The Last One
Comments
-
First, none of those companies were doing anything illegal. Simply structuring their affairs within the rules that applied at the time. If the govt doesnt like that, change the rules. Which is exactly what they did introducing the diverted profits tax now in effect - which addresses the google and amazon type issues. The other big profile case was Starbucks which was one of public perception more than aggressive avoidance.
So you chuck a load of links out from the press about your new hobby horse subject. What exactly is your point, in your own words?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20560359
http://news.sky.com/story/1498932/brits-say-big-firms-not-paying-fair-tax-bill
http://news.sky.com/story/1568029/facebook-defends-paying-just-4327-in-tax
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3139123/Amazon-pays-just-11-9m-tax-5-3bn-worth-UK-sales.html
You said: " UK coal asked for a £338m subsidy to keep the pit open for 3 years. "
£113m per year. It's all relative isn't it? It is a drop in the ocean compared to the revenue losses of the above.
You still haven't referred back to my comment about education and training.
Anyway, define 'fair share'. Is it fair share according to tax law, or some arbitrary amount decided by you?
Next, the arguments above relate to corporate tax. Really takes no account of the overall tax contribution of corporates which is way latger than corporate tax. I was at this presentation last week, take a look at the numbers: the top 100 companies pay over £80 billion a year in tax, around 14% of all UK tax revenues.
http://www.pwc.co.uk/services/tax/total-tax-contribution-100-group.html
Those evil corporates not paying their fair share eh? How dare they only pay £80 billion a year in tax
The difference between public perception of what corporates pay and what they actually pay.
I have said this before. Competitive Corporate rates are used as a way of attracting investment and encouraging activity. Almost like a loss leader in a supermarket. Hence the increases in tax take overall despite the decrease in corporate taxes. Interestingly I heard this from a former Lib Dem member of the coalition speaking earlier this month, which confirmed what I thought.
Corprate tax is only 17% of the total tax take and now less than 10% of overall UK tax revenues.
And I showed you HMRCs own numbers on overall tax avoidance by big corporates - 4 billion per year IIRC. That covers less than 12 pits like Kellingley.
What comment about education and training. I dont reply to everything is if its not central to the issue."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
that 80billion figure, (which you ve clearly implied is paid by the companies only) BUT includes taxes paid by their PAYE EMPLOYEES too.
Those emplyees are paying at least 14% of all uk tax revenue, so even though business is paying slightly more (its actually less if you inc north sea oil revenues)
i m surprised you did nt spot that loop hole :roll:0 -
Also worth noting that China does certainly subsidise its heavy industries.
It does, so much so, they have obliterated the global market in steel. Now having monopolised the steel industry, it may be that in time, they won't have to subsidise their steel industry.
Just watched UK Steel director Gavin Stace, being interviewed on BBC. He reckoned a lot had been done to help the steel industry, but obviously more could be done. His main point was business rates being a disincentive to investment.
One interesting point was that China was dumping steel at $10 below market price (No surprise there). It takes the US 45 days to implement tariffs and put up barriers to protect its manufacturers. It takes Brussels A WHOLE YEAR!!!!0 -
agree Bally EU is very cumbersome.
but of course that works both ways, means uk could do plenty to support coal/steel etc on its own an by the time eu gets to do anything about it..... just needs the will.
the other issue is Cameron isnt going to do anything to upset the Chinese, jumping into bed with them is a huge mistake, they can what they like and we are nothing more than their lap dog.0 -
If the whole world stuck tarrifs up we'd be nowhere.
That heavily contributed to the excessive pain in the Great Depression.0 -
Stevo - you said:
"In the end we all have a personal responsibility for our careers and skills development. My own experience is that this how most people get on".
Which I thought was 'Tebbitesque popycock and there is a deeper argument to that, so I copy pasted what I had previously said about education and training.
...and then later on, you say:
"What comment about education and training. I dont reply to everything is if its not central to the issue."
It was central enough that you felt you had to make that post.
More heavily laden Stevo rhetoric which also presumes my opinion:
"Those evil corporates not paying their fair share eh? How dare they only pay £80 billion a year in tax The difference between public perception of what corporates pay and what they actually pay".
I have never called corporations that contribute fairly as 'evil'. I do not view corporations as 'evil'. I would describe the likes of Monsanto, Union Carbide and Imperial tobacco as unethical but that's a different argument.
Back to the statement above. You seem to be rattled by anyone that criticises Capitalism without considering that the criticism is not necessarily about capitalism per say, it is about the inequalities, the unfairness or the hypocrisy of the system. Touting the £80bn figure in an attempt to excuse those who aren't paying their fair share either legally or by foul play, is poor. It's like saying 95% pay their fair share and that the few who don't aren't worth worrying about. The statement smacks of the narrow minded stereotyping of anyone who dares criticise this 'wonderful system of freedom, material goods and Western Comforts'.
I'm not anti-capitalist as you often and so flippantly assume, I am anti the sort of capitalism that doesn't take responsibility for those who fall by the wayside, the environmental effects, the possible social effects etc etc
In an extension to that, just to ram the message home and because you're intractable attitude allows little consideration for anything but your own view: if you are blind to the side effects of capitalism and blind to the fact that capitalism has it's shortfalls and it's victims, then you are blind to any opposing argument regardless of however well balanced or well presented it could be.
That's why I feel that trying to offer an alternative argument to yours is pointless. I'm probably not alone in that sentiment.
Churchill said:
"The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members."
Not his original thought but he did use it nonetheless.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
You ve prob read this but forgot to post for balance
http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2434813/almost-half-of-ftse-350-companies-pay-less-than-20-corporation-tax
PWC report also doesnt mention the 80b figure is tax they and their employeees paid, to that is completely different to what pwc suggest.0 -
I'll deal with Pinno later once he's calmed downYou ve prob read this but forgot to post for balance
http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2434813/almost-half-of-ftse-350-companies-pay-less-than-20-corporation-tax
PWC report also doesnt mention the 80b figure is tax they and their employeees paid, to that is completely different to what pwc suggest. , but while there is a distinction between taxes borne directly and taxes collected (made explicitly in the report as you saw), the point is that without the economic activity and the jobs generated by these companies, none of those taxes would be paid. "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Agree. Also protectionist tariffs tend to start a chain reaction of retaliatory measures. It is in everyone's interest not to put up the barriers.If the whole world stuck tarrifs up we'd be nowhere.
That heavily contributed to the excessive pain in the Great Depression."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
No tariffs.
No subsidies.
How do we compete with Countries who do subsidise?
My guess is that we just give up the ghost. Game's a bogey.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Agree. Also protectionist tariffs tend to start a chain reaction of retaliatory measures. It is in everyone's interest not to put up the barriers.If the whole world stuck tarrifs up we'd be nowhere.
That heavily contributed to the excessive pain in the Great Depression.
Yeah. So internationally we should put more pressure on China to stop theirs (by subsidising their industry)
Same for rest of Europe and luckily we're part of a big economic bloc so we can collectively bargain against it.0 -
Agree. Also protectionist tariffs tend to start a chain reaction of retaliatory measures. It is in everyone's interest not to put up the barriers.If the whole world stuck tarrifs up we'd be nowhere.
That heavily contributed to the excessive pain in the Great Depression.
Yeah. So internationally we should put more pressure on China to stop theirs (by subsidising their industry)
Same for rest of Europe and luckily we're part of a big economic bloc so we can collectively bargain against it.
How much of that collective bargaining can Europe do in light of Britain's continued reliance on Chinese funding? There is bound to be a conflict of interests there and Britain is surely in a position where any such bargaining is heavily diluted by our vested interest.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I'll deal with Pinno later once he's calmed downYou ve prob read this but forgot to post for balance
http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2434813/almost-half-of-ftse-350-companies-pay-less-than-20-corporation-tax
PWC report also doesnt mention the 80b figure is tax they and their employeees paid, to that is completely different to what pwc suggest.
Another presumption?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I'll deal with Pinno later once he's calmed downYou ve prob read this but forgot to post for balance
http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2434813/almost-half-of-ftse-350-companies-pay-less-than-20-corporation-tax
PWC report also doesnt mention the 80b figure is tax they and their employeees paid, to that is completely different to what pwc suggest. , but while there is a distinction between taxes borne directly and taxes collected (made explicitly in the report as you saw), the point is that without the economic activity and the jobs generated by these companies, none of those taxes would be paid.
Totally agree we need business creating jobs and paying taxes, But the balance has swung to far the other way now, directors pay is at historic levels, yet at the same time, many of thses companies benefit from WTC and their staff claiming HB.
i ve tried to find out how much of the 80b is PAYE, cant, nearest i could find is its about 50% of the total,so 1/2 what the report suggest is paid, they also inc in that 80b some about the wider benefit companies provide... what is that?
But going back to the thread, this country, as per the Steel industry done far more to support the mine workers, even if if meant a phased closure or subsidy to keep it open for another year, whilst alternatives were put in place.0 -
Agree. Also protectionist tariffs tend to start a chain reaction of retaliatory measures. It is in everyone's interest not to put up the barriers.If the whole world stuck tarrifs up we'd be nowhere.
That heavily contributed to the excessive pain in the Great Depression.
Yeah. So internationally we should put more pressure on China to stop theirs (by subsidising their industry)
Same for rest of Europe and luckily we're part of a big economic bloc so we can collectively bargain against it.
How much of that collective bargaining can Europe do in light of Britain's continued reliance on Chinese funding? There is bound to be a conflict of interests there and Britain is surely in a position where any such bargaining is heavily diluted by our vested interest.
You can keep them fairly separate.0 -
i dont believe they d see it like that at all, any critizism of the Chinese and they d walk from the Nuclear deal or ignore our requests, they know we are in the weaker position.
they do not wish to stop dumping steel and dont care about our job loses, anymore than our Government does - one look at what is happening in the Pacific will see china is interested in Greater China not US or EU.0 -
i dont believe they d see it like that at all, any critizism of the Chinese and they d walk from the Nuclear deal or ignore our requests, they know we are in the weaker position.
they do not wish to stop dumping steel and dont care about our job loses, anymore than our Government does - one look at what is happening in the Pacific will see china is interested in Greater China not US or EU.
Those damn atolls are a worrying thing. They even try to claim the air space above them.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Nope, a promise. I will deal with your little outburst, but not tonight as I've been out on the beers
I'll deal with Pinno later once he's calmed downYou ve prob read this but forgot to post for balance
http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2434813/almost-half-of-ftse-350-companies-pay-less-than-20-corporation-tax
PWC report also doesnt mention the 80b figure is tax they and their employeees paid, to that is completely different to what pwc suggest.
Another presumption?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo 666 wrote:
Nope, a promise. I will deal with your little outburst, but not tonight as I've been out on the beers[url=<span class= wrote:Pinno[/url]"][url=<span class= wrote:Stevo 666[/url]"]
I'll deal with Pinno later once he's calmed down[url=<span class= wrote:mamba80[/url]"]You ve prob read this but forgot to post for balance
<span class="skimlinks-unlinked">http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2434813/almost-half-of-ftse-350-companies-pay-less-than-20-corporation-tax</span>
PWC report also doesnt mention the 80b figure is tax they and their employeees paid, to that is completely different to what pwc suggest.
Another presumption?
What, you mean you're usually sober when you post? :shock:0 -
Hey ho, you start it by posting a claim about UK companies not paying their 'fair share' by auoting a few oinks from the press - who I have had to educate in tthe past because they dont really understand the subject that well.Stevo - you said:
"In the end we all have a personal responsibility for our careers and skills development. My own experience is that this how most people get on".
Which I thought was 'Tebbitesque popycock and there is a deeper argument to that, so I copy pasted what I had previously said about education and training.
...and then later on, you say:
"What comment about education and training. I dont reply to everything is if its not central to the issue."
It was central enough that you felt you had to make that post.
More heavily laden Stevo rhetoric which also presumes my opinion:
"Those evil corporates not paying their fair share eh? How dare they only pay £80 billion a year in tax The difference between public perception of what corporates pay and what they actually pay".
I have never called corporations that contribute fairly as 'evil'. I do not view corporations as 'evil'. I would describe the likes of Monsanto, Union Carbide and Imperial tobacco as unethical but that's a different argument.
Back to the statement above. You seem to be rattled by anyone that criticises Capitalism without considering that the criticism is not necessarily about capitalism per say, it is about the inequalities, the unfairness or the hypocrisy of the system. Touting the £80bn figure in an attempt to excuse those who aren't paying their fair share either legally or by foul play, is poor. It's like saying 95% pay their fair share and that the few who don't aren't worth worrying about. The statement smacks of the narrow minded stereotyping of anyone who dares criticise this 'wonderful system of freedom, material goods and Western Comforts'.
I'm not anti-capitalist as you often and so flippantly assume, I am anti the sort of capitalism that doesn't take responsibility for those who fall by the wayside, the environmental effects, the possible social effects etc etc
In an extension to that, just to ram the message home and because you're intractable attitude allows little consideration for anything but your own view: if you are blind to the side effects of capitalism and blind to the fact that capitalism has it's shortfalls and it's victims, then you are blind to any opposing argument regardless of however well balanced or well presented it could be.
That's why I feel that trying to offer an alternative argument to yours is pointless. I'm probably not alone in that sentiment.
Churchill said:
"The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members."
Not his original thought but he did use it nonetheless.
I show you some facts demonstrating that UK companies pay substantial amounts of tax, both directly through taxes they bear and also though taxes they collect on behalf of HMRC due to their economic activity. I then ask you to define 'fair share' as without that definition the debate is a bit pointless. You then get a bit shirty about being put straight on the matter and start getting defensive.
Try tackling the points I have raised above showing how much tax companies do pay. (In case you missed the smilie my comment about evil corporates was toungue in cheek )
As for training you still havent made clear what your point is. I assume it is that we dont do enough and that the state should do more? Maybe clarify that and provide some backing evidence then we can have a sensible discussion."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
"Seven City banks paid a combined £21m in corporation tax in 2014, according to research by Reuters on Tuesday. Between them the banks, together employing about 33,000 mainly City workers, generated UK profits of £3.6bn on revenues of £21bn in the UK.
Five of the banks – JP Morgan, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank, Nomura and Morgan Stanley – disclosed their main UK arms paid no corporation tax, according to Reuters. Goldman Sachs UK Ltd revealed UK tax of $26.6m on UK profits of $1.98bn. UBS also recorded low UK tax"
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/22/anger-at-city-banks-paying-little-or-no-corporation-tax
no one is suggesting they ve broken law but unlike say a benefits claimant who has claimed too much legally, they wont be expected to pay back monies owed retrospectively, not that there will be any tax law changes :oops:
In such times of austerity and with apparently no money to support steel works and mines, cuts in ed, nhs, homeless, defence, border sec, local services, roads etc etc seems incredulaous that years into Tory spending cuts, this sort of avoidance is still allowed, a case of look after thine own, shall be the only law
oh and borrowing up 10% year on year too...... :shock:0 -
Read my link above."Seven City banks paid a combined £21m in corporation tax in 2014, according to research by Reuters on Tuesday. Between them the banks, together employing about 33,000 mainly City workers, generated UK profits of £3.6bn on revenues of £21bn in the UK.
Five of the banks – JP Morgan, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank, Nomura and Morgan Stanley – disclosed their main UK arms paid no corporation tax, according to Reuters. Goldman Sachs UK Ltd revealed UK tax of $26.6m on UK profits of $1.98bn. UBS also recorded low UK tax"
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/22/anger-at-city-banks-paying-little-or-no-corporation-tax
no one is suggesting they ve broken law but unlike say a benefits claimant who has claimed too much legally, they wont be expected to pay back monies owed retrospectively, not that there will be any tax law changes :oops:
In such times of austerity and with apparently no money to support steel works and mines, cuts in ed, nhs, homeless, defence, border sec, local services, roads etc etc seems incredulaous that years into Tory spending cuts, this sort of avoidance is still allowed, a case of look after thine own, shall be the only law
oh and borrowing up 10% year on year too...... :shock:
Corporation tax is less than 10% of total UK tax take and less than 20% of tax paid by corporates. The banks main tax contributions will come from the bank levy, irrecoverable VAT, business rates and employers national insurance contributions. And indirectly by things like PAYE on employees salaries. These are substantial. If you want me to explain any of those, just let me know.
The other factor here is that many banks UK operations will still be using up tax losses created when they lost money in the GFC - not tax planning, just operation of tax law. Its easy to pick on one tax out of the 20-odd thar businesses pay without reference to the circumstances.
The sort of claims that you are repeating here are misleading. Sometimes its journalistic ignorance of the full picture of what is a complex subject, sometimes its just lazy leftie banker bashing. Or both."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
ah the old chestnut defence of ignorance and lefty bashing
is Reuters an arm of the Socialist workers party???
tax is tax and these banks are using tax law and long term planning to avoid/reduce paying the amount set down by statute.0 -
So let me get this right... the banks are using tax law to avoid paying what tax law tells them they have to pay? That's fiendishly clever.tax is tax and these banks are using tax law and long term planning to avoid/reduce paying the amount set down by statute.0 -
So let me get this right... the banks are using tax law to avoid paying what tax law tells them they have to pay? That's fiendishly clever.tax is tax and these banks are using tax law and long term planning to avoid/reduce paying the amount set down by statute.
It's legitimate to feel that the rules are not fair.
If people are using a big tax bill as a reason to justify special treatment for a particular industry it's worth looking at what proportion of revenue and profits are paid as tax in that industry.
It may be legal but that may well mean the law needs a change.
Arguably an effective low tax rate is like a subsidy, right? That's the crux of it and why some people feel it's relevant.0 -
And the important thing is that we can change laws. That's what we elect MPs for. And because they represent us, and are keen to follow public opinion, they will change those laws. Then everybody will be happy. Except the banks. So they might not get changed after all. After all, an MP might want another job when they tire of politics.
So let me get this right... the banks are using tax law to avoid paying what tax law tells them they have to pay? That's fiendishly clever.tax is tax and these banks are using tax law and long term planning to avoid/reduce paying the amount set down by statute.Ecrasez l’infame0 -
In your case all this proves is that a little knowledge is a dangerous thingah the old chestnut defence of ignorance and lefty bashing
is Reuters an arm of the Socialist workers party???
tax is tax and these banks are using tax law and long term planning to avoid/reduce paying the amount set down by statute.
I notice you dont dispute my specific points. Losses are losses, it does not take tax planning or using the law for these to lower the tax bill. Tax losses incurred in the GFC are carried forward and automatically used against profits in future years. What evidence do you have of the level of alleged avoidance by these banks?
And I'll say it again - have a look at the banks total tax contribution. Corporate tax is only one tax they pay and others generate way more.
In any event, you should be holding up the banks as models of socialism. Lots of highly paid employees with often poor or variable returns for the shareholders "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
As for training you still havent made clear what your point is. I assume it is that we dont do enough and that the state should do more? Maybe clarify that and provide some backing evidence then we can have a sensible discussion.
You assume wrong because you didn't read the post, or maybe, you missed the point of the post or probably cba.
In previous posts and on the subject of capitalism, I have attempted to introduce a slightly more philosophical discussion and less laden with left or right wing politics, which I think is quite sensible. However, I am open to both the idea that this is A: Subjective and B: you are only going to entertain and respond to what you select.
I think that the subject of an education system that reflects the current and future needs of the UK is both beyond you but more importantly, out-with your scope, so you choose to dismiss it flippantly as if it has no value or relevance.
Banks were at the epicentre and were the architects of the 2008 crash. If the general public feel anger and resentment when it comes to the perceived non payment of taxes, when it is the general public who are bearing the brunt of their failings, then you can hardly blame them.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I just want you to stick to the point you started, not go off on a tangent.As for training you still havent made clear what your point is. I assume it is that we dont do enough and that the state should do more? Maybe clarify that and provide some backing evidence then we can have a sensible discussion.
You assume wrong because you didn't read the post, or maybe, you missed the point of the post or probably cba.
In previous posts and on the subject of capitalism, I have attempted to introduce a slightly more philosophical discussion and less laden with left or right wing politics, which I think is quite sensible. However, I am open to both the idea that this is A: Subjective and B: you are only going to entertain and respond to what you select.
I think that the subject of an education system that reflects the current and future needs of the UK is both beyond you but more importantly, out-with your scope, so you choose to dismiss it flippantly as if it has no value or relevance.
Banks were at the epicentre and were the architects of the 2008 crash. If the general public feel anger and resentment when it comes to the perceived non payment of taxes, when it is the general public who are bearing the brunt of their failings, then you can hardly blame them.
Although as you say it is more about perceived perception of not paying taxes, which is not borne out by the facts as I've shown. Part lf the problem stems from too many people who either dont understand the issues or have their own political agendas repeating the old 'X doesnt pay their fair share, somebody has to do something about it' without proper justification.
Now while you're here, define fair share of tax..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So let me get this right... the banks are using tax law to avoid paying what tax law tells them they have to pay? That's fiendishly clever.tax is tax and these banks are using tax law and long term planning to avoid/reduce paying the amount set down by statute.
Glad I'm not the only one who has some grasp of this issue."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
