Avoiding tax Barclays style
Discussion
Funk said:
R1 Loon said:
You could also take a look at how the Guardian has structured itself to minimise it's tax too. Along with every hippy's favourite bank, The Co-op. They managed to only pay 1.88% Corporation Tax last year, despite all their busienss being UK based.
Or is that not in vogue with you hippies at the moment?
I was about to say, I don't think the 'tax avoidance' drum is one The Guardian wants to be banging too loudly.Or is that not in vogue with you hippies at the moment?
http://order-order.com/2010/12/05/polly-missed-gua...
http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/the...
In fact, their hypocrisy is breath-taking.
.TheCoolerKing said:
BOR said:
Didn't they take out an injunction against The Guardian in an attempt to limit the publication of this information ?
YesOne story is about Barclays obtaining an injunction against the Guardian to prevent it from publishing details of tax avoidance (i.e. legal) schemes.
Another story is about Barclays corporation tax bill which is a matter of public record and was used by a Labour MP and the Guardian to create the impression that Barclays were doing something underhand.
Neat rebuttal: http://order-order.com/2011/02/21/the-guardian-unc...
Funk said:
Neat rebuttal: http://order-order.com/2011/02/21/the-guardian-unc...
A blog wriiten by bankers and this is neat because...
TheCoolerKing said:
Funk said:
Neat rebuttal: http://order-order.com/2011/02/21/the-guardian-unc...
A blog wriiten by bankers and this is neat because...Barclays results going back to 2004 can be found here http://group.barclays.com/Investor-Relations/Finan.... Hardly keeping it out of the public domain.
It's not difficult to work out why they paid £113 million CT in the UK in 2009 - most of the profits came from overseas and, if you exclude the sale of BGI (which is legitimate), over 25% of their global profits was paid out in tax (well over £1 billion). This is a total non-story, raised by a Labour nonentity trying to make a name for himself and cynically (and inaccurately) reported by a left-wing newspaper which doesn't have the cleanest of records when it comes to tax matters.
It's not difficult to work out why they paid £113 million CT in the UK in 2009 - most of the profits came from overseas and, if you exclude the sale of BGI (which is legitimate), over 25% of their global profits was paid out in tax (well over £1 billion). This is a total non-story, raised by a Labour nonentity trying to make a name for himself and cynically (and inaccurately) reported by a left-wing newspaper which doesn't have the cleanest of records when it comes to tax matters.
to3m said:
As for the tax money aspect, Barclays will have benefited (to some extent) from the widely-held assumption, backed up I must admit by nothing more than the recent evidence of people's own lying eyes, that the government will bail out banks in the future as well as in the past.
Don't forget we the public have also benefited from this. If the banks had collapsed there would probably have been a domino effect and our savings, pensions, ISA's etc would have disappeared.TheCoolerKing said:
A blog wriiten by bankers and this is neat because...
It's annoying, isn't it, when the people who you are trying to smear have the indecency to politely correct your misunderstandings?They should surely just shut up, and let the Guardian post the unbiased truth...
NorthernBoy said:
It's annoying, isn't it, when the people who you are trying to smear have the indecency to politely correct your misunderstandings?
They should surely just shut up, and let the Guardian post the unbiased truth...
we don't need to smear banks, they do a very good job all by themselves with bonuses etc, etc They should surely just shut up, and let the Guardian post the unbiased truth...
Do you realise that, by paying bonuses, banks end up paying MORE tax?
Bonuses will attract PAYE (at the highest rates) and both employees and employers NIC.
Bonuses do help reduce their Corporation Tax liabilities though.
If those bonuses were NOT paid, the company would NOT pay the PAYE and NI but WOULD pay the Corporation Tax.
For any given bonus amount paid, the PAYE/NI liability generated will be higher than the Corporation Tax liability saved.
So, if banks wanted to just save tax, they wouldn't pay bonuses.
Bonuses will attract PAYE (at the highest rates) and both employees and employers NIC.
Bonuses do help reduce their Corporation Tax liabilities though.
If those bonuses were NOT paid, the company would NOT pay the PAYE and NI but WOULD pay the Corporation Tax.
For any given bonus amount paid, the PAYE/NI liability generated will be higher than the Corporation Tax liability saved.
So, if banks wanted to just save tax, they wouldn't pay bonuses.
Eric Mc said:
Do you realise that, by paying bonuses, banks end up paying MORE tax?
Bonuses will attract PAYE (at the highest rates) and both employees and employers NIC.
Bonuses do help reduce their Corporation Tax liabilities though.
If those bonuses were NOT paid, the company would NOT pay the PAYE and NI but WOULD pay the Corporation Tax.
For any given bonus amount paid, the PAYE/NI liability generated will be higher than the Corporation Tax liability saved.
So, if banks wanted to just save tax, they wouldn't pay bonuses.
Oh Eric, you and your reasoned arguments, what are you like Bonuses will attract PAYE (at the highest rates) and both employees and employers NIC.
Bonuses do help reduce their Corporation Tax liabilities though.
If those bonuses were NOT paid, the company would NOT pay the PAYE and NI but WOULD pay the Corporation Tax.
For any given bonus amount paid, the PAYE/NI liability generated will be higher than the Corporation Tax liability saved.
So, if banks wanted to just save tax, they wouldn't pay bonuses.
Of course the banks could just move overseas if they really wanted to lower their tax bill.....Just a thought.
My father was an Archdeacon who was as poor as the proverbial church mouse.
All his life he wanted to pat Surtax, the highest rate payable then (its a long time ago).
He had a point.
Because if you pay the highest rate of tax you are unlikely to be poor.
Having made the losses they did Banks are unlikely to pay Corporation tax for a while. Simple fact of the legislation.
My complaint is with the sheer size of the Banking sectors remuneration.
Paying an Individual £14 million a year is simply unwise. After one year even at the highest rate the individual can retire with £7 million to fall back on.
This is NOT a salary. Its a lottery win.
I fear the effect is to utterly remove any sense of reason or feeling of responsibility from the recipient. He only needs to work for two or three years at the most.
This will result in precisely the same kind of excesses and nonsense that caused the last banking crisis.
Greed is NOT good. Greed like power corrupts. Pure greed corrupts ABSLOUTELY.
My father was an Archdeacon who was as poor as the proverbial church mouse.
All his life he wanted to pat Surtax, the highest rate payable then (its a long time ago).
He had a point.
Because if you pay the highest rate of tax you are unlikely to be poor.
Having made the losses they did Banks are unlikely to pay Corporation tax for a while. Simple fact of the legislation.
My complaint is with the sheer size of the Banking sectors remuneration.
Paying an Individual £14 million a year is simply unwise. After one year even at the highest rate the individual can retire with £7 million to fall back on.
This is NOT a salary. Its a lottery win.
I fear the effect is to utterly remove any sense of reason or feeling of responsibility from the recipient. He only needs to work for two or three years at the most.
This will result in precisely the same kind of excesses and nonsense that caused the last banking crisis.
Greed is NOT good. Greed like power corrupts. Pure greed corrupts ABSLOUTELY.
Eric Mc said:
And would you apply that type of logic to all areas where individuals earn massive amounts - other leaders in business, media and sports stars etc?
Agree with you totally. I have no idea why bankers are being singled out here - greed and pay/performance disparity is not good in any walk of life.The individual, however, has evidently become very powerful.
I have no issue with bankers or sportsmen earning these sums. But I'd like to see them note how much their efforts will bring in (either in terms of profit on a trade, goals scored etc etc) and they only get paid the mega sum when/if their predictions materialise (pay them a more "normal" wage until that point).
So, if a dealer trades in instruments that do not mature for 5yrs, he/she doesn't get paid until (if) it pays up (if he leaves, he forfeits). Same for the futbler - 30 goal a season man? End of the season, if you scored 30, you get your pay out (and more, perhaps, if you score 40). Score 0, and get no more.
Ideal world though - banks and clubs have got into the hype trap, and are frightened to death they might lose out, so don't negotiate in any sort of a sensible way.
As for tax, Barclays paid their taxes within the govt defined rules. It's not as simple as the Daily Mail would have you believe (is it ever). The govt need to be better at setting taxes than the banks' accountants and financiers are at avoiding them. The best for of defence on this, IMO, is to simplify the taxation system across the board....
Eric Mc said:
Simplifying tax ensures more taxes are legally avoided. Most complexity in taxation is introduced to prevent tax avoidance.
It doesn't seem to do an especially good job of it!Though it does create jobs (unfortunately a large amount of public sector ones. Which are the one's we can do without).
The Leaper said:
And were not bailed out by the past government, ie you and me.
Yes they were. They were massive recipients of the liquidity pumped into the money markets by the Bank of England....without which they would have gone bust. Here's one expample....http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive...
What has come out since then is that the BoE was actually lending billions in a completely clandestine lending operation supporting the banking system. If it had been made public at the time the banking system would have collapsed harder and faster than it did. Unfortunately the feckless idiots in charge at the time wrote them a free cheque without putting any conditions on it. They were also massive beneficiaries of the other banks being bailed out...if RBS hadn't been bailed out they would have taken Barclays right along with them.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff