Grauniad tax hypocrisy

[Zod]

This is from Guy Fawkes: the Guardian has a big campaign to complain about the low amounts of tax paid by major UK companies.

It's a good thing Guardian Media Group isn't in the FTSE 100 or they'd have to highlight the fact that GMG made a profit before tax of £306.4m last year and paid a mere £800k in tax.

[Marf]

Zod said:

This is from Guy Fawkes: the Guardian has a big campaign to complain about the low amounts of tax paid by major UK companies.

It's a good thing Guardian Media Group isn't in the FTSE 100 or they'd have to highlight the fact that GMG made a profit before tax of £306.4m last year and paid a mere £800k in tax.

Perhaps you should learn to read the article your referencing and the annual report for the group correctly. They actually got a tax rebate of £800k.

Edited by Marf on Tuesday 3rd February 13:58

[jesusbuiltmycar]

Wasn't that a rebate of £800K?

hypocrisy and lefties go hand in hand....

[nownek]

Substantial shareholdings exemption, I believe. And if so, perfectly legit.

The problem is that they attack others for employing just the same sort of tax planning. Typical media hypocrisy.

And also the fact that their "campaign" seems to be to compare FTSE 100 companies' effective tax rates to the UK corporate tax rate when many of those companies earn profits globally (and so suffer a blended tax rate) and some are not even tax resident in the UK (in spite of their London listing)

[FourWheelDrift]

Is this right or just a mistake on their chart?

Vodafone pre-tax profit -£950million (that's a minus/loss)
Tax paid £8,318million

Or was it back tax for something?

[Zod]

Marf said:

Zod said:

This is from Guy Fawkes: the Guardian has a big campaign to complain about the low amounts of tax paid by major UK companies.

It's a good thing Guardian Media Group isn't in the FTSE 100 or they'd have to highlight the fact that GMG made a profit before tax of £306.4m last year and paid a mere £800k in tax.

Perhaps you should learn to read the article youryou're referencing and the annual report for the group correctly. They actually got a tax rebate of £800k.

Edited by Marf on Tuesday 3rd February 13:58

and that changes the message? (well it probably just makes it even worse)

Learn to use correct grammar before criticising my reading comprehension, please.

[OJ]

What exactly do they expect to achieve out of a campaign like this? The companies employ people and provide services.

If they pay more tax, then the employees will receive less money and the services will be more expensive.

[Marf]

Zod said:

Marf said:

Zod said:

This is from Guy Fawkes: the Guardian has a big campaign to complain about the low amounts of tax paid by major UK companies.

It's a good thing Guardian Media Group isn't in the FTSE 100 or they'd have to highlight the fact that GMG made a profit before tax of £306.4m last year and paid a mere £800k in tax.

Perhaps you should learn to read the article youryou're referencing and the annual report for the group correctly. They actually got a tax rebate of £800k.

Edited by Marf on Tuesday 3rd February 13:58

and that changes the message? (well it probably just makes it even worse)

Learn to use correct grammar before criticising my reading comprehension, please.

Oh noes, a grammatical error! Mods, sinbin me please.

[Fittster]

There hypocrisy is just a side issue. The real question is why are UK companies with large profits paying so little tax. Someone will soon trot out 'Globalization', well quite frankly I'm not keen on having my wages and living standard beaten down to those of Bangladeshi street child so I can compete in the world market.

Maybe Marx had a point.

[Don]

There's only one thing wrong with the Grauniad.

Everything it says.

[Fittster]

And if anyone is going to go on about free trade and capitalism I'm for it if it's done properly, i.e. no bailouts of failing organisations.

[ad551]

To be fair, they have a response: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/tax-gap-blog/2009/...

Just not a very good one.

[Fittster]

OJ said:

What exactly do they expect to achieve out of a campaign like this? The companies employ people and provide services.

If they pay more tax, then the employees will receive less money and the services will be more expensive.

Err, maybe the shareholders receive less or the salaries of the boards are return to historical levels or the compensation packages of executives could be reduced. The salaries of board members as a multiple of the average wage is far higher today than it ever was with no evidence these large compensation packages provide better results.

"The average compensation of a CEO in 1980 was about 40 times that of the average worker in his company. Today it is more than 500 times!"

US source

Edited by Fittster on Tuesday 3rd February 14:15

[otolith]

OJ said:

What exactly do they expect to achieve out of a campaign like this? The companies employ people and provide services.

If they pay more tax, then the employees will receive less money and the services will be more expensive.

But the government will have the money, and can spend it on people who deserve it more than those who earned it </grauniad>

[herewego]

Would we be better to rack up VAT to say 25% and do away with corporation tax?

[OJ]

Fittster said:

Err, maybe the shareholders receive less or the salaries of the boards are return to historical levels or the compensation packages of executives could be reduced. The salaries of board members as a multiple of the average wage is far higher today than it ever was with no evidence these large compensation packages provide better results.

"The average compensation of a CEO in 1980 was about 40 times that of the average worker in his company. Today it is more than 500 times!"

US source

Edited by Fittster on Tuesday 3rd February 14:15

The board members pay income tax and the shareholders pay capital gains tax don't they? The government still gets the tax in the end

On top of that, tax avoidance has created an entire industry in itself, creating more employment opportunities and taxable earnings

ETA - You've quoted an American example, is that applicable in the UK?

Edited by OJ on Tuesday 3rd February 14:28

[sleep envy]

herewego said:

Would we be better to rack up VAT to say 25% and do away with corporation tax?

can I think about that for all of 2 milliseconds and reply with a 'no fking way, are you off your trolley'??

[nownek]

OJ said:

Fittster said:

Err, maybe the shareholders receive less or the salaries of the boards are return to historical levels or the compensation packages of executives could be reduced. The salaries of board members as a multiple of the average wage is far higher today than it ever was with no evidence these large compensation packages provide better results.

"The average compensation of a CEO in 1980 was about 40 times that of the average worker in his company. Today it is more than 500 times!"

US source

Edited by Fittster on Tuesday 3rd February 14:15

The board members pay income tax and the shareholders pay capital gains tax don't they? The government still gets the tax in the end

On top of that, tax avoidance has created an entire industry in itself, creating more employment opportunities and taxable earnings

No no no. Don't confuse the argument with fact. What we need is to drag out the CEO's and shoot the buggers. Then, once we've done that, we can start construction on a large brick wall all around the UK to keep out the (evil) global forces of capitalism.

[herewego]

sleep envy said:

herewego said:

Would we be better to rack up VAT to say 25% and do away with corporation tax?

can I think about that for all of 2 milliseconds and reply with a 'no fking way, are you off your trolley'??

Maybe, but why would it be bad?

[Fittster]

OJ said:

Fittster said:

Err, maybe the shareholders receive less or the salaries of the boards are return to historical levels or the compensation packages of executives could be reduced. The salaries of board members as a multiple of the average wage is far higher today than it ever was with no evidence these large compensation packages provide better results.

"The average compensation of a CEO in 1980 was about 40 times that of the average worker in his company. Today it is more than 500 times!"

US source

Edited by Fittster on Tuesday 3rd February 14:15

The board members pay income tax and the shareholders pay capital gains tax don't they? The government still gets the tax in the end

On top of that, tax avoidance has created an entire industry in itself, creating more employment opportunities and taxable earnings

ETA - You've quoted an American example, is that applicable in the UK?

Edited by OJ on Tuesday 3rd February 14:28

I stated in the quote that it is an American example, however our bosses have there noses just as deeply in the trough.

"The average total remuneration of the bosses of FTSE 100 companies amounted to £2.87m in the 2005-06 financial year, an increase of 43 per cent on the previous year, according to pay analysts Incomes Data Services (IDS).

This means that FTSE 100 bosses now earn an average of 98 times more than the national average, a two-and-a-half fold increase on the 39 times multiple recorded in 2000.

Since 2000, the average earnings for a FTSE 100 chief executive has risen by 102 per cent while the equivalent rise for full-time staff was just 28.6 per cent."

http://www.management-issues.com/2006/11/6/researc...

At what point are the workers and the country in which the company operates being exploited?