Facebook pay no Corporation Tax AGAIN
Discussion
Munka01 said:
Your OP shows that you do not understand basic principals.
Thing is I will forget about this in five minutes. You will clearly be stressing about this for a long time yet.
I don't agree with a lot of the what's going on in the UK, which I why I moved to Australia instead of whining about it on the internet.
I hope 'winning' on the internet brings you fulfilment in life.
My OP shows an incredibly simple abstract example, used to make a broad point.Thing is I will forget about this in five minutes. You will clearly be stressing about this for a long time yet.
I don't agree with a lot of the what's going on in the UK, which I why I moved to Australia instead of whining about it on the internet.
I hope 'winning' on the internet brings you fulfilment in life.
Tax avoidance is something I care about a lot, so yes it's likely the subject will continue to bother me once this thread dies. And maybe the existence of people so signed up to the neoliberal doctrine and so brainwashed by right-wing media will also bother me, but you.. I doubt I'll recognise your username in a couple of hours. Anyway.. continue on your high road and don't respond. If your only form of discussion is dismission, denial, and berating, then it's highly unlikely that anything productive will come from you and I continuing to talk.
Rovinghawk said:
Here comes the cavalry!
turbobloke said:
CHARRRRRGE!!
iphonedyou said:
Can I play too? 
My warning wasn't a threat, it was a warning. If you want to derail a thread in to a pointless argument where we take turns to put each other down, instead of discussing something productive, you three carry on. As per my warning post, I'm plenty stubborn enough to argue with all three of you if your only approach is petulance and insults.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.
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 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.
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 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.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.
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 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.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.
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.
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.The big pharmaceutical firms
BAe & all the armaments firms (still 2nd biggest in the world for this?)
RR jet engines
et cetera
Rovinghawk said:
CamMoreRon said:
Clearly a typo then, wasn't it?
I have to go by what you actually write as opposed to putting words into your mouth by presuming what you might mean.Anything else would be amoral & unfair.
Although if you can't decipher context to isolate a typo.. perhaps not.
bodhi said:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/10/01/uk-pmi-ma...
Just to explain in simple terms, a PMI rating above 50 means manufacturing is expanding. The UK has been above 50 for quite some time now, yet high tax economies, such as France, have been well below 50 for an equal amount of time. Now why do you suppose that is?
Interesting.. so we have a 1.6% majority that think manufacturing is improving.Just to explain in simple terms, a PMI rating above 50 means manufacturing is expanding. The UK has been above 50 for quite some time now, yet high tax economies, such as France, have been well below 50 for an equal amount of time. Now why do you suppose that is?
But am I right in thinking that this isn't indicative of anything other than how the manufacturing industry thinks they are doing? Like a self-assessment? I mean.. it doesn't demonstrate anything to do with how many manufacturing jobs there are vs how many there were 10.. 20.. 30 years ago. It just seems like a metric to make people think "oh yeah.. things aren't that bad" when they complain about not being able to get a manufacturing job.
Maybe I'm just being dismissive, but that metric seems to be devoid of any context.
ETA: Yes that does seem very dismissive!
I'm happy to admit I don't see any context here because I have absolutely no idea what PMI is, other than a quick skim of Wikipedia. If you can explain to me why it's relevant that would be very nice.
Edited by CamMoreRon on Friday 24th October 14:58
turbobloke said:
Here's to a diverse and robust economy.
Hear, hear! So, err.. when's that one coming? Because the last time I checked, the economy was circling the drain after one of the biggest financial disasters in history - itself due to an unstable and unsustainable economic ideal.
fblm said:
You're the one angrily demanding a sensible reasoned debate about a subject you evidently know nothing what so ever about. Perhaps you should tell us about engineering instead? Let's put it like this; talking to you about economics and finance is like you trying to explain how a rocket works to someone who doesn't beleive in Newtons laws.
fblm MEng
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."fblm MEng
If you want to talk engineering I'd be more than happy to engage you, and what's more is I wont talk down to you and be all OH MY GOD YOU DON'T KNOW NEWTON'S LAWS OF MOTION AND YET YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW YOUR ROPE SWING WOULD BE BETTER WITH 2 BITS OF ROPE? STUPID F*CKING THICKY STUPID DUMB DUMB WHAT WERE YOU THINKING. GOD.
bobbylondonuk said:
This is quite simple to nail down..
Blah blah blah..
IF anyone wants to save the planet, children, moral conscience etc - donate to charity. Dont get extorted for it!
Strongly disagree. Blah blah blah..
IF anyone wants to save the planet, children, moral conscience etc - donate to charity. Dont get extorted for it!
You realise there is NOTHING apart from this one planet? Everything that has ever happened, will happen, and all the resources that made or will make it happen, all contained on a tiny rock in a vast, vast, unbelievably vast empty void of absolute nothingness. Seems like it might be in our interests as a species to make sure we can cling on as long as possible, no?
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.
Ok cool.. we're 2 for 7 billion! That's a start! Anyone else want to join the cause?
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.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff