Google proud of tax evasion !

15 Dec 2012

Seems a bit rich for the UK Government to now start screaming about huge companies not paying their fare share of taxes, when it was them that set those same tax laws, and in the same breath we are now reading about the disgraceful amounts of money a Margaret Moran has fiddled and got away with it seems.
How rich coming from Parliament, when still stories of fiddles are coming from their honourable members, and then they have the utter gall to talk about fiddles of others. These companies are doing nothing wrong at all as the current tax laws stand.
My solution would be to get rid of all the MP's ( well keep Nigel Farage wink

) and start again with decent people and then look at the tax laws and change them so as companies pay their FAIR share of tax.
Hypocrisy it seems is so still alive and well behind the walls of the House of Parliament. If I was the head of the board of Google, I would tell them to feck off and move all operations out of the UK on principle.

15 Dec 2012

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
BB is a VERY good accountant I do not let her look at my wages or any savings that could be made .... I am a great believer in collective responsibility... you DO NOT under any circumstances short change your fellow man

or become an unnecessary burden upon him wink

Oh go on Rob you'll have to explain that
Just realised what you mean ... yes you're company director who avoids every tax he/she can then sends thier kids to state schools and moans constantly about the quality of the education they recieve, or recieves expesive treatment at an N.H.S. hospital followed by equally expesive aftercare and drugs at a knock down price then moans about underfunding and the decline in hospital standards is indeed a fucking burden on thier fellow man and doesn't deserve a second of our concern, hang 'em high on the line and leave them out to dry I say ..... Glad you agree
you are indeed correct staggs, there is abuse of our systems at all ends of the scale. from the very top to the very bottom :wink:

15 Dec 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
Seems a bit rich for the UK Government to now start screaming about huge companies not paying their fare share of taxes, when it was them that set those same tax laws, and in the same breath we are now reading about the disgraceful amounts of money a Margaret Moran has fiddled and got away with it seems.
How rich coming from Parliament, when still stories of fiddles are coming from their honourable members, and then they have the utter gall to talk about fiddles of others. These companies are doing nothing wrong at all as the current tax laws stand.
My solution would be to get rid of all the MP's ( well keep Nigel Farage ) and start again with decent people and then look at the tax laws and change them so as companies pay their FAIR share of tax.
Hypocrisy it seems is so still alive and well behind the walls of the House of Parliament. If I was the head of the board of Google, I would tell them to feck off and move all operations out of the UK on principle.

Don't forget the Right Honourable Members too star :wink:
But, aside all else, what do you think constitutes a 'fair share of tax'?

15 Dec 2012

Quote by GnV
Seems a bit rich for the UK Government to now start screaming about huge companies not paying their fare share of taxes, when it was them that set those same tax laws, and in the same breath we are now reading about the disgraceful amounts of money a Margaret Moran has fiddled and got away with it seems.
How rich coming from Parliament, when still stories of fiddles are coming from their honourable members, and then they have the utter gall to talk about fiddles of others. These companies are doing nothing wrong at all as the current tax laws stand.
My solution would be to get rid of all the MP's ( well keep Nigel Farage ) and start again with decent people and then look at the tax laws and change them so as companies pay their FAIR share of tax.
Hypocrisy it seems is so still alive and well behind the walls of the House of Parliament. If I was the head of the board of Google, I would tell them to feck off and move all operations out of the UK on principle.

Quote by GnV
Don't forget the Right Honourable Members too star :wink:

I shall bare that one in mind also GnV :wink:

Quote by GnV
But, aside all else, what do you think constitutes a 'fair share of tax'?

I never have and never will think that Corporation tax is a fair tax on business. To work bloody hard as a small business and then to see that hard work taken away on taxes on your profits is dreadful. But in answer to your question GnV I would work it like this.
Anyone earning LESS that a year is out of any tax brackets. Those earning between and the rate would be 20%. From up to 30%, and anything above that would have a flat rate of 45%. The most important one to me would be to keep the lowest earners out of tax band if earning under

15 Dec 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
My solution would be to get rid of all the MP's ( well keep Nigel Farage ) and start again with decent people and then look at the tax laws and change them so as companies pay their FAIR share of tax.

Confused again Star ?
At the last count he's unsuccessfully contested British parliamentary elections for UKIP five times, so he's not an MP though he is a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) for South East England.
As for taxation lets look at who some of the senior HMRC people are, their 'advisors', and their backgrounds, quell surprise that many of them are from various large corporate acccouting and/or tax planning firms - one has to wonder where their loyalties lie especially as it seems the proftiable work is as poacher rather than gamekeeper and many of the official stuff in recent years seems to have been on 'light touch' regulation.
If their experience is in this area, you'd of thought the 'loop holes' would of been closed down in this period rather than seemingly more and more appearing.
HMRC say it is investigating some 41,000 tax avoidance schemes, but there is still no investigation of the industry that designs and markets aggressive tax avoidance schemes. In contrast to the UK, reports by various US Senate committees have been critical of the predatory practices of the major accountancy firms, with KPMG was fined $456m (£284m) for facilitating tax evasion and a number of its former personnel have been sent to prison, as have some of the former personnel of Ernst & Young.
An earlier internal HMRC study estimated that four firms (PricewaterhouseCoopers PwC, Ernst & Young, KPMG and Deloitte ), "were behind almost half of all known avoidance schemes".
By way of example KPMG devised a scheme for an amusement arcade company to avoid paying VAT on its operations, the scheme was not developed in response to any request from the company; KPMG just 'cold called' the company. the company's profits could improve by KPMG charged £75,000 plus VAT for an evaluation report and counsel's opinion, and a fee of 25% of the first year's VAT avoided, 15% of the second and 5% of the next three year's VAT avoided. KPMG felt that the UK tax authorities would regard the scheme as "unacceptable tax avoidance" and would challenge the arrangements, but still sold it.
Despite the evidence, no accountancy firm has ever been disciplined by any professional accountancy body. Despite spending millions of pounds to quash predatory schemes, the HMRC/Treasury has never sought to recover the legal costs from the promoters of the schemes. Instead, the big accountancy firms continue to receive taxpayer funded contracts.
In news today, HMRC has been asked to investigate alleged tax avoidance by Prince Charles's £700m hereditary estate. The Duchy of Cornwall last year provided Charles with an income of £18m and HMRC's anti-avoidance group is now being asked to examine its non-payment of corporation tax. The Duchy insists it "is not subject to corporation tax as it is not a separate legal entity for tax purposes". But John Angel, principal judge at the Information Rights Tribunal, ruled last December it was a separate legal body to the prince. Accountants now believe the ruling could leave the Duchy exposed to the 24% levy on profits other organisations must pay.
Whilst the term 'company' has various meanings, HMRC's tax rules say "unincorporated associations" and "groups of individuals carrying on a business that is not a partnership" are among the categories of organisations that must pay the tax.
However we can all help HMRC, recognise anyone on it's most wanted list -

15 Dec 2012

I did think the 'Tax free' first 10,000 of income was pretty much what the Government are trying to do. Not so sure about not taxing business, what is the difference between a bloody hard working person or small business. If is is 'fair' to tax the first why not the second?

15 Dec 2012

Quote by Robert400andKay
I did think the 'Tax free' first 10,000 of income was pretty much what the Government are trying to do. Not so sure about not taxing business, what is the difference between a bloody hard working person or small business. If is is 'fair' to tax the first why not the second?

The tax free first £10k will be achieved by the next election. It's a political certainty wink

As for taxing small business, what yard stick are you using to determine 'small'. The government definition of a small to medium sized business is surprisingly high.
There are many many 'small' small businesses who employ small numbers of staff but who don't have the legal structure of a limited company. As 'sole traders' or in 'partnerships' these small businesses are often taxed out of existence by paying Class 4 NIC'S on their profits but get no social benefits back by doing so. No sick pay, nothing. They still pay their normal NIC contributions though.
They also provide local employment contributing to both the local and national economy in the business taxes they pay and employers NIC.
Oh, and don't forget the accounting for VAT and employee PAYE/NIC's as an unpaid tax collector with heavy and punitive penalties for getting it wrong.
After that, there is 'go getting' new business....
Foregoing holidays for years on end....
And sometimes, you might even get to sleep at night.
That it essentially the difference between a bloody hard working employee and a small business owner (who generally are also bloody hard working!)
Oh yes, almost forgot. And if you do survive all that and retire to live out your days calmly in rural France, you get all sorts of shit from all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons who think you have only got here because you have exploited your fellow man and that you should taken out in front of your family and shot rolleyes

And not to forget those who think that the meagre benefits you actually are entitled to should be withdrawn because you no longer live in the UK.
I hope that helps your understanding Robert.

15 Dec 2012

Quote by GnV
I did think the 'Tax free' first 10,000 of income was pretty much what the Government are trying to do. Not so sure about not taxing business, what is the difference between a bloody hard working person or small business. If is is 'fair' to tax the first why not the second?

The tax free first £10k will be achieved by the next election. It's a political certainty wink

And not to forget those who think that the meagre benefits you actually are entitled to should be withdrawn because you no longer live in the UK.
I hope that helps your understanding Robert.
An absolutely brilliant post GnV. Sums up the injustices very clearly. :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

15 Dec 2012

Well, you know me star.... I only tell it like it is :lol2:

16 Dec 2012

Quote by GnV
Well, you know me star.... I only tell it like it is :lol2:

Would not want it any other way. :bounce:

16 Dec 2012

Quote by GnV
There are many many 'small' small businesses who employ small numbers of staff but who don't have the legal structure of a limited company.
And yet the small business could operate as a limited company so isn't this the choice of the 'Small Business'?
As 'sole traders' or in 'partnerships' these small businesses are often taxed out of existence by paying Class 4 NIC'S on their profits but get no social benefits back by doing so. No sick pay, nothing. They still pay their normal NIC contributions though.
On this I'm not sure, but I did think that your could claim either SSP, or SMP accordingly. At a rate of either 9% or 2% the payments seem to be quite a lot lower than the Class 1 NIC's (totaling both employee and employer contributions).

They also provide local employment contributing to both the local and national economy in the business taxes they pay and employers NIC.
The business taxes being on the profits which aren't either paid as salary, or invested in the business.
Oh, and don't forget the accounting for VAT and employee PAYE/NIC's as an unpaid tax collector with heavy and punitive penalties for getting it wrong.
After that, there is 'go getting' new business....
Foregoing holidays for years on end....
And sometimes, you might even get to sleep at night.
That it essentially the difference between a bloody hard working employee and a small business owner (who generally are also bloody hard working!)
These last points being the main differences between being an owner of a small business, and an employee. If you choose to work as a hard working (*1) small business owner rather than as a hard working employee why whinge about it afterwards? Life is about personal responsibility if this was the wrong choice for you why would you expect sympathy?
(*1) The phrase above 'a bloody hard working person or small business' should probably have had a comma i.e. 'a bloody hard working, person or small business'. I had not intended to imply that a small business (or indeed the owner) wasn't also hard working.
The bottom line being nobody really likes either doing accounts or paying tax.

Oh yes, almost forgot. And if you do survive all that and retire to live out your days calmly in rural France, you get all sorts of shit from all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons who think you have only got here because you have exploited your fellow man and that you should taken out in front of your family and shot
Did you exploit your fellow man your denials suggest to me that you feel that you may have?
And not to forget those who think that the meagre benefits you actually are entitled to should be withdrawn because you no longer live in the UK.
No questions on that one
I hope that helps your understanding Robert.
To some extent

16 Dec 2012

Quote by Robert400andKay

There are many many 'small' small businesses who employ small numbers of staff but who don't have the legal structure of a limited company.
And yet the small business could operate as a limited company so isn't this the choice of the 'Small Business'?
Where the business doesn't have 'shareholders' as such, why is it necessary to have the structure of a Limited Liability company?
As 'sole traders' or in 'partnerships' these small businesses are often taxed out of existence by paying Class 4 NIC'S on their profits but get no social benefits back by doing so. No sick pay, nothing. They still pay their normal NIC contributions though.
On this I'm not sure, but I did think that your could claim either SSP, or SMP accordingly. At a rate of either 9% or 2% the payments seem to be quite a lot lower than the Class 1 NIC's (totaling both employee and employer contributions).

No
They also provide local employment contributing to both the local and national economy in the business taxes they pay and employers NIC.
The business taxes being on the profits which aren't either paid as salary, or invested in the business.
Again, no. Business taxes - the so called NDR are collected locally and passed to the Exchequer and then a proportion paid back in relief to the Local Authority. They have no basis on the amount of profit made.
Oh, and don't forget the accounting for VAT and employee PAYE/NIC's as an unpaid tax collector with heavy and punitive penalties for getting it wrong.
After that, there is 'go getting' new business....
Foregoing holidays for years on end....
And sometimes, you might even get to sleep at night.
That it essentially the difference between a bloody hard working employee and a small business owner (who generally are also bloody hard working!)
These last points being the main differences between being an owner of a small business, and an employee. If you choose to work as a hard working (*1) small business owner rather than as a hard working employee why whinge about it afterwards? Life is about personal responsibility if this was the wrong choice for you why would you expect sympathy?
(*1) The phrase above 'a bloody hard working person or small business' should probably have had a comma i.e. 'a bloody hard working, person or small business'. I had not intended to imply that a small business (or indeed the owner) wasn't also hard working.
The bottom line being nobody really likes either doing accounts or paying tax.

As a business owner, you don't have a choice but to 'do the accounts' and who said anything about whinging?
Oh yes, almost forgot. And if you do survive all that and retire to live out your days calmly in rural France, you get all sorts of shit from all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons who think you have only got here because you have exploited your fellow man and that you should taken out in front of your family and shot
Did you exploit your fellow man your denials suggest to me that you feel that you may have?
Oh, please....
And not to forget those who think that the meagre benefits you actually are entitled to should be withdrawn because you no longer live in the UK.
No questions on that one
By which you mean.....
I hope that helps your understanding Robert.
To some extent

16 Dec 2012

I was previously unaware of the plight of the self employed.
Henceforth I will devote all my spare time to alleviating their suffering.

16 Dec 2012

Quote by GnV

There are many many 'small' small businesses who employ small numbers of staff but who don't have the legal structure of a limited company.
And yet the small business could operate as a limited company so isn't this the choice of the 'Small Business'?
Where the business doesn't have 'shareholders' as such, why is it necessary to have the structure of a Limited Liability company?
Because the tax rates might be lower ?

As 'sole traders' or in 'partnerships' these small businesses are often taxed out of existence by paying Class 4 NIC'S on their profits but get no social benefits back by doing so. No sick pay, nothing. They still pay their normal NIC contributions though.
On this I'm not sure, but I did think that your could claim either SSP, or SMP accordingly. At a rate of either 9% or 2% the payments seem to be quite a lot lower than the Class 1 NIC's (totaling both employee and employer contributions).

No
I guess that is why the amounts are lower than Class 1 contributions?

They also provide local employment contributing to both the local and national economy in the business taxes they pay and employers NIC.
The business taxes being on the profits which aren't either paid as salary, or invested in the business.
Again, no. Business taxes - the so called NDR are collected locally and passed to the Exchequer and then a proportion paid back in relief to the Local Authority. They have no basis on the amount of profit made.
I used the term Business taxes for Corporation Tax, I haven't heard of NDR is that the rates?
Oh, and don't forget the accounting for VAT and employee PAYE/NIC's as an unpaid tax collector with heavy and punitive penalties for getting it wrong.
After that, there is 'go getting' new business....
Foregoing holidays for years on end....
And sometimes, you might even get to sleep at night.
That it essentially the difference between a bloody hard working employee and a small business owner (who generally are also bloody hard working!)
These last points being the main differences between being an owner of a small business, and an employee. If you choose to work as a hard working (*1) small business owner rather than as a hard working employee why whinge about it afterwards? Life is about personal responsibility if this was the wrong choice for you why would you expect sympathy?
(*1) The phrase above 'a bloody hard working person or small business' should probably have had a comma i.e. 'a bloody hard working, person or small business'. I had not intended to imply that a small business (or indeed the owner) wasn't also hard working.
The bottom line being nobody really likes either doing accounts or paying tax.

As a business owner, you don't have a choice but to 'do the accounts' and who said anything about whinging?
Forgoing holidays, not sleeping .... looks like whinging to me?

Oh yes, almost forgot. And if you do survive all that and retire to live out your days calmly in rural France, you get all sorts of shit from all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons who think you have only got here because you have exploited your fellow man and that you should taken out in front of your family and shot
Did you exploit your fellow man your denials suggest to me that you feel that you may have?
Oh, please....
That was a chain jerk ... sorry .... nice response

And not to forget those who think that the meagre benefits you actually are entitled to should be withdrawn because you no longer live in the UK.
No questions on that one
By which you mean.....
My attitude is that those people who pay in should at least get something out in the end, having also contributed to the vast numbers as don't, even if they happen to have gone all Francophile
I hope that helps your understanding Robert.
To some extent

16 Dec 2012

Quote by flower411
I`m certainly getting out of my depth here but aren`t there rules about running non viable limited companies ?
And isn`t that exactly what Starbucks are claiming to run ?
Is there a difference between a non viable company and one that makes profits in other countries !!!
Confused here !

Starbucks as a global entity makes money. Individual Starbucks franchisees probably make a bit of money in this country whilst the parent company is "quite rightly" working their way around the tax laws of the jurisdictions of the UK and Europe.

16 Dec 2012

Quote by Too Hot
Starbucks as a global entity makes money. Individual Starbucks franchisees probably make a bit of money in this country whilst the parent company is "quite rightly" working their way around the tax laws of the jurisdictions of the UK and Europe.

:thumbup:
And good luck to them.

16 Dec 2012

Quote by Robert
Forgoing holidays, not sleeping .... looks like whinging to me?

More passion than whinging. wink

16 Dec 2012

Quote by flower411
My intention when starting this thread was to comment on the fact that the executive chairman takes pride in his companies tax avoidance !
I`m a capitalist through and through but I do not subscribe to the idea that capitalism excludes social responsibilty ..
Tax avoidance may be a fact of life ...it might be the case that "everybody would do it given the chance" but that isn`t to say that those that do it shouold not be philanthropic !
In the current climate where the average tax payer and people receiving benefits are being screwed for every penny it seemed a unpleasant to me that there was a sense of pride expressed in tax avoidance !
It shows an arrogance that needs to be addressed ...... it does seem a little odd for a company to take pride in impoverishing it`s customers .
They may be happy to see their customers in poverty but I`d suggest that richer customers would be a better aim ...... weird idea, I know !!

But how can you pay tax that is not due?? And what are you supposed to do? Offer ex gratia payments? Starbucks did that and I bet they won't be offering to do it to again in a hurry after their coffee shops were occupied as a result.
The government sets the tax laws and we just have to accept them. We can ask the government to change the law to get companies paying more tax but you really need to be aware of the law of unintended consequences when taking such action.
There really is not a model to submit your accounts and then pay tax that is not lawfully due and in this country HMRC will refund overpaid tax.
At a guess, I`d say that the law of unintended consequences would result in small businesses able to compete in a fair market and would continue provide employment and actually increase the level of tax paid because most small businesses are not in a position to take their tax affairs offshore and are not able to employ fancy tax avoidance lawyers ......
But hey !! I`m just guessing ...
It is far less expensive to operate a small business as overheads are less. Increasing Corporation Tax will inhibit large scale investment so increasing that tax to catch the big fish will actually disinsentivise further investment.

16 Dec 2012

I'm out of my depth with this conversation as business taxation really hasn't featured on my list of things to study in the past, but humour and teach me please.
What would happen if all the companies presently paying corporation tax did the same as the likes of Google or Starbucks?

16 Dec 2012

Quote by Trevaunance
I'm out of my depth with this conversation as business taxation really hasn't featured on my list of things to study in the past, but humour and teach me please.
What would happen if all the companies presently paying corporation tax did the same as the likes of Google or Starbucks?

If they are wholly owned and run British companies they do to have this option.

16 Dec 2012

Quote by Trevaunance
I'm out of my depth with this conversation as business taxation really hasn't featured on my list of things to study in the past, but humour and teach me please.
What would happen if all the companies presently paying corporation tax did the same as the likes of Google or Starbucks?

Corporation Tax is a tax payable on a Company's profits after all expenditure - hence by some (including me) it is viewed as State sponsored punishment for running a successful business. Having said that, Directors/Shareholders can take dividends after payment of Corporation Tax and the level of Corporation Tax is about half what it would be if the Company broke even because the Directors took a high salary and paid the highest tax rate.
The great irony of this argument is that people are saying that Google etc should pay Corporation Tax just like their UK based counterparts but the reason that so much Corporation Tax is paid by UK Companies is at least partly because Directors/Shareholders take a more tax efficient dividends after payment of Corporation Tax rather than take high salaries on which they pay more NI and PAYE contributions.
Taking Costa Coffee and Starbucks as an example. Costa is a UK Company and presumably has UK Directors and Shareholders and so will pay Corporation Tax on profits after which the Directors/Shareholders can take this money as a dividend. Some people view this as a tax dodge but it is at least partially the reason why UK Companies pay more Corporation Tax but it is not disclosed how much more the Treasury could have had if Directors took their cash as salary instead of dividends. Starbucks breaks even or loses money in this country as a result of Franchisees paying Royalties abroad and coffee being bought from a mandated Starbucks supplier - BUT - staff are paid the going rate including retail, area and national management.
Question then - who is the biggest tax dodger? UK Companies that pay dividends after Corporation tax and thus under pay PAYE and NI or Global Companies who pau the full rate of PAYE and NI ?

17 Dec 2012

Quote by Too Hot

My posts I would suggest are just as qualified as other members whose credentials you don't question.
It is as you say absolutely legal for company directors to shift their tax liability from personal to corporate by taking dividends in lieu of wages, but, and lets be clear about this ,the losers in this particular piece of prestidigitation are all the other tax payers of the country … all that stuff our taxes buy still has to be bought,where does the money come from ???? who pays in the end ??
It is a very short sighted hard of thinking man who thinks that their companies interests are best served by impoverishing their customers

Well, it was you who said:

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
You start with fallacious assumptions and extrapolate from them incorrect conclusions

In response to .....

Any and every Company as well as any and every individual will do everything they can to mitigate tax exposure

As I understand all of these Companies are operating within UK and European legal and tax frameworks.

..... which you seem to have convieniently forgotten, both sweeping generalisations and wrong
You have an opinion that all of the other losers are other tax payers but perhaps the UK Government and HMRC do not see it that way.
No I am of the opinion that everybody will suffer to some extent because of this refusal to accept that there is a wider responsibility that these companies need to address,
The government of course accepts the status quo whilst making bold sweeping statements and not acting on them ,it is the nature of mordern government in this country to do this on all subjects,unless their electorate force their hand
There is an insideous creep towards the demonisation of wealth in the United Kingdom where wealth of any description is becoming frowned upon by those whose motivating force appears to be envy. Perhaps you could suggest a way that Directors and Shareholders could take benefit from their willingness to invest personal funds in an effort to create jobs, wealth and employment?
Oh so much here ....
1; and this may well sound petty but isn't about time the balance was redressed?? the poor have been increasingly demonised for years I've yet to see your post condemning that,did I miss it??care to point me to it ??
2; the "creep" is towards a realistic view of the greed and self serving arrogance of large swathes of the wealthy not towards a demonisation of wealth .... we would after all,all love to win the lottery.
3;The wealth created in these cases is personal wealth for the directors and shareholders of these companies, isn't that why they're trying to avoid paying tax FFS! To try and paint these same people as altruistic social benefactors is somewhat disengenuous to say the least
4; Aren't the massive wages and dividends the directors recieve not reward enough ?? Do the shareholders not invest in order to take dividends from the companies?? don't they shift their investments when it looks as though they wont recieve any?? Do you really really believe that they are motivated by the desire to create jobs wealth and employment for anyone other than themselves ?? Can I suggest that the constant press to reduce staffing and wages would tend to suggest otherwise ??? Are you sure in your heart of hearts that it's me that's unqualified to discuss this?It would appear to be that out of the two of us it isn't me that is ignoring the reality of the situaution
It is an absolute fact of economics that high corporation and company taxes stifles growth and does nothing to incentivise economic investment. No investment = no employment.
Is it ?? can I suggest you go back to the wiki look at tax rates and look at how those economies have performed ? I'd suggest that you may find some that give lie to this
My personal opinion is that Corporation tax is State punishment for risking personal funds, taking great risks and creating employment in the country.
And in my opinion you're wrong
Bottom line is that we can't have it all ways unless we fancy pulling out of Europe, abandoning trade agreements and treaties and doing a North Korea by establishing total isolationism. We might lose the brightest, wealthiest and most talented in our society as a result but at least all those who are left will be equal
I'm sorry but this is just quoting classic Tory doctrine it isn't true and never has been .... increasing taxes has never ever led to the mass exodus you suggest and there is no reason why it should now ...
Finally ... what is wrong with a little more equality ??? what do you think you're going to lose?? because,and lets be honest with each other, that is the bottom line isn't it? you think you'll lose out

17 Dec 2012

Quote by Too Hot
A lot of great informative information

but never answered the question.

17 Dec 2012

Quote by staggs
Finally ... what is wrong with a little more equality ??? what do you think you're going to lose?? because,and lets be honest with each other, that is the bottom line isn't it? you think you'll lose out

I'm assuming this was your writing staggs and that I followed the somewhat complex quotes within quotes and added comments correctly.
The Marxist doctrine of 'everyone's equal' is not the best model to use. Even Marx himself realised the need for capitalists acknowledging that there cannot be more equality between the bosses and the workers.
And why shouldn't those who expose their personal wealth to generate employment for others be entitled to a bigger share?
With so much 'new' money in the economy these days as opposed to the old money of the northern mills dynasties, it is clear - and thank goodness - that people are willing to expose their wealth to generate new businesses to provide employment and it would be most unfair if those who are led were allowed to benefit as much as those who lead - just in the same way that it is grossly unfair for those on benefits to be better off than those who make the effort to go to work to provide for their families.
If you don't like being an employee, there is nothing in the UK that prevents you from becoming an employer or starting up in business on your own account and controlling your own future.

17 Dec 2012

Quote by Trevaunance
I'm out of my depth with this conversation as business taxation really hasn't featured on my list of things to study in the past, but humour and teach me please.
What would happen if all the companies presently paying corporation tax did the same as the likes of Google or Starbucks?

HMRC has jurisdiction over UK residents and UK resident Companies and Corporations as well as income generated in the UK by foreign companies. Unlike many State tax collecting Agencies HMRC require tax payment on the worldwide income of UK entities. The IRS (US) requires tax payment on money repatriated to the US.
All the Companies currently paying Corporation would by and large be UK registered Companies because funds remain in the UK and if they tried to "dodge" corporation tax by increasing top salaries then the Treasury will get more income anyway. If they tried to dodge tax by creating false licencing and/or ioffshore "supply" companies then this would be seen as tax evasion which is illegal.
UK Companies who operate globally do have more opportunity to be creative because they operate across so many global tax jurisdictions but that is a benefit of being a major player in the world. Do you think Americans are ashamed of Burger King, McDonalds, Starbucks and Google because they are worldwide brands? Of course not. the politics of envy is a very, very British thing.
The Facebook pages and social efforts to boycott Starbucks will affect only British franchisees and British employees but it satisfies the tiny minds of envious Socialists who can't bear wealth and success to be so public.

17 Dec 2012

Staggs - Too much to copy and paste.
Just have to agree to disagree but remember the 1970's when talent and wealth fled the UK because of very high taxes?
Well it appears to be happening again in France today:

Raising taxes too much does not help a society - lowering them does as long as you can accept that motivated and ambitious people will then invest money, create jobs and in the process create wealth for themselves.

17 Dec 2012

Quote by GnV
If you don't like being an employee, there is nothing in the UK that prevents you from becoming an employer or starting up in business on your own account and controlling your own future.

Well partly true GnV. Firstly though you need a business plan, and then a bit of capital behind you. You have to have a bank in most cases and nowadays they will not lend to small businesses. If they will they want some security and that often means a persons home. In this climate of businesses going down the toilet at an alarming rate, what person would want to risk it?
Most people lack the inventiveness of starting their own business, and even if you had that attribute about you, depending on what business you was going into you would in most cases need premises to operate from. Business rates are just such a burden on small business that many go to the wall purely on that reason alone.
Of course there is nothing stopping you GnV apart from one or two little things I have mentioned above. Our local high streets in the UK are now littered not with bustling shops, but Pound land shops, 99p stores, bookmakers, charity shops, and lots of empty stores. I would not want to start a business in 2012 Britain that's for sure.
Then even if you make a bit of a success of your business, many businesses go under not for lack of work, but the fact they go bust because of money they are owed by their own customers which is one of the biggest reasons a business fails...lack of cash flow. You got out in time GnV, for many others it is too late as the bailiffs come to snatch their homes away.

17 Dec 2012

So on the one hand, good luck to firms that evade UK tax, on the basis that the rich pay too much tax anyway.
On the other hand, shame on them for being criminals.
I am with the latter group, and believe the revenue has existing powers to stop these scams but has neither the will nor the resources to do so.
While they are at it they could stop people claiming to be limited companies, when in fact they are fixed term employees solely to avoid tax.
Other examples are too numerous to mention.

17 Dec 2012

Quote by Ben
On the other hand, shame on them for being criminals

Butt that's the whole point Ben. They are not 'criminals' because they have broken no laws.
They are quite legally exploiting the tax regime that the law makers (Parliament) put in place. Whether you or others think that is morally wrong is moot but the fact cannot be escaped, they have done nothing illegal and deserve not to be condemned.

17 Dec 2012

It is illegal to set up any arrangement solely to avoid tax, in the UK, I believe.