Snap General Election?

[Welshbeef]

robemcdonald said:

I'm just an average guy. I'm certain that you have a much better understanding of the UK finances than me. It's just when you read that Facebook pay less in corporation tax than me (a guy on a reasonable salary) pay in NI contributions there is a reasonable explanation. I would have thought if there profit were so low they would leave the U.K.
I see that Teresa May is now so certain of victory she "isn't ruling out" (I.e. Definitely going to) put in a tax raise for the middle and upper income brackets. So when we are all paying more tax will you be quite so happy that corporations don't appear to be paying their fair share?

In terms of the deficit again I concede you will have a better grasp on this than me. I can only go with the figures on-line (which I'm sure someone will tell me are wrong) but it looks like the government has almost got borrowing back down to the levels of 2007-08, but nowhere near the levels of Tony Blairs government.

Despite what you might think I have never voted labour and as yet haven't decided how I am going to vote (I thought I might wait to see the manifestos first). I just think if the Conservatives win the majority everyone expects most of us are going to be worse off somewhere down the line.

I think the issue is she doesn't want her hands tied. So win he election then set budgets and maybe needing a big change but he HOL refuse to approve it as it's stated in the manifesto no tax rises.
The ambition remains to have £12.5k tax free threshold and 40% @£50k by 2020 then switching back to CPI. Some may say his is a tax break for the wealthier but it's because for far too many years the higher tax rate didn't go up with inflation so it's grouped more and more. Frankly you will have teachers nurses and policemen all in the higher tax rate.

The other issue is that the tax free threshold taper removal has not moved in 17 odd years... so 17 years ago £100k was a. Lot more Jan it is today yet so many are being captured by this tax (62.5% marginal tax rate £100-122k) that when they raise it it will have a detrimental impact to the tax take and it will be so significant.

[kiethton]

sidicks said:

Presumably these improvements were made from money which has already been taxed?

Yep

[robemcdonald]

sidicks said:

robemcdonald said:

I'm just an average guy. I'm certain that you have a much better understanding of the UK finances than me. It's just when you read that Facebook pay less in corporation tax than me (a guy on a reasonable salary) pay in NI contributions there is a reasonable explanation. I would have thought if there profit were so low they would leave the U.K.
I see that Teresa May is now so certain of victory she "isn't ruling out" (I.e. Definitely going to) put in a tax raise for the middle and upper income brackets. So when we are all paying more tax will you be quite so happy that corporations don't appear to be paying their fair share?

They only "don't appear to be paying their fair share", if you've not bothered to understand what profit they made and why their profit was so low.

robemcdonald said:

In terms of the deficit again I concede you will have a better grasp on this than me. I can only go with the figures on-line (which I'm sure someone will tell me are wrong) but it looks like the government has almost got borrowing back down to the levels of 2007-08, but nowhere near the levels of Tony Blairs government.

Blair's government hid expensive borrowing, so the figures aren't directly comparable.
Blair's government had record tax receipts (due to a growing economy fuelled by cheap credit) so the economic situations aren't directly comparable.

Borrowing is still significant (and hence cuts need to be made) - where would you save £60bn?

robemcdonald said:

Despite what you might think I have never voted labour and as yet haven't decided how I am going to vote (I thought I might wait to see the manifestos first). I just think if the Conservatives win the majority everyone expects most of us are going to be worse off somewhere down the line.

Hence the comment about 'magic money trees'...

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 30th April 14:07

As I understand it corporation tax is 20% that would mean in that year Facebook made a profit of around £24k that year. On that basis it would be better off opening a corner shop somewhere.

i don't suppose we are ever going to agree on this, but do feel that creative accountancy enables big corporates to pay less tax than small businesses and I don't think that is:
A) fair on companies that pay their fair share.
B) good for our economy

[London424]

robemcdonald said:

sidicks said:

robemcdonald said:

I'm just an average guy. I'm certain that you have a much better understanding of the UK finances than me. It's just when you read that Facebook pay less in corporation tax than me (a guy on a reasonable salary) pay in NI contributions there is a reasonable explanation. I would have thought if there profit were so low they would leave the U.K.
I see that Teresa May is now so certain of victory she "isn't ruling out" (I.e. Definitely going to) put in a tax raise for the middle and upper income brackets. So when we are all paying more tax will you be quite so happy that corporations don't appear to be paying their fair share?

They only "don't appear to be paying their fair share", if you've not bothered to understand what profit they made and why their profit was so low.

robemcdonald said:

In terms of the deficit again I concede you will have a better grasp on this than me. I can only go with the figures on-line (which I'm sure someone will tell me are wrong) but it looks like the government has almost got borrowing back down to the levels of 2007-08, but nowhere near the levels of Tony Blairs government.

Blair's government hid expensive borrowing, so the figures aren't directly comparable.
Blair's government had record tax receipts (due to a growing economy fuelled by cheap credit) so the economic situations aren't directly comparable.

Borrowing is still significant (and hence cuts need to be made) - where would you save £60bn?

robemcdonald said:

Despite what you might think I have never voted labour and as yet haven't decided how I am going to vote (I thought I might wait to see the manifestos first). I just think if the Conservatives win the majority everyone expects most of us are going to be worse off somewhere down the line.

Hence the comment about 'magic money trees'...

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 30th April 14:07

As I understand it corporation tax is 20% that would mean in that year Facebook made a profit of around £24k that year. On that basis it would be better off opening a corner shop somewhere.

i don't suppose we are ever going to agree on this, but do feel that creative accountancy enables big corporates to pay less tax than small businesses and I don't think that is:
A) fair on companies that pay their fair share.
B) good for our economy

How much did you pay to use Facebook?

How many employees do they pay? How much tax do you think they pay?

[sidicks]

robemcdonald said:

As I understand it corporation tax is 20% that would mean in that year Facebook made a profit of around £24k that year. On that basis it would be better off opening a corner shop somewhere.

i don't suppose we are ever going to agree on this, but do feel that creative accountancy enables big corporates to pay less tax than small businesses and I don't think that is:
A) fair on companies that pay their fair share.
B) good for our economy

So you still feel able to comment on Facebook UK's tax position, yet you still haven't bothered to do a basic google search to try and find an explanation as to why their profit was so low?

There is no 'creative accountancy' going on here - I suggest you make a bit of an effort to understand the situation before commenting! It's good to be informed...

[robemcdonald]

sidicks said:

robemcdonald said:

As I understand it corporation tax is 20% that would mean in that year Facebook made a profit of around £24k that year. On that basis it would be better off opening a corner shop somewhere.

i don't suppose we are ever going to agree on this, but do feel that creative accountancy enables big corporates to pay less tax than small businesses and I don't think that is:
A) fair on companies that pay their fair share.
B) good for our economy

So you still feel able to comment on Facebook UK's tax position, yet you still haven't bothered to do a basic google search to try and find an explanation as to why their profit was so low?

There is no 'creative accountancy' going on here - I suggest you make a bit of an effort to understand the situation before commenting! It's good to be informed...

If you did google it yourself you'd find out that most newspapers from the guardian through the daily mail to the telegraph all seem to share a similar view; paying staff massive bonuses so your business makes a loss in a deliberate plot to avoid taxes is a bad thing. I don't know how you could spin it so it wasn't.
I'd appreciate it if you would answer a question for me; Given a choice of cutting benefits for thousands of people that depend on them to live and making companies like Facebook and google pay what they should. Which would you choose?
I appreciate it's not quite as simple as that, but for the purpose of the discussion let's say it is.

[London424]

robemcdonald said:

sidicks said:

robemcdonald said:

As I understand it corporation tax is 20% that would mean in that year Facebook made a profit of around £24k that year. On that basis it would be better off opening a corner shop somewhere.

i don't suppose we are ever going to agree on this, but do feel that creative accountancy enables big corporates to pay less tax than small businesses and I don't think that is:
A) fair on companies that pay their fair share.
B) good for our economy

So you still feel able to comment on Facebook UK's tax position, yet you still haven't bothered to do a basic google search to try and find an explanation as to why their profit was so low?

