Facebook pay no Corporation Tax AGAIN
Discussion
fblm said:
A better analogy would be that you tell us a suspension system was performing better than another and the accelerometer data proves it only for some idiot to say he had never heard of an accelerometer and knew nothing about suspension because he was an economist but that your data was pointless and had no relevance and he didn't care anyway. You would rightly surmise that that person was an ignorant muppet.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
This has very little to do with Dunning or Kruger. I'm not quite autistic enough to tell someone they're wrong because data; if someone is telling me the car is difficult to drive, then it doesn't matter how much data I put in front of them - the subjective report will never change. He isn't trying to outsmart me by saying it's irrelevant, he's just saying it makes no difference to his experience of driving my car.http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
fblm said:
IF the OECD do want to make Facebook pay more tax do you think it might be because the people who pay for the OECD, you know, want more tax or want to be seen to be doing something to keep some shouty voters happy? Could that be a possibility?
Considering "shouty voters" are the people of a country - i.e. those who collecting taxes is supposed to serve - then I'd bloody well hope so.Anyway.. sidicks, this doesn't count. I want YOUR answer.
sidicks said:
CamMoreRon said:
Anyway.. sidicks, this doesn't count. I want YOUR answer.
I'm not quite sure why you expect me to respond on behalf on the OECD when you've not even provided a link to their statement...Maybe you should ask them why they've said what you allege?
I'm simply stating that they can say what they like, it doesn't make it accurate or 'fair' 'moral' or any other subjective word you care to use.
By the way, you keep avoiding the issue:
What have they said about Facebook?
Oh and where is your engineering degree from - you keep ducking the issue...
I'll answer some of yours to show that it is possible: 1 - Nothing specific that I know of, but then I never asserted they had and don't think anyone else did either; 2 - I'm not doxxing myself for you and I fail to see how it's relevant. I figure you ask as some attempt to gauge the worthiness of my degree based on the institution I was awarded it from, so I'll give you a clue: it is regarded the best in the UK for my particular area of study.
markh1973 said:
Then maybe some simple maths will help you.
If they pay someone £100k per annum the income tax/employee's NI on that is roughly £35k. On top of that is roughly another £13k of Employer's NI. So that's £48k of tax plus any VAT they incur when they spend the £65k they receive.
If the company hadn't paid that £113k out of the door then they would have paid (in the 2014/15 tax year) 21% CT on that - £23,730.
So which route gives the Government more tax??
Right. That's all fair enough, but you've assumed your company gives all profit to the employees as wages.If they pay someone £100k per annum the income tax/employee's NI on that is roughly £35k. On top of that is roughly another £13k of Employer's NI. So that's £48k of tax plus any VAT they incur when they spend the £65k they receive.
If the company hadn't paid that £113k out of the door then they would have paid (in the 2014/15 tax year) 21% CT on that - £23,730.
So which route gives the Government more tax??
sidicks said:
CamMoreRon said:
I'm not asking you to respond on behalf of the OECD, I want to hear your opinion. I know what the answer is, and I know you know what the answer is. Your reluctance to give me that answer is because with those words your defense of tax avoidance as "OK" will completely fall to pieces.
Absolute rubbish, as with all your posts on this type of stuff you demonstrably know very little about.CamMoreRon said:
I'll answer some of yours to show that it is possible: 1 - Nothing specific that I know of, but then I never asserted they had and don't think anyone else did either.
And there was the rest of us thinking you might have actually posted something vaguely relevant to the topic under discussion...
Thank you for proving me right. Not a contributor, just an echo chamber of denial.PS - OECD's push for tax reform is relevant, even if it hasn't specifically mentioned Facebook.
bobbylondonuk said:
Never debate with (cam)morons, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Dude, you really need to evaluate your position on this. I know you are stubborn. But right now you come across as a 6 yr old throwing a tantrum in the supermarket.
Dude, you really need to evaluate your position on this. I know you are stubborn. But right now you come across as a 6 yr old throwing a tantrum in the supermarket.
