Mistakes such as these should disqualify ____ from pontificating about taxation or redistribution*

But here is the shocker: the Treasury now admits that the companies can offset most of the £910m cost of these schemes against corporation tax. Not only is this not a windfall, the taxpayer is paying.

Erm, Polly, are you seriously trying to tell us that you didn\’t know this? That corporation tax is only paid upon profits? That is, on what is left after the costs of doing business? So that if the costs of doing business rise then profits fall and so does the amount subject to corporation tax?

And you consider yourself qualified to pontificate about taxation and redistribution?

 

*Polly Toynbee and David Walker.

2 thoughts on “Mistakes such as these should disqualify ____ from pontificating about taxation or redistribution*”

  1. I think while we’re clearing out the whole New Labour shower this time we should really get rid of the right-on types in the media. Candiru fish, lamp posts and piano wire, being torn apart by five horses … I don’t mind the method, but enough of the stupidity.

  2. I gave up with pea-brain polly years ago, but I think that you should have pointed out that the Treasury (not,lol the “taxpayer” as pol’s favourite class probably don’t pay tax) is losing out to the extent of the corporation tax otherwise due, had the extra costs not been levied.

    This would be 28% of £910M i.e., £255M. ofc if the energy companies pass on the costs to the consumer, their profits will rise and the Treasury will gain back some or all of this tax.

    The danger of criticising pol is that one never really knows where to start, nor where to end. In less than 40 words there are two conceptual errors and two factual mistakes. Par for the course really…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *