Why Labour's high tax plan is stupidity

[doodab]

possibly a stupid question, due to the ale, but why should we have a fairer society ?

A reasonable question. I suspect because it's what the members of that society want.

who decides whats fair ?

The members of society.

what are the penalties for infringing the rules ?

Well, I guess you get your membership revoked or something.

the more I think about it, the more I realise you dont actually mean fair at all

Perhaps we just have different ideas of fair?

[EternalOptimist]

I think you are a leveller.

famous in the English civil war.

Not a criticism btw, just an observation

[doodab]

http://www.constitution.org/eng/conpur074.htm ?

The basic tenets certainly seem agreeable.

[BoredBloke]

"I suspect that the folks concerned have very little use of roads, trains, schools, police, fire services, hospitals, airports, a legal system, running water and flushing toilets"

Are you serious. The services you listed are those the government provides to all. How does allowing rich people and businesses who pay for these services help? Services that those who don't contribute anything also consume.

As I said earlier on. If the govt loses the 100m euro per year from this comapny going to Switzerland, how do you think they will make up that shortfall?

[doodab]

"I suspect that the folks concerned have very little use of roads, trains, schools, police, fire services, hospitals, airports, a legal system, running water and flushing toilets"

Are you serious. The services you listed are those the government provides to all. How does allowing rich people and businesses who pay for these services help? Services that those who don't contribute anything also consume.

As I said earlier on. If the govt loses the 100m euro per year from this comapny going to Switzerland, how do you think they will make up that shortfall?

You said "I suspect that the folks concerned have very little use of the services the government provide"

I was simply pointing out that they do have a use for the services & infrastructure that society provides, and that it's not entirely implausible that the cost of providing such services to the company concerned and it's employees is comparable to the tax raised from them.

I'm not suggesting they are anything other than a net contributor, but the assumption that this company moving results in a €100m loss is overly simplistic because it fails to account for what having that company located here costs.

[BoredBloke]

You said "I suspect that the folks concerned have very little use of the services the government provide"

I was simply pointing out that they do have a use for the services & infrastructure that society provides, and that it's not entirely implausible that the cost of providing such services to the company concerned and it's employees is comparable to the tax raised from them.

I'm not suggesting they are anything other than a net contributor, but the assumption that this company moving results in a €100m loss is overly simplistic because it fails to account for what having that company located here costs.

The 100m loss is due to the taxes the company pays. the taxes its staff pay in income tax, NI and VAT on their purchases would also go missing.

Your cherry picked government services doesn't even come close to covering the services that the government provides - there is the whole welfare state to consider that a highly paid employees pay for but does not use. Also a number of the services you listed are not even government services. Since when did the government provide toilets? I also pay a private company for my water. Branson buys his own trains!

So think of it this way. The company and its staff are net contributors. By definition this means that they put more money into the system than they take out. When this money is removed from the system, who makes up the shortfall. The costs of running the NHS, the welfare state, defence, the police, the fire service, your council etc do not drop but the money into the system does. The shortfall has to be made up by the remainder of the population. Since the remainder contains the same number of net users of the government services, then the burden has to increase on those reamining who fund it or the services have to be cut.

[doodab]

The 100m loss is due to the taxes the company pays. the taxes its staff pay in income tax, NI and VAT on their purchases would also go missing.

Your cherry picked government services doesn't even come close to covering the services that the government provides - there is the whole welfare state to consider that a highly paid employees pay for but does not use. Also a number of the services you listed are not even government services. Since when did the government provide toilets? I also pay a private company for my water. Branson buys his own trains!

So think of it this way. The company and its staff are net contributors. By definition this means that they put more money into the system than they take out. When this money is removed from the system, who makes up the shortfall. The costs of running the NHS, the welfare state, defence, the police, the fire service, your council etc do not drop but the money into the system does. The shortfall has to be made up by the remainder of the population. Since the remainder contains the same number of net users of the government services, then the burden has to increase on those reamining who fund it or the services have to be cut.

And when their threats to leave in protest at higher taxes are heeded, who ends up paying higher taxes instead?

BTW, I haven't cherry picked anything, I've just pointed out that the statement that they dont use any government services at all is in fact bollocks. Flushing toilets was a reference to the sewage system, in case you missed it, and although a lot of these services are now privately run the fact of the matter is that they were originally built and paid for by the tax payer.

[BoredBloke]

And when their threats to leave in protest at higher taxes are heeded, who ends up paying higher taxes instead?

BTW, I haven't cherry picked anything, I've just pointed out that the statement that they dont use any government services at all is in fact bollocks. Flushing toilets was a reference to the sewage system, in case you missed it, and although a lot of these services are now privately run the fact of the matter is that they were originally built and paid for by the tax payer.

Brilliant! So as you wave goodbye to the city and it's tax reciepts as it heads off to Geneva you can be happy in the knowledge that Canary Warf and the square mile will contain some of the largest pound shops in the country!

The point is that certain places are trying to attract companies to them by offering a competative tax system. Whatever this company used to contribute to the UK economy would now be added to the Swiss one. But if we were able to offer a competative tax system then perhaps we could attract companies to us and their tax reciepts.

"Flushing toilets was a reference to the sewage system, in case you missed it, and although a lot of these services are now privately run the fact of the matter is that they were originally built and paid for by the tax payer."

So a high tax system can be justified due to a victorian network of privately owned sewers.

The simple fact of the matter is that rich people do not depend on the state as much as poor ones, but rich people pay for it. Remove the rich people and you have poor people with no state to depend on!

[doodab]

"Flushing toilets was a reference to the sewage system, in case you missed it, and although a lot of these services are now privately run the fact of the matter is that they were originally built and paid for by the tax payer."

So a high tax system can be justified due to a victorian network of privately owned sewers.

I'm not justifying a high tax system, or even advocating tax rises. I'm pointing out that your blanket statement that these companies don't use the services that taxes pay for is incorrect, and hence to consider the lost tax revenue without also accounting for the reduced burden on the services concerned is fallacious.

Also, as I said in another post, I don't see the long term value in pandering to fair weather friends such as these. It makes the UK weaker, not stronger.

[BoredBloke]

I'm not justifying a high tax system, or even advocating tax rises. I'm pointing out that your blanket statement that these companies don't use the services that taxes pay for is incorrect, and hence to consider the lost tax revenue without also accounting for the reduced burden on the services concerned is fallacious.

Also, as I said in another post, I don't see the long term value in pandering to fair weather friends such as these. It makes the UK weaker, not stronger.

Ok - perhaps I shopld have said that these companies and their highly paid staff have little use for the vast majority of the services the government provides - almost none! Removing the company and it's highly paid staff will not reduce the overall costs to the governmnet - they will have to supply roads and 'toilets' at about the same cost - but they will be a 100m down from this company alone. Also, this 100m is the tax paid by the company - also factor in the loss bourne out of no income tax and NI from their employees (net contributors) when they relocate with the business. The extra govt costs that have to be paid in terms of benefits for those made redundant.

Quite how you can suggest that having a competative tax system makes the UK weaker is a joke. More companies here mean more jobs, more tax reciepts etc. Why do you think these other countries are trying to attract them?