This is only going to make me sound more stubborn, but I think you guys need to evaluate your position on this. If OECD are proposing changing the law to limit companies from using intangible assets to wipe out reported profit, doesn't that strongly suggest that the behaviour of those companies was deemed unacceptable?
sidicks said:
What has intangible assets got to do with Facebook?
What authority do OECD have to change UK or European law?
As per your first post on this thread, Facebook made no profit because of high wages...
And as has also been demonstrated, this would have led to higher tax income in aggregate....
I didn't say they have authority, I said they were calling for it - i.e. trying to push governments to act on their advice.What authority do OECD have to change UK or European law?
As per your first post on this thread, Facebook made no profit because of high wages...
And as has also been demonstrated, this would have led to higher tax income in aggregate....
Facebook declared that the profit made here was wiped out (and then some) by their wage bill, but that's because they don't record profits made in this country here, they record them in Ireland.
I'm perfectly happy to admit I'm not an economics expert, and that my understanding of the intricacies of multinationals is limited. As with my car customer I don't think that restricts me from having an opinion, and certainly my opinion about the morality of how some MNC's conduct their tax affairs is something I'm perfectly entitled to have, given the evidence put in front of me. I can change that opinion if shown undeniable facts, and I'm more than happy for anyone to present them to me, but I think you'll have a very hard time finding a transparent report from a company who engages in this kind of behaviour. I see no tax paid in the UK, shell company in a tax haven, and massive declared profits and my gut instinct it that something stinks.
Mrr T said:
So CamMoreRun I have 2 questions for you:
1. Who pays the Corporation Tax you wish to increase?
2. Do you favour leaving the EU?
1 - I don't wish to increase CT.. I just want to see less "record profits for xxx company, no tax paid in UK" stories from those who cheat the system.1. Who pays the Corporation Tax you wish to increase?
2. Do you favour leaving the EU?
2 - I honestly haven't made up my mind.
sidicks said:
Let's make it very simple for you:
Facebook did not make a profit in the UK
This was due to high wages on which UK tax was paid (at a higher rate).
What is the problem?
Your claim about 'record profits' does not refer to the UK and is therefore irrelevant in this context.
Please take 2 seconds to understand the basics!
Facebook did not declare a profit in the UK.. that's not to say that services run in the UK were not profitable. Facebook did not make a profit in the UK
This was due to high wages on which UK tax was paid (at a higher rate).
What is the problem?
Your claim about 'record profits' does not refer to the UK and is therefore irrelevant in this context.
Please take 2 seconds to understand the basics!
Edited by CamMoreRon on Monday 27th October 19:03
Rovinghawk said:
No.
You've consistently stated that FB (& others) don't pay the 'right' amount of tax.
In order to hold this opinion, surely you should have some idea as to what this 'right' amount is.
Either tell us how much you think is due (with some reasons) or accept that your opinion is not based on any actual numerical figures.
Ten quid alright?You've consistently stated that FB (& others) don't pay the 'right' amount of tax.
In order to hold this opinion, surely you should have some idea as to what this 'right' amount is.
Either tell us how much you think is due (with some reasons) or accept that your opinion is not based on any actual numerical figures.
It would have been more alright than £0.. that's for sure.
Neither of us can back up our opinion. All you have to go on is headline figures, you cannot prove that those declared numbers are genuine. From that headline I can pick a different set of numbers to you and say they don't stack up, and you would have nothing to prove that to be false.
sidicks said:
CamMoreRon said:
Facebook did not [i]declare[i/] a profit in the UK.. that's not to say that services run in the UK were not profitable.
From what I've read, their revenues were outweighed by their costs (mainly wages) and so under the standard definition of taxable profits, there was no tax due.Do you have additional information they you can share with us to support you claims, that in this accounting period, the UK Facebook entity made a profit that should have been taxed??
And this is why OECD are pushing for change. Under the current tax laws, nothing illegal has happened. However, we all know (just some choose to deny) that FB have abused the system and are morally (if not legally, on investigation) in the wrong.
sidicks said:
What you claim, what you think you know and what you actually know are two vastly different things, as repeatedly demonstrated.
And where are the OECD suggesting that wages are not legitimate costs which can be deducted to calculate taxable profits.
A link would be helpful...
What do you do for a living again?And where are the OECD suggesting that wages are not legitimate costs which can be deducted to calculate taxable profits.
A link would be helpful...
Where did you go to university?
Can you show me a copy of Facebook's wage bill? A link would be helpful..
(I can dodge questions too)
sidicks said:
markh1973 said:
Just thought I would present some actual facts
Generally not required in threads started by CamMoreRon!Good to know that HMRC aren't satisfied like the denialists state.. funny how that blanket assertion was rolled back pretty quickly when somebody said they had seen the accounts.
sidicks said:
I think (as ever) you misunderstand. No-one suggested that HMRC were dissatisfied. Just that, given the timing, we can't confirm that they ARE satisfied yet, although there is no reason to suspect that they won't be (I believe that the figures are broadly similar to the previous year).
You do understand the difference?
I understand. But you believing by default that HMRC won't object because they haven't had time to review it yet is different to me calling foul play, how, exactly?You do understand the difference?
We're both firmly in the opinion camp, let's be honest.
sidicks said:
My opinion is based on:
1. The accounts have been audited
2. The figures are broadly similar to the figures from the previous year which HMRC were happy with.
Your opinion is based on:
Absolutely nothing intelligible whatsoever.
Regardless, this is getting boring, you creating random threads accusing companies of inappropriate behaviour with not a shred of evidence to support your claims.
My opinion based on:1. The accounts have been audited
2. The figures are broadly similar to the figures from the previous year which HMRC were happy with.
Your opinion is based on:
Absolutely nothing intelligible whatsoever.
Regardless, this is getting boring, you creating random threads accusing companies of inappropriate behaviour with not a shred of evidence to support your claims.
1 - Amoral MNC's do this s
t all the time.2 - OECD call for tighter regulation & auditing.
Actually this is the first thread I have created.
If you're bored.. stop.. posting? You aren't going to change my mind with your posting style anyway.sidicks said:
1. So you keep claiming, based on ignorance rather than evidence.
2. They have said nothing about Facebook and nothing about not being able to offset wages as costs against revenue or about carrying forward losses, the same basic rules that apply to every other company - small, large, local, national or international.
You won't change your mind about anything as you refuse to read anything that contradicts your view, especially from those who know demonstrably more than you.
It must be very strange being someone who actually knows about half of what they think they do!
You must have heard more stories like this, surely? Every now and then one will be forced to pay back CT. Starbucks evern agreed to pay more CT to try and win back customers.. what does that say?2. They have said nothing about Facebook and nothing about not being able to offset wages as costs against revenue or about carrying forward losses, the same basic rules that apply to every other company - small, large, local, national or international.
You won't change your mind about anything as you refuse to read anything that contradicts your view, especially from those who know demonstrably more than you.
It must be very strange being someone who actually knows about half of what they think they do!
I never claimed OECD had said anything about Facebook; you're clearly mistaken. I just noted that it was interesting they were pushing for companies like that to pay more tax.
No.. I will read things that contradict my view when they're put to me in a reasonable and constructive manner. "You're stupid and ignorant and everything you say is wrong" is not a constructive argument. If you speak to me like that I'm just going to go out of my way to make things difficult for you.
sidicks said:
CamMoreRon said:
You must have heard more stories like this, surely? Every now and then one will be forced to pay back CT. Starbucks even agreed to pay more CT to try and win back customers.. what does that say?
Again you are misinformed. Starbucks were not forced to payback anything.sidicks said:
CamMoreRon said:
No.. I will read things that contradict my view when they're put to me in a reasonable and constructive manner. "You're stupid and ignorant and everything you say is wrong" is not a constructive argument. If you speak to me like that I'm just going to go out of my way to make things difficult for you.
Now you're making threats?!! You'd have trouble 'making things difficult' for a small child, so I'm not unduly concerned.I think you and I are surprisingly alike.. clearly neither of us is going to drop this.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff