Friday 24 June 2011

One-sided Economics by people who don't know as much as they pretend they do

From a reader's letter in yesterday's Times (it's a very old fashioned organisation so they don't put their stuff online):

Mr Cameron... should look at taxing profits which stay in companies and are re-invested in markets and products differently from those that are paid in dividends and buy backs..."

Bob Bishoff, Managing Partner, SCCO International


OK, here's a crash course in calculating corporation tax for people who have better things to do than making their "clients more valuable by providing solutions to the key management issues of Strategy and Structure."

1. You calculate the company's profits under normal accounting rules.

2. In arriving at the company's profits under normal accounting rules you DEDUCT amounts that are spent on market research, R&D, product development, staff training, machinery, advertising etc (unless you are an idiot and don't deduct them).

3. Therefore, by definition, that part of a company's income which is re-invested in the business is excluded from accounting profits because it's not profit - it's an expense.

4. There's then a bit of tomfoolery with add-backs and deductions, timing differences etc blah blah, which even out in the grander scheme of things to arrive at taxable profits (overall, taxable profits are much the same as accounting profits, sometimes higher, sometimes lower).

5. You multiply taxable profits by the corporation tax rate and that's your corporation tax bill.

6. Therefore, only a complete moron would accuse the government of taxing re-invested profits at too high a rate, because the government does not tax re-invested profits at all because amounts re-invested in the business do not count as profits in the first place!!

Twat points to the first person to leave a comment saying that "But a company doesn't get tax relief for money it spends on land and buildings". Firstly, if you are a tenant you get a full deduction for the rents you pay; secondly, if you buy land and buildings, you still get a tax deduction for the interest you pay on the loan; and finally although you can't claim much in the way of capital allowances any more, IBAs having been phased out, there is very little tax on the increase in value of the land and buildings, so fair's fair.

9 comments:

Lola said...

Having clicked through to SCCO International I must say that is one of the mosrt annoyingly smug websites ever.

I also clicked on their thingy about bonuses -all very well, but it is based on flawed economics. The whole banks bonus thing goes away if THE BASTARDS ARE NOT STOPPED FROM FAILING.

Wankers.

James said...

Where did you say you got your accountancy/tax training from....?

Capital investment is not expensed and therefore does not give immediate relief on tax paid.

The capital investment is capitalised and depreciated. The depreciation of the asset reduces profits but is added back for tax purposes.

Tax relief unusallly arises through capital allowances. These can be used by governments to give quicker or slower relief. By speeding up the relief you effectively encourage investment by offering an up-front tax break.

If you are going to refer to twats and idiots - maybe make sure your own post stands up first.

Bayard said...

L, I think rather that "the whole banks bonus thing is none of our business if THE BASTARDS ARE NOT BAILED OUT WITH PUBLIC MONEY." Otherwise it's just the Politics of Envy.

Mark Wadsworth said...

L, agreed.

J, it helps to look at the bigger picture...

a) it is a peculiarity of the UK tax system that accounts depreciation is disallowed and capital allowances given instead. Most civilised countries just allow depreciation, so the problem - if there is one - is a particular stupid quirk in the UK tax system and not 'corporation tax' as a general concept.

b) In the long run, it evens out, and for a mature business you'll find that the accounts depreciation tends to level out at the same as the capital allowances. So the whole adding back and deducting procedure is enormous fun for accountants but pretty pointless.

c) Also, in the longer run, the cash a business spends on new kit every year tends to be the same as the accounts depreciation/capital allowances on the old kit and new kit added together, so on a pure cash flow basis, it is only spare cash kept in the business which is liable to corporation tax.

Mark Wadsworth said...

B, fair point, but there is a difference between a footballer earning £5 million a year which doesn't cost me a penny and a banker being paid £5 million a year which costs me or the economy rather more than £5 million.

Scott Wright said...

"Mr Cameron... should look at taxing profits which stay in companies and are re-invested in markets and products differently from those that are paid in dividends and buy backs..."

Reading between the lines, my understanding of their version of "re-invested" is the amount added to reserves. The only feasible way to lower taxes on this manner of "re-investment" would be to lower the headline rate of corporation tax & increase the tax on distributions which OH WAIT they have done......... 26% and still falling

Mark Wadsworth said...

SW, exactly. So the relative tax burden between VATable businesses and non-VATable (farmers, home owners and home builders, banking & insurance) just got that much bigger:

Non-VATable businesses used to pay 28% CT and now they pay 26%.

VATable businesses - used to pay 28% CT + 17.5% VAT = 45.5%, now they pay 26% CT and 20% VAT = 46%.

So four VATable businesses are paying 0.5% more so that one non-VATable business can pay 2% less.

Bayard said...

"but there is a difference between a footballer earning £5 million a year which doesn't cost me a penny and a banker being paid £5 million a year which costs me or the economy rather more than £5 million."

There is? Please explain. AFAICS in both cases the money is coming out of the productive economy and being given to someone who will put a large part of it back into the productive economy. Banks making huge profits is a (inter)national scandal, as it can only be done by running a cartel or with government assistance. Bankers being paid huge salaries is merely a symptom of that malaise.

Mark Wadsworth said...

B, football is part of the productive economy - people pay to be entertained. Footballers' wages are partly by fans and largely by oligarchs who take rents and use them to subsidise mass entertainment. And like I say, their salaries don't cost me as a taxpaying non-football non-Sky subscribing person a single penny.

Bankers on the other hand are merely privatised tax/rent collectors who depress the productive economy.