HOLY SHIT. Baby expected. SHUT. DOWN. EVERYTHING.

[Mabs]

You dont understand the words 'Corporation Tax' ?

Why am I not suprised...

and youre missing the point which is your mistaking the molehill of crown property to be anywhere near the mountain of loopholes in tax thats available, you want to get something beneficial done ? youre targetting the wrong group

 

[dysfunction]

They are paying billions in VAT/Fuel Duty/National Insurance etc. They arent paying much corporation tax because they operate from other countries which is how the International tax system is set up.

Well you seem to be ok with it. I'm not and others think the same:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20559791

 

[rynnor]

and youre missing the point which is your mistaking the molehill of crown property to be anywhere near the mountain of loopholes in tax thats available, you want to get something beneficial done ? youre targetting the wrong group

When Starbucks turn up at my door demanding money to fund excessive lifestyles for their executives is when they will be as bad as the royals but oddly they arent and they are providing thousands of jobs in this amazing thing called capitalism.

 

[Raven]

You like the royals - thats your choice - I dont personally think its right to continue to fund them from the public purse. The big companies stuff is a load of nonsense - they may not be paying huge amounts of corporation tax because we dont require it but they are paying huge amounts of every other tax.

Which tax would that be?

 

[Raven]

They are paying billions in VAT/Fuel Duty/National Insurance etc. They arent paying much corporation tax because they operate from other countries which is how the International tax system is set up.

Sorry, didn't see the later post.

VAT is ultimately mostly paid by the customer, unless their purchases are more than their sales...which they clearly aren't. Fuel duty is not going to be that massive, it depends entirely what they distribute themselves and what they get from other suppliers. National insurance isn't a tax...although it is abused to prop up the tax system.

 

[rynnor]

Well you seem to be ok with it. I'm not and others think the same:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20559791

I think what I object to about it is the way this is characterised as companies exploiting loopholes where its just normal international taxation rules. Politicians moaning about it when they have all the power required to actually do what they want on it is extremely disingenuous.

 

[rynnor]

Sorry, didn't see the later post.

VAT is ultimately mostly paid by the customer

The reality is that companies are forced to charge more which impacts their sales so its a very real cost to a company like starbucks.

 

[noblok]

VAT is ultimately mostly paid by the customer, unless their purchases are more than their sales...which they clearly aren't. Fuel duty is not going to be that massive, it depends entirely what they distribute themselves and what they get from other suppliers. National insurance isn't a tax...although it is abused to prop up the tax system.

Everything is ultimately paid by the consumer. They're in the game to make money: the more money they have to spend on whatever taxes (VAT, fuel duty, corporation tax), the more money they'll charge the consumer in order to achieve the profit they want.

 

[old.Tohtori]

RAven stated the ultimate point to it anyway; you'd still pay the same tax.

When it's taken from your purse, you giving a f*ck about the target it goes to only causes you buttclenching.

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

Congratulations to the royal couple. I hope Junior is healthy and has a long and happy life.

 

[Gwadien]

You're all so not interested, that you're making a huge conversation about it.

Any publicity is good publicity

 

[rynnor]

Any publicity is good publicity

I believe the Jimmy Saville Charitable Trust might disagree with you

 

[Scouse]

The reality is that companies are forced to charge more which impacts their sales so its a very real cost to a company like starbucks.

That's not true. If everyone has to pay VAT then nobody has an advantage - so it's not a real cost at all - no advantage conferred elsewhere.

I agree with you that they pay all the taxes that are asked of them. I agree with others that it's not their "fair share". I paid more corporation tax last year than starbucks.

However, the blame lies squarely with the governments, which are set up and controlled by the interests of the rich.

 

[Gwadien]

I believe the Jimmy Saville Charitable Trust might disagree with you

Not really, they changed their name didn't they?

So some people are now aware of the charity, and they don't support paedos!

 

[Tom]

VAT is ultimately mostly paid by the customer

I do hate this argument. It's as though people think that a 20% hike on a business's products doesn't make a difference to consumer spending habits.

 

[rynnor]

That's not true. If everyone has to pay VAT then nobody has an advantage - so it's not a real cost at all - no advantage conferred elsewhere.

VAT depresses the sales of everything its levied against - it may not effect the proportion of the pie that each competitor gets but its a smaller pie.

 

[rynnor]

Not really, they changed their name didn't they?

So some people are now aware of the charity, and they don't support paedos!

100% wrong - they closed down. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20038794

 

[Scouse]

VAT depresses the sales of everything its levied against - it may not effect the proportion of the pie that each competitor gets but its a smaller pie.

It's a pie that doesn't go straight into shareholders mouths though.

If we didn't levy VAT then where the fuck else are we going to raise tax revenues off companies? Corporation tax is optional after all...

 

[rynnor]

It's a pie that doesn't go straight into shareholders mouths though...

If we didn't levy VAT then where the fuck else are we going to raise tax revenues off companies? Corporation tax is optional after all...

I'm not arguing against it just against the perception that its a victimless tax. It impacts us all.

 

[Scouse]

Agreed.

However, of all the taxes, it's probably the fairest.

 

[Tom]

And the unfairest has to be stamp duty on house purchases. Why the fuck should I pay the government a cash lump sum just to buy a house in which to live?

 

[rynnor]

Agreed.

However, of all the taxes, it's probably the fairest.

Actually I think it actually disproportionately effects the poorest - the fairest would be a flate rate tax and a big tax free threshold.

 

[DaGaffer]

I do hate this argument. It's as though people think that a 20% hike on a business's products doesn't make a difference to consumer spending habits.

Yes there's a macro effect, but the point is that playing field is level, and demand seems to be surprisingly elastic when it comes to VAT anyway (although European politicians seem determined to test that theory to destruction). In the case of corporation tax, the playing field isn't level, because UK domiciled companies have to factor corp tax into their P&L which leaves less money available for reinvestment or even cashflow. The current situation actually incentivises UK companies to fuck off abroad. And even then, it wouldn't be so bad if they were relocating their corporate tax liabilities to a more favourable location within the EU; at least we'd see a benefit somewhere, but all that actually happens is that relocation to Ireland or Luxembourg is just the first step on balance sheet shuffle that ends up with their money in Bermuda or the Caymans and no corporate tax is paid at all!

 

[rynnor]

Yes there's a macro effect, but the point is that playing field is level, and demand seems to be surprisingly elastic

I think you probably meant in-elastic.

 

[Poag]

This

That


Corporation tax law should be massively simpler "You earned this money from a punter in XYZ country? Well XYZ country has a ABC tax rate, payable here"

Sadly not every country would sign up to it, as some countries make a fair living from tax avoidance elsewhere :/

 

[Scouse]

Actually I think it actually disproportionately effects the poorest - the fairest would be a flate rate tax and a big tax free threshold.

It does affect the poor the most - but proportionately.

If you buy stuff, you pay VAT. If you're rich and buy loads of stuff you pay loads of VAT.

Flat rate tax and a big tax free threshold is a more humane tax system, but not a "fairer" one. (But I'd go with it).


As for DaGaffer's post above I agree. And the solution is simple. You want to do business in the UK then you pay tax on anything taken from UK consumers IN the UK.

If your <insert big fuck off multinational here> doesn't like it then they can fuck off and allow some British entrepreneur pay the correct amount of tax from a captive British market.

It just requires a government to implement the laws. That, however, they won't (or probably can't) do. Because it's a government "by the rich for the rich".

 

[Raven]

I do hate this argument. It's as though people think that a 20% hike on a business's products doesn't make a difference to consumer spending habits.

That really isn't the point of the thread at all...do keep up. Any business works on the basis of net cost, the VAT is not considered when working out profit and loss. Yes it is considered when pricing an item but the VAT still has nothing at all to do with the profit made on an item. Every VAT registered company is essentially a collection agency for the tax man. Seeing as most people aren't VAT registered my point stands. The ultimate payee of VAT is the customer. The end of the line is the customer.

You get the VAT you earned (charged) in the 3 months, offset the VAT you paid and then pay the VAT man the difference...in very simple terms.

 

[DaGaffer]

I think you probably meant in-elastic.

that

 

[rynnor]

It does affect the poor the most - but proportionately.

If you buy stuff, you pay VAT. If you're rich and buy loads of stuff you pay loads of VAT.

Not entirely true though eh - VAT has exemptions (some rather obscure) and different rates for things like builders etc. Lots of wriggle room for the Rich with their own accountants.

 

[Scouse]

VAT has exemptions, mostly on stuff like fuel, so the poor can benefit.

There's a lot less wiggle room than you'd think.