Trump's tariff wars...long post.

[TimR]

Tonight's Euromillions is £202m.

 

A guy at work said he'd give everyone £500k each. There's 20 of us. He'd still have £190m.

[tegs07]

3 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

Hand the planet to the bass players! We've got it sorted.

It’s better than letting the lead guitarist be in charge!

[prowla]

29 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

I think the problem needs a global solution. Taxation is the obvious way to deal with this swiftly, but needs there to be a global approach, so that those who are subject to the tax regime can't up sticks elsewhere.

 

I don't know how taxation can definitively deal with multinationals.

 

29 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

A multi-billionaire could easily cope with just the one billion (even that is excessive but let's be generous). Restricting them to that single billion and taxing away the rest would be immediate. Similarly with companies, taxing such things as dividends, management charges, royalties etc at a much higher rate would reduce the amount of these charges (and the other costs that allow companies to move costs offshore) flowing out to tax havens.

 

I'm not in favour of setting a limit on how much one is allowed to have; it's symptomatic of the politics of envy and all that.

It's also worth noting (or at least I heard it on the radio) that the top 1% of earners in the UK contibute 30% of the tax take.

 

16 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

Maybe a company should only be allowed domiciled directors. That would also clip their wings a little.

 

On the one hand I agree.

But on the other it would discourage investment - eg. how could Honda set up a manufacturing facility in the UK?

[prowla]

4 minutes ago, TimR said:

Tonight's Euromillions is £202m.

 

A guy at work said he'd give everyone £500k each. There's 20 of us. He'd still have £190m.

OK - I've bought a ticket.

If I win it I'll pay for all the bass bashes for the next 5 years! (Including cakes!)

[tegs07]

Just now, prowla said:

I'm not in favour of setting a limit on how much one is allowed to have; it's symptomatic of the politics of envy and all that.

It's also worth noting (or at least I heard it on the radio) that the top 1% of earners in the UK contibute 30% of the tax take.

As far as I am concerned they can keep as much as they like under the mattress or in a Chinese bank. The moment that money is hoovering up scarce assets (particularly the assets of a country that they don’t live in) then it’s a business transaction that should be taxed.

[prowla]

And today's Trumpology...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdjy1jmvvwzo

Trump targets 'anti-American ideology' at Smithsonian museums

[TimR]

3 minutes ago, prowla said:

symptomatic of the politics of envy and all that.

 

I think there's a point at which envy gives way to recognising that people who have huge amounts of leverage are out competing people who are just trying to eat. 

 

That's not envy, that's people who are being greedy. 

 

I'm not envious of people richer than me, but I certainly worry for people who are massively poorer than me.

 

Property is driving a lot of this inequality, which is what I'm talking about by leverage. A lot of this wealth is notional amd its just the ability to borrow on equity. Especially when it comes to Trump. (and many people living in houses that are 'worth' 10x what they paid for them).

[tegs07]

2 minutes ago, prowla said:

And today's Trumpology...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdjy1jmvvwzo

Trump targets 'anti-American ideology' at Smithsonian museums

Yeah I read that with a heavy heart this morning. 

[TimR]

17 minutes ago, prowla said:

OK - I've bought a ticket.

If I win it I'll pay for all the bass bashes for the next 5 years! (Including cakes!)

 

Will there be enough for the cakes? 

[Steve Browning]

1 hour ago, prowla said:

 

I don't know how taxation can definitively deal with multinationals.

 

 

I'm not in favour of setting a limit on how much one is allowed to have; it's symptomatic of the politics of envy and all that.

It's also worth noting (or at least I heard it on the radio) that the top 1% of earners in the UK contibute 30% of the tax take.

 

 

On the one hand I agree.

But on the other it would discourage investment - eg. how could Honda set up a manufacturing facility in the UK?

 

Multinationals use a number of means to reduce profit in a particular country (I've worked for a few). Put a curb on those and it's easy, as I outlined. In any case, multinationals make huge profits. They hoard money in the same way that individuals do. Companys get treated rather more gently than (I think) they should.

 

Politics of envy? I'm more than happy to be labelled envious if it results in homelessness and poverty being eliminated. Why wouldn't anybody? I really don't get that argument at all.

 

Honda would have a UK subsidiary with UK directors. They could still get money into Japan.

[Steve Browning]

1 hour ago, prowla said:

OK - I've bought a ticket.

If I win it I'll pay for all the bass bashes for the next 5 years! (Including cakes!)

 

Creams cakes I hope! None of these tubs of ridiculously small flapjacks or Swiss rolls.

[tegs07]

15 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

Politics of envy? I'm more than happy to be labelled envious if it results in homelessness and poverty being eliminated. Why wouldn't anybody? I really don't get that argument at all.

Indeed particularly when the politics on envy makes way for the politics of hate and finally the politics of war. a path well trodden.

[SumOne]

32 minutes ago, Steve Browning said:

 

Multinationals use a number of means to reduce profit in a particular country (I've worked for a few). Put a curb on those and it's easy, as I outlined. In any case, multinationals make huge profits. They hoard money in the same way that individuals do. Companys get treated rather more gently than (I think) they should.

 

Politics of envy? I'm more than happy to be labelled envious if it results in homelessness and poverty being eliminated. Why wouldn't anybody? I really don't get that argument at all.

 

Honda would have a UK subsidiary with UK directors. They could still get money into Japan.

 

The trouble is how easy it is to be global for tax as a company or individual and there is no global consensus on rates - there's competition.

 

I was at an event where one African government official complained about inequality and money leaving the country, then next presenter was from the government of a Caribbean tax haven country showing off about how money had been bought in and how much their GDP and living standards had improved recently. What's the African country to do? Put taxes for the rich up too much and the rich just move money(buy themselves citizenship in a different country ), and big businesses do the same,  it's a balancing act.

 

So I'm not sure it actually benefits the poorest of a country to do too much 'tax the rich/big businesses' and I think economists and governments come to the same conclusion.

 

 

Edited Friday at 10:40 by SumOne

[tegs07]

10 minutes ago, SumOne said:

 

The trouble is how easy it is to be global for tax as a company or individual and there is no global consensus on rates - there's competition.

 

I was at an event where one African government official complained about inequality and money leaving the country, then next presenter was from the government of a Caribbean tax haven country showing off about how money had been bought in and how much their GDP and living standards had improved recently. What's the African country to do? Put taxes for the rich up too much and the rich just move money(buy themselves citizenship in a different country ), and big businesses do the same,  it's a balancing act.

 

So I'm not sure it actually benefits the poorest of a country to do too much 'tax the rich/big businesses' and I think economists and governments come to the same conclusion.

 

 

Tax breaks for investing in businesses?

Punative tax for asset hoarding (particularly non doms).

There has to be a solution. Government can’t just keep taxing the easy targets and cutting back on social spending permanently. It’s a fast track to the 1970s.

[SumOne]

1 minute ago, tegs07 said:

 

Punative tax for asset hoarding (particularly non doms).

 

 

But if the UK does that, and another country coesn't then the rich will just move their money. It needs global agreement, and that isn't going to happen.

[tegs07]

2 minutes ago, SumOne said:

 

But if the UK does that, and another country coesn't then the rich will just move their money. It needs global agreement, and that isn't going to happen.

As far as I am concerned Brian Eno nailed it. Good riddance they can f*ck off but they can’t keep their property. Sell up and good riddance.

Edited Friday at 10:59 by tegs07

[SumOne]

2 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

As far as I am concerned Brian Eno nailed it. Good riddance they can f*ck off but they can’t keep their property. Sell up and good riddance.

Philosophically that's all good, economically I think it'd be a disaster and would harm the poor. 

[TimR]

2 minutes ago, SumOne said:

Philosophically that's all good, economically I think it'd be a disaster and would harm the poor. 

 

It's a particular issue as a lot of the land in London is held by insurance companies, banks amd other companies, not by individuals. 

[tegs07]

7 minutes ago, SumOne said:

Philosophically that's all good, economically I think it'd be a disaster and would harm the poor. 

Im not so sure. If government was pragmatic and rolled back some of the recent developments and just taxed individuals on their UK assets and investments (not their global assets) and made investments in UK companies attractive by tax breaks etc people would stay. The parasites that don’t want to contribute and just buy up huge amounts of real estate and gold etc are welcome to move elsewhere but the assets they keep here should be treated as a business investment subject to non domestic regulation. They do this in Dubai which appears to be the millionaires latest country of choice.

Edited Friday at 11:10 by tegs07

[peteb]

2 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

Im not so sure. If government was pragmatic and rolled back some of the recent developments and just taxed individuals on their UK assets and investments and made investments in UK companies attractive by tax breaks etc people would stay. The parasites that don’t want to contribute and just buy up huge amounts of real estate and gold etc are welcome to move elsewhere but the assets they keep here should be treated as a business investment subject to non domestic regulation. They do this in Dubai which appears to be the millionaires latest country of choice.

 

Exactly! I can be done if they go about it the right way, but it will be a bold move for a timid government that knows it will get massive pushback from incredibly powerful people, who will have the media in their side.

 

But what is the alternative? We can't keep going on the way we have been doing and we are creating the conditions for a populist political party to come to power who will make things even worse. 

 

[Steve Browning]

Exactly. I don't think the solution is difficult to determine, but it needs a bold government to instigate it. When you get various millionaires convincing people they have their best interests at heart and can attract a populist vote (on either side of the Atlantic) then they will continue to convince the turkeys to vote for Christmas.

Edited Friday at 11:20 by Steve Browning

[tegs07]

Right that’s the UK economy sorted out and the country saved from right wing techno-nazis. Let’s solve world peace before lunch.

[SteveXFR]

25 minutes ago, tegs07 said:

right wing techno-nazis.

 

That sounds like a terrible DJ night

[Steve Browning]

3 hours ago, TimR said:

 

I think there's a point at which envy gives way to recognising that people who have huge amounts of leverage are out competing people who are just trying to eat. 

 

That's not envy, that's people who are being greedy. 

 

I'm afraid this may be slightly provocative, but the mention of the politics of envy in this forum just demonstrates how effectively the 'haves' are controlling the argument. 

[tauzero]

One of the many tax dodges employed by big companies: https://cictar.org/all-research/starbucks-swiss-scheme

 

Another is to borrow money for investment from a second company belonging to the same parent, then repay it at a high interest rate, claiming tax relief on the interest. I think there could be ways of regulating that, either by placing a maximum interest rate or by abolishing tax relief on loans between sister companies altogether.

 

Starbucks, incidentally, also use IP licensing as another big revenue stream.