Barclays Bank Pays 1% Corporation Tax

[chem1st]

Some would say we already do. The banking sector as a whole is still in debt to us.

 

Perhaps we should send them a letter.

 

I wasn't taking into account their subsidy!

[Guest sibon]

What do i think they will do next. Honestly i think the current government will do very little or anything they do will be nothing more than a token gesture.

 

I agree. So, whilst Joe public are paying between 35% AND 60% of their income in tax, the banks get away with paying 1%.

 

I think that our Government needs to take a look at the Middle East, or Eastern Europe in the late 80s. The circumstances are different, but when the ballot box doesn't work, other solutions will be sought. It is time to stop the super rich from taking the mick.

 

At least this revelation has put paid to the notion that over taxing the banks will drive them away. If they will only pay 1% tax, I don't think that we really need them. Time for a windfall tax, Mr Osbourne.

[quisquose]

Looking at the actual 2010 accounts here:

 

http://group.barclays.com/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=MDT-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B+filename%3DBarclays-PLC-Full-Year-Results-Announcement-2010.pdf&blobheadervalue2=abinary%3B+charset%3DUTF-8&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1231873086706&ssbinary=true

 

In 2009 profit before tax was £4942m and profit after tax was £3511.

 

[Guest sibon]

Looking at the actual 2010 accounts here:

 

http://group.barclays.com/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadername2=MDT-Type&blobheadervalue1=inline%3B+filename%3DBarclays-PLC-Full-Year-Results-Announcement-2010.pdf&blobheadervalue2=abinary%3B+charset%3DUTF-8&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1231873086706&ssbinary=true

 

In 2009 profit before tax was £4942m and profit after tax was £3511.

 

 

The BBC now say this.

 

So, 2.4% tax. That doesn't really make much difference though.

 

The Guardian are still saying this though.

 

And the Telegraph are running with this. But they have been on a course about misdirection, run by the Magic Circle:)

[quisquose]

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant guys.

 

[Guest sibon]

Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant guys.

 

 

If we knew the facts, we might be able to.

[quisquose]

I posted them in #23.

 

They paid 29% of their profits in tax. Seems about right to me, my company paid 28%.

 

If you look at the numbers for 2010 it's a similar story.

[Guest sibon]

I posted them in #23.

 

They paid 29% of their profits in tax. Seems about right to me, my company paid 28%.

 

If you look at the numbers for 2010 it's a similar story.

 

I've got no intention of leafiing through the accounts of Barclays, thanks very much. I'll leave that to the financial journos. They are claiming that Barclays paid betwen 1 and 2.5% tax in the UK for 2009.

 

My question was, is that enough?

 

Every time the question of taxing the banks more comes up, the defence is that we can't, or they will move.

 

If we only get a tax take of 1 to 2.5% of their profit, do we have an incentive to try to make them stay? Or should we be encouraging other types of industry instead... Possibly some that actually make things?

[quisquose]

I've got no intention of leafiing through the accounts of Barclays, thanks very much.

 

 

But you spent much longer typing up the OP than I did to type "barclays results" into google and establish that 12bn profits and 1% tax were clearly nonsense. It took 10 secs to look at the P&L.

 

Okay, so they don't pay a lot of UK corporation tax, but guess what Anheuser-Busch pay none. Perhaps you would like our government to speak to other governments to ask them to relinquish their share so that we can have it?

 

[Vague_Boy]

But Labour aren't in power any more.

 

You seem to be pushing this line rather a lot, the fact is that they were in power for 13 years and did nothing. The coalition have been in power for a mere 10 months (however, I confidently predict that they will do nothing as well, see below).

 

you have just seen the government lay down and roll on to its back like a dog in total submission to the banks, that tells me the banks have more power than the government.

 

Pretty much.

 

Below is an assessment of the 2002 Hartnett Review conducted by the Inland Revenue.

 

The Hartnett Review is aimed at the 2,000 largest commercial organisations in Britain – the banks and insurance companies and multinational corporations who between them last year were caught failing to declare to the Inland Revenue more than £2,000 million of tax; the same organisations who each year collectively spend millions of pounds on tax avoidance schemes which are designed to frustrate the will of Parliament; the same corporations who provide the bulk of the United Kingdom’s contribution to the estimated £3,000 billion of global wealth which now sits in the secret accounts of the world’s booming off-shore havens.

 

This is the story of an extraordinary transformation. It has taken place without public debate or parliamentary approval. It involves a government department being encouraged by ministers to cut corners in the law and to compromise its own function.

 

And it reflects the emerging weakness of all governments in the globalised economy, that they lack the muscle to challenge the giant corporations upon whose investment they rely. “There is a kind of turning the blind eye to make life easier for enterprise,” according to one specialist.

 

LINK

 

"encouraged by ministers to cut corners in the law"

 

But of course, those ministers are not in power anymore so hey ho, water under the bridge and all that. Let's stop living in the past shall we?

 

"lack the muscle to challenge the giant corporations upon whose investment they rely"

 

This is true whether the government is one where 50% of party donations are received from the financial sector or one where the former PM managed to earn over £60 million in the 3 years since he left office, despite not having earned even a fraction of that in the many years before he became PM (I'm including his "Tony of Arabia" £43 million in that figure).

 

Quite a pay-off, but then again, he served the corporatocracy well.

 

Unless anyone really thinks that Tony's advice really was worth £43 million? If so, PM me, I have some swamp land in Florida you might be interested in.

 

Labour? Tories? Why bother with such abstract divisions any more. As the late, great Bill Hicks once said:

 

“I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'”