General Election, June 8th

[Jon the Hat]

24 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

 

But corporation tax is a tax on profit, a percentage of profit. Amazon is a huge multinational with a bit of a monopoly and huge profits are made as a result. If we are talking sales taxes then I can understand the point of it affecting the consumer but not corporation tax. That will simply lower the share price a little. That is why raising corporation tax is better than raising sales tax. 

Why would Amazon accept a lower after tax profit?  Shareholders will expect the same level of return, so the price will go up to cover the taxes.

[matty98]

7 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Why would Amazon accept a lower after tax profit?  Shareholders will expect the same level of return, so the price will go up to cover the taxes.

Putting up prices probably wouldn't even lead to more profit for a company like amazon, they're in a fairly competitive market. If they raise their prices consumers will just look elsewhere.

[LiberalFox]

15 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Why would Amazon accept a lower after tax profit?  Shareholders will expect the same level of return, so the price will go up to cover the taxes.

 

You are suggesting the shareholders can simply declare what level of return they would like and that the board of directors can just go and set prices accordingly. Surely you can see what is wrong with that scenario?

[Alf Bentley]

56 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I said none of those things as you well know.  My point is, that would be passed on to British consumers, so the idea that you can raise funds without it impacting the average Labour voter is incorrect.

 

As it goes, Amazon et al do pay their taxes under current law.  You could argue to change the law of course, and it makes some sense that they have an unfair advantage over domestic businesses.

 

Your second line makes a good point. Imagine if all our high street shops started using some loophole to avoid tax by accounting for their sales via Luxembourg. This would cause a drop in tax revenues so we'd have to increase other taxes, cut more public services or increase public debt to compensate. This would cause justified public outrage. Yet global mega-corporations like Amazon are able to do this - and to gain an unfair competitive advantage over high-street shops.

 

It would be nice to think that cracking down on such corporate tax avoidance might help domestic distributors and retailers to compete. After all, more of their profits are ploughed back into the UK economy, not repatriated to the USA via Luxembourg. Likewise, high-street retailers arguably contribute more to society, bringing life to town centres (though online retailers like Amazon offer welcome convenience). In reality, I doubt if a crackdown on tax avoidance by Amazon would bring massive benefits to the high street. Amazon's business is based on phenomenally high turnover, so they could easily pay a chunk more tax while only raising their prices per unit marginally so as not to lose sales. But that is an argument for a crackdown on tax avoidance being a viable option. It could generate significantly more tax without costing consumers a lot more - and Amazon could still achieve a good turnover and profits, and wouldn't want to withdraw from its third largest global market. 

[Izzy]

1 hour ago, Rincewind said:

If an ordinary self employed man pays a little under the inland reenue are soon on to it. That is what is unfair. Amazon make enough to pay their fair share like the hard working small businesses do.

The revenue haven't got the time or resources to go chasing the ordinary self employed man for a few quid. They spend their efforts going after the big fish according to my accountant anyway.

And before we start critising the big corporates, what about the 'black' economy? I'm sure we all know plenty of friends and even family who do cash jobs and don't put them through the books. 

[EnderbyFox]

Corbyn announces he's taking part in tonights BBC Leaders Debate. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theresa May right now

 

 

[Rincewind]

Can we hae a poll on how many times she says 'Strong and stable' or 'Under this government we have.....'  when asked a question that requires a yes or no answer.

Yes I accept Corbyn will do similar.

[ramboacdc]

11 minutes ago, EnderbyFox said:

Corbyn announces he's taking part in tonights BBC Leaders Debate. 

 

Theresa May right now

 

 

this is a gamble by labour. they can stick the knife in amber rudd by showing May doesn't even feel strong enough about her views to debate them and puts someone else up for it and it also makes her look weak by being the only one not turning up.  Corbyn has obviously seen the polls and thinks he can swing it into a labour majority. 

 

this debate could now swing the election.

[ramboacdc]

 

[Guest MattP]

Risky from Corbyn as he could end up losing votes taking on a mainly left wing panel. Nuttall will seriously go at him on immigration etc as well after that policy leak this morning.

 

Fair play to Jeremy though, can't knock him for trying and shows balls to go to the debate. 

[ramboacdc]

i missed the monster raving looney party on the daily politics?! 

[Guest Kopfkino]

Oh so the really principled Mr Cornyn has gone back on his word and decided to debate without Theresa May after all. 

[Sharpe's Fox]

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

Risky from Corbyn as he could end up losing votes taking on a mainly left wing panel. Nuttall will seriously go at him on immigration etc as well after that policy leak this morning.

 

Fair play to Jeremy though, can't knock him for trying and shows balls to go to the debate. 

Soon as Nuttall opens his mouth the weirdo's from the fringe partys will be jumping down his throat. They'll be like JC's  bodyguard I reckon. Shan't be watching anyways Springwatch for me.

[Alf Bentley]

16 minutes ago, EnderbyFox said:

Corbyn announces he's taking part in tonights BBC Leaders Debate. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Theresa May right now

 

 

 

 

Correct decision. As in football, if you're 1-3 down with 10 minutes to go and the opposing defence is looking shaky as hell, you risk throwing men forward....you might lose 1-4 to a breakaway, but you might get it back to 3-3...

 

It's a risk for Labour, but nowhere near as big a risk as May is taking if she doesn't attend.

However well or badly Corbyn performs, her non-appearance is bound to be a major talking point during the debate.

Imagine calling an unnecessary election to show "strong and stable leadership".....and then hiding in a closet to avoid your opponents?! 

 

Of course, May will look a bit silly if she announces she will attend, just because Corbyn has. But she'd be better off doing that, surely? 

She'd avoid the inevitable public disrespect for not attending - and might win the debate.

 

If she doesn't attend, Corbyn stands to win even if his performance is only average.

Provided he doesn't make some truly horrendous gaffe, he stands to benefit - and several of his opponents (Lib Dems, SNP) are mainly fighting the Tories in this election.

I'm sure he'll face the odd difficult moment from audience questions or attacks by opponents, but there'll be no Sturgeon. Rudd can be good but is a Remain campaigner promoting a crap manifesto. Nuttall will attack Corbyn, but he's no Farage...

 

[RobHawk]

All to win with little to lose! Correct call by labour! 

 

Might actually give it a watch!

[ajthefox]

I think this is a clever/somewhat cynical ploy actually. Agreeing to debate the other leaders so late in the game when they had already said they wouldn't without May is almost too easy. 

 

It doesn't look likely that May would've joined this debate anyway but for Corbyn to announce on the morning of the debate that he will be taking part will gain some points and look May look worse, even though they already should've been involved anyway.

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, LiberalFox said:

 

You are suggesting the shareholders can simply declare what level of return they would like and that the board of directors can just go and set prices accordingly. Surely you can see what is wrong with that scenario?

Ha, no it doesn't quite work like that, but major investors, and indeed analysts have their expectations, and the board and company executives will be made very well aware of what that is.  I would certainly expect them to react and to increase prices. It wouldn't have to be a huge amount, as their profit margins are already pretty small, but it would be pushed back onto the tax payer for sure.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

The revenue haven't got the time or resources to go chasing the ordinary self employed man for a few quid. They spend their efforts going after the big fish according to my accountant anyway.

And before we start critising the big corporates, what about the 'black' economy? I'm sure we all know plenty of friends and even family who do cash jobs and don't put them through the books. 

Shhh that doesn't fit the lefty storyline of tax avoiding corporations and big bad bankers.  A bit of cash in hand is fine!

[Benji]

Sensible decision by Labour.  Nothing to lose but everything to gain - Jezza has acquitted himself pretty well so far in campaigning and showed the other night he is unlikely to put his foot in his mouth and can come out tonight and bash Theresa who can't defend herself.  May has been pretty impressive in how she's managed to do so much damage in such a short campaign.  Don't think it will change anything in the grand scheme of things but it's pretty clear she's not that bright.

[Charl91]

Yup, it's a clever move for sure.

 

If she doesn't turn up (which she won't), then they can attack her for being too weak to defend herself. And if she does turn up, then not only does it show her clearly reacting to JC, but she also won't be prepared. I imagine JC has known all along that he was going to take part - he's probably been practising for weeks. Win / Win for Corbyn, as long as he doesn't drop any clangers.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Rincewind said:

Can we hae a poll on how many times she says 'Strong and stable' or 'Under this government we have.....'  when asked a question that requires a yes or no answer.

Yes I accept Corbyn will do similar.

He is quite a good talker actually I think, certainly a lot more so that May.  Unfortunately what he says is lunacy.

[Jon the Hat]

Just now, Charl91 said:

Yup, it's a clever move for sure.

 

If she doesn't turn up (which she won't), then they can attack her for being too weak to defend herself. And if she does turn up, then not only does it show her clearly reacting to JC, but she also won't be prepared. I imagine JC has known all along that he was going to take part - he's probably been practising for weeks. Win / Win for Corbyn, as long as he doesn't drop any clangers.

Do you think anyone who is undecided is actually watching?

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Do you think anyone who is undecided is actually watching?

I'm avoiding this one like the plague. 

 

A load of minority parties making extravagant promises backed up by what will be outrageously biased audience. 

 

Should be based in a place like Nuneaton rather than Cambridge which is heavily left and heavily remain.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

It is tricky to do, but i don't think anyone is suggesting their shouldn't be a mechanism to ensure we get a more reasonable level of tax from companies set up this way.  

 

My point is, again that this would be passed on to consumers.  They can choose not to buy of course, but they will pay more if they do.  So Labour would in fact be taking that from consumers.

If Amazon put their prices up then consumers move to the next company offering cheap goods. The idea of the market so beloved by the right is survival of the fittest. 

 

 

48 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

Oh so the really principled Mr Cornyn has gone back on his word and decided to debate without Theresa May after all. 

Surely your joking? This is supposed to be a bad thing? May is frightened and a good performance by Corbyn deserves to take Tory votes given that she hasn't just decided not to turn up but has instead sent somebody entirely different. The pubic deserve better.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

He is quite a good talker actually I think, certainly a lot more so that May.  Unfortunately what he says is lunacy.

Lunacy? Come on Jon, you might not agree with it but it's hardly lunacy. Most of the Labour policies are commonplace elsewhere in the world. 

[Guest Kopfkino]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

If Amazon put their prices up then consumers move to the next company offering cheap goods. The idea of the market so beloved by the right is survival of the fittest. 

 

 

Surely your joking? This is supposed to be a bad thing? May is frightened and a good performance by Corbyn deserves to take Tory votes given that she hasn't just decided not to turn up but has instead sent somebody entirely different. The pubic deserve better.

 

 

Lunacy? Come on Jon, you might not agree with it but it's hardly lunacy. Most of the Labour policies are commonplace elsewhere in the world. 

 

So it's alright for him to not do whatcha initially said cos you perceive it to be a good thing. May changes tact on social care, in a way deemed to improve the policy, and she's laughed at for changing her mind, not sticking to what was initially said and is weak. Strange that isn't it.

 

Couldn't care less if there are debates or not, the debates are utter shite anyway