote:
But rather than asserting can you please explain the errors for us less well informed.

+1

So, waddya think? :)

Interesting, and potentially useful, lesson on basic accountancy practices. Thanks, Nick. I'll stash this away amongst my growing folder of economic random bits, to be read up WIGABOT.

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: GAME ON!

#40 Postby Altfish » October 29th, 2015, 8:08 pm

Nick wrote:
thundril wrote:
Altfish wrote:
But rather than asserting can you please explain the errors for us less well informed.

+1

So, waddya think? :)

Thankyou.

But are you not also making a lot of assumptions about what is happening?
The company and the owners are two different entities and both should pay tax. You mention income tax and NI but the article focuses mainly (not exclusively) on Corporation Tax which it says hasn't been paid for 7-years, despite increasing its directors' pay significantly.

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: GAME ON!

#41 Postby Nick » October 30th, 2015, 12:59 am

Altfish wrote: Thankyou.
You're welcome. :)

But are you not also making a lot of assumptions about what is happening?
Nope. :D

The company and the owners are two different entities and both should pay tax.
Not in the way you think. Certainly, a company is a separate legal entity, in that it can sue and be sued, for example, but it cannot exist without shareholders. And just as a firm (an unincorporated company) is linked to the proprietor or partners, a company is directly linked to its shareholders' tax affairs.

For example, suppose a firm makes a profit of £10,000. That profit is assessed on the income of its owner, who pays £2,000 in tax (at the basic rate of tax). The firm pays no tax.

Now suppose a company makes £10,000 profit. It pays corporation tax at 20% (for now...), so HMRC gets £2,000. The shareholder, having received no dividend, pays no tax. But if the company pays out its profits as a dividend, (in simple terms, at least. It's actually more complex in practice) the company pays 10% tax in the same way, giving the shareholder £9,000. But crucially, that is received with a tax credit of £1,000. The shareholder then pays £1,000 to top it up to 20%. So HMRC, receives £2,000. Which is as it should be. Why should its shareholders be subject to extra tax? That would be crazy.

You mention income tax and NI but the article focuses mainly (not exclusively) on Corporation Tax which it says hasn't been paid for 7-years, despite increasing its directors' pay significantly.
Why are you complaining that Sir Peter is paying more tax? And what would you say if Sir Peter had chosen a smaller salary? Sure, CT would have increased, but Income Tax and NI would have fallen at more than twice the rate. As I say, the two taxes are fundamentally linked. Not to realise that is a fundamental misunderstanding.

Any clearer....?


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests