This clown really is kind of a shithead:
http://archive.spectator.co.uk/artic...995/6/politics
Printable View
This clown really is kind of a shithead:
http://archive.spectator.co.uk/artic...995/6/politics
People who start small businesses are generally not motivated primarily by money, since making as much money as you would have made if you'd just worked a regular job is extremely difficult and most small businesses fail before they ever get big enough to make anyone mega rich. I work for a small business that does a lot of business to business stuff, so I know a lot of those people as clients, none of them think like that.
Additionally, the benefits of salary vs dividend for small business owners are not that clear cut. For example, the personal allowance for income tax is far higher than for dividends, and dividends as a whole are not tax deductible so paying dividends leaves the business as a whole with a larger tax bill.
Indeed, people have all sorts of motivations for starting (or investing in) a business. But it would be a lot more difficult (and thus fewer would take the chance) if they paid both a corporate income tax and a high personal income tax on what is effectively business profits.
It takes 3 to 5 years for most businesses to start turning a profit for the government to even tax.
The owner will have been paying themselves a salary to live on during that time. Once they become profitable, assuming they want to be "tax efficient", they'll still pay themselves a salary because that £12,500 tax free personal allowance is just sitting there otherwise. They have another £2000 tax free of dividends. Under Labour, they will have to pay 20% on what's left over instead of 7%. But since the tax rate is just the same as income tax now they might as well just make the whole thing a salary, which the business is now no longer taxed on. Plus, I think there's other stuff they can do to be "tax efficient" - IDGAF, this policy isn't aimed at them.
This is not going to stop anyone started a business, it means they'll take home a bit less several years down the road. It means they will, in fact, pay the same tax rate their own employees do.
I also think it's amusing that anyone thinks most small business owners even know what dividends are when they're first deciding to start a business.
There's are many reasons, another is that it encourages business owners to hold retained profits in the company rather than taking all the income out as salaries which can then be used to ensure the business is stable in the future or fund future growth - then that retained profit can be taken out as dividends in the future rather than taken out at the time the money was received. Its illegal to take dividends that are not from taxed profits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
The bizarre notion that you can take £40bn out of corporations per annum via increased taxation without impacting the economy or employment or wages can only be made by someone terminally stupid who has never ran a company.
It's marginally more sensible than thinking that Brexit hasn't and won't have a negative impact on the economy, or employment, or wages.
We are at record employment levels :o
That correlation between corporate tax and unemployment in full:
https://images.procon.org/wp-content...mployment1.jpg
Source (US Data)
Apples and oranges :rolleyes:
American taxation system is completely different to ours and I believe but I'm sure someone else could better answer that it has all sorts of deductibles and exemptions and other stuff so that was never the rate paid. Also changes are normally sensibly made in a package of reforms that don't all go in the same direction - eg sensibly in my opinion lowering rates but removing exemptions, or vice-versa. All we have here is a shopping list of many taxes all going up while costs are put up too and this isn't supposed to have any knock on effect?
If you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you.
Because you don't, and never have, included all the unemployed.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
https://i0.wp.com/www.bruceonpolitic...size=650%2C424Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-con...-1881-2015.png
Massive corporate tax cuts in the 1980s do absolutely nothing to help unemployment.
I'm not buying your fucking bridges. No one is.Quote:
If you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you.
Yes it did. Massively!Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
The 80s reforms led to much-improved employment rates and also ended the scenario running in the 70s were people were only employed by loss-making industries due to major subsidies from the government. Thatcherism led to the closure of old industries and companies and the start up of many more newer ones.
Median household incomes improved massively over the 80s: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...yearending2018
There's a graph right there telling you that it didn't. Are you blind or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Unemployment didn't get down to what it had been pre-Thatcher's tax cuts until like 2015, over three decades later and you're all, like "yeah, corporate tax cuts totally make unemployment go down you guys"?
Little tip for you: when corporations get tax cuts, what they tell you they do with the extra money is they'll reinvest it into the economy and create more jobs, but in reality what they actually do is they just keep it.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/chartimage?ur...g2018/019699b6Quote:
Median household incomes improved massively over the 80s
Median household incomes always rise, barring recessions. There's nothing special about what happened in the 80s, except there was a recession.
There's a graph right there telling me it did. Are you blind? In which year do you see tax cuts happening from and what was the unemployment rate in that year?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Seems like you can't read graphs or analyse cause and effect. There were over 3 million unemployed in 1982 and the corporation tax rates were cut from 1983 onwards. I don't seem to recall us having more than 3 million unemployed since 1983 do you?Quote:
Unemployment didn't get down to what it had been pre-Thatcher's tax cuts until like 2015, over three decades later and you're all, like "yeah, corporate tax cuts totally make unemployment go down you guys"?
The whole point of them making a profit is for them to keep it. In order to get a profit to keep it they must invest in the country :rolleyes: - if they don't invest, they go out of business and get replaced my more agile companies who do invest and create jobs. :rolleyes:Quote:
Little tip for you: when corporations get tax cuts, what they tell you they do with the extra money is they'll reinvest it into the economy and create more jobs, but in reality what they actually do is they just keep it.
Your graph shows my point. Median household incomes rose the most (proportionately) in the 1980s. As we are talking percentage increases normally you should expect to see an exponential graph going up when the baseline is set to 100 on a particular date but that graph is not exponential, if anything it is more logarithmically increasing which is depressing.Quote:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/chartimage?ur...g2018/019699b6
Median household incomes always rise, barring recessions. There's nothing special about what happened in the 80s, except there was a recession.
We'd just come out a recession, of course the unemployment rate is going to fall. Didn't fall all the way back to where it was when the top rate corporate tax rate was 40 or 50% though, did it?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
If a high rate of corporate tax means high unemployment, how did we manage to keep the unemployment under 5% for the entirely of the post war period when the rate of corporation tax was > 40% (and the income tax they paid previous to the introduction of corporation tax was similar), until the point where Thatcher cuts taxes to under 40% and subsequent governments eventually take it down to the mid 20s and lower, but unemployment doesn't drop back to below 5% until decades later, in the twenty-teens? I'm not saying cutting corporation tax caused unemployment to rise, obviously, but where is this connection you keep insisting is so obvious?
P.S Corbyn is proposing to increase the main rate to 26%, which is still lower than it was under Thatcher, and you're all like "this is going to destroy the economy, no one will ever start a business again". It's fucking ridiculous.
Right. They're going to invest what they need to invest whatever happens, because it's necessary for the survival of their companies. Lowering taxes for Widget Corp doesn't suddenly make the market for widgets bigger, does it?Quote:
The whole point of them making a profit is for them to keep it. In order to get a profit to keep it they must invest in the country :rolleyes: - if they don't invest, they go out of business and get replaced my more agile companies who do invest and create jobs. :rolleyes:
Gosh, the Torygraph is overflowing with filosemitism these days. I guess they decided anti-semitism Corbyn's weakest point. Also a great way of distracting from the truth, like that Brexit can't be done and be over with by the end of January.
Such a genuinely despicable man is a fitting leader for such a genuinely repugnant ideology:
Twitter Link
The alternatives are more different than better. And for the most despicable leader title Corbyn is a serious contender.
He's a fitting leader for his own detestable clique, but I don't see him winning the premiership anytime soon.
If he'd said that I'd agree it was repugnant but that headline is misleading and not what was said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Yeah, the full quote isn't actually much better, and both versions put words to the same ignorant xenophobic populism.
Quote the full quote and say what's wrong with it please. The full quote I've seen is very considered.
What about taking a journalist's phone and putting it in his pocket when being faced with a picture of a child sleeping on a hospital floor?
What a *&^%ing piece of ^%$£.
Tories try to distract from Johnson's phone grabbing interview by lying about Hancock's adviser being punched. Journalists jump on it only to find video evidence shows no such thing.
The lies and deceit continue.
Video shows that Hancock's advisor was hit by a protestor who wasn't looking where he was swinging his arm. An accident but at the time probably wouldn't have realised it was an accident. Funny how the guy waving his arm about not looking what he was doing should be given the benefit of the doubt (as he should) but the person who was hit shouldn't be given any benefit of the doubt for thinking he could have been hit on purpose rather than accidentally.Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
What about it? He unexpectedly gets passed a phone, he momentarily puts it in his pocket then apologises.Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
He took the phone. Watch it. He took the phone to shutdown the line of questioning. He only apologised when the journalist called him out on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Funny how the journalists have since apologised for spreading fake news from a senior Tory source.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Looks to me like a misunderstanding. Somebody was hit but it looks like it was accidental rather than on purpose. So that's cleared up, everyone can move on.Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
None of what you've said refutes my point in any way. It was reported as an attack. A punch. From a senior Tory source.
Lies.
Something is a lie only if it is a falsehood deliberately said knowing it is false. Tempers were high, the protestor swung his arm and did hit him, later video footage showed it to be a careless accident rather than on purpose. That should be the end of the matter, if the person who hit Hancock's colleague wants to apolgise to him then that would be big of him but otherwise it should be the end of the matter.
Tell all that to the senior Tories that ran to Peston and Kuenssberg as quickly as possible to create a new and exciting story. Perfect for distracting from Johnson's interview this morning.
It's so transparent and pathetic. This government in a nutshell.
Twitter Link
I haven't checked this either, but I'm sharing it with you all anyway.
Also I'm hearing reports that Randblade grenaded a school today. I don't know if this is true or not, but what the fuck Randblade? I've told the police.
* finger to ear mic*
Oh, wait, no it's not true. It turns out he was graded at a school, and it wasn't today, it was years ago when he was a child. Still, just a misunderstanding that I just carelessly shared with the police and not a falsehood because I didn't know it was false. No harm to foul, eh?
Oh give over. This is not original but was nicely done and made me smile, and it will have the added side bonus that it will really piss off Hugh Grant ;)
He was in the middle of an interview, he continued with the interview. Honestly . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by gogobongopop
Honestly what? What have I said that's wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It's appalling behaviour from a prime minister, or any MP.
To continue the interview and say he would look at it after the interview? That's pretty standard behaviour. How often have you seen an interview where the interviewee stops to stare at a phone? When prompted again he did look at it and responded.
I agree. But I don't have issue what that, as I've clearly stated and you seem to ignore.
What's not standard behaviour is to take the journalist's phone and pocket it. You may disagree, but my perception is that he did this because a.) he lacks the emotional intelligence and empathy to process the information and respond in a manner that conforms to his script, and b.) as a result of A his only option was to try and shutdown the use of the phone as a tool the journalist was using.
I don't believe it's behaviour we should tolerate in our leaders. You clearly disagree and that's fine. I'm not hugely interested or ever swayed by your opinion on the standards you think our politicians should adhere to.
I guess RandBlade is going to use his vote Thursday believing in the lies being peddled by De Pfeffel and cie. No doubt he will do so thinking he's a Conservative.
I have no hope that he will be able to look at his options with an open mind. That means I also have no hope that he will make a choice which will be better for himself, England, the United Kingdom and Europe.
I have no doubt either that soon he's going to regret the choices he made. Choices that will damage Europe, the United Kingdom, England and finally himself. The ravages of Brexit will not stop at his door.