Is austerity working- and will it ever end?

[woodview]

It's really not that easy is it. It can only be changed if most countries in the world agree to the change, otherwise it simply doesn't work.

 

---------- Post added 08-10-2018 at 06:50 ----------

 

 

non-US meaning that it is still very much headquartered in the US where it's US tax base and headquarters is located.

 

---------- Post added 08-10-2018 at 06:52 ----------

 

 

The reason that profit was so low though isn't because Amazon is just scraping by (that profit on £2billion of revenue btw).

It's because it offshores the profit, through licensing and other agreements with companies also called Amazon but based in other countries. The profit ends up there, in other low tax locations and is taxed at those rates, far from where the revenue occured.

It's easy to see, but difficult to legislate to stop.

Yeah, I'm sure they artificially reduced the profit by paying 'licence fees' etc to HQ, but we even failed to tax them on the amount they did report for their UK operation.

[Cyclone]

I am glad at least you understand that a company pays taxes based on where its headquarters are.

 

I've already explained to you once that it isn't that simple. Do you need a diagram?

 

---------- Post added 08-10-2018 at 16:58 ----------

 

Yeah, I'm sure they artificially reduced the profit by paying 'licence fees' etc to HQ, but we even failed to tax them on the amount they did report for their UK operation.

 

Wasn't that down to 'losses' carried forwards from previous years?

[woodview]

I've already explained to you once that it isn't that simple. Do you need a diagram?

 

---------- Post added 08-10-2018 at 16:58 ----------

 

 

Wasn't that down to 'losses' carried forwards from previous years?

I think it was because they paid staff by share based scheme which has tax incentives for the employer. Legal, but we have to evolve the law to keep up. They can hide other profits too, due to corporate structure.

Ending austerity and paying for what we need has to be multi-facetted, e.g collect tax fairly from everyone and stop paying out where we don't need to.

We have an eye-watering debt and an ever increasing need for expenditure.

Things being too complicated or politically difficult isn't acceptable imo.

[El Cid]

I think it was because they paid staff by share based scheme which has tax incentives for the employer. Legal, but we have to evolve the law to keep up. They can hide other profits too, due to corporate structure.

Ending austerity and paying for what we need has to be multi-facetted, e.g collect tax fairly from everyone and stop paying out where we don't need to.

We have an eye-watering debt and an ever increasing need for expenditure.

Things being too complicated or politically difficult isn't acceptable imo.

 

EE, part of the BT Group, is the largest and most advanced digital communications company in Britain, delivering mobile and fixed communications services.

 

Corporation tax paid in 2016/17 - Nil

[woodview]

EE, part of the BT Group, is the largest and most advanced digital communications company in Britain, delivering mobile and fixed communications services.

 

Corporation tax paid in 2016/17 - Nil

I don't know what profit or loss they made. What point are you making?

[El Cid]

I don't know what profit or loss they made. What point are you making?

 

EE is a British company, it too pays zero corporation tax; some British utilities, such as water companies have offshored in order to avoid corporation tax.

It even has its own word,

[ECCOnoob]

So what if they are a British Company?

 

You are missing the point. There is only one simple question to be answered.

 

How much tax were they compelled to pay?

 

If that amount is NIL. Then obviously they paid NIL.

 

What was the balance demanded by the HMRC? What profit/loss did they make? What share sales or employee dividends did they pay out? What outstanding bank liabilities, investments, loans, subsidary transfers, balancing payments did they have in place?

[El Cid]

So what if they are a British Company?

 

You are missing the point. There is only one simple question to be answered.

 

How much tax were they compelled to pay?

 

If that amount is NIL. Then obviously they paid NIL.

 

 

This thread is about austerity, it got sidetracked about a foreign company not paying corporation tax.

The point I raised earlier was that Government receipts from corporation taxes are doing ok, despite cuts to the tax.

Is the point that rich people and companies should pay more tax, that is what the left always say.

If companies pay less tax, don't they thrive, and give cheaper goods and services? That is the type of thing a Tory would say.

[The Joker]

If companies pay less tax, don't they thrive, and give cheaper goods and services? That is the type of thing a Tory would say.

 

As much as I loathe to be associated with the Evil Tories, the fact is Amazon do pass on the savings to me, the financially-stressed consumer.

 

I ordered an item yesterday (Sunday) and it arrived today, less than 24 hours after ordering, at nearly 20% than a high street retailer.

 

I still think Amazon should pay more taxes though.

[woodview]

This thread is about austerity, it got sidetracked about a foreign company not paying corporation tax.

The point I raised earlier was that Government receipts from corporation taxes are doing ok, despite cuts to the tax.

Is the point that rich people and companies should pay more tax, that is what the left always say.

If companies pay less tax, don't they thrive, and give cheaper goods and services? That is the type of thing a Tory would say.

It's not got sidetracked. Not having austerity relies on having sufficient tax receipts tl pay for thise things.

Tax needs to come in from ALL the sources it is due from, not dodged. It also means not wasting money on pointless and unaffordable schemes.