Jeremy Clarkson suspended by BBC...
Discussion
SPS said:
98elise said:
SPS said:
Snozzwangler said:
98elise said:
SPS said:
Oh working for Amazon - you know the ones that pay all that tax 
Who the hell watches that?
I would rather watch 5th Gear - at least the cars get a look in instead of three middle aged (well one of em is oldish) pissing around and laughing at each others jokes.
What tax are they not paying? Do you mean corporation tax, ie a tax on company profits. Amazon is not a very profitable company, especially given its turnover. Who the hell watches that?
I would rather watch 5th Gear - at least the cars get a look in instead of three middle aged (well one of em is oldish) pissing around and laughing at each others jokes.
Chillax babes
Now I think I have my facts more or less sorted.
Oh and avoid watching or purchasing anything from Amazon too - so feel rather righteous ;-)
A company can be huge and make no profit, even large losses. This isn't clever accounting or a dodge, its simply means that there is nothing else left in the pot after they have paid everyone (and all the UK tax due on that).
By the way after running a business that made gross profits in the multiple millions pa (and tax was paid on the profits) for over 20 years and paying my staff strong salaries plus up to 40% of salary OTE - I think that I can just about grasp the differential between the two!
These companies ARE making profits and cynically manipulating the loopholes to avoid paying taxes and in a number of cases the UK tax payer is having to subsidize these companies because we are having to pay hard working low paid staff tax credits or what ever it will be called next! True the crap governments across most of Europe are very slow to close these - must be board positions on the horizon.
In addition you will find that many of the "thousands" of jobs that they provide are either zero hours contracts and are also close to the minimum wage.
So keep buying from these companies and before you realize it any competitive choice will be long gone. Have you forgotten what the supermarket have done and how they have come to totally dominate many retail sectors. Now at last there are new UK & European competitors in the market (relatively new anyway) and surprisingly the big 4 have had to re think their whole marketing strategy and prices are falling simplesssssssssssss!
So as some one has said back to Jezza and his mates!
Of course it's easy for a massive company like Amazon which manages to lose so much of its profits yet still enter in to many contracts worth many hundreds of millions.
Exige77 said:
The Spruce goose said:
djdest said:
I wonder how many ideas they've sat on for years that they knew the BBC wouldn't pass
The thing is they could have left anytime before the punch so I can't imagine there are a lot.He sold his stake in the production company so again before that he had total control. The thing is the new show could be crap or good but to say he was constrained I wouldn't think is true.
SPS said:
......By the way after running a business that made gross profits in the multiple millions pa (and tax was paid on the profits) for over 20 years and paying my staff strong salaries plus up to 40% of salary OTE - I think that I can just about grasp the differential between the two........
]
Corporation tax isn't levied on gross profit, by any accepted definition.]
NoNeed said:
Of course it's easy for a massive company like Amazon which manages to lose so much of its profits yet still enter in to many contracts worth many hundreds of millions.
That's just gibberish. Lose profits? Contracts worth hundreds of millions?Amazon is a not massive company because it makes massive profits. In fact it is quite the opposite. It is massive because it has reinvested in infrastructure, tech and brand to drive growth. It has never made significant (relatively) or consistent profits in 20 years of existence.
Use them or don't use them but try not to waffle nonsense regurgitated from the Guardian comments. As they say, facts are sacred.
And as for Top Gear I'm sure it'll be much the same but with less SIARPC.
otolith said:
eccles said:
otolith said:
It will be interesting to see how the people saying the TG format is old and tired get on - they will now have the old format with new presenters and the old presenters with a new format.
You really think they keep the same format on both shows?I suspect that a lot of people say "the format is tired" when they mean "I don't like Clarkson".
technodup said:
hat's just gibberish. Lose profits? Contracts worth hundreds of millions?
Amazon is a not massive company because it makes massive profits. In fact it is quite the opposite. It is massive because it has reinvested in infrastructure, tech and brand to drive growth. It has never made significant (relatively) or consistent profits in 20 years of existence.
Use them or don't use them but try not to waffle nonsense regurgitated from the Guardian comments. As they say, facts are sacred.
What was it investing over the last 20 years if it was not making significant or consistent profits? Amazon is a not massive company because it makes massive profits. In fact it is quite the opposite. It is massive because it has reinvested in infrastructure, tech and brand to drive growth. It has never made significant (relatively) or consistent profits in 20 years of existence.
Use them or don't use them but try not to waffle nonsense regurgitated from the Guardian comments. As they say, facts are sacred.
Try not to waffle nonsense please.
so called said:
What was it investing over the last 20 years if it was not making significant or consistent profits?
Try not to waffle nonsense please.
It hasn't had significant or consistent products BECAUSE it was spending the money on expansion, large deals etc rather than holding the money.Try not to waffle nonsense please.
so called said:
technodup said:
hat's just gibberish. Lose profits? Contracts worth hundreds of millions?
Amazon is a not massive company because it makes massive profits. In fact it is quite the opposite. It is massive because it has reinvested in infrastructure, tech and brand to drive growth. It has never made significant (relatively) or consistent profits in 20 years of existence.
Use them or don't use them but try not to waffle nonsense regurgitated from the Guardian comments. As they say, facts are sacred.
What was it investing over the last 20 years if it was not making significant or consistent profits? Amazon is a not massive company because it makes massive profits. In fact it is quite the opposite. It is massive because it has reinvested in infrastructure, tech and brand to drive growth. It has never made significant (relatively) or consistent profits in 20 years of existence.
Use them or don't use them but try not to waffle nonsense regurgitated from the Guardian comments. As they say, facts are sacred.
Try not to waffle nonsense please.
