Labour Planning to Increase Corporation Tax to 26%

[radish2008]

They won't pay it.

You make taxes high people and organisations work out how to not pay it spawning another industry.

Make them slightly lower and only a few e.g. US organisations bother.

Why not ? They paid it before 2010.

I think I read somewhere that cuts only relate to companies with a turnover of £1m oe more so IK presume the hike will only apply to them also. Not even NLUK makes that kind of money.

[SueEllen]

Why not ? They paid it before 2010.

I think I read somewhere that cuts only relate to companies with a turnover of £1m oe more so IK presume the hike will only apply to them also. Not even NLUK makes that kind of money.

They all didn't - Amazon, Starbucks, the venture capitalists who brought Boots.

[radish2008]

They all didn't - Amazon, Starbucks, the venture capitalists who brought Boots.

And they still don't now. Not because of the reduction. They make a token payment because the bad publicity around not paying hurts them more.

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

Why not ? They paid it before 2010.

I think I read somewhere that cuts only relate to companies with a turnover of £1m oe more so IK presume the hike will only apply to them also. Not even NLUK makes that kind of money.

According to this, the headline rate will apply to firms with profit in excess of £300k:

The problem with corporation tax - BBC News

[deleted as wrong]

As SueEllen said and that article points out, simply putting up CT for big business (something I have no issue with in principle) doesn't necessarily translate to increased tax collection. At the very least you need to try and find a workable way to prevent large multi-national corporations from diverting their profits to lower tax havens.

[WalterWhite]

According to this, the headline rate will apply to firms with turnover in excess of £300k:

The problem with corporation tax - BBC News

I'm not entirely sure banding corporation tax based on *turnover*, when the tax itself is applied to profit, makes much sense. A high turnover, low margin business could potentially be making less profit than a low turnover, high margin business (like most of us) but paying a much higher rate of tax.

And of course as SueEllen said and that article points out, simply putting up CT for big business (something I have no issue with in principle) doesn't necessarily translate to increased tax collection. At the very least you need to try and find a workable way to prevent large multi-national corporations from diverting their profits to lower tax havens.

It says here it is based on profit

"Smaller firms with profits below £300,000 a year will see more modest rises - up to 21% by 2020-21."

[TheCyclingProgrammer]

It says here it is based on profit

"Smaller firms with profits below £300,000 a year will see more modest rises - up to 21% by 2020-21."

Huh. Well. I must have misread it, I'm sure it said turnover earlier.

In fact I just checked and it seems the old dual banding for CT was based on profit, so forget everything I said.

[Maslins]

It says here it is based on profit

"Smaller firms with profits below £300,000 a year will see more modest rises - up to 21% by 2020-21."

That's basically what is was before, then with a marginal rate for businesses between £300k-£1.5k profit.

As someone who's previously specialised in corporation tax, having a flat rate regardless of profit level is a massive simplification, and not something I'd like to see reversed. With things like associated companies rules varying CT rates is a real pain. However I also am aware that simplifying tax rules is something politicians like to talk about doing whilst actually doing the reverse.

Plus as others have mentioned, many big corporates simply shift profits elsewhere, so doesn't matter whether it's 17% or 26%, when you multiply it by £zero you get £zero.

[b r]

Surely a killer for anyone still considering voting labour?

And vote Tory and get off-payroll working legislation across the private sector too.

I reckon this has cost us (and many others) far more plus has the ability to really impact business (no expenses for example).

[DaveB]

And vote Tory and get off-payroll working legislation across the private sector too.

I reckon this has cost us (and many others) far more plus has the ability to really impact business (no expenses for example).

This.

CT changes are worth one or two thousand quid each way at most for most people here. Imposition of IR35 in the private sector as it has been in the public will cost us far far more.

[WordIsBond]

And vote Tory and get off-payroll working legislation across the private sector too.

You think Labour won't do that? You've got to be kidding.

The Tories are now Labour-lite, which is why they've completely failed us on IR35. But it was Labour who brought the monstrosity into existence and entrenched it.

Guarantee #1 -- the Tories will be bad for us.
Guarantee #2 -- Labour would be worse.