Discussion
Large Stateless corporation have a lot to answer for. Shifting where tax is paid is far to easy. Google, Starbucks etc. and plenty more gain unfair advantage over local competion by doing it.
It's no good saying we comply with the rules, if the rules stink in the first place, they need changing. I don't care if Starbucks leaves the uk market, others will take up their customers and then pay the proper tax due.
It's no good saying we comply with the rules, if the rules stink in the first place, they need changing. I don't care if Starbucks leaves the uk market, others will take up their customers and then pay the proper tax due.
speedyman said:
Large Stateless corporation have a lot to answer for. Shifting where tax is paid is far to easy. Google, Starbucks etc. and plenty more gain unfair advantage over local competion by doing it.
It's no good saying we comply with the rules, if the rules stink in the first place, they need changing. I don't care if Starbucks leaves the uk market, others will take up their customers and then pay the proper tax due.
If taxes on production (corp tax, income taxes etc) were largely replaced or replaced with tariffs what do you think would be the effect on the Googles and Starbucks?It's no good saying we comply with the rules, if the rules stink in the first place, they need changing. I don't care if Starbucks leaves the uk market, others will take up their customers and then pay the proper tax due.
For info IIRC before some point towards the beginning of the 20th century the USA had no income tax and used tariffs to fund government (admittedly smaller, but that's no bad thing).
Edit:
For info, when taxes were very high on this graph I am lead to believe there were all sorts of deductions that you could take advantage of that meant the effective rate might have been lower than it is today, at least for higher rate payers.
The story of taxes/tariffs changing due to globalisation isn't simply just lower international tariffs, it's also the rise of the income tax.
Which tax is preferable? I've heard the small government enthusiasts speaking favourably for tariffs over income tax because at least they're avoidable. Would you mind the UK having a ~20% import tariff if you paid no income tax? Would no taxes on the domestic economy (and the associated burden of tax compliance removed) not mean the UK (or any economy) would be booming?
Wasn't the time when the US had no income taxes and high tariffs not the time when it became a superpower?
Edited by Esseesse on Tuesday 6th December 17:44
What we need as a race or species is a single world government run by a democratically elected set of philosopher kings and the removal of anyone from any position of power both in commerce, trade or politics who doesn't pass a basic psychopath/sociopath test.
In fact if we could isolate the gene that makes people selfish, unempathetic and generally
y then we could weed them out in utero.
(I realise the irony in the last sentance - it was purposeful, before anyone need point it out)
In fact if we could isolate the gene that makes people selfish, unempathetic and generally
y then we could weed them out in utero.(I realise the irony in the last sentance - it was purposeful, before anyone need point it out)
speedyman said:
Large Stateless corporation have a lot to answer for. Shifting where tax is paid is far to easy. Google, Starbucks etc. and plenty more gain unfair advantage over local competion by doing it.
It's no good saying we comply with the rules, if the rules stink in the first place, they need changing. I don't care if Starbucks leaves the uk market, others will take up their customers and then pay the proper tax due.
Starbucks already pay the 'proper tax due'. Which part of their business approach do you not agree with?It's no good saying we comply with the rules, if the rules stink in the first place, they need changing. I don't care if Starbucks leaves the uk market, others will take up their customers and then pay the proper tax due.
FredClogs said:
What we need as a race or species is a single world government run by a democratically elected set of philosopher kings and the removal of anyone from any position of power both in commerce, trade or politics who doesn't pass a basic psychopath/sociopath test.
In the absense of that any suggestions that are possible?sidicks said:
speedyman said:
Large Stateless corporation have a lot to answer for. Shifting where tax is paid is far to easy. Google, Starbucks etc. and plenty more gain unfair advantage over local competion by doing it.
It's no good saying we comply with the rules, if the rules stink in the first place, they need changing. I don't care if Starbucks leaves the uk market, others will take up their customers and then pay the proper tax due.
Starbucks already pay the 'proper tax due'. Which part of their business approach do you not agree with?It's no good saying we comply with the rules, if the rules stink in the first place, they need changing. I don't care if Starbucks leaves the uk market, others will take up their customers and then pay the proper tax due.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Sandwich
and other such strategies, as you well understand. It's all very well going into Larry Logic mode and shifting the blame for this onto the governmental structures and regulations as I suppose you would - but when government is so heavily lobbied by and beholden to big business we end up with a positive feedback cycle of enriching the corporate power brokers and shifting money into ever smaller and more concentrated hands.
There's a fecking reason why tax havens are small islands next to large countries... Eh... Think about it.
B'stard Child said:
FredClogs said:
What we need as a race or species is a single world government run by a democratically elected set of philosopher kings and the removal of anyone from any position of power both in commerce, trade or politics who doesn't pass a basic psychopath/sociopath test.
In the absense of that any suggestions that are possible?FredClogs said:
B'stard Child said:
FredClogs said:
What we need as a race or species is a single world government run by a democratically elected set of philosopher kings and the removal of anyone from any position of power both in commerce, trade or politics who doesn't pass a basic psychopath/sociopath test.
In the absense of that any suggestions that are possible?
I meant the bit in bold for clarification - but I do agree I've had my fair share of psychometric testing and it's always been reasonably accurate even if I haven't been fully ready for the truth.
B'stard Child said:
FredClogs said:
B'stard Child said:
FredClogs said:
What we need as a race or species is a single world government run by a democratically elected set of philosopher kings and the removal of anyone from any position of power both in commerce, trade or politics who doesn't pass a basic psychopath/sociopath test.
In the absense of that any suggestions that are possible?I meant the bit in bold for clarification - but I do agree I've had my fair share of psychometric testing and it's always been reasonably accurate even if I haven't been fully ready for the truth.
Well you just kill everyone who's not on board, I'd have thought that was obvious.
FredClogs said:
B'stard Child said:
FredClogs said:
B'stard Child said:
FredClogs said:
What we need as a race or species is a single world government run by a democratically elected set of philosopher kings and the removal of anyone from any position of power both in commerce, trade or politics who doesn't pass a basic psychopath/sociopath test.
In the absense of that any suggestions that are possible?I meant the bit in bold for clarification - but I do agree I've had my fair share of psychometric testing and it's always been reasonably accurate even if I haven't been fully ready for the truth.
Well you just kill everyone who's not on board, I'd have thought that was obvious.
It's certainly a possibility it would have the effect of - reducing the world population
- freeing up space in this crowded country
- roads would be quieter (perhaps they wouldn't need to be widened)
- Provided those left moved into suitably sized accommodation a further housing shortage could be avoided
Your selection criteria again please - I think I'm climbing on *board......
* providing I meet the criteria
FredClogs said:
He disagrees with this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Sandwich
and other such strategies, as you well understand. It's all very well going into Larry Logic mode and shifting the blame for this onto the governmental structures and regulations as I suppose you would - but when government is so heavily lobbied by and beholden to big business we end up with a positive feedback cycle of enriching the corporate power brokers and shifting money into ever smaller and more concentrated hands.
There's a fecking reason why tax havens are small islands next to large countries... Eh... Think about it.
Doesn't that primarily affect the tax paid in Holland, not the UK?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Sandwich
and other such strategies, as you well understand. It's all very well going into Larry Logic mode and shifting the blame for this onto the governmental structures and regulations as I suppose you would - but when government is so heavily lobbied by and beholden to big business we end up with a positive feedback cycle of enriching the corporate power brokers and shifting money into ever smaller and more concentrated hands.
There's a fecking reason why tax havens are small islands next to large countries... Eh... Think about it.
sidicks said:
FredClogs said:
He disagrees with this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Sandwich
and other such strategies, as you well understand. It's all very well going into Larry Logic mode and shifting the blame for this onto the governmental structures and regulations as I suppose you would - but when government is so heavily lobbied by and beholden to big business we end up with a positive feedback cycle of enriching the corporate power brokers and shifting money into ever smaller and more concentrated hands.
There's a fecking reason why tax havens are small islands next to large countries... Eh... Think about it.
Doesn't that primarily affect the tax paid in Holland, not the UK?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Sandwich
and other such strategies, as you well understand. It's all very well going into Larry Logic mode and shifting the blame for this onto the governmental structures and regulations as I suppose you would - but when government is so heavily lobbied by and beholden to big business we end up with a positive feedback cycle of enriching the corporate power brokers and shifting money into ever smaller and more concentrated hands.
There's a fecking reason why tax havens are small islands next to large countries... Eh... Think about it.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/28/busi...
Of course - any Government would want to close down these schemes - well provided they weren't in bed with the companies in some way shape or form
B'stard Child said:
FredClogs said:
B'stard Child said:
FredClogs said:
B'stard Child said:
FredClogs said:
What we need as a race or species is a single world government run by a democratically elected set of philosopher kings and the removal of anyone from any position of power both in commerce, trade or politics who doesn't pass a basic psychopath/sociopath test.
In the absense of that any suggestions that are possible?I meant the bit in bold for clarification - but I do agree I've had my fair share of psychometric testing and it's always been reasonably accurate even if I haven't been fully ready for the truth.
Well you just kill everyone who's not on board, I'd have thought that was obvious.
It's certainly a possibility it would have the effect of - reducing the world population
- freeing up space in this crowded country
- roads would be quieter (perhaps they wouldn't need to be widened)
- Provided those left moved into suitably sized accommodation a further housing shortage could be avoided
Your selection criteria again please - I think I'm climbing on *board......
* providing I meet the criteria
sidicks said:
FredClogs said:
He disagrees with this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Sandwich
and other such strategies, as you well understand. It's all very well going into Larry Logic mode and shifting the blame for this onto the governmental structures and regulations as I suppose you would - but when government is so heavily lobbied by and beholden to big business we end up with a positive feedback cycle of enriching the corporate power brokers and shifting money into ever smaller and more concentrated hands.
There's a fecking reason why tax havens are small islands next to large countries... Eh... Think about it.
Doesn't that primarily affect the tax paid in Holland, not the UK?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Sandwich
and other such strategies, as you well understand. It's all very well going into Larry Logic mode and shifting the blame for this onto the governmental structures and regulations as I suppose you would - but when government is so heavily lobbied by and beholden to big business we end up with a positive feedback cycle of enriching the corporate power brokers and shifting money into ever smaller and more concentrated hands.
There's a fecking reason why tax havens are small islands next to large countries... Eh... Think about it.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/shortcuts/201...
Fair play to them, they have changed their ways and I expect the lowering and promises of further lowering of corp tax rates did as much to persuade them of that than consumer pressure, but this sort of thing is going on with global firms all the time, it's just that as they're not household names people don't write about it in the Guardian as much.
FredClogs said:
I'm pretty sure you know not... but here is what starbucks were doing up until 2014.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/shortcuts/201...
Fair play to them, they have changed their ways and I expect the lowering and promises of further lowering of corp tax rates did as much to persuade them of that than consumer pressure, but this sort of thing is going on with global firms all the time, it's just that as they're not household names people don't write about it in the Guardian as much.
As I suspected, this is them using the same expenses as any other UK company would be entitled to.https://www.theguardian.com/business/shortcuts/201...
Fair play to them, they have changed their ways and I expect the lowering and promises of further lowering of corp tax rates did as much to persuade them of that than consumer pressure, but this sort of thing is going on with global firms all the time, it's just that as they're not household names people don't write about it in the Guardian as much.
Do you think that the cost of actually buying coffee should not be a permitted expense?
How about the brand cost?
What about R&D?
How about the cost of renting their shops?
All seem like perfectly reasonable expenses to me - which would you propose to exclude (presumably from ALL businesses)?
speedyman said:
You mean coffee bought for 100 euro a bag by Starbucks Nl. and cross charged at 10000 euro a bag to Starbucks uk who claim that as a legitmate expence.
You don't know what you are talking about. Maybe understand the rules before you complain about them!!See 'transfer pricing rules' for more detail!
On a boring drive across Belgium a few weeks ago it struck me that quite a lot of globalisation is probably utterly pointless anyway.
It was an Italian truck carrying rubber hoses around the Ghent ring road that did it. I'm generally pro free trade but it set me wondering if there was really anything special about those hoses that made it worth driving them from 700 miles across 4 countries. Couldn't Belgians, who conquered the Congo and invented Duvel make their own hoses?
Do the citizens of Switzerland and Germany not mind their roads being clogged and used by lorries carrying such a simple thing such a vast distance?
And what are the odds that somewhere in Turin is a Belgian lorry carrying rubber hoses in the other direction?
I understand comparative advantage and that many such things are highly specialised for specific applications but it did get me wondering if we're doing something a bit wrong to make this sort of thing viable.
Then I continued the thread on the ferry, thinking about all those ships full of moulded plastic and other tat from China. And people moving thousands of miles to work in the factories that produce it.
And people flying around the world to convince other people that their own brand hoses is worth shipping across continents.
It failed my archeologist test. If I uncovered this civilisation in a couple of thousand years what would I think?
I suspect a vastly complicated web of subsidies, regulations, fiat currency quirks and trade arrangements are making an unnaturally high level of trade economically viable in the short term but ultimately ruining quality of life and squandering resources.
And that's an unusual thought for me, as I am generally pro free trade, I'm not a greeny and I definitely don't think resource use and allocation should be centrally planned. It just seems like it could be done better.
It was an Italian truck carrying rubber hoses around the Ghent ring road that did it. I'm generally pro free trade but it set me wondering if there was really anything special about those hoses that made it worth driving them from 700 miles across 4 countries. Couldn't Belgians, who conquered the Congo and invented Duvel make their own hoses?
Do the citizens of Switzerland and Germany not mind their roads being clogged and used by lorries carrying such a simple thing such a vast distance?
And what are the odds that somewhere in Turin is a Belgian lorry carrying rubber hoses in the other direction?
I understand comparative advantage and that many such things are highly specialised for specific applications but it did get me wondering if we're doing something a bit wrong to make this sort of thing viable.
Then I continued the thread on the ferry, thinking about all those ships full of moulded plastic and other tat from China. And people moving thousands of miles to work in the factories that produce it.
And people flying around the world to convince other people that their own brand hoses is worth shipping across continents.
It failed my archeologist test. If I uncovered this civilisation in a couple of thousand years what would I think?
I suspect a vastly complicated web of subsidies, regulations, fiat currency quirks and trade arrangements are making an unnaturally high level of trade economically viable in the short term but ultimately ruining quality of life and squandering resources.
And that's an unusual thought for me, as I am generally pro free trade, I'm not a greeny and I definitely don't think resource use and allocation should be centrally planned. It just seems like it could be done better.
sidicks said:
FredClogs said:
I'm pretty sure you know not... but here is what starbucks were doing up until 2014.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/shortcuts/201...
Fair play to them, they have changed their ways and I expect the lowering and promises of further lowering of corp tax rates did as much to persuade them of that than consumer pressure, but this sort of thing is going on with global firms all the time, it's just that as they're not household names people don't write about it in the Guardian as much.
As I suspected, this is them using the same expenses as any other UK company would be entitled to.https://www.theguardian.com/business/shortcuts/201...
Fair play to them, they have changed their ways and I expect the lowering and promises of further lowering of corp tax rates did as much to persuade them of that than consumer pressure, but this sort of thing is going on with global firms all the time, it's just that as they're not household names people don't write about it in the Guardian as much.
Do you think that the cost of actually buying coffee should not be a permitted expense?
How about the brand cost?
What about R&D?
How about the cost of renting their shops?
All seem like perfectly reasonable expenses to me - which would you propose to exclude (presumably from ALL businesses)?
FredClogs said:
sidicks said:
FredClogs said:
I'm pretty sure you know not... but here is what starbucks were doing up until 2014.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/shortcuts/201...
Fair play to them, they have changed their ways and I expect the lowering and promises of further lowering of corp tax rates did as much to persuade them of that than consumer pressure, but this sort of thing is going on with global firms all the time, it's just that as they're not household names people don't write about it in the Guardian as much.
As I suspected, this is them using the same expenses as any other UK company would be entitled to.https://www.theguardian.com/business/shortcuts/201...
Fair play to them, they have changed their ways and I expect the lowering and promises of further lowering of corp tax rates did as much to persuade them of that than consumer pressure, but this sort of thing is going on with global firms all the time, it's just that as they're not household names people don't write about it in the Guardian as much.
Do you think that the cost of actually buying coffee should not be a permitted expense?
How about the brand cost?
What about R&D?
How about the cost of renting their shops?
All seem like perfectly reasonable expenses to me - which would you propose to exclude (presumably from ALL businesses)?
The Double Irish is clearly wrong and can't be defended.
I'm still waiting to understand which of the above deductions you'd propose to disallow for tax purposes?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff