Large companies pay tax on profits but voters don’t; they pay on income.
Why?
If we paid voter tax, on profit instead of income, we could pay zero tax, too.
All you have to do is maximise your costs.
You buy a big house, a big car, best quality food and best quality clothing.
Correction.
Don’t buy:- Rent, wherever possible, with annual refurbishment of latest model computer, ipad, car etc.
It’s very easy to match income with living costs, unless you’re really creaming it in, like the P.M.. Then you’d have to find a reason to buy some property abroad. Maybe a mews house in Mayfair, so you can do your Xmas shopping in Oxford Street, or ditto New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong etc.
This is what Companies are doing and it’s only justification is that an income tax would stifle company need to re-invest and this is not valid.
If my tax bill is too high, I’m expected to cut my costs, like a State pensioner, to a level where I can claim a begrudged State aid to a survival level.
If my work costs are too large (e.g. the commute), I’m expected to change my job and/or get better pay. If my food bills are too high, I’m expected to eat less, or cut my social spending. If my family increases in size, unexpectedly, I’m supposed to bear the cost, after a certain allowance.
It seems, as far as Government is concerned, that The Poor are a millstone and “If they would rather die,’ said Scrooge, ‘they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population”.
I know that companies are wealth and job creator’s and need to be encouraged. I know that many rely on value added for their profit margin but the problem seems to rely on giving too much weight to their nett income and how it’s defined.
When building a ship, I have to buy steel, as a raw material. I don’t have to buy luxury offices, or hire machines etc. which mostly stand idle. I don’t have to incentivise myself with bonuses and large share dividends.
Make companies pay tax on Gross income and only allow reductions on items, which are made open to public scrutiny and approval. If costs are so commercially sensitive that they can’t be made public, then they are not entitled to be offset against tax. That, for me, is on par with an individual asking for tax relief on their socially sensitive expenses.
Let the public decide what is an allowable cost, not some HMRC official, or coterie of corruptible politicians.
Just being brought up in Britain inculcates Christian values and in that sense, we are all Christians
January 25, 2016I would apply this to those who are atheist and openly despise religion.
Those, who say this is divisive, are correct to the extent that it separates those accepting the spirit of Jesus’s teachings from those who embrace the teachings of the old testament.
We do not abide by the rules set up for an unsophisticated desert tribe, as set out in Leviticus.
We no longer need to increase our numbers to make our tribe more powerful, punishing homosexuality and praising fecundity.
Life is important, it is not sacred. (Consider that Jesus gave up his).
Jesus wanted us to live in peace and tolerate those, who are different.
He taught that we should help one another and support the weak, as in the parable of The Good Samaritan.
Maybe, one day, David Cameron will decide to join us and adopt Christian values for himself.
Tags:Christian values
Posted in comments | Leave a Comment »