There is no 'creative accountancy' going on here - I suggest you make a bit of an effort to understand the situation before commenting! It's good to be informed...

If you did google it yourself you'd find out that most newspapers from the guardian through the daily mail to the telegraph all seem to share a similar view; paying staff massive bonuses so your business makes a loss in a deliberate plot to avoid taxes is a bad thing. I don't know how you could spin it so it wasn't.
I'd appreciate it if you would answer a question for me; Given a choice of cutting benefits for thousands of people that depend on them to live and making companies like Facebook and google pay what they should. Which would you choose?
I appreciate it's not quite as simple as that, but for the purpose of the discussion let's say it is.

How much is corporation tax? How much is income tax?

Paying staff big bonuses seems like a win - win to me. People are employed in well paying jobs, the government raises more in taxes.

[anonymous-user]

robemcdonald said:

sidicks said:

robemcdonald said:

As I understand it corporation tax is 20% that would mean in that year Facebook made a profit of around £24k that year. On that basis it would be better off opening a corner shop somewhere.

i don't suppose we are ever going to agree on this, but do feel that creative accountancy enables big corporates to pay less tax than small businesses and I don't think that is:
A) fair on companies that pay their fair share.
B) good for our economy

So you still feel able to comment on Facebook UK's tax position, yet you still haven't bothered to do a basic google search to try and find an explanation as to why their profit was so low?

There is no 'creative accountancy' going on here - I suggest you make a bit of an effort to understand the situation before commenting! It's good to be informed...

If you did google it yourself you'd find out that most newspapers from the guardian through the daily mail to the telegraph all seem to share a similar view; paying staff massive bonuses so your business makes a loss in a deliberate plot to avoid taxes is a bad thing. I don't know how you could spin it so it wasn't.
I'd appreciate it if you would answer a question for me; Given a choice of cutting benefits for thousands of people that depend on them to live and making companies like Facebook and google pay what they should. Which would you choose?
I appreciate it's not quite as simple as that, but for the purpose of the discussion let's say it is.

Using a false position as a basis for a discussion is not very smart, it's a pointless position favoured by those who don't have an argument that can stand up to scrutiny.

[sidicks]

robemcdonald said:

If you did google it yourself you'd find out that most newspapers from the guardian through the daily mail to the telegraph all seem to share a similar view; paying staff massive bonuses so your business makes a loss in a deliberate plot to avoid taxes is a bad thing. I don't know how you could spin it so it wasn't.

1) They didn't make a loss
2) They didn't avoid taxes - paying staff is a legitimate expense that reduces profit for all firms.
3) The media like headlines to appeal to the less well informed. I see that you've fallen for it!

robemcdonald said:

I'd appreciate it if you would answer a question for me; Given a choice of cutting benefits for thousands of people that depend on them to live and making companies like Facebook and google pay what they should. Which would you choose?
I appreciate it's not quite as simple as that, but for the purpose of the discussion let's say it is.

1) It isn't.
2) Facebook UK did pay 'what it should'
3) How much income tax and NIC was raised? What was the reduction in Corporation tax?

[dimots]

Facebook did not pay what it should, they should pay point of consumption tax because they are dodging paying their fair share to the UK as things stand.

[sidicks]

dimots said:

Facebook did not pay what it should, they should pay point of consumption tax because they are dodging paying their fair share to the UK as things stand.

Absolute nonsense. Someone else who doesn't understand the basics of the situation under discussion.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Apparently the Tories are guaranteeing not to increase VAT.

[98elise]

sidicks said:

robemcdonald said:

If you did google it yourself you'd find out that most newspapers from the guardian through the daily mail to the telegraph all seem to share a similar view; paying staff massive bonuses so your business makes a loss in a deliberate plot to avoid taxes is a bad thing. I don't know how you could spin it so it wasn't.

1) They didn't make a loss
2) They didn't avoid taxes - paying staff is a legitimate expense that reduces profit for all firms.
3) The media like headlines to appeal to the less well informed. I see that you've fallen for it!

robemcdonald said:

I'd appreciate it if you would answer a question for me; Given a choice of cutting benefits for thousands of people that depend on them to live and making companies like Facebook and google pay what they should. Which would you choose?
I appreciate it's not quite as simple as that, but for the purpose of the discussion let's say it is.

1) It isn't.
2) Facebook UK did pay 'what it should'
3) How much income tax and NIC was raised? What was the reduction in Corporation tax?

Agreed. How do people (and newspapers) not grasp the basics.

Paying staff is not some sort of tax dodge. Tax and NIC's are paid on salary. What's left as company profit it taxed using corporation tax. That's how ALL UK companies operate and its how HMRC expect you to calculate it.

Edited by 98elise on Sunday 30th April 18:45

[Einion Yrth]

98elise said:

Agreed. How do people (and newspapers) not grasp the basics.

In the case of newspapers it's not that hard to comprehend;

Upton Sinclair said:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!

[dimots]

sidicks said:

Absolute nonsense. Someone else who doesn't understand the basics of the situation under discussion.

I understand perfectly well and have been a big customer of Facebook's over the years. They do business with the UK through Ireland (like most big web tech companies) and they use a holding company to slide their profits out to the Cayman Islands. Bookies use a similar technique.

[sidicks]

dimots said:

I understand perfectly well and have been a big customer of Facebook's over the years. They do business with the UK through Ireland (like most big web tech companies) and they use a holding company to slide their profits out to the Cayman Islands. Bookies use a similar technique.

Still nonsense. Why didn't Facebook UK make a profit in the situation under discussion?

[dimots]

sidicks said:

Still nonsense. Why didn't Facebook UK make a profit in the situation under discussion?

I don't know how much you know about Facebook's business model. Not much by the sounds of it. I just explained that UK Facebook customers (ads etc) deal with Ireland.

[sidicks]

dimots said:

I don't know how much you know about Facebook's business model. Not much by the sounds of it. I just explained that UK Facebook customers (ads etc) deal with Ireland.

I know that. None of which explains the nonsensical point Robert is trying to make.

[CaptainSlow]

I don't know the details of the FB position, however, global corps don't typical pay bonuses to avoid tax as that would somewhat defeat the purpose!

[williamp]

London424 said:

robemcdonald said:

sidicks said:

robemcdonald said:

As I understand it corporation tax is 20% that would mean in that year Facebook made a profit of around £24k that year. On that basis it would be better off opening a corner shop somewhere.

i don't suppose we are ever going to agree on this, but do feel that creative accountancy enables big corporates to pay less tax than small businesses and I don't think that is:
A) fair on companies that pay their fair share.
B) good for our economy

So you still feel able to comment on Facebook UK's tax position, yet you still haven't bothered to do a basic google search to try and find an explanation as to why their profit was so low?

There is no 'creative accountancy' going on here - I suggest you make a bit of an effort to understand the situation before commenting! It's good to be informed...

If you did google it yourself you'd find out that most newspapers from the guardian through the daily mail to the telegraph all seem to share a similar view; paying staff massive bonuses so your business makes a loss in a deliberate plot to avoid taxes is a bad thing. I don't know how you could spin it so it wasn't.
I'd appreciate it if you would answer a question for me; Given a choice of cutting benefits for thousands of people that depend on them to live and making companies like Facebook and google pay what they should. Which would you choose?
I appreciate it's not quite as simple as that, but for the purpose of the discussion let's say it is.

How much is corporation tax? How much is income tax?

Paying staff big bonuses seems like a win - win to me. People are employed in well paying jobs, the government raises more in taxes.

Under labour corporation tax will rise to 28%, unions will have full access to every part of your business, and everyone has workers righta from day 1. Employe a useless, workshy racist theif who insuts your customers?? If you sack them, they'll see you in court...