[Closed] Can someone answer this? Would it solve our countries problems if they paid tax?

It's far more sensible to blame public sector workers, unions, the poor, the left wing, in fact anyone other than the companies who make money here but don't pay the tax they should.

Always makes me laugh hearing British politicians banging on about cracking down on tax evasion. They could put a stop to most of it in one swipe of a pen. After all, most tax havens are in British sovereign territories.

They won't do it though. On account of being a bunch of spineless craven shithouses, completely in the pocket of vested interests. And there is no distinction on party lines. They're all as bad as each other!

It's the famous trickle-down in action - i.e. the wealthy elite pishing on the rest of us.

Want to fix tax evasion? Lower your tax rate.

They won't do it though. On account of being a bunch of spineless craven shithouses

It's not quite as simple as that unfortunately. As the biggest companies are now global entities they can (and do) declare their profits where ever they see fit. If you threaten to tax them heavily they will shift some money around and will say they made no profit in the UK and we get zero tax.

I am not saying it is right but it is the way it is.

Want to fix tax evasion? Stop being spineless craven shithouses, and make them pay...

Want to fix tax evasion? Lower your tax rate.

To 0% 🙂 Then the poor could pay all the tax. Everyone wins 🙂

Well Ireland lowered it's corporation tax to the lowest in the developed world and look where it's got them!

I refer the right honourable gentleman to my original answer

Lunge - if that's the reason why can't we then chuck them out of the UK? If you pay no tax, fine **** off and you can't trade here.
And RBS is government owned! Maybe if we threw them out for non payment HSBC might pay oop! I realise this will never happen unless we have a revolution but it's a nice thought

Lunge - if that's the reason why can't we then chuck them out of the UK?

Are we a country or a cash cow? Are we a nation or a teat to be sucked on? Are we here to provide profits for shareholders or to make the lives of our citizens worth living?

Spineless shithouses indeed.

Don't quite get the "weathly elite" and "fat cat" comments. Those are PLCs, so a significant part of their ownership is pension funds. Anyone here pay into a company or private pension?

It's either make them pay, or allow us all the luxury afforded to vodaphone. To negotiate our own tax arrangements on an individual basis

Hello. Is that HMRC? Yes... I've decided that this month I'll be paying 3% of my income in tax. And if it's ok with you, I won't be bothering with NI from now on. I'm very important to this countries economy, don't you know....

We'll see how that goes down eh?

Don't quite get the "weathly elite" and "fat cat" comments

I'm just off to have a word with Dave Harnett about my taxes - I'm sure he'll be just as accommodating with me as he is with Goldman Sachs.

Edit: as Binners says.

I blame pikeys actually

And the disabled, and the poor.

There is a better place, just over the horizon for us all. We must be strong, we must accept there will be casualties. We will emerge leaner from this process.

Vote tory

Lol at all the venting of spleens over tax evasion, yet how many times are people on here asking for advice on how to avoid import duty for buying kit abroad.

We're just following the example of our 'superiors'

*doffs cap*

From now on, all my earnings are going through the cayman islands and Belize

Oops. Double post

Strange times we have evolved into quite anti Darwinian.
The greatest genetic pool succeeds at the expense of reproduction and pay the taxes that support the weaker genes to reproduce and consume the taxes.
With the passage of time the stronger genes will die off and the weaker genes will dominate the earth. Who will pay the taxes then?

I just want to work & be paid. Eventually, a house and a missus and a kid would be nice.
The rich and elite can do what they like, I only care about my lot and right now "my lot" is not enough.

I'm 24.

Maybe I should try harder...

It's a fair point you make there hugor. Perhaps you could offer a 'final solution'?

Strange times we have evolved into quite anti Darwinian.
The greatest genetic pool succeeds at the expense of reproduction and pay the taxes that support the weaker genes to reproduce and consume the taxes.
With the passage of time the stronger genes will die off and the weaker genes will dominate the earth. Who will pay the taxes then?

Be careful what you wish for. There is always someone fitter than you.

The rich and elite can do what they like,

Thats the trouble, they have, and are, while we've been buzzing around like little worker bees, too distracted to see beyond our noses.

Want to fix tax evasion? Lower your tax rate.

It seems to me that its the ordinary tax payer that pays for the Health, education of it's workforce present and future, and the security(Police) and transport infrastructure of this country. A very large percentage of the things that a business requires to be successful don't you think? And yet they want to pay as little tax as well, placing a further burden on everyone else. It's about time business paid its equal share as well.

Perhaps you could offer a 'final solution'?

There is always someone fitter than you.

Corporation tax is only a very small part of the overall tax take anyway; 8% in 2008 for example** - and a lot of that was from banks and other Financial Sector companies, which won't be paying much tax at the moment.

Corporation tax is necessarily very complex, and so you can get unintended results (both favourable and unfavourable). Tax planning covers a whole spectrum from doing things that defer paying tax for a while, to arranging affairs in an efficient manner than ensures the tax result reflects the commercial reality of a transaction (which it won't necessarily do even for relatively simple things that "should" work), through doing a transaction a bit differently to get a favourable outcome, to the point where you are arguably only doing a transaction because it gives you a good tax result (maybe exploiting the "cracks" between two sets of tax rules, either in the UK Tax system or between jurisdictions, or setting something up so it gives an asymmetrical tax treatment of a payment from one company to another). Shades of grey, certainly.

(EDIT - the difference between tax avoidance and evasion is that avoidance is legal, and involves full disclosure of what has been done and the basis in law for the treatment adopted.

Tax evasion is illegal and involves elements of concealment or deceit. No FTSE company should be doing anything close to evasion.)

Pretty much every time someone buys a CD, DVD or memory card online from the likes of Amazon they are complicit in corporate tax avoidance. A lot of companies (according to Wikipedia, Amazon, HMV online and Play.com ) base these sales in the Channel Islands so effectively sell things without paying VAT. Consumer wins, due to lower price (remember VAT is now 20%) but government doesn't get their VAT. It's a double whammy for government as the profits of the company set up in, say, Guernsey, won't pay UK tax either as its operation is offshore. Kaboom.

**(see page 5 of

)

Ooooooooooooo - get her?!

So objecting to corporations paying their fair share of tax is now 'political correctness gone mad' is it?

Surely that's only the case if said tax then goes to funding performing arts therapy centres for one-eyed black lesbians?

Lunge - if that's the reason why can't we then chuck them out of the UK? If you pay no tax, fine **** off and you can't trade here

You could do that but then you loose all of the tax revenue, these companies do pay some tax, maybe not as much as we think they should but it is many £millions better than none at all.

This is why it is a fine line, the rates need to be high enough to make some money for the country but low/lax enough that a company won't just declare elsewhere.

lunge - Member

It's not quite as simple as that unfortunately. As the biggest companies are now global entities they can (and do) declare their profits where ever they see fit. If you threaten to tax them heavily they will shift some money around and will say they made no profit in the UK and we get zero tax.

I am not saying it is right but it is the way it is.

Teh usual excuse given but its not true.

simple answer - you tax them on what happens in the UK - so they cannot export profits. tax on turnover not profits if you want. remove the legal loopholes.

TJ, I agree they need to pay more tax but it really isn't as simple to get it as you make out. A government has to look at how to get revenue out of a global economy not just look at our island, companies can and fo move profits around and no amount of shouting for the likes of us will stop it.

I don't know the solution but then I am neither a tax expert or a global economist.

Back when I was studying A Level Business Studies, I learned that in terms of wealth, there were only about seventeen nations which had greater wealth than the world's largest business. This was back in 1991, I'd hate to think about what that statistic is now.

It's all very well to say "close legal loopholes" but ultimately, if the cost of doing business here outweighs the profits made in the UK marketplace then multi-national businesses will simply shut up shop here. And lots of people will lose their jobs.

It's a fact, but not one I'm comfortable with. There should be a worldwide treaty forbidding tax havens (of which the UK has more than it's fair share) or introduce a global flat rate.

However, we've got the wrong government in office for anything remotely fair to happen (arguably the last bunch were just as bad in this respect too), so expect middle earners and the poor to get shafted as per usual.

There must be an awful lot of loopholes. I'm sure some of them could be closed quite easily.

I read the report on News Internationals tax affairs. In one year they payed less than 1% of their profits from their British operations in tax. Which frankly is obscene!

They were funneling all the money through 'subsidiary' (read 'front') companies in the Cayman Islands, Belize etc. Apparently HMRC had been through their accounts and it was all completely legal.

That suggests to me an awful lot of loopholes exist, and are being ruthlessly exploited. Surely its not beyond the collective capacity of our legislature to close some of these to make things a bit fairer?

Should they want too, of course. And that's the rub

Like I said.... a bunch of spineless craven shithouses, completely in the pocket of vested interests.

I don't pretend to have the solution. I'd love to openly discuss a topic like this but the moment anyone challenges political correctness in this forum or in the community, they are immediately shut down and labelled with all kinds of attrocities.

So you post on a forum and expect an easy ride, everyone to "openly discuss" this topic and how you are right, and when it doesn't go your way, you label it as political correctness?

The strength of your convictions are a bit like wet toilet paper.

Like I said.... a bunch of spineless craven shithouses, completely in the pocket of vested interests.

Agreed. Every government I can recall has been exactly the same and there's next to no incentive for them to change their ways. I strongly believe that we need to vet our politicians better. Ultimately, most people have gotten to the point where we expect our politicians to be crooked and are utterly disinterested when they're caught doing something they shouldn't.

So you post on a forum and expect an easy ride, everyone to "openly discuss" this topic and how you are right, and when it doesn't go your way, you label it as political correctness?

Could we label that the Tunbridge Wells defense? 😉

It's an emotive subject, but do you really want PLCs paying more tax? What for exactly? If you say yes then also accept that you are going to be working longer for less pensions, public and private sector alike.

Whats all this "rich b4stards" nonsense about? Companies have shareholders, us.

lunge - its very simple - you stop them exporting the profits. Teh government writes the laws. if they export all the profits you tax on turnover or you sinmply tax on the profits made here.

Of course it can be done - with the political will

mcboo - Member

It's an emotive subject, but do you really want PLCs paying more tax? What for exactly? If you say yes then also accept that you are going to be working longer for less pensions, public and private sector alike.

Really? How do you work that out? Lower income tax if PLCs pay more.

Also, employees of these massive corporations do pay tax to their country, so they're doing us a favour by staying here really.

Apart from News International who are a bunch of spineless craven shithouses, completely in the pocket of vested interests...

...and HSBC, Vodafone, Nestle, politicians, Greggs, anyone that doesn't sell me bike bits for cheap...

Companies have shareholders, us.

Really, care to quantify that, even taking into account pension funds, the majority of shares are held by a minority of the population.

Do large corporations based in the UK have the same rights as those based in the US, i.e. that they are considered legal persons?

Are we here to provide profits for shareholders or to make the lives of our citizens worth living?

Now I'm not supporting the politicians or tax evasion, but I have to point out that those two things are not mutually exclusive alternatives.

Really? How do you work that out? Lower income tax if PLCs pay more.

Well if you are arguing for an income tax cut (bottom rate threshold first, then cutting the 50% rate) paid for by closing tax loopholes for corporates I could agree wholeheartedly with that. Is that what you are arguing for?

Whatever we do to reform the tax system it has to help create jobs and reward work, not welfarism. Targeting emplyers out of some class driven desire to smash the rich isn't going to wash.

In a global environment where the largest corporations are bigger than most other countries nationhood has become a bit anachronistic.

It's why being part of a larger whole is important i.e the EU can (and on occasion) does stand up to multi-national corporations (e.g. Murdoch's empire).

You can argue that multi-national X should pay more tax or we won't let them trade here etc... BUT multi-national X also employs n thousand UK people who will be made redundant if they shift away from the UK.

As a gov't what you going to do - lose a few million in tax and n thousand jobs or play ball?
Plus if you play ball you get a nice, comfy directorship when the voters throw you out....

You can argue that multi-national X should pay more tax or we won't let them trade here etc... BUT multi-national X also employs n thousand UK people who will be made redundant if they shift away from the UK.

But the tax (or lack of it) is on PROFIT from their UK operations. So using the purely capitalist argument, they'd have to be mad to pull out of the UK

If ultimately they are answerable to the shareholders, I'd like to see that decision explained away at the AGM

[i]So... you made a decision to pull out of one of the worlds largest economies because they were going to actually make you pay their (already generous) corporation tax?[/i]

I'm sorry, but its the same baseless crap as the bankers saying they'll go elsewhere? Where exactly. They're here because they are making money. Full stop. They should therefore contribute. The same as the rest of us have too. It really is that simple!

TJ - tax based on turnover is a nonsense. You'd kill off what's left of manufacturing straight away.

I'd be looking at more incentives for companies to come here rather than harsher penalties, I'd rather pay a few quid more in tax and have our population in employment.

[i]You can argue that multi-national X should pay more tax or we won't let them trade here etc... BUT multi-national X also employs n thousand UK people who will be made redundant if they shift away from the UK.[/i]

so if every mcds in the uk shut nothing would fill the void ?

I'd challenge anyone to defend this as reasonable behavior by those perennial favourites Goldman Sachs:

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/oct/11/goldman-sachs-interest-tax-avoidance?INTCMP=SRCH ]It stinks to high heaven![/url]

I'm sorry, but its the same baseless crap as the bankers saying they'll go elsewhere? Where exactly.

A country with a better business environment. Which could be anywhere, couldn't it?

They are here because they are making MORE money than if they were elsewhere. If that changes, because of taxation or something else, then they will leave.

£10m wow. In the Guardian too.

.......is that the same Guardian, part of Guardian Media Group, which paid ZERO corporation tax in 2008 and 2009 despite making over £300mm profit IN THE UK! How so? Via a shell company in Grand Caymen.

Definate predator, I await condemnation from Ed Miliband's office.

[b]its very simple[/b] - you stop them exporting the profits. Teh government writes the laws. if they export all the profits you tax on turnover or you sinmply tax on the profits made here

First three words show the naivety of the statement, sorry TJ but its very far from simple.

A country with a better business environment. Which could be anywhere, couldn't it?

Could be anywhere ? Really ? The banks could move their operations to the Solomon Islands ?

I guess taxation levels must be very high in the Solomon Islands, or at least higher than the UK.

'Cause otherwise Goldman Sachs would close their UK headquarters and move it to the Solomon Islands.

The UK has the sixth largest economy in the world. Despite what the banks would like you to believe, they are not doing us a favour by doing business here. In fact perhaps they should be reminded of the favours they owe us.

You can argue that multi-national X should pay more tax or we won't let them trade here etc... BUT multi-national X also employs n thousand UK people who will be made redundant if they shift away from the UK.

Re the claim they will leave...we are talking about taxing them on the profits they earn based here. It is an argument often put forward but in the 70's when we had much higher income tax for example we also had much higher employment ...it is a something that folk say but I am not all that convinced it will happen.
London will still be a hub of financial activity for Europe they wont all just get up and move to Lisbon because it is cheaper.
What TJ says is simpe but th eimplementation may be complex ..perhaps you could comment on the principle rathe rthna the difficulty?

Binners for PM some great gags on here Well done

In the Guardian too.

No it doesn't excuse their comy tie-in with Apax etc, if that's what you mean.

I'm bored of corporate BS. I work in the NHS, which the ConDems are trying to turn over to Crapita Healthcare, Inc (do your duty, House of Lords!) - including the likes of Circle, a nicely-timed [url= http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/06/05/private-healthcare-provider-to-go-public-despite-financial-woes/ ]hedge-fund backed venture[/url] that is styling itself as a cuddly 'social enterprise', FFS.

It seems they are all at it, Guardian, Goldman Sachs etc. There are obviously ways around these various loopholes that the government could introduce to make them pay tax although they are probably already in the pockets of these corporations anyway. If they did judging by the amounts not being paid (£6billion Vodaphone alone) it would sort out our countries debt in one go. Then we could afford decent investment in the countries infrastucture to cover some of the jobs lost by throwing (back to my earlier example) RBS etc out. Also if HSBC then decided to pay tax they would pick up RBS's customers, staff etc and we are all happy.
It's interesting seeing this debate from people who (sound like they) have more knowledge than me but no-one can alter the fact the working and middle classes are shat upon from a great height by whatever government is in power. Revolution anyone? 😈

2008 and 2009 despite making over £300mm profit IN THE UK!

I'm surprised that the Guardian Media Group has ever managed to make a £300mm profit, have you got a link for that ?.......all I can find is that they had a pre-tax loss of £89.8m in 2008-2009, in an article in their rival paper :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/guardian-group-announces-pound90m-pretax-loss-1765735.html

I'm a bit dubious about that one too. The Guardian is some kind of weird Trust-based co-operative type set-up, so I'm sorry, but that just doesn't fit

And having worked for Guardian Media Group I'd also be amazed they ever turned a profit. Lentil-knitters are absolutely useless at Business. Mind you, I imagine Goldman Sachs execs aren't to clever at making friendship bracelets and poaching tofu

They don't actually make a whole lot of money on an annual basis that is true, is tough times for print media.

In 2008 they restructured the Scott Trust so that they didnt have to pay corporation tax or capital gains on the sale of Autotrader. Nothing illegal about tax avoidance but just because they havent done it for 3yrs doesnt mean they get to sit on their high horse and throw barbs at the rest of corporate Britain.

The Guardian is now basically a website with a newspaper attached. I think it's a great operation, I have CiF as my homepage. Could well cash in hugely from their growing online presense. I look forward to them sharing the profits in taxes.

We will emerge leaner from this process.

[img] [/img]

Sorry, just made me chuckle. 🙂

Goldman Sachs execs are too busy turning live bunny rabbits inside out and scraping away the insides with baby seals to poach a tofu (wtf is a tofu?)

tofu is a coagulated soya bean product made from curdled soya milk - like cheese but with no texture or flavour. I is beloved of the vegan elite who one day shall inherit the world ..it tastse of nothing unless you get that yummy basil infused one or the smoked version but that is very expensive.
Its an acquired taste IMHO

Oh. Not an animal then?

Sounds crap. It would be better if a Tofu was a comedy bird, with a big orange beak and blue feathers that went SQUAAAAAARK, and was delicious when poached.

Soooo...tax eh? Hmmm...

Tofu...tastse of nothing unless

...and add bacon

Then serve with beef gravy

and sausage

mcboo - Member

They don't actually make a whole lot of money on an annual basis that is true, is tough times for print media.

So they didn't make £300 million profit in 2008-2009........they made a loss ? Why did you say that they had ?

I was more surprised by that than the suggestion of legal tax avoidance.

It should be remembered that anyone who campaigns against legal tax avoidance is also campaigning for tax avoidance opportunities to be withdrawn from themselves - there's nothing hypothetical about that.

Of course in the case of Goldman Sachs we're not talking about legitimate tax avoidance, we're talking about a failed tax avoidance scheme. Which resulted in a secret deal, sealed with a handshake, whereby Goldman Sachs "let off" paying £10m in interest.

How do like that ..........a bank which doesn't like paying interest ?

there's nothing hypothetical about that.

😕 I don't know how "hypocritical" became "hypothetical"..... I blame poor education, or poor use of spellcheck, or just simple stupidity. Or a combination of all three.

So they didn't make £300 million profit in 2008-2009........they made a loss ? Why did you say that they had ?

They did. What are you talking about? They dont make much money selling newspapers but they made £300mm that year from an asset sale then took the cash offshore to avoid paying the tax. About £60mm.

It should be remembered that anyone who campaigns against legal tax avoidance is also campaigning for tax avoidance opportunities to be withdrawn from themselves

Yeh right.....in the meantime they hired a bunch of expensive lawyers to place the loot in Grand Caymen, where it remains. That is the very definition of hypocrisy.

Also worth remembering why tax is being avoided and how much choice a company has. If a company makes a profit, it is the duty of the board to maximise the return to shareholders. Voluntarily giving loads of it away to the taxman just isn't an option that can be taken when there are well proven legal ways to avoid doing so and retaining more value in the business or allowing bigger dividend.

They did. What are you talking about? They dont make much money selling newspapers but they made £300mm

I'm talking about you not providing a link showing that the Guardian Media Group made £300 million on 2007/8 ....... that's what I'm talking about. Pardon me for not "just believing you".

That is the very definition of hypocrisy.

No it isn't. How is expecting Goldman Sachs to comply with legal requirements "hypocrisy" ? Prove that the Guardian Media Group has operated a failed tax avoidance scheme, been highly obstructive, and been "let off" £10 million in interest to HM Revenue and Customs. Then we'll talk about hypocrisy.

The Guardian were right to publish the article exposing Goldman Sachs failed tax avoidance scheme and how a secret deal was done. There is nothing hypocritical about it.

I'm no great fan of the Guardian when it comes to ethics, it is often imo very hypocritical in the stances that it takes. But I restrict may accusations of hypocrisy to occasions where there is some evidence, not willy-nilly 'cause I don't like the paper. The reporting of the Goldman Sachs story is an example of excellent journalism, not hypocrisy.

I'm talking about you not providing a link showing that the Guardian Media Group made £300 million on 2007/8 ....... that's what I'm talking about. Pardon me for not "just believing you".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/30/guardianmediagroup.pressandpublishing

News
Media
Guardian Media Group
Guardian Media Group profits top £300m after Auto Trader sale

reddit this
Stephen Brook and Richard Wray
The Guardian, Wednesday 30 July 2008
Article history
Guardian Media Group, owner of the Guardian, saw its annual profits boosted dramatically by the sale of a 49.9% stake in the owner of Auto Trader, but warned that uncertainty in the UK economy will hit revenues in the coming year.

In its annual report GMG, owned by the Scott Trust, created in 1936 to secure the Guardian's financial and editorial independence, said pre-tax profits rose to £306.4m in the year to end March, compared with £97.7m the previous year.

Nice background article here...
http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-opinion/3409-the-places-and-people-who-help-barclays-minimize-its-taxes.html

So mcboo, they didn't make a £300 million on 2008-2009 then ? You're talking about when Guardian Media Group was still owned by the Scott Trust, and after they had sold off 50% of Auto Trader. The article in the Independent was correct - in 2008-2009 GMG made a loss of £90 million. I take it that explains your strange reluctance to provide a link straight way, ie, you realised that you had referred to the wrong period.

So, nothing wrong with any of that - although as I have previously said it does come as a surprise that the Guardian Media Group has ever managed to make £300 million in any one financial year.

Have you now got any evidence to back up your claim that the Guardian Media Group has behaved the same way as it accuses Goldman Sachs of behaving ? Which is the basis of your criticism of them publishing the article and your allegations of hypocrisy.

I am mentally drafting a letter to the Guardian in anticipation of your evidence.

Hey Ernie....you know that saying about when you are in a hole? Put your shovel away, I've been to university and everything....

So you clearly haven't any evidence then mcboo ? Not a shred of evidence to back up your claims that the Guardian is guilty of the same wrongdoing as it accuses Goldman Sachs of ? Nothing to back up your allegations of "hypocrisy" ? It was all just complete bollox ?

I can't say that I'm surprised - I'll ditched that letter of outrage to the Guardian then.

What's university like ?

Mate, do a quick search, this story has been running for 3 years. Alan Rustbriger even went to the extent of writing an article for the paper setting out how GMG hadnt done anything illegal. He's right, they hadnt but what they had done is set up a shell company in Grand Cayman with Apax Partners (Evil Private Equity shysters), wound up the Scott Trust and re-structured it as Scott Trust Limited. Result they avoided £60mm in capital gains.

Nothing at all illegal, the point being it's very similar to what Barclays were doing at the time when they paid very little tax in that year. The Guardian were gunning for Barclays until it was pointed out that they were doing the same as Barclays. Cue much shuffling and staring at shoes......

thing is, lets say we find a way to tax vodafone on 10% of all the money they make. Who do you think would pay the bill? Their shareholders, or their customers?? I suspect it'd be the latter

so what you are saying taht becausthey are tottaly selfish greedy amoral bastards with no sense of social responsibility we should just ignore them?