tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29618513.post7783188808912532982..comments2023-09-13T09:59:36.013+01:00Comments on snowflake5: Corporate Profitability at a Record Highsnowflake5http://www.blogger.com/profile/14700425293614182769noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29618513.post-38848337824031237272007-04-08T02:01:00.000+01:002007-04-08T02:01:00.000+01:00Snowflake, thanks for taking the time to consider ...Snowflake, thanks for taking the time to consider my comments. I don't think that we are to far apart in opinions, I worry sometimes about what people think of Mr Brown, but generally agree that he has done an excellent job!JRD168https://www.blogger.com/profile/11623002999736612354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29618513.post-34504995821868914262007-04-05T17:02:00.000+01:002007-04-05T17:02:00.000+01:00For once I would actually agree with your closing ...For once I would actually agree with your closing question and answer, but it's the wrong question.<BR/><BR/>The cut in corporation tax from 33% to 30% (28% won't come in for a year at least) was itself more than cancelled out by the increase in Employer's NI from 10% to 12.8%. Total salaries paid out are about five times as much as taxable profits, so the total taxes received go up a lot as a Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29618513.post-62107140488416472182007-04-05T12:31:00.000+01:002007-04-05T12:31:00.000+01:00The pensions row isn't about pension contributions...The pensions row isn't about pension contributions jrd, it's about tax relief on dividends. I'm merely pointing out that whatever the pension fund shareholders lost on the tax credit on dividends, they gained through increased corporate profitability, which means that future dividends will be higher.<BR/><BR/>Pensions contributions are a separate issue. Nigel Lawson in 1988 decided to tax pensionsnowflake5https://www.blogger.com/profile/14700425293614182769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29618513.post-83063686250113328002007-04-05T09:42:00.000+01:002007-04-05T09:42:00.000+01:00So, any shortfall in pension contributions should ...So, any shortfall in pension contributions should have been covered by increasing share prices, and therefore increased value of pension funds. And this has at least partly been brought about by cuts in corporation tax? It seems to make sense, is it not a somewhat risky strategy thoughy, relying on the whims of the stock market?JRD168https://www.blogger.com/profile/11623002999736612354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29618513.post-52355582456976676092007-04-04T14:52:00.000+01:002007-04-04T14:52:00.000+01:00No, jrd, I'm not talking about money being diverte...No, jrd, I'm not talking about money being diverted to pensions in the form of increased contributions. I'm talking about the situation of the pension funds as <I>shareholders</I>.<BR/><BR/>As shareholders, they receive dividends. They can also realise the value of the shares they hold by selling them. The current row about pensions concerns the abolition of ACT. Pension funds used to be able to snowflake5https://www.blogger.com/profile/14700425293614182769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29618513.post-79275161447062317792007-04-04T14:27:00.000+01:002007-04-04T14:27:00.000+01:00Is this susggesting then Snowflake, that any short...Is this susggesting then Snowflake, that any shortfall in pensions should have been paid for from the increasing profits of our companies? Was it naive to expect some of the fall inm corporation taxes to have been diverted into pensions?JRD168https://www.blogger.com/profile/11623002999736612354noreply@blogger.com