Let me give an example. You run a newsagent. On everything you sell, you make a profit. You sell lots, and have a decent chunk of cash in the bank. However, your lease is coming up for review and it's likely you'll lose it. Just next door, there's a shop twice the size with the freehold available.
So you use the cash in the bank to put a deposit down to buy that freehold. Now you have nothing in the bank, and a mortgage, plus the requirement to fit out the larger shop, etc.
It hits year end. How much corp tax should you pay? You made a lot of money on all the sales of sweets, fags and papers, but you have nothing in the bank.
Sway said:
.It hits year end. How much corp tax should you pay? You made a lot of money on all the sales of sweets, fags and papers, but you have nothing in the bank.
Yes, but you have a big payment down on a freehold property, which is now an asset and still counts as profit as far as tax is concerned.You can't (in theory) avoid tax just by switching cash into other tangible assets (beyond annual investment allowances, write downs, depreciation etc.).
confused_buyer said:
Sway said:
.It hits year end. How much corp tax should you pay? You made a lot of money on all the sales of sweets, fags and papers, but you have nothing in the bank.
Yes, but you have a big payment down on a freehold property, which is now an asset and still counts as profit as far as tax is concerned.You can't (in theory) avoid tax just by switching cash into other tangible assets (beyond annual investment allowances, write downs, depreciation etc.).
A good article on Amazon's operating model.
http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2014/9/4/why-am...
In a nutshell all of the FCF (Free Cash Flow) is going straight into Capex (and therefore is handled as an additional asset, and can be amortized).
The capex appears to be largely on additional warehousing and fulfilment infrastructure for things like Prime.
Interesting operating model. Really the only question is how long shareholders would be prepared to defer dividends.
http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2014/9/4/why-am...
In a nutshell all of the FCF (Free Cash Flow) is going straight into Capex (and therefore is handled as an additional asset, and can be amortized).
The capex appears to be largely on additional warehousing and fulfilment infrastructure for things like Prime.
Interesting operating model. Really the only question is how long shareholders would be prepared to defer dividends.
Otispunkmeyer said:
otolith said:
eccles said:
otolith said:
It will be interesting to see how the people saying the TG format is old and tired get on - they will now have the old format with new presenters and the old presenters with a new format.
You really think they keep the same format on both shows?I suspect that a lot of people say "the format is tired" when they mean "I don't like Clarkson".
technodup said:
NoNeed said:
Of course it's easy for a massive company like Amazon which manages to lose so much of its profits yet still enter in to many contracts worth many hundreds of millions.
That's just gibberish. Lose profits? Contracts worth hundreds of millions?Amazon is a not massive company because it makes massive profits. In fact it is quite the opposite. It is massive because it has reinvested in infrastructure, tech and brand to drive growth. It has never made significant (relatively) or consistent profits in 20 years of existence.
Use them or don't use them but try not to waffle nonsense regurgitated from the Guardian comments. As they say, facts are sacred.
And as for Top Gear I'm sure it'll be much the same but with less SIARPC.
Yes yes yes we know avoidance isn't evasion e.t.c but it doesn't make it any more pallet able.
NoNeed said:
I use the term "lose" as opposed to hide/move by clever accounting that we know they do, or else they would be suing so many people for labelling the tax avoiders.
Businesses exist to make money for their shareholders, not the government. To maximise their dividend they must use any lawful means to minimise their tax burden.Every business in the country uses an accountant to achieve the lowest tax bill possible. There is nothing new or unusual or untoward about that. Whether you find it palletable is neither here nor there.
It's government's choice to structure taxes in such a way as to maximise the take and close loopholes, you can't blame businesses for taking advantage of the system.
Government sets the rules, Amazon plays the game.
so called said:
technodup said:
hat's just gibberish. Lose profits? Contracts worth hundreds of millions?
Amazon is a not massive company because it makes massive profits. In fact it is quite the opposite. It is massive because it has reinvested in infrastructure, tech and brand to drive growth. It has never made significant (relatively) or consistent profits in 20 years of existence.
Use them or don't use them but try not to waffle nonsense regurgitated from the Guardian comments. As they say, facts are sacred.
What was it investing over the last 20 years if it was not making significant or consistent profits? Amazon is a not massive company because it makes massive profits. In fact it is quite the opposite. It is massive because it has reinvested in infrastructure, tech and brand to drive growth. It has never made significant (relatively) or consistent profits in 20 years of existence.
Use them or don't use them but try not to waffle nonsense regurgitated from the Guardian comments. As they say, facts are sacred.
Try not to waffle nonsense please.
Its not avoidance or clever accounting, its just the way corporation tax is levied. Its simply a tax on cash left in the pot after all expenses of running the company.
98elise said:
The point is that the is no tax to pay on the money that is re-invested in the company. Thats the same for every company in the UK.
That's not always true, if whatever it is invested into is then a definable asset then it still counts as profit for tax. If Amazon build a massive distribution network then that network must be worth something.If you could simply remove your tax liability by just buying stuff every company and individual would be doing so.
confused_buyer said:
That's not always true, if whatever it is invested into is then a definable asset then it still counts as profit for tax. If Amazon build a massive distribution network then that network must be worth something.
If you could simply remove your tax liability by just buying stuff every company and individual would be doing so.
Can I ask if you have ever been in business?If you could simply remove your tax liability by just buying stuff every company and individual would be doing so.
confused_buyer said:
, if whatever it is invested into is then a definable asset then it still counts as profit for tax. If Amazon build a massive distribution network then that network must be worth something.
It's a depreciating asset that contributes to the company's net worth (and - if plant or machinery - )will be written off over a number of years. Corporation tax isn't paid on net worth. Only net profit.At least you haven't suggested that companies should be taxed on turnover.
Edited by audidoody on Tuesday 4th August 10:49
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff