Facebook pay no Corporation Tax AGAIN
Discussion
CamMoreRon said:
bobbylondonuk said:
Point well made by use of selective quotes......not.
What you say makes sense if the whole of the species works together for the common goal. Paying stupid taxes and raising my cost of living in a tiny island in the north atlantic will not save the planet. No matter how much you go blah blah blah. You want your way? I will join you...get 7bn people to work in the same direction for the same goal. Otherwise accept the inevitable....my money is water down the drain...which I dont want.
Except paying taxes is critical. If you want the security of state governance then unfortunately you have to pay for it.:What you say makes sense if the whole of the species works together for the common goal. Paying stupid taxes and raising my cost of living in a tiny island in the north atlantic will not save the planet. No matter how much you go blah blah blah. You want your way? I will join you...get 7bn people to work in the same direction for the same goal. Otherwise accept the inevitable....my money is water down the drain...which I dont want.
CamMoreRon said:
Except paying taxes is critical. If you want the security of state governance then unfortunately you have to pay for it.
Today the taxpayer covered a bill of £450k to some woman made pregnant by an undercover policeman. There were also all the legal bills associated with it.I can tolerate taxation for necessities but not for waste and cock-ups (no pun intended).
We need to spend less, not tax more.
Speaking of engineering, the construction sector has gone absolutely mental at the moment. It's a classic case of very high workload and a real skill shortage (whisper it quietly, but one of our new grad engineers is a Romanian... no-one tell Farage. Certainly don't tell him that the Site manager I chatted to one one of our developments last week was also Romanian..).
Looks like all this extra workload and skill shortage is translating directly into payrises too, which is always good. Plenty of mobility in the market.
Looks like all this extra workload and skill shortage is translating directly into payrises too, which is always good. Plenty of mobility in the market.
Rovinghawk said:
Today the taxpayer covered a bill of £450k to some woman made pregnant by an undercover policeman. There were also all the legal bills associated with it.
I can tolerate taxation for necessities but not for waste and cock-ups (no pun intended).
We need to spend less, not tax more.
Wow.. is that the compensation she got?I can tolerate taxation for necessities but not for waste and cock-ups (no pun intended).
We need to spend less, not tax more.
Rightly so, I think. I mean, it's s
t that we have to pay for her to be lied to, manipulated and impregnated by the police on some incredibly minor security concern, but even stter that we also have to pay for the compensation. Talk about a complete and utter waste of money.waterwonder said:
CamMoreRon said:
Majority are R&D or PD, with manufacturing offshore to take advantage of cheap labour.
bks. The uk manufactured 1.5 million cars last year. It will shortly become the third highest producer (after Spain and Germany) in Europe. It is also on track to surpass 1972 (record) levels of production in the not to distant future.
No manufacturing. Pfft do you want to try again?
waterwonder said:
NicD said:
Manufacturing, or assembly?
Both by most definitions but if you want to cite your definition then I'll answer again. In fact, as mentioned above the important metric is perhaps, the number of people employed locally plus value of taxable UK income declared.
fblm said:
CamMoreRon said:
I couldn't give less of a crap about PMI or whatever it was called. To me it is a pointless metric with little or no relevance other than to give a feeling of how the industry is feeling about its feelings. It's just a number of little significance used in an attempt to boil something incredibly complex down to one smug little number. "Oh, yes.. and if PMI is over 50 then everything is absolutely brilliant. And PMI is actually 51.6, which is 1.6% absolutely brilliant. 0.4% less brilliant than the previous quarter, but still absolutely brilliant. How brilliant."
I love it. 2 minutes ago you had never heard of PMI and now you dismiss one of the most watched economic indicators and one of the best predictors of future GDP growth, as 'a pointless metric' of 'no relevance'. You're fvcking priceless.Cars. I design car suspension systems by day for a major OEM; so as I understand the system well, I should be able to describe it simply enough for anyone to understand. Say I am developing a new suspension arcitecture for a car, there are many parameters to consider and depending on how you balance these the car can handle and perform in very different ways.
You could bias everything towards absolute high speed performance, and you would end up with a car that is incredibly fast. However, only a highly skilled and confident driver will be able to make the most of it, as the car drives on a knife edge between an unbelievable lap time and a massive accident. Now that's great if you want to win a Formula 1 race and are the absolute best driver, but not everyone wants that - some just want to drive to work, or to the shops.
So you tone the car down.. you dial in the geometry to create some understeer, add compliances to various components to take the edge off the steering response, and you end up with a car that can still be enjoyable to drive for an enthusiast, but can also be driven successfully by a novice.
However, if I disagree and think the car is perfect, I can show the management / customer all my lovely metrics to demonstrate how the car is an improvement on the last model and they could all nod their heads in agreement and tell me I've done a great job. But then, when we put the car in to production, any non-heroes who drive it find the thing to be incredibly difficult and unforgiving. The enthusiasts who want to have a go at driving fast find it reacts quicker than their capability to respond and lots of them crash. When the investigation comes to me I can say "But the metrics! Look at the pretty metrics!" but the reality of those numbers is they saparete you from reality, and give you a blinkered view of the car's behaviour; it's only when you put the thing in the hands of a 3rd party that they say "OH MY GOD this is HORRIBLE to drive!" They may well be wrong from a purely analytical perspective - it isn't horrible to drive, it's just they don't have the ability to do it properly - but it's the subjective performance that matters. If a lot of people are starting to complain about the way your cars drive, you can't just show them metrics and tell them to shut up, you have to listen.
NicD said:
seems pretty simple - manufacturing from raw materials (or do you need a definition of this also) versus assembly of already manufactured components.
In fact, as mentioned above the important metric is perhaps, the number of people employed locally plus value of taxable UK income declared.
In fact, as mentioned above the important metric is perhaps, the number of people employed locally plus value of taxable UK income declared.
No need to define raw materials unless you want to be pointlessly pedantic about that also.
CamMoreRon said:
Manufacturing by robot, assembly by robot, supervision by (very small amount of) people.
Not sure I agree, a volume car plant employes about 4000 people as a massive approximation. Granted less than it used to however the world moves on.If we are assembling cars here then you need suppliers, who also employee people and pay tax and so on.
It all comes back to the same point. As a country the UK has relatively low taxes, a key reason for this is to attract investment.
BGARK said:
sidicks said:
BGARK said:
CamMoreRon said:
If you want to talk engineering
What type of engineering are you involved in?
CamMoreRon said:
I had a little think about why I would be so dismissive of something like this, and figured it'd be best to demonstrate by use of an analogy we can hopefully all relate to.
Cars. I design car suspension systems by day for a major OEM; so as I understand the system well, I should be able to describe it simply enough for anyone to understand. Say I am developing a new suspension arcitecture for a car, there are many parameters to consider and depending on how you balance these the car can handle and perform in very different ways.
You could bias everything towards absolute high speed performance, and you would end up with a car that is incredibly fast. However, only a highly skilled and confident driver will be able to make the most of it, as the car drives on a knife edge between an unbelievable lap time and a massive accident. Now that's great if you want to win a Formula 1 race and are the absolute best driver, but not everyone wants that - some just want to drive to work, or to the shops.
So you tone the car down.. you dial in the geometry to create some understeer, add compliances to various components to take the edge off the steering response, and you end up with a car that can still be enjoyable to drive for an enthusiast, but can also be driven successfully by a novice.
However, if I disagree and think the car is perfect, I can show the management / customer all my lovely metrics to demonstrate how the car is an improvement on the last model and they could all nod their heads in agreement and tell me I've done a great job. But then, when we put the car in to production, any non-heroes who drive it find the thing to be incredibly difficult and unforgiving. The enthusiasts who want to have a go at driving fast find it reacts quicker than their capability to respond and lots of them crash. When the investigation comes to me I can say "But the metrics! Look at the pretty metrics!" but the reality of those numbers is they saparete you from reality, and give you a blinkered view of the car's behaviour; it's only when you put the thing in the hands of a 3rd party that they say "OH MY GOD this is HORRIBLE to drive!" They may well be wrong from a purely analytical perspective - it isn't horrible to drive, it's just they don't have the ability to do it properly - but it's the subjective performance that matters. If a lot of people are starting to complain about the way your cars drive, you can't just show them metrics and tell them to shut up, you have to listen.
This makes even less sense than your posts on economics.Cars. I design car suspension systems by day for a major OEM; so as I understand the system well, I should be able to describe it simply enough for anyone to understand. Say I am developing a new suspension arcitecture for a car, there are many parameters to consider and depending on how you balance these the car can handle and perform in very different ways.
You could bias everything towards absolute high speed performance, and you would end up with a car that is incredibly fast. However, only a highly skilled and confident driver will be able to make the most of it, as the car drives on a knife edge between an unbelievable lap time and a massive accident. Now that's great if you want to win a Formula 1 race and are the absolute best driver, but not everyone wants that - some just want to drive to work, or to the shops.
So you tone the car down.. you dial in the geometry to create some understeer, add compliances to various components to take the edge off the steering response, and you end up with a car that can still be enjoyable to drive for an enthusiast, but can also be driven successfully by a novice.
However, if I disagree and think the car is perfect, I can show the management / customer all my lovely metrics to demonstrate how the car is an improvement on the last model and they could all nod their heads in agreement and tell me I've done a great job. But then, when we put the car in to production, any non-heroes who drive it find the thing to be incredibly difficult and unforgiving. The enthusiasts who want to have a go at driving fast find it reacts quicker than their capability to respond and lots of them crash. When the investigation comes to me I can say "But the metrics! Look at the pretty metrics!" but the reality of those numbers is they saparete you from reality, and give you a blinkered view of the car's behaviour; it's only when you put the thing in the hands of a 3rd party that they say "OH MY GOD this is HORRIBLE to drive!" They may well be wrong from a purely analytical perspective - it isn't horrible to drive, it's just they don't have the ability to do it properly - but it's the subjective performance that matters. If a lot of people are starting to complain about the way your cars drive, you can't just show them metrics and tell them to shut up, you have to listen.
Mrr T said:
Before posting there links can you please try to get a basic understanding of tax and finance.
Corporation tax is paid on profits not turnover.
I am not sure of Facebooks business structure but I do know it changes its users nothing. So all Facebook revenue comes from advertisers. So if Facebook servers are based Ireland and a UK company pays for an advert. The revenue is in Ireland the fact a user in the UK sees the advert is nothing to do with it.
As for the salaries I think you will find these are mainly share bonuses based on performance of the share price, and of cause are all subject to UK income tax.
Facebook definitely charges its users; the public aren't users, they're self-harvesting product which FB markets.Corporation tax is paid on profits not turnover.
I am not sure of Facebooks business structure but I do know it changes its users nothing. So all Facebook revenue comes from advertisers. So if Facebook servers are based Ireland and a UK company pays for an advert. The revenue is in Ireland the fact a user in the UK sees the advert is nothing to do with it.
As for the salaries I think you will find these are mainly share bonuses based on performance of the share price, and of cause are all subject to UK income tax.
CamMoreRon said:
I had a little think about why I would be so dismissive of something like this, and figured it'd be best to demonstrate by use of an analogy we can hopefully all relate to.
Cars. I design car suspension systems by day for a major OEM; so as I understand the system well, I should be able to describe it simply enough for anyone to understand. Say I am developing a new suspension arcitecture for a car, there are many parameters to consider and depending on how you balance these the car can handle and perform in very different ways.
You could bias everything towards absolute high speed performance, and you would end up with a car that is incredibly fast. However, only a highly skilled and confident driver will be able to make the most of it, as the car drives on a knife edge between an unbelievable lap time and a massive accident. Now that's great if you want to win a Formula 1 race and are the absolute best driver, but not everyone wants that - some just want to drive to work, or to the shops.
So you tone the car down.. you dial in the geometry to create some understeer, add compliances to various components to take the edge off the steering response, and you end up with a car that can still be enjoyable to drive for an enthusiast, but can also be driven successfully by a novice.
However, if I disagree and think the car is perfect, I can show the management / customer all my lovely metrics to demonstrate how the car is an improvement on the last model and they could all nod their heads in agreement and tell me I've done a great job. But then, when we put the car in to production, any non-heroes who drive it find the thing to be incredibly difficult and unforgiving. The enthusiasts who want to have a go at driving fast find it reacts quicker than their capability to respond and lots of them crash. When the investigation comes to me I can say "But the metrics! Look at the pretty metrics!" but the reality of those numbers is they saparete you from reality, and give you a blinkered view of the car's behaviour; it's only when you put the thing in the hands of a 3rd party that they say "OH MY GOD this is HORRIBLE to drive!" They may well be wrong from a purely analytical perspective - it isn't horrible to drive, it's just they don't have the ability to do it properly - but it's the subjective performance that matters. If a lot of people are starting to complain about the way your cars drive, you can't just show them metrics and tell them to shut up, you have to listen.
Then your metrics are mis-aligned. Get the baseline right for the metrics and you'll be golden.Cars. I design car suspension systems by day for a major OEM; so as I understand the system well, I should be able to describe it simply enough for anyone to understand. Say I am developing a new suspension arcitecture for a car, there are many parameters to consider and depending on how you balance these the car can handle and perform in very different ways.
You could bias everything towards absolute high speed performance, and you would end up with a car that is incredibly fast. However, only a highly skilled and confident driver will be able to make the most of it, as the car drives on a knife edge between an unbelievable lap time and a massive accident. Now that's great if you want to win a Formula 1 race and are the absolute best driver, but not everyone wants that - some just want to drive to work, or to the shops.
So you tone the car down.. you dial in the geometry to create some understeer, add compliances to various components to take the edge off the steering response, and you end up with a car that can still be enjoyable to drive for an enthusiast, but can also be driven successfully by a novice.
However, if I disagree and think the car is perfect, I can show the management / customer all my lovely metrics to demonstrate how the car is an improvement on the last model and they could all nod their heads in agreement and tell me I've done a great job. But then, when we put the car in to production, any non-heroes who drive it find the thing to be incredibly difficult and unforgiving. The enthusiasts who want to have a go at driving fast find it reacts quicker than their capability to respond and lots of them crash. When the investigation comes to me I can say "But the metrics! Look at the pretty metrics!" but the reality of those numbers is they saparete you from reality, and give you a blinkered view of the car's behaviour; it's only when you put the thing in the hands of a 3rd party that they say "OH MY GOD this is HORRIBLE to drive!" They may well be wrong from a purely analytical perspective - it isn't horrible to drive, it's just they don't have the ability to do it properly - but it's the subjective performance that matters. If a lot of people are starting to complain about the way your cars drive, you can't just show them metrics and tell them to shut up, you have to listen.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff