Lowering Tax Burden on an Industry

[Coito ergo sum]

Given the floundering economy, should the tax burden on business and industry be lowered, so that it helps them succeed? Thereby also creating more jobs and economic opportunities?

[klr]

Don't some of them have low enough tax burdens as it is?

[PsychoSerenity]

Given the floundering economy, should the tax burden on business and industry be lowered, so that it helps them succeed? Thereby also creating more jobs and economic opportunities?

Not on the whole, no. In many cases I think it needs to be significantly increased, - if tax adjustment is all you've got to work with to make improvements. By all means decrease it for new start-ups, genuinely productive industries (not just measured in how much money they pass around), and industries that can grow and employ more people.

But frankly I think it's time to move beyond old-fashioned solutions. Unemployment isn't high because businesses can't afford to employ people. It's high because they no longer need to employ people to still get record profits. Human labour is rapidly becoming irrelevant, and economies are becoming increasingly abstract, dealing with immaterial property. I think it's time for a whole new system.

[Coito ergo sum]

Then, on the whole, this is something to oppose - yes?

Barack Obama pushes for $1bn green tax credits
President pushes energy-efficient auto agenda in North Carolina truck factory – his third speech on cars in three weeks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... h-carolina

[Svartalf]

Been tried and done, the owners lined their pockets, and did not lower prices or create jobs or anything they were supposed to do.

[PsychoSerenity]

Then, on the whole, this is something to oppose - yes?

Barack Obama pushes for $1bn green tax credits
President pushes energy-efficient auto agenda in North Carolina truck factory – his third speech on cars in three weeks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... h-carolina

No, that seems a sensible industry to give tax cuts to, assuming they manage it carefully and avoid, as Svartalf says, the owners lining their pockets.

[Rum]

There's a similar discussion going on here about the 50% tax band, where the richest people pay half of every pound at a given threshold.

The economic reality is that if they abolished it and 40% was the highest rate, the actual taxation net 'take' would be higher.

Labour however say it would 'send the wrong message' and the Lib Dems say they are 'not wedded' to the 50P tax rate.

If we need the revenue then bugger the message. People are perfectly capable of understanding some basic maths - those who are interested anyway.

[PsychoSerenity]

The economic reality is that if they abolished it and 40% was the highest rate, the actual taxation net 'take' would be higher.

Why is that?

[Rum]

The economic reality is that if they abolished it and 40% was the highest rate, the actual taxation net 'take' would be higher.

Why is that?

The logic goes (I read) that the 50% rate makes people do more tax avoidance, or have second thoughts about coming here to work in the City (a major source of taxation) and that to lessen the overall burden on the richest means an overall increase in the tax take.

It is counter intuitive, but even the labour party acknowledge this. If this were not the case - the increase that is - I would not personally support it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Then, on the whole, this is something to oppose - yes?

Barack Obama pushes for $1bn green tax credits
President pushes energy-efficient auto agenda in North Carolina truck factory – his third speech on cars in three weeks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... h-carolina

No, that seems a sensible industry to give tax cuts to, assuming they manage it carefully and avoid, as Svartalf says, the owners lining their pockets.

The question was whether or not lowering the tax burden helps an industry, and results in the industry growing and hiring more employees. You said that on the whole, no it doesn't.

So, is it sensible because, in this case, it helps an industry and results in the industry growing and hiring more employees?

If so, then why would it not be similarly the case in other industries? What's the difference?

(or, is it just that you like green industries, and other industries can go fuck themselves?)

[PsychoSerenity]

The question was whether or not lowering the tax burden helps an industry, and results in the industry growing and hiring more employees. You said that on the whole, no it doesn't.

So, is it sensible because, in this case, it helps an industry and results in the industry growing and hiring more employees?

If so, then why would it not be similarly the case in other industries? What's the difference?

(or, is it just that you like green industries, and other industries can go fuck themselves?)

No the question was, should it be done. And my point is, it does depend on the individual industry. Profits vs Job creation, financially measured growth vs practical benefit to society - these things no longer have a strong correlation. In some areas they do, and there tax cuts could help. In other areas they don't. And yes, I do think sustainability is a very important long term goal for any society.

[Coito ergo sum]

The question was whether or not lowering the tax burden helps an industry, and results in the industry growing and hiring more employees. You said that on the whole, no it doesn't.

So, is it sensible because, in this case, it helps an industry and results in the industry growing and hiring more employees?

If so, then why would it not be similarly the case in other industries? What's the difference?

(or, is it just that you like green industries, and other industries can go fuck themselves?)

No the question was, should it be done. And my point is, it does depend on the individual industry. Profits vs Job creation, financially measured growth vs practical benefit to society - these things no longer have a strong correlation. In some areas they do, and there tax cuts could help. In other areas they don't. And yes, I do think sustainability is a very important long term goal for any society.

Given the floundering economy, should the tax burden on business and industry be lowered, so that it helps them succeed? Thereby also creating more jobs and economic opportunities?

So, why is it it that you think it ought to be done in this particular industry? Will it help the industry succeed? Tax relief helps an industry succeed? Will it also create more jobs and economic opportunities? Or, is there another reason you would support it?

[PsychoSerenity]

The economic reality is that if they abolished it and 40% was the highest rate, the actual taxation net 'take' would be higher.

Why is that?

The logic goes (I read) that the 50% rate makes people do more tax avoidance, or have second thoughts about coming here to work in the City (a major source of taxation) and that to lessen the overall burden on the richest means an overall increase in the tax take.

It is counter intuitive, but even the labour party acknowledge this. If this were not the case - the increase that is - I would not personally support it.

Then it's a globalisation problem that needs to be solved internationally. If financial businesses are powerful enough that they can force governments to compete with lower tax rates, making them even more powerful, what's to stop them pushing all tax rates further and further down? If you ask me we need to make an economy that works without them. All they do is juggle numbers to get rich anyway.

[PsychoSerenity]

Given the floundering economy, should the tax burden on business and industry be lowered, so that it helps them succeed? Thereby also creating more jobs and economic opportunities?

So, why is it it that you think it ought to be done in this particular industry? Will it help the industry succeed? Tax relief helps an industry succeed? Will it also create more jobs and economic opportunities? Or, is there another reason you would support it?

What are you going on about? I've already said, haven't I? It's an industry with a real benefit to society, and with a chance, assuming it's managed correctly, of creating more jobs.

[Rum]

The economic reality is that if they abolished it and 40% was the highest rate, the actual taxation net 'take' would be higher.

Why is that?

The logic goes (I read) that the 50% rate makes people do more tax avoidance, or have second thoughts about coming here to work in the City (a major source of taxation) and that to lessen the overall burden on the richest means an overall increase in the tax take.

It is counter intuitive, but even the labour party acknowledge this. If this were not the case - the increase that is - I would not personally support it.

Then it's a globalisation problem that needs to be solved internationally. If financial businesses are powerful enough that they can force governments to compete with lower tax rates, making them even more powerful, what's to stop them pushing all tax rates further and further down? If you ask me we need to make an economy that works without them. All they do is juggle numbers to get rich anyway.

Well this already happens. The City raises a massive proportion of th UK's tax revenue and governments of any colour are conscious of not driving business away. However to expect international cooperation is pie in the sky. One of the main reasons the UK opted out of the recent Euro Zone agreement was Cameron's fear of the so called transaction tax which would have hit the City big time.

The markets have us by the short and curlies!