Google's Tax Bill

and they’ll back the Tories to the hilt come the next election as they know who will let them get away with paying no tax.

Amazing thing this Democracy thing isn’t it 😉

Amazing thing this Democracy thing isn’t it

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.

The other is you’re also free to leave.

You offering to buy a ticket? 😉

I know this is perhaps a silly thing to say, but the dismay the ‘general public’ feel is because behind all the smoke and mirrors we know – really it’s all bullshit.

Google sells its advertising space in the UK, it takes the money in the UK and whilst the web is a global platform the majority of its ‘work’ for UK customers I.E. displayed ads for websites are done so in the UK, because a few massive global players like eBay and Amazon aside, most business are at national level.

However, they choose to pay their tax in Ireland, because it’s cheaper – but businesses can’t just choose to pay tax wherever they choose, that’s not legal – so what the do is come clever convoluted act whereby they claim IP is held in this country, and loans (to themselves) are held in another etc. Whilst is might be legal, it’s immoral and I suppose if you strip away all the layers of bullshit, they’re lying, it’s just a legal lie.

For years people didn’t really care about such things, because very few people actually considered the connection between tax revenue and public spending and debt, now EVERYONE does and they see their own personal income being taxed, the tax on the things they buy and the tax that business owners they know being taxed and whilst we might all argue what % is ‘fair’ most people agree you have to pay something – on the other hand, these huge multinationals whose income is measured in billions of pounds pay – nothing. As they often say, yes they pay Employers NI, equivalent to 13.8% of their employees’ salaries – great, so does every other employer in the UK.

They also like to spout off about how much VAT they pay, but their customers pay that, and how much PAYE they pay, but their staff pay that.

That doesn’t mean I don’t understand why they do what they do, they wouldn’t being working in the best interests of their shareholders if they didn’t – but equally, just because they can, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be angry about it, and if the Government doesn’t fancy upsetting their friends in the City too much, and HMRC can’t fight it then public opinion might make it worth them paying – make no mistake, Gideon didn’t arm wrestle Google into paying – one of their money men calculated the potential loss in income from bad PR by not paying tax, and offered to pay HMRC a figure lower than that.

The Guardian aren’t unfamiliar with avoiding tax themselves and the Scott Trust which owns them was purposely setup to avoid inheritance tax.

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 here. 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.

Really? Is it not linked to The Times anymore?

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.

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.