Facebook pay no Corporation Tax AGAIN

[CamMoreRon]

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.

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.

[CamMoreRon]

sidicks said:

BGARK said:

CamMoreRon said:

If you want to talk engineering

What type of engineering are you involved in?

My guess would be Lego, but obviously not the technical stuff!

I'll have you know I was pretty handy with Lego!

Not quite as handy as this, mind..

[CamMoreRon]

mybrainhurts said:

The ugly traits of socialist envy and ignorance rise from the mire again..

If there was ever a sentence that showed true ignorance..

[CamMoreRon]

Sir Humphrey said:

CamMoreRon said:

If there was ever a sentence that showed true ignorance..

What are the beneficial traits of socialism then?

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

[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?

[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.

[CamMoreRon]

sidicks said:

Tell you what - why don't you do some investigations into the situation before you set up (yet another) post about companies complying with the law....?

Nope.. I think it's your turn to do a little research.

[CamMoreRon]

heebeegeetee said:

I think we'd all like a law that says we need pay no tax though. Trouble is the laws are written by those who have the most money (in the UK anyway. Not sure they get such an easy ride elsewhere).

All over the world laws are written by those with the most money. Especially so in developing countries. Here the laws were written by the establishment, for the purposes of perpetuating the establishment, and tinkered with for the benefit of those with great economic power without the approval (or even prior knowledge) of the people.

I have a question for turbo / sidicks et al..

If what companies like Facebook are doing is perfectly acceptable from a legal / moral standpoint, why is it that the OECD are pushing for action against their behaviour?

[CamMoreRon]

sidicks said:

Are the OECD suggesting that the current approaches are not legal?

Morals are highly subjective and ambiguous.

No.. they are suggesting (like I have been) that the behaviour used to make the current approaches (appear) legal are unacceptable.

Don't dodge the question. If the OECD think it is unacceptable, why?

[CamMoreRon]

sidicks said:

The OECD say lots of things - it doesn't make them right,

Ok.. so explain why it makes them wrong?

[CamMoreRon]

Alpinestars said:

A final thought. The UK has at least 2 regimes which were designed to help innovation and the use of the UK as a hub, patent box and financing structures. We also have a pretty low CT rate. A number of international groups have used these structures, which has led to a repatriation of profits to the UK. Had they not done that, they would probably have paid less UK CT and more overseas tax. Should we be outraged at the UK CT system?

When there are still MNC's posting enormous end of year profits while paying no UK CT, yes I think we should be outraged.

[CamMoreRon]

sidicks said:

CamMoreRon said:

When there are still MNC's posting enormous end of year profits while paying no UK CT, yes I think we should be outraged.

No year end profits in the UK.

As has been explained to you on numerous occasions.

You're avoiding the question - again.

[CamMoreRon]

Alpinestars said:

I think you've misunderstood. What about MNCs shifting profits to the UK at the expense of say Italy, Germany, the US etc, is that ok?

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.

[CamMoreRon]

sidicks said:

CamMoreRon said:

You're avoiding the question - again.

You're avoiding basic knowledge of UK transfer pricing rules.

You're a towel.

Just answer the question. Here:

CamMoreRon said:

I have a question for turbo / sidicks et al..

Question 1: If what companies like Facebook are doing is perfectly acceptable from a legal / moral standpoint, why is it that the OECD are pushing for action against their behaviour?

sidicks said:

Dodge:Are the OECD suggesting that the current approaches are not legal?

CamMoreRon said:

Response: No.. they are suggesting (like I have been) that the behaviour used to make the current approaches (appear) legal are unacceptable.

Don't dodge the question. Question 1: If the OECD think it is unacceptable, why?

sidicks said:

Dodge: The OECD say lots of things - it doesn't make them right,

CamMoreRon said:

Question 2: Ok.. so explain why it makes them wrong?

You owe me 2 answers, but I will accept one. If I really don't know what I'm talking about, it serves your interests to educate me, right?

[CamMoreRon]

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.

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]

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.

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]

sidicks said:

They can't do this and don't do this. That would be fraud. But that has been explained to you already.

Oh, you found your keyboard just late enough to avoid my questions again.. what a surprise.

[CamMoreRon]

sidicks said:

Go back to your Lego!

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.

[CamMoreRon]

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.

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]

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?

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.