It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CBI moan about corporate tax as World Bank says UK now has lowest G7 corporate rates by far

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   
The CBI has attacked Britain's corporate tax regime at it's annual conference today.
They claim it is hurting British businesses.

They would say that wouldn't they.


The CBI say the UK's main corporation tax rate is higher than the EU average.

An expensive and complex corporate tax regime is hitting the UK's reputation as an attractive business location, according to a CBI survey.
The business organisation polled top executives in nearly 100 major firms and found that two-thirds were unhappy with the government's tax regime.

It was a major factor for the 20% of firms that had shifted some operations abroad and the 30% considering it.

The results were unveiled at the start of the CBI's annual conference.


- Anyone want to bet that we hear a lot about this in the coming news bulletins and very little of the facts as laid out in the Treasury's response?


The Treasury rejected the idea that the UK was uncompetitive because of heavy taxes.

"The World Bank recently found that the typical UK business faces the lowest total tax rate in the G7, the fifth lowest in the OECD," said a Treasury spokesperson.

news.bbc.co.uk...

- The truth is 'business' is never satisfied.

They'd quite happily twist and cherry-pick the evidence and shirk their entire responsibility and shove it on to the rest of us to pick up the difference, if they could.....and expect us to then feel great about our 'being more competitive'.
Yeah right.


Note their long claims about the supposed 'complexity' of the British business tax system and the total silence on comparative actual rates that has even the London Times admitting

Britain emerged as having the 42nd-lowest business tax burden out of the 175 countries covered, with taxes equivalent to 35.4 per cent of annual profits.

Yet this was by far the lowest figure out of the Group of Seven leading industrial economies.
The next-lowest was Canada, with taxes equivalent to 43 per cent of profits.

The United States’s figure was 46 per cent, Japan’s 52.8 per cent and France’s 68.2 per cent.

Britain’s figure was also lower than the 47.8 per cent average for the 30 rich country members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

The study also scored Britain better than its G7 industrial competitors in terms of measures of the number of tax payments required each year and the number of hours each year that an average, medium-sized company is forced to devote to tax compliance.

business.timesonline.co.uk...


- So much for these often repeated distortions and lies about this Labour Government and these imagined high and complex taxes.

This Labour Gov have given the UK the lowest G7 corporate rates - "by far" - the fifth lowest in the OECD; how often do you ever hear anything like that, huh?

It seems evident to me though that the mania for the crazy global dutch auction to enable business to escape it's fair share of the tax-burden, which this kind of regular pronouncement is a part of, has got to stop - particularly when it is fuelled by such obvious lies and distortions.


[edit on 28-11-2006 by sminkeypinkey]




posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 10:46 AM
link   
I have to say those are some eye opening statistics. Americans often consider themselves the most business friendly people in the world. As far as the stance of the CBI I think it shows that they're little more than a partisan group out for its own interests at the expense of the rest of society. I doubt they're going to get much support in England in the US they'd just sign a few checks and be done with it.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
I have to say those are some eye opening statistics. Americans often consider themselves the most business friendly people in the world.


- I must admit dan that whilst I have known the 'high tax' jibe was a partisan red herring I was pretty surprised about where 'we' were in relation to the rest of the G7 countries myself.


As far as the stance of the CBI I think it shows that they're little more than a partisan group out for its own interests at the expense of the rest of society.


- Ain't that the truth.

Frankly I'm amazed they haven't been publicly taken to task over this and shown up for the self-interested bunch they so obviously are.

Their self-interest doesn't surprise me and to an extent it is wholly to be expected but when they drape themselves in the flag and talk about 'the interests of the nation' - as they regularly do - then I think we have a right to see them exposed as liars when they lie and for the obvious hypocrites they are in this.


I doubt they're going to get much support in England in the US they'd just sign a few checks and be done with it.


- True but then again unfortunately over here there's a general dismissal of this kind of criticism as 'the politics of envy' or 'anti-business' or people trying to revive an out-dated 'class war'.......and the media swiftly loss interest
(if they had any to ever pick up this kind of stuff at all).

I'm all for a Gov that is 'social democrat' in nature (and therefore not consumed by a class or anti-business stance) but calling the truth on the issue seems right and proper here.

Ultimately I think the CBI can only harm themselves with this kind of deceit.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
All this talk about business being self-interested at the expense of the rest of society... it doesn't make sense. Business is a vital part of society... the ONLY part that generates economic activity and basically pays everyones wages. You can increase taxes on business if your like, but it's YOUR wages that will be reduced, and YOUR pension fund which will foot the bill.

In the modern world, lower taxes will atract businesses from abroad, which will create jobs and benefit the UK economy. The CBI is right.. we should simplify and reduce business taxes.



posted on Dec, 2 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   
You're right business is a part of society and must make its fair contribution to society. Industry also has its costs namely the environment and on the employee. A business simply doing what businesses do doesn't satisfy its role in society. It has responsibilities concerning its employees and there families as well as to future generations regarding the environment.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   
nowthenlookhere the issue isn't whether business is a part of society or not, of course they are.
The point is when they lie to try and get favours and various financial advantages (not generally available to the rest of society) from the rest of us in wider society.
That's what they were doing here and they got busted as lying.

Anyhoo, I don't want to take this off topic but I did see an interesting view of US tax and spending; I've added a section of it below.

It makes interesting reading for those raised to see the USA- especially the 'neo-con repubican' right-wing USA as opposed to a 'Clinton Dem USA - as a fine example of low taxation.

Once again it's all about perception, huh?


US Government spending has increased faster under George Bush and his Republican Congress than it did under Bill Clinton, and more people work for the federal government today than at any time since the end of the Cold War.

During Bush’s first term, total government spending skyrocketed from $1.86 trillion to $2.48 trillion, an increase of 33 percent (almost $23,000 per household, the highest level since World War II). The federal budget grew by $616.4 billion during Bush’s first term in office.
If post 9/11 defense spending is taken off the table, domestic spending has ballooned by 23 percent since Bush took office.

When Bill Clinton left office in 2000, federal spending equaled 18.5 percent of the gross domestic product, but by the end of the first Bush administration, government outlays had increased to 20.3 percent of the GDP. The annualized growth rate of non-defense and non-homeland-security outlays has more than doubled from 2.1 percent under Clinton to 4.8 percent under Bush.6

Increased spending inevitably means increased taxes. Thus, despite President Bush’s much vaunted tax cuts, Americans actually pay more in taxes today than they did during Bill Clinton’s last year in office.

The 2006 annual report from Americans for Tax Reform, titled “Cost of Government Day,” sums up rather nicely the intrusive role played by Republican government in the lives of ordinary Americans.
The report says that Americans had to work 86.5 days just to pay their federal taxes, as compared to 78.5 days in 2000 under Bill Clinton.
In other words, the average American has worked 10.2 percent more for the federal government under George Bush than under Bill Clinton.

When state and local taxes (controlled in the majority of places by Republicans) are added to federal taxes, Americans worked for the government eight hours a day, five days a week, from January 1 until July 12, meaning they worked full-time for the government for more than half the year.

As Tom Feeney, a congressional Republican put it: “I remember growing up and reading in some school textbooks that if more than half your paycheck went to the government, then you were living in a socialist society.”

link and factual references here


[edit on 8-12-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
nowthenlookhere the issue isn't whether business is a part of society or not, of course they are.
The point is when they lie to try and get favours and various financial advantages (not generally available to the rest of society) from the rest of us in wider society.
That's what they were doing here and they got busted as lying.


Hmmm, I thought this thread was about the tax rate, not corporate corruption. Of course I don't condone anything like that. Businesses, like people, do have responsibilities to society and the environment, and governments should ensure they comply with these..

However punitively taxing business themselves is like eating a portion of your seed stock, rather than planting it. It needlessly restricts economic activity, and actually mean more goods and services need to be produced to support the same amount of people, thus causing more damage to the environment.

Taxing the business itself is like "punishing" car engines for damaging the environment, by adding friction devices to slow them down... it totally misses the point and all you do is create more inefficiency.

And again, you seem to forget that if you have a pension plan, or any sort of investments, its you who benefit from corporate profits. Pension funds and mutual funds are by far the largest shareholders of most major companies, so tax them more, and your pocket suffers... you would be better off taking the hit directly, and letting business get on with it's purpose of creating shareholder value.. i.e. supporting you in your old age.

Far better to tax the individual at the point at which the they receive the income/dividends/stock option grants etc.. combined with carefully targeted indirect taxation on certain non-essential goods, like duties and such. One could design a far simpler, fairer tax system that way... which I'm sure is what you would really like to see.






[edit on 10-12-2006 by nowthenlookhere]



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by nowthenlookhere
Hmmm, I thought this thread was about the tax rate, not corporate corruption.


- As I posted at the beginning of this thread "The CBI say the UK's main corporation tax rate is higher than the EU average."

This turns out to be a complete distortion of the truth....so much of a distortion it is in fact an outright lie.


However punitively taxing business themselves is like eating a portion of your seed stock


- I have no problem with the idea of not strangling business with too great a level of taxation.

I do have a problem when business, as part of it's lobbying for lower taxes business, plain lies to the general public by making untrue public statements through it's collective PR bodies like the CBI in this instance.

....would releasing false public statements count as corruption?



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
....would releasing false public statements count as corruption?


Ok, fair enough.. I must admit I missed the point o this thread slightly. my bad


..stilll...

...It's not a false statement, and while it may be considered cherry picking, given it's just one of may points the CBI was making, even that's a stretch.

The CBI statement is about the corporation tax rate in particular, not the overall taxation burden on corporations which includes not just corporation tax, but such things as national insurance, fuel duties and plenty other taxes I guess... Given the different tax structures in different countries, it's hard to really compare like for like.


It also highlighted fears over the UK rate of corporation tax, which has slipped from 10th best in the OECD (a group of 30 leading developed nations) in 2000 to 18th in 2005.

At 30%, the main UK corporation tax rate is about five percentage points higher than the EU average and compares poorly to that of the Irish Republic, a key competitor, which has a rate of 12.5.


And it is costing jobs..


The world's third-largest bank, HSBC, recently said it could cut £400m off its annual tax bill if it relocated its UK head office abroad.

Tax and regulatory factors have also led two companies in the Lloyd's insurance market, Hiscox and Omega, to announce that they are relocating to Bermuda.


So really, taken in context, the tax rate concern is entirely legitimate.. Why shouldn't they discuss such things at a CBI conference? and why shouldn't the BBC report it?



[edit on 10-12-2006 by nowthenlookhere]



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 03:03 AM
link   
I'd have to agree with the CBI in some respects. The tax burden may be lower, but the sheer amount of little taxes, duties and other payments that buisness must pay increases administration costs as well.

I have been looking into starting a business and the amount of red-tape you have to cut through is staggering. It actually inflates the cost of start-up beyond what is affordable.

I think an overall simplification of the tax rules for everybody (including us peons) would be beneficial. But then, we all know Boring Brown won't be able to stealth us so easily, don't we?

As it stands though, businesses tax burden is alot lower than that of the lowly commoner. I have read statistics that the average Joe ends up paying out something like 60% of one's income on tax in one form or another. That's just outrageous! And they slavery was abolished..all they did was give us a pay rise...



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 05:25 AM
link   
I find it totally dishonest.

It's the deliberate focusing and exploitation of detail to try and create an overall impression wholly at odds with the actual reality.

There isn't a developed country out there where their business operates only to their single 'corporate rate of tax' and that's it.

"Britain emerged as having the 42nd-lowest business tax burden out of the 175 countries covered, with taxes equivalent to 35.4 per cent of annual profits.

Yet this was by far the lowest figure out of the Group of Seven leading industrial economies."


- It's far from something new but it's always worth pointing out; 'the broadest backs' once again attempting to shirk their (already low) share of the load.......leaving it for the rest of us to pick up, as per.

It's also worth remembering stu that one of the reasons we have such a complicated taxation system is because of the lobbying of special interest groups (which is what the CBI really is in this regard).....
......and having spent decades getting (from Govs of all colours here) the various exemptions, rebates, allowances and the like they then they play both ends against the middle complaining about the complication they claim is too hard for anyone to work with!

It's a bl**dy cheek if you ask me.....especially when the net effect of what they've asked for is not only a tax burden "by far the lowest figure out of the Group of Seven leading industrial economies" but it turns out that even that isn't good enough for them and that they are publicly calling for a lower tax burden still (which necessarily means the rest of us making up the shortfall).

Like I said, broadest backs and all that.



[edit on 11-12-2006 by sminkeypinkey]




top topics



 
0

log in

join