Be Excellent To Each Other

Oh.

Aww, Cavey. I am disappoint.

it reminds me of that bit in Adrian Mole where he buys a pair of DMs and hangs about with the Skinheads and one of them breaks a bottle on the floor, and Am returns later "to clear it up, in case a kid hurt themselves on the broken glass"

Wikipedia suggests there is higher corporation tax in at least the following countries: New Zealand, Norway, Luxembourg, Germany, Australia, Thailand, Italy, Jamaica, France, Belgium, India, Brazil, Mlta, Pakistan, Japan, and far more than I can type out. Hardly outstanding proof, but I think it demonstrates we're a fair way from the highest in the world.

What's that got to do with how much high earners were taxed under Labour in the 90s and 00s? I mean, we had riots about public funding under the Tories in the 80s, doesn't mean we're going to have them again now, does it? Oh.

Hang on - corporation tax was at 40% under Howe, 30% under Thatcher, and is now 20 and a bit.

They're also not among the highest in the world, either. If you look here you'll see we're fairly average.

Overall UK tax burden? Yeah, that's gone up, of course. But the tax take from corporates and, indeed, high earners, has only, AFAIK, gone down. Due to ever-increasing loopholes, more favourable HMRC attitudes, and more favourable taxation.

Ah, okay gents, I stand corrected on Corporation Tax rates, then. I'm an Engineer, not an Accountant, and I did say 'AFAIK'. (Doesn't look like our rates are especially low though, mind).

And nor should they be. Corporates are already taxed at a significantly lower rate than individuals (which is of course one of the reasons that people run their businesses through limited companies, both in terms of the corporation tax on the company's profits and the CGT when they pay themselves dividends).

And thank christ that IR35 loophole was closed.

The only defence against that is that it is far far easier to make spelling mistakes the larger the font. At that scale you're not seeing words just letters, and obviously you can't rely on auto spellcheck with handwritten signs.

Having said all that, I laughed when I saw it. A lot.

I thought footballers did that as well. the club pays the company who pays the footballer?

It's relevant because that was Old Labour's approach to business and high earners; it was Thatcher who dramatically changed the whole business culture in this Country. (The assertion was made that I was successful due to Labour, whereas in fact, were it not for Thatcher's radical reforms, I'd have never had the opportunity or indeed incentive to do what I have done with my life etc etc).

New Labour started life by simply copying the Conservatives - it was only at the onset of their second term that they threw off these clothes and really started to let rip, 'tax and spend' style. Most agree that it was 2001-2 that was the start of all our current woes; hardly a coincidence.

Anyway, before I get accused of derailing another thread and/or 'put on ignore', you'll forgive me if I now adjourn; I believe I've made my point.

This was knocked back by Samuel L Jackson until a plane and some snakes were written in.

Well then I guess that's all wrapped up in a neat little package!

" I have had it with these motherfuckin' students on this motherfuckin' plinth! "

POTMFW.

That would be, for example, me. And somewhat ironically, I'm now on my second job that 'requires' at least one degree, despite not having any, and having only 2.5 A levels.




Aye. It's pretty much drummed into most of them that there are no other options, to be honest. I spent pretty much every year from about year 9 being lied to about how important these things were, be they applying to university or a mock SATS 'exam' (I got less in year 9 than I did in year 6 in the SATS, incidentally. I still got into all the top classes. Definitely not a fucking massive waste of time or anything, then).



I just now looked up a student who was having personal problems earlier in the year - I helped get him put into abeyance so he could come back later in the year if he wanted to, when he'd have otherwise been booted out. I was genuinely saddened to find out that he did indeed try to come back, but had to drop out because he didn't qualify for funding.

There are loads of students who just disappear, but still get saddled with thousands in debt. Even at the periphery of the student experience, I've seen enough of the shit they can be put through to think it unlikely that the majority really deserve that. It almost always saddens me when someone withdraws for financial trouble. We get the occasional one who studies a PhD for seven or eight years, and they just find out at the tail end of it that they simply can't find enough money to finish. Seven years of research zapped for the sake of a grand. It's hard not to feel for them. Granted, that's researchers, so it's a bit different, but tangents are important.







Dismissing courses that aren't basically "Get A Good Rich People Job" tokens is disappointingly narrow-minded. If science courses were all that mattered, the world would become a flat and joyless place.

Incidentally, one of our researchers is a few months away from publishing their thesis on the cultural significance of women in video games. Now, if I can get away with it, I'm going to talk them into letting me have a read. No, it might not mean they become a pillar of the economy, but, y'know, that shit's interesting, and over time it all contributes to our culture and understanding of the world. That's what education is about, and there should always be a place for it.

Cavey ,only you could get in how rich you are and then follow up with how devastatingly attractive you are to younger ladies in a thread about a student protest. At times you remind me of the Harry Enfield character who was considerably richer than you are but you always raise a smile. Thanks for the early morning entertainment.

LOL, glad it raised a smile. Well, you know me of old, Nemmie, although that's a ridiculous assessment: I am NOT from Birmingham, thank you very much.

Absolutely APOD mate; such a derisory Corporation Tax cut over 13 years, during unprecedented 'good times' and with a backdrop of massively increasing welfare spending despite falling unemployment and expansion of the publoic sector isn't anything to crow about, eh.

Talking of expansion of the public sector, did anyone see Channel 4's Britain's Trillion Pound Horror Story last night? I happened upon it by pure chance and I'd never even heard of Martin Durkin, but fuck me, it sounded like he was reading a selection of my posts from over the years (minus the bits about me being minted and Teh Guv with the laydees, obv.). Even I was shocked to hear that under Labour, the Public Sector now accounts for over half of our entire economy and is 70%-80% in the North East, Scotland and N.Ireland. As he explained, given that such a huge portion of the electorate now has a vested interest in keeping our obscenely bloated public sector the same size as it is now, this is probably our last chance to shrink it. And, he compared the whole argument of 'public money stimulating private sector' as for a dying man being given blood tranfusions into is right arm from blood taken from his own left arm - with much spilled along the way. LOL, how true.

It was hilarious to hear some utter moron from the TUC being tied into knots over this; economics isn't their strongest suit, it would appear. Fist-in-mouth embarrassing.

So then, Martin Durkin: what a guy. My hero.

(Apparently his last documentary was about skeptical scientists being gagged about environmental science/global warming, and how the supposed causes of it are actually a load of bollocks - something else that I have very long suspected as well. Awesome).

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/brit ... /episode-1

I know we'll disagree here Sinister mate, but I take the predictable, boring, pragmatic and no doubt philistine view that, given there's such a squeeze on university education anyway, we should totally prioritise those degree courses that have 'demonstrable practical value' to the economy and its recovery - I say that means spending 3 years on pondering the cultural significance of women in videogames can GTFF IMO, esp. if that involves State subsidy and/or the denial of someone else doing a medical, science or engineering degree.

There is a moral dimension to all of this. The effect of allowing, and subsidising frankly indulgent, 'economically useless' degrees to be State subsidised will surely mean that other students - usually poor, disadvantaged and quite possibly highly gifted ones - won't be able to do 'useful' degrees, either through lack of places and/or through lack of available State subsidy that would surely be a vastly better investment in their case. As ever, it's all about prioritisation and one must keep an eye on the big picture, here.

Thing is, you take that route and we won't have any historians, artists, writers, poets, sculptors and so on. Degrees in history, art, english literature, classics and so on aren't at all demonstrably economically useful. But without the continued study of them under people who really know what they're talking about we will lose much of what makes us who we are. There'll be no new Elgar or Dickens for you. Hello, we'll lose the capacity to look after and even understand that which we already have.

Short term monetary gain in this respect would be an almost irreversible long term loss.

If your clients are paying more tax now than they were 15 years ago you're doing something wrong, surely?

To be brutally frank, I don't care, personally. I'll take one supremely talented, qualified engineer over ten, or indeed a hundred poets. But that's just me.

The British creative industries are around about large as manufacturing or engineering. You could argue that a person with a Dance and Performance degree who goes to work as a backing dancer and movie extra is just as valuable to the British economy as a man who goes and repairs the sprocket making machine. People who come to this country to make films and shoot pop videos spend as much as people who come here to buy turbines.

Glad you found that hidden in there. Stupid posting on iPhone.

Labour will tell you that they cut rates for small business (which they did, with the nonsensical 0% and 10% rates) but they matched that with a compliance burden that nearly all my clients who 'benefitted' found cost them more money than the tax savings.

Ultimately, I anticipate that Corporation Tax on profits 'home owned' business will be abolished in years to come, worldwide. This is a good thing, but I may need to start some new specialisation.

You are the very definition of a philistine, Cavey. I really wouldn't wish to live in that country. At all. Money? Check. Soul? Nu-uh - as much as a Mondeo.

Heh, why am I not surprised eh?
Still, it's good to hear it from someone who knows their stuff, though, rather than just my anecdotal experience.

Yesterday was the angriest I have ever got with HMRC after I received a letter relating to one of my clients. The head of division heard the roar, came in, and physically unplugged my phone as I was dialing, no, thumping the inspectors direct line number in.

But as a percentage of their income they're still paying less tax than I am, though, right?

This sounded like quite an interesting documentary until I got the part where you said it was by the bloke who made the global warming film. It'll be a political rant rather than anything actually insightful, then.

In my experience, HMRC are fucking lovely people to deal with., but then I suppose we approach them from different angles. Also, I've heard say that they are brilliant to be prosecuted by, as they make loads of procedural errors.

