| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? 11:40 - Nov 6 with 34714 views | ladyjack |
Anyone voting Conservative must be mad and or selfish, the majority of people are politically illiterate due to a lack of interest in politics and that many people are selfish and that lots are brainwashed by the media and press but anyone voting Conservative will be helping to continue doing lasting damage to the country and i'm a so called Welsh nationalist where in a perverse way a Conservative majority would be the best possible result in helping to break up the UK so that an independent Wales would then have the opportunity of voting in a party that distributes wealth more equally, I wouldn't want to see even more and more extreme right wing policies enforced on the people. |  | | |  |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 17:59 - Nov 9 with 1504 views | bluey_the_blue |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 17:55 - Nov 9 by A_Fans_Dad |
Actually a great deal of Amazon is mirrored on ebay. |
To a degree. I've a lot more faith in business on Amazon than Ebay tbh.
Ok, a better example are some of the big aircraft related companies. It's not just direct jobs, it's the way they work with local companies also. Some of those leave / go bust, it can destroy local economies. Not just thousands of direct jobs, thousands of indirect ones too.
My view there tends to be "ok, so the mega corp not paying as much tax as some would like, but quid pro quo for the benefits of having them in UK". |  | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 18:01 - Nov 9 with 1507 views | ExiledJack |
Taxation is a useful tool to discourage certain behaviours/activities, but should be nothing more. Raising funds will always be a by-product of taxation, but if more funds are needed for the state they could be sourced by different means (e.g. QE).
Surely income and corporation tax should be zero by default? Why would we want to discourage productivity? It’s madness that doctors are turning down shifts because of the tax implications. Let people earn, income tax is regressive and a drag on social mobility.
Amazon could be taxed in certain ways to encourage better treatment of their staff, or to foster competition. Maybe taxing turnover at the top end would achieve that, but there would be a dangerous possibility of overreach especially if fundraising is the remit. In the meantime there’s nothing stopping anyone becoming a part owner of Amazon and passively sharing in the success. | | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 18:01 - Nov 9 with 1505 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 12:07 - Nov 6 by CountyJim |
The only way to stop the Tories is voting Labour |
Well that’s patently not true. It depends entirely where you are. |  |
| |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 18:06 - Nov 9 with 1477 views | monmouth |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 18:01 - Nov 9 by exiledclaseboy |
Well that’s patently not true. It depends entirely where you are. |
Nothing can stop the arsehole we have here sadly, as thick as glue and as nasty as a dose of the clap. Still gets voted in. |  |
| |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 18:08 - Nov 9 with 1478 views | bluey_the_blue |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 18:01 - Nov 9 by ExiledJack |
Taxation is a useful tool to discourage certain behaviours/activities, but should be nothing more. Raising funds will always be a by-product of taxation, but if more funds are needed for the state they could be sourced by different means (e.g. QE).
Surely income and corporation tax should be zero by default? Why would we want to discourage productivity? It’s madness that doctors are turning down shifts because of the tax implications. Let people earn, income tax is regressive and a drag on social mobility.
Amazon could be taxed in certain ways to encourage better treatment of their staff, or to foster competition. Maybe taxing turnover at the top end would achieve that, but there would be a dangerous possibility of overreach especially if fundraising is the remit. In the meantime there’s nothing stopping anyone becoming a part owner of Amazon and passively sharing in the success. |
Taxation is always and should always be about raising funds for public projects and infrastructure. I don't believe the state should be a nanny state, dictating how businesses operate to the point of micromanaging.
I don't think income tax and corporation tax should be zero but certainly believe they should and could be lower; for too long, the mantra has been that becoming a low tax rat nation is somehow inherently bad. | | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 19:33 - Nov 9 with 1451 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 15:14 - Nov 9 by bluey_the_blue |
That's irrelevant, it's incredibly fvcking stupid to tax based upon turnover. |
Actually it’s by far the most sensible suggestion to establish and will be introduced at some point. | | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 19:35 - Nov 9 with 1441 views | bluey_the_blue |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 19:33 - Nov 9 by londonlisa2001 |
Actually it’s by far the most sensible suggestion to establish and will be introduced at some point. |
It's not the most sensible when it's not a one size fits all solution, whereas profit based taxation fits most cases better. | | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 19:38 - Nov 9 with 1440 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 19:33 - Nov 9 by londonlisa2001 |
Actually it’s by far the most sensible suggestion to establish and will be introduced at some point. |
So you advocate driving struggling companies into receivership by taxing their turnover when they are already making a loss? | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 19:40 - Nov 9 with 1438 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 15:28 - Nov 9 by bluey_the_blue |
No, from a financial point of view.
Company X, started by someone in the UK, employs 1000 people. 36m turnover; profits are 6m. To simplify the point, let's consider only corporation tax which is what, 19%?
So, profits of 6m - Corp Tax due is £1,140,000.
Tax on turnover of £36m? Tax payable is thus £6,840,000.
Which, as you note, exceeds the actual profits.
When you consider profits are turnover minus what goes out, PAYE, NI and VAT? Those can't be avoided. Pension contributions over and above legal minimum standards? Candidate to go. Benefits? Candidate to go. Non essential training? Candidate to go.
Any more cuts? Oh yes, invest in automation, leading to job cuts.
Still, your plan with possibly gain a higher tax revenue. Can you tinker with tax rates? Sure but then again, lower those rates is a BAD THING as Labour keep telling us. Turn us into Singapore, see and let's conveniently ignore Singapore smoking UK in STEM education... |
That’s not the way it works.
The way it works is that a multinational business such as Starbucks as an example, make, say £1bn profit globally. At present they shift that profit to countries with the lowest taxation. It’s incredibly easy to do. The way the system works is that you say, ok Starbucks has total worldwide turnover of £100bn. Turnover in the UK is £5bn. So 1/20th of total turnover. So UK corporation tax is charged on 1/20th of worldwide profit. It stops them shifting profit off shore. Note these are not real figures - just used as an easy example.
It’s hugely easy to do and administer.
You really should avoid talking bollox about stuff you don’t understand. | | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 19:42 - Nov 9 with 1431 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 15:42 - Nov 9 by bluey_the_blue |
I'm giving an example based upon Corp tax NOW to highlight the problems with taxing on turnover.
If you're saying corp tax levels need to be on turnover but gradated to factor in outgoings then you're left with a system that errm taxes on profits in all but name.
No nation will tax on turnover because it's a dumb idea. If adopted, it's a race to the bottom with regards to employee benefits. Enjoy the bare minimum pension, for example.
Now, ranting that all companies need to pay "fair" ( and please define "fair" ) tax just ignores the realities of life.
Take say an Amazon. Do they need to base a HQ in Britain? Not really, warehouses, distribution centres sure. Admin can be done anywhere. So what precisely would the turnover be in that case? Sales in Britain? Ok, their admin HQ covering UK can be based outside UK. Where is the sale conducted? In Britain, where you've used a PC to order something or an admin centre outside UK where order processed, details sent to distribution centres ( and yes, I know Amazon have UK presence, just humour me and picture the situation where they withdraw ).
That's why I rail against the tax system and HMRC because it is bloated, overly complex and fails to cover modern business.
I'm of the opinion it would be nice if companies paid full tax but have no real objection to those companies who boost the economy by mass employment of receiving tax breaks. Quid pro quo and all that. Amazon employ thousands; that money goes into local economies etc. |
Actually it’s quite similar to the system Trump has introduced in the US to bring global profits made by US companies into US taxation. | | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 19:46 - Nov 9 with 1428 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 16:31 - Nov 9 by bluey_the_blue |
Tax specialists should have input; they seem to have more fvcking clue than HMRC.
I can kind of understand the installments bit, it's about managing the risk of non-payment.
Again, with regards to larger companies I've no real problems because when you consider the jobs created - both direct and indirect, the effects of local economies etc then a friendly tax system provides more benefits to UK than the cost of losing millions of tax revenue from that company.
I certainly think HMRC needs a major reform and overhaul as it's unfit for purpose with regards to tax. |
A large percentage of senior HMRC staff at any given time are on secondment from the tax departments of the big 4.
Again, I can only urge you to refrain from talking about subjects you clearly have absolutely no idea about. | | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 19:49 - Nov 9 with 1421 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 19:38 - Nov 9 by A_Fans_Dad |
So you advocate driving struggling companies into receivership by taxing their turnover when they are already making a loss? |
You’re a moron. You don’t understand how the system works. | | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 19:49 - Nov 9 with 1413 views | WarwickHunt |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 19:40 - Nov 9 by londonlisa2001 |
That’s not the way it works.
The way it works is that a multinational business such as Starbucks as an example, make, say £1bn profit globally. At present they shift that profit to countries with the lowest taxation. It’s incredibly easy to do. The way the system works is that you say, ok Starbucks has total worldwide turnover of £100bn. Turnover in the UK is £5bn. So 1/20th of total turnover. So UK corporation tax is charged on 1/20th of worldwide profit. It stops them shifting profit off shore. Note these are not real figures - just used as an easy example.
It’s hugely easy to do and administer.
You really should avoid talking bollox about stuff you don’t understand. |
Habits of a lifetime... |  | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 19:55 - Nov 9 with 1409 views | bluey_the_blue |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 19:46 - Nov 9 by londonlisa2001 |
A large percentage of senior HMRC staff at any given time are on secondment from the tax departments of the big 4.
Again, I can only urge you to refrain from talking about subjects you clearly have absolutely no idea about. |
I'm well aware of HMRC writing to people stating loan schemes are valid and legal; when becoming illegal HMRC then ignoring what they wrote and retroactively hammering people - I always warned people to avoid those schemes for a number of reasons but it's immoral to demand payment for a time the schemes were legal.
I'm also well aware that ahead of the IR35 changes to private sector to align with public sector, HMRC's advice to clients has been worse than fvcking woeful, lacking detailed information and indeed being contradictory.
I'm well aware HMRC want clients to use their CEST tool to get IR35 status determinations whilst also stating in court they will not abide by determinations their own tool gives.
Can't blame big 4 for all of HMRC's sins. This coming April is going to be carnage. Financial sector will lose a lot of contractors for one. | | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 22:51 - Nov 9 with 1384 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 19:55 - Nov 9 by bluey_the_blue |
I'm well aware of HMRC writing to people stating loan schemes are valid and legal; when becoming illegal HMRC then ignoring what they wrote and retroactively hammering people - I always warned people to avoid those schemes for a number of reasons but it's immoral to demand payment for a time the schemes were legal.
I'm also well aware that ahead of the IR35 changes to private sector to align with public sector, HMRC's advice to clients has been worse than fvcking woeful, lacking detailed information and indeed being contradictory.
I'm well aware HMRC want clients to use their CEST tool to get IR35 status determinations whilst also stating in court they will not abide by determinations their own tool gives.
Can't blame big 4 for all of HMRC's sins. This coming April is going to be carnage. Financial sector will lose a lot of contractors for one. |
Loan schemes were valid and legal. When people made a loan to themselves from the company, it was accompanied by a declaration that the loan was, in fact, a loan - the fact that people used the mechanism to avoid income tax with absolutely no intention of repaying the loan is not valid and legal. Never was.
IR35 is also remaining in place as legal. Again, what’s not accepted, and never has been, is people being permanently employed while being treated as though they’re a contractor. Actual contractors don’t have an issue.
But all of that is unrelated to the discussion that was being had. And given your stance just yesterday on wanting to make sure tradespeople properly calculated and paid their taxes, I’m quite sure that you feel glad that both of these loopholes are being closed. | | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 23:13 - Nov 9 with 1369 views | felixstowe_jack |
No Amazon then perhaps people will actually visit the shops and buy what they want. Sounds like a win for everyone. | |
| |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 11:01 - Nov 10 with 1322 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 19:49 - Nov 9 by londonlisa2001 |
You’re a moron. You don’t understand how the system works. |
Thankyou for the usual insult oh great and knowledgable one.
So let's take your Example
"The way it works is that a multinational business such as Starbucks as an example, make, say £1bn profit globally. At present they shift that profit to countries with the lowest taxation. It’s incredibly easy to do. The way the system works is that you say, ok Starbucks has total worldwide turnover of £100bn. Turnover in the UK is £5bn. So 1/20th of total turnover. So UK corporation tax is charged on 1/20th of worldwide profit. It stops them shifting profit off shore."
So let us consider these conditions for this fictitious Starbucks of yours, due to high wages, high energy costs, high transportation costs and high commercial rates compared to it's other locations this particular company in the UK is only just above breaking even on it's turnover.
But it wishes to maintain a presence in the UK and it's market share as the UK turnover helps it's world wide buying power.
So under your new fairer system although it only actually made <1% of the company' world profit, ie less than £1b you expect it pay tax on £10b.
