Snap General Election?
Discussion
williamp said:
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...
WTF are you on about?Well yeah he's wrong...they're not that stupid. But I'm trying to respond to the people who are claimi that Facebook are losing their profit through bonuses and salaries. That's not the case. They are taking UK customer's money to Ireland and from there to god knows where...if they paid point of consumption tax on the adverts they are distributing to U.K audiences we would get our 'fair' share of tax from them.
dimots said:
Well yeah he's wrong...they're not that stupid. But I'm trying to respond to the people who are claimi that Facebook are losing their profit through bonuses and salaries. That's not the case. They are taking UK customer's money to Ireland and from there to god knows where...if they paid point of consumption tax on the adverts they are distributing to U.K audiences we would get our 'fair' share of tax from them.
That's not how it works when dealing with global businesses in the internet age.dimots said:
sidicks said:
That's not how it works when dealing with global businesses in the internet age.
Jesus you're relentless. And wrong. Online bookies are paying 15%. That's a bold claim, have you shared your evidence with those who could do something about it?
sidicks said:
williamp said:
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...
WTF are you on about?dimots said:
Did I say that? No I didn't.
You said:dimots said:
Facebook did not pay what it should
In fact they paid exactly what they should, according to the law. The fact that you think they should pay an entirely different amount is somewhat irrelevant.dimots said:
The HMRC rules are not equipped to deal with this situation and should be updated in my opinion.
Which is exactly why I said "That's not how it works when dealing with global businesses in the internet age".You said:
"Absolute nonsense. Someone else who doesn't understand the basics of the situation under discussion."
I have demonstrated both my knowledge of this situation AND evidence of the government's 'fix' in a similar prior situation.
I explained that this situation was even more grossly exploited by the online bookies - new law in 2014 introduced point of consumption tax.
All you have done is try to use semantics in some sort of point scoring contest only you really understand.
What's the point? You don't listen.
"Absolute nonsense. Someone else who doesn't understand the basics of the situation under discussion."
I have demonstrated both my knowledge of this situation AND evidence of the government's 'fix' in a similar prior situation.
I explained that this situation was even more grossly exploited by the online bookies - new law in 2014 introduced point of consumption tax.
All you have done is try to use semantics in some sort of point scoring contest only you really understand.
What's the point? You don't listen.
dimots said:
You said:
"Absolute nonsense. Someone else who doesn't understand the basics of the situation under discussion."
The situation under discussion was the paying of bonus to staff at Facebook which led to a reduction in profit taxable in the UK. Some people are claiming that was unreasonable tax avoidance and robbing the UK of tax income!"Absolute nonsense. Someone else who doesn't understand the basics of the situation under discussion."
dimots said:
I have demonstrated both my knowledge of this situation AND evidence of the government's 'fix' in a similar prior situation.
I explained that this situation was even more grossly exploited by the online bookies - new law in 2014 introduced point of consumption tax.
I explained that how you think the rules should work do not align with how they work in a global, internet-based economy.I explained that this situation was even more grossly exploited by the online bookies - new law in 2014 introduced point of consumption tax.
How many employees do Facebook employee in the UK?
dimots said:
All you have done is try to use semantics in some sort of point scoring contest only you really understand.
What's the point? You don't listen.
What's the point? You claimed that Facebook hadn't paid the correct amount of tax, which is patently untrue.What's the point? You don't listen.
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 30th April 20:07
Sidicks you keep saying I don't understand the basics. In an earlier post I acknowledged you probably have a greater understanding of these matters than I do. All you have really done is reiterate I don't understand. Others have joined in and claimed that I and the various articles in the left and right wing press that I have based my opinion on are misleading. As yet no one has explained why it's ok for a large corporation to pay less corporation tax than the average earner pays on PAYE. At no point have I said it was illegal, but if it were totally legitimate why were Google et al so keen to accept Osbornes deal. Why didn't they simply say "we haven't broken the law so sod off George"
I am always open to having my mind changed and very interested in learning / understanding how things work. I would genuinely be grateful if you could try to enlighten me as to how this corporate tax strategy works. I'm particularly interested in why Facebook would want to operate in the U.K. If the profit was very small. I assume there must be a financial benefit in doing so?
I am always open to having my mind changed and very interested in learning / understanding how things work. I would genuinely be grateful if you could try to enlighten me as to how this corporate tax strategy works. I'm particularly interested in why Facebook would want to operate in the U.K. If the profit was very small. I assume there must be a financial benefit in doing so?
Edited by robemcdonald on Sunday 30th April 20:53
robemcdonald said:
Sidicks you keep saying I don't understand the basics. In an earlier post I acknowledged you probably have a greater understanding of these matters than I do. All you have really done is reiterate I don't understand. Others have joined in and claimed that I and the various articles in the left and right wing press that I have based my opinion on are misleading. As yet no one has explained why it's ok for a large corporation to pay less corporation tax than the average earner pays on PAYE.
Facebook UK isn't a large CorporationFacebook UK only made a small profit in the UK - corporation tax is payable on profit
HTH
robemcdonald said:
At no point have I said it was illegal, but if it were totally legitimate why were Google et al so keen to accept Osbornes deal. Why didn't they simply say "we haven't broken the law so sod off George"
What have Google got to do with Facebook?robemcdonald said:
I am always open to having my mind changed and very interested in learning / understanding how things work. I would genuinely be grateful if you could try to enlighten me as to how this corporate tax strategy works. I'm particularly interested in why Facebook would want to operate in the U.K. If the profit was very small. I assume there must be a financial benefit in doing so?
As explained already:Profits were low because bonuses were paid to staff.
sidicks said:
robemcdonald said:
Sidicks you keep saying I don't understand the basics. In an earlier post I acknowledged you probably have a greater understanding of these matters than I do. All you have really done is reiterate I don't understand. Others have joined in and claimed that I and the various articles in the left and right wing press that I have based my opinion on are misleading. As yet no one has explained why it's ok for a large corporation to pay less corporation tax than the average earner pays on PAYE.
Facebook UK isn't a large CorporationFacebook UK only made a small profit in the UK - corporation tax is payable on profit
HTH
robemcdonald said:
At no point have I said it was illegal, but if it were totally legitimate why were Google et al so keen to accept Osbornes deal. Why didn't they simply say "we haven't broken the law so sod off George"
What have Google got to do with Facebook?robemcdonald said:
I am always open to having my mind changed and very interested in learning / understanding how things work. I would genuinely be grateful if you could try to enlighten me as to how this corporate tax strategy works. I'm particularly interested in why Facebook would want to operate in the U.K. If the profit was very small. I assume there must be a financial benefit in doing so?
As explained already:Profits were low because bonuses were paid to staff.
robemcdonald said:
Sidicks said:
As explained already:
Profits were low because bonuses were paid to staff.
I was genuinely hoping to learn something. That explains nothing.Profits were low because bonuses were paid to staff.
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 30th April 22:15
sidicks said:
I'm not sure how much simpler I can make it - do you think the cost of employing staff should NOT be a legitimate business expense?
Facebook made billions in the UK however they probably pay 99% royalties to whatever tax haven they use Edited by sidicks on Sunday 30th April 22:15
Tryke3 said:
Facebook made billions in the UK
Nonsense, as expected - why do you bother to comment if you don't have a clue?in total Facebook made profits of $2.9bn worldwide in 2014.
Tryke3 said:
however they probably pay 99% royalties to whatever tax haven they use
Yes of course, transfer pricing allows 99% royalties...
Edited by sidicks on Monday 1st May 00:07
sidicks said:
Tryke3 said:
Facebook made billions in the UK
Nonsense, as expected - why do you bother to comment if you don't have a clue?in total Facebook made profits of $2.9bn worldwide in 2014.
Tryke3 said:
however they probably pay 99% royalties to whatever tax haven they use
Yes of course, transfer pricing allows 99% royalties...Edited by sidicks on Monday 1st May 00:07
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff