Facebook pay no Corporation Tax AGAIN
Discussion
CamMoreRon said:
Ah yes.. because bankers just can't leave people's f
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. 
No profit no tax due. Very simple.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. Why should ANY busies pay tax if it doesn't make a profit...??
CamMoreRon said:
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. First what have bankers got to do with how pensions are invested??
As for the amount of pension fund invested in shares. No one knows because its impossible to know. Direct investment by pensions schemes is about 10% but many unitised investment schemes (UCITS) will also be held in pension funds. Further, even many individuals will be holding the securities in individually managed pension schemes. My estimate is about 70% of shares of all major companies is held by pension schemes.
As for £20M from Facebook, I assume you are looking at more than that since the Government is currently spending £732bn a year.
Facebook is I recognise a US company so most of it share holders will be US pensioners, but similar protests exist in many countries, particularly the US, So we must assume if we change the law to increase tax of Facebook many counties will change their law to increase tax on UK companies.
Not sure how much you want to raise but since Gordons £5bn pension tax raid managed to destroy the UK final salary schemes so any significant amount will ensure all the pensioners, except of cause Government employees on gold plated schemes, will be much poorer on retirement.
Rather than increase tax the moral question is how much of our taxes does the Government waste?
Maybe try another way of looking at this.
I'm quite happy to put my hand up and admit that I don't send a cheque for a few extra grand off to HMRC because I don't think the law has required me to pay enough tax. I have even been known to take advantage of such dodgy tax avoidance measures as the personal allowance. I don't therefore think I have a right to criticise others who do the the same. The fact that multi national companies face horrendously complex tax affairs is, to a large extent, a deliberate strategy of government - ref Gorden Brown.
I'm sure that Cammy does not take this amoral position, and is happy to hand over extra cash so therefore I am happy to read about the moral high ground he inhabits. On the other hand, it has long been established that the family business of the self-appointed moral abiter Margaret Hodge does not pay a fair amount of tax compared with their turnover. Her views are therefore illegitimate and irrelevant.
I'm quite happy to put my hand up and admit that I don't send a cheque for a few extra grand off to HMRC because I don't think the law has required me to pay enough tax. I have even been known to take advantage of such dodgy tax avoidance measures as the personal allowance. I don't therefore think I have a right to criticise others who do the the same. The fact that multi national companies face horrendously complex tax affairs is, to a large extent, a deliberate strategy of government - ref Gorden Brown.
I'm sure that Cammy does not take this amoral position, and is happy to hand over extra cash so therefore I am happy to read about the moral high ground he inhabits. On the other hand, it has long been established that the family business of the self-appointed moral abiter Margaret Hodge does not pay a fair amount of tax compared with their turnover. Her views are therefore illegitimate and irrelevant.
richie99 said:
Maybe try another way of looking at this.
I'm quite happy to put my hand up and admit that I don't send a cheque for a few extra grand off to HMRC because I don't think the law has required me to pay enough tax. I have even been known to take advantage of such dodgy tax avoidance measures as the personal allowance. I don't therefore think I have a right to criticise others who do the the same. The fact that multi national companies face horrendously complex tax affairs is, to a large extent, a deliberate strategy of government - ref Gorden Brown.
I'm sure that Cammy does not take this amoral position, and is happy to hand over extra cash so therefore I am happy to read about the moral high ground he inhabits. On the other hand, it has long been established that the family business of the self-appointed moral abiter Margaret Hodge does not pay a fair amount of tax compared with their turnover. Her views are therefore illegitimate and irrelevant.
Agreed. There are clearly more outrageous tax treatments that are within the law which many of us would like to see removed through law changes. That is the job of the government though and companies currently complying with those rules should certainty not feel any 'moral' obligation to do otherwise.I'm quite happy to put my hand up and admit that I don't send a cheque for a few extra grand off to HMRC because I don't think the law has required me to pay enough tax. I have even been known to take advantage of such dodgy tax avoidance measures as the personal allowance. I don't therefore think I have a right to criticise others who do the the same. The fact that multi national companies face horrendously complex tax affairs is, to a large extent, a deliberate strategy of government - ref Gorden Brown.
I'm sure that Cammy does not take this amoral position, and is happy to hand over extra cash so therefore I am happy to read about the moral high ground he inhabits. On the other hand, it has long been established that the family business of the self-appointed moral abiter Margaret Hodge does not pay a fair amount of tax compared with their turnover. Her views are therefore illegitimate and irrelevant.
What is laughable on this thread is that CamMoreRon talks about 'morality' yet is castigating Facebook (UK) for not paying Corporation Tax due to paying wages to its staff!!!
Every more embarrassing for him is that, in this instance, the total tax take for the UK is greater than it would have been if no wages had been paid and full Corporation tax paid!
You couldn't make it up (well CamMoreRon could, and frequently does)!!
sidicks said:
What is laughable on this thread is that CamMoreRon talks about 'morality' yet is castigating Facebook (UK) for not paying Corporation Tax due to paying wages to its staff!!!
Every more embarrassing for him is that, in this instance, the total tax take for the UK is greater than it would have been if no wages had been paid and full Corporation tax paid!
You're talking sh*t again, old chap. Every more embarrassing for him is that, in this instance, the total tax take for the UK is greater than it would have been if no wages had been paid and full Corporation tax paid!
CamMoreRon said:
Apparently the reason being their UK wage bill was £49.8m for 208 employees. Making an average salary of a pretty tasty £239,500!
If you can't smell the sarcasm in that sentence then you might want to go get yourself assessed, as you could well be on the spectrum.Do you really.. REALLY.. think that FB UK is paying their little sweat-shop of UK computer geeks 240 thousand pound a year EACH?
If you buy that, you're even stupider than I thought.
Can't wait to hear your next little bout of ignorance and denial.
ETA: Oh, and just before you go on one of your little multi-quote reply bonanzas (which I expect you will be doing as I type this, as you've been refreshing the page all morning just hoping I will bite) why don't you try and PROVE something to me, rather than just be a dismissive little t
t? Just a thought.. I might even listen to you. Edited by CamMoreRon on Wednesday 29th October 10:58
CamMoreRon said:
If you can't smell the sarcasm in that sentence then you might want to go get yourself assessed, as you could well be on the spectrum.
Do you really.. REALLY.. think that FB UK is paying their little sweat-shop of UK computer geeks 240 thousand pound a year EACH?
If you buy that, you're even stupider than I thought.
Can't wait to hear your next little bout of ignorance and denial.
ETA: Oh, and just before you go on one of your little multi-quote reply bonanzas (which I expect you will be doing as I type this, as you've been refreshing the page all morning just hoping I will bite) why don't you try and PROVE something to me, rather than just be a dismissive little tt? Just a thought.. I might even listen to you.
Pretty sure he gave you a breakdown of how that £239k would be taxed (and bear in mind it's not all wages, there's pensions and other benefits to consider) a few pages back.....Do you really.. REALLY.. think that FB UK is paying their little sweat-shop of UK computer geeks 240 thousand pound a year EACH?
If you buy that, you're even stupider than I thought.
Can't wait to hear your next little bout of ignorance and denial.
ETA: Oh, and just before you go on one of your little multi-quote reply bonanzas (which I expect you will be doing as I type this, as you've been refreshing the page all morning just hoping I will bite) why don't you try and PROVE something to me, rather than just be a dismissive little t
t? Just a thought.. I might even listen to you. Edited by CamMoreRon on Wednesday 29th October 10:58
CamMoreRon said:
CamMoreRon said:
Apparently the reason being their UK wage bill was £49.8m for 208 employees. Making an average salary of a pretty tasty £239,500!
If you can't smell the sarcasm in that sentence then you might want to go get yourself assessed, as you could well be on the spectrum.Do you really.. REALLY.. think that FB UK is paying their little sweat-shop of UK computer geeks 240 thousand pound a year EACH?
If you buy that, you're even stupider than I thought.
Can't wait to hear your next little bout of ignorance and denial.
ETA: Oh, and just before you go on one of your little multi-quote reply bonanzas (which I expect you will be doing as I type this, as you've been refreshing the page all morning just hoping I will bite) why don't you try and PROVE something to me, rather than just be a dismissive little t
t? Just a thought.. I might even listen to you. Have you heard of PAYE, P14, P35. I think the HMRC and the auditors would notice any discrepancy.
The salaries where exception high because of bonuses based on the recovery of the share price. All the salaries and bonuses would be subject to UK income tax and national insurance. So of the £49.8M about £30M would have gone directly to the UK Government to waste.
CamMoreRon said:
If you can't smell the sarcasm in that sentence then you might want to go get yourself assessed, as you could well be on the spectrum.
Do you really.. REALLY.. think that FB UK is paying their little sweat-shop of UK computer geeks 240 thousand pound a year EACH?
If you buy that, you're even stupider than I thought.
As explained to you: staff costs of £240k probably works out at average salary of not much more than half of that with bonuses on top. And clearly the Senior people will be on much higher salaries.Do you really.. REALLY.. think that FB UK is paying their little sweat-shop of UK computer geeks 240 thousand pound a year EACH?
If you buy that, you're even stupider than I thought.
To be honest £120k for well qualified specialised people isn't that high. I guess it just seems high to you as you don't have useful skills that people are prepared to pay for??
CamMoreRon said:
ETA: Oh, and just before you go on one of your little multi-quote reply bonanzas (which I expect you will be doing as I type this, as you've been refreshing the page all morning just hoping I will bite) why don't you try and PROVE something to me, rather than just be a dismissive little tt? Just a thought.. I might even listen to you.
Nice.t? Just a thought.. I might even listen to you. Once again, you appear to be extremely ignorant about how a discussion works.
You are the one making random claims, contradicting what has reported about staff costs for Facebook (UK). Either you've got some evidence to support your claims (in which case we can review to see whether your claims stack up) or you haven't. The latter is most likely, based on past experience.
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 29th October 11:33
Mrr T said:
So are you suggesting Facebook are making up the salaries figures so as to avoid CT?
Have you heard of PAYE, P14, P35. I think the HMRC and the auditors would notice any discrepancy.
The salaries where exception high because of bonuses based on the recovery of the share price. All the salaries and bonuses would be subject to UK income tax and national insurance. So of the £49.8M about £30M would have gone directly to the UK Government to waste.
Ok fair enough, I'll concede on that particular point. However.. I doubt £30m of that made it to the government.Have you heard of PAYE, P14, P35. I think the HMRC and the auditors would notice any discrepancy.
The salaries where exception high because of bonuses based on the recovery of the share price. All the salaries and bonuses would be subject to UK income tax and national insurance. So of the £49.8M about £30M would have gone directly to the UK Government to waste.
However.. wages / shares paid to UK staff are the tip of the iceberg. There is still the more pertinent question over £223m of advertising sales in the UK disappearing in to thin air. (Or rather being siphoned off to Ireland) - Sales that were made in this country - profit that was generated in this country - profit that still existed after the UK "workforce" had been paid.
sidicks said:
To be honest £120k for well qualified specialised people isn't that high. I guess it just seems high to you as you don't have useful skills that people are prepared to pay for??
ETA
Play nicely now or lose your posting rights on the thread.
Edited by Big Al. on Wednesday 29th October 18:02
sidicks said:
Nice.
Once again, you appear to be extremely ignorant about how a discussion works.
You are the one making random claims, contradicting what has reported about staff costs for Facebook (UK). Either you've got some evidence to support your claims (in which case we can review to see whether your claims stack up) or you haven't. The latter is most likely, based on past experience.
Also complete and utter garbage.Once again, you appear to be extremely ignorant about how a discussion works.
You are the one making random claims, contradicting what has reported about staff costs for Facebook (UK). Either you've got some evidence to support your claims (in which case we can review to see whether your claims stack up) or you haven't. The latter is most likely, based on past experience.
I've been through quite a number of your posts and noticed that you are incapable of writing any more than 1 short sentence unless you're making a personal insult.
You say I don't understand how a discussion works..
sidicks said:
How? Why?
What evidence do you have to suggest otherwise...?
(Presumably none. Again)
I just don't trust people who earn that sort of money to be honest with it. When you read some of the rants from people earning large salaries about how they're sick of propping up the country / paying for the sick / supporting the needy etc etc.. it doesn't surprise me in the least when I learn that they're engaged in all sorts of tax abuse behaviours.What evidence do you have to suggest otherwise...?
(Presumably none. Again)
CamMoreRon said:
sidicks said:
To be honest £120k for well qualified specialised people isn't that high. I guess it just seems high to you as you don't have useful skills that people are prepared to pay for??
You really are a pathetic elitist c*nt, aren't you.sidicks said:
Nice. You don't like being proved wrong, do you?!
As I've said before, I'm perfectly happy to be proved wrong when somebody takes the time to EXPLAIN why.What I don't like is people like you who are incapable of taking that small step, and just rely on pettiness, petulance, and insults. I would hazard a guess at it being because you don't know what you're talking about, and just sit there hoping someone comes along who does.
CamMoreRon said:
I just don't trust people who earn that sort of money to be honest with it. When you read some of the rants from people earning large salaries about how they're sick of propping up the country / paying for the sick / supporting the needy etc etc.. it doesn't surprise me in the least when I learn that they're engaged in all sorts of tax abuse behaviours.
Finally we get to the truth - ignorance and jealousy about those that earn (much) more than you.Thanks for confirming what I previously suspected.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff