Potus ???

[Johnsond]

1 hour ago, Steven P said:

But if you were in his position, what would you be doing? Easing the taxes on the rich to pass the taxes onto poor, a blanket tax rise? Tax corporations? What do you think the best way to balance the books are?

😂 Just blag  it SP big time like you do 

[Steven P]

14 hours ago, GarethM said:

Personally I'd get rid of the offsetting tax things using charity.

 

That's how the rich reduce tax in the USA, whilst you can argue it's good for museums etc as that's why we had a lot of libraries here funded in part by Carnegie.

 

Not sure how much that would bring in, usually a lot of small amounts brings bigger returns than a few larger amounts... but the lots of small stuff is usually from the lower rungs of the ladder... his base support so perhaps not the best option (and one I wouldn't do either)

 

Yup, though a lot of loop holes could be plugged... though that will of course affect the wealthy who can afford the accountant to tell them what to do. I'd also look at plugging companies off shore rules (example, Starbucks? I think HQ is in the Bahamas? zero corporation tax and all their shops pay a license fee to them there... equal pretty much to each stores annual profit... same with googles and so on.. that is worth  few billion too

 

So far then, plug the loopholes and don't do the tax cuts? Actually that just might be enough. Still don't buy Greenland though.

[GarethM]

10 minutes ago, Steven P said:

 

Not sure how much that would bring in, usually a lot of small amounts brings bigger returns than a few larger amounts... but the lots of small stuff is usually from the lower rungs of the ladder... his base support so perhaps not the best option (and one I wouldn't do either)

 

Yup, though a lot of loop holes could be plugged... though that will of course affect the wealthy who can afford the accountant to tell them what to do. I'd also look at plugging companies off shore rules (example, Starbucks? I think HQ is in the Bahamas? zero corporation tax and all their shops pay a license fee to them there... equal pretty much to each stores annual profit... same with googles and so on.. that is worth  few billion too

 

So far then, plug the loopholes and don't do the tax cuts? Actually that just might be enough. Still don't buy Greenland though.

Thing is the whole charity thing is effectively tax offset not avoiding tax, they still pay a percentage but it doesn't go to the government.

 

The Starbucks example is the same for Amazon, Google, Microsoft etc. The same Ikea 30% profit model, every layer is separate including trademark and royalties.

 

It's legal because they only tax whichever layer and where, it the same thing Branson does leasing the virgin name.

 

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but you make a system as simple as possible and it gets followed, same as here it 600+ pages of vagueness.

 

Wasn't the usa system created because of Rockefeller or similar his earnings were like 5 times the USA ?.

Edited yesterday at 12:22 by GarethM

[Johnsond]

35 minutes ago, GarethM said:

Thing is the whole charity thing is effectively tax offset not avoiding tax, they still pay a percentage but it doesn't go to the government.

 

The Starbucks example is the same for Amazon, Google, Microsoft etc. The same Ikea 30% profit model, every layer is separate including trademark and royalties.

 

It's legal because they only tax whichever layer and where, it the same thing Branson does leasing the virgin name.

 

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but you make a system as simple as possible and it gets followed, same as here it 600+ pages of vagueness.

 

Wasn't the usa system created because of Rockefeller or similar his earnings were like 5 times the USA ?.

Far worse Gareth 

[Johnsond]

44 minutes ago, Steven P said:

 

Not sure how much that would bring in, usually a lot of small amounts brings bigger returns than a few larger amounts... but the lots of small stuff is usually from the lower rungs of the ladder... his base support so perhaps not the best option (and one I wouldn't do either)

 

Yup, though a lot of loop holes could be plugged... though that will of course affect the wealthy who can afford the accountant to tell them what to do. I'd also look at plugging companies off shore rules (example, Starbucks? I think HQ is in the Bahamas? zero corporation tax and all their shops pay a license fee to them there... equal pretty much to each stores annual profit... same with googles and so on.. that is worth  few billion too

 

So far then, plug the loopholes and don't do the tax cuts? Actually that just might be enough. Still don't buy Greenland though.

You base this from the perspective of a self employed or employed person ???? doing what role in which industry/sector SP 🤔🤷‍♂️????? 

[GarethM]

Just now, Johnsond said:

Far worse Gareth 

Yes I'm aware it's much much longer, it was supposedly around 600 before the financial wonderkin Gordon started playing and smudging things.

 

Then surprise surprise cilla it all went to the dogs. You make it complex and collapses happen and dodgy dealings, that my point.

[Steven P]

2 hours ago, GarethM said:

Thing is the whole charity thing is effectively tax offset not avoiding tax, they still pay a percentage but it doesn't go to the government.

 

The Starbucks example is the same for Amazon, Google, Microsoft etc. The same Ikea 30% profit model, every layer is separate including trademark and royalties.

 

It's legal because they only tax whichever layer and where, it the same thing Branson does leasing the virgin name.

 

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but you make a system as simple as possible and it gets followed, same as here it 600+ pages of vagueness.

 

Wasn't the usa system created because of Rockefeller or similar his earnings were like 5 times the USA ?.

 

Yes, it was something like Rockefeller, can't remember exactly now.

 

It is all legal but not right when the 'profit' of a sale in one country is seen in another country (coffee being a great example). Close off that loop hole and you'd get a lot of profits taxed - a worldwide problem (however the flip side is that the big insurance firms 'own' the big corporations, get them paying more tax and our pension pots will be smaller... but our tax burden could be reduced to compensate (it wouldn't be) )

[Johnsond]

24 minutes ago, Steven P said:

 

Yes, it was something like Rockefeller, can't remember exactly now.

 

It is all legal but not right when the 'profit' of a sale in one country is seen in another country (coffee being a great example). Close off that loop hole and you'd get a lot of profits taxed - a worldwide problem (however the flip side is that the big insurance firms 'own' the big corporations, get them paying more tax and our pension pots will be smaller... but our tax burden could be reduced to compensate (it wouldn't be) )

I’ll repeat the question SP yet again, you base this on your perspective from what ??  🤷‍♂️now is that one of a self employed or employed person? In what sector and  In what role ??? 
Anyone would think you didn’t want to answer a simple question 🤔a prolific poster with plenty to say on a wide range of topics yet strangely silent regarding this. 

[Mark J]

3 hours ago, Johnsond said:

I’ll repeat the question SP yet again, you base this on your perspective from what ??  🤷‍♂️now is that one of a self employed or employed person? In what sector and  In what role ??? 
Anyone would think you didn’t want to answer a simple question 🤔a prolific poster with plenty to say on a wide range of topics yet strangely silent regarding this. 

Donald Trump's 'voting computers' comment sparks Elon Musk speculation

WWW.NEWSWEEK.COM

---

After Donald Trump called Elon Musk an expert in "voting computers," some viewers speculated that the remark raised questions about election integrity.

 

[Johnsond]

16 minutes ago, Mark J said:

Donald Trump's 'voting computers' comment sparks Elon Musk speculation

WWW.NEWSWEEK.COM

---

After Donald Trump called Elon Musk an expert in "voting computers," some viewers speculated that the remark raised questions about election integrity.

 

😂🤷‍♂️As my school report used to say Mark “ must try harder” 

Edited yesterday at 19:13 by Johnsond