Protest against Austerity Sheffield 8th July

[Eater Sundae]

If you read my post I did say that long term it might be good. But short term try telling that to the thousands suddenly left on the dole, and the councils faced with a dozen emoty properties in town. That's all I'm saying. You only have to look back at the outcry about Phones 4u, or Woolies for that matter. People don;t like it when a big chain suddenly disappears.

 

---------- Post added 03-07-2015 at 08:10 ----------

 

 

Now you're talking. Only problem is, some counties - such as Ireland - positively thrive on offering low corporate tax rates. So they wouldn't buy into it. And of course you're missing one huge stumbling block - the US can't even agree a standard level of tax across it's own states, so quite how they could be part of a global tax system would take some working out!

 

I agree that we would never get all countries to agree business tax rates. There will always be Tax Haven countries who will go their own way. Also, there are often major cultural differences, ie High tax & High spend or Low tax and Low spend.

 

That's why I think it is up to each country to manage its own tax affairs.

 

I think you are wrong about a large company pulling out. Look at HSBC considering moving its head office. There would be a loss of a few head office jobs, but the main issue would be a loss of business tax revenue. The bank itself would still operate here and retain the vast majority of jobs. The cost to the country would be a loss of revenue.

 

We already do not have this revenue in the case of Starbucks, so there's nothing to lose. If a company such as Starbucks were to leave, the only risk to the country is a loss of jobs, as they already avoid paying business taxes by being based overseas and keeping their specialist expertise in a tax haven. In reality, Starbucks would be unlikely to close down its operations in the UK. it would probably just carry on, competing with other coffee shops - why not, it is a well known high street brand, so a lot of the hard work has already been done. It markets internationally. To make the best out of that marketing, it wants to operate internationally also. All that would go would be its (many think unfair) advantage over UK based coffee shops. Even if it did decide to pull out of the UK, the brand has value, so it would likely sell off the whole UK enterprise, which would carry on. Even if it were to just shut down, (which wont happen IMO), then the worst that would happen is that other coffee shops would open to fill the void. Empty shops, etc, would be very short term, even in this worst case scenario.

 

I don't know what is wrong with my (just tax the workers) idea, from earlier. I assume something would be, otherwise I think it would be an obvious way forward. A much simpler tax system than the current system, so cheaper to administer, and one where all tax is gathered.

The phones 4U situation was completely different. That was a matter of supply and demand. The market wasn't big enough for everyone, and the weakest fell. The same may happen with coffee shops, but if it does it will be because supply exceeds demand. While ever there is still enough demand, then Starbucks will survive. If demand drops, coffee shops will close. if they do, it is currently likely to be the ones who are hampered by high taxation. If we put all coffee shops on the same tax basis (ie 0), then they can compete on a level playing field.

Edited July 3, 2015 by Eater Sundae
Added some clarification

[DnAuK]

I agree that we would never get all countries to agree business tax rates. There will always be Tax Haven countries who will go their own way. Also, there are often major cultural differences, ie High tax & High spend or Low tax and Low spend.

 

That's why I think it is up to each country to manage its own tax affairs.

 

I think you are wrong about a large company pulling out. Look at HSBC considering moving its head office. There would be a loss of jobs AND a loss of business tax revenue.

 

If a company such as Starbucks were to leave, the only risk to the country is a loss of jobs, as they already avoid paying business taxes by being based overseas and keeping their specialist expertise in a tax haven. In reality, Starbucks would be unlikely to close down its operations in the UK. it would probably just carry on, competing with other coffee shops - why not, it is a well known high street brand, so a lot of the hard work has already been done. It markets internationally. To make the best out of that marketing, it wants to operate internationally also. All that would go would be its (many think unfair) advantage over UK based coffee shops. Even if it did decide to pull out of the UK, the brand has value, so it would likely sell off the whole UK enterprise, which would carry on. Even if it were to just shut down, (which wont happen IMO), then the worst that would happen is that other coffee shops would open to fill the void. Empty shops, etc, would be very short term, even in this worst case scenario.

 

I don't know what is wrong with my (just tax the workers) idea, from earlier. I assume something would be, otherwise I think it would be an obvious way forward. A much simpler tax system than the current system, so cheaper to administer, and one where all tax is gathered.

 

I do agree with you in principle. But the risk to jobs is a big one. Lots of people are employed by these chains. And you only have to look at similar examples of companies shutting down operations, like the City Link fiasco just before Christmas, to know the press coverage it gets. Imagine the public outcry if thousands of employees were suddenly out of work. First thing they would do is blame the Government for imposing legislation that forced it to happen... So you see why it's not quite that easy for Government to do what you want? Although something does need to be done I agree. It just takes more careful planning.

[Happ Hazzard]

World governments conspiring together sounds like a nightmare to me. How about the UK government concentrates on what is happening within the borders of the UK, the French government concentrates on what is happening within the borders of France, etc etc. If anything, government should be broken down to a local or street level, it's ridiculous in this day and age to have people in cities hundreds or even thousands of miles away making decisions on how people should live. It just alienates people from their own lives.

[Eater Sundae]

World governments conspiring together sounds like a nightmare to me. How about the UK government concentrates on what is happening within the borders of the UK, the French government concentrates on what is happening within the borders of France, etc etc. If anything, government should be broken down to a local or street level, it's ridiculous in this day and age to have people in cities hundreds or even thousands of miles away making decisions on how people should live. It just alienates people from their own lives.

 

Which would be OK if every street were self sufficient in everything it needs. However, trade is necessary, and as soon as it starts, then we become interested in how those we trade with operate.

[sheffbag]

I see no reason why governments shouldn't get together (at one of their G8 or Bilderberg meetings etc.) and come up with a Universal tax rate for the big corporations so that there would be no point in hopping from one country to another.

 

It's about time governments came up with something to curb the 'get them over a barrell' tendencies of the big bullying corporations - yet instead they come up with TTPI, which is a recipe for disaster and will give corporations even more power. When are they going to start acting in the people's interest.

Really? How about little things like

 

Who sets the level of tax?

What about countries outside the G7?

Where would the money raised go ? back to each country or into a central pot to be doled out across the G7?

If you had a central pot then why should countries in the system receive tax money from other countries?

what happens when there is a change in parliament and a country wishes to leave?

Give me an example where cross border/parliament taxation has worked?.

The "people" you speak of also include the "people" who runs the big organisations as well.

Define "big corporation" that would be included, would this be based on turnover or profit? it either then what is to stop them ferreting money away in a non "collective" country (say Brazil, China, Russia or even Spain - all non G7 countries).

Canada has a corporate tax rate of 15%, Japan has 25%, USA has 35%. Why should a Canadian company suddenly have to pay higher taxes because other countries cant sort out their own finances?

The USA on its own cant sort out a national taxation level between its states, how would you incorporate the Americans into this

 

Are they enough reasons?

[Lotusflower]

I hate cricket but it will be damn site more appealing thank a bunch of wanabe politicians and the SWP ranting about the current government.

 

They lost the election. They cannot get their head around this democracy lark can they?

 

Re my bold.

 

Hoist by your own petard woodmally!

 

Bone up on your history to help you with your own understanding. If you believe "democracy" is only about a ballot box every 5 years you are naive in the extreme!

 

Demonstrations are a part of any democratic system and always have been!

Parliament itself would not exist in its present form if people hadn't demonstrated and even broken the law to do it!

[woodmally]

Re my bold.

 

Hoist by your own petard woodmally!

 

Bone up on your history to help you with your own understanding. If you believe "democracy" is only about a ballot box every 5 years you are naive in the extreme!

 

Demonstrations are a part of any democratic system and always have been!

Parliament itself would not exist in its present form if people hadn't demonstrated and even broken the law to do it!

 

I'm not saying they cant protest or they are not allowed to do so. Its just that we have democratically elected a government and the reason they are protesting is they are unhappy with the will of the people. The term is sour grapes.

 

Yes and protests usually centre around issues where there is no democracy. People rightly protested about getting women the right to vote as they had no democratic rights. The same goes for the setting up of parliament. We are not in this situation now. The people voted in a government and what do the left do protest as they are not happy with the result of a democratic election.

 

If we were to do what they ask we would have to abandon the Conservative manefesto and put Labour in charge. That sounds like overrulling a democratically elected government to me. The word Coup springs to mind.

Edited July 3, 2015 by woodmally

[Lotusflower]

I'm not saying they cant protest or they are not allowed to do so. Its just that we have democratically elected a government and the reason they are protesting is they are unhappy with the will of the people. The term is sour grapes.

 

Yes and protests usually centre around issues where there is no democracy. People rightly protested about getting women the right to vote as they had no democratic rights. The same goes for the setting up of parliament. We are not in this situation now. The people voted in a government and what do the left do protest as they are not happy with the result of a democratic election.

 

If we were to do what they ask we would have to abandon the Conservative manefesto and put Labour in charge. That sounds like overrulling a democratically elected government to me. The word Coup springs to mind.

 

Your interpretation of events is wrong on so many levels.

 

I say that with respect to your right to hold whatever views you wish and not to antagonise...

 

...however, if votes for women and the setting up of parliament are the only examples you can present to substantiate the legitimacy of protest I don't see much point in engaging you in further debate as...without wishing to patronise or belittle you, I can only conclude, in all honesty, that you need to do more research.

You might want to examine the Tory manifesto to see what they said they would do if elected...what they wouldn't do if elected...and then what they are doing now they are elected. It's a good place to start IMHO.

 

Unless you've already made up your mind and don't want to be confused by the facts you may at least be able to understand why so many people are unhappy and feel the need to protest. You don't have to agree with them by the way...that's not what I'm saying.

 

When terms like "The great unwashed"--"loony left"--"scruffy oiks"--"rent a mob" and any other derogatory term is used to describe anyone exercising their democratic right to protest then it tells me far more about the people making those remarks than it does the people they seek to denigrate!

[dacrlit]

Thank you for reminding me, I will see you there.

[ghop]

A country cannot keep spending spending spending with money it has not got. So I absolutely would not vote labour whose mismanagement and complete oversubscribing of public resources (along with many other non government factors) were part of the mess we are currently trying to get out of.

 

I`m sorry, specifically what did labour spend money on in 2008 that caused the national debt to more than double? Was it a sudden giveaway to welfare recipients? Did they revamp the NHS or our schools in 2008? No they didn't did they. It was the banker bailout wasn't it. 1.6 trillion handed over to a bunch of multi multi millionaires. That's why we are told we need austerity. Any idea how many hospitals you could buy with 1.6 trillion pounds?

 

Stop blaming labour and defending the corrupt billionaires who raped this country. All David Cameron's friends in fact.