Facebook pay no Corporation Tax AGAIN
Discussion
basherX said:
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).
I don't think I have ever called it illegal.. the closest I have come to that is saying that some practises skirt pretty close to the edge of the law, and I think the only reason they get away with that is because the structures are so complex, or intangible, that it impossible to be black / white.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).
I do completely understand that MNC's act as rational agents with the purpose of maximising shareholder interests; it just bothers me that THAT is the priority, and the interests of the rest of the country they do business in are of negligible concern - demonstrated clearly by them arranging affairs with the sole intent of eliminating tax obligations.
Clearly this is just an issue of what each side find morally objectionable, and why I have tried to leave this conversation a few times. No amount of telling me it is legal is going to make me think it's acceptable; the whole idea violates what I consider to be acceptable behaviour in human society, and I don't think any amount of exploring the legality of it is going to change that.
Edited by CamMoreRon on Tuesday 28th October 14:13
turbobloke said:
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.
Need to correct you on this. Just because a contract is legally enforceable between the parties it does not mean the contract has to be taken account of when calculating tax. It’s called the “Ramsey” principle. Google will show the details of the case.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.
While it has been somewhat restricted by later cases the principle remains HMRC can ignore any contract if it a) reduces tax and is b) artificial. The definition of artificial keeps tax advisers in business.
CamMoreRon said:
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 "bulls
t" 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.
There only one person telling lies on here - re-read some of your claims on this thread. Re-read the title for that matter!!t" 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.
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 28th October 13:37
Mrr T said:
turbobloke said:
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.
Need to correct you on this. Just because a contract is legally enforceable between the parties it does not mean the contract has to be taken account of when calculating tax. It’s called the “Ramsey” principle. Google will show the details of the case.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.
Which bit of what was said does it correct?
The definition of artificial may keep tax advisers in business but the applicability to what was posted is still unclear.
CamMoreRon said:
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 fAre 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....
king piss out of the system and you know it. 
So new rules according to cammoreron... You can still offset debt against profit, brands still have value and you can still offset wages against profit. You just can't do any of these things if you are 'taking the absolute fvcking piss'. I wonder how they are going to write that in to the law?
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 28th October 13:47
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.
And there it is. In the end these threads ALWAYS come down to 'someone else should pay more tax'. It's godwins law for tax.Accidentally edited my post instead of replying.. 
I do completely understand that MNC's act as rational agents with the purpose of maximising shareholder interests; it just bothers me that THAT is the priority, and the interests of the rest of the country they do business in are of negligible concern - demonstrated clearly by them arranging affairs with the sole intent of eliminating tax obligations.
Clearly this is just an issue of what each side find morally objectionable, and why I have tried to leave this conversation a few times. No amount of telling me it is legal is going to make me think it's acceptable; the whole idea violates what I consider to be acceptable behaviour in human society, and I don't think any amount of exploring the legality of it is going to change that.
basherX said:
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).
I don't think I have ever called it illegal.. the closest I have come to that is saying that some practises skirt pretty close to the edge of the law, and I think the only reason they get away with that is because the structures are so complex, or intangible, that it is impossible to be black / white.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).
I do completely understand that MNC's act as rational agents with the purpose of maximising shareholder interests; it just bothers me that THAT is the priority, and the interests of the rest of the country they do business in are of negligible concern - demonstrated clearly by them arranging affairs with the sole intent of eliminating tax obligations.
Clearly this is just an issue of what each side find morally objectionable, and why I have tried to leave this conversation a few times. No amount of telling me it is legal is going to make me think it's acceptable; the whole idea violates what I consider to be acceptable behaviour in human society, and I don't think any amount of exploring the legality of it is going to change that.
CamMoreRon said:
I don't think I have ever called it illegal.. the closest I have come to that is saying that some practises skirt pretty close to the edge of the law, and I think the only reason they get away with that is because the structures are so complex, or intangible, that it impossible to be black / white.
I do completely understand that MNC's act as rational agents with the purpose of maximising shareholder interests; it just bothers me that THAT is the priority, and the interests of the rest of the country they do business in are of negligible concern - demonstrated clearly by them arranging affairs with the sole intent of eliminating tax obligations.
Clearly this is just an issue of what each side find morally objectionable, and why I have tried to leave this conversation a few times. No amount of telling me it is legal is going to make me think it's acceptable; the whole idea violates what I consider to be acceptable behaviour in human society, and I don't think any amount of exploring the legality of it is going to change that.
And yet you created a new thread about Facebook, whose "crimes" appear to be a) paying wages and b) carrying forward losses!I do completely understand that MNC's act as rational agents with the purpose of maximising shareholder interests; it just bothers me that THAT is the priority, and the interests of the rest of the country they do business in are of negligible concern - demonstrated clearly by them arranging affairs with the sole intent of eliminating tax obligations.
Clearly this is just an issue of what each side find morally objectionable, and why I have tried to leave this conversation a few times. No amount of telling me it is legal is going to make me think it's acceptable; the whole idea violates what I consider to be acceptable behaviour in human society, and I don't think any amount of exploring the legality of it is going to change that.
Priceless...
sidicks said:
And yet you created a new thread about Facebook, whose "crimes" appear to be a) paying wages and b) carrying forward losses!
Priceless...
You are just an impossible troll. Why don't you leave the conversation to people who are capable of actually having one, and not just making cheap remarks?Priceless...
CamMoreRon said:
You are just an impossible troll. Why don't you leave the conversation to people who are capable of actually having one, and not just making cheap remarks?
Says the person who can only resort to lies, unsubstantiated claims and nonsense.Either explain why Facebook paying it's staff wages is wrong or accept that throwing your toys out of the prams about them paying no Corporation tax was pathetic and unnecessary...
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 28th October 14:50
CamMoreRon said:
Accidentally edited my post instead of replying..
I do completely understand that MNC's act as rational agents with the purpose of maximising shareholder interests; it just bothers me that THAT is the priority, and the interests of the rest of the country they do business in are of negligible concern - demonstrated clearly by them arranging affairs with the sole intent of eliminating tax obligations.
Clearly this is just an issue of what each side find morally objectionable, and why I have tried to leave this conversation a few times. No amount of telling me it is legal is going to make me think it's acceptable; the whole idea violates what I consider to be acceptable behaviour in human society, and I don't think any amount of exploring the legality of it is going to change that.
But who decides what is the right amount of tax is? basherX said:
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).
I don't think I have ever called it illegal.. the closest I have come to that is saying that some practises skirt pretty close to the edge of the law, and I think the only reason they get away with that is because the structures are so complex, or intangible, that it is impossible to be black / white.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).
I do completely understand that MNC's act as rational agents with the purpose of maximising shareholder interests; it just bothers me that THAT is the priority, and the interests of the rest of the country they do business in are of negligible concern - demonstrated clearly by them arranging affairs with the sole intent of eliminating tax obligations.
Clearly this is just an issue of what each side find morally objectionable, and why I have tried to leave this conversation a few times. No amount of telling me it is legal is going to make me think it's acceptable; the whole idea violates what I consider to be acceptable behaviour in human society, and I don't think any amount of exploring the legality of it is going to change that.
Your earlier example of Starbucks "cooking the books" showed they actually paid 31% tax...seems quite a lot to me. The fact that they didn't pay much in the UK doesn't bother me in the slightest.
CamMoreRon said:
Accidentally edited my post instead of replying..
I do completely understand that MNC's act as rational agents with the purpose of maximising shareholder interests; it just bothers me that THAT is the priority, and the interests of the rest of the country they do business in are of negligible concern - demonstrated clearly by them arranging affairs with the sole intent of eliminating tax obligations.
Clearly this is just an issue of what each side find morally objectionable, and why I have tried to leave this conversation a few times. No amount of telling me it is legal is going to make me think it's acceptable; the whole idea violates what I consider to be acceptable behaviour in human society, and I don't think any amount of exploring the legality of it is going to change that.
Fair enough, but I'll beg to differ. Partly because I don't think tax is an aspect of fairness: on the one hand it's a necessary aspect of society (I'll refrain from saying "necessary evil") in order to (rightly) provide those public goods that the market won't provide and on the other it offers an avenue to incentivise certain behaviours, viz tax breaks for pension contributions encourage (or at least don't discourage) long term saving (itself a wider social good thing, perhaps). Also, pragmatically, I don't think that you can enforce a broad concept such as "fair" in the case of taxation because it's almost impossible to define and thus, if applied, would remove a great deal of certainty within business (and society) as well as, probably, opening the government of the day up to all sorts of accusations that the burden itself was unfair (because of waste, party politics etc). In my view the only way to address that is to revert to a rules-based system and to explicitly acknowledge that those that set the rules must be accountable for the outcomes as it is only they who have the power to make changes.basherX said:
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).
I don't think I have ever called it illegal.. the closest I have come to that is saying that some practises skirt pretty close to the edge of the law, and I think the only reason they get away with that is because the structures are so complex, or intangible, that it is impossible to be black / white.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).
I do completely understand that MNC's act as rational agents with the purpose of maximising shareholder interests; it just bothers me that THAT is the priority, and the interests of the rest of the country they do business in are of negligible concern - demonstrated clearly by them arranging affairs with the sole intent of eliminating tax obligations.
Clearly this is just an issue of what each side find morally objectionable, and why I have tried to leave this conversation a few times. No amount of telling me it is legal is going to make me think it's acceptable; the whole idea violates what I consider to be acceptable behaviour in human society, and I don't think any amount of exploring the legality of it is going to change that.
basherX said:
Fair enough, but I'll beg to differ. Partly because I don't think tax is an aspect of fairness: on the one hand it's a necessary aspect of society (I'll refrain from saying "necessary evil") in order to (rightly) provide those public goods that the market won't provide and on the other it offers an avenue to incentivise certain behaviours, viz tax breaks for pension contributions encourage (or at least don't discourage) long term saving (itself a wider social good thing, perhaps). Also, pragmatically, I don't think that you can enforce a broad concept such as "fair" in the case of taxation because it's almost impossible to define and thus, if applied, would remove a great deal of certainty within business (and society) as well as, probably, opening the government of the day up to all sorts of accusations that the burden itself was unfair (because of waste, party politics etc). In my view the only way to address that is to revert to a rules-based system and to explicitly acknowledge that those that set the rules must be accountable for the outcomes as it is only they who have the power to make changes.
Ok well that's certainly something to think about.. I'm happy to leave it there.CamMoreRon said:
Your attacks of my character
I think it was the lack of it that was the basis of any attacks. CamMoreRon said:
attempts to undermine even my engineering qualifications
AIUI you never actually mentioned what they were. Could you confirm these qualifications so that we can understand your level of education?You say that FB et al are acting dishonestly; my understanding of dishonesty is that it involves breaking the law or at least telling little fibs. What laws have FB broken or what lies have they told? nb- Legal & accepted accounting practices don't count as lies, no matter how much you might like it to be so.
You also say you'd like to see fairer taxation- what is fair? You've already admitted that you don't know how much FB 'should' pay for its taxes to be 'fair'.
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.
Don't think he realises that the majority of pension funds are heavily exposed to the stockmarket in order to generate returns. Better to chippily resent those private investors with the means though, eh? That'll show 'em!Oops.
Edited by iphonedyou on Wednesday 29th October 08:30
iphonedyou said:
Don't think he realises that the majority of pension funds are heavily exposed to the stockmarket in order to generate returns. Better to chippily resent those private investors with the means though, eh? That'll show 'em!
Oops.
Ah yes.. because bankers just can't leave people's fOops.
king money alone. If you can find out just how much pension cash is invested in Facebook / Starbucks etc etc and how much their value will be affected by paying, say, £20m in UK CT, I will take your point as valid. 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff