Totally off topic, but god bless the DVLA - I sold my vehicle, legally, but it was near the end of its insurance period so I got a letter shortly after stating this and asking me to confirm who I sold it to and when, which I did.
I've now received a penalty notice for not insuring, and the great thing is the 'dispute offence' form on the back, which states I'm still liable for the offence if I didn't receive written confirmation back from them by before the date of the penalty notice. As I've not had confirmation back from them that everything had indeed gone through alright, so i'll have to pay and their phone service literally won't put you through to a human being (it will hang up on you) unless you just pay up.
So now I can't declare it SORN because I'm not the registered keeper of the vehicle, there's clearly not much point in writing them a letter to say so as they didn't acknowledge the last one within 4 weeks, and I cannot find any way to speak to someone to let them know, so Im not sure how to avoid further fines.
The DVLA are a disgrace of a government agency. The people there have very little work ethic and they use their legal monopoly to overcharge all their customers: £25 for thirty minutes in front of a computer screen and £62 for 40 minutes of a practical. Plus, as you say, the phone lines never solve your problem, despite charging you an arm and a leg. It is like someone decided to create all the worse bits of the public sector and put it in one organisation.
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
If Amazon was forced to pay a fair level of UK Corporation Tax, they would have to put up prices to maintain their current level of after tax profit. That would be great as it would allow UK companies including many independent booksellers to compete on a more level playing field.
Corporation tax is on profit.
Amazon invest rather than make profits, ergo no Corporation Tax is due while the strategy persists.
They make "no" profits after clever transfer pricing. That is where a global agreement is needed . All countries are losers except ultimately, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Cayman Islands, Bahamas, etc....
An economy cannot just be built around selling overpriced terraced houses to each other. Surely?
I don;t know. We have half a dozen hard working young people between 25/35 at our company and they all either live with parents or rent. Not one is a property owner, and the only reason is prices are way above what they can afford. I think that is wrong. THey should at least have a shot at owning something, even if it is a few boxes in Whitechapel or Peckham.
Increasing the supply of housing is key. But the choice should not be between living with your parents and owning. Long-term rental can also be an option. Put it this way, how many of the equivalent group of people in Italy or Germany would be owning their home at that age?
There are assets other than a house. The only reason we think of property as an asset with capital appreciation is because the supply is low and the demand high. Increase the supply and you are affecting the likely price inflation. In many ways this would be a good thing. It might be better - long-term - if people made decisions about home ownership more soberly than just desperation to own a few boxes in Peckham.
I think our attitude to home ownership is different to that which pertains in most other countries, particularly for the middle classes (I couldn't think of a more succinct reference point)
"Mr McDonnell said his speech at the Labour Party conference would look at taxation and economic measures, and that policies would be tested before being introduced. On the so-called "Robin Hood" tax, Mr McDonnell said it was a policy "on the basis it could be introduced globally". http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34377338
Note the weasel words "introduced globally". Ie. When the USA approves it. And China. And Japan.
On house prices, if you want them to go down there is little mileage in attacking buy-to-letters.
The fundamentals are (a) mass immigration putting pressure on demand, and (b) lack of building for various reasons. Deal with the fundamentals and prices will come back into line with wages over time.
I agree that long-term rentals should also be an option in the mix.
There's no point in McDonnell going for Buy to Letters, beyond rhetoric.
Osborne just shot that fox.
He also seemed to be going on about Vodaphone, Starbucks etc, none of whom were significantly at fault.
And there were several straight errors of fact.
Being rude, I mainly just heard a caveman making grunting noises to impress the dinosaurs.
Teeside Steel has gone kaput. Sad but expected, steel is declining product as new forms of plastics and ultra metals come to the fore. For example, armoured vehicles are now using lighter and stronger means of defence.
We will need huge quantities of steel in the building of HS2. Unfortunately, thanks to GO, it looks like it will all be coming from China.
Thanks to Ed Miliband's stupid energy policies and the idiocy of the coalition in not repealing them it looks like all energy intensive industries are going bankrupt in the UK. We still need the steel and aluminium, and production of both is very energy intensive and has a high level of emissions. All we are doing is shifting the emissions to China and India along with the jobs. Our need for steel and aluminium hasn't gone away now that we don't produce the stuff, just the jobs and skills.
Ed Miliband and Ed Davey need to answer for this, so does Osborne who should have pushed the anti-green agenda harder from 2010-2015.
Didn't the Tories criticise Ed for not going far enough with his climate change legislation? If he had listened to Dave levies might well have been even higher.
An economy cannot just be built around selling overpriced terraced houses to each other. Surely?
I don;t know. We have half a dozen hard working young people between 25/35 at our company and they all either live with parents or rent. Not one is a property owner, and the only reason is prices are way above what they can afford. I think that is wrong. THey should at least have a shot at owning something, even if it is a few boxes in Whitechapel or Peckham.
London is now a Tier 1 global capital. Young people are never going to be able to compete with someone from Shanghai looking to park money from overseas, unless we ban foreign ownership. Sadly, many need to accept that, and move on.
Why do we need to accept that London should be a base for people from Shanghai to park their money in? Maybe London should be more than just a bank for Bigwigs from Richistan. Shouldn't a left-wing party be looking at just these sorts of things? Other countries do impose some limits on foreigners buying property.
There is a difference, after all, between being welcoming and being flat on your back with your legs in the air. (Apologies in advance.....)
I would suggest that looking after someone's money and working with your legs in the air are both profitable occupations.
Yes - their P&L show very little profit yet their balance sheet shows that cash and short term investments have increased from $8b to $14b in the last 12 months.
It is odd that you can increase your liquid assets by $6b in a year while making no profit. I confess I don't understand it.
If you don't understand it, perhaps it would be sensible not to make a fool of yourself by posting on the subject? As it happens, your very own link answers the question if you click on the 'Cash flow' tab.
That woman "interviewed" afterwards by AN exemplifies the approach - we only answer questions that we want to be asked". That's politics I suppose.
No, that's the "new politics", right?
I agree that, as presently being practised (ie with such single minded commitment) it is "new", but the practice itself, even if more nuanced, is hardly new
Teeside Steel has gone kaput. Sad but expected, steel is declining product as new forms of plastics and ultra metals come to the fore. For example, armoured vehicles are now using lighter and stronger means of defence.
We will need huge quantities of steel in the building of HS2. Unfortunately, thanks to GO, it looks like it will all be coming from China.
Thanks to Ed Miliband's stupid energy policies and the idiocy of the coalition in not repealing them it looks like all energy intensive industries are going bankrupt in the UK. We still need the steel and aluminium, and production of both is very energy intensive and has a high level of emissions. All we are doing is shifting the emissions to China and India along with the jobs. Our need for steel and aluminium hasn't gone away now that we don't produce the stuff, just the jobs and skills.
Ed Miliband and Ed Davey need to answer for this, so does Osborne who should have pushed the anti-green agenda harder from 2010-2015.
Didn't the Tories criticise Ed for not going far enough with his climate change legislation? If he had listened to Dave levies might well have been even higher.
The reality is that steel has massive overcapacity globally. Countries throw money at the steel sector because its a badge of honour for every tinpot republic to have a steel plant. Unless you're willing to subsidise it substantially, there's no point even attempting to preserve steel production in a developed nation. The economically sensible thing to do is to get out of the gain and get better economic activity without having to throw taxpayer cash at the thing. It's what Thatcher did with the coal mines and what we should be doing here.
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
If Amazon was forced to pay a fair level of UK Corporation Tax, they would have to put up prices to maintain their current level of after tax profit. That would be great as it would allow UK companies including many independent booksellers to compete on a more level playing field.
Corporation tax is on profit.
Amazon invest rather than make profits, ergo no Corporation Tax is due while the strategy persists.
They make "no" profits after clever transfer pricing. That is where a global agreement is needed . All countries are losers except ultimately, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Cayman Islands, Bahamas, etc....
Yes - their P&L show very little profit yet their balance sheet shows that cash and short term investments have increased from $8b to $14b in the last 12 months.
It is odd that you can increase your liquid assets by $6b in a year while making no profit. I confess I don't understand it.
If you don't understand it, perhaps it would be sensible not to make a fool of yourself by posting on the subject? As it happens, your very own link answers the question if you click on the 'Cash flow' tab.
If you look at the Balance Sheet, in Q4 2014 their long term debt went up by 6bn from 3099m to 9463m. That jacked up Cash & Equivalents. But they had other sources as well.
It seems banks are prepared to finance them based on their revenue growth. 9 months ended 30/09/14 it was 59bn. 9 months ended 30/06/15 it was 85bn.
As long as Amazon make the repayments and pays the interest , the banks will finance them.
An economy cannot just be built around selling overpriced terraced houses to each other. Surely?
I don;t know. We have half a dozen hard working young people between 25/35 at our company and they all either live with parents or rent. Not one is a property owner, and the only reason is prices are way above what they can afford. I think that is wrong. THey should at least have a shot at owning something, even if it is a few boxes in Whitechapel or Peckham.
London is now a Tier 1 global capital. Young people are never going to be able to compete with someone from Shanghai looking to park money from overseas, unless we ban foreign ownership. Sadly, many need to accept that, and move on.
Why do we need to accept that London should be a base for people from Shanghai to park their money in? Maybe London should be more than just a bank for Bigwigs from Richistan. Shouldn't a left-wing party be looking at just these sorts of things? Other countries do impose some limits on foreigners buying property.
There is a difference, after all, between being welcoming and being flat on your back with your legs in the air. (Apologies in advance.....)
I would suggest that looking after someone's money and working with your legs in the air are both profitable occupations.
"There is a difference, after all, between being welcoming and being flat on your back with your legs in the air. (Apologies in advance.....)"
There is no suggestion that Osborne is doing that. Whatever, he may have been doing in China was not gymnastics of that sort. Or, so I believe.
Teeside Steel has gone kaput. Sad but expected, steel is declining product as new forms of plastics and ultra metals come to the fore. For example, armoured vehicles are now using lighter and stronger means of defence.
We will need huge quantities of steel in the building of HS2. Unfortunately, thanks to GO, it looks like it will all be coming from China.
Thanks to Ed Miliband's stupid energy policies and the idiocy of the coalition in not repealing them it looks like all energy intensive industries are going bankrupt in the UK. We still need the steel and aluminium, and production of both is very energy intensive and has a high level of emissions. All we are doing is shifting the emissions to China and India along with the jobs. Our need for steel and aluminium hasn't gone away now that we don't produce the stuff, just the jobs and skills.
Ed Miliband and Ed Davey need to answer for this, so does Osborne who should have pushed the anti-green agenda harder from 2010-2015.
Didn't the Tories criticise Ed for not going far enough with his climate change legislation? If he had listened to Dave levies might well have been even higher.
The reality is that steel has massive overcapacity globally. Countries throw money at the steel sector because its a badge of honour for every tinpot republic to have a steel plant. Unless you're willing to subsidise it substantially, there's no point even attempting to preserve steel production in a developed nation. The economically sensible thing to do is to get out of the gain and get better economic activity without having to throw taxpayer cash at the thing. It's what Thatcher did with the coal mines and what we should be doing here.
Mao's misguided thrust to steel self sufficiency was a principal factor in creating the Great Famine. However, abandoning steel production in the UK would be a tough sell. I had connections with British shipbuilding when Graham Day was brought in to decimate it. I hated it at the time and for many years afterwards but can see the merit now. Tough decisions are of course the hardest and require the bravest.
@surbiton - Amazon also has $12bn of paid-up share capital. This sucker is not going bust any time soon!
There's no scandal here in terms of their tax policy. Amazon are simply continuing to invest in expanding their market. Ironically the biggest legitimate criticism one could make of them is that they are doing so partly by their aggressive pricing policy, ultimately driving out competitors but for the moment benefiting consumers (especially young, mobile, tech-savvy Corbyn-supporting consumers).
Teeside Steel has gone kaput. Sad but expected, steel is declining product as new forms of plastics and ultra metals come to the fore. For example, armoured vehicles are now using lighter and stronger means of defence.
We will need huge quantities of steel in the building of HS2. Unfortunately, thanks to GO, it looks like it will all be coming from China.
Thanks to Ed Miliband's stupid energy policies and the idiocy of the coalition in not repealing them it looks like all energy intensive industries are going bankrupt in the UK. We still need the steel and aluminium, and production of both is very energy intensive and has a high level of emissions. All we are doing is shifting the emissions to China and India along with the jobs. Our need for steel and aluminium hasn't gone away now that we don't produce the stuff, just the jobs and skills.
Ed Miliband and Ed Davey need to answer for this, so does Osborne who should have pushed the anti-green agenda harder from 2010-2015.
Didn't the Tories criticise Ed for not going far enough with his climate change legislation? If he had listened to Dave levies might well have been even higher.
The reality is that steel has massive overcapacity globally. Countries throw money at the steel sector because its a badge of honour for every tinpot republic to have a steel plant. Unless you're willing to subsidise it substantially, there's no point even attempting to preserve steel production in a developed nation. The economically sensible thing to do is to get out of the gain and get better economic activity without having to throw taxpayer cash at the thing. It's what Thatcher did with the coal mines and what we should be doing here.
The problem is that this is not what happened with mining. Many of the big mining areas continue to be economically depressed. The same thing could well happen in Redcar.
Yes - their P&L show very little profit yet their balance sheet shows that cash and short term investments have increased from $8b to $14b in the last 12 months.
It is odd that you can increase your liquid assets by $6b in a year while making no profit. I confess I don't understand it.
If you don't understand it, perhaps it would be sensible not to make a fool of yourself by posting on the subject? As it happens, your very own link answers the question if you click on the 'Cash flow' tab.
If you look at the Balance Sheet, in Q4 2014 their long term debt went up by 6bn from 3099m to 9463m. That jacked up Cash & Equivalents. But they had other sources as well.
It seems banks are prepared to finance them based on their revenue growth. 9 months ended 30/09/14 it was 59bn. 9 months ended 30/06/15 it was 85bn.
As long as Amazon make the repayments and pays the interest , the banks will finance them.
Shareholders seem miffed at the lack of profits though, I know a couple of majors who might go on strike if Bezoz can't show a profit sooner rather than later. He is turning a public company into his toy which invests in areas at his behest.
@surbiton - Amazon also has $12bn of paid-up share capital. This sucker is not going bust any time soon!
There's no scandal here in terms of their tax policy. Amazon are simply continuing to invest in expanding their market. Ironically the biggest legitimate criticism one could make of them is that they are doing so partly by their aggressive pricing policy, ultimately driving out competitors but for the moment benefiting consumers (especially young, mobile, tech-savvy Corbyn-supporting consumers).
That is true. They also don't want any questions about "thin capitalisation" etc. to arise. But they are soundly based. They do believe in their business model. Profits will come, later.
With such a huge customer base, their risks are well spread.
The problem is that this is not what happened with mining. Many of the big mining areas continue to be economically depressed. The same thing could well happen in Redcar.
The mining areas continued to be economically depressed because Gordon Brown decided the right way to deal with post-industrial unemployment was to employ them all in the public sector, on wage levels that priced out private firms. Thankfully this is now changing, and entrepreneurship is starting to come back.
Teeside Steel has gone kaput. Sad but expected, steel is declining product as new forms of plastics and ultra metals come to the fore. For example, armoured vehicles are now using lighter and stronger means of defence.
