If an Election were called right now?

[Jam_Man]

Said it before but theres no way I want Milliband in charge. Blithering idiot.

I'm not political in anyway so wouldnt bother voting unless one of them really stood out, which at the moment they dont. Whoever was in right now I couldnt see a lot of difference happening anyway.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Touche. I've backed more winners than losers.

Surely we're all winners if big companies like Google,Apple etc pay their fair share of taxes in what is now a globalised,interdependant world economy?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/27/globalisation-is-about-taxes-too

 

[Napster]

Surely we're all winners if big companies like Google,Apple etc pay their fair share of taxes in what is now a globalised,interdependant world economy?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/27/globalisation-is-about-taxes-too

Haha you're funny. Why would we all be winners? Employees would get less wages as Neil pointed out already.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Haha you're funny. Why would we all be winners? Employees would get less wages as Neil pointed out already.

A global tax deal which cracked down hard on tax-avoidance would help to put that right.

 

[chapperzUK]

A global tax deal which cracked down hard on tax-avoidance would help to put that right.

Tax avoidance is legal. Doing what you say would not only be impossible, but would be screwing over thousands of people just because a few companies know how to save some corporation tax.

Companies like Google, Starbucks etc. help with the economy more than people who actually do tax evasion, the illegal one.

 

[Neil_F]

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.

But companies don't pay tax!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The cost has to be borne by an actual person. They may well pay more if the UK legislation changes (though I can't see how it would be possible personally whilst remaining in the EU single market) but that cost would either be borne by employees or would be offset by paying less tax somewhere else.

I also repeat that collecting more tax has a negative impact on GDP. It is the same as cutting spending (though actually has a greater negative impact on GDP). Any additional tax collected would not be spent in addition to current commitments but it would reduce the amount of cash companies have to invest. Collecting more tax is austerity, Barna, the very thing you criticise yet you don't see to understand the first thing about it.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Tax avoidance is legal. Doing what you say would not only be impossible, but would be screwing over thousands of people just because a few companies know how to save some corporation tax.

Companies like Google, Starbucks etc. help with the economy more than people who actually do tax evasion, the illegal one.

As a Business English teacher I'm well aware of the difference between tax-avoidance and tax-evasion,thank you.

The point is that companies like Google,Apple,Starbucks etc while fulfilling their legal obligatons to pay tax are flouting the spirit of tax laws on a global scale and not paying their fair share of taxes internationally.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Collecting more tax is austerity, Barna, the very thing you criticise yet you don't see to understand the first thing about it.

Why should ordinary people have to pay more in taxes,lose their jobs,suffer from cuts in public services etc to bail out multi-national corporations,which are not paying their fair share of taxes?

 

[Neil_F]

Why should ordinary people have to pay more in taxes,lose their jobs,suffer from cuts in public services etc to bail out multi-national corporations,which are not paying their fair share of taxes?

You really don't understand this at all. The cost of collecting more corporation tax would be borne by ordinary people in the form of job losses, lower real wage growth and reduced investment.

There isn't enough tax to collect to plug the deficit and reverse all of the spending cuts. That is a big government, tax and spend fantasy.

 

[Neil_F]

The point is that companies like Google,Apple,Starbucks etc while fulfilling their legal obligatons to pay tax are flouting the spirit of tax laws on a global scale and not paying their fair share of taxes internationally.

No they are not!!! They are abiding by the spirit of the law because this is exactly how the EU single market is designed to work.

How can Amazon be flouting the spirit of law to pay more tax internationally when they made a loss by their consolidated accounts in 2012? Are you now advocating the arbitrary confiscation of assets regardless of whether a company actually makes a profit?

 

[blues_r_best]

Why should ordinary people have to pay more in taxes,lose their jobs,suffer from cuts in public services etc to bail out multi-national corporations,which are not paying their fair share of taxes?

Which companies are you thinking about? I don't think Google, Starbucks or Amazon have received a bail out, which are the ones being mentioned?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Barna - how much tax do you pay in the UK?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Barna - how much tax do you pay in the UK?

Why? :unsure:
If you're talking about income tax the answer is none (at the moment) since none of my present income is earned in the UK.

(That might change in the future, if I take up some work I was offered marking Cambridge examinations for The British Council,which would have to be paid into my UK bank account).

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Which companies are you thinking about? I don't think Google, Starbucks or Amazon have received a bail out, which are the ones being mentioned?

Sorry I meant subsidise not bail out.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

No they are not!!! They are abiding by the spirit of the law because this is exactly how the EU single market is designed to work.

How can Amazon be flouting the spirit of law to pay more tax internationally when they made a loss by their consolidated accounts in 2012? Are you now advocating the arbitrary confiscation of assets regardless of whether a company actually makes a profit?

I think you'll find that after next month's G8 summit meeting,steps will be taken to ensure international tax laws cannot be flouted as easily as they are at present.

 

[Neil_F]

(That might change, if I take up some work I was offered marking Cambridge examinations in the future,which would have to be paid into my UK bank account).

This income would not be taxable in the UK because you are not tax resident in the UK and I presume you would be doing the work outside the UK as well? It also doesn't matter where you are being paid the money.

Per the relevant double tax treaty you would be exempt from UK tax and subject to tax on the income in the country in which you are tax resident. That is how the system is designed to work and it is exactly the same as applies to Google.

Google sell to the UK from an Irish company. You provide a service to a UK company as a tax resident of Spain (?). Google are not subject to UK tax and you are not subject to UK tax.

You are criticising Google for a scenario that you are also in and the same treatment applies.

 

[Neil_F]

I think you'll find that after next month's G8 summit meeting,steps will be taken to ensure international tax laws cannot be flouted as easily as they are at present.

How do you not get this? Nothing is being flouted; the rules are being followed as they were designed to be.

The only way you can make multi-nationals such as Starbucks pay more in the UK is by withdrawing from the OECD and taking a very aggresive position on transfer pricing. You can only make Google pay more by leaving the European Union. I don't think either of those are being discussed at the G8. They will release a statement on information sharing and greater co-operation which will make absolutely no difference.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Why? :unsure:
If you're talking about income tax the answer is none (at the moment) since none of my present income is earned in the UK.

(That might change, if I take up some work I was offered marking Cambridge examinations in the future,which would have to be paid into my UK bank account).

If I meant income tax, I'd have said income tax.

You seem to be quite evasive in your answer here.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

none of my present income is earned in the UK.

Or elsewhere it would seem.

Sorry I meant subsidise not bail out.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

You really don't understand this at all. The cost of collecting more corporation tax would be borne by ordinary people in the form of job losses, lower real wage growth and reduced investment.

There isn't enough tax to collect to plug the deficit and reverse all of the spending cuts. That is a big government, tax and spend fantasy.

What you don't seem to understand is that higher tax revenues from collecting more corporation tax could (and should) be used to finance plans for growth,including infrastructure projects,tax breaks for firms taking on young,unemployed workers etc

Nobody is suggesting that this sort of windfall tax would raise enough to "plug the deficit and reverse all of the spending cuts." That's just an Aunt Sally argument.

Btw,I notice you've ignored my question, as to why, ordinary people should have to pay for a crisis which they had no part in causing? What's the business (or economic) justification for that?