Facebook pay no Corporation Tax AGAIN

[Rovinghawk]

turbobloke said:

tomw2000 said:

Rovinghawk said:

I don't normally give details of my financial situation, but in this case I'll make an exception. I have an ISA. It has £9 in it.

FYI I'm also chasing for a refund of £3k of excess tax charged by HMRC. I realise that various here would rather I forget about it in light of the need to fund the NHS & public sector pensions, but I consider it to be my money not theirs.

To be fair and equitable, you should let HMRC keep the £3,000 because of all the benefit you've had in terms of taxes saved on the £9.00 in the ISA. Or something.

Hang on to as much as possible and let it trickle up er, down.

You realise I might have to give both of you a stubborn warning?

[turbobloke]

Rovinghawk said:

turbobloke said:

tomw2000 said:

Rovinghawk said:

I don't normally give details of my financial situation, but in this case I'll make an exception. I have an ISA. It has £9 in it.

FYI I'm also chasing for a refund of £3k of excess tax charged by HMRC. I realise that various here would rather I forget about it in light of the need to fund the NHS & public sector pensions, but I consider it to be my money not theirs.

To be fair and equitable, you should let HMRC keep the £3,000 because of all the benefit you've had in terms of taxes saved on the £9.00 in the ISA. Or something.

Hang on to as much as possible and let it trickle up er, down.

You realise I might have to give both of you a stubborn warning?

[turbobloke]

Rovinghawk said:

I'm also chasing for a refund of £3k of excess tax charged by HMRC.

It looks like I too may have a few bob coming back from HMRC. I think I'll spend it in Starbucks while checking out some corporate and left-wing comedian tax avoiders on FB.

[CamMoreRon]

Rovinghawk said:

CamMoreRon said:

I'm plenty stubborn enough to argue with all three of you if your only approach is petulance and insults.

OK- let's try a reasoned debate.

I claim my expenses against my income to mitigate my tax liabilities. Examples are train fares, mileage expenses, tools, etc.

I also tax-deduct my pension contributions.

All these are tax avoidance; please tell me what is morally wrong in what I have done.

THANK YOU. Honestly, all I want is to have a reasonable discussion so we can both consider each other's views. People you disagree with have the biggest chance to change the way you think, if you only give them a chance to speak. I cannot stand people who just dive right in with denial / put-downs or insults, and it's them who drag these discussions down. (And of course also me for not simply ignoring them)

You have done nothing morally wrong, provided you have been honest with your expenses!

The difference, as I see it, is that these companies are not being honest with their expenses. It is the equivalent to you putting the price of a power drill that cost you £50 down as an expense of £200. Obviously you can't get away with that, because it is very easy to audit you - you don't have a team of highly creative tax accountants & lawyers to work out how you can justify that £200 price.

Yes the loopholes exist, but not everyone is able to exploit them. Otherwise you would have a subsidiary in Ireland that sold your tools to you at inflated prices. That's where the dishonesty comes in.. that's where a company is maybe not breaking the letter of the law, but are certainly violating the spirit of it.

As the other poster above said, I'm sick of having to hear about how much we have to cut from the budget when this behaviour is going on. The cuts might not even affect me directly.. I might not even notice them.. but they affect others, and the cumulative effect serves to drive this country deeper in to the sh*t.

[turbobloke]

CamMoreRon said:

The difference, as I see it, is that these companies are not being honest with their expenses.

If so I suspect HMRC would spot it.

The issue for you, I think, is that on the home front they are being honest within the rules, but you would like the rules to be different.

In wider terms, how are you - not personally of course - going to get full international cooperation so there are no tax jurisdictions more competitive than any other? My clue is, don't hold your breath...and no thanks to umilateralist disadvantage.

You're right about (not) voluntarily handing over wads of cash affecting others. Costs may well go up, jobs may be lost and so on.

[CamMoreRon]

turbobloke said:

CamMoreRon said:

The difference, as I see it, is that these companies are not being honest with their expenses.

If so I suspect HMRC would spot it.

The issue for you, I think, is that on the home front they are being honest within the rules, but you would like the rules to be different.

In wider terms, how are you - not personally of course - going to get full international cooperation so there are no tax jurisdictions more competitive than any other? My clue is, don't hold your breath...and no thanks to umilateralist disadvantage.

You're right about (not) voluntarily handing over wads of cash affecting others. Costs may well go up, jobs may be lost and so on.

How could they spot it? If FB are using some of the best tax accountants & lawyers in the world to design obscurity in to their numbers, how would HMRC spot it? They would just see £xxx to FB Ireland owed by FB UK, for example.

That's where things get tricky: to have a fair tax system it needs to be an international effort to shut down tax havens. There are groups campaigning for this, and it seems that they are starting to get somewhere as the gov't have started to acknowledge the problem.

The corporations do indeed have the government by the balls. That's why we get threats of companies / individuals leaving if we tighten up our tax system. Getting all countries to agree on an equal tax structure and agreeing to enforce it is the holy grail.. if there are no tax havens then these problems will rapidly disappear. Of course, those tax haven countries who have built great wealth (and most likely massive inequality) will not be so happy to comply, and that may mean that the dream is unattainable.

In light of that, it also comes down to the people to put consumer pressure on these companies and vote with their wallets. For that to happen you need activists to raise awareness (hi).

Regarding your last point: costs may go up, jobs may be lost. Facebook's profits for 2013 were $900m IIRC, so there would be plenty of room for concessions on their tax behaviour. Its not like they're barely scraping by. If they are so greedy that any extra taxes paid on profits has to be levied on the customer, is that ethical behaviour? Should we endorse companies like that with our custom? There would be outrage if that were to happen, and rightly so!

[waterwonder]

CamMoreRon said:

How could they spot it? If FB are using some of the best tax accountants & lawyers in the world to design obscurity in to their numbers, how would HMRC spot it? They would just see £xxx to FB Ireland owed by FB UK, for example.

That's where things get tricky: to have a fair tax system it needs to be an international effort to shut down tax havens. There are groups campaigning for this, and it seems that they are starting to get somewhere as the gov't have started to acknowledge the problem.

The corporations do indeed have the government by the balls. That's why we get threats of companies / individuals leaving if we tighten up our tax system. Getting all countries to agree on an equal tax structure and agreeing to enforce it is the holy grail.. if there are no tax havens then these problems will rapidly disappear. Of course, those tax haven countries who have built great wealth (and most likely massive inequality) will not be so happy to comply, and that may mean that the dream is unattainable.

In light of that, it also comes down to the people to put consumer pressure on these companies and vote with their wallets. For that to happen you need activists to raise awareness (hi).

Regarding your last point: costs may go up, jobs may be lost. Facebook's profits for 2013 were $900m IIRC, so there would be plenty of room for concessions on their tax behaviour. Its not like they're barely scraping by. If they are so greedy that any extra taxes paid on profits has to be levied on the customer, is that ethical behaviour? Should we endorse companies like that with our custom? There would be outrage if that were to happen, and rightly so!

You're conflating two issues. Tax avoidance and tax evasion, the HMRC can and do spot the latter. Also I don't think anyone on this thread is advocating tax evasion, as it is morally and legally wrong. Tax avoidance is simply not paying more than one has to.

If you knowingly voluntarily pay more tax than you have to then fine, otherwise you are being deeply hypocritical.

To your other point even if an equal global tax structure were agreed it would just bring different problems. Tax rates are a source of competition between countries and IN THEORY keeps tax rates down. It also allows countries to attract investments and generate jobs were they might not otherwise be able to.

As I pointed out before the UK corporation tax rates are lower than most western economies (ignoring tax havens), so it by virtue of this differentiation that we attract investment.

Edited by waterwonder on Friday 24th October 11:51

[turbobloke]

waterwonder said:

...conflating two issues. Tax avoidance and tax evasion, the HMRC can and do spot the latter. Also I don't think anyone on this thread is advocating tax evasion, as it is morally and legally wrong. Tax avoidance is simply not paying more than one has to.

Precisely, tax avoidance is lawful, evasion is not. Nobody on PH that I can recall has championed evasion.

On the international front there's absolutely no chance of all or even sufficient countries/municipalities agreeing on a standardised tax system. The day when all countries adopt the GBP will come sooner. And in the hypothetical nightmare where it happened there would be a fustercluck bigger even than the EZ which is bad enough in its moves towards tax harmonisation and other faux pas. In fiscal and monetary matters one size does not fit all, interest rates and tax rates are set and varied for reasons that extend beyond placating the left's envyist faction.

[CamMoreRon]

waterwonder said:

You're conflating two issues. Tax avoidance and tax evasion, the HMRC can and do spot the latter. Also I don't think anyone on this thread is advocating tax evasion, as it is morally and legally wrong. Tax avoidance is simply not paying more than one has to.

If you knowingly voluntarily pay more tax than you have to then fine, otherwise you are being deeply hypocritical.

To your other point even if an equal global tax structure were agreed it would just bring different problems. Tax rates are a source of competition between countries and IN THEORY keeps tax rates down. It also allows countries to attract investments and generate jobs were they might not otherwise be able to.

As I pointed out before the UK corporation tax rates are lower than most western economies (ignoring tax havens), so it by virtue of this differentiation that we attract investment.

That is why TJN have adopted the term "tax abuse" rather than avoidance. Yes, everyone wants to avoid paying more than they have to, but you have to differentiate between those who are honest about their expenses and those that are not. Those who abuse the tax system are flirting with the edge of the law - it is debatable as to whether they have broken any, but they are definitely behaving in an amoral manner.

I think tax competition is inherently bad, but that is my personal opinion. I don't think meaningful revenue is created in tax havens; it serves only to benefit the few directly involved.

Just look at the state of our country: barely any industry, barely any export, almost entirely based on services. That's great for the people at the top, or people like me who were lucky enough to have a successful education, but not so great for the labour force. You only have to look at the state of inequality in this country to determine whether that kind of "business model" is good or bad.

[turbobloke]

CamMoreRon said:

That is why TJN have adopted the term "tax abuse" rather than avoidance. Yes, everyone wants to avoid paying more than they have to, but you have to differentiate between those who are honest about their expenses and those that are not. Those who abuse the tax system are flirting with the edge of the law - it is debatable as to whether they have broken any, but they are definitely behaving in an amoral manner.

Tax is an amoral issue so that's not a surprise. In any case morals are relative not absolute while unanimity is absent so there's no definite about anything relating to morality.

Your beef still appears to be with government and HMRC so the question is, does having a pop at corporates press a different button?

As this thread shows, people disagree about morality and as with the "fair" nonsense, if a certain politicised faction wishes to force its view onto others above and beyond what's lawful, then at that point we can say hello to totalitarianism.

[Rovinghawk]

CamMoreRon said:

Just look at the state of our country: barely any industry, barely any export,

JLR, Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Rolls, Bentley, Aston, Caterham, Morgan
The big pharmaceutical firms
BAe & all the armaments firms (still 2nd biggest in the world for this?)
RR jet engines
et cetera

[turbobloke]

Rovinghawk said:

CamMoreRon said:

Just look at the state of our country: barely any industry, barely any export,

JLR, Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Rolls, Bentley, Aston, Caterham, Morgan
The big pharmaceutical firms
BAe & all the armaments firms (still 2nd biggest in the world for this?)
RR jet engines
et cetera

Spot on. Against the naysay of received wisdom, UK manufacturing is strong these days with the UK currently 11th in the global manufacturing league table. Manufacturing makes up 54% of UK exports and employs just under 3 million people. Some of these numbers would be higher in terms of historical comparisons - which paint an artificially bleak picture - as many of the services provided to manufacturers which were previously considered part of manufacturing e.g. cleaning & security are placed in different areas of the economy these days.

[CamMoreRon]

turbobloke said:

Tax is an amoral issue so that's not a surprise. In any case morals are relative not absolute while unanimity is absent so there's no definite about anything relating to morality.

Your beef still appears to be with government and HMRC so the question is, does having a pop at corporates press a different button?

As this thread shows, people disagree about morality and as with the "fair" nonsense, if a certain politicised faction wishes to force its view onto others above and beyond what's lawful, then at that point we can say hello to totalitarianism.

Tax is only an amoral issue due to the existence of amoral people. Ok, so the tax system is just a series of numbers and percentages, but there needs to be a moral framework supporting that to ensure people of little or no moral virtue can abuse it. Ok so unanimity might be unattainable, as (for whatever reason) some might be perfectly happy for others to abuse the system, but in that case I think morality needs to be applied in a manner that serves the best interests of the people - not the best interests of the profit-seekers.

My beef is with both sides, to be honest, and a sliver reserved for the complacent / the complicit. The government are at fault, as they are either too spineless to stand up to powerful entities, have vested interests, or have ideals that prevent them from resolving the situation. The companies are at fault for pressurising the government to keep these exploitable systems in place - and therefore bypassing democracy - and for aggressive exploitation of those systems.

Totalitarianism and dictatorship could be a positive thing, supposing the person / collective was god-like in their wisdom and empathy. I'm not saying for one second that that is where we should be headed.

[CamMoreRon]

Rovinghawk said:

JLR, Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Rolls, Bentley, Aston, Caterham, Morgan
The big pharmaceutical firms
BAe & all the armaments firms (still 2nd biggest in the world for this?)
RR jet engines
et cetera

Majority are R&D or PD, with manufacturing offshore to take advantage of cheap labour.

[Rovinghawk]

CamMoreRon said:

Rovinghawk said:

JLR, Honda, Nissan, Toyota, Rolls, Bentley, Aston, Caterham, Morgan
The big pharmaceutical firms
BAe & all the armaments firms (still 2nd biggest in the world for this?)
RR jet engines
et cetera

Majority are R&D or PD, with manufacturing offshore to take advantage of cheap labour.

I was inside JLR this morning- I saw what appeared to be manufacturing.
When I was inside various of the others they also appeared to be manufacturing.

I'd also add that R&D or PD are part of the manufacturing industry.

[Rovinghawk]

CamMoreRon said:

there needs to be a moral framework supporting that to ensure people of little or no moral virtue can abuse it.

This differs from your normal point of view.

[contractor]

NicD said:

It is legal only because our rulers allow it to be so, and FB have spent the money and time so as to be able to take advantage.

It is not moral, and I for one am pissed every time I see a multi-national exposed for this industrial scale avoidance.

I do wonder about the sort of person who defends it.

It's not the players, it's the game.

[CamMoreRon]

Rovinghawk said:

This differs from your normal point of view.

How so?

[Rovinghawk]

CamMoreRon said:

Rovinghawk said:

This differs from your normal point of view.

How so?

You said there should be a framework so the system can be abused. Your normal position seems to be the exact opposite.

[BGARK]

Slightly o/t but isn't it UKIP that want a radical overhaul to simplify the tax system.

Reducing complexity will make things more transparent and help people to understand a bit better. Good idea, no?