Re: Two tier Britain
> You are either missing the point or ignoring it - you are fudging revenue and profit. The consumer pays even more, unless your scheme gets *all* companies to proportionally reduce their profit.
There is no rule that says that tax must only be paid on profit rather than revenue.
In fact, the cause of most tax avoidance is that we tax profits, so companies just create paper losses in order to avoid tax.
> Nothing in your scheme enforces a transition of reduced profits to keep the consumer price the same.
Competition. It's the reason why prices aren't currently higher than they are.
> To what end? Amazon will slap the VAT increase on the price. They are not getting their advantage because ACBE pays more cTax. By your own logic - owners and customer pay, so ACBE has more cash, but has new costs. Meanwhile Amazon escapes the cost overheads by setting up elsewhere.
To extract tax revenue from activity by multinationals rather than just from SME's.
The bigger the company, the easier it is for them to avoid tax. Starbucks doesn't pay tax in the UK because it makes a paper loss. It does this by buying its coffee at hugely inflated prices from its Luxembourg subsidiary.
All we care about is how do we fund the state without taxing the poorest too much and without driving away business.
The idea that we have to try and fail to tax Amazon's profits or Starbucks' profits is just pointless.
> The only way is to reduce VAT, eliminate (all?) other taxes, on the presumption that the "lost" taxes will come through to compensate. Isn't that a tax haven?
No, increase VAT to compensate for the lost revenue.
It would be considered a tax haven. America benefits hugely from the current asymmetrical arrangement and they wouldn't be happy.
Also this won't happen because it looks like giving tax breaks to companies and making the individual pay. It isn't that. Not really.
But regardless of what will happen, this is what we should do.