How long is this goverment going to allow these top companies as well as other big ones generate billions of pounds in sales in the uk without paying little or no corporation tax,we all know they are not doing anything illegal and work within the law but remember the con-dems saying all these loop holes will be closed!!!!!!!! yeah whatever, a relation of mine has just got a tax bill for underpayment 2010-2011 for £1200, that is £1200 more than amazon has paid in the last 14 years of more than 7.6bn sales in the uk
Starbucks,Amazon,ebay all tax dodgers
- Thread starter Bodgeitandleggit
- Start date
Sponsored Links
A little bit of balance.
Corporate tax is on PROFIT not sales, remember this when papers start flying around huge numbers that are sales and not profits, this is important, though not totally relevant to these particular cases.
Starbucks - UK branches made no profit, likely a legal fiddle, US Starbucks makes them pay large royalties, which makes the UK branches on paper a loss making operation. Perfectly legal, and normal, the only abnormal part is just how high the US royalties are. Remember Starbucks will still be paying LOTS of money through business rates, some vat, and income tax. The only way I can see around this is to base corporate tax on sales and not profits, which is a monumentally stupid idea.
Amazon - Located in Luxenbourg, an EU country, can you see where this is going? This is not a tax fiddle, THIS IS HOW THE EU IS DESIGNED, the EU is designed so that a company can set up shop in any EU country, and sell to any other EU country, and be taxed where it sets up shop. Don't like it, well shucks, you shouldn't have voted for pro-eu parties.
Ebay - Same as Amazon.
Corporate tax is on PROFIT not sales, remember this when papers start flying around huge numbers that are sales and not profits, this is important, though not totally relevant to these particular cases.
Starbucks - UK branches made no profit, likely a legal fiddle, US Starbucks makes them pay large royalties, which makes the UK branches on paper a loss making operation. Perfectly legal, and normal, the only abnormal part is just how high the US royalties are. Remember Starbucks will still be paying LOTS of money through business rates, some vat, and income tax. The only way I can see around this is to base corporate tax on sales and not profits, which is a monumentally stupid idea.
Amazon - Located in Luxenbourg, an EU country, can you see where this is going? This is not a tax fiddle, THIS IS HOW THE EU IS DESIGNED, the EU is designed so that a company can set up shop in any EU country, and sell to any other EU country, and be taxed where it sets up shop. Don't like it, well shucks, you shouldn't have voted for pro-eu parties.
Ebay - Same as Amazon.
There is a simple solution of course...
Any company trading here pays it's taxes on the income it generates here, and no sleight of hand accounting wise allowed...
If the global corporations don't like it they can f*ck off - there will be plenty of local companies who will take up the slack...
And that is THE point...localisation, not globalisation is the way forward!
Any company trading here pays it's taxes on the income it generates here, and no sleight of hand accounting wise allowed...
If the global corporations don't like it they can f*ck off - there will be plenty of local companies who will take up the slack...
And that is THE point...localisation, not globalisation is the way forward!
Sponsored Links
Yes, that's the way the individual states in the US behave. Places like California are incredibly aggressive at taxing company profits generated in CA. They even tried to tax UK corporations on profits made in the UK if there was a Californian connection i.e. Barclays had branches in CA which made them a target.
Problem is the UK has handed over a lot of these powers to Brussels so it might not be possible for the UK to do this anymore. The individual states in the US have more control over their affairs than the UK has.
Problem is the UK has handed over a lot of these powers to Brussels so it might not be possible for the UK to do this anymore. The individual states in the US have more control over their affairs than the UK has.
The US is the only country to do this.
The result = Trillions of dollars in foreign profit is not bought back home, where it could be re-invested in the economy, so as not to pay this double tax (remember it will already have been taxed in the country in question).
Not a good idea.
ellal said:
Taxing on sales and not profits is a bad idea, a very very bad idea, which is why no one does it.
If you did actually mean profits, then tough titty, The EU forbids it, see above.
Governments don't dictate tax rules - the corporates do..
Wtf do you think is discussed at meetings such as the Bilderberg group?...
Dont go confusing bodgit ellel.. He will be searching the internet and when he finds Bilderberg- he will still be confused.
Governments don't dictate tax rules - the corporates do..
Wtf do you think is discussed at meetings such as the Bilderberg group?...
Dont go confusing bodgit ellel.. He will be searching the internet and when he finds Bilderberg- he will still be confused.
Oh no the boring liar is following me......
Of course I'm serious - I'm an accountant.
http://flattaxes.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/tax-reform-remains-high-on-russias.html
http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2010/053010.html
latest news http://www.rzd-partner.com/news/2012/10/12/382374.html
Of course I'm serious - I'm an accountant.
http://flattaxes.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/tax-reform-remains-high-on-russias.html
http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2010/053010.html
latest news http://www.rzd-partner.com/news/2012/10/12/382374.html
Can you point out the relevant bits.
The first link says they have a choice of 20% tax on profits OR 8% tax on revenue.
How many have taken the second offer.
second link goes on about flat tax changes on income?
The third link talks about turnover tax for oil industry, this is a captive industry, (The oilfields are in Russia, so you can't move business like a factory).
The choice of which tax to opt for I would think would be down to gross profit margins, low - flat tax, high - turnover tax. They also severely restrict what expenses you can claim.
The second link is the most interesting as it shows the increase of tax raised year on year. It means the rich have nowhere to hide.
As to the Amazon, Starbuck cases - they should be banned from paying a commission to their parent companies abroad. That'll stick a spanner in the works.
The second link is the most interesting as it shows the increase of tax raised year on year. It means the rich have nowhere to hide.
As to the Amazon, Starbuck cases - they should be banned from paying a commission to their parent companies abroad. That'll stick a spanner in the works.
Think?
Come back when you figure it out, rather than expect me to figure out your links for you.
And also shows how taxes were made lower and flatter (laffer curve in action?), it provides no evidence it was due to "potential" taxes on revenue and not sales (which are optional).
Yea, who need copyright laws and brand protection.
You know there are English companies in America right?
See any flaw in your plan?
Oh dear.
Sponsored Links
