Facebook pay no Corporation Tax AGAIN
Discussion
Alpinestars said:
The only way you could possibly reconcile that is to unify the global tax system. Hardly practical.
And out of interest who's pockets is this saved tax lining? Shareholders? Who are often pension schemes.
Impractical, maybe, but not impossible. And out of interest who's pockets is this saved tax lining? Shareholders? Who are often pension schemes.
I don't know.. could be a pension scheme for the labour force, could be a yacht for the CEO. I have a feeling I know which is more likely.
CamMoreRon said:
No it isn't. 1 - because I think that attracting them with cheap tax deals adds very little value to this country, only to a few statistics and a few people's pockets. 2 - we are one species living on one rock in an infinite lifeless void, and I think we should start acting like it.
Apart from the jobs these MNC's create when they set up offices here, all the tax eceipts we would otherwise have missed out on, and all the Income Tax/NI/VAT the staff they employ pay. Apart from that they create very little value at all. The OECD seems to be concerned on a couple of fronts. Firstly that differences between different countries tax regimes can lead to some multi nationals not paying any tax at all. Secondly that high profile tax avoidance undermines faith in the system.
On the first point I'd counter that the OECD is mixing up fairness with legal obligation and, in any event, appears to fall into the age old trap of assuming that governments somehow "lose" when their own tax regulations are applied (mixing up other people's money with their "own"). And on the second point, if governments didn't make their tax codes so fiendishly complex then they could have a system that was both "fair" and confidence inspiring.
On the first point I'd counter that the OECD is mixing up fairness with legal obligation and, in any event, appears to fall into the age old trap of assuming that governments somehow "lose" when their own tax regulations are applied (mixing up other people's money with their "own"). And on the second point, if governments didn't make their tax codes so fiendishly complex then they could have a system that was both "fair" and confidence inspiring.
basherX said:
The OECD seems to be concerned on a couple of fronts. Firstly that differences between different countries tax regimes can lead to some multi nationals not paying any tax at all. Secondly that high profile tax avoidance undermines faith in the system.
On the first point I'd counter that the OECD is mixing up fairness with legal obligation and, in any event, appears to fall into the age old trap of assuming that governments somehow "lose" when their own tax regulations are applied (mixing up other people's money with their "own"). And on the second point, if governments didn't make their tax codes so fiendishly complex then they could have a system that was both "fair" and confidence inspiring.
I can agree with your 2nd point, but the first I still struggle on. I completely understand it WRT a company that makes a legitimate loss based on genuine costs.. it's when companies use complicated arrangements to fabricate loss that I disagree and consider the government to have lost revenue. On the first point I'd counter that the OECD is mixing up fairness with legal obligation and, in any event, appears to fall into the age old trap of assuming that governments somehow "lose" when their own tax regulations are applied (mixing up other people's money with their "own"). And on the second point, if governments didn't make their tax codes so fiendishly complex then they could have a system that was both "fair" and confidence inspiring.
bodhi said:
Apart from the jobs these MNC's create when they set up offices here, all the tax eceipts we would otherwise have missed out on, and all the Income Tax/NI/VAT the staff they employ pay. Apart from that they create very little value at all.
But that's all relative, and quite complex. Using Facebook as an example, I struggle to see how their 200-odd employees could have contributed more taxes than the CT the company avoided paying. CamMoreRon said:
I can agree with your 2nd point, but the first I still struggle on. I completely understand it WRT a company that makes a legitimate loss based on genuine costs.. it's when companies use complicated arrangements to fabricate loss that I disagree and consider the government to have lost revenue.
They can't do this and don't do this. That would be fraud. But that has been explained to you already.CamMoreRon said:
But that's all relative, and quite complex. Using Facebook as an example, I struggle to see how their 200-odd employees could have contributed more taxes than the CT the company avoided paying.
That's not what is being claimed.CamMoreRon said:
Not until you answer my question!
You're so quick to pin people down and demand answers, or to just dismiss everything as rubbish. I want to see if you can provide one yourself, or whether all you can do is create a diversion and hope it goes away.
There is nothing to answer:You're so quick to pin people down and demand answers, or to just dismiss everything as rubbish. I want to see if you can provide one yourself, or whether all you can do is create a diversion and hope it goes away.
The OECD don't dictae the UK tax rules, neither are they the decision makers on what is and is not 'moral'.
What have the OECD said about Facebook specifically??
sidicks said:
There is nothing to answer:
The OECD don't dictae the UK tax rules, neither are they the decision makers on what is and is not 'moral'.
What have the OECD said about Facebook specifically??
Nice try. The OECD don't dictae the UK tax rules, neither are they the decision makers on what is and is not 'moral'.
What have the OECD said about Facebook specifically??
Again..
Why would the "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development" want to change the laws regarding MNCs and their tax avoidance behaviour, if there was nothing fundamentally wrong with it - moral, legal, or otherwise?
CamMoreRon said:
Why would the "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development" want to change the laws regarding MNCs and their tax avoidance behaviour, if there was nothing fundamentally wrong with it - moral, legal, or otherwise?
Assuming the OECD does actually 'want to change the laws', which, given the complete twaddle you are given to stating as fact is a large assumption on my part; could it possibly be because the OECD is a political construct, paid for by member governments and politicians the world over who all want more tax? As an aside who do you think ultimately pays corportation tax? Corporations or customers, employees and owners? CT - Best simpleton stealth tax yet!
CamMoreRon said:
Impractical, maybe, but not impossible.
I don't know.. could be a pension scheme for the labour force, could be a yacht for the CEO. I have a feeling I know which is more likely.
I'd love to hear how you'd do this. Taxes are generally used to fund spending. How do you manage different countries' spending in that case?I don't know.. could be a pension scheme for the labour force, could be a yacht for the CEO. I have a feeling I know which is more likely.
CamMoreRon said:
Why would the "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development" want to change the laws regarding MNCs and their tax avoidance behaviour, if there was nothing fundamentally wrong with it - moral, legal, or otherwise?
If the OECD want to change the rules (as you claim) then that's proof that the current approach is legal.I ask you again - who decreed the (highly political) OECD as the ruler as to what constitutes 'moral' taxation??
Where did the OECD make specific claims about Facebook?
CamMoreRon said:
basherX said:
The OECD seems to be concerned on a couple of fronts. Firstly that differences between different countries tax regimes can lead to some multi nationals not paying any tax at all. Secondly that high profile tax avoidance undermines faith in the system.
On the first point I'd counter that the OECD is mixing up fairness with legal obligation and, in any event, appears to fall into the age old trap of assuming that governments somehow "lose" when their own tax regulations are applied (mixing up other people's money with their "own"). And on the second point, if governments didn't make their tax codes so fiendishly complex then they could have a system that was both "fair" and confidence inspiring.
I can agree with your 2nd point, but the first I still struggle on. I completely understand it WRT a company that makes a legitimate loss based on genuine costs.. it's when companies use complicated arrangements to fabricate loss that I disagree and consider the government to have lost revenue. On the first point I'd counter that the OECD is mixing up fairness with legal obligation and, in any event, appears to fall into the age old trap of assuming that governments somehow "lose" when their own tax regulations are applied (mixing up other people's money with their "own"). And on the second point, if governments didn't make their tax codes so fiendishly complex then they could have a system that was both "fair" and confidence inspiring.
bodhi said:
Apart from the jobs these MNC's create when they set up offices here, all the tax eceipts we would otherwise have missed out on, and all the Income Tax/NI/VAT the staff they employ pay. Apart from that they create very little value at all.
But that's all relative, and quite complex. Using Facebook as an example, I struggle to see how their 200-odd employees could have contributed more taxes than the CT the company avoided paying. CamMoreRon said:
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.http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
sidicks said:
CamMoreRon said:
Why would the "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development" want to change the laws regarding MNCs and their tax avoidance behaviour, if there was nothing fundamentally wrong with it - moral, legal, or otherwise?
If the OECD want to change the rules (as you claim) then that's proof that the current approach is legal.I ask you again - who decreed the (highly political) OECD as the ruler as to what constitutes 'moral' taxation??
Where did the OECD make specific claims about Facebook?
Don't try and answer a question with more questions; just give me a straight answer, or say you don't know. There is no shame in admitting you don't know, or were wrong.
CamMoreRon said:
Spectacular dodge, once again! You still haven't answered the question. WHY do OECD want the law to change - to make this illegal - if there is nothing fundamentally wrong about it?
Don't try and answer a question with more questions; just give me a straight answer, or say you don't know. There is no shame in admitting you don't know, or were wrong.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking that legal = morally OK.Don't try and answer a question with more questions; just give me a straight answer, or say you don't know. There is no shame in admitting you don't know, or were wrong.
fblm said:
A better analogy would be that you tell us a suspension system was performing better than another and the accelerometer data proves it only for some idiot to say he had never heard of an accelerometer and knew nothing about suspension because he was an economist but that your data was pointless and had no relevance and he didn't care anyway. You would rightly surmise that that person was an ignorant muppet.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
This has very little to do with Dunning or Kruger. I'm not quite autistic enough to tell someone they're wrong because data; if someone is telling me the car is difficult to drive, then it doesn't matter how much data I put in front of them - the subjective report will never change. He isn't trying to outsmart me by saying it's irrelevant, he's just saying it makes no difference to his experience of driving my car.http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff