If an Election were called right now?

[Hotman]

And Google's UK unit paid just £6m to the Treasury in 2011 on UK turnover of £395m.

Turnover is vanity, profit is...

 

[Cricko]

And another point - let's say we become a tax haven and foreign companies transfer their funds to us. Would we be moaning about the principle then?

I would , until the day the world comes inline to all these tax dodges we are ****ed..we need a common road.

 

[Cricko]

Turnover is vanity, profit is...

LOL yes they are struggling to make ends meet.

Google's net profit climbed to $3.35bn (£2.19bn) in the first three months of the year, up 16% from a year earlier, boosted by online advertising revenue.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22210762

 

[chapperzUK]

"And Google's UK unit paid just £6m to the Treasury in 2011 on UK turnover of £395m".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20560359

See they also forgot to include the amount Google pay in VAT and Employer's National Insurance contributions. So VAT could be up to £79m.

 

[Hotman]

LOL yes they are struggling to make ends meet.

Google's net profit climbed to $3.35bn (£2.19bn) in the first three months of the year, up 16% from a year earlier, boosted by online advertising revenue.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22210762

Group vs subsidiary.

(And 2013 vs 2011,
but that might be me being pedantic :winking:)

 

[Cricko]

See they also forgot to include the amount Google pay in VAT and Employer's National Insurance contributions. So VAT could be up to £79m.

It could be but so could the tooth fairy be true.

 

[South Bank Hank]

Is that the same Google that paid £10m in corporation tax between 2006 and 2011?

In my opinion, Corporation Tax is a MASSIVE red herring. From what I can tell, your figure is correct but it fails to see the big picture. Google is using our existing laws to legally minimise the tax the company pays - just as EVERY other tax payer does (to whatever degree) and just as every individual on benefits uses the laws to legally maximise the benefits they receive.

If we want Google to pay more tax, then we should address the tax laws to ensure it happens. The consequence then of course will be that large companies will consider the new equation when they think about setting up business in the UK, directly affecting the jobs created and, lo and behold, the tax revenues that in itself creates. Add in the cost of running a business, purchases, marketing, advertising, use of business to business services, etc and it's pretty obvious that these big companies are still contributing MASSIVELY to our economy.

Taking Google as an example, the company employs in excess of 53,000 staff. That's a hell of a lot of tax contributions both directly and indirectly.

As for the thread and who to vote for at the next general election, I think they're all entirely bereft of leadership. I'm hopeful that both of the main parties will recognise this and make replacements.

 

[Cricko]

I agree to certain points you make G..but I don't understand this pessimism that seems to surround us as a country..Google need us as do a thousand other foreign companies .We are the number 1 online buyers in Europe.Companies know what they are doing for sure evading and using tax avenues here and as you say most use that process.

If you think they will walk away from us though because they have at last been put in their place and correct taxes are paid on revenue, not a chance they need us more than we need them.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I've got no idea what google actually do in the UK.

What's their connection to the UK? They are a US company. Do they actually employ people in the UK? Do they have servers in the UK?

I use google but I've never paid anything towards it.

 

[Cricko]

I've got no idea what google actually do in the UK.

What's their connection to the UK? They are a US company. Do they actually employ people in the UK? Do they have servers in the UK?

I use google but I've never paid anything towards it.

Google it :dim:

 

[South Bank Hank]

I agree to certain points you make G..but I don't understand this pessimism that seems to surround us as a country..Google need us as do a thousand other foreign companies ..we are the number 1 online buyers in Europe.Companies know what they are doing for sure evading and using tax avenues here and as you say most use that process.

If you think they will walk away from us though because they have at last been put in their place and correct taxes paid for revenue, not a chance they need us more than we need them.

Agreed, Google as an example would be unlikely to walk away. I'm really just pointing out that, while the tabloids have typically picked up on it as a stick to beat big business with, it's - again typically - just a single element of a complex equation and it needs to be considered as such. While the average Joe Public isn't looking at the bigger picture, businesses investing (or thinking of investing) in the UK most certainly will be.

As for the pessimism, we bring it on ourselves. Let's stop beating up the innovators, entrepreneurs, developers, investors, and money makers and work with them. They pay and directly create FAR more in tax revenues than they are legally avoiding.

As an aside, both Google and Starbucks are recognised as fantastic companies to work for.

 

[Neil_F]

If you think they will walk away from us though because they have at last been put in their place

You won't like this, Cricko. Google's tax affairs are designed to make the most of the single market as designed by the European Union. It isn't really about UK tax law at all.

The EU single market is designed such that barriers to trade across borders are reduced. It is designed such that a British company, for example one of the companies owned and run by one of the posters on these forums, can sell to Ireland without being subject to tarrifs, quotas or corporation tax in Ireland.

It works in reverse as well. When a Google subsidiary registered and managed and controlled in Ireland sells advertising to the UK then there is no corporation tax due in the UK. Those are the EU rules, those are the OECD rules and that is the basis of international taxation.

There is a caveat to this. If the Irish subsidiary or one of its employees engages in certain activities in the UK then it can create a UK corporation tax liability. Those activities are largely defined in double taxation treaties. You can be sure that all of those activities are avoided.

For example, anything you buy from Amazon.co.uk is actually bought from a Luxembourg subsidiary of the US parent company. That company owns the website, the intellectual property and processes the order. It then instructs a UK subsidiary to dispatch the order from a warehouse for which it pays a small fee. The UK-Luxembourg double tax treaty says that owning a warehouse in the UK does not give rise to a UK corporation tax liability. On a wider point, Amazon actually make a loss in 2012. They are ruthlessly pursuing market share at the expense of profit. No profit means no tax.

These are the rules. Politicians use "loopholes" to mean anything they don't like but the fact is these are the rules they wrote being used as they were always envisaged to be. That wouldn't change even if UK laws changed because the EU position is superior in legal terms.

correct taxes are paid on revenue

I'm sure you know that corporation tax is paid on profit, not revenue. We already have a tax on revenue, it is called VAT.

Out of interest, who do you think actually bears the cost of corporation tax? A corporation is just a piece of paper. You have three options: shareholders, employees or customers. Which do you reckon it is?

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

You won't like this,

Out of interest, who do you think actually bears the cost of corporation tax? A corporation is just a piece of paper. You have three options: shareholders, employees or customers. Which do you reckon it is?

shareholders, unless they decide to increase prices as they are now factoring in corporation tax - which will bring them more in line with their competitors who already pay corporation tax.

On voting - tactical voting is now out for me as I ended up with the MP I voted for but he joined up with the party I voted against. Result I expect to see a Labour win or Lab-Lib pact due to many Thatcherites voting UKIP.

 

[superblue24]

The rich get richer at the cost of the ​claimants getting poorer.

Edited for accuracy.

 

[Neil_F]

shareholders, unless they decide to increase prices as they are now factoring in corporation tax - which will bring them more in line with their competitors who already pay corporation tax.

I'm afraid it is almost never shareholders. This is only possible in a "closed economy" i.e. one where shareholders can't easily move their money somewhere else.

So the cost of corporation tax is borne by either customers in the form of higher costs or employees in lower wages. All of the academic literature finds that increases in corporation tax are borne by employees through lower wages or fewer jobs. Worth remembering when calling for companies to pay more tax. There is a negative impact on GDP and workers take the pain.

 

[Hotman]

On voting - tactical voting is now out for me as I ended up with the MP I voted for but he joined up with the party I voted against. Result I expect to see a Labour win or Lab-Lib pact due to many Thatcherites voting UKIP.

Surely that would suggest a Con/UKIP pact, especially given how close the two parties are in certain areas?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I'm afraid it is almost never shareholders. This is only possible in a "closed economy" i.e. one where shareholders can't easily move their money somewhere else.

So the cost of corporation tax is borne by either customers in the form of higher costs or employees in lower wages. All of the academic literature finds that increases in corporation tax are borne by employees through lower wages or fewer jobs. Worth remembering when calling for companies to pay more tax. There is a negative impact on GDP and workers take the pain.

Not sure how you can claim that when the Chairman of Google stated publically yesterday that he would be happy for his company to pay more tax if the UK government changed existing tax regulations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/27/google-eric-schmidt-change-law-tax?INTCMP=SRCH

 

[Napster]

Not sure how you can claim that when the Chairman of Google stated publically yesterday that he would be happy for his company to pay more tax if the UK government changed existing tax regulations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/27/google-eric-schmidt-change-law-tax?INTCMP=SRCH

:hilarious::hilarious: Yes of course he would.

ps I voted Tory. My UKIP vote last time was a protest vote. Having seen Farage's ridiculous posturing since I'm backing the elite.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

:hilarious::hilarious: Yes of course he would.

ps I voted Tory. My UKIP vote last time was a protest vote. Having seen Farage's ridiculous posturing since I'm backing the elite.

Unlike you to back a loser.:winking:

 

[Napster]

Unlike you to back a loser.:winking:

Touche. I've backed more winners than losers.