And then Dave Hartnett tells them to settle the case on an imaginary basis for a much lower figure.

Lucky old vodafone, eh.

You're probably right, according to your own definition of the term at least. But then to me, a modern, low emissions, quiet and efficient jet engine or somesuch is far greater 'art' than ever some mere collection of words or other will ever, ever be. If that's my definition of 'art', I cannot be a philistine according to my definition?

I want to see us as a country designing and making wonderful, engineered products again, with a highly marketable high skills base, with people earning good, sustainable and justified salaries within a resurgent, low taxed private sector. I'd gladly sacrifice every single one of your would-be poets, video games gender specialists/ponderers, historians and composers at the altar to achieve it, too.

Oh, really, this in the past couple of days? Iv'e been not buying newspapers of late and cna't really look on internet at work.

And what a wonderful country that will be.

As you know, you and I agree on quite a lot, but that, that is a truly horrible worldview.

Well yes, but companies aren't people. Once you've finished with the company tax, you then pay income tax on what you take out either as a director or shareholder. If it is as salary you get CT relief on it but pay all the same taxes as me or you, if its a dividend, then 25% income tax which means you pay about 40% overall. The difference isn't huge, and if you are doing it just for tax savings you'll find the costs of running the company (or IR35) are going to etch away at any savings. I've told more people not to incorporate their business than to do so, for example.

Di… did you just start a sentence like that with the word Hello? Good lord, man.

I want a talking pony.

MR ANGRYFACE

It's only my opinion, man, although I'll admit it's a strongly held one.

Well, no, but that's no reason why they, as distinct legal entities, should bear a lower tax rate than natural persons.



It rather depends where you are on the revenue scale, doesn't it? I seem to recall that our window cleaner in London ran his one man band through a limited company as he saved quite a bit. And then at the top end it helps both in terms of liability and, I'd have thought, taxation, not least as it's easier to make use of overseas subsidiaries and all sorts of intra-group tax dodges?



Why so? Or are you buying the HMRC "urban myth" spin? PE have run a fairly detailed set of articles on this, and HMRC insiders have confirmed that it's a stitch-up and that HMRC have, basically, acted unlawfully.

[quote="Captain Caveman"I want to see us as a country designing and making wonderful, engineered products again, with a highly marketable high skills base, with people earning good, sustainable and justified salaries within a resurgent, low taxed private sector. I'd gladly sacrifice every single one of your would-be poets, video games gender specialists/ponderers, historians and composers at the altar to achieve it, too.[/quote]

I think that's a pretty hefty false dichotomy there fella - taking away Crispin's clove cigarettes and moleskin note book full of pretentiously scribbled poetry and giving him a monkey wrench isn't going to make our engineering base much stronger, and the industry that HE supports - publishing and performing arts and so on - do bring in cash to Britain. People come from across the world, spending money as they go ( and requiring Rolls Royce engines in the process ) for our arts and our culture.

Cavey, you sound more and more like a Tea Party-supporting libertarian Republican senator from Kentucky with every passing post. That's not a good thing, and if you think global warming isn't real, I have some land deals in Holland I'd like to sell you.

So, lets get this right, you reckon that Corporates should pay a rate of tax at least equivalent to individuals? So lets say 50% as many companies make a lot of money.

So - Company makes a profit of £100. Pays tax of £50. There is £50 left to pay out, which goes out as a dividend to the shareholders, who pay tax at 36.1% on a dividend (thats an effective extraction rate, not a published rate).

Would you invest in a company where, after tax, there is only £32 left of £100 profits after taxes? If there were profits? There is no reasonable post tax return for investors in that business, unless the business is growing money trees.

Also - the window cleaner incorporation business was exactly the type of business I was talking about discouraging. Sure, they get a warm cuddly feeling that their tax bills may be £2,500 lower (the average), but they don't get warned that the cost of running a company is £2,000 a year over that of running in your own name, if they get it right.

There was something on the news the other day about the massive recording studio they set up for the HP films, and how the investment is staying for future productions and will be supporting 1000 jobs at that one site alone. And we're something like 2nd in the world for CGI.

Ah, but I think all companies should be run on the lines of John Lewis, as I'm a big pinko commie.



Really? If you're a sole trader acting through a ltd it's £2,000 extra? What does that go on? I didn't think the co house fees were that big.

They're not.
I have a small LTD company. Accountancy fees cost about 500, and if you factor in the time for general admin it probably could add up to 2 grand.

Plus if you don't spend all the money by the end of the year you do get corporation taxed.

It's a bit of hassle but I like the idea that in theory it's LTD. Even though in practice I'm sure as the director any legal action would take me out anyway. Not that that's a big risk hopefully.

Just imagine how many would come if we had an Empire State Building.

Yay engineers!