Current Affairs The General Election

[tsubaki]

My profit figure was the global profits of the big tech companies. The UK profit is unlikely to be more than 5% of that number, which is about £1bn per year. Consider that they will pay something already, and Labour's super duper tax the big companies strategy might bring in £500m extra per year. Do you think that will fund nationalising Openreach?

5% of £107 billion is £1bn?

Dianne is that you?

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

That wasn't what that policy was at all

And they say Corbyn supporers are the only ones to have a lack humour...

 

[GwladysPhil]

Taxing millionaires and billionaires to improve public requirements such as super fast broadband and public transport sounds so brilliant to me.

The big dogs at the Labour Party are struggling to communicate how these are economically viable, and as usual, the people who will probably get taxed an extra what £50 a month average are the one who criticise this.

I feel you're not earning in the millions, the tories see you as the turd on their shoes and it makes me concerned that the lower middle class are attacking labour.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

5% of £107 billion is £1bn?

Dianne is that you?

*sigh. £107bn is their global profits, but if you use Amazon as a benchmark, about 5% of their overall profits come from the UK, so you're down to just over £5bn. The UK tax rate is 19% for companies at the moment, so the government would get around £1bn from the big five if they were able to bring in all of the tax they owe.

Dianne, is that you?

 

[Paris]

Poor little Amazon..

Literally nobody is saying that.

 

[Jebus_lives]

 

[Agent Blue]

My profit figure was the global profits of the big tech companies. The UK profit is unlikely to be more than 5% of that number, which is about £1bn per year. Consider that they will pay something already, and Labour's super duper tax the big companies strategy might bring in £500m extra per year. Do you think that will fund nationalising Openreach?

I suspect that the increase in tax for top earners will be radical, although probably not enough to nullify the 43% tax break handed to the rich by Thatcher in the eighties, which "incidentally" coincided with a huge increase in Government borrowing during the same period after being in surplus for years. So I guess I am suggesting that taxing the rich more does work.

UK National Deficit - Current, Recent, HistoricalCharts Tables

www.ukpublicspending.co.uk

 

[tsubaki]

*sigh. £107bn is their global profits, but if you use Amazon as a benchmark, about 5% of their overall profits come from the UK, so you're down to just over £5bn. The UK tax rate is 19% for companies at the moment, so the government would get around £1bn from the big five if they were able to bring in all of the tax they owe.

Dianne, is that you?

Oh - so you were saying that the tax take of the profit is £1 billion, not what you actually said:

The UK profit is unlikely to be more than 5% of that number, which is about £1bn per year.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I suspect that the increase in tax for top earners will be radical, although probably not enough to nullify the 43% tax break handed to the rich by Thatcher in the eighties, which "incidentally" coincided with a huge increase in Government borrowing during the same period after being in surplus for years. So I guess I am suggesting that taxing the rich more does work.

UK National Deficit - Current, Recent, HistoricalCharts Tables

www.ukpublicspending.co.uk

I haven't said anything about taxing the rich, and am merely commenting on the suggestion that their broadband strategy could be funded by ensuring the tech companies pay the tax they owe is fantastical.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Literally nobody is saying that.

Your right far worse, accusations of being jealous... As I've had here, I don't give two boots about my neighbour, who has their own business, works hard, goes on foriegn holidays, good luck I say and enjoy. But Amazon et al, we are coming for you...

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Oh - so you were saying that the tax take of the profit is £1 billion, not what you actually said:

I didn't think it was that hard to follow, but if you want to take issue with my explanation rather than the wonky logic of Labour then knock yourself out.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Your right far worse, accusations of being jealous... As I've had here, I don't give two boots about my neighbour, who has their own business, works hard, goes on foriegn holidays, good luck I say and enjoy. But Amazon et al, we are coming for you...

No such thing as society huh?

 

[tsubaki]

I didn't think it was that hard to follow, but if you want to take issue with my explanation rather than the wonky logic of Labour then knock yourself out.

Since you have cited a £100 billion pound cost as a fact based on:

“It needs funding, it is very big numbers, so we are talking 30 to 40 billion pounds.. and if you are giving it away over an eight year time frame it is a another 30 or 40 billion pounds. You are not short of 100 billion pounds.”

... then you'll forgive me if I don't accept your arguments at face value.

 

[zzr45]

So, there's still no idea how Google, Amazon etc are going to be taxed, but it'll definitely bring in the required tax income?

I'm just trying to keep up with this. It seems like one of those important details that are missing.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Since you have cited a £100 billion pound cost as a fact based on:



... then you'll forgive me if I don't accept your arguments at face value.

Going on the likely gain from taxing the big 5 tech companies to their full obligations, which may bring in say £500 million more than they pay thus far, you would need 80 years worth even to get to your 40bn figure. You'll forgive me for thinking it sad that a man that's so sensible refuses to see any ill in 'costings' that are clearly utter nonsense.