Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by eviled, Nov 24, 2019.
Think he's looking at the geographical split reported in their 10-K.
Pfft, who needs a stock exchange.
You realise that's in dollars and not GBP?
I read this analogy on taxation, and quite liked it.
Unfortunately you can't compare these sales to the tax payable figures. E.g. Amazon EU SARL (which has UK sales) reported €24.9bn in sales and some(?, don't really know as there's no disclosure of current/deferred tax and geographical splits) amount of tax paid, but you can't say how much is UK income from there and how much tax has been paid in the UK.
Ultimately, whatever way you look at it, comparing Amazon UK Services Ltd tax payable to global Amazon sales in the UK is absolutely comparing apples and oranges.
I do, which is why I said £11 billion
But your post quoted a 2017 which was $11.372bn US Dollars, which would be about £9bn (at a rough exchange rate of 1.25)
Which kind of hits the point that all the sources you're throwing out don't even tie up so how can you know what to believe?
Starting point might be HMRC who have Amazon's accounts and tax returns. I'm sure HMRC would have noticed the possible discrepancy between UK sales and UK profits and actually checked. They wouldn't allow Amazon to reduce their tax bill beyond what they're legally obliged to pay (they got their fingers burned with Vodafone).
Or you could believe the journalists of course.
To be honest, my understanding is that there was very little guidance given internally within HMRC on the Tories Diverted Profits Tax. HMRC sent out loads of information requests and sat on them. They even used mechanisms to keep the queries open that you would only normally use when dealing with a difficult and protracted audit rather than a fishing exercise.
Wouldn't be surprised if all of the big US inbounds had open inquiries.
That would make sense actually given they've launched the "Profits Diversion Compliance Facility". They tend to launch these things when they have a load of information that will take them some time to sift through, so get people to fess up to any issues rather than risk massive penalties in the future.
Income Tax was a temporary measure to pay for the Napoleonic Wars! Doesn't seem likely that'll be rescinded anytime soon either.
That about sums up the leadership of the current Labour Party. No real world experience at all.
Where does my tax go?
Infrastructure yet most roads are full of pot holes and are constantly being dug up (so the budget is spent and not lost)?
Health service thats being cut, staff are underpaid and takes 3 weeks to see a gp (by which time youre already dead)?
Public transport, buses and trains that are always late?
Lazy bums welfare?
Defense, thats being cut and assets removed yet taxes going up?
Education yet so many schools are closing and staff are underpaid? Yet uni fees are increasing? Yet non-uk students have to pay 8-20k year?
Jails, so people can get free gym and xbox?
MPs bonuses and 10k monthly spending allowance on cups of coffee?
The royals upkeep, yet they would still rather stay at a sex offenders over a 5*hotel?
The problem is simple.
A lot of companies end up being run solely for the benefit of the shareholders (often pursuing short-term returns) than their customers, or even the long-term interests of business itself.
This is causing not only businesses to make terrible anti-consumer decisions, but is also causing products and services to visibly get worse over the years, due to cost-cutting, etc. It can and does lead to staff being treated poorly.
There is no doubt that shareholders end up being the most (only) important thing. More important than the business; the product; the staff.. everything.
You can pretend that shareholders are win/win for everyone, but reality is they often behave like a cancer the business can't cut out. The pursuit of shareholder returns becomes the sole focus of the business.
You leave the queen out of this. She costs each taxpayer less than £1 on average. Plus they bring in tourist revenue etc.
And staying with a friend is better than staying in a hotel, surely?
Not quite though. The interests of the shareholders is not always short-term profit. The long-term survival of the company is likely to be more important.
And shareholders are the means that companies raise the money to expand and grow, thus employing more people etc. etc. And the majority of equity in UK companies is owned by pension funds (which incidentally don't pay tax themselves) so not maximising shareholder returns (including paying less tax) is like punching old ladies.
Another example of why it's not a company that bears the cost of corporation tax.
That is very true about the queen, but what is the revenue intake, and how much of it is taxed?
The other comment, im surprised the man didnt say that in his interview train crash lol
Yeah we've engineered a system that to my mind is fairly broken. Linking everything to pension funds is just the icing on the cake, really. Or the tip of the iceberg.
There are countless examples of shareholders putting short term returns (and maximising returns) ahead of the customer, the business or the staff.
Sure it might not happen every single time but it happens enough to be (imho) an issue. Companies that used to deliver great products and treat their staff well end up producing inferior (by their own standards) products and treating their staff like dirt. But it's good for shareholder returns. The problem is since everyone is doing it you can't just find an alternative supplier of higher quality. Numerous things have degraded in quality over the years. Numerous businesses have been asset stripped. It's not all roses and free money.
I feel like you're conflating Directors with Shareholders.
Separate names with a comma.