Facebook pay no Corporation Tax AGAIN

[sidicks]

'

CamMoreRon said:

sidicks said:

Once again, you produce articles that don't support your claims...

1. Few (sensible) people would argue that there is value in the Starbucks name - 6% of revenue seems ok
2. The article says nothing about the cost of coffee purchased (see transfer pricing rules)
3. All companies can offset debt interest against profits

Yes, of course the methods are legal.. but being legal doesn't do anything to disprove that they are using these methods to siphon profit out of the UK and in to tax havens - please tell me EXACTLY how this isn't true.

Had the UK entity borrowed to fund the business then that debt interest could be used to offset profits in exactly the same way.

CamMoreRon said:

I didn't want to get sucked back in to this argument, but you are deliberately misleading people

Says the person that claims that Starbucks is being charged 'zillions of pounds' for coffee from its subsidiary to reduce tax.
Says the person claiming that Facebook is 'investing costs' to reduce tax
Etc
Etc

[CamMoreRon]

sidicks said:

'

CamMoreRon said:

Yes, of course the methods are legal.. but being legal doesn't do anything to disprove that they are using these methods to siphon profit out of the UK and in to tax havens - please tell me EXACTLY how this isn't true.

Had the UK entity borrowed to fund the business then that debt interest could be used to offset profits in exactly the same way.

CamMoreRon said:

I didn't want to get sucked back in to this argument, but you are deliberately misleading people

Says the person that claims that Starbucks is being charged 'zillions of pounds' for coffee from its subsidiary to reduce tax.
Says the person claiming that Facebook is 'investing costs' to reduce tax
Etc
Etc

As I have said many many times, just because something is technically legal doesn't make it acceptable. I'm very pleased to see that there is hope for changes in the law to stop this disgustingly irresponsible behaviour.

You can waffle on about how it's all technically legal all you like.. thankfully it seems people with that kind of complacent / complicit attitude will become a dying breed.

[sidicks]

CamMoreRon said:

As I have said many many times, just because something is technically legal doesn't make it acceptable. I'm very pleased to see that there is hope for changes in the law to stop this disgustingly irresponsible behaviour.

You can waffle on about how it's all technically legal all you like.. thankfully it seems people with that kind of complacent / complicit attitude will become a dying breed.

So are you proposing that in future no companies can offset debt against profits?
Are you proposing that brands have no value in future?
And (based on your creation of this thread) you are also proposing that companies cannot offset wages against profits...

Good luck with that....

Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 28th October 10:16

[CamMoreRon]

sidicks said:

So are you proposing that in future no companies can offset debt against profits?
Are you proposing that brands have no value in future?
And (based on your creation of this thread) you are also proposing that companies cannot offset wages against profits...

Good luck with that....

Why do you always have to be so facetious? Of course I'm not proposing that. Some companies right now are taking the absolute fking piss out of the system and you know it. I'll be happy when that no longer happens.

Transparency.. did you notice how a lot of leads in that article contained "xxx refused to comment"? If someone like me wished to audit Starbucks or Facebook it would be impossible, and whatever you do for a living I bet you would hardly get any further. If that were to change I doubt we would need any change to tax laws at all, we could just expose the immoral behaviour, clear as day, and let the power of a bad reputation do the rest.

Edited by CamMoreRon on Tuesday 28th October 10:48

[Mrr T]

CamMoreRon said:

Why do you always have to be so facetious? Of course I'm not proposing that. Some companies right now are taking the absolute fking piss out of they system and you know it. I'll be happy when that no longer happens.

No you are claiming it without any substantive evidence. You have demonstrated time and again you have no financial or tax knowledge. So you can make all the noise you want but those of with some financial and tax knowledge will continue to point out you are talking rubbish.

CamMoreRon said:

Transparency.. did you notice how a lot of leads in that article contained "xxx refused to comment"? If someone like me wished to audit Starbucks or Facebook it would be impossible, and whatever you do for a living I bet you would hardly get any further. If that were to change I doubt we would need any change to tax laws at all, we could just expose the immoral behaviour, clear as day, and let the power of a bad reputation do the rest.

So are you now qualified to audit a limited company? You have now done the exams in order for you to understand accounts and tax?
You do realise companies often have to refuse to comment on detailed financial matters a) to keep information from competitors and b) because any disclosure might make someone an “insider”. If you do not know what 2 means then look it up.

Edited by Mrr T on Tuesday 28th October 10:59

[Mrr T]

CamMoreRon said:

Mrr T said:

So CamMoreRun I have 2 questions for you:

1. Who pays the Corporation Tax you wish to increase?
2. Do you favour leaving the EU?

1 - I don't wish to increase CT.. I just want to see less "record profits for xxx company, no tax paid in UK" stories from those who cheat the system.
2 - I honestly haven't made up my mind.

I asked these questions because:
1)Companies do not pay tax, OK they hand over the money, but the people who really pay the tax are the shareholders who see the value of their shares fall. So while you do not want to increase tax take you do want to increase the amount collected. So what you really want to do is increase the tax on our pensions much of which is invested in shares. So your real aim is to make us all poorer when we finally retire.
2)You need to make up your mind to leave the EU since the free movement of capital is a core principal of the EU.

[sidicks]

CamMoreRon said:

Why do you always have to be so facetious? Of course I'm not proposing that. Some companies right now are taking the absolute fking piss out of they system and you know it. I'll be happy when that no longer happens.

So you've tried to highlight two companies (Starbucks and Facebook) and yet you admit that they would still be able to do exactly the same things as they do now...
:

CamMoreRon said:

Transparency.. did you notice how a lot of leads in that article contained "xxx refused to comment"? If someone like me wished to audit Starbucks or Facebook it would be impossible, and whatever you do for a living I bet you would hardly get any further.

That's why we have professional auditors....

CamMoreRon said:

If that were to change I doubt we would need any change to tax laws at all, we could just expose the immoral behaviour, clear as day, and let the power of a bad reputation do the rest.

Whose definition of 'immoral'?

[CamMoreRon]

Mrr T said:

CamMoreRon said:

1 - I don't wish to increase CT.. I just want to see less "record profits for xxx company, no tax paid in UK" stories from those who cheat the system.
2 - I honestly haven't made up my mind.

I asked these questions because:
1)Companies do not pay tax, OK they hand over the money, but the people who really pay the tax are the shareholders who see the value of their shares fall. So while you do not want to increase tax take you do want to increase the amount collected. So what you really want to do is increase the tax on our pensions much of which is invested in shares. So your real aim is to make us all poorer when we finally retire.
2)You need to make up your mind to leave the EU since the free movement of capital is a core principal of the EU.

Ok don't take this the wrong way, I am only asking because you dismiss everything I have said on the grounds that I am not qualified.. what do you do for a living, and are you qualified to comment on these things that I am apparently not?

I'm really sorry, but that all sounds like "boo f***ing hoo my share prices". That is the risk you take when you invest in the stock market - many of us do not have the luxury of that particular flutter. If you invest in a company known to be engaging in dishonest tax behaviour then you are absolutely not entitled to complain when they are forced to pay fairer taxes.

[sidicks]

CamMoreRon said:

I'm really sorry, but that all sounds like "boo f***ing hoo my share prices". That is the risk you take when you invest in the stock market - many of us do not have the luxury of that particular flutter. If you invest in a company known to be engaging in dishonest tax behaviour then you are absolutely not entitled to complain when they are forced to pay fairer taxes.

Total bullst. AGAIN!

[CamMoreRon]

sidicks said:

Total bullst. AGAIN!

Denial. AGAIN.

Literally your only form of contribution.

[turbobloke]

CamMoreRon said:

sidicks said:

'

CamMoreRon said:

Yes, of course the methods are legal.. but being legal doesn't do anything to disprove that they are using these methods to siphon profit out of the UK and in to tax havens - please tell me EXACTLY how this isn't true.

Had the UK entity borrowed to fund the business then that debt interest could be used to offset profits in exactly the same way.

CamMoreRon said:

I didn't want to get sucked back in to this argument, but you are deliberately misleading people

Says the person that claims that Starbucks is being charged 'zillions of pounds' for coffee from its subsidiary to reduce tax.
Says the person claiming that Facebook is 'investing costs' to reduce tax
Etc
Etc

As I have said many many times, just because something is technically legal doesn't make it acceptable.

Quite so, just as what the OECD says matters not a jot.

CamMoreRon said:

I'm very pleased to see that there is hope for changes in the law to stop this disgustingly irresponsible behaviour.

