Re: Re: Smithfield Market Development
plenty of jurisdictions are happy to invest money without disclosing details to your home tax authorities – so long as they believe that you are not a criminal. Try Switzerland.
Sure, if you’re prepared to ignore the laws of the land and risk the repercussions, there are lots of ways of increasing your wealth (including robbing post offices). What’s your point here? Because it might be possible for people to break the law and evade paying tax we should give them tax relief as a pre-emptive measure?
You are correct about that it would be only 44% of the 72 million foregone in tax revenue.
Any number of conditions may be attached to tax relief – I don’t understand your point here.
That’s not the case. Section 23 is a very blunt instrument; the authorities cannot apply stipulations on a site by site basis, for example.
TP, the anti-cyclical argument is an interesting one but I’m not fully convinced by it. The EU/ECB has belatedly recongnised that the government borrowing cap is a bad idea and that governments (currently Germany and France) should be allowed to borrow in a downturn in order to increase the money in the economy according to classic Keynesian economic theory. A significant factor for the government using inefficient tax incentive schemes and PPPs to boost capital investment in the country was in order to keep debt off the books to meet the ECB’s criteria. That pressure is now gone. Anyway, It is always better to have the option available to to cut spending on areas that don’t need it. In a recession, for example, the government could quickly respond to the fact that no more holiday homes are needed and cut that budget, diverting the spending into activities which would boost economic activity.