And here's a full interactive version that lets you compare rates and revenues for any countries across the OECD: taxpolicy.org.uk/corp_tax_histo…
Comparing tax revenues as a % of GDP is imperfect, as clearly corporate profits are higher in some countries (eg Luxembourg) than others (eg Portugal). But unfortunately finding comparable data on corporate profits is hard.
Once upon a time, in a far away land, some wonderful publishers told us they'd love to make ebooks cheaper for everybody, if only the Government would break the curse of VAT.
You'll never guess the truly unforgettable twist ending...
The curse of VAT was magically abolished, but ebooks didn't become cheaper.
Instead, those clever publishers kept all the money - £200m - for themselves, and lived happily ever after.
The end.
And, courtesy of chatGPT, here's the fairytale version with a happy ending:
Everyone who believes this fairytale is welcome to listen to the next lobbyist who comes telling wild tales of benefits to consumers, if only their VAT could be cut
Finally a response from the Post Office to the tax scandal, in a letter in today's Times. But not good enough:
1. failure to accept responsibility: the "unfairness" in question was created by the Post Office's failures - not adjusting compensation to reflect higher tax bands, not paying for victims' tax advice, and making misleading statements on tax in its settlements.
2. no urgency: the Post Office has been aware of the problem since the Mail approached them for its story on the 16th. It then took my team (working for free) a couple of days to identify the issues. Why does it take the Post Office so much longer?
You're asked to act for Yevgeniy Prigozhin. He's sanctioned by the US/UK/EU, accused of having $m of illegal wealth, and widely reported to lead a violent mercenary group, Wagner.
He wants you to sue @EliotHiggins for saying he runs Wagner.
I've a column in the Times on the tax scandal within the Post Office scandal. Postmasters finally receiving compensation for being falsely accused of theft will have to pay tax on it.
I wrote to the Post Office yesterday to ask them to explain why they'd left postmasters and postmistresses in this position, and what they proposed to do about it:
Retailers have assured Amy that the benefit of any VAT cut will be passed onto consumers. They may even believe it; but history shows they won't deliver it. The VAT cut would just end up as corporate profit.
The standard economics answer is counterintuitive - the more competitive a market is, the *less* likely a VAT cut is to be passed to consumers. Why?
Because in a competitive market, VAT won't have been fully passed on to start with, so there's less VAT built-in to reverse.
And it's very hard for us to spot what retailers are doing, given that prices are highly variable due to a complex mixture of supply and demand factors (e.g. this chart shows pricing movements for ebooks).