Facebook pay no Corporation Tax AGAIN

[Rovinghawk]

CamMoreRon said:

ask sidicks how he got on.

IIRC he tried to explain things to you from an informed standpoint but you refused to listen.

The analogy it brought to my mind was of trying to teach a pig to sing.

[turbobloke]

iphonedyou said:

CamMoreRon said:

We can sit here and attempt to insult each other "DERR look how stupid he is" but a word to the wise: I don't think you want to go down that road with me. I can be very stubborn when people start being unreasonable - ask sidicks how he got on.

Oh. This changes everything.

Wait, no. It doesn't. It doesn't change the fact that you're as economically illiterate in this thread as you were in the Cameron speech thread.

So please, continue to be as stubborn as you wish. It doesn't change anything.

Sidicks had an easy ride in terms of content but will now be quaking over the keyboard following that stern warning.

[CamMoreRon]

Munka01 said:

Your OP shows that you do not understand basic principals.

Thing is I will forget about this in five minutes. You will clearly be stressing about this for a long time yet.

I don't agree with a lot of the what's going on in the UK, which I why I moved to Australia instead of whining about it on the internet.

I hope 'winning' on the internet brings you fulfilment in life.

My OP shows an incredibly simple abstract example, used to make a broad point.

Tax avoidance is something I care about a lot, so yes it's likely the subject will continue to bother me once this thread dies. And maybe the existence of people so signed up to the neoliberal doctrine and so brainwashed by right-wing media will also bother me, but you.. I doubt I'll recognise your username in a couple of hours. Anyway.. continue on your high road and don't respond. If your only form of discussion is dismission, denial, and berating, then it's highly unlikely that anything productive will come from you and I continuing to talk.

[iphonedyou]

turbobloke said:

Sidicks had an easy ride in terms of content but will now be quaking over the keyboard following that stern warning.

That CamMoreOn uses the exchange as a threat to the rest of us only serves to highlight the delusion.

Genuinely bizarre.

[CamMoreRon]

Rovinghawk said:

IIRC he tried to explain things to you from an informed standpoint but you refused to listen.

Hahahahahahaha.

That tickles.

[tomw2000]

CamMoreRon said:

My OP shows an incredibly simple abstract example, used to make a broad point.

Tax avoidance is something I care about a lot, so yes it's likely the subject will continue to bother me once this thread dies. And maybe the existence of people so signed up to the neoliberal doctrine and so brainwashed by right-wing media will also bother me, but you.. I doubt I'll recognise your username in a couple of hours. Anyway.. continue on your high road and don't respond. If your only form of discussion is dismission, denial, and berating, then it's highly unlikely that anything productive will come from you and I continuing to talk.

How much tax do you pay? And is this figure arrived at because you've contrived to maximise your tax contributions?

Not flippant. I am generally interested in the circumstances of folk 'bothered' by 'avoidance'.

[CamMoreRon]

Rovinghawk said:

Here comes the cavalry!

turbobloke said:

CHARRRRRGE!!

iphonedyou said:

Can I play too?

My warning wasn't a threat, it was a warning. If you want to derail a thread in to a pointless argument where we take turns to put each other down, instead of discussing something productive, you three carry on. As per my warning post, I'm plenty stubborn enough to argue with all three of you if your only approach is petulance and insults.

[scorp]

tomw2000 said:

Not flippant. I am generally interested in the circumstances of folk 'bothered' by 'avoidance'.

Given expensive things we can barely afford, like the NHS or public sector pensions, then yes it is annoying to know some companies are opting to avoid paying, leaving the remaining payers to shoulder the burden.

[turbobloke]

scorp said:

tomw2000 said:

Not flippant. I am generally interested in the circumstances of folk 'bothered' by 'avoidance'.

Given expensive things we can barely afford, like the NHS or public sector pensions, then yes it is annoying to know some companies are opting to avoid paying, leaving the remaining payers to shoulder the burden.

They don't opt to avoid paying, they follow the rules which in some circumstamces require no payment.

Taxes are not voluntary, there's no option not to pay taxes that fall due.

The idea that we would pay less tax if Acme Inc paid more is risible.

First and best option = government wastes less; then spends less.

[scorp]

turbobloke said:

They don't opt to avoid paying, they follow the rules which in some circumstamces require no payment.

Taxes are not voluntary, there's no option not to pay taxes that fall due.

The idea that we would pay less tax if Acme Inc paid more is risible.

I would prefer they paid more tax, whether the difference is them opting or incompentent politicians leaving gaping holes in our tax regulation, I really don't care, what I personally would care about is shouldering more tax burden.

[Rovinghawk]

CamMoreRon said:

I'm plenty stubborn enough to argue with all three of you if your only approach is petulance and insults.

OK- let's try a reasoned debate.

I claim my expenses against my income to mitigate my tax liabilities. Examples are train fares, mileage expenses, tools, etc.

I also tax-deduct my pension contributions.

All these are tax avoidance; please tell me what is morally wrong in what I have done.

[tomw2000]

scorp said:

I would prefer they paid more tax, whether the difference is them opting or incompentent politicians leaving gaping holes in our tax regulation, I really don't care, what I personally would care about is shouldering more tax burden.

How do you feel about incompetence politicians wasting the money they do manage to get in?

[iphonedyou]

CamMoreRon said:

My warning wasn't a threat, it was a warning. If you want to derail a thread in to a pointless argument where we take turns to put each other down, instead of discussing something productive, you three carry on. As per my warning post, I'm plenty stubborn enough to argue with all three of you if your only approach is petulance and insults.

We've very little option. You're entirely incapable of grasping basic economic theory, even when explained repeatedly. Also incapable of understanding irony, it would appear.

Still, you'll be banned before long. And for that I'm grateful.

[tomw2000]

Rovinghawk said:

OK- let's try a reasoned debate.

I claim my expenses against my income to mitigate my tax liabilities. Examples are train fares, mileage expenses, tools, etc.

I also tax-deduct my pension contributions.

All these are tax avoidance; please tell me what is morally wrong in what I have done.

This is selfish and greedy. Don't tell me you have an ISA too?

[turbobloke]

tomw2000 said:

scorp said:

I would prefer they paid more tax, whether the difference is them opting or incompentent politicians leaving gaping holes in our tax regulation, I really don't care, what I personally would care about is shouldering more tax burden.

How do you feel about incompetence politicians wasting the money they do manage to get in?

Exactly.

On all fronts, people need to direct any concerns to HMG and HMRC.

[scorp]

tomw2000 said:

How do you feel about incompetence politicians wasting the money they do manage to get in?

Obviously not happy, but some problems are easier to fix than others.

[turbobloke]

scorp said:

tomw2000 said:

How do you feel about incompetence politicians wasting the money they do manage to get in?

Obviously not happy, but some problems are easier to fix than others.

Fair point. Spending too much is easier to solve than the waste problem itself.

[Rovinghawk]

tomw2000 said:

This is selfish and greedy. Don't tell me you have an ISA too?

I don't normally give details of my financial situation, but in this case I'll make an exception. I have an ISA. It has £9 in it.

FYI I'm also chasing for a refund of £3k of excess tax charged by HMRC. I realise that various here would rather I forget about it in light of the need to fund the NHS & public sector pensions, but I consider it to be my money not theirs.

[tomw2000]

Rovinghawk said:

I don't normally give details of my financial situation, but in this case I'll make an exception. I have an ISA. It has £9 in it.

FYI I'm also chasing for a refund of £3k of excess tax charged by HMRC. I realise that various here would rather I forget about it in light of the need to fund the NHS & public sector pensions, but I consider it to be my money not theirs.

To be fair and equitable, you should let HMRC keep the £3,000 because of all the benefit you've had in terms of taxes saved on the £9.00 in the ISA. Or something.

[turbobloke]

tomw2000 said:

Rovinghawk said:

I don't normally give details of my financial situation, but in this case I'll make an exception. I have an ISA. It has £9 in it.

FYI I'm also chasing for a refund of £3k of excess tax charged by HMRC. I realise that various here would rather I forget about it in light of the need to fund the NHS & public sector pensions, but I consider it to be my money not theirs.

To be fair and equitable, you should let HMRC keep the £3,000 because of all the benefit you've had in terms of taxes saved on the £9.00 in the ISA. Or something.

Hang on to as much as possible and let it trickle up er, down.