The Greens and the SNP take the votes of people utterly uninspired by Ed (but who would probably be inspired by almost literally anybody else), Ukip take the votes of people who've decided immigration is to blame for all of their problems, the SNP take the votes of those who want more devolution and who almost certainly would only be voting en masse for the SNP in a Westminster election as a one-shot thing to ensure that devolution (though I imagine the Lib Dems who've gone over to them will probably be staying there).

 

 

Sorry, but pinning it all on Ed Miliband is just too easy. This goes back to something we talked about a while ago, but at this point, there's been two Labour leaders in a row who were utterly uninspiring, and then throw in Scotland with Johann Lamont and her predecessor. Don't you think it's time to ask whether the party has just been unfortunate to have a whole sequence of fundamentally bad leaders, or if the reason they're all seen as bad/uninspiring/boring leaders is a result of the political choices they've made (namely to be as uncontroversial/uninteresting/"un-ideological" as possible)?

 

On the point about people saying they hate Ed but would've voted for David. In my view, that's just people projecting whatever they want from Labour onto an empty vessel, in the same way people used to do with the Lib Dems irrespective of what their actual policies were. When I was canvassing round here (these anecdotes are a couple of years out of date now admittedly), the MANY people who complained about how Labour/Ed were just Tories in disguise and how nothing would be different if Labour got in, were often the very people who said they would've preferred David to be leader. And the smaller group of people who said they were worried that Labour would overspend (yes, even I admit there were SOME :P ) would also say they preferred David.

 

 

Really what we need is a sustained bit of proper bloody growth that gets through to everyone in society rather than just those at the top, who seem to be willing to be the architects of their own destruction.

 

Agreed! But then that begs the question of why Labour have become too scared to suggest that rich people and big businesses (do you atleast agree there's HUGE anger towards them?) should not be taking any hits.

Edited October 22, 201410 yr by Danny

Out of interest, what do you think the best way of Cameron going about getting UKIP supporters back is?

 

Probably a "cap" on European immigration and an end to austerity.

Edited October 22, 201410 yr by Danny

Probably a "cap" on European immigration and an end to austerity.

So one thing that's illegal and one that he'd never convince his party of even if he wanted to. This might be why most Labour activists I know are still cautiously optimistic.

 

As an aside, Tory-UKIP switchers are probably one of the most pro-austerity groups in the whole electorate.

So one thing that's illegal and one that he'd never convince his party of even if he wanted to. This might be why most Labour activists I know are still cautiously optimistic.

 

As an aside, Tory-UKIP switchers are probably one of the most pro-austerity groups in the whole electorate.

 

That's not backed up by the polls. UKIP supporters as a whole are very anti-austerity (though admittedly the Tory activists who've defected to UKIP are probably a different story).

 

Imo, the ToryKippers were generally people who voted Tory in 2010 because of immigration and because they thought generally it was "time for a change", rather than approving of the Tories' economic policies.

Edited October 22, 201410 yr by Danny

That "austerity", (or the Boy George's favourite quote: "our long-term economic plan is W**KING") which at the moment seems to be having little or no impact on the deficit (the deficit is actually increasing once again). Certainly welfare/benefit spending which the Tories and media seem so intent on highlighting is actually a relatively small and unimportant proportion of total government spending, and therefore not a massive issue.

 

Tax revenue is the biggest issue, it has fallen by 15% in real terms since 2007 and the main faller has been corporation tax - the key points Labour should be raising is how to increase taxes without unfairly burdening the most vulnerable in society. They need to put a clear marker between themselves and the Tories and I believe that they are doing so with policies such as the so called 'mansion tax' (which the media is turning against because they are all rich property owners who live in LDN).

 

I think Labour should also look at replacing corporation tax with a levy on companies that relates to turnover not profits, and turnover should mean all sales attributable to the UK market. That would sort out the likes of Amazon from fleecing us.

 

I do also think that Ed is a very weak leader and that is hurting Labour support (but you can't entirely blame him of course!)

Edited October 22, 201410 yr by Doctor Blind

There HAS to be a way of clamping down on tax avoiders without changing to a turnover tax rather than a profits tax - that'd be the business equivalent of the poll tax if it ever happened!

That "austerity", (or the Boy George's favourite quote: "our long-term economic plan is W**KING") which at the moment seems to be having little or no impact on the deficit (the deficit is actually increasing once again). Certainly welfare/benefit spending which the Tories and media seem so intent on highlighting is actually a relatively small and unimportant proportion of total government spending, and therefore not a massive issue.

 

Tax revenue is the biggest issue, it has fallen by 15% in real terms since 2007 and the main faller has been corporation tax - the key points Labour should be raising is how to increase taxes without unfairly burdening the most vulnerable in society. They need to put a clear marker between themselves and the Tories and I believe that they are doing so with policies such as the so called 'mansion tax' (which the media is turning against because they are all rich property owners who live in LDN).

 

I think Labour should also look at replacing corporation tax with a levy on companies that relates to turnover not profits, and turnover should mean all sales attributable to the UK market. That would sort out the likes of Amazon from fleecing us.

 

I do also think that Ed is a very weak leader and that is hurting Labour support (but you can't entirely blame him of course!)

And, of course, they are leaving more than half of the benefits bill (the money that goes to pensioners) untouched. The attack on benefit claimants is far more to do with winning votes than cutting the deficit.

 

A tax on turnover rather than profits would be unfair on companies that put ethics ahead of the relentless pursuit of profit.

There HAS to be a way of clamping down on tax avoiders without changing to a turnover tax rather than a profits tax - that'd be the business equivalent of the poll tax if it ever happened!

 

Well I don't know how else you can deal with giant retailers like Amazon who cut aggressively to have almost 50% of their business as 'loss-leaders' and in the process destroy all other smaller competitors? They then end up paying very little corporation taxes as they claim they 'don't run a profit in the UK'.

 

Depressing as it is to consider.

I'm not canvassing in Tunbridge Wells, I'm canvassing in a seat Labour *has* to win to win the next election. The common complaint isn't 'Labour's policies are the same as the Tories'' (outside of the 60 or so people voting TUSC). If and when people have issues with Labour, it tends to be 'I'd have voted for his brother but I don't like Ed' (which hardly screams 'GIVE ME A LABOUR GOVERNMENT THAT SPENDS MORE'), or 'I've always voted Labour, but you'll just let all the immigrants in', or 'I support benefits, but people round here take the piss', or 'you spent all the money and I don't trust Ed Balls to not do it again/to not raid my pension' (granted, that comes more from traditional Labour-Tory swing voters, but in honesty when the margins are this narrow I really wouldn't mind having them back). Quite difficult when there's no real way to combat the two out of those four. But what I will say is that the idea that Ed Balls is a right-wing horse of the austerity apocalypse doesn't have much credence with many people outside of a Labour GC or a Labour safe seat, and the idea that you can go on forever spending a lot more than you take in (i.e. not the French or Japanese example, which has been going on a long time spending a bit more than they take in) isn't one that persuades many people outside of some of those who'd reap the benefits. Even then most of them have the sense to know it isn't really sustainable.

 

We have a historically large deficit in a time of growth. If we aren't going to narrow that deficit now, when exactly are we going to close it? Do you think that in the next recession lenders are going to be quite so willing to fund a massive stimulus if they're working with a government that won't even commit to paying them back for the last one?

 

all true, and those comments you hear are comments Ive more or less made many times in the past (to the incredulity of some Labour supporters a little bit in denial of reality).

That "austerity", (or the Boy George's favourite quote: "our long-term economic plan is W**KING") which at the moment seems to be having little or no impact on the deficit (the deficit is actually increasing once again). Certainly welfare/benefit spending which the Tories and media seem so intent on highlighting is actually a relatively small and unimportant proportion of total government spending, and therefore not a massive issue.

 

Tax revenue is the biggest issue, it has fallen by 15% in real terms since 2007 and the main faller has been corporation tax - the key points Labour should be raising is how to increase taxes without unfairly burdening the most vulnerable in society. They need to put a clear marker between themselves and the Tories and I believe that they are doing so with policies such as the so called 'mansion tax' (which the media is turning against because they are all rich property owners who live in LDN).

 

I think Labour should also look at replacing corporation tax with a levy on companies that relates to turnover not profits, and turnover should mean all sales attributable to the UK market. That would sort out the likes of Amazon from fleecing us.

 

I do also think that Ed is a very weak leader and that is hurting Labour support (but you can't entirely blame him of course!)

 

the current worsening problem is low wages, zero hour contracts etc which keep the unemployment numbers down and therefore spending cos so many have no spare cash, tax income is way down and they are linked.

 

I agree about increasing taxes on those that can afford it, and I agree about targeting the greedy megacorps. Everyone thinks getting a bargain on amazon instead of a shop is a victimless act but isn't. It's hurting us all, a quick saving here and there puts shops out of business (who do pay tax) and their employees (who pay tax) and so everyone ends up paying for the rich b*stards.

 

Ed was always going to be a vote loser, said it 2 years ago and I was right then and right now. His policies are not that different from slightly-more-voter-friendly David M, and old New Labour policies, except for those that are old Lib-Dem policies. cough, Mansion tax, cough....

That's not backed up by the polls. UKIP supporters as a whole are very anti-austerity (though admittedly the Tory activists who've defected to UKIP are probably a different story).

 

Imo, the ToryKippers were generally people who voted Tory in 2010 because of immigration and because they thought generally it was "time for a change", rather than approving of the Tories' economic policies.

I disagree completely. I really doubt that many of the Tory-UKIP switchers only voted Tory for the first time in 2010 - I think it's more traditional Tories who've finally snapped over Europe/immigration/gay marriage. Labour have done relatively well at bringing back 2010 Labour-Tory switchers, hence why we're doing better in marginal seats than in the rest of the country.

 

the current worsening problem is low wages, zero hour contracts etc which keep the unemployment numbers down and therefore spending cos so many have no spare cash, tax income is way down and they are linked.

 

I agree about increasing taxes on those that can afford it, and I agree about targeting the greedy megacorps. Everyone thinks getting a bargain on amazon instead of a shop is a victimless act but isn't. It's hurting us all, a quick saving here and there puts shops out of business (who do pay tax) and their employees (who pay tax) and so everyone ends up paying for the rich b*stards.

 

Ed was always going to be a vote loser, said it 2 years ago and I was right then and right now. His policies are not that different from slightly-more-voter-friendly David M, and old New Labour policies, except for those that are old Lib-Dem policies. cough, Mansion tax, cough....

What was the energy price freeze then? Was that a New Labour or a Lib Dem policy?

That "austerity", (or the Boy George's favourite quote: "our long-term economic plan is W**KING") which at the moment seems to be having little or no impact on the deficit (the deficit is actually increasing once again). Certainly welfare/benefit spending which the Tories and media seem so intent on highlighting is actually a relatively small and unimportant proportion of total government spending, and therefore not a massive issue.

 

Tax revenue is the biggest issue, it has fallen by 15% in real terms since 2007 and the main faller has been corporation tax - the key points Labour should be raising is how to increase taxes without unfairly burdening the most vulnerable in society. They need to put a clear marker between themselves and the Tories and I believe that they are doing so with policies such as the so called 'mansion tax' (which the media is turning against because they are all rich property owners who live in LDN).

 

I think Labour should also look at replacing corporation tax with a levy on companies that relates to turnover not profits, and turnover should mean all sales attributable to the UK market. That would sort out the likes of Amazon from fleecing us.

 

I do also think that Ed is a very weak leader and that is hurting Labour support (but you can't entirely blame him of course!)

 

You're right that tax revenues are the big problem, but it's not even like big tax hikes are needed. All that's needed are for the rich and big businesses to actually pay their taxes at the rates that are currently in force, rather than squirrelling all their money away in tax havens. Yet supposedly left-wing politicians are too scared to even SAY that the rich are the ones to blame, let alone do something about cracking down on them.

 

I do think it's inevitable over the next 10-20 years that all the major economies will club together and raise their tax rates to similar levels, and then refuse to trade with any country that doesn't do the same. The option of the global rich being able to hold their countries to ransom, and allow the living standards of the poor and middle class to collapse (even though the poor and the middle class are the ones who made such a huge contribution to those rich people getting so rich in the first place), has to be taken off the table.

Edited October 22, 201410 yr by Danny

I disagree completely. I really doubt that many of the Tory-UKIP switchers only voted Tory for the first time in 2010 - I think it's more traditional Tories who've finally snapped over Europe/immigration/gay marriage. Labour have done relatively well at bringing back 2010 Labour-Tory switchers, hence why we're doing better in marginal seats than in the rest of the country.

What was the energy price freeze then? Was that a New Labour or a Lib Dem policy?

 

The point was that one of Labour's most popular "new" policies was actually a Lib Dem policy. I have no problem with parties stealing policies from each other. I just wish they would acknowledge it when they do it.

 

On the subject of gay marriage Cameron is getting his just desserts. It was a Lib Dem minister who pushed for it but, as ever, Cameron wants to claim all the credit. In doing so he has demonstrated just how many of his party's core voters are still reactionary bigots.

You're right that tax revenues are the big problem, but it's not even like big tax hikes are needed. All that's needed are for the rich and big businesses to actually pay their taxes at the rates that are currently in force, rather than squirrelling all their money away in tax havens. Yet supposedly left-wing politicians are too scared to even SAY that the rich are the ones to blame, let alone do something about cracking down on them.

 

I do think it's inevitable over the next 10-20 years that all the major economies will club together and raise their tax rates to similar levels, and then refuse to trade with any country that doesn't do the same. The option of the global rich being able to hold their countries to ransom, and allow the living standards of the poor and middle class to collapse (even though the poor and the middle class are the ones who made such a huge contribution to those rich people getting so rich in the first place), has to be taken off the table.

There is probably more recognition that the wealthiest individuals and major corporations are getting away with paying virtually no tax than there has ever been. The fact that so may people are really struggling to get by has changed the general attitude on this matter. A lot of people used to think "Good on 'em, I wish I could get away with it". Now more people are realising that, if the rich don't pay tax, the rest of us have to make up the difference. There hasn't been a better time to increase taxes for the mega-rich for decades.

As an accountant can I please burn this Turnover tax ideal alive?

 

Look at Tesco. They have a turnover that would make a small country blush. But they sell at low margin and it's the nature of their business so you'd end up with them being taxed to such an extent that Tesco would even go bankrupt under the new tax.

 

It would work for Apple who sell their products at a margin that would be dismissed as fantasy in management/cost accountants wet dreams. But that's only because their margin is high enough to suffer such a raid on their profits. Apple are also an anomaly.

 

 

Taxation on Profits work, the simplistic view of it anyway, the manipulation comes from non-cash items. To close the loopholes it's non-cash items like Depreciation that need to be removed from the profit figure that you then use to calculate taxation. There are also rules about repatriation of profits and inter-group trading that need to be tightened up, primarily the later. Charging for franchising and use of trademarks etc is where Starbucks evade tax and that needs to cease from taxable profits. (it's a charge with no basis in reality or cash.)

 

As for Amazon, they get their name dragged through the dirt unfairly I feel. You purchase products from Amazon EU S.A.R.L who are a Luxembourg based entity. So you only pay VAT at 15% on your purchases (because the supply is deemed to have taken place in Luxembourg rather than the UK according to EU VAT law) and your sale is recognised on the books in Luxembourg not the UK which is why their tax burden in the UK is tiny. They are taxed on charging retailers to rent space in their UK warehouses and their commission on people selling through their UK portal. Hence why they pay a low level of UK tax. Amazon actually pay an appropriate level of tax according to UK and EU law but people factor in sales made through Amazon.co.uk when that's just a regionalised shopfront of Amazon EU.

[/ManagementAccountant]

I thought S.A.R.L was Jersey?

S.a.r.L is the French equivalent to Ltd in the UK. Jersey may use French terminology, I'm not sure on the rules in the Crown Dependencies, but I would have expected them to fall under the UK's Ltd/PLC structure.

 

 

From Wiki:

 

A Société à responsabilité limitée (Sociedade anônima de responsabilidade limitada in Portuguese), also known by the acronym SARL (sometimes SÀRL, Sàrl, sàrl or S.à r.l.), is a private limited liability corporate entity that exists in France, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Monaco, Macao, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Madagascar and Lebanon, and whose purpose is commerce. A SARL is a company whose liability is limited to the contributions of its members. Shares are not freely transferable; transfers require the agreement of half the shareholders if the beneficiary is a third party (since Ord. 2 mars 2004). If the beneficiary is a partner, a spouse, an ascendant or a descendant, the transfers are free. A SARL is broadly equivalent to a private company limited by shares in the United Kingdom, and a Limited liability company in the United States.

Well I don't know how else you can deal with giant retailers like Amazon who cut aggressively to have almost 50% of their business as 'loss-leaders' and in the process destroy all other smaller competitors? They then end up paying very little corporation taxes as they claim they 'don't run a profit in the UK'.

 

Depressing as it is to consider.

Amazon don't run a profit in the UK.

 

Amazon in Europe has been set up by a complete genius of an accountant. The basic way it is structured is to have Amazon EU at the top of it's European operations that is based in Luxembourg and sells to consumers using any of the Amazon european sites and the revenues from those sales are registered in Luxembourg. (I was wrong earlier, you now pay 20% VAT because of Distance Selling rules that VAT is charged in country of purchase not country of Supply. My bad. CIMA don't do tax)

 

It's warehousing operations are just a giant stock room located in places that are close to consumers. They are distribution centres, that's all. No sales are made through them at all. It's also not a guarantee that you're getting an item from the UK when you order it in the UK. When you order from Amazon it can come from any of their warehouses across the world. So when it says on an item you're ordering that it may take longer to deliver than normal, that's because it's not coming from the UK.

 

As an accountant who's looked into Amazon's operations for a PwC interview, I see nothing wrong with how they structure their business. It makes sense to me. It's illogical to have a UK arm, a French arm, a Spanish arm etc all selling to the same pool of consumers, all subject to different laws when they could base their entire European operations in one place and have a central hub for everything. That makes sense to me. Its more efficient, effective and economical.

Amazon don't run a profit in the UK.

 

Amazon in Europe has been set up by a complete genius of an accountant. The basic way it is structured is to have Amazon EU at the top of it's European operations that is based in Luxembourg and sells to consumers using any of the Amazon european sites and the revenues from those sales are registered in Luxembourg. (I was wrong earlier, you now pay 20% VAT because of Distance Selling rules that VAT is charged in country of purchase not country of Supply. My bad. CIMA don't do tax)

 

It's warehousing operations are just a giant stock room located in places that are close to consumers. They are distribution centres, that's all. No sales are made through them at all. It's also not a guarantee that you're getting an item from the UK when you order it in the UK. When you order from Amazon it can come from any of their warehouses across the world. So when it says on an item you're ordering that it may take longer to deliver than normal, that's because it's not coming from the UK.

 

As an accountant who's looked into Amazon's operations for a PwC interview, I see nothing wrong with how they structure their business. It makes sense to me. It's illogical to have a UK arm, a French arm, a Spanish arm etc all selling to the same pool of consumers, all subject to different laws when they could base their entire European operations in one place and have a central hub for everything. That makes sense to me. Its more efficient, effective and economical.

But it is ridiculous that I can order something from Amazon which will be delivered from somewhere in the UK to my address in the UK yet somehow it counts as a sale in Luxembourg. Luxembourg doesn't need to collect much revenue from corporation tax because their population is so small. If they can bend the rules so that a company such as Amazon can declare their entire European profit there, that means they can set a very low corporation tax rate. That may work well for Luxembourg but it means that other European governments have to find other ways of raising revenue. And, as popchartfreak has said, that destroys UK businesses and puts British people out of work.

Well it does turn a small profit: Of £4.3bn sales in the UK in 2013, they made a profit of £17m.

 

Something needs to change because paying 0.1% of turnover in corporation tax is actually taking the piss.

Edited October 23, 201410 yr by Doctor Blind