Is that what you described?
Because my Moronic understanding of most Turnover based Taxation systems is where the turnover is used to set the Rate of Taxation and not the amount of taxation. [Post edited 10 Nov 2019 11:14]
| | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 11:13 - Nov 10 with 1311 views | longlostjack |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 11:01 - Nov 10 by A_Fans_Dad |
Thankyou for the usual insult oh great and knowledgable one.
So let's take your Example
"The way it works is that a multinational business such as Starbucks as an example, make, say £1bn profit globally. At present they shift that profit to countries with the lowest taxation. It’s incredibly easy to do. The way the system works is that you say, ok Starbucks has total worldwide turnover of £100bn. Turnover in the UK is £5bn. So 1/20th of total turnover. So UK corporation tax is charged on 1/20th of worldwide profit. It stops them shifting profit off shore."
So let us consider these conditions for this fictitious Starbucks of yours, due to high wages, high energy costs, high transportation costs and high commercial rates compared to it's other locations this particular company in the UK is only just above breaking even on it's turnover.
But it wishes to maintain a presence in the UK and it's market share as the UK turnover helps it's world wide buying power.
So under your new fairer system although it only actually made <1% of the company' world profit, ie less than £1b you expect it pay tax on £10b.
Is that what you described?
Because my Moronic understanding of most Turnover based Taxation systems is where the turnover is used to set the Rate of Taxation and not the amount of taxation. [Post edited 10 Nov 2019 11:14]
|
Do you understand the concept of transfer pricing? Have you ever heard of a Dutch sandwich? Do you know what a tax haven is ? |  |
| |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 12:02 - Nov 10 with 1298 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 11:01 - Nov 10 by A_Fans_Dad |
Thankyou for the usual insult oh great and knowledgable one.
So let's take your Example
"The way it works is that a multinational business such as Starbucks as an example, make, say £1bn profit globally. At present they shift that profit to countries with the lowest taxation. It’s incredibly easy to do. The way the system works is that you say, ok Starbucks has total worldwide turnover of £100bn. Turnover in the UK is £5bn. So 1/20th of total turnover. So UK corporation tax is charged on 1/20th of worldwide profit. It stops them shifting profit off shore."
So let us consider these conditions for this fictitious Starbucks of yours, due to high wages, high energy costs, high transportation costs and high commercial rates compared to it's other locations this particular company in the UK is only just above breaking even on it's turnover.
But it wishes to maintain a presence in the UK and it's market share as the UK turnover helps it's world wide buying power.
So under your new fairer system although it only actually made <1% of the company' world profit, ie less than £1b you expect it pay tax on £10b.
Is that what you described?
Because my Moronic understanding of most Turnover based Taxation systems is where the turnover is used to set the Rate of Taxation and not the amount of taxation. [Post edited 10 Nov 2019 11:14]
|
No, it’s not what I described.
Read it again.
It would pay UK tax on 1/20th of £1bn.
Turnover would be used to calculate the fair share of global profits that should be attributed to each territory. It’s still only profit which is taxed. | | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 12:13 - Nov 10 with 1283 views | Highjack |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 11:13 - Nov 10 by longlostjack |
Do you understand the concept of transfer pricing? Have you ever heard of a Dutch sandwich? Do you know what a tax haven is ? |
Rookworst and Gouda. Very nice. |  |
| |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 12:28 - Nov 10 with 1279 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 12:02 - Nov 10 by londonlisa2001 |
No, it’s not what I described.
Read it again.
It would pay UK tax on 1/20th of £1bn.
Turnover would be used to calculate the fair share of global profits that should be attributed to each territory. It’s still only profit which is taxed. |
It is obviuosly me being a Moron again and not understanding your English.
I quote
"Turnover in the UK is £5bn. So 1/20th of total turnover. So UK corporation tax is charged on 1/20th of worldwide profit. "
1/20th of WORDWIDE profit, when the UK made less than 1/100 of the worldwide profit and could even have made a loss.
Add to that the fact that the company would already have paid Tax on the other 99% profit in the Countries that it made it in.
Unless of course your system will have worldwide agreement to use the same system with the same taxes?
Which stands no chance of succeeding as your beloved EU countries can't even agree a single tax rate based on Turnover, let alone the rest of the world. | | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 12:30 - Nov 10 with 1276 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 11:13 - Nov 10 by longlostjack |
Do you understand the concept of transfer pricing? Have you ever heard of a Dutch sandwich? Do you know what a tax haven is ? |
Yes, no & yes.
But I do like French Toast Cheese sandwiches, does that substitute for number 2? | | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 12:50 - Nov 10 with 1268 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 12:28 - Nov 10 by A_Fans_Dad |
It is obviuosly me being a Moron again and not understanding your English.
I quote
"Turnover in the UK is £5bn. So 1/20th of total turnover. So UK corporation tax is charged on 1/20th of worldwide profit. "
1/20th of WORDWIDE profit, when the UK made less than 1/100 of the worldwide profit and could even have made a loss.
Add to that the fact that the company would already have paid Tax on the other 99% profit in the Countries that it made it in.
Unless of course your system will have worldwide agreement to use the same system with the same taxes?
Which stands no chance of succeeding as your beloved EU countries can't even agree a single tax rate based on Turnover, let alone the rest of the world. |
The whole point of the system is that it prevents companies artificially transferring profits to cheaper territories.
Any tax paid in other territories is treated as a credit under existing double taxation agreements. Exactly as it is now. Why do you think that would fall away? It doesn’t double charge tax, it charges it back to UK levels on UK business to create a level playing field with UK only businesses.
In practice, it’s more complicated, as there are various allowable deductions that kick in. I’m simply describing the principles that apply to explain the way the system works.
The EU’s new anti tax avoidance directive does quite a lot of what I’m describing. It’s one reason why the brexit supporters (Farage, Rees Mogg etc) want out. As they like the idea of a low tax, low regulation economy. Which is great as long as you don’t expect healthcare or a pension. | | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 14:03 - Nov 10 with 1238 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 12:50 - Nov 10 by londonlisa2001 |
The whole point of the system is that it prevents companies artificially transferring profits to cheaper territories.
Any tax paid in other territories is treated as a credit under existing double taxation agreements. Exactly as it is now. Why do you think that would fall away? It doesn’t double charge tax, it charges it back to UK levels on UK business to create a level playing field with UK only businesses.
In practice, it’s more complicated, as there are various allowable deductions that kick in. I’m simply describing the principles that apply to explain the way the system works.
The EU’s new anti tax avoidance directive does quite a lot of what I’m describing. It’s one reason why the brexit supporters (Farage, Rees Mogg etc) want out. As they like the idea of a low tax, low regulation economy. Which is great as long as you don’t expect healthcare or a pension. |
Are you suggesting that the UK is currently a low tax & low regulation country? | | | |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 15:35 - Nov 10 with 1209 views | bluey_the_blue |
| Anyone voting Conservative must be mad ? on 22:51 - Nov 9 by londonlisa2001 |
Loan schemes were valid and legal. When people made a loan to themselves from the company, it was accompanied by a declaration that the loan was, in fact, a loan - the fact that people used the mechanism to avoid income tax with absolutely no intention of repaying the loan is not valid and legal. Never was.
IR35 is also remaining in place as legal. Again, what’s not accepted, and never has been, is people being permanently employed while being treated as though they’re a contractor. Actual contractors don’t have an issue.
But all of that is unrelated to the discussion that was being had. And given your stance just yesterday on wanting to make sure tradespeople properly calculated and paid their taxes, I’m quite sure that you feel glad that both of these loopholes are being closed. |
re Loan schemes, I agree, which is why I never used them, advised against then - however... if something is deemed legal at point X and then becomes illegal at point Y it's fvcking immoral for HMRC to retrospectively go back to point X and beyond - especially when having written to people at point X stating it's legal.
re IR35, yes, I agree, that's my point. Those inside IR35 will be inside IR35. The problem in April is that the responsibility for whom determines IR35 status changes. When HMRC, in court cases, state they will not abide by the determination given by the tool THEY produce, how can you justify that?
As an aside, it's fvcking ridiculous that, should a contractor be found to be inside IR35, THEY are then ones bearing the onus for payment of PAYE, NI etc and NOT the company hiring. Contractors inside IR35 don't get employment rights, so the whole situation is biased against contractors...
My point about tradespeople, Lisa, was nothing more than those railing against mega corps and taxes are happy to pay cash in hand to tradespeople, thus whining about avoidance yet enabling evasion... | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
