Changes on the High Street

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

If there's no benefit to a tax haven why do they exist then, nomadking?

The obvious answer - to move profits that could be taxed in the United Kingdom elsewhere. I'm flabbergasted at why anyone would support this - given the precarious state of our economy at this challenging time.

The profits have already been taxed in the UK, why should they be taxed again? Who says they would be subject to UK tax again? It could be another country, eg a tax haven.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The profits have already been taxed in the UK, why should they be taxed again? Who says they would be subject to UK tax again? It could be another country, eg a tax haven.

If they aren't saving in why do they do it? You still haven't answered the question.

There's obviously some tax being avoided denying vital funding for our Great British public services and Our Boys fighting overseas. As Carth kindly pointed out money gets taxed at various different points on the journey so to say something has been taxed once is a red herring.

Where's the patriotism nomadking? I don't want to fund an EU fighting force by stealth with Amazon's (or anyone elses) profits being taxed there for transactions in the UK.

The question is why do you want to fund an EU army rather than ours?

Originally Posted by nomadking

The profits have already been taxed in the UK, why should they be taxed again? Who says they would be subject to UK tax again? It could be another country, eg a tax haven.

If it were only that simple...

https://www.tba-associates.com/globa...-study-google/ [quote]

https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...-shaped-amazon

Amazon Europe Holding Technologies SCS (AEHT) would own the legal right to use Amazon’s intellectual property, or IP, outside the United States. Because it was a specific type of legal entity, called a “non-resident partnership”, any money it received from other Amazon entities in exchange for the right to use that IP would be tax-free.

2. Amazon EU Sarl, which operates Amazon’s European businesses, would pay AEHT hundreds of millions of euros in “royalty fees” for that IP each year. The cost of the royalties would be offset against its own tax bill.

3. AEHT would pay Amazon’s US business its own royalty fees for the right to license out that IP in Europe.

While EU regulators argued that the royalties between the two Luxembourg companies were too high, US regulators argued the royalties paid back to Amazon’s American headquarters were too low. The net effect of the baroque Project Goldcrest was to reduce Amazon’s taxes everywhere.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

More inflammatory nonsense Old Boy.

After three weeks are over we should risk the lives of tens of thousands, if not more people, because the economy won’t cope? Any alternative thought is obviously Communist?

You are being ridiculous in the extreme to get a rise out of others. Which is a shame really, because it’s obvious to everyone else that the role of Government is to support people through difficulty.

The real risk to your ideology is that they actually do it I suppose and years of “there’s no magic money tree” goes out the window. There is a magic money tree - we just don’t think the poor are worth using it on.

I suppose though, ordinary folk and small businesses are probably to small to be worthy of bailouts in your eyes, only failing banks and failing airlines?

You calling me ridiculous takes the biscuit, jfman.

How many people will fall into poverty and die if the economy collapses? Our total death toll, including coronavirus deaths, is the highest for just 20 years, it has been reported. Did we take such measures then?

Of course not. Somehow, the world's public has been scared into believing that the end is nigh. I wonder who is to blame for that? Everything these days is sensationalised, which would be amusing if it didn't have such devastating consequences.

We need to get this country running again. The sensationalists have had their fun. Now let's get on with getting people back to work, opening the schools and shops and ensuring that our public services are available again. Keep the infected and the vulnerable isolated by all means, but that is all that is required now.

Keep the infected and the vulnerable isolated by all means, but that is all that is required now.

You should probably inform all the scientists, virologists, and epidemiologists how wrong they’ve got it...

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You calling me ridiculous takes the biscuit, jfman.

How many people will fall into poverty and die if the economy collapses?

Hang on there Old Boy, you aren't claiming that Universal Credit isn't enough to live on? Or that DWP benefits pay poverty amounts that impact on human health?

The state has the ability to support people and businesses. People pay in for the best part of 50 years Old Boy and we are looking for the state to support them for a meagre three months. The underlying business models are still there - all we need is something to bridge the gap of a solid lockdown.

Our total death toll, including coronavirus deaths, is the highest for just 20 years, it has been reported. Did we take such measures then?

Given the effort taken to reduce Coronavirus deaths the comparison is completely invalid.

Of course not. Somehow, the world's public has been scared into believing that the end is nigh. I wonder who is to blame for that? Everything these days is sensationalised, which would be amusing if it didn't have such devastating consequences.

We need to get this country running again. The sensationalists have had their fun.

This sums it up in your head - "fun". Nobody is laughing Old Boy, there's absolutely nothing entertaining about tens of thousands dead, tens of thousands of bereaved families, an NHS on the brink of collapse and hundreds of thousands of NHS staff putting their very lives at risk every day to keep everyone safe.

It's a damning indictment of where you are in your head that you can use the word "fun" to describe the actions of those trying their best to prevent it. I suppose you view these people as absolute fodder - front line soldiers to go in to inevitably die while the generals (big business in your eyes) watch and await the outcome.

I thought attitudes like those died out in the 20th Century but evidently not.

Now let's get on with getting people back to work, opening the schools and shops and ensuring that our public services are available again. Keep the infected and the vulnerable isolated by all means, but that is all that is required now.

Let's not Old Boy. Let's rely on medical advice and rather than spreadsheets to inform decision making. Especially is analysis of them is as atrocious as yours.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Keep the infected and the vulnerable isolated by all means, but that is all that is required now.

We don't know who's infected Old Boy nor do we have the capacity to test everyone yet.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

Quite right. It’s the most basic bond between an individual and the state. You pay your fair share in, and you get something back.

If capitalism wasn’t in existential crisis before Coronavirus it is now hence the rush for businesses to get “back to normal”. The public, in this country and others, won’t tolerate billions in bailouts for big businesses when small businesses can’t even get support for 3-6 months.

Responsible Governments will seize the opportunity to buy assets and seek a return on investment longer term. The market has failed.

There's a lot of disjoint packed into that paragraph, jfman.

If capitalism wasn’t in existential crisis before......

That is pure opinion on your part. Capitalism is a natural consequence of human nature. If it is in "existential crisis", were it to fall, what would replace it?

The public, in this country and others, won’t tolerate billions in bailouts for big businesses when small businesses can’t even get support for 3-6 months.

Are you sure? Doesn't the public understand that big businesses are big employers? Would the public associate that with the braod brush statement you've made about small businesses?

I fear that part of your post is driven by antithesis to a particular economic system rather than on facts and rationalism.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

There's a lot of disjoint packed into that paragraph, jfman.



That is pure opinion on your part. Capitalism is a natural consequence of human nature. If it is in "existential crisis", were it to fall, what would replace it?



Are you sure? Doesn't the public understand that big businesses are big employers? Would the public associate that with the braod brush statement you've made about small businesses?

I fear that part of your post is driven by antithesis to a particular economic system rather than on facts and rationalism.

That's a very good question. A lot of people believe that capitalism is akin to one big ponzi scheme and will eventually fall. If this becomes reality, what will it be replaced with?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

That's a very good question. A lot of people believe that capitalism is akin to one big ponzi scheme and will eventually fall. If this becomes reality, what will it be replaced with?

Capitalism is purely human nature. The urge to better oneself, provide for your family and give your offspring a better life than you had.

Socialism is a nice to have, insofar as if you have enough you may feel inclined to not take so much and share - but only after you have taken care of you and yours first.

The toilet roll debacle and unnecessary panic buying a few weeks only highlighted the fundamental base human traits.

I don’t believe there was any more toilet rolls available in socialist strong hold areas.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

There's a lot of disjoint packed into that paragraph, jfman.

That is pure opinion on your part. Capitalism is a natural consequence of human nature. If it is in "existential crisis", were it to fall, what would replace it?

With millions of people sacrificed on the altar of capitalism at the hands of Coronavirus I think people would take stock. Not just poor people, and not just foreign people in distant wars, but including reasonably well off white people in countries like the UK and USA.

I think it'd be inevitable that people would rethink the role and purpose of the state. We are £2 trillion in debt (before Coronavirus) the obvious question being who to? Where did it go? Who did it benefit?

There's obviously a role for capitalism - as you say the natural profit making motive, and innovation through competition - are human instincts. However little regulated and barely controlled capitalism - that let's people like Richard Branson sue the NHS for millions then come cap in hand for a £4.8bn loan is simply unsustainable. If his airline fails it fails - the state should employ it's staff and take over it's routes.

The game is presently rigged in his favour - he extracts all the profits in the good times and gets bailed out in the bad times.

