There are two really great things about it.One is that if you don't like, as you clearly don't, you're free to say so.
The other is you're also free to leave.
My point is that we don't have a real / effective Democracy in the UK, it's more a Plutocracy shrouded in a thin veneer of Democracy.
My point is that we don't have a real / effective Democracy in the UK, it's more a Plutocracy shrouded in a thin veneer of Democracy.
It's a shame you feel that way. I don't and of course I would happily debate each point you use to make your case but it probably wouldn't change your mind. In my experience, those kinds of views are deeply help and usually the product of other factors than just the external evidence (such as it does or does not exist).
The Tories have actually being trying to make some headway at the international level and are making some progress - see [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34445078 ]here[/url]. Some of the rules that they have introduced on tax avoidance are very draconian. The fundamental problem is that the tax systems in most of the world and the interstate arrangements were based in a world where most of a businesses value was based in physical things like factories, offices etc. Now everything intangible assets are where the value is and they are much easier to move around the world.
A very sensible holistic approach considering the wider implications of any decision. Nothing whatsoever about **** everyone over to make a killing
You have misread what it says. The obligation is to the members. The directors have to have regard to the other factors in meeting that obligation.
"I have had regard to the fact our new trainer sweatshop will result in virgin rainforest being concreted over and have decided to go ahead with construction".
That would be the same UK press, which bar The Guardian
And the mirror, the Record/sunday mail and the FT.
In my experience, those kinds of views are deeply held and usually the product of other factors than just the external evidence (such as it does or does not exist).
Which applies as much to you as me of course....
And the mirror, the Record/sunday mail and the FT.
True, but still something like 90% of papers (by market share) have their editorial policy dictated by 10 Billionaires. Hardly something to celebrate....
... and the FT
Really? Is it not linked to The Times anymore?
I should probably google this before replying, but in the spirit of the thread I shall use another search engine. 😉
Now which one doesn't avoid tax?
Which applies as much to you as me of course....
I'm not so sure. In theory yes, but when you extend the philosophy of the argument it doesn't hold up.
I think that many people hold negative views about the system (any system) because they have been disadvantaged by it.
The corollary for the reverse is that I would have been 'advantaged' by it, and therefore feel positively pre-disposed to it.
But that's far from true. In many ways I've been serially f***ed over by it. I recognise those events for what they are, but I don't feel negatively disposed towards the system because of it, at least, not to the extent that I feel we live in anything other than true democracy.
Really? Is it not linked to The Times anymore?
I don't know that it ever was. For as long as I know it's been published by Pearson but like you say, there's a search engine that will confirm this.
It was sold to a Japanese company last year. A lot of people are concerned that its traditionally impartial reporting of worldwide financial matters will be compromised as a result.Really? Is it not linked to The Times anymore?
A lot of western Governments have also used "austerity" as an excuse to cut and cripple tax authorities. So even when the rules exist, Peter taxman sitting in a lonely office buried under a pile of paper has no **** chance to enforce them.
Not quite the case with HMRC:
- their conviction rate is up 58% year on year with £26B more tax collected overall
- the ringfenced budget for complex tax avoidance detection has been increased by £60m
- the revenue from investigations into self-assessment returns will hit close to £1B - it has risen five fold from the £200m collected under Labour in 2007/08 prior to the the economy tanking.
And in related news:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/26/kpmg-partners-arrested-hmrc-tax-evasion-inquiry
Hardly something to celebrate....
Of course not, I just added for fairness, and to point out that not being owned by one of these pajillionaires doesn't make you one of the good guys...
However right or wrong the Google tax deal is, the Labour Party aren't really in a position to get on their high horse given that they had 13 years to sort it out if they thought it was important.
Good interview with the head of HMRC this morning, and an MP this lunchtime, both saying that no laws have been broken, and it's the laws that need addressing by politicians
HMRC are chasing after small businesses who do not have access to the kind of avoidance schemes that the big multinationals do. It's not a level playing field.
However right or wrong the Google tax deal is, the Labour Party aren't really in a position to get on their high horse given that they had 13 years to sort it out if they thought it was important.
Tony Blair only got elected because he went round to all the Billionaires (Murdoch etc) and convinced them he'd go easy on big corporates. Had he not agreed that, they would never have backed him.
Thus my point about a Plutocracy, without the backing of Murdoch etc, you'll never get elected as you'll have 90% of the UK press at your throat.
Part of the reason for the 2008 crash was that New Labour went so easy on The City and pretty much left them to self regulate...
Buy this book, brilliant read, especially the bit on Corporate Tax..
Can't stand the author. Won't read.
Can't stand the author. Won't read.
That is your prerogative, but it's an excellent book, well researched and fully referenced.
Hahaha. I knew all of the that was new labour, now we're new new old labour but we'd like to see old old labour.
It's all labour.
I disagree with it, but I don't think the companies are to blame. These people are running a business, and if there's a way to legitimately maximise profit then they will take it.
That's not quite true though. Costa do not have the same tax arrangements as Starbucks and Amazon do not have the same tax arrangements as John Lewis.
Seems to me that the big companies are playing by the rules, but using them to their advantage.
Everyone does the same, but because we're talking about millions instead of the hundreds of pounds that individuals can save, it's somehow more wrong.
Everyone does the same, but because we're talking about millions instead of the hundreds of pounds that individuals can save, it's somehow more wrong.
If you told HMRC that you'd like to pay less than they'd asked for, what do you think would happen?
It's Neo-feudalism.
Them: the ruling class, in politics and tech.
vs the rest of us.
That's not quite true though. Costa do not have the same tax arrangements as Starbucks and Amazon do not have the same tax arrangements as John Lewis.
So they have different accountants? I'm not sure what your point is.
So they have different accountants? I'm not sure what your point it.
My point is that not all large companies take extreme measures to reduce their tax bill.
A lot of western Governments have also used "austerity" as an excuse to cut and cripple tax authorities.
What an odd strategy
Flashy +1
My son bought me The Establishment so felt duty bound to read it. Tiresome rant with little connection to the title other than a general winge against a variety of targets. Hard to recommend unless you like your froth
Part of the reason for the 2008 crash was that New Labour went so easy on The City and pretty much left them to self regulate...
Self regulation was more successful, the FSA was a complete disaster the reguatory regime turned from a big picture based one that controlled where the big issues to a nit picking political agenda designed to fine as many participants as possible for breaching the money laundering and KYC rules.
Just going to chuck this in again (as usual) how many people on this forum run limited companies and use tax allowances/dividends/directors loans/entrepreneurs allowance to reduce taxation on you and your business - glass houses and all that
Google, Starbucks, Apple, Amazon etc all swerve hundreds and hundreds of millions in UK taxes with the help of EU tax law plus in many cases Junker"s personal blessing.
Time to radically overhaul the corporate tax system starting with oir exit from the EU as without thst nothing can be done.
Just going to chuck this in again (as usual) how many people on this forum run limited companies and use tax allowances/dividends/directors loans/entrepreneurs allowance to reduce taxation on you and your business - glass houses and all that
That's par for the course. But what the big companies have been getting upto is a completely different ballpark.
I have a feeling that things can't stay like this for much longer...how much more will people put up with?
Just going to chuck this in again (as usual) how many people on this forum run limited companies and use tax allowances/dividends/directors loans/entrepreneurs allowance to reduce taxation on you and your business - glass houses and all that
Cycle 2 work, anyone?
My point is that not all large companies take extreme measures to reduce their tax bill.
Fair enough. But for those that do there are legal loopholes, which is where I believe the problem lies. And why would a global corporate voluntarily pay more tax than it needs to?
A lot. Have you seen the queues in Starbucks or the sales at Amazon?
If you told HMRC that you'd like to pay less than they'd asked for, what do you think would happen?
You'd be an idiot to ask them instead get an accountant who knows the rules, for instance plenty of contractors are one man ltd companies with company cars that are pickups, this is not an accident.
without the backing of Murdoch etc, you'll never get elected
Murdoch overstates his influence IMO. but ultimately people like his product and the Sun is still the biggest selling paper, no one makes people buy it or politicians appear in it.
Just going to chuck this in again (as usual) how many people on this forum run limited companies and use tax allowances/dividends/directors loans/entrepreneurs allowance to reduce taxation on you and your business - glass houses and all that
Because that's exactly the same as a corporate avoiding paying a large tax bill by using offshore accounts.
The whole thing is very reminiscent of vodafones mythicsl '£6 billion tax bill'
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/18/once_more_into_the_tax_breach_dear_friends/
Time to radically overhaul the corporate tax system starting with oir exit from the EU as without thst nothing can be done.
Indeed - we are bound by EU tax laws that allow a company to incorporate in whichever EU country they want. We can change that overnight.
Fair enough. But for those that do there are legal loopholes, which is where I believe the problem lies. And why would a global corporate voluntarily pay more tax than it needs to?
Sure - the loopholes will only be closed by co-ordinated international action. Nevertheless, lots of large companies do pay more tax than they "need" to: does anyone think that Costa is financially mismanaged because they don't route their beans business through Switzerland?
The overseas licensing scam is a scam just as much as if your parents "give" you their house on condition they can live in it for the rest of their lives at a peppercorn rent (so as to evade IHT on death). This is of course something that has been outlawed, there's no reason why the overseas licensing scam shouldn't also be clamped down on. Saying "it's within the law" is missing the point. The law should be designed to be fair.
Indeed - we are bound by EU tax laws that allow a company to incorporate wherever they want. We can change that overnight.
That's probably the first good reason I've seen for leaving the EU. However, if that happened I still don't imagine there being huge changes to corporate taxation. The government is too scared and corporates are too powerful, especially if it becomes a reality that they can sue countries.
In some ways remaining part of the EU would be better. If a union of that size decided to clamp down on grey accounting and loopholes it would be far more effective, and the UK would be in a position to suggest and influence it.
Just going to chuck this in again (as usual) how many people on this forum run limited companies and use tax allowances/dividends/directors loans/entrepreneurs allowance
These aren't loopholes. These allowances are there for a good reason, as is the CTW scheme, and things like renewable grants, tariffs etc.
These aren't loopholes. These allowances are there for a good reason, as is the CTW scheme, and things like renewable grants, tariffs etc.
The government wants us to use those instruments - that's why they exist!
How would leaving the EU make any difference?
How would leaving the EU make any difference?
How would leaving the EU make any difference?
Have a read of the ECJ Cadbury-Schweppes decision.
I have - so we leave the EU, how does CS react?
