Earlier quoted context omitted.
they don't disagree, your point was: > Personal allowance (zero tax band) raised to £12,500 from April (in the Budget today). This gives money to richer voters because the higher your earnings, the more tax saved. the conclusion of which is factually incorrect, and unsupported by your linked chart (which includes more than just the increase in the zero rated band)
What's the mechanism which is causing a benefit from the 1st and 2nd (the very poorest) groups in that graph, which is caused by adjusting a threshold at £50,000?
Tech giants face 2% UK digital services tax
231–238 of 238 posts
Re: Tech giants face 2% UK digital services tax
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personal allowance (zero tax band) raised to £12,500 from April (in the Budget today). This gives money to richer voters because the higher your earnings, the more tax saved. But corporation tax takes money from rather anonymous entities, which of course affects voters too in the end but in a rather indirect way.
You lose your personal allowance half a percentage point for every pound you earn over £100k. People who earn £125k get 0 of the basic rate. The fun thing is that total marginal income tax between those two numbers is 60% without counting national insurance.
Could you elaborate?
Re: Tech giants face 2% UK digital services tax
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the competitive equilibrium doesn't allow it unless the cost curve shifts for everyone at the same time.
They are not shifting for everybody at the same time, they are shifting only for “tech companies”, who are currently perceived (rightly or wrongly) as undercutting “normal businesses” in an unfair way. (Scare quotes because in practice I don’t trust the UK government know what they mean by the words).
Re: Tech giants face 2% UK digital services tax
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think the space is their market, in which they set the rules and may want to tip things one way or another ... So far I'm with you. > to prevent starvation and entire dependence on external parties. Heh. Man I remember when I used to think like this. I remember the time fondly, oddly enough. Sadly, sorry to say, you will be cured of this. THIS is also the UK government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_I…
What does any of that crap have to do with the UK taxing these companies on sales?
So:
Fairness - Nope
Fixing competition - Nope
Altering the market - No
Incentivizing European offerings - Nope
None of this is a goal. Another example linked to is that the UK state is an organization that has been known to use violence to kidnap child abuse victims, and lock them in with other sex offenders, then afterwards refuse so much as acknowledging that might have been a wrong decision, when the inevitable happens.
Such an organization, I'm sorry to say, can be reasonably assumed not to have the interests of you, or me, or anyone but itself, at heart. It's on the side of big companies and tax law is just driving a hard bargain. It is very much not about making their own job harder by doing such things as massively increasing the number of people they need to negotiate with (otherwise known as "competition").
But go ahead, down vote me, of course the state is the epitome of all that is good of the universe. I understand that if that were to be a flawed way of seeing things, social policies start to sound a lot less like they're helping, and much more like they're cynically designed to increase the abuse suffered by the "helped" people, and prevent them from finding actual help, get out of their situation, or find redress. This shows you a new way of thinking about social policies and why they're made. Anti-child abuse laws are about encouraging child trade (and with that, inevitably, abuse), and preventing at all costs any means those kids might want to prevent the state from harming them further, and above all, to eliminate any legal redress such children might have against the state, at the damage done by it's agents to them.
Of course, one can easily make the determination about these policies. Find a few homeless, find a few now grown adopted children, and find a few that look smart, and ... ask them.
We all know what view they will have. The irony is that usually people turn those opinions into "see ? We need more child care/job programs/homeless assistance/...". A method for preventing those very programs from inflicting future damage as was done on these people is never discussed.
Re: Tech giants face 2% UK digital services tax
#235Re: Tech giants face 2% UK digital services tax
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
Revenue tax not sales tax maybe you should have read it.
Revenue = sales = top-line.
Re: Tech giants face 2% UK digital services tax
#237This looks like it is on gross sales? If so that would hurt low-margin companies quite a lot; I imagine Amazon would be essentially forced to increase prices by 2% for example.
And that wouldn't be the end of the world for bricks and mortars retailers now, would it? The UK is seeing the high street decimated with many chains closing scores of shops, or closing outright. That's awful for people who can't, or don't want to, shop online - and also leads to less tax being collected on the whole as Amazon et al siphon their money to places where they've managed to strong arm a sweetheart deal.
Re: Tech giants face 2% UK digital services tax
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
When AWS in teh UK can grant share awards of £11.8m to staff, but only pay £155k in tax, that doesn't seem like they are paying their fair share in UK tax.
I'm a bit confused. At least in the us, my stock awards are taxed as income, not by my employer, but by me (well in the us there's also payroll tax but still). Why would you tax Amazon more if they pay their employees? The employees are already paying income tax, aren't they?