Are you sure? Doesn't the public understand that big businesses are big employers? Would the public associate that with the braod brush statement you've made about small businesses?

I fear that part of your post is driven by antithesis to a particular economic system rather than on facts and rationalism.

The aggregate of small businesses employ many people too Seph. 5.6 million people work for businesses employing fewer than 9 people. That's a lot of tax revenue end to end throughout supply chains.

That's people up and down the country in villages, towns and cities spending money.

Virgin Atlantic on the other hand employ 9,000 people worldwide. The big banks - tens of thousands each.

I've no issues with capitalism in markets that have perfect competition as understood in economics. None whatsoever.

---------- Post added at 21:49 ---------- Previous post was at 21:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Capitalism is purely human nature. The urge to better oneself, provide for your family and give your offspring a better life than you had.

Socialism is a nice to have, insofar as if you have enough you may feel inclined to not take so much and share - but only after you have taken care of you and yours first.

The toilet roll debacle and unnecessary panic buying a few weeks only highlighted the fundamental base human traits.

I don’t believe there was any more toilet rolls available in socialist strong hold areas.

And in markets that don't have genuine competition and/or adequate regulation it's simply price gouging consumers. In others it is extracting profits by pushing your creditors and debtors as far apart as you can then failing leaving the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

That's not some sincere noble gesture to try and better one's self and provide for your family.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

And in markets that don't have genuine competition and/or adequate regulation it's simply price gouging consumers. In others it is extracting profits by pushing your creditors and debtors as far apart as you can then failing leaving the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

I’m not talking about the various intricacies of various systems, blah bloody blah, I talking about human nature.

If you and your family were starving, you did not know when you would eat next and you had two tins of beans.....would you give one tin away? Or be happy if the government took away one of your tins and gave it to someone else?

It’s human nature to accumulate possessions for oneself to make life better and if someone is not doing so well as you, then it’s up to you to be generous and help....that is fine and most people are.

However, to be told by the state that you cannot better yourself, and all wealth will be owned by the state and distributed as they see fit, goes totally against human nature and is exactly why socialism/communism etc..doesn’t work. Never has, never will.

That's not some sincere noble gesture to try and better one's self and provide for your family.

??? I’m not talking noble gestures, I’m talking base human instinct.

Since the dawn of time it has been in our nature to accumulate all that we can, to live and to pass on to our offspring.

[jfman]

You can natter on all you please about human nature, it doesn’t justify the excesses of failed capitalism any more that it justifies robbery, fraud or other petty crime for the purposes of acquiring goods.

Dipping the pension pot to prop up a failing business, while paying yourself dividends, and leaving the taxpayer to pick up the tab is “human nature”.

You are also, as ever, viewing everything though a simplistic understanding that there is only capitalism or communism and not a grey area in between with (regulated) markets where they work and state funded provision in areas of market failure. I’m sorry you appear unable to understand the complexities of this, possibly because your adversarial political ideology doesn’t allow it, however I’m sure others can understand perfectly well.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by jfman

You can natter on all you please about human nature, it doesn’t justify the excesses of failed capitalism any more that it justifies robbery, fraud or other petty crime for the purposes of acquiring goods.

Dipping the pension pot to prop up a failing business, while paying yourself dividends, and leaving the taxpayer to pick up the tab is “human nature”.

You are also, as ever, viewing everything though a simplistic understanding that there is only capitalism or communism and not a grey area in between with (regulated) markets where they work and state funded provision in areas of market failure. I’m sorry you appear unable to understand the complexities of this, possibly because your adversarial political ideology doesn’t allow it, however I’m sure others can understand perfectly well.

Nope, having slept on it I still can't fathom what you're on about.

All I see are lots of fancy words strung together to make a statement that the 'man in the street' could make with just two . . . which everyone from any walk of life understands

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Carth

Nope, having slept on it I still can't fathom what you're on about.

All I see are lots of fancy words strung together to make a statement that the 'man in the street' could make with just two . . . which everyone from any walk of life understands

Ah the lowest common denominator “man on the street”. Salt of the earth.

He will understand poverty and observe inequality. That said his ignorance will leave him susceptible to the press, social media and he will probably be convinced once more that his enemy is his neighbour and not the system itself.