It doesn't amount to much in the UK at the moment, just a few middle class hippies chanting outside Starbucks outlets bursting with customers. On the international scene, agreements are easy to reach and work well

CamMoreRon said:

You can waffle on about how it's all technically legal all you like.. thankfully it seems people with that kind of complacent / complicit attitude will become a dying breed.

Quite the opposite, the current shift away from all types of failed left-liberal anti-corporate collectivist dogma is clearly evident. Admittedly there will always be middle class hippies but so what, they'll be the people driving to protests in their Volvos and whining on FaceBook using WiFi outside Starbucks.

Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 28th October 11:39

[sidicks]

CamMoreRon said:

Denial. AGAIN.

Literally your only form of contribution.

Yes, denying your ignorant nonsense, which you readily admit you don't have the experience or evidence to support.
QED

Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 28th October 11:46

[basherX]

CamMoreRon said:

I'm really sorry, but that all sounds like "boo f***ing hoo my share prices". That is the risk you take when you invest in the stock market - many of us do not have the luxury of that particular flutter. If you invest in a company known to be engaging in dishonest tax behaviour then you are absolutely not entitled to complain when they are forced to pay fairer taxes.

Chap, you're using pejorative language to describe something which a number of people (evidenced in the preceding 18 pages or so) view as perfectly legal behaviour. In fact, to be clear, I don't think anyone is questioning the legality of what companies such as FB are doing. That you're questioning the outcome of that behaviour is fair enough but I really do think you're kidding yourself if you think that MNC's will act as anything other than the apocryphal economic rational agent when arranging their affairs- i.e. to the best interests of their shareholders.

As I said a number of pages ago if governments wanted to change that it's perfectly within their powers to do so. But they don't and that's because they believe that it's in their best interests not to do so i.e. that the outcome is already "fair" or at least, when measured overall, provides a sufficient level of income (for which they are in competition with the governments of other countries). Of course, it's also (broadly) in their interests to bleat about and mischaracterise tax avoidance because it's popular electorally. Personally I prefer to judge them by what they do, not what they say in the press.

Chucking bricks at the corporates because governments aren't meeting your definition of fairness seems a bit misguided to me and misunderstands fundamental human behaviour (hardly anyone ever volunteers tax unnecessarily).

[CamMoreRon]

sidicks said:

CamMoreRon said:

Denial. AGAIN.

Literally your only form of contribution.

Yes, denying you ignorant nonsense, which you readily admit you don't have the experience or evidence to support.
QED

No, denying literally anything set in front of you that doesn't conform to your bullst neoliberal ideals.

Anyway.. now we have the arrival of your little denial-cavalary, I can't be bothered to keep listening to your drivel. Of course I'll be back when you start trying to bullst any innocents who might stumble across this thread, but until then I think we've exhausted pretty much everything we could possibly say to each other. You fundamentally disagree that tax avoidance is wrong, because for whatever reason you support and endorse it, I consider it immoral and something that needs to be dealt with asap. Your attacks of my character and attempts to undermine even my engineering qualifications just display the same pathetic and desperate tactics we see from politicians, and why people like me think they're a bunch of dishonest, cheating c**ts.

Edited by CamMoreRon on Tuesday 28th October 11:57

[basherX]

CamMoreRon said:

You fundamentally disagree that tax avoidance is wrong, because for whatever reason you support and endorse it.

Pretty uncompromising stuff, but this sentence stands out. You could rephrase this as:

You fundamentally believe that one must pay the full amount of tax required by law

Ultimately it comes down to whether one sees a moral imperative in applying the tax code. Some do, some don't. Quite interesting potentially but, in true PH fashion, what we actually get is a horribly polarised conversation with a few insults chucked in for good measure. Charming.

[sidicks]

CamMoreRon said:

No, denying literally anything set in front of you that doesn't conform to your bullst neoliberal ideals.

No, I deny the bullst you repeatedly spout. That's entirely different.

CamMoreRon said:

Anyway.. now we have the arrival of your little denial-cavalary, I can't be bothered to keep listening to your drivel. Of course I'll be back when you start trying to bullst any innocents who might stumble across this thread, but until then I think we've exhausted pretty much everything we could possibly say to each other. You fundamentally disagree that tax avoidance is wrong, because for whatever reason you support and endorse it.

A total misrepresentation. I'm purely pointing out the errors, inaccuracies and blatant lies in your claims about specific companies. That does not mean that I support / endorse all forms of tax avoidance.

(However, given that you struggle to understand the difference between avoidance and evasion, I don't expect you to understand...)

CamMoreRon said:

Your attacks of my character and attempts to undermine even my engineering qualifications just display the same pathetic and desperate tactics we see from politicians, and why people like me think they're a bunch of dishonest, cheating c**ts.

Just highlighting that your area of expertise is clearly not in terms of finance / accounting / tax / economics etc and you are repeatedly arguing things are evidently things you don't fully understand.

For the same reason you won't find me on engineering threads telling engineers why they are wrong (without evidence to support my case)!

[Mrr T]

CamMoreRon said:

Ok don't take this the wrong way, I am only asking because you dismiss everything I have said on the grounds that I am not qualified.. what do you do for a living, and are you qualified to comment on these things that I am apparently not?

Well I am a fellow of the ICAEW and have spent 30 odd years in finance. I still keep current with most UK tax legislation and have been involved in setting intercompany pricing policies for large MNC.
So yes I do know a bit.

CamMoreRon said:

I'm really sorry, but that all sounds like "boo f***ing hoo my share prices". That is the risk you take when you invest in the stock market - many of us do not have the luxury of that particular flutter. If you invest in a company known to be engaging in dishonest tax behaviour then you are absolutely not entitled to complain when they are forced to pay fairer taxes.

So you do not have/you are not a member of any sort of pension scheme?
You really should do something about that.

Edited by Mrr T on Tuesday 28th October 12:13

[turbobloke]

basherX said:

CamMoreRon said:

I'm really sorry, but that all sounds like "boo f***ing hoo my share prices". That is the risk you take when you invest in the stock market - many of us do not have the luxury of that particular flutter. If you invest in a company known to be engaging in dishonest tax behaviour then you are absolutely not entitled to complain when they are forced to pay fairer taxes.

Chap, you're using pejorative language to describe something which a number of people (evidenced in the preceding 18 pages or so) view as perfectly legal behaviour. In fact, to be clear, I don't think anyone is questioning the legality of what companies such as FB are doing. That you're questioning the outcome of that behaviour is fair enough but I really do think you're kidding yourself if you think that MNC's will act as anything other than the apocryphal economic rational agent when arranging their affairs- i.e. to the best interests of their shareholders.

As I said a number of pages ago if governments wanted to change that it's perfectly within their powers to do so. But they don't and that's because they believe that it's in their best interests not to do so i.e. that the outcome is already "fair" or at least, when measured overall, provides a sufficient level of income (for which they are in competition with the governments of other countries). Of course, it's also (broadly) in their interests to bleat about and mischaracterise tax avoidance because it's popular electorally. Personally I prefer to judge them by what they do, not what they say in the press.

Chucking bricks at the corporates because governments aren't meeting your definition of fairness seems a bit misguided to me and misunderstands fundamental human behaviour (hardly anyone ever volunteers tax unnecessarily).

Well said.

If something is lawful then OK, that doesn't automatically make it just, but nor does it make it unjust. When words like 'fair' are applied to matters of taxation it's entirely personal opinion and therefore inapplicable beyond self. When words like 'dishonest' are used to describe entirely lawful i.e. honest behaviour, the user has lost the plot.

[turbobloke]

basherX said:

CamMoreRon said:

You fundamentally disagree that tax avoidance is wrong, because for whatever reason you support and endorse it.

Pretty uncompromising stuff, but this sentence stands out. You could rephrase this as:

You fundamentally believe that one must pay the full amount of tax required by law

I too dare to believe that it's right and honest to pay all taxes lawfully due, just as fundamentally.

[CamMoreRon]

sidicks said:

No, I deny the bullst you repeatedly spout. That's entirely different.

I'm purely pointing out the errors, inaccuracies and blatant lies in your claims about specific companies. That does not mean that I support / endorse all forms of tax avoidance.

(However, given that you struggle to understand the difference between avoidance and evasion, I don't expect you to understand...)

No you aren't. You haven't made one single constructive argument. Go back and read the kind of things you say to people - not just to me. It's always "you don't seriously believe that?" or "bullst" or words to that effect. I haven't seen one post from you with any kind of serious - CONSTRUCTIVE - comment that doesn't only serve for small-minded points scoring.

Considering you still hammer on about how I "don't know the difference" proves my point exactly. You either haven't read one single word I have said to you, or you deliberately lie about me to try and score a cheap point.