We will need huge quantities of steel in the building of HS2. Unfortunately, thanks to GO, it looks like it will all be coming from China.
Thanks to Ed Miliband's stupid energy policies and the idiocy of the coalition in not repealing them it looks like all energy intensive industries are going bankrupt in the UK. We still need the steel and aluminium, and production of both is very energy intensive and has a high level of emissions. All we are doing is shifting the emissions to China and India along with the jobs. Our need for steel and aluminium hasn't gone away now that we don't produce the stuff, just the jobs and skills.
Ed Miliband and Ed Davey need to answer for this, so does Osborne who should have pushed the anti-green agenda harder from 2010-2015.
Didn't the Tories criticise Ed for not going far enough with his climate change legislation? If he had listened to Dave levies might well have been even higher.
Yes, stupidly really. I'm glad all that hug a husky crap is no longer on the agenda and the solar feed-in tariff is basically done for. Now to get rid of the wind feed-in tariff...
An economy cannot just be built around selling overpriced terraced houses to each other. Surely?
I don;t know. We have half a dozen hard working young people between 25/35 at our company and they all either live with parents or rent. Not one is a property owner, and the only reason is prices are way above what they can afford. I think that is wrong. THey should at least have a shot at owning something, even if it is a few boxes in Whitechapel or Peckham.
London is now a Tier 1 global capital. Young people are never going to be able to compete with someone from Shanghai looking to park money from overseas, unless we ban foreign ownership. Sadly, many need to accept that, and move on.
Why do we need to accept that London should be a base for people from Shanghai to park their money in? Maybe London should be more than just a bank for Bigwigs from Richistan. Shouldn't a left-wing party be looking at just these sorts of things? Other countries do impose some limits on foreigners buying property.
There is a difference, after all, between being welcoming and being flat on your back with your legs in the air. (Apologies in advance.....)
I would suggest that looking after someone's money and working with your legs in the air are both profitable occupations.
"There is a difference, after all, between being welcoming and being flat on your back with your legs in the air. (Apologies in advance.....)"
There is no suggestion that Osborne is doing that. Whatever, he may have been doing in China was not gymnastics of that sort. Or, so I believe.
Yes - their P&L show very little profit yet their balance sheet shows that cash and short term investments have increased from $8b to $14b in the last 12 months.
It is odd that you can increase your liquid assets by $6b in a year while making no profit. I confess I don't understand it.
If you don't understand it, perhaps it would be sensible not to make a fool of yourself by posting on the subject? As it happens, your very own link answers the question if you click on the 'Cash flow' tab.
If you look at the Balance Sheet, in Q4 2014 their long term debt went up by 6bn from 3099m to 9463m. That jacked up Cash & Equivalents. But they had other sources as well.
It seems banks are prepared to finance them based on their revenue growth. 9 months ended 30/09/14 it was 59bn. 9 months ended 30/06/15 it was 85bn.
As long as Amazon make the repayments and pays the interest , the banks will finance them.
Shareholders seem miffed at the lack of profits though, I know a couple of majors who might go on strike if Bezoz can't show a profit sooner rather than later. He is turning a public company into his toy which invests in areas at his behest.
What will those shareholders do ? Sell ? They will be snapped up.
Shareholders seem miffed at the lack of profits though, I know a couple of majors who might go on strike if Bezoz can't show a profit sooner rather than later. He is turning a public company into his toy which invests in areas at his behest.
They can't be that unhappy, given that the share price is up 63% in the last year.
I agree that ultimately they will need to start turning more of that humongous market share into profit.
The problem is that this is not what happened with mining. Many of the big mining areas continue to be economically depressed. The same thing could well happen in Redcar.
The mining areas continued to be economically depressed because Gordon Brown decided the right way to deal with post-industrial unemployment was to employ them all in the public sector, on wage levels that priced out private firms. Thankfully this is now changing, and entrepreneurship is starting to come back.
The mines closed down and nothing replaced them. The public sector moved in as a result. We handled the decline of heavy industry very badly in the UK, with all the long term social ills that has created.
The problem is that this is not what happened with mining. Many of the big mining areas continue to be economically depressed. The same thing could well happen in Redcar.
The mining areas continued to be economically depressed because Gordon Brown decided the right way to deal with post-industrial unemployment was to employ them all in the public sector, on wage levels that priced out private firms. Thankfully this is now changing, and entrepreneurship is starting to come back.
Rubbish. There was a gap of several years between the closures and Brown getting his hands anywhere near the levers of power.
Yes - their P&L show very little profit yet their balance sheet shows that cash and short term investments have increased from $8b to $14b in the last 12 months.
It is odd that you can increase your liquid assets by $6b in a year while making no profit. I confess I don't understand it.
If you don't understand it, perhaps it would be sensible not to make a fool of yourself by posting on the subject? As it happens, your very own link answers the question if you click on the 'Cash flow' tab.
If you look at the Balance Sheet, in Q4 2014 their long term debt went up by 6bn from 3099m to 9463m. That jacked up Cash & Equivalents. But they had other sources as well.
It seems banks are prepared to finance them based on their revenue growth. 9 months ended 30/09/14 it was 59bn. 9 months ended 30/06/15 it was 85bn.
As long as Amazon make the repayments and pays the interest , the banks will finance them.
Shareholders seem miffed at the lack of profits though, I know a couple of majors who might go on strike if Bezoz can't show a profit sooner rather than later. He is turning a public company into his toy which invests in areas at his behest.
What will those shareholders do ? Sell ? They will be snapped up.
Well at their current capitalisation, even with a 30:1 PE they need to begin showing annual operating profit in the region of $7bn, at the moment that seems like a lifetime away. Their consumer services business is floundering, the webstore and delivery business doesn't have the capacity to generate anywhere near that kind of profit, leaving B2B/AWS, which is where they probably can make that kind of money. It's the business that people know the least about which can/will make the most money for them. It is also the part of their business they are most opaque about, another reason shareholders want to go on strike.
Personally I'm not convinced by Bezoz, he doesn't rank up there with Jobs, Brin/Page or Musk. A lot of the time he comes across as a crazy person who is just flinging shit around to see what sticks, but that seems to be in fashion right now.
Amazon seems to have bumped it's cash by issuing a shed load of bonds from what I can work out. Investors seem happy to be earning sub 3% on them too... a very cheap financing model !
@surbiton - Amazon also has $12bn of paid-up share capital. This sucker is not going bust any time soon!
There's no scandal here in terms of their tax policy. Amazon are simply continuing to invest in expanding their market. Ironically the biggest legitimate criticism one could make of them is that they are doing so partly by their aggressive pricing policy, ultimately driving out competitors but for the moment benefiting consumers (especially young, mobile, tech-savvy Corbyn-supporting consumers).
That is true. They also don't want any questions about "thin capitalisation" etc. to arise. But they are soundly based. They do believe in their business model. Profits will come, later.
With such a huge customer base, their risks are well spread.
Who suffers ? High Street shops.
I suffer. I like bookshops and there are far fewer of them than there used to be. However, I realise I am a dinosaur. But I do like to browse, have a flick through etc, before I buy.
The mines closed down and nothing replaced them. The public sector moved in as a result. We handled the decline of heavy industry very badly in the UK, with all the long term social ills that has created.
It's a difficult problem, because heavy industries tended to be dominant employers in their areas and those areas are often ones which are badly-placed for replacement employers. Nationalisation and union militancy didn't help, of course.
All the same, I'm not convinced that the UK handled it any worse than France, Germany or the US - look at the Nord-Pas de Calais region, for example.
The problem is that this is not what happened with mining. Many of the big mining areas continue to be economically depressed. The same thing could well happen in Redcar.
