HMG: You don't pay much tax in the UK do you?
Tax_dodgers: We pay what we are required to pay
HMG: Oh OK. Carry on
Just like the energy suppliers whitewash last year. Ad infinitum.
Still hopefully there will be some good tea and biscuits.
I wonder if Margaret Hodge will be in attendance.
The bit about it that really boils my piss, is them indignantly asserting that they pay tax as they pay PAYE. [b]NO YOU *ING DON'T!!! YOUR EMPLOYEES DO!!! THAT'S NOT THE SAME THING, YOU UTTER *S!!!![/b]
Between them not paying tax and the MPs taking the proverbial, it doesn't really look as if either side is likely to do the right thing unless at gunpoint.
Don't think many folk would pay more than the minimum they were required to pay.
If you missed this in yesterday's Observer, its worth a read. The privatised water companies, all now owned by venture capitalists, all making enormous profits, paying their shareholders huge dividends and awarding themselves massive bonuses, all based in Tax Havens, [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/10/water-companies-tax ]and paying no tax[/url]
Seems it really is only the little people paying tax
🙄
[i]Don't think many folk would pay more than the minimum they were required to pay. [/i]
But not many of us go out of our way to (putting it generously) "selectively interpret" tax regulations in dubious, under-the-radar, or plain underhand ways.
What Biiners say but we should also introduce a sales tax for any compnay below a certain % - if they dont like it leave
What we forget is that the businesses are often in competition with locally owned cafes or shops who pay tax and ata higher rate than them as well
Its just taking our money out the country to line the pockets of the allready wealth
FFS starbucks makes a loss on paper in the UK but is still opening shops here - lying ****ers
Should not be allowed
Only little people pay tax
These companies have each carved out a large segment of their bits of our economy. Fair play to them I guess, but they could at least play nicely.
Don't think many folk would pay more than the minimum they were required to pay.
i dont think many folk would pay for the food from tesco or fuel for their cars if we did not make them.
What is your point caller?
Seriously what is your point?
But not many of us go out of our way to (putting it generously) "selectively interpret" tax regulations in dubious, under-the-radar, or plain underhand ways.
Or get to have cosy chats/make deals with senior people in the HMRC about what we think we might like to pay, rather than just getting a bill, with threats attached if it's not paid.
The point is that the tax system is arse about face.
Correction.
HMG: You don't pay much tax in the UK do you?
Tax_dodgers: We pay what we are required to pay
HMG: OK, then we'll change the rules
Tax_dodgers: You can't, you'd be in breach of EU tax legislation, which you've surrendered sovereignty on, and are therefore constitutionally bound by.
HMG: Bugger!
The point is that the tax system is arse about face.
The tax system is unlikely to be able to keep up with large corporations employing much more expensive accountants and lawyers to avoid paying their fair share of tax. What happened to the concept of corporate social responsibility?
Edit - oh yeah, let's pretend the Tories would just love to make big companies pay fair taxes if it wasn't for the evil EU. 🙄
corporate social what?
What happened to the concept of corporate social responsibility?
Good point Grum.
The Starbucks responsibility page states;
We’ve always believed that businesses can – and should – have a positive impact on the communities they serve.
In large font. You couldn't make it up. This isn't about the tories though. It's been going on for years.
oh yeah, let's pretend the Tories would just love to make big companies pay fair taxes if it wasn't for the evil EU
In large font. You couldn't make it up. This isn't about the tories though. It's been going on for years.
Yup fair point.
http://www.slaughterandmay.com/media/1755403/cfc-focus-cfc-reform-and-the-eu.pdf
I struggle with long sentences, and I doubt you have either.
In the US there's something called the AMT [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax ](Aternative Minimum Tax)[/url] which is used to set a minimum threshold for tax to avoid wealthy people using allowances to reduce their tax burden too far. If the tax calculation that their arrangements put in place were to throw-up less than the AMT amount then they pay the AMT amount. Im sure it's difficult to implement but maybe something that automatically sets a floor of say, 3% of locally derived turnover, might work?
Grum, you really should, you might learn something 😉
I hate the EU stopping all these socially responsible companies from payingmore tax the bastards
Do the EU eat babies and kill fluffy kittens as well as talking foreign?
Stoner I would be less generous I would give them a rate the same as the locally owned micro business round the corner then stop them trading here if they dont pay the same
It is the rich [investors etc] taking from the poor as the taxes have to come from somewhere and if it was a local business it would stay in the country
the best thing would be for folk to buycott the companies for their taxation policies but that is the least likely outcome
the public get what they deserve
If the rules changed (if its possible) and Starbucks buggered off (as some people seem to claim they will if forced to pay tax!) they will be replaced by independent coffee shops.
Better for everyone.
Grum, you really should, you might learn something
Why don't you summarise the key points for me, seeing as you've read it?
Apparently Starbucks UK reported a loss of £32.9m 🙄
Meanwhile, Starbucks UK pay some offshore Starbucks company shedloads of £££ for the right to use the name and pay inflated prices for the same coffee which another offshore Starbucks company bought.
The bit about it that really boils my piss, is them indignantly asserting that they pay tax as they pay PAYE. NO YOU *ING DON'T!!! YOUR EMPLOYEES DO!!! THAT'S NOT THE SAME THING, YOU UTTER *S!!!
They do pay 13.8% employer's NIC which is something I suppose.
In the taking-the-piss stakes, charging yourself tens of millions a year, licensing your own name back to yourself is a sure-fire winner
Grum its only 3 pages long - the UK law may not comply yet but it will after discussions
The cadbury schweeps ruling trumps everything [ ie what they are doing is legal as they can shift it[money] to another subsidary to minimise tax even though all the sales were in the UK - two other bits of legislation get mentioned
I suspect you need to be a tax lawyer to get the article though
In the taking-the-piss stakes, charging yourself tens of millions a year, licensing your own name back to yourself is a sure-fire winner
😀
Starbucks UK = -£30 odd million loss
Starbucks *low/nil tax country* = £100s millions profit!
Bang tidy.
They also stress that they pay VAT to the treasury. No you don't! You charge VAT on your products, which you then hold before handing over to HMRC. Its your customers who actually [i]PAY[/i] the VAT
well, except where you give the Luxembourg government 3% vat, then discount the price you've paid to the UK publisher by the full 20% VAT rate like Amazon were doing with their E-book's 😈
But not many of us go out of our way to (putting it generously) "selectively interpret" tax regulations in dubious, under-the-radar, or plain underhand ways.
They almost certainly have a legal responsibility to maximise profit for their share-holders. So, once they know they [i]can[/i] 'use' the tax system, they [i][b]must[/b][/i].
I am sure that in this debate that no one (especially The Guardian journos) is ignoring the difference between tax accounting and financial reporting. Or that a deferred tax liability is not a method of tax avoidance and that they (def tax liabilities) generally result specifically from attempts to encourage investment in capital intensive industries such as water. *
And at that point, if we feel unhappy at the outcome that the correct people are being criticised. 😉
Ofwat has a publically available framework that describes how water companies must balance different objectives. Returns to investors are only one of these 8 factors.
* sometimes folk should consider carefully what they ask/wish for!
They almost certainly have a legal responsibility to maximise profit for their share-holders. So, once they know they can 'use' the tax system, they must.
This is actually a very good point.
I know we always hears lots about big companies and rich people should pay more, why don't we have flat rates for all?
Surely our skewed systems for both personal and commercial taxation are what drives minimisation programmes? If everyone paid the same percentage of revenue in the case of companies, and income in the case of people, it would be much harder to try and manipulate figures.
Just a thought - unless there are some economists who can explain why we don't?
The main issue for me isn't that it's just the big corporations, there is so much more that doesn't make a sexy headline.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20157878 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20157878[/url].
Fortunately it's easy to make the decision that Starbucks, Barclays and Vodafone don't get a single penny of my money in their quest of making themselves even wealthier.
Large groups of smaller tax evaders is a bit more difficult to react against but no better in the grand scheme of things, in my opinion.
Thing is [i]most[/i] large corporations are owned by "us" anyway - through our insurance companies and pension funds. And so "we" benefit from the higehr profitability/lower taxes. Although obviously along the way there's one or two taking a nice cut 🙂
However, private equity holdings are just that. Private money making returns as efficiently for tax as possible. Burn'em! 😈
However, private equity holdings are just that. Private money making returns as efficiently for tax as possible. Burn'em!
Apart from the pension funds that invest in private equity funds.
Indeedy
The companies don't make the rules, the government does.
I just love Cameron's "I've asked HMRC to look into this" - why ? YOU make the rules, HMRC are just trying to do their best wading through them.
Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple etc etc all exploit a feature of tax legislation (ie loophole) so large you can drive a bus through it.
All the HMRC offices were sold off to a 'management company' based in a tax haven. You couldn't make it up.
This company is now on the brink of bankrupcy, in which case the HMRC could be thrown out of their own offices. Top notch.
This company is now on the brink of bankrupcy, in which case the HMRC could be thrown out of their own offices. Top notch.
Not true. Their leases have security of tenure, but the bundled FM services and prices that have effectively been "paid for in advance" will disappear.
Grum its only 3 pages long - the UK law may not comply yet but it will after discussions
The cadbury schweeps ruling trumps everything [ ie what they are doing is legal as they can shift it[money] to another subsidary to minimise tax even though all the sales were in the UK - two other bits of legislation get mentioned
The article is a discussion of revisions to the CFC regime which historically has been one of the main planks of anti avoidance legislation that is applied to UK controlled groups - it would therefore not apply to Apple, Starbucks etc. The Cadburys decision drove a coach and horses through this anti-avoidance legislation so the UK government has produced new rules which are designed to achieve their objective without breaching the EU concept of freedom of establishment. The article comments on their likely efficacy.
I just love Cameron's "I've asked HMRC to look into this" - why ? YOU make the rules, HMRC are just trying to do their best wading through them.
Generally HMRC Policy Division is responsible with coming up with proposals to change technical legislation which are then put to the Treasury for inclusion or not in the Budget.
Twitter indicates that the Amazon guys are peeing off the MP's no end.
I'm in two minds
1) winding up MP's = good
2) avoiding taces = bad.
mmm.
[b]andyrm[/b]
This is actually a very good point.I know we always hears lots about big companies and rich people should pay more, why don't we have flat rates for all?
Surely our skewed systems for both personal and commercial taxation are what drives minimisation programmes? If everyone paid the same percentage of revenue in the case of companies, and income in the case of people, it would be much harder to try and manipulate figures.
Just a thought - unless there are some economists who can explain why we don't?
The fundamental problem with this is that the flat rate of tax would be higher than the rate the majority are currently paying. This is due to the fact that the top 1% pay 25% of the income tax, or the top 10% pay 50% (figures from Institute of Fiscal Studies)
So if you are a politician getting elected it's easy to win power if you promise a tax cut for the majority, ie a return to different rates of tax.
As we have different rates of tax for individuals we cannot have one rate of tax for companies.
The reason we hear about the rich paying more is it get's popular approval as the word rich translates into "someone else can pay more as I already pay too much"
As others have posted the fundamental problem here is the tax system is too complex and the EU (that includes the UK) has allowed member states like Ireland and Luxembourg to have very low rates of corporation tax.
Fortunately it's easy to make the decision that Starbucks, Barclays and [b]Vodafone [/b]don't get a single penny of my money in their quest of making themselves even wealthier.
Certainly in the case of Vodafone, they have an investments division that invests in small, young tech companies throughout Europe to help them develop technologies that would potentially be useful to them in the future, as well as co-funding tech bootcamps (essentially incubator hubs) in several major European cities where they provide office space, infrastructure, support and funding too.
But of course, that doesn't make good headlines for the media.
[b]mefty[/b]
Generally HMRC Policy Division is responsible with coming up with proposals to change technical legislation which are then put to the Treasury for inclusion or not in the Budget.
IMO this isn't a technical issue - it's a fundamental problem with the UK and EU tax legislation. You are allowed to set up a company in another EU country and sell products into the UK. The customer pays VAT and you keep all the profits in another country. In the case of Starbucks etc you are allowed to charge "licence fees" for the use of brand names etc thus creating an artificial loss in the UK.
