Slashdot Mirror
Theresa May Reshuffles Cabinet, Warns Amazon and Google of Power Shift (arstechnica.co.uk)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Ars Technica: British Prime Minister Theresa May has given a stern warning to big business, telling the public to "think not of the powerful, but you." Specifically, she singled out Google and Amazon for dodging taxes and creating a lot of parliamentary scrutiny. Ars Technica reports: "May has been quick to stamp her brand of conservatism on her party by letting go of key members of Cameron's cabinet. She has so far sacked big hitters such as chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne, justice secretary Michael Gove, and culture secretary John Whittingdale. Philip Hammond now has the keys to Number 11, but we're still waiting to hear who will replace Whittingdale, whose remit included the rollout of super fast broadband in the UK. He's also the man behind the White Paper on the future of the BBC, which sought radical changes at the public service broadcaster. So far, 10 cabinet positions have been announced by May. They include Justine Greening as secretary of state for education, and Liz Truss becomes justice secretary, while former London mayor and key Brexit campaigner Boris Johnson -- to the surprise of many -- now heads up the foreign office. May has handed her home secretary job to Amber Rudd -- who will now be responsible for the government's push for greater online surveillance laws. Rudd was previously the minister for energy and climate change." David Davis is now in charge of withdrawing the UK from the European Union. David has for many years "opposed the government's attempts to bring in a so-called Snoopers' Charter." Ars Technica writes, "He's also currently suing the UK government over DRIPA -- legislation that was rushed through by the Tories after the European Court of Justice had ruled that the Data Retention Directive was invalid for failing to have adequate privacy safeguards in place."
Because it is competitive, and Ireland's gamble at lower rates for more volume is failing and simply depriving the public of funding for zero gains. Conservative doesn't mean wacko like in the US, her job isn't to do amateur plastic surgery to kill the state like the US Republican strategy has been.
I'll believe it when I see it. At best its going to waste a lot of taxpayers money going after them at worst well who knows. Probably some kind of pre approved website search run by the government.
Conservative doesn't mean wacko like in the US
And it's high time conservatives reclaim the title from the wackos
Pull out, full stop. Show the world what happens to a country that cannibalizes itself through jingoist nationalism. Please, before it spreads across the pond.
I wonder if the inner sanctum of Number 10 has lots of doors because it looks like a Marx Brothers movie, particularly Duck Soup. May is Margaret Dumont, , Johnson is Groucho, Chico could be Hammond, and Harpo could be Truss. We need more Marx Brothers for the rest of the bozos. No wonder Cameron hummed with a smile while entering Number 10 to clean out his stuff.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
All they need now is Clarkson to head the transportation system.
Look closer, she's a fucking terrifying neocon.
Regarding taxation, "extortion/slavery/theft/rape that is tax" is a bit much, made me laugh. Yeah, taxes suck to pay, but they keep the world running. We all want them as low as possible. If you haven't been paying attention: The average citizen pays way more tax than some of these big companies. Sure you keep your tax bill as low as possible, but you pay your fair share or it all collapses.
Apple Inc. is the Bismark of today.
Timmy Cook and his Apple Inc. will be sunk to the bloody and cold depths of the North Atlantic.
Because the lowest corporate taxes in the world are ZERO%. You want them to be lower than that, to attract companies?
why not reduce your corporate tax rate to a competitive level?
What, are these corporations so fat and lazy that they are not viable at a higher level of taxation? Don't they have a strong work ethic? Aren't they productive and efficient? Can't they compete? Are these corporations so weak that they must be molly-coddled?
... fuck you and your shitty little failed empire.
We'd pay more attention to your threats if we gave a shit or if we didn't think you will be too busy rebuilding (more) bureaucracy.
We're also very busy moving what assets we have in the UK to the EU.
Let us when you have something to offer... we won't wait up.
Can Timmy Cook, CEO Apple Inc., holding $300 billion US dollars buy the new PM of UK?
If Timmy can't BUY May, then can Timmy pay for killing Her! $300 billion US dollars is a lot!
Google and Amazon are being rebuked for pushing the corruption of society a little too far into the limelight and are to be whipped back into the shadows.
The Establishment is upset at the show they have to put on to make it seem like they are actually changing anything.
All the newest dirtiest business of the international total surveillance state recedes into the shadows of deeper levels of military intelligence.
Nothing really changes and everything continues in the same direction.
Almost all of us continue to be disposable workers that in the advent of the automation of the economy will be targeted by malicious social doctrine to eventually be driven to economic/moral/spiritual poverty and/or sterility and/or suicide.
We aren't meant to last in this society.
Maybe it's just my opinion, but the opportunity turn things around is almost gone, and will certainly be gone at the end of the millenial generation.
Corporate taxes are FAR too low all over the world.
They need to go up, not down.
Yes!! Best troll I've seen in a long time.
Anyway... Ummm... Amazon just figured out how to fire the last of it's warehouse employees and *gain* productivity. The drivers will go soon too. This trend will only increase.
"all income and wealth related taxes are horribly immoral and also horribly economically terrible"
For a viable economy to exist you need governments and armies and weapons and roads and the list goes on and on.
You're an idiot.
When people start throwing around terms like "collectivism is dead" and "income tax is immoral", you know you're dealing with an ignorant Libertarian blowhard.
Pay your fucking taxes, asshole, and quit trying to get society to underwrite your greed. That's right, society. We're social animals, not a bunch of solo hunting predators. Unless, of course you're a sociopath, then Libertarianism is very attractive, because fucking morons buy into it, and fucking morons make the best prey.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com...
Conservative doesn't mean wacko like in the US, her job isn't to do amateur plastic surgery to kill the state like the US Republican strategy has been.
That little bubble you occupy doesn't seem to have enough oxygen in it, you're (becoming?) delusional.
After many years of reading Slashdot it is time to move on.
I am a very political person but for the most part I came here for non-political news. Just the straight up NASA did this... nVidia did that... Silicon Graphics is bought by Rackable Systems etc etc.
The comments on Slashdot are so much more inflamatory than before. A sign that Slashdot has run its course.
2.6 trillion economy isn't worth jumping through hoops for. UK has no resources the world needs other than a few pieces of intellectual property which they have much less control over now that they EU is not there to back them up.
Really, the only long term value in the UK is intellectual property and touism. There is no world industry there that the world would miss if the UK dropped into the sea. No offence, rather it's just entirely true. They would miss the 2.6 trillion dollars, but not that much.
For a country that has no leverage, that's pretty tough talk and it a foolish tone to set when you have no chips to bargain.
Now the UK has opened itself to being bashed by the EU and independently by the US for Google and Amazon resistance. Good move.. what's next, maybe a trade agreement with Somalia and North Korea?
Brexit won't be the worst thing ever, but it will be a net loss with almost zero chance of any useful gains. It's a move to gain political control, not improve the UK via policy. UK leaders have to be insane if they think they can really influence Google or Amazon. The only leverage they had was the EU, not corporations like Google can walk all over the UK. They won't, but there is no longer anything stopping them. The UK has about the same size economy as Brazil.
When did you say to yourself.. wow Brazil.. they certainly have a lot of global influence. I like Brazil, but no, they just don't have the money or infrastructure to matter. UK is even worse because they don't have the resources to ever be likely to be a large economy again. Brazil at least has developing nation potential. The UK is more or less topped out for big gain, most likely. Unless they start piling up intellectual property perhaps.
But remember that May has been a member of the government since the coalition came to power in 2010. That means she was bound by the principle of collective responsibility among the Cabinet, so she will have voted in line with official government policy on just about everything. Her voting record in recent years is more an indictment of the overall government policy than a useful indication of her own views on most of those issues.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
They already are in some ways. All those rebates and bailouts that don't ever seem to get paid back. Seems it's quite profitable to go bankrupt once you get to a certain size.
Not really a troll. While updating laws for taxes is fine, blowing the horn to charge! against business is an age old BS play by politicians.
I haven't heard anything this idiotic from a politician since the 1990s and Hillary Clinton was running around raging at "the unconscionable profits" of drug companies who have saved billions of lives.
What a piece of work are these power-hungry politicians.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Actually it is more like Top Gear: they have Hammond and May all they need now is Clarkson although Boris might not be a bad stand in.
No thank you, not my thing. Besides, wouldn't want to deprive you of what makes you happy.
...and this kids, is why you don't smoke crack.
If nothing else, we'll have some entertainment from court buffoon.
Well do you consent to all the tax you pay? I consent to maybe 10% at a push. The rest, 25% (in my country), is taken by force (i.e. without my consent). What would you call this taking money by force from me (and everyone else who doesn't fully consent to their tax bill)?
No just lower than the EU will do. Given current EU tax policy, you could both undercut them and EXPAND government spending with change to spare!
Society is productive enough. With my median income, I could feed, clothe and house ten to fifteen people. Yes, only the bare necessities and no fancy stuff. But we wouldn't starve or freeze to death.
But I don't need people to live in the woods to compete for their productivity:
http://www.zeit.de/2014/51/schlachthof-niedersachsen-fleischwirtschaft-ausbeutung-arbeiter
That is crazy and no healthy competition any more.
Tax is a doubly immoral proposition. Not only is it life taken by force, it is always squandered on crap. BTW Economics proves that acting selfishly is optimal for improving the economy (and everyone's wellbeing), while acting collectively is destructive to the fine-grained incentives people face in their lives, which leads inexorably to dissolution.
The only "government" you may need to keep the world running is property rights enforcement, and frankly I'd be surprised that a market couldn't achieve this. Everything else, including you precious roads can be better provided by markets. And, corporate tax rates are on par for the most part with income taxes, at least here in New Zealand.
Martin, is that you?
You must be new here.
Slashdot has been political since day one.
Oh my, big tough Internet Libertarian warrior.
Jesus, why do these types always end up being such insignificant pieces of dirt, little men with little minds.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I think Americans at least get a little confused at how a Parliamentary system works (so, to, do a lot of Canadians, Brits, Australians and so forth, mind you). If a vote isn't a free vote, then MPs for each party are bound to vote in line with the party. If it is a crucial vote, like a confidence motion, then a three line whip will be used, and if an MP defies even that, well they can be expelled from their party. For a cabinet minister, however, it is even more severe. A cabinet minister must, on all government bills, whether they are free votes for all other MPs, support the government bill. This is a longstanding Westminster tradition, and if a cabinet minister cannot back a government bill or motion, then the cabinet minister must resign.
in addition cabinet ministers are bound not to reveal cabinet debates or the results of those debates. The Government in a Westminster Parliament must remain united, and if a cabinet minister simply cannot abide the decisions of Cabinet, again, they're only choice is to resign. This is not such a different arrangement from how the US cabinet works, and that was modeled on how the British government still at least partially functioned by the time of the American Revolution (although Westminster was well on its way to its modern form even then).
The reason for this dates far back in Westminster constitutional history. Up until the 18th century the King would name his cabinet, which would serve in His name. And so it still is. Why the Prime Minister and his or her cabinet are chosen from sitting MPs and Peers, they are sworn into the Privy Council (an older governing body of which the Cabinet is a part), and the deliberations of the Privy Council, be in effect advice to the Sovereign, are generally kept secret.
So the intent of this long-winded explanation is to state that you cannot judge Theresa May entirely by the votes she cast over the last six years. She was bound by practice and convention to side with her fellow Cabinet Ministers, and generally has not enjoyed the right to public criticize those Ministers (though during the 2010-2015 Coalition, that practice was often ignored in subtle and not so subtle ways). In fact, little enough is known of May's views, and a lot of British political observers are quoting a Rumsfeldism, she is a "known unknown".
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I hope you don't buy anything from corporations. Because you're basically asking to have your taxes raised.
This idea that taxes, or indeed any law, require every individual's consent is utterly absurd. First of all, it would make government completely unworkable.
But more to the point, what was meant by the Revolutionaries when they said "No taxation without representation", or in the Westminster tradition of "responsible government" wasn't that you didn't have to pay taxes, it was that no tax could be imposed without the consent of the GOVERNED. That doesn't mean that you, I and every other taxpayer get a veto on the taxes we'll pay, it means we elect representatives who will then create the taxes, and if we don't like the taxes being levied, then our right as citizens is to try to get people elected who will more closely align with our views on taxation matters.
Citizenship confers not only rights, but inherently it confers obligations. You have the right to vote for your representatives, but you have the obligation to abide by their lawful and constitutional powers to pass laws, including tax laws. If you feel you have been unjustly treated, you have the right to petition the government or to seek redress through the courts.
So there is no theft. You are taxed by people who a conferred the right to enact and collect taxes by the consent of the governed, which is you and all your fellow citizens collectively.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Ah the religion of Libertarianism. As fantastical and absurd as Communism and Anarchism.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
What is this woman talking about "the powerful" ? Does she think she's saying "be nice, think of yourself" in spectacular language?
This is actually a story on Slashdot. This site used to be pertinent to tech minded people now it's just Reddit's little sister.
I don't necessarily agree with your argument but, I do *very* much appreciate the manner in which you have presented it. The tactical use of "fuck" and "shit" is commendable. Just the right amount of grammatical correctness with a healthy dose of genuine anger. We need more... oh, shit... you're a Martian. Nevermind.
No, economics does not show that. Economics shows that cooperation coupled with some promise of profit can enhance enterprises, but both economics and psychology show where greed becomes the primary motivator, people begin to behave in fundamentally immoral ways.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
...when there's a Slashdot article about the U.S. :)
This political story is nice and all, but none of these names even ring a bell, let alone mean anything
Corporations don't pay taxes, they rely on customers purchasing goods and services to meet their tax burden. That's the problem with taxing corporations- it only makes things cost more to you the consumer. The only time you the consumer benefits from corporate taxation is when they sell outside your governmental location and you essentially import taxes from other jurisdictions.
Gotta love how lefties resort to violence when they run head long into the wall of their ignorance, which is all the time... Libertarianism requires knowledge to appreciate (i.e. at least a working knowledge of economics). Communism requires none, only blind subservience to the master political class that enslaves you. In fact, if you had any knowledge of communism you'd know empirically it leads to privation and mass murder.
And when these taxes are introduced as a temporary measure, to pay for Napoleonic wars and the like as income tax is, but remain enacted for perpetuity, that right is abused and should be rescinded. It has turned into a tithe, which was considered A Bad Thing centuries ago when it was conducted by the Church.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
You are being inconsistent. The notion that the government has to protect property rights is completely arbitrary. Why not leave it to the market as well?
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
That's not right at all. What corporate taxes do is reduce gross income and dividends. Taxing dividends on the end of how they are disbursed is critical to ensuring the balance in earning ability between passive investments and active work (payroll). Investors take on much less risk than actual employees.
What you need to do is tax the fuck out of capital gains and dividends.
These companies want to shitcan employees for "shareholder value"? Tax that shit to make it a bit less desirable.
The customers are already paying whatever the market can bear. Raising the prices would result in fewer sales, hence corporations have to pay taxes out of their profits.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Besides, wouldn't want to deprive you of what makes you happy.
Making fires?
What would you call this taking money by force from me
I'd call it one of the "two inevitabilities."
The Tax is the amount society pays it's people in Government services and infrastructure.
The less corporations pay in tax deprives the society that supports it.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Pay your taxes, so those dollars can be pissed away on government corruption like crony capitalism, military spending for unnecessary wars, funnelled into medical monopolies through obamacare, or spent on "refugees" and illegal immigrants.
It's one thing if you're getting some value for your tax dollars, but when you see it being wantonly wasted it's time to turn off the spigot.
You are very misinformed - income taxes started decades after the Napoleonic wars. Look at the actual history of US income tax regulations. See here.
Way to go.
Wait until Google pumps a few billions in the Scotland and Northern Ireland Independence campaigns.
That's the problem with taxing corporations- it only makes things cost more to you the consumer.
Or buyers switch to a competitor which produces goods at a lower cost through better, more efficient process rather than tax dodging.
I suspect he isn't talking about the US, given that their involvement in the Napoleonic wars is generally considered to be somewhere between none and not very much.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Good post, informative, correct. Thanks.
Just to point out - the time for a cabinet minister to disagree with a policy is "in the cabinet meetings". So cabinet ministers have enormous influence at that point.... but after that, they must put up or get out. And thus, as you say, the voting record is not a good guide.
Rather than whining at firms that add so much value to your society ... the extortion/slavery/theft/rape that is tax.
Yeah, having to pay your fair share of the upkeep of society, from whose infrastructure and other facilities you benefit, is just so unfair. Why can't those bloody commies see that it is much more reasonable to let the poor and the middle class pay for it? As for whining - you sound exactly like some sort of teenager whining about how unfair it is that you have to clean up the mess in your room, wash your own clothes and contribute a bit to the household in general.
If the companies don't like it, they can just move out, IMO. There are plenty that find the UK attractive enough, and if the big ones move away, then there will be more room for a larger number of smaller ones instead. Companies like Google and Amazon don't add much value to UK apart from the value of the employment they offer; smaller businesses add much more to society than just employment; just take the many, small to tiny startups around Cambridge Science Park and the enormous value they add to UK in terms of science and innovation. I'd say, get rid of the Googles and the Amazons and get more of the really valuable businesses.
Boris Johnson is the best bit
In New Zealand, the former prime minister Helen Clark did a similar thing to the leader of a fringe coalition partner (NZ uses MMP, so small parties frequently hold the balance of power). The guy, Winston Peters, was a known charismatic trouble maker (sound familiar?) and rose to power mostly by blaming immigrants for stealing jobs. So she made him foreign minister. It completely shut him down, as he was out of the country most of the time, had to put on a serious face so he didn't become the laughing stock of the world, and was hobbled in his ability to portray people from other countries as troublesome. It was an incredibly successful strategy, and he ended up doing an okay job of it.
However I wouldn't read so much into it being an attempt to destroy Boris. The foreign minister is largely a PR role, which Boris will be quite good at once he has apologized to everyone, and I think he has enough political nous to ensure nothing serious around Brexit can be pinned on him.
Leadsom and Davis on the other hand, have found themselves holding the poison chalice.
Wrong! With less corporate tax, more money get spent on productive uses, and in a more efficient way than if government were to spend it, i.e. without the huge dead-weight loss of government, which has been estimated up to 30-40 cents per dollar, depending on the activity. So more jobs, higher standards of living, less deprivation, etc.
With the difference that is even easier to see how it would fail.
They tend to forget that if everything is by market then the richest will become dictators.. and therefore a form of government.
... or "BeauHD". They keep submitting several anti-Brexit political posts, they have been doing this for a month. Pro-EU whores simply cannot accept their defeat, so they just keep trolling in websites that have nothing to do with politics, giving media coverage to botnet-petitions, doing PR for immigrant-packed "rallies" with less than 50 participants, etc...
It's sad that Slashdot is being ruined by them, and it's also sad that webmasters are accepting these political sumbissions.
Boris Johnson -- to the surprise of many -- now heads up the foreign office.
Surprise is not exactly the word. The State Department spokesman had a hard time not laughing.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Nah, he was offering you some seasoned chopped liver to eat.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
... Libertarianism requires knowledge to appreciate .... Communism requires none...
You're trying to imply the poster is a communist when all you know is he's not a Libertarian. It's not an either/or: most political positions are neither Libertarian nor Communism. Both Libertarian and Communism are politically extreme. In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, both lead to bad outcomes.
Nice simple talking point. Just remember that in the USA the Southern states regarded ownership of slaves as a 'property right'. Is that where you think the government should draw the line (it's fine to own people)? If not, then what about putting them in the kind of indentured servitude where they're nominally not slaves but can't ever afford to leave or they'll starve to death?
Libertarians are the most boring of the political factions. At least the others want to make new mistakes.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The classic comment by Margie Thatcher, "the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money" stands true here.
The UK needs to take a long hard look at itself and decide what social and corporate welfare is really needed and make the UK more tax friendly.
If you want a better example of politicians promising the people everything and the moon look at France and Spain whose economies are basket cases. Business do not hire people because of the onerous government regulations.
This is a massively unpopular thing to say and do politically and I know i'll get downvoted for this comment, but it is the hard truth: Governments do not create wealth nor do they distribute wealth efficiently. Only private business and enterprise can. Thankfully the folks that disagree with me will have their world view shattered again (because the collapse of the Soviet Union wasn't enough) come 2017 when capital flees the socialist utopia known as the European Union.
This idea that taxes, or indeed any law, require every individual's consent is utterly absurd. First of all, it would make government completely unworkable.
Certainly. There are many laws rather natural to man such as it being wrong to kill peaceful people or steal from peaceful people. We do not need to agree to these natural laws before being subject to them.
The problem though is that paying taxes to the state is not a natural law. Indeed, it is a mechanism in direct conflict with the second of the example natural laws given above. Without actual consent from each taxpayer ahead of time, levying taxes is a wrongdoing. In the context of morality, actual consent is required for taxation.
then the cabinet minister must resign.
What if they don't? A 'rule' without punishment for violation is no rule at all.
Everything else, including you precious roads can be better provided by markets.
I think that's the wrong way around. I'd say no for profit service can be as good as a public service can be.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
When people start throwing around terms like "collectivism is dead" and "income tax is immoral", you know you're dealing with an ignorant Libertarian blowhard.
Pay your fucking taxes, asshole, and quit trying to get society to underwrite your greed. That's right, society. We're social animals, not a bunch of solo hunting predators. Unless, of course you're a sociopath, then Libertarianism is very attractive, because fucking morons buy into it, and fucking morons make the best prey.
When you see someone whining about "Libertarian blowhards" and assuming that taxation = society you know you're dealing with a statist psycopath. These are the kinds of idiots that would support the population controls of Logan's run provided it was the will of their darling elitist masters. They have absolutely no inner sense of right and wrong (believe that law and morals are the same thing by definition) and simply cannot function without being told what to think by some tyrant.
Libertarians are fundamentally social animals. They don't need to be forced to be social ("socialism"). Those that cannot imagine peaceful society without the constant threat of violence keeping them from hurting others are the monsters.
Stealing all our cabinets.
Meanwhile, democratic government comes under regular scrutiny - if you're not efficient, you're voted out.
Not sure if you truly believe this or you are trolling...
So no more retirement, education, healthcare, research and other, burdensome things? It might work in a guild driven economy from the middle ages although the taxes were relatively heavy then and used to overfeed the lords and priests, and perhaps maintain a skeleton of army.
Efficient at staying in power maybe. Although there's only going to be one significant competitor.
In Belgium voting is not a right, it is an obligation. Well, as voting is secret, voting is not the requirement, but showing up is. If you don't vote or cast a non-valid valid vote does not matter.
Obviously there are some exceptions. If you work, you need a proof of your boss that you work. Voting is done on Sunday, so good luck with that. If you are on a holiday, you can get a proof from your travel agent.
If you do not show up, they can fine you.
Now here is the fun part. They can order you to sit at the voting booth. Most of the times they will order young lawyers and teachers, but if there are not enough, they might draft you. And it gets better. If there are not enough people to do the job, they can and will take the first people who come into the door and seem fit to do it, so do not go voting too early.
Now this is just an explanation how it works in other countries, not a request to discuss if voting should be a right or an obligation. We have those here already.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase which helped fund Napolean's wars, so I would say "not very much".
You have the right to vote for your representatives, but you have the obligation to abide by their lawful and constitutional powers
A little bit of asymmetry between a vote to give a pre-selected candidate a job and the control the voter's entire life. Regardless of what government needs to be "workable" or what "fellow citizens" supposedly decided, every man has his own choice. Granted he could conclude that he's actually wealthier due to taxes, though that calculation is questionable for many
Dividends is what should be taxed. But that is taxing the owners of the corporation and not the corporation.
Corporations, as well as any properly run business is already considering their tax obligations when budgeting. It only takes from their income when the rate unexpectedly changes before year end. Make no mistake, they already have accounted for their tax obligations before reporting income.
So the intent of this long-winded explanation is to state that you cannot judge Theresa May entirely by the votes she cast over the last six years. She was bound by practice and convention
That's a great excuse, but a garbage explanation. Tradition is never sufficient justification for anything.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
With the way things are going I feel we are getting closer to the description of 1984, than ever. Brexit just allowed the government to be uncountable and the country a non-team player. Who knew George Orwell's vision would start with a nannie state?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
So the intent of this long-winded explanation is to state that you cannot judge Theresa May entirely by the votes she cast over the last six years. She was bound by practice and convention
That's a great excuse, but a garbage explanation. Tradition is never sufficient justification for anything.
If she had not gone along with that tradition, she would have lost her job. Anyway, it seems like an entirely reasonable tradition to me: if you are a member of the government, you should be 100% behind government policy, and if you're not then you should resign.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Wrong! With less corporate tax, more money get spent on productive uses, and in a more efficient way than if government were to spend it, i.e. without the huge dead-weight loss of government, which has been estimated up to 30-40 cents per dollar, depending on the activity. So more jobs, higher standards of living, less deprivation, etc.
I disagree with what you said because it is too strong statement -- money from less corporate taxes would be spent in more productive/efficient way than government. It can go either way and is depended on how far you want to look at in the future. I agree that government spending is likely to be in a wrong direction, but that does not mean private/corporate spending is likely to go to the right direction. What have we been seeing how corporates spend their money so far? What is their business model? And what is "more efficient way" in your definition? Are you benefiting from the way they do their business (e.g. you are a CEO)?
Conservative doesn't mean wacko like in the US, her job isn't to do amateur plastic surgery to kill the state like the US Republican strategy has been.
That little bubble you occupy doesn't seem to have enough oxygen in it, you're (becoming?) delusional.
Sounds like you are talking about yourself..
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
Conservative doesn't mean wacko like in the US
And it's high time conservatives reclaim the title from the wackos
That might happen if Trump wins the election in November.
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
Cabinet ministers are appointed by the Prime Minister, and can be dismissed just as easily. The principle of collective responsibility among the Cabinet is considered very important in our politics, and anyone breaking it almost certainly would be out of the Cabinet soon afterwards.
The now-ex minister would still be an MP -- the PM has no power to fire someone elected by their constituents from Parliament -- and they could still freely criticise whatever they wanted from the back benches. But the honourable way to do that as an MP is to resign from the Cabinet first so it's clear that you're not speaking for the government any more. Giving a public resignation statement explaining why you can't support the Cabinet's position is also common practice.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Anyway, it seems like an entirely reasonable tradition to me: if you are a member of the government, you should be 100% behind government policy, and if you're not then you should resign.
My country, right or wrong! Hint: that's not a democracy.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Interesting how the leftist supporting large businesses are now being attacked by the leftist-socialists they support.
Reminds me of a quote "Watching someone shoot themselves in the boot is less amusing when said boot is on your neck."
So there is no theft. You are taxed by people who a conferred the right to enact and collect taxes by the consent of the governed, which is you and all your fellow citizens collectively.
This.
You also, in a democracy, have the right to run on a "abolish taxes" platform. You will get a few votes from people who have no clue but for the most part people wont vote for you because they know taxes pay for all the things they cant live without like police, fire brigades, armies, rail, roads, sanitation, water and other infrastructure.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Of course it's a democracy. The people vote for their MP, usually based on party, the MP gets a say in caucus about how to run things, the party governs. If the party can't govern, eg lets say that they fail to pass a budget, the people get to vote again. It's actually possible to have multiple elections in a year rather then being stuck with a government without the support of the peoples representatives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
You have that backwards. Think about it. Drop corporate taxes to zero and raise the workers taxes to 90%-99.9%. Now the corporation has to pay the janitor $200,000 so he can take home $20,000 and pay the CEO one billion so he can take home a million. This is whether the corporation is profitable or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Boris Johnson's prize winning entry to the Spectator’s President Erdogan Offensive Poetry competition:
There was a young fellow from Ankara
Who was a terrific wankerer
Till he sowed his wild oats
With the help of a goat
But he didn’t even stop to thankera.
Minister of Bantz.
Taxation is immoral - it's the extortion of money through threat of force of arms.
Any honest politician can only try to argue that it is a necessary evil.
The debate can then properly focus on what spending is necessary.
To argue that tax is good per se is ridiculous.
The Tax is the amount society pays it's people in Government services and infrastructure.
The less corporations pay in tax deprives the society that supports it.
Sigh.
Corporations. Don't. Pay. Taxes.
Look, this is basic economics. Capital seeks a certain rate of return in given economic conditions and a given economic context. When you raise taxes on corporations, you don't change that sought rate of return, which means that corporate governance adapts to shift the cost of the taxes elsewhere, so they don't come out of profits and returns meet expectations. Corporations that fail to do this lose, and their capital moves to others that do it well.
This means that any taxes you nominally assess to corporations actually land on suppliers, employees or customers. In many cases suppliers and customers are other corporations subject to the same demands of capital, so they just shuffle the costs off further. At the end, it always lands on employees and customers. In the short term profits may take a hit, which drops the cost onto investors, but that's a temporary situation.
The bottom line, then, is that corporate taxes are all ultimately paid by individuals. Actually, this should be utterly obvious even without looking at the detailed mechanisms: corporations aren't real, they're just a mechanism for pooling individual wealth to accomplish larger goals than any individual could... but the products are all ultimately consumed by people, the owners are all ultimately people, and so the taxes all ultimately land on individuals -- voters.
