Facebook pay no Corporation Tax AGAIN

[turbobloke]

NicD said:

turbobloke said:

NicD said:

Don said:

All this crap about multi-nationals where whining British politicians carp on about how they pay no UK tax.

They do pay tax. Often in the US. just not to HMRC.
Where they can pay tax in a lower tax environment, like the Netherlands or Ireland, can you blame them for doing so?
If the carping whiny-arsed hand wringing lying thieving MPs want the multi-nationals' money they can do two things about it:
COMPETE for their tax by running a low tax regime multi-nationals WANT to pay tax in rather than some other country.
CHANGE THE LAW so they have to pay more tax here

bhing about companies following the letter of the law strikes me as completely fking dumb when you have the power to change laws in your favour. There is no suggestion that Facebook or Google have acted illegally in any way.

Bah.

While I agree with some of this, you are missing the point

WE as customers or voters are entitled to feel fked off by the antics of these multinational corporations and tax haven countries, no matter that it is 'only' a moral rather than legal crime.

Not that there's any such thing as a moral crime! Taxes aren't a moral issue anyway, there's a legal obligation to pay what's due.

Certainly anyone can hold whatever opinion they wish but when a multinational that can operate anywhere locates some of its business in a particular country, the appropriate reaction is gratitude. If a business owner can run their business e.g. a web-based business from anywhere, that's what they'll do. As Don said we should be competing for their presence and then their tax by running a low tax regime multi-nationals want to pay tax in rather than some other country, and be pleased when they locate part of their enterprise here.

You can be 'grateful' if you like, but you are not thinking clearly.

In the opinion of somebody not thinking clearly, it may look like that.

NicD said:

The business in question is NOT located here.

It depends on your definition of locate(d). If there is a UK office employing people or if people are employed working from home, then there is a location (or there are several locations) where the business is operating from the UK. Business, operating, location, UK. It all fits. You appear to be confusing operation/location with incorporation/registration.

NicD said:

The revenues are earned here from UK customers, but by financial engineering, the true profits are not recognised nor taxed here.

Please define true profit and untrue profit and explain how any tax jurisdiction deals with untrue if different from back tax, interest and penalties.

NicD said:

You can say this is a great thing if you like, but if extended to the whole economy, the results would be disastrous.

Extending something not applicable or not available to the whole economy across the whole economy isn't a rational form of debate.

NicD said:

All companies that earn profit here should pay the appropriate tax here.

They already do. If there's no profit there's no corptax.

NicD said:

That does not happen with these spiv multinats that employ transfer pricing and double Irish or double Luxembourg or double Netherlands or whatever to shield the true profit.

That'll catch companies that abide by the tax laws wherever they operate. Calling them names doesn't change a thing.

NicD said:

As I said,our crooked and stupid rulers allow this to happen, but it doesn't make it right.

It doesn't make it wrong either, it makes it possible. As you say, if governments and tax authorities wanted to make it impossible they could do so, given a certain amount of competence, effort and overall advantage. As governments and tax authorities are quite keen on collecting tax, there could be reasons for the situation remaining as it is that relate to one or more of competence, effort, and overall advantage.

[NicD]

turbo,

you can defend the indefensible if you like, I cant be bothered to trade minutiae.
Please explain what YOU get out of US multi-nats exploiting poor tax laws and rules.

[Sir Humphrey]

CamMoreRon said:

And that's my point.. the assumption that anyone who isn't a Tory is advocating Socialism.

The original quote specified socialism. I have never voted Tory and I have no intention of voting Tory at the next election but I'm certainly not a socialist.

If you aren't advocating socialism what are you advocating?

[turbobloke]

NicD said:

turbo,

you can defend the indefensible if you like, I cant be bothered to trade minutiae.
Please explain what YOU get out of US multi-nats exploiting poor tax laws and rules.

It's your opinion that the situation is indefensible but that doesn't make it so. It's a government / tax authority / overall advantage thing. If there was an overall advantage that made the effort of competently managed changes worthwhile then surely governments and tax authorities would pursue it more enthusiastically.

[Rovinghawk]

NicD said:

turbo,
Please explain what YOU get out of US multi-nats exploiting poor tax laws and rules.

If it's US, how can it be multi-national?

[CamMoreRon]

Sir Humphrey said:

CamMoreRon said:

And that's my point.. the assumption that anyone who isn't a Tory is advocating Socialism.

The original quote specified socialism. I have never voted Tory and I have no intention of voting Tory at the next election but I'm certainly not a socialist.

If you aren't advocating socialism what are you advocating?

The original quote was from someone else.. an attitude that I hadn't really experienced before posting in this forum, and one that I really struggle to comprehend. I can only guess that people with that attitude are fairly well-to-do, and so they feel the system works because clearly something is working for them. When they see people like me saying the system doesn't work, and hear words like "unfair" I guess they think we say these things because we want what they have. They have "it", and we don't; they're happy because they have "it", and we're not; therefore it is "it" that we want, and we complain about the system because we figure that's our only hope of getting "it".

I'm not advocating Socialism. I'm advocating a social consience, responsibility, and accountability. That can absolutely happen in a Capitalist system - I don't think we need the Venus Project to have a just society! I just think we need tighter regulations to ensure corporations (who as many have pointed out are simply acting in their best interests) can't exploit a poorly designed system at the expense of the people, and can't bypass democracy for their own interests (cough TTIP). That doesn't equal Socialism, does it?

[NicD]

turbobloke said:

It's your opinion that the situation is indefensible but that doesn't make it so. It's a government / tax authority / overall advantage thing. If there was an overall advantage that made the effort of competently managed changes worthwhile then surely governments and tax authorities would pursue it more enthusiastically.

Personally, I think the reason the UK tax code is not majorly simplified with loop holes closed is it would affect individual trusts and companies that benefit party members and donors. This outweighs any electoral advantage. The G20 is just getting around to it with some tinkering at the edges - see below
I don't understand why Liebor didn't have a go at it though, perhaps because they spent their time romancing crooked foreigners also.

You have not explained why you defend the gross avoidance.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/sep/16/inter...
'Bold updates to international tax rules designed to force some of the world's biggest multinationals – including Google, Apple, Amazon, Vodafone and GlaxoSmithKline – to contribute their fair share towards government budgets are to be agreed by G20 countries this weekend.

Under draft rules published on Tuesday by tax experts from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) many of the world's largest and best known corporations face being forced to rapidly dismantle their elaborate cross-border corporate structures.

The moves by governments to corral companies back into a joined-up, modernised network of international tax treaties mark the halfway point in a two-year reform project begun by world leaders in Moscow last summer.'

[turbobloke]

NicD said:

turbobloke said:

It's your opinion that the situation is indefensible but that doesn't make it so. It's a government / tax authority / overall advantage thing. If there was an overall advantage that made the effort of competently managed changes worthwhile then surely governments and tax authorities would pursue it more enthusiastically.

Personally, I think the reason the UK tax code is not majorly simplified with loop holes closed is it would affect individual trusts and companies that benefit party members and donors. This outweighs any electoral advantage. The G20 is just getting around to it with some tinkering at the edges - see below
I don't understand why Liebor didn't have a go at it though, perhaps because they spent their time romancing crooked foreigners also.

You have not explained why you defend the gross avoidance.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/sep/16/inter...
'Bold updates to international tax rules designed to force some of the world's biggest multinationals – including Google, Apple, Amazon, Vodafone and GlaxoSmithKline – to contribute their fair share towards government budgets are to be agreed by G20 countries this weekend.

Under draft rules published on Tuesday by tax experts from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) many of the world's largest and best known corporations face being forced to rapidly dismantle their elaborate cross-border corporate structures.

The moves by governments to corral companies back into a joined-up, modernised network of international tax treaties mark the halfway point in a two-year reform project begun by world leaders in Moscow last summer.'

My view has been perfectly clear all along, there's nothing to defend. The phrase tax avoidance refers to lawful payment of all taxes due. So we have situations involving gross payment of all taxes lawfully due, or aggressive payment of all taxes lawfully due, aka no problem here.

"Fair Share" has no absolute or universal definition, it can mean whatever its user wants it to mean and that arbitrary subjective approach is no basis for governing anything let alone setting tax regs. If / when the brave new world of international cooperation dawns then give it a few years and we can reconvene to see how it worked out.

That said, the chances of the entire developed corporate world going down that route are slim.

[Mojocvh]

mondeoman said:

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.

like showers, right?

[turbobloke]

If some developed nations sign up to the suggested tax changes, some won't. This will mean that some countries will prosper more and others less. What's new? It's easily avoidable. Those that don't do well will cave in and step back from voluntary stupicide (it's even starting to go that way now with something as pernicious and tax-happy-clappy as the climate myths, ref Australia and Canada). That's assuming the current posturing to placate sheeple actually moves on into something tangible, and it might, but another reason why it may not get that far is that companies will volunteer to pay a bit more tax here and there, reversing the initiative by placating politicians, and on we go with business pretty much as usual. When the brave new world starts to operate we can set that review date until then there's always imagination.

[Murph7355]

NicD said:

...
The moves by governments to corral companies back into a joined-up, modernised network of international tax treaties mark the halfway point in a two-year reform project begun by world leaders in Moscow last summer.'

You can't call someone out for not thinking clearly and then come out with this

The "world" will never align to the extent necessary to prevent the sort of avoidance you're worried about (and I'm doubtful it's because of crooked leaders really - though I would bet money on there being plenty of those) .

The reason these facilities exist is because sovereign nations can benefit massively from them. In the same way that they can benefit from myriad other things - the good fortune of natural resources; geographical position; a workforce with a particular disposition or any number of other things that can't sensibly be regulated against.

Sitting hoping that the world will decide all countries should be equal whilst sitting bemoaning tax avoidance at home is a waste of time. Every country should be doing the best it can for its nationals. Sometimes this might mean not spanking the arse out of other sovereign nations. Sometimes it won't.

Personally I believe being a low tax nation has massive benefits for our nationals and I wish we were one. Including and especially on such things as corp tax. Corp tax is a nonsense anyway. It's only figuratively paid for by the organisations themselves and we really, quite desperately, need to be attracting private enterprise here in all its forms if we are to keep ahead economically.

[NicD]

The quote is from the Guardian article, did you not click the link?

[sidicks]

NicD said:

You have not explained why you defend the gross avoidance.

You have not explained why there is a need to defend tax compliance...

NicD said:

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/sep/16/inter...
'Bold updates to international tax rules designed to force some of the world's biggest multinationals – including Google, Apple, Amazon, Vodafone and GlaxoSmithKline – to contribute their fair share towards government budgets are to be agreed by G20 countries this weekend.

You are quoting an article in the Guardian (infamous for its use of tax avoidance measures) that claims that certain other companies are not paying their 'fair' share, despite them being in full compliance with the law and, in some cases having won legal cases to support their position? Seriously?

[alock]

NicD said:

You have not explained why you defend the gross avoidance.

Can I ask the opposite question to you? Which taxes do you chose to pay knowing full well you could legally avoid them?

Maybe you are always on an emergency tax code and hence paying more income tax than you need to. Maybe you make pension contributions out of taxed pay. Maybe you complete a self assessment and never declare any legitamit expenses. Or as I suspect, do you actually avoid all unnecessary taxes which is all that's being defended here?

[sidicks]

CamMoreRon said:

I can only guess that people with that attitude are fairly well-to-do

Poor guess, try again...

CamMoreRon said:

..., and so they feel the system works because clearly something is working for them. When they see people like me saying the system doesn't work, and hear words like "unfair" I guess they think we say these things because we want what they have. They have "it", and we don't; they're happy because they have "it", and we're not; therefore it is "it" that we want, and we complain about the system because we figure that's our only hope of getting "it".

It's a fair question, given the same (or similar) starting point, why should certain people pay many multiples of tax compared to to others who made different lifestyle choices?

Why is that 'fair'..??

If people want what I have, why don't they make the same sacrifices and lifestyle choices that I did?!

[Rovinghawk]

CamMoreRon said:

"Facebook don't pay the right amount of tax"

Could you please confirm what amount of tax (to the nearest £100 or so) that you think FB should pay?

Could you please also confirm where you get this figure from?

Finally, could you confirm your idea as to what the intended/unintended consequences of this would be?

[sidicks]

Rovinghawk said:

CamMoreRon said:

"Facebook don't pay the right amount of tax"

Could you please confirm what amount of tax (to the nearest £100 or so) that you think FB should pay?

Could you please also confirm where you get this figure from?

Finally, could you confirm your idea as to what the intended/unintended consequences of this would be?

Wouldn't he need to have some basic tax and accounting knowledge to answer your questions...?!

[Sir Humphrey]

CamMoreRon said:

The original quote was from someone else.. an attitude that I hadn't really experienced before posting in this forum, and one that I really struggle to comprehend. I can only guess that people with that attitude are fairly well-to-do, and so they feel the system works because clearly something is working for them. When they see people like me saying the system doesn't work, and hear words like "unfair" I guess they think we say these things because we want what they have. They have "it", and we don't; they're happy because they have "it", and we're not; therefore it is "it" that we want, and we complain about the system because we figure that's our only hope of getting "it".

I'm not advocating Socialism. I'm advocating a social consience, responsibility, and accountability. That can absolutely happen in a Capitalist system - I don't think we need the Venus Project to have a just society! I just think we need tighter regulations to ensure corporations (who as many have pointed out are simply acting in their best interests) can't exploit a poorly designed system at the expense of the people, and can't bypass democracy for their own interests (cough TTIP). That doesn't equal Socialism, does it?

As long as consumers stop acting in their best interests then I'm sure I can agree that sellers shouldn't act in their best interests either. Consumers can be trusted to decide what to spend their money on for themselves without having you or anyone else decide whether the product is of a high enough quality to buy it.

[Murph7355]

NicD said:

The quote is from the Guardian article, did you not click the link?

I'm aware the quote wasn't directly yours, but as you appeared to be holding it up in support of your position....

[CamMoreRon]

sidicks said:

Rovinghawk said:

CamMoreRon said:

"Facebook don't pay the right amount of tax"

Could you please confirm what amount of tax (to the nearest £100 or so) that you think FB should pay?

Could you please also confirm where you get this figure from?

Finally, could you confirm your idea as to what the intended/unintended consequences of this would be?

Wouldn't he need to have some basic tax and accounting knowledge to answer your questions...?!

Tell you what.. how about you find me a transparent report for FB's 2013 accounts, and I'll sit down and work it all out.