Should Contractors pay their fair share of tax?

[AtW]

Oh, under Labour corp tax will go up, probably back to 30% - it's a lot easier to increase taxes when previous Tory administration already done most of the job for them, thanks Gidiot!

[Waldorf]

Corp tax in German is 15% federal + 14-17% local, so 29-32%, I say 30% is good - Deloitte says it's 30-33% including "solidarity" charge - https://www2.deloitte.com/content/da...rates-2015.pdf, and I'd take their word for it, rather than yours, so 30% max rate then (get incorporated in the right place, since there is a choice there).

£1 mln profit -

Germany: £300k CT, £700k divs paid - 25% tax on that is £175k = 47.5% total.

UK: £200k CT, £800k divs paid, 38.1% tax on that is £304.8k = 50.5% total.

So yes, Germany is lower taxation even if you include 30% corp tax.

More importantly, as individual one would be more concerned with rate of tax on dividends, if you got pension and it's nicely invested then why do you care what corp tax is? What matters to you is that in Germany you'll pay 25% tax flat rate and in UK you'd pay 38.1% tax (highest band obviously) - how about that for a difference? 52% higher dividend tax in UK!!!

Oh, the best part is that with LOWER taxes Germany actually balances their books!!!

I was basing my figures on the proposed 18% CT rate and not using the very lowest German rate, however my point was that you were not looking at the whole picture, the overall rate is pretty similar, whatever assumptions you make.

Of course the CT rate is important, if this rate is high it reduces the amount available for dividends so this will affect anyone who has dividends for income.

Germany does indeed balance its books but overall levels of taxation are higher, they have a higher income per capita (and so raises more tax), their economy is subsidised by being in the Euro, they didn't have Gordon Brown for then years as Chancellor and their industrial capacity was not shrunk by ruinous unions.

[AtW]

I was basing my figures on the proposed 18% CT rate and not using the very lowest German rate, however my point was that you were not looking at the whole picture, the overall rate is pretty similar, whatever assumptions you make.

18% will come into play in April 2020, a month (!) before elections, in which Labour will win by a massive landslide, new emergency budget after that and corp tax rate will be reversed back to at least 25%, obviously there will be no cut in dividend tax rates. So let's not base our calculations on it, ok?

Of course the CT rate is important, if this rate is high it reduces the amount available for dividends so this will affect anyone who has dividends for income.

No, it's not THAT important because money can be invested in a company that is located in a low corp tax country, like say UK with the recipient living in Germany.

The fact is that UK got 50% higher tax on dividends from this April. The fact is that supposedly "pro-business" Tory Govt increased dividend tax by 30%+, it was high enough.

Germany does indeed balance its books but overall levels of taxation are higher, they have a higher income per capita (and so raises more tax), their economy is subsidised by being in the Euro, they didn't have Gordon Brown for then years as Chancellor and their industrial capacity was not shrunk by ruinous unions.

They had East fooking Germany to reintegrate after around 50 years of Soviet occupation - that's 16 mln people!

[Waldorf]

in which Labour will win by a massive landslide!

How can I possibly debate with someone who has made this statement? What a plonker!

[SpontaneousOrder]

Like what, the requirement that working adults have some kind of health insurance? Still not sure how that means private enterprises aren't providing the care.

"some kind" is a very specific minimum. But that alone, apart from anything else, floods the market with young healthy 'customers' who are there by force, thereby presenting providers with a situation where it's in their best interest to dis-incentivise people who really need care, in favour of people who don't but are forced to have it. I.e. making the whole thing tulipty only dissuades the people who actually need it, who also happen to be the financial burdens.

If you think that is private enterprise then you're part of the problem.

Look, if you're happy to see a two-week hospital stay cost your insurance company £1.5million and to have a lifetime cap on what you can get paid knock yourself out. I'll tolerate waiting times and keep the NHS, thanks.

Repeating an un-founded assertion doesn't make it founded.

[AtW]

How can I possibly debate with someone who has made this statement? What a plonker!

Ok.

Let's say Osborne wins by a landslide, budget hits proficit as he plans.

Will he cut the taxes down materially???

No, that won't happen, it's the new permanent level for many decades.

Will Labour increase taxes further? You bet!

So, fooking Tories massively increase taxation burden that will never come down, all for the same of hitting specific timeframe for Gidiot to get elected as PM.

---

btw, how good is equivalent of NHS in Germany??? I can't seem to remember reading many stories about how bad it is there. What about trains in Germany? Cheaper and quicker, certainly more punctual. What about roads? Enough said - they are a lower tax country too!

[SpontaneousOrder]

Because if it's private it's run for profit, and the temptation will always be to make savings and degrade the service to improve profits - we see this fairly inexorably in large companies. However unlike your phone company outsourcing support to Uzbekistan being an inconvenience, when it's healthcare this will affect people's health and ultimately lives.

So we have to have a private company which is prevented from profiteering from the sick... you simply cannot rely on the people running it to "be decent".

I assume you meant to quote the other post. But I don't buy any of that. In an environment that isn't so horrendously regulated and licensed, that the scenarios you describe will follow just doesn't make any logical sense from an economics perspective.

[seanraaron]

"some kind" is a very specific minimum. But that alone, apart from anything else, floods the market with young healthy 'customers' who are there by force, thereby presenting providers with a situation where it's in their best interest to dis-incentivise people who really need care, in favour of people who don't but are forced to have it. I.e. making the whole thing tulipty only dissuades the people who actually need it, who also happen to be the financial burdens.

If you think that is private enterprise then you're part of the problem.




Repeating an un-founded assertion doesn't make it founded.

And you call other people morons? American health care was a broke-ass mess run by corporations long before Obama came into office. He's actually made it possible for millions to obtain health care who were previously denied.

Regarding my "un-founded" assertion there are vast quantities of stories to support that assertion including a personal one. You being deliberately thick doesn't invalidate any of them. But by all means join the Fox News brigade, jackass.

[DodgyAgent]

I assume you meant to quote the other post. But I don't buy any of that. In an environment that isn't so horrendously regulated and licensed, that the scenarios you describe will follow just doesn't make any logical sense from an economics perspective.

So a state run business run on trust as a monopoly is the answer to delivering healthcare is it?

[seanraaron]

So a state run business run on trust as a monopoly is the answer to delivering healthcare is it?

As opposed to profit-driven entities whose first order of business is delivering dividends to shareholders? Yes.