Taxpayer support

[TJC1]

For extra context, Facebook UK's corporation tax liability for 2014 was the princely sum of...£4,327.

 

I kid you not

 

I for one am proud not to have a FB profile, nor to engage with FB in any way, shape or form.

 

Rinse-repeat with

• Starbucks (never been, and not missing out as my own is reported by friends as much nicer),
  
• Amazon (generally avoided unless it's the only source for the product),
  
• eBay (essentially inactive for the past 14 months, despite being a 1st-hour registrant and user (before eBay UK even existed!) with a 16+ year old account),
  
• Etc.

I wish more people would vote with their wallets rather than follow the path of least resistance: my life is not poorer for not sharing with friends and acquaintances how tired I am, how badly I slept or what my fish & chips looks like

 

Personally I have no issue with american companies if they sell a good product or service. I like Amazon.

 

And I agree with a capitalist structure. Im part of it.

 

I just want them to pay their bleedin taxes!

[Cyclone]

I don't see how people can say that x amount of facebook's profit was made in any one country.

 

As far as tax credits go, just raise the personal allowance to whatever 40 hours at minimum wage x 52 is and keep it fixed at that amount going forward. It's ridiculous to be taxing people then giving some of it back, and even more ridiculous that some people are worse off if they do too many hours work a week.

 

They sell advertising space to business from the UK to be advertised to facebook users in the UK.

How would you characterise that as anything other than revenue from the UK?

 

They also run local servers, and employ local staff, these are obviously UK costs. The difference should be the UK profit. But instead they make massive "license" payments to other parts of the facebook corporate structure, which happen to reside in parts of the world with lower corporation tax rates... That's avoidance.

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2015 at 15:12 ----------

 

It does both, it encourages some people to work the minimum hours required to make a claim, but also discourages them from working enough hours to live without claiming.

 

The marginal tax rate against increased earnings should always be <100%, significantly less.

So working more, should ALWAYS mean your income goes up.

[L00b]

Why wouldn't they admit to avoidance, the point of it is that it's entirely legal.

PR.

 

For mass audiences, avoidance is as bad as evasion, the distinction is wasted on the great unwashed.

 

Exhibit 1: Jimmy Carr. It's not a long list of exhibits. Unsurprisingly.

Presumably the company transfers it's profits off shore, through Ireland and/or the Netherlands.

Indeed. Now, which companies shout about using that tax avoidance scheme on the roofs? It's a significantly smaller list than the one above Edited October 14, 2015 by L00b

[geared]

Aren't there multiple investigation into whether these tax arrangements are actually legal in the first place, there's been quite a hoo-haa in Ireland about the manor in which they were setup and similar grumblings in Switzerland too I seem to recall.

[sandy18]

Good, because I wasn't going to. 999tigger already went ahead and proved most of what I said though. The rest of it is so evidently true that I see no need to provide proof as we all know it. If you want to pretend otherwise then you carry on.

 

999tigger didn't prove that the claims you made are true, but I don't have an issue with you pretending that they did, they might be true, but they also might not be true, either way its just an assumption that can't be proven.

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2015 at 17:27 ----------

 

The marginal tax rate against increased earnings should always be <100%, significantly less.

So working more, should ALWAYS mean your income goes up.

 

But does it increase by enough to justify the additional work, if you can do 20 hours for a total income of £200 including benefits would you work an extra 20 hours for an additional £40, some people will and some people won't.

[I1L2T3]

PR.

 

For mass audiences, avoidance is as bad as evasion, the distinction is wasted on the great unwashed.

 

Exhibit 1: Jimmy Carr. It's not a long list of exhibits. Unsurprisingly.

Indeed. Now, which companies shout about using that tax avoidance scheme on the roofs? It's a significantly smaller list than the one above

 

Its not a simplistic avoidance=legal, evasion=illegal split though is it

 

Osborne introduced the General Anti Abuse Rule to deal with avoidance which is not what was intended by law or is overly aggressive. The taxman also has the weapon of retrospectively declaring avoidance schemes illegal.

