A superb Speech and Vow by Cameron well above expectations
Discussion
sidicks said:
How can you claim your points are valid if they are not based on any form of knowledge, expertise or informed analysis?
..Ah, the 'someone else can pay more' routine. As I suspected.
What about all those Amazon customers, how will they feel about significant price increases?
Spectacular dodge once again.. congratulations. If you were serious about that you would qualify it by telling me how YOU are more qualified than me to understand the situation. But again, you are trying to control the discussion and frame the focus on the legitimacy of my opinions rather than trying to provide some evidence of your own...Ah, the 'someone else can pay more' routine. As I suspected.
What about all those Amazon customers, how will they feel about significant price increases?
I imagine that they would simply SHOP ELSEWHERE.
I mean.. are you serious? What would you do if Amazon put up their prices.. well, I would take my business elsewhere! Amazon are not the sole supplier of things in this country! I haven't shopped at Amazon for years (since I found out about their tax scams) and have managed perfectly well.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that Amazon's margins are so fine that they would have no option but to increase prices if they were made to pay their UK tax obligations? Please..
Edited by CamMoreRon on Thursday 2nd October 16:38
5pen said:
CamMoreRon said:
My brother, for example, runs a successful printing business. His profits are in the region of £100k annually, and he is obligated by the law to hand over ~20% of that to the government. He employs 6 people and pays them a living wage.
Amazon, on the other hand, made a UK turnover of £6.5 BILLION in 2012, and paid £3.2 MILLION. They have, because they can afford to have, complex systems that reduce their tax burden by exploiting the laws we have and making use of tax havens.
My bold. Apples v Oranges?Amazon, on the other hand, made a UK turnover of £6.5 BILLION in 2012, and paid £3.2 MILLION. They have, because they can afford to have, complex systems that reduce their tax burden by exploiting the laws we have and making use of tax havens.
dirty boy said:
This is all very miss-guided. It's also worth pointing out that a company doesn't have to make a profit to make a contribution to an economy.
Vodafone made massive losses once upon a time and paid no tax, yet it's clear to see that particular company has had a positive effect on the UK economy over its lifetime. Whether that be employment, infrastructure or even research and development.
Encouraging businesses in the UK through low tax rates is absolutely unfair if they're not done right, but it's also absolutely critical to maintain investment in our tiny little island, because otherwise, developing countries will (and are) catching us and taking away crucial investment.
You'd have to be a little short sighted to not realise that.
This is a fair point.. Vodafone have built an infrastructure in the form of phone networks. However, I struggle to see how that justifies tax avoidance on their scale. I also struggle to differentiate between government-subsidised private infrastructure and state investment in infrastructure, especially when the former is done primarily as a profit-making exercise.Vodafone made massive losses once upon a time and paid no tax, yet it's clear to see that particular company has had a positive effect on the UK economy over its lifetime. Whether that be employment, infrastructure or even research and development.
Encouraging businesses in the UK through low tax rates is absolutely unfair if they're not done right, but it's also absolutely critical to maintain investment in our tiny little island, because otherwise, developing countries will (and are) catching us and taking away crucial investment.
You'd have to be a little short sighted to not realise that.
Mrr T said:
edh said:
I'm so hurt - someone on the internet that I don't know has tried to be condescending to me 
You know that Starbucks and many others will do their best to obscure their trading profits to minimise their tax liabilities. There's a huge industry associated with these activities. It sails very close to the edge of the law, sometimes stepping over. Nothing is as clear cut as the picture you have painted, specially when dealing with people who have passed their "exams".
I used to work with a finance director who told me that his board would believe anything he told them, as long as it was printed out from a computer... And another who when told by head office to revise his budget to meet his profit targets in the new year, just altered the front sheet, got it approved, and found himself a new job. I was asked several weeks later by the new (very worried) FD - "these sales figures - they don't add up?" "that's because they don't" I told him. Not sure how he ever squared that one with our head office.
So your evidence of cooking the books is a Finance Director you used to work for and some one altering a budget. You know that Starbucks and many others will do their best to obscure their trading profits to minimise their tax liabilities. There's a huge industry associated with these activities. It sails very close to the edge of the law, sometimes stepping over. Nothing is as clear cut as the picture you have painted, specially when dealing with people who have passed their "exams".
I used to work with a finance director who told me that his board would believe anything he told them, as long as it was printed out from a computer... And another who when told by head office to revise his budget to meet his profit targets in the new year, just altered the front sheet, got it approved, and found himself a new job. I was asked several weeks later by the new (very worried) FD - "these sales figures - they don't add up?" "that's because they don't" I told him. Not sure how he ever squared that one with our head office.
As for large UK companies avoiding tax, you have no evidence.
My own experience that companies do not consider the saving will offset the risks.
A company will correctly organises itself to minimise tax. It owes this to its share holders who are the owners.
The idea a company will use transfer pricing to move profits is frankly ludicrous. HMRC are all over any large companies transfer pricing policy.
Interest on inter company loans, internal software licence agreement. will all require a company policy which HMRC will have the option to review.
Further, external auditors will be reviewing such policies are followed.
Get it wrong and HMRC have very wide and fairly arbitrary powers.
The suggestion you can get more taxes by changing company tax law but not the rate is similar to the pig flying ourside my window.
Do I trust auditors? tough one that, they have such a good track record and are in no way conflicted with any major client...
HMRC? - not exactly... tough on SME's that step out of line, less so on the multinationals
Of course I have no unique evidence available only to me that UK companies are avoiding tax. Would a Tory chancellor be banging on about it and being so "anti-business" if he didn't have good reason? But you know as well as I do that Google, for example has a highly artificial structure which is purely designed to minimise tax. I have an understanding of some of the practices of avoidance, and there are lots of people employed to advise companies in these areas - what exactly are they being paid for? It goes hand in hand with this "duty" to minimise tax.
If accountants were always so perfect, we'd never have had the latest screw up at Tesco, or to take an extreme case, Enron - where the attorneys and accountants signed off on everything.
CamMoreRon said:
burwoodman said:
i believe amazon make losses or close to it. No taxes are paid because their business is a pos which will never make real money
Obvious troll is obvious, or do you just not understand WHY Amazon claim a loss?Rant on about Apple paying a tiny rate in NI, but you're completely wrong on amazon
sidicks said:
wolves_wanderer said:
Externalities
World economy
Unforeseen problems
Labours fault
Etc
Which of those reasons can you credibly dispute?World economy
Unforeseen problems
Labours fault
Etc
(Or does he simply wear the wrong colour of rosette for your liking)....
Quite what the colour of his rosette has to do with it I don't know. Unless you are trying to imply that I am an unTory and thus my opinion is worthless, which is itself a leap considering that I have not given any indication of who I normally vote for.
CamMoreRon said:
Spectacular dodge once again.. congratulations. If you were serious about that you would qualify it by telling me how YOU are more qualified than me to understand the situation.
I'm interested to understands which part of your training as an engineer required you to study accounting rules, taxation, finance etc etc?Not only are you claiming that you have better knowledge than me, most importantly, you're claiming to have better knowledge than the professionals at HMRC whose job it is to review the tax position of these companies.
Given this, it seems a reasonable question to ask how you've come to the conclusions that you have...
CamMoreRon said:
I imagine that they would simply SHOP ELSEWHERE.
At higher prices...CamMoreRon said:
Are you seriously trying to tell me that Amazon's margins are so fine that they would have no option but to increase prices if they were made to pay their UK tax obligations? Please..
Are you suggesting that Amazon would leave their prices unaffected, despite higher costs...!Edited by sidicks on Thursday 2nd October 16:57
steveT350C said:
crankedup said:
Usually, based upon my deep detailed analysis of past PH thread history 
this must be now close to the point when the question is asked : define wealthy. 
http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/ this must be now close to the point when the question is asked : define wealthy. Simply as an aside :
Forty years back or so I spotted a new Rolls Royce parked outside a reasonably tidy Council house which was on a tidy council house estate. Before 'Right to buy' was introduced. The car remained on the drive and stood out quite nicely and it appeared that it likely was owned by the tenant of the house. The owner may have blown an inheritance on the car, or had a good income, but would that person fit into the 'wealthy category'. I don't know its tough to define imo.
I think for the purpose of explaining exactly why I so strongly object to the government's policies, I'll draw a simple analogy that everyone can understand:
Imagine you own a business, called United Kingdom, and you are struggling to turn a profit year after year. Your first reaction was to try and force your major suppliers - the NHS - to be more efficient and reduce the amount of money they cost you, but in doing so it is quickly becoming apparent that your pressurisation has compromised the service they give you, and they are unable to operate under such conditions.
Then, somebody walks in the door and takes a look at your books. They notice that you have a huge amount of smaller suppliers whose numbers don't quite add up.. you can see how much they are charged, how much value they add, and how much they are charging you, and that there is a large discrepancy between the values. This person points out that if you were to start paying attention to them instead you would not only be able to ease up on the struggling main supplier, but also start making a positive balance, and therefore be able to invest / develop and pay your staff a little more?
What do you do? Do you continue to tell your now failing main supplier that they have to shape up or you will divvy up their services to several smaller suppliers (who will actually cost you more) or do you start ringing round the cheaters and tell them they're taking the piss and you won't stand for it?
I know which I would do if I was running the business!
I hope that isn't too abstract to understand the references.
Imagine you own a business, called United Kingdom, and you are struggling to turn a profit year after year. Your first reaction was to try and force your major suppliers - the NHS - to be more efficient and reduce the amount of money they cost you, but in doing so it is quickly becoming apparent that your pressurisation has compromised the service they give you, and they are unable to operate under such conditions.
Then, somebody walks in the door and takes a look at your books. They notice that you have a huge amount of smaller suppliers whose numbers don't quite add up.. you can see how much they are charged, how much value they add, and how much they are charging you, and that there is a large discrepancy between the values. This person points out that if you were to start paying attention to them instead you would not only be able to ease up on the struggling main supplier, but also start making a positive balance, and therefore be able to invest / develop and pay your staff a little more?
What do you do? Do you continue to tell your now failing main supplier that they have to shape up or you will divvy up their services to several smaller suppliers (who will actually cost you more) or do you start ringing round the cheaters and tell them they're taking the piss and you won't stand for it?
I know which I would do if I was running the business!
I hope that isn't too abstract to understand the references.
sidicks said:
wolves_wanderer said:
These are my pre-excuses for when he hasn't done it by 2017 (as you would see if you quoted the post I was replying to as well).
My mistake, I thought you were commenting on 2010 - 2014sidicks said:
I'm interested to understands which part of your training as an engineer required you to study accounting rules, taxation, finance etc etc?
Not only are you claiming that you have better knowledge than me, most importantly, you're claiming to have better knowledge than the professionals at HMRC whose job it is to review the tax position of these companies.
Given this, it seems a reasonable question to ask how you've come to the conclusions that you have...
Yes I'm an Engineer, I work at a major OEM, and have been looking in to running my own business for some time. Congratulations Sherlock on your super-sleuthing adventures! Not only are you claiming that you have better knowledge than me, most importantly, you're claiming to have better knowledge than the professionals at HMRC whose job it is to review the tax position of these companies.
Given this, it seems a reasonable question to ask how you've come to the conclusions that you have...
I'm not claiming to know more than you.. not once have I made that claim. I have simply put across a viewpoint that I have developed based on the understanding I have based on the information I have recieved. I am of course open to counter-evidence that makes sense, because I have no loyalty to a "side" and am of a scientific background where you accept the evidence laid before you if it provides an acceptable explanation.
What I am objecting to is this Oxbridge Debating Society mentality you have whereby the first step in providing a counter-point is to undermine the credibility of your "opponent". I do not subscribe to this mentality and (as before) I will simply stop engaging with you if this is your only method of discussion. This isn't a debate, it's a discussion.. so I would very much like you to stop the denial and actually provide something of substance. If you want to change my mind rather than just claim I'm wrong, please feel free to say something of relevance.
sidicks said:
At higher prices...
Are you suggesting that Amazon would leave their prices unaffected, despite higher costs...!
Again, I seriously doubt that their margins are that tight. If they are so selfishly obsessed with profits over service that they HAVE to put their prices up above that of the competition, then they will lose business. Their only option would be to 1 - pay tax, and 2 - maintain competitive pricing. Are you suggesting that Amazon would leave their prices unaffected, despite higher costs...!
wolves_wanderer said:
No probs, sorry for the arsy reply. Although I approve of the sentiment of his proposals I just see too many opportunities for him to weasel out of it. We will see
No apology required!(While I think they have made plenty of mistakes, commentators who dismiss their handling of the economy 'because they haven't met the projections they made' do seem oblivious to the impact of what is happening across the water (amongst other things!).
CamMoreRon said:
0000 said:
How do you know he hasn't used, for instance, the Flat Rate Scheme for VAT or claimed the £2k NI Employment Allowance? Are you his accountant?
Because I know him very well. He didn't start off a businessman, he was just doing this as a passion so his attention to detail was focused on the product rather than the finances. He has an accountant nowadays, but is still very open with us (his family) about how the business is run.Rovinghawk said:
So companies don't want to come into the jurisdiction of unfriendly tax regimes, preferring to use low-tax environments. Surprising, isn't it?
I'm not sure how your point contradicts mine.burwoodman said:
Is that is 'haters gunna hate'? Amazon do not make a profit-fact. No clever accounting in the UK. Their model is selling pound coins for 99p. It's a bad business in my opinion and has put 1000's of profitable businesses out of business. I hate amazon.
Rant on about Apple paying a tiny rate in NI, but you're completely wrong on amazon
Sorry, I thought you were trolling for a moment there.Rant on about Apple paying a tiny rate in NI, but you're completely wrong on amazon
http://www.independent.co.uk/money/tax/amazon-clai...
Probably sums it up quite well.
corporalsparrow said:
In the history of online political debate, has anyone actually ever convinced the other side of their argument?
Yes- I think it was crankedup who said he'd thought things through & changed position. This very recently on mansion tax IIRC.Also there was a thread on child benefit for foreign workers where both I and a few others reconsidered our stance based on some views expressed by one of the posters.
Edited by Rovinghawk on Thursday 2nd October 17:18
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff