You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
[img] 
:large[/img]
Wouldn't you build a [s]massive penis[/s] rocket like this? This one's from Jeff Bezos, of Amazon fortune.
That's just what the world needs, I'm sure everybody annoyed that Amazon don't pay their fair share of taxes are glad that the multi billionaire owner has just spunked up all that cash. What a cock.
That's just what the world needs, I'm sure everybody annoyed that Amazon don't pay their fair share of taxes are glad that the multi billionaire owner has just spunked up all that cash. What a cock.
In every other context imaginable I'd agree with every word of that but there's something about space exploration and the sight of a rocket landing back on earth in a controlled manner that makes me want to buy more stuff on amazon.
I'm pleased he's doing something useful with the money rather than let the government piss it away.
Yes, I'd hate to see the government spending it on nurses, or schools, or roads, or libraries, or cycle lanes, or any of that junk.
Far better to spend it on a massive ego spunk fest.
But the government haven't asked him for the money, so why would he give it to them?
Point being missed here.
It looks like a massive penis.
Point being missed here.It looks like a massive penis.
Joke won't be fully realised until he's able to reach uranus!
The landing was pretty cool.
https://www.blueorigin.com/news/blog/historic-rocket-landing
Comes in at a bit of a lick 🙂
Didn't miss the point. Point is the man is a cock and spent billions building a rocket that looks like a cock so other wealthy cocks can go to space. I'd rather it didn't manage to return intact. I'm sure the peasants are glad the wealthy tax dodgers are so responsible with their money.
Joke won't be fully realised until he's able to reach uranus!
.. will bring stars to your eyes.
The capsule landing looked a bit hard.
Given that NASA easily did this stuff nearly 50 years ago why is it so difficult to do it now?
why is it so difficult to do it now?
Health & Safety gawn mad.
The Capsules fire rockets to cushion the last meter or so. It does look harsh but its not. Soyuz does it as well. Not sure about the other types. We need to find a 10 year old who will be up to speed on these things.
If you were a multi-billionaire and you wanted to go to space....
id ask elon musk
Shiny and thrusty, battery powered ????
It looks like a massive penis.
Oh - that changes things - I thought it looked like a tiny penis.
It's definitely a cock and, if we're being honest, it's not actually going into space.
Space is not that high up.
[img] 
[/img]
wanmankylung - MemberOh - that changes things - I thought it looked like a tiny penis.
True that, it looks like a very big tiny penis
That thing clearly is the boss of landing.
Shame the passengers come down via parachute, as trusting the rocket looks a lot more exciting.
I think people are missing the point with the technology here... NASA has only ever had booster stages that are either disposable (Saturn 5, etc) or re-usable but recovered by parachute (Shuttle). No one has developed a working system to get the booster stage back to the launch site on its own.
The fact that they launched this and the booster landed about 1.5m from where it took off from is bloody impressive.
Yes, this might be a rich man trying to find ways of getting other rich men into space so that he can make money, but the technology _will_ make getting into space cheaper and that will be the only way that the human race will be able to expand out of the atmosphere.
Computers were originally only for very rich people (well, companies). So were mobile phones. So were indoor toilets, cars and pretty much every other technical advance you can think of.
The historical comparison really is the railway barons - nasty capitalists, but everyone benefited from the railway network they built.
Besides, rockets are cool. Even if they do look like penises.
Missing the point... Yep
Just think how quickly you'll be able to get your consumer goods, bought on Amazon, direct from the factory in China.
Winter Flats
Irons
Sportsbands
Prolink ProGold Extreme
Workmates
Royal mail 3-5 day delivery £3.50
Super duper space delivery £35000
Point is the man is a cock and spent billions building a rocket that looks like a cock so other wealthy cocks can go to space.
Playing devil's advocate here:
If this works, and creates a space tourism and travel industry out of nothing, that will generate a shitload more tax revenue than a few years of Amazon "profits" won't it?
If he doesn't also own a secret underground lair I'll be very disappointed.
Just think how quickly you'll be able to get your consumer goods, bought on Amazon, direct from the factory in China.Winter Flats
Irons
Sportsbands
Prolink ProGold Extreme
WorkmatesRoyal mail 3-5 day delivery £3.50
Super duper space delivery £35000
but a free trial if you sign up to amazon prime?
If this works, and creates a space tourism and travel industry out of nothing, that will generate a shitload more tax revenue than a few years of Amazon "profits" won't it?
Why would he choose to pay tax on this phallic enterprise if he doesn't on his other business?
Going by how Amazon treat their [url= http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-amazon-wrestling-big-ideas-in-a-bruising-workplace.html?_r=0 ]employees[/url] and suppliers it does stick in the craw somewhat that Bezos has chosen to use the money he's ruthlessly squeezed out of everyone he's ever employed or done business with on such an evident willy-waving exercise.
Deleted my Amazon account in 2014, they're not getting another penny from me.
tis the way of the world, get over yourselves.
lets be honest, none of the world powers are truly thinking about viable space exploration by humans, so whats not to like. I'd like us to explore and have permanent exploration facilities on other planets, go tiny penis goo.
My wife has had a 1 to 4 scale model of that rocket in her bottom drawer for ten years.
Point is the man is a cock and spent billions building a rocket that looks like a cock
That's a very thin arguement, spread very thinly.
tiny penis goo
🙂
It's not going into space. It's touching space and falling back down again. Vertical launches are of very little use, what we need is a cheap way of putting stuff in orbit.
Whilst I dont agree with the amount of tax companies like Amazon pay I dont agree with the view that they just decided not to pay taxes. they work within the rules the government set out and pay exactly what is required within the rules.
the HMRC needs to be the target of the haterz
Rich man spends loads of money on something that provides well paid job's for people. People who then have money to spend on stuff like Taxis, or anything else you care to imagine. Isn't that really what makes the world go round ?
Whilst I dont agree with the amount of tax companies like Amazon pay I dont agree with the view that they just decided not to pay taxes. they work within the rules the government set out and pay exactly what is required within the rules.
You pay corporation tax on profits, so if you are re-investing into a growing business like say, Starbucks, then you won't have any profits - this is entirely legit, no?
so if you are re-investing into a growing business like say, Starbucks, then you won't have any profits - this is entirely legit, no?
[b]If[/b] that was happening at Starbucks. Then it would be entirely legit yes.
That's not what is happening though.
on stuff like Taxis
They don't make those biscuits anymore...
Now, I was going to post this link ([url= http://www.mcvities.co.uk/products/bars ]http://www.mcvities.co.uk/products/bars[/url]) and disagree with you there, but it would seem that none of the places they list in the "Buy Now" bit actually stock them (apart from Asda who say they are unavailable).
It does indeed look like the Taxi biscuit is indeed dead. RIP Taxi.
This is a tremendous achievement, regardless of its current application, it will cheapen space exploration. I applaud both the man funding the project and the achievement of those working for Blue Origin.
Just like Octopus, another fabulous Jeff Bezos investment.
Whilst I dont agree with the amount of tax companies like Amazon pay I dont agree with the view that they just decided not to pay taxes. they work within the rules the government set out and pay exactly what is required within the rules.
They actively organize their companies in a complicated manner designed SOLELY to avoid paying as much tax as possible. WHilst its not illegal its also not true to say they pay what they have to; what they do is creatively account to pay the least possible they have to even.Many think this is immoral but legal.
the HMRC needs to be the target of the haterz
Clearly they can do more but no one makes these companies have such taxation policies. I think it ok to judge them by their behaviour.
Whilst I dont agree with the amount of tax companies like Amazon pay I dont agree with the view that they just decided not to pay taxes. they work within the rules the government set out and pay exactly what is required within the rules.
So, as an example... One part of the company (the UK bit) pays bogus "royalties" to another part of the company for the right to use the company name. (Both parts owned by the same company obviously)
The part of the company receiving the royalties, just happens to be based in a tax haven.
The "royalties" paid just happen to equal [b]all [/b]the profits of the UK part of the company, every year.
So they pay no tax in the UK at all. Ever. No matter how much actual profit they make.
Seems legit.
(It fictional obviously, but it's within the HMRC rules)
The "royalties" paid just happen to equal all the profits of the UK part of the company, every year.So they pay no tax in the UK at all. Ever. No matter how much actual profit they make.
Seems legit.
(It fictional obviously, but it's within the HMRC rules)
It's not actually, many payments that are dependent upon the profits of the company are treated as a dividend for tax purposes and therefore not deductible.
The subtlety of Starbucks's tax planning is that every charge they make to their own shops, they also make to third party franchisees. As the whole basis upon which a country's taxing rights are determined is the "arm's length principle", it is exceedingly difficult to argue that the Starbucks internal payment is wrong because an independent (i.e. arm's length) party is paying it.
Its wrong because its a false charge to avoid taxation
Its one they can do legally but its not a "real" payment except on paper and for the purposes of minimising tax
I dont think anyone is arguing they break the law but no one seems to argue the charges are " real " either just legal.
Drac has posted the correct response to this already. Please go back and review it.
Its one they can do legally but its not a "real" payment except on paper and for the purposes of minimising tax
But they charge it to third parties in the same country, it is real for them - why does it become "unreal" just because it is two parts of the same group?
The area is difficult for policy makers, historic rules aren't working as they wish, especially now we have companies where most of the value is in intangible assets that have no obvious nexus, but they need to be fair otherwise they become distortive.
Really? Its not real because the payment exists only to minimise tax rather than "business need".
You can feel free to disagree and argue they are legitimate payments and the business model is for some reason other than tax minimisation but , tbh, I think even the business would admit this is what they have done.
How do you define "business need", the third party had a business need so why doesn't the related party, your basis seems to be they make loads of money and should pay more tax, you can't legislate like that.
The subtlety of Starbucks's tax planning is that every charge they make to their own shops, they also make to third party franchisees.
Can you explain that some more please?
Penis.
Massive penis.
Obviously a penis.
However, it's now an argualympian circle jerk.
*Wanders off*
Amazingly perceptive straw man there 🙄
Its fair enough to disagree and argue what they do is fine and required for some reason other than tax minimisation but, frankly, I dont believe that you are struggling to grasp the point I am making
tpo repeat
you can say why this analysis is false or you can do this instead and pretend it confuses you.They actively organize their companies in a complicated manner designed SOLELY to avoid paying as much tax as possible. WHilst its not illegal its also not true to say they pay what they have to; what they do is creatively account to pay the least possible they have to even.Many think this is immoral but legal.
British Starbucks stores. Campaigners point out that since first opening its doors in Britain in 1998 Starbucks has paid only £8.6m in corporate income taxes there. In testimony last month before a parliamentary committee, Starbucks had said this was because it had made a profit in only one year in Britain, though it also admitted that its British business had made large payments for coffee to a profitable Starbucks subsidiary in Switzerland and large royalty payments to another profitable subsidiary in the Netherlands for use of the brand and intellectual property.....
I doubt anyone thinks the "real" profit from this companies operations in the Uk is really that and the charges are "not real" and designed to avoid/minimise tax.
Junkyard, was that before or after they "came clean" for the media and made voluntary payments?
EDIT it seems that you quoted an article that also mentioned the voluntary payments.
I am not really trying to argue a point, I am just trying to outline how policy makers are faced with a difficult challenge based on the way countries have agreed to define their taxing rights in cross border situations. I did this because the debate on here on this subject is not unsurprisingly ill informed. I am sorry to disappoint.
Molgrips - another time, I think we have digressed enough.
hey you played the man this time Well done - somehow again you managed to miss addressing the point made whilst bringing the debate up to speed with some more logical fallacies and a decline to debate.
Thanks for the valuable contribution to understanding 😕
I am sorry if you feel that a general comment about how informed a debate was was a personal attack on you. It wasn't. To be honest, what is written in the press on the subject is ill informed too. The simple fact is I used to work in international tax so I have a reasonable understanding of how systems work, I am out of date now on the technicalities but the basic principles are the same, and too often incorrect assertions are made on here and in the press.