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2015 at 18:05 ----------

 

999tigger didn't prove that the claims you made are true, but I don't have an issue with you pretending that they did, they might be true, but they also might not be true, either way its just an assumption that can't be proven.

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2015 at 17:27 ----------

 

 

But does it increase by enough to justify the additional work, if you can do 20 hours for a total income of £200 including benefits would you work an extra 20 hours for an additional £40, some people will and some people won't.

 

Interesting that the tax credits disincentive to work dovetails quite well with the rise of flexible hours contracts a lot of which are aligned with the minimum numbers of hours required to claim in work benefits.

 

Its like a perfect synergy between the corporate world and the state.

 

Must look so weird to observers from other countries.

[RonJeremy]

You realise that this is complete gibberish. If they are working then they are not discouraged from working.

 

I have members of staff who don't want more work, they would lose benefits and the differential is not worth it.

 

 

You can't complain about misuse of public money and not consider the ability to avoid paying tax by business or the rich. Sorry if that's inconvenient for your prejudices.

B - E - N - F - I -T - S. This thread is about benefits. Derail it all you like, it shows your vulnerability on THIS subject. (Which is about benefits, in case you haven't got it). I have a lot to say about Tax avoidance. But not on this thread.

 

It is a tiny minority. Miniscule, so small that it's entirely inconsequential and unimportant.

Unlike tax evasion and aggressive avoidance, which costs the country a huge amount.

Oh do open your eyes as to what is happening. Please. It isn't a tiny minority at all. (Oh yes it, oh no it isn't .......ad nauseam)

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2015 at 18:26 ----------

 

For extra context, Facebook UK's corporation tax liability for 2014 was the princely sum of...£4,327.

 

I kid you not

 

I for one am proud not to have a FB profile, nor to engage with FB in any way, shape or form.

 

Rinse-repeat with

• Starbucks (never been, and not missing out as my own is reported by friends as much nicer),
  
• Amazon (generally avoided unless it's the only source for the product),
  
• eBay (essentially inactive for the past 14 months, despite being a 1st-hour registrant and user (before eBay UK even existed!) with a 16+ year old account),
  
• Etc.

I wish more people would vote with their wallets rather than follow the path of least resistance: my life is not poorer for not sharing with friends and acquaintances how tired I am, how badly I slept or what my fish & chips looks like

 

What has this to do with benefits?

 

---------- Post added 14-10-2015 at 18:37 ----------

 

Fairly...although as they say, don't believe everything you read on the internet. One of his children who sadly died was classed as disabled, as such he was still able to claim child benefit for him and disability benefits, with added irony the exact benefit he now plans to cut...

 

I used to receive child benefit - I always thought this was wrong - I really didn't need it, but it used to go straight to Mrs Jeremy, and I'm sure she put it to good shoes use. I did of course not stop it, I pay plenty of tax and am happy to pay less in effect. I pay much more than my fair share.

[ricgem2002]

It certainly isn't envy. I don't really do envy. It is despair at a system that allows this to happen. A system that encourages people to claim benefits rather than work harder. Work smarter. better themselves and the country as a whole. It is the road to ruin.

employers know that giving employees a certain amount of hours they will get topped up with working tax credits why arnt you up in arms about employers ripping off the taxpayer eh ron:huh:

[RonJeremy]

employers know that giving employees a certain amount of hours they will get topped up with working tax credits why arnt you up in arms about employers ripping off the taxpayer eh ron:huh:

 

You're actually blaming employers?

Your post is seriously convoluted to get to that position.

It's the employee that decides how much they want to work when they take a job on.

I offer jobs to people to do work I want doing. Some jobs are part time, some full time, some ZHCs. People choose which job they want.

Anyway, hopefully these subsidised jobs will stop now that the government is trying to balance the books and even trying to run a surplus.

The tories are no longer hampered by the libs, and we can see what happens.

[999tigger]

If you are having trouble attracting workers to make you money, then why not offer better salaries? How much above min wage do you pay?