All taxes are passed onto the consumer.
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
A Political Thread
- Thread starter Draggs
- Start date
- Status
As are all expenses including taxes such as corporation tax, national insurance and PAYE!!
Love the way the Yanks are outraged though and calling it a "cheap money grab"!!
This from a country that has the biggest tax havens in the world (Delaware and Nevada). A country that has consistently pillaged non US companies (BP, HSBC, Barclays, StanChart etc etc) for wrongs (perceived or real) that may have justified but a fraction of the fines and costs whilst their US counterparts escape any censure or financial loss. Rather they gain from it ala Haliburton!!
Last edited:
Not true. Companies have the option of offsetting tax against profits to remain competitive in a given market. (Which admittedly makes my previous argument that VAT is passed onto the consumer slightly redundant.)
See: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ref/econ101e.html
you might wanna read an economics textbook before you say that
The Jones Boy
First XV
In the current age all taxes are passed on to the consumer.
All the surplus we make for the country is gifted to Bankers who have emptied their own coffers into their own pockets.
See Gordon Brown and the mass Bail Out of private banks with public tax money.
Too big too fail.
Is that in your text book?
What happens next?
The avaricious bankers then give their failed executives a Bonus for failing, from our collected taxes.
See if you can find that in your text book ?
New rules prevail now, your text book covers situations where the rules of economics are being practiced and followed by well policed democracy, it doesn't cover what's actually happening.
All the surplus we make for the country is gifted to Bankers who have emptied their own coffers into their own pockets.
See Gordon Brown and the mass Bail Out of private banks with public tax money.
Too big too fail.
Is that in your text book?
What happens next?
The avaricious bankers then give their failed executives a Bonus for failing, from our collected taxes.
See if you can find that in your text book ?
New rules prevail now, your text book covers situations where the rules of economics are being practiced and followed by well policed democracy, it doesn't cover what's actually happening.
Most of the time they are absorbed and passed onto the consumer especially in large multinationals.
Apple for instance can quite easially look at thier yearly global sales, raise prices by the few dollars to pay this bill and then probably raise them by more than bill and make greater profits than before.
Either way it effect's the fat cats less and is passed off in some way to little guys. Take my work for example next year we plan to spend X% of profit on R&D, R&D mainly has costs in labour. You slap a large bill on a company they'll probably cut their R&D money and in turn jobs before effecting their bottom line profit to the board.
As j'nuh says tax havens exist and will continue to exist. Companies and people will forever exploit these unless there is large multinational support to combat it. That will never happen.
Apple for instance can quite easially look at thier yearly global sales, raise prices by the few dollars to pay this bill and then probably raise them by more than bill and make greater profits than before.
Either way it effect's the fat cats less and is passed off in some way to little guys. Take my work for example next year we plan to spend X% of profit on R&D, R&D mainly has costs in labour. You slap a large bill on a company they'll probably cut their R&D money and in turn jobs before effecting their bottom line profit to the board.
As j'nuh says tax havens exist and will continue to exist. Companies and people will forever exploit these unless there is large multinational support to combat it. That will never happen.
Yes but you dont have to buy an apple product do you its not gas or electric? And if it has such little effect on apple why do they bother doing it in the first place?
While I agree with everything you said... It has nothing to do with taxes and who that affects
You're talking about where money that is collected from taxes goes and not whether the money collected comes from.
You have the right answer to the wrong question.
Not sure I agree. It depends totally on the market. I'll give a few examples.
Childcare services like nurseries have such large operating costs that it is difficult to break even let alone make a profit. Without profits to absorb the new cost into, there is no way of avoiding transferring the cost to the parent. This is an industry-wide issue: nurseries don't particularly need to worry about other nurseries absorbing the cost and cutting in with a cut-rate deal for parents, winning away custom. And even if there were a small number of particularly well-run nurseries that would be able to absorb the cost, it's not like they have an effect in other parts of the country. A well-run nursery who can absorb an operating cost increase into their profits in Stevenage is unlikely to be a threat to another in Newport.
Then consider transport. A train operator may be rolling in the cash by operating a particularly good line, with profits that can easily absorb a tax hike. But because they have no competition on that line because of the contracting system we use, there is less of a need to worry about how a tax hike may affect your custom. If people rely on your train to get to work, and you're still operating a service much cheaper than a car, you're not likely to lose them as a customer, despite grumbles about the price.
But then consider material goods such as an mp3 player. Retailer A and B originally sell them at £100 before the tax hike for a £40 profit per unit. Retailer A decides to pass the 10% hike onto the customer, increasing it to £110, retaining a £40 profit. Retailer B absorbs the cost into their profit, so they sell for £100 still, but only make a £30 profit... Retailer B is now selling the mp3 player for £10 cheaper, and so is likely to win would-be customers from Retailer A. It is not for any altruistic reason that Retailer B absorbed the cost: it is just that sometimes it is the sensible thing to do as a retailer.
This is why tax avoidance, and Irish-type schemes where they give tax deals to multinationals, is such a problem, aside from the obvious loss of revenue for the government. Self-employed and small retailers cannot compete with the prices offered by multinationals, because their margins are hit by a tax that multinationals aren't paying. Small companies cannot as easily absorb the new cost and stay profitable.
We have to come up with clever policy to stop it. For me, we need multilateral solutions to tackle issues caused by multinationals. Good tax policies in one country means nothing if a multinational can exploit the poor practices of another. For me, what is more likely to stop such an idea is not the multinationals, but people being worried about handing national tax powers over to a centralised body, which I can appreciate. I think a convention, with an agreed threat of economic sanctions against poorly-acting countries and multinationals, might help to alleviate these worries; rather than a central body, it would be a group of countries acting collectively on a common problem. How effective it will be is hard to know, though.
Last edited:
Aren't you worried that it's the Daily Fail though?
I don't what Corbyn is trying to do here
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-09-02/jeremy-corbyn-after-work-drinks-discriminate-against-mothers/
I mean how did he think it would play out? It is a fairly outdated viewpoint well from what I have seen.
Also isn't the majority of after work drinks not done by the company it is usually just a coworker who ask around if anyone wants to have a drink.
Mind see someone saying that after work drinks is bad as it discriminates women and those of a religion that can't drink and it means that those circles will miss out on making business connections and a reason the pay gap is so big. (Talk about reading to much into things)
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-09-02/jeremy-corbyn-after-work-drinks-discriminate-against-mothers/
I mean how did he think it would play out? It is a fairly outdated viewpoint well from what I have seen.
Also isn't the majority of after work drinks not done by the company it is usually just a coworker who ask around if anyone wants to have a drink.
Mind see someone saying that after work drinks is bad as it discriminates women and those of a religion that can't drink and it means that those circles will miss out on making business connections and a reason the pay gap is so big. (Talk about reading to much into things)
Good god i didnt realise this was a serious article! What planet does this bloke live on. Good luck at the next election.....
Christ, that's a "Not the Onion" worthy article if ever there was one.
I think Corbyn is on the right track, but how about instead of stopping the men go out, the Party dictates that all proud comrades and party members go to the local watering hole to drink victory gin so as to keep them happy, and cut down on crimethink. This will in turn allow for party approved goodsex which will allow comrades to create strong children for the glory of Oceania.
Edit: That's right. I've read books too.
Edit: That's right. I've read books too.
Last edited:
Just because the message is unpopular, doesn't make it wrong.
Maybe because I have anecdotal experience of it in the absence of any kind of figures, but some men spend far too much time at the pub vs with their kids.
tbh, I'd rather drinking culture was separate from work.
Maybe because I have anecdotal experience of it in the absence of any kind of figures, but some men spend far too much time at the pub vs with their kids.
tbh, I'd rather drinking culture was separate from work.
Last edited:
Some men being key. Just as I have seen some Women spend far too much time in the clubs vs with their kids.
It's called generalisation.
The fact is those people will go to the pubs etc regardless of who with and they will do it after work why because that is their mentality.
It isn't something a politician can address and "Fix" as it isn't political, basically even in power he couldn't change it or do anything about it so why mention it.
except he attacked the after work socialization and not the fact that women have a disproportionate amount of work to do at home than men
- Status
Similar threads
