Apple. First One Trillion Dollar Company.

[Anna B]

What? I never made such a claim.

 

I claimed that the government have closed tax loopholes - this is a simple and irrefutable fact.

 

You claimed that 'they aren't', and they are saying they are going to close loopholes, whereas that isn't what happens in reality.

 

So I'll ask again, which loopholes that they said they were going to close haven't they actually?

 

You tell me which one's they've closed, and how many people have gone to prison for it. While you're at it, you might also like to tell me why Amazon's profits have tripled, and at the same time it's Corporation tax has halved.

[Robin-H]

You tell me which one's they've closed, and how many people have gone to prison for it. While you're at it, you might also like to tell me why Amazon's profits have tripled, and at the same time it's Corporation tax has halved.

 

How many people have gone to prison? What are you talking about? You know that tax loopholes are legal right?

 

Are you claiming that the reason why Amazon have been able to shield profits from tax is due to a loophole that the government have recently created? If are you, please can you provide the proof for that, if you aren't, I don't see why that is relevant.

[Anna B]

How many people have gone to prison? What are you talking about? You know that tax loopholes are legal right?

 

Are you claiming that the reason why Amazon have been able to shield profits from tax is due to a loophole that the government have recently created? If are you, please can you provide the proof for that, if you aren't, I don't see why that is relevant.

 

So you are an apologist for the way Amazon works? You think it's alright for them to have such a huge tax advantage they are putting the high street out of business?

[Robin-H]

So you are an apologist for the way Amazon works? You think it's alright for them to have such a huge tax advantage they are putting the high street out of business?

 

Where on earth did I say that!?

 

Are you reading my posts? That’s the second time in as many posts you’ve replied with a conclusion that has no bearing with what I actually said.

 

I merely said that the tax structure the amazon (and Apple) employ is long standing, and not a loophole that the current government brought it, which is what your comment alluded to.

 

Care to explain your prison comment?

[Anna B]

Where on earth did I say that!?

 

Are you reading my posts? That’s the second time in as many posts you’ve replied with a conclusion that has no bearing with what I actually said.

 

I merely said that the tax structure the amazon (and Apple) employ is long standing, and not a loophole that the current government brought it, which is what your comment alluded to.

 

Care to explain your prison comment?

 

Are you defending Amazon, who according to you have done nothing wrong, or the government, who according to you have done nothing wrong?

 

Meanwhile Amazon is paying less tax even though its profits have tripled.

 

So do you think something should be done about it, or not?

 

If so what?

Edited August 6, 2018 by Anna B

[Obelix]

Amazon have done nothing wrong. The tax bill has reduced because they have vested off the company to the shareholders - which is the employees. Thats a tax break that they and many hundreds of other companies use - like say john Lewis, and the Coop when they pay money out from profits to sheareholders/employees.

 

So no - nothing should be done about it because if you did then it woul stop this sort of behaviour to the detriment of the recipients. Unless you want to take about £3k a year off the amazon store pickers...?

 

you need seriously to look at the whole issue Anna rather than going oh amazon lots of money ooh bad. It's rarely if ever the case.

[Robin-H]

Are you defending Amazon, who according to you have done nothing wrong, or the government, who according to you have done nothing wrong?

 

Meanwhile Amazon is paying less tax even though its profits have tripled.

 

So do you think something should be done about it, or not?

 

If so what?

 

Again, are you actually reading my posts?

 

Amazon have done absolutely nothing legally wrong at all. I have made no comment at all on whether it is morally wrong or not.

 

Where have I said that the government have done nothing wrong? Please provide a quote. I said that the government have closed tax loopholes (which is true). I also said the tax regime that amazon use to minimise tax wasn’t introduced by this government (which I also believe to be true).

 

You have suggested that the government have done nothing to close tax loopholes, which is untrue. You have also suggested that the fact that amazon can increase profits but pay less tax is down to something this government introduced, which unless you can prove otherwise is also untrue.

 

Care to explain your prison comment?

[bendix]

All those criticising Apple or Amazon for using perfectly legal tax loopholes in absolute compliance with the law, are - of course - doing exactly the same themselves when they claim tax relief on things like pensions contributions, or use ISAs or personal tax allowances on salaries or income splitting with spouses and other perfectly legal ways to minimise their own tax liabilities.

[tinfoilhat]

All those criticising Apple or Amazon for using perfectly legal tax loopholes in absolute compliance with the law, are - of course - doing exactly the same themselves when they claim tax relief on things like pensions contributions, or use ISAs or personal tax allowances on salaries or income splitting with spouses and other perfectly legal ways to minimise their own tax liabilities.

 

No it's not the same at all. ISAs etc or devised to encourage savings, the sort of accounting flimflammery used by a lot (not all) of the big multinational tech companies (and not limited to tech companies - I'm looking at you Starbucks) is not the same at all. Amazon made an operating profit of £80m. Now if a big chunk of that is going to the workers as obelix suggests - that's a good thing. But given their great leader is worth, what $50bn, I'd suggest a fair chunk is going to him. They're paying about 10% of what they really should be after deferring (which still amazes me). That isn't the same as claiming tax relief on a pension.

 

Yes it's legal, but it shouldn't be.

[carosio]

A tax loophole is actually a "provision in the laws governing taxation that allows people to reduce their taxes"- provisions provided by the legislators (including international) for that very purpose so it's not surprising that companies make use of them. Any company with any sense should seek to minimise its tax bill using all available options. I'm not aware of any that seeks to maximise it. Closing a loophole simply means that the government have withdrawn certain tax reliefs.

 

The owner or chief shareholder might be worth x billions but that's the paper value of the company, if it went bust he would be worth zero or even less.