Well if it stops them losing £xm a year in sales then I guess they have no choice.
Its a shame for them to have to stoop to such levels but it is easier to appease than educate the ignorant masses.
Corporation tax, the media and the public.
- Thread starter SpeedFreak
- Start date
Well if it stops them losing £xm a year in sales then I guess they have no choice.
Its a shame for them to have to stoop to such levels but it is easier to appease than educate the ignorant masses.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Whereas stooping to the level of deliberately setting up your business in such a manner that allows you to claim to HMRC you are making no money whilst at the same time telling share holders you have a healthy business is perfectly reasonable I suppose?
You think that corporations should set themselves up so they pay more tax than necessary? Remind me not to go into business with you.
What they did was not illegal or against the tax rules laid out in this countries tax code. They were doing what was good for the shareholders which is what directors are paid to do.
Apparently you have to be moral if you start selling a lot.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
They should set themselves as if no tax system exists and then pay the eligible taxes based on that set up.
Given corporation tax is based on profits and companies can alter their profits via off shore companies you are essentially saying no multinational should pay corporation tax as they could simply avoid it by doing what Starbucks are doing.
So if you think all those multinationals that aren't doing that are morons then it doesn't say much for your business skills either.
It's not illegal because of a free market, it's not that what they did was 'legal', it's that it isn't 'illegal'.
Besides if what they are doing is such a great business decision, why are they now reverting to paying more?
Tbh, I have very little interest in getting into this debate, and could write in similar fashion to Kemik, however I have no interest as logic very rarely manages to override an emotional response that seems to be happening here.
So I will merely say, you don't understand.
They are paying tax, just not in the UK. They are moving the money to areas that have a nicer tax system. Other multinationals that dont do it must have a good reason for it, they probably have other ways to lower the amount they get taxed. I would be shocked if any corporation paid the maximum tax, it just doesn't make sense to.
Because the media have a bone to play with and wont drop it until it is a massive story for the masses to be outraged out.
When an organisation or a high income or worth individual can pay less tax on profits or income than the cleaner who comes to deal with their mess does in relation to their income PAYE then something is wrong.
This is, by the opinion in this thread, press agitation? Or reporting of something that clearly is a concern to many, just not those in this thread?
This is, by the opinion in this thread, press agitation? Or reporting of something that clearly is a concern to many, just not those in this thread?
Oldco Rangers FC would testify otherwise, likewise with Hearts in and out of court on a monthly basis and a raft of other clubs.
I agree that to some funneling income to your advantage is natural, but to others accepting their intended tax liability is a moral responsibility beyond personal gain. I have heard of CEO's in the past saying the reason they didn't re-organise was to give something back, be it for their own education or the benefits society at large provides their business.
Although I do accept it to be an emotive and subjective topic.
See, I have issue with this sentiment.
Legallity, the take on that at the moment is "it may be within the letter of the law but not the spirit". Abuse of Parliaments intentions is not acceptable. It may be legal, but rarely is it moral. Many of these tax reduction schemes involve worthless transactions or structures that provide no commercial benefit other than to reduce tax liability. Even better are the efforts to buy a insolvent companies with high losses to offset against their profits in the original business. There are all sorts of games at play, and quite often they are contrived.
I think people would pay their fair share more often that not, otherwise this country would have offshored completely a long time since past..
Last edited:
PAYE for income tax is essentially a completely different direct tax from Corporation Tax on profit.
If it is your own business, and more likely CT & SA, then I can see where your thinking comes from but it isn't a good idea to think of your profit as your income, netted.
It does.
HMRC is very active in this area, although it is a department with a reducing resource trying to stay ahead of the game with an entire sector.
Beyond concerns about high level settlements, I think it does a relatively good job at it all things considered.
I agree to a certain extent, and in some units that can be as high as £23 for £1 investment. Problem being is it does tapper, almost like a laffer curve depending on stocks & flows of debt and or liabilities.
It could do with more investment, but this slide rule only applies so far.
What I like is the fact the Government say they are injecting capital into the economy, but forget to mention at the same time that they are trying to draw even more out of the bottom of it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 10,248
- Location
- Billericay, UK
I'm going to make a sweeping generalising statement without knowing any of the facts and say that most of the crowd that are chanting round the Starbucks probably students who pay little of no tax at all.
I'm going to make a sweeping generalising statement without knowing any of the facts and say that most of the crowd that are chanting round the Starbucks probably students who pay little of no tax at all.
Actually I'd say half of them were mid-thirties plus.