That means that corporate taxation is just a way to impose hidden taxes on voters. Taxes that they pay but don't know they pay, and taxes that are allocated fairly randomly, and likely rather regressively. Corporate taxes are a bad idea and we should abolish them, instead raising capital gains taxes and the top marginal income tax rates.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
You didn't understand the explanation did you? It's OK to just say "I don't understand".
I have news for you. Karl Marx invented the best scientific method of its time, which was only superseded by the method of Karl Popper. He also developed the first actually scientific theory of money circulation. USSR had the largest anti-illiteracy campaign in the world which resulted in Russia's literacy raising from less than 30% to 99.6%.
In comparison, libertarianism is not scientific at all, it is more like a cult.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Libertarianism is a luxury that only people living in particularly wealthy and particularly well governed countries - think USA - can afford. If you want to find what it's like living in a place were there is little government, move to Iraq - almost any part of it outside Baghdad - or Afghanistan or Somalia.
There is a punishment. If a cabinet minister were to openly revolt against the Government, and did not resign, then the Prime Minister would advise the Queen (or Governor General in Commonwealth Realms, or President in parliamentary republics) to have the cabinet minister dismissed.
And it should be noted that even after someone is left Cabinet, they are still bound by their oaths, and cannot reveal the matters that were discussed while they were members of cabinet.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Conservative doesn't mean wacko like in the US
And it's high time conservatives reclaim the title from the wackos
That might happen if Trump wins the election in November.
+1 Funny
No, Libertarians are either greedy sociopaths or retards. Societies much beyond hunter gatherer require government and taxation to function, and anyone who thinks differently is just a plan fucking moron.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
while former London mayor and key Brexit campaigner Boris Johnson -- to the surprise of many -- now heads up the foreign office
A wonderfully ironic thing to do. Take the person pushing for something and say "here, now you can deal with any consequences". Might make the next person think twice.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Well, yes, but I think you'd need to go back to the late 1940's to find an actual conservative in high office.
A conservative is supposed to be one who conserves what is good about the current system. Not someone with wild ideas about how to take things "back to the good old days". That *never* works.
I used to describe myself as a conservative, but these days when I look around I don't see the good parts of the system being sufficient to be fixed. I sure wish I still did. So now I can't call myself conservative anymore. I want to do wild things like requiring working examples submitted with each patent request (which means source code and build tools for software). I want to restrict copyrights to 17 years...and doubt that thats enough of a restriction. I want to remove the personhood of corporations. These aren't conservative positions, because they aren't characteristic of the current state of affairs. Just "once upon a time" being conservative doesn't mean that they are now conservative.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The assertion that private industry is more efficient than government has many counter-examples. There are other reasons to prefer private industry in anything that isn't a natural monopoly, but efficiency isn't one of them. Government can actually be more efficient that private industry usually is in a monopoly situation. They could probably be as efficient as a private industry in any situation if they weren't so concerned with fraud. Fraud *is* a big problem, but, when fraud is controlled, red tape can grow into a worse problem. Red tape is what lead to the $5,000 hammer. Somebody couldn't just run down to the hardware store and pick one up, because it needed justification, and the corp. wasn't willing to do the red tape for any cheaper price.
I would go so far as to assert that whenever any industry becomes an actual monopoly (say one player with more than 75% of the market, but be explicit in defining what "the market" means) the main company should be nationalized. But that the smaller players be allowed to continue to compete wherever they can. The large player is going to cease development anyway, and concentrate on market dominance, whereas the government has less motive to concentrate on market dominance.
The problem with this, of course, is that it concentrates power into the government...but it's already got a monopoly on the legal use of force (that being the definition of a government). And it's hard to imagine a government being more intrusive than corporations have already shown themselves eager to be. (Still, that's a part of the reason that I proposed that minor players be continued to be allowed to compete.)
As a further note, this nationalization should not be seen as a punitive measure. It should be a buyout. Any punitive measures should be for laws that were broken. This is tricky, as if a nationalization were expected it would drive up the stock price, so the price should be set as the value 6 months (1 year?) before the nationalization was decided upon.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I don't think that argument works for companies that are multinationals. They might decide to leave a particular country, but if they do they're allowing competition to grow unless that country is actually unprofitable.
I'm not even sure it works in companies that operate entirely in an area covered by one particular set of tax laws. Certainly they want as much profit as they can get, but that's different from saying that if they don't get as much as they want they'll quit doing business.
Now you may be saying that investors will prefer to invest where they get the maximum return, and that's generally true, but that's a very different statement than a statement about what a company will do, or even what a particular investor will do. Some people, e.g., invest in an area because that's what they are interested in or where they are knowledgeable.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
And it's worth noting that the agreement to the Louisiana Purchase was illegal. He didn't have the authority, and Congress didn't give permission. (I don't think they even gave permission afterwards, but they generally agreed it was a good idea.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
This is highly case dependent. There are purposes for which government is so far superior to private groups that any comparison is silly. And also the other way around. The problem is in the huge middle ground.
My feeling is that any monopoly should be owned and operated by the government...and that it should be forbidden to suppress competition. But the devil is in the details. Does that mean it should charge exorbitant prices? Well, no... So what *does* it mean?
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
As a US citizen at first I wasn't too worried about this Brexit stuff, but now that we're bringing the "future of the BBC" into it I am getting very concerned about what this might do to Britons Doctor Who exports and any drop in supply there is going to have grave consequences across the pond!
This. I'm tired of wackos calling themselves conservatives when they should be calling themselves progressives, because that is what they act like.
I don't think that argument works for companies that are multinationals.
It's especially important for multinationals, because they have lots of options to avoid paying taxes. This gives them an artificial advantage over non-transnational corporations who don't have the same escape hatches. If you want to tax them where they build stuff, tax incomes. If you want to tax them where there capital comes from, tax gains. If you want to tax them where they sell stuff, tax sales.
Certainly they want as much profit as they can get, but that's different from saying that if they don't get as much as they want they'll quit doing business.
In a competitive market, they get only as much profit as that expected rate of return, in the long run. Why? Because if they make larger profits, their competitors can undersell them. If they make smaller profits, they can't attract capital and their competitors who can squeeze them out.
Now you may be saying that investors will prefer to invest where they get the maximum return, and that's generally true, but that's a very different statement than a statement about what a company will do, or even what a particular investor will do.
In isolated cases, for a short period of time, sure. Over the entire economy, and in the long run, no.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
People seem to forget just how awful the good old days actually were. There's a nostalgia filter that clouds the view looking backwards. People remember when they were kids and life was great, but that's because they were often protected and shielded from what was really going on and had few responsibilities. Especially looking back to the 40s to 60s they looked pretty good if you were white and middle class, but they pretty sucky if you a minority or poor.
You're not an accountant or economist by any stretch of the imagination.
The cost of doing business is a tax write off.
re-run that through your statement above and see how well that fits.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
You're not an accountant or economist by any stretch of the imagination.
The cost of doing business is a tax write off.
re-run that through your statement above and see how well that fits.
That makes absolutely no difference to any of what I wrote. Perhaps you should re-read it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Not really. You don't see products rising and falling in price all the time because they set price points based on all their expenses including any projected tax liability. You can even see this localized with fast food restaurants where in a small town the prices might be more or less than in another town. This is often due to localized tax burdens. You can even see this within a major metropolitan area consisting of several political divisions.
More than likely the more efficient process will be tax dodging or outsourcing and importing.
There are few breakthroughs that can make processes better or more efficient. Materials and processes are largely understood
More than likely the more efficient process will be tax dodging or outsourcing and importing.
Hilarious. So we have dormancy and stagnation in the corporate sector. CEOs plainly aren't capable of achieving innovation, don't deserve their remuneration packages and the corporations they "lead" are weak, unproductive and don't deliver.
When you see someone whining about "Libertarian blowhards" and assuming that taxation = society you know you're dealing with a statist psycopath. These are the kinds of idiots that would support the population controls of Logan's run provided it was the will of their darling elitist masters.
I love your strawmen, AC. They're so evocative!
Amazing to see Stockholm Syndrome in practice. You should free yourself from your government master, but I know you won't because you don't want to.
Go find some books or college classes on business and read them or attend the classes. Then come look at what you posted in a couple years.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Then....have you considered....scrolling down to the articles on NASA etc? I DGAF about the story on Pokemon go, but you don't see me in there whining about it like a hipster wanker.
Except that's all basic capitalist bullshit. If corporations could make more money by squeezing suppliers, employees and customers, they would just fucking do it and not wait for an excuse to do so.
You bray on, thinking your some kind of wise sage, yet you've never heard of the remedial economic principle that all prices are set to maximize revenue. You really think that companies are sitting on their current pricing structure, when an increase of 3%, 5%, 25%, whatever, would bring in more profit without losing more customers than it was worth?
Really?
Fair point, I was thinking of military matters.
The funny thing is that Louisiana wasn't France's to sell. Cheeky bastards.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Now it's pretty much the reverse. Good for minorities and welfare addicts, but increasingly harder for most everyone else. I guess Spock lost out to Kirk logic. The needs of the few are outweighing the needs of the many (but only in the West, because "white bad, white male worse")
What is hilarious is that you somehow gained that insight from what I said.
Innovation in manufacturing seems to be largely automation and outsourcing. Services industries are doing the same with the exception of using software to help in the automation. Do you think that would be true if they were constantly refining processes and finding ways to do the same work more efficiently or effectively?
Apple in Australia pays an Irish subsidiary the Australian market price for apple products. This means that Apple Australia it makes no profit from selling them on the Australian market: even a loss. Of course Apple in Ireland makeas a huge profit. So Apple Australia pays no tax to the Australian Government. This is tax evasion at its very worst. Australia has to find a way to string Apple up by its balls.
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.