The mining areas continued to be economically depressed because Gordon Brown decided the right way to deal with post-industrial unemployment was to employ them all in the public sector, on wage levels that priced out private firms. Thankfully this is now changing, and entrepreneurship is starting to come back.
Rubbish. There was a gap of several years between the closures and Brown getting his hands anywhere near the levers of power.
The closest experience I've had was my involvement in retraining workers made redundant when Xerox's plant in Mitcheldean closed down. It's incredibly hard to re-skill people who've spent their lives doing unskilled (or at best, semi-skilled) labour.
I have a lot of sympathy with governments of all stripes who try and deal with de-industrialisation; sometimes just throwing money at a problem doesn't help. We can't just point the finger at politicians - there are other factors, such as this countries poor labour mobility (there are people in Pontypool and Merthyr who are still waiting for the mines to come back, poor sods).
Shareholders seem miffed at the lack of profits though, I know a couple of majors who might go on strike if Bezoz can't show a profit sooner rather than later. He is turning a public company into his toy which invests in areas at his behest.
They can't be that unhappy, given that the share price is up 63% in the last year.
I agree that ultimately they will need to start turning more of that humongous market share into profit.
It is a gravity defying rise, to me reminiscent of 1999/2000. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and Oracle have earned their valuations by showing massive profits and growth in profits for a long time. They also have hit products and have properly monetised business models. Amazon doesn't make money, is constantly "investing" for the future, doesn't pay a dividend and has, IMO, a crazy person as CEO. Other than AWS I can't think of the last Amazon service to be a big success other than the original webstore and marketplace. Kindle is great, but it is a niche product, their phone failed, tablets are already saturated, the set top box failed and they are too late to the market with video and music streaming services.
@surbiton - Amazon also has $12bn of paid-up share capital. This sucker is not going bust any time soon!
There's no scandal here in terms of their tax policy. Amazon are simply continuing to invest in expanding their market. Ironically the biggest legitimate criticism one could make of them is that they are doing so partly by their aggressive pricing policy, ultimately driving out competitors but for the moment benefiting consumers (especially young, mobile, tech-savvy Corbyn-supporting consumers).
That is true. They also don't want any questions about "thin capitalisation" etc. to arise. But they are soundly based. They do believe in their business model. Profits will come, later.
With such a huge customer base, their risks are well spread.
Who suffers ? High Street shops.
I suffer. I like bookshops and there are far fewer of them than there used to be. However, I realise I am a dinosaur. But I do like to browse, have a flick through etc, before I buy.
This is an interesting internal presentation for GCHQ. The spooks point out they have a light oversight regime compared to the USA. It mentions parliament is "exceptionally good at understanding the need to keep our work secret", while judges are "the main issue for us". Apparently, part of the issue is that judges are "not openly swayed by personal contact". Unlike those easily swayed parliamentarians I suppose.
The mines closed down and nothing replaced them. The public sector moved in as a result. We handled the decline of heavy industry very badly in the UK, with all the long term social ills that has created.
It's a difficult problem, because heavy industries tended to be dominant employers in their areas and those areas are often ones which are badly-placed for replacement employers. Nationalisation and union militancy didn't help, of course.
All the same, I'm not convinced that the UK handled it any worse than France, Germany or the US - look at the Nord-Pas de Calais region, for example.
We had oil income. The French didn't.
I agree it's tough to do, but I am not convinced that much effort was made, by either the Tories or Labour. Deindustrialisation was inevitable, but its consequences were not.
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
If Amazon was forced to pay a fair level of UK Corporation Tax, they would have to put up prices to maintain their current level of after tax profit. That would be great as it would allow UK companies including many independent booksellers to compete on a more level playing field.
Corporation tax is on profit.
Amazon invest rather than make profits, ergo no Corporation Tax is due while the strategy persists.
They make "no" profits after clever transfer pricing. That is where a global agreement is needed . All countries are losers except ultimately, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Cayman Islands, Bahamas, etc....
Shareholders seem miffed at the lack of profits though, I know a couple of majors who might go on strike if Bezoz can't show a profit sooner rather than later. He is turning a public company into his toy which invests in areas at his behest.
They can't be that unhappy, given that the share price is up 63% in the last year.
I agree that ultimately they will need to start turning more of that humongous market share into profit.
It is a gravity defying rise, to me reminiscent of 1999/2000. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and Oracle have earned their valuations by showing massive profits and growth in profits for a long time. They also have hit products and have properly monetised business models. Amazon doesn't make money, is constantly "investing" for the future, doesn't pay a dividend and has, IMO, a crazy person as CEO. Other than AWS I can't think of the last Amazon service to be a big success other than the original webstore and marketplace. Kindle is great, but it is a niche product, their phone failed, tablets are already saturated, the set top box failed and they are too late to the market with video and music streaming services.
Their tablet is pretty good, but I have no idea how they make money on it by selling for ~ £100 or so.
I assume they hope users buy lots of apps and make their money that way (With the proprietory store). I can't believe the price I paid for mine was much above cost.
An economy cannot just be built around selling overpriced terraced houses to each other. Surely?
I don;t know. We have half a dozen hard working young people between 25/35 at our company and they all either live with parents or rent. Not one is a property owner, and the only reason is prices are way above what they can afford. I think that is wrong. THey should at least have a shot at owning something, even if it is a few boxes in Whitechapel or Peckham.
London is now a Tier 1 global capital. Young people are never going to be able to compete with someone from Shanghai looking to park money from overseas, unless we ban foreign ownership. Sadly, many need to accept that, and move on.
Why do we need to accept that London should be a base for people from Shanghai to park their money in? Maybe London should be more than just a bank for Bigwigs from Richistan. Shouldn't a left-wing party be looking at just these sorts of things? Other countries do impose some limits on foreigners buying property.
There is a difference, after all, between being welcoming and being flat on your back with your legs in the air. (Apologies in advance.....)
I would suggest that looking after someone's money and working with your legs in the air are both profitable occupations.
"There is a difference, after all, between being welcoming and being flat on your back with your legs in the air. (Apologies in advance.....)"
There is no suggestion that Osborne is doing that. Whatever, he may have been doing in China was not gymnastics of that sort. Or, so I believe.
I was generalising, not making any less than salubrious innuendo
Shareholders seem miffed at the lack of profits though, I know a couple of majors who might go on strike if Bezoz can't show a profit sooner rather than later. He is turning a public company into his toy which invests in areas at his behest.
They can't be that unhappy, given that the share price is up 63% in the last year.
I agree that ultimately they will need to start turning more of that humongous market share into profit.
It is a gravity defying rise, to me reminiscent of 1999/2000. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and Oracle have earned their valuations by showing massive profits and growth in profits for a long time. They also have hit products and have properly monetised business models. Amazon doesn't make money, is constantly "investing" for the future, doesn't pay a dividend and has, IMO, a crazy person as CEO. Other than AWS I can't think of the last Amazon service to be a big success other than the original webstore and marketplace. Kindle is great, but it is a niche product, their phone failed, tablets are already saturated, the set top box failed and they are too late to the market with video and music streaming services.
Their tablet is pretty good, but I have no idea how they make money on it by selling for ~ £100 or so.
I assume they hope users buy lots of apps and make their money that way (With the proprietory store). I can't believe the price I paid for mine was much above cost.
The problem is that this is not what happened with mining. Many of the big mining areas continue to be economically depressed. The same thing could well happen in Redcar.
The mining areas continued to be economically depressed because Gordon Brown decided the right way to deal with post-industrial unemployment was to employ them all in the public sector, on wage levels that priced out private firms. Thankfully this is now changing, and entrepreneurship is starting to come back.
The mines closed down and nothing replaced them. The public sector moved in as a result. We handled the decline of heavy industry very badly in the UK, with all the long term social ills that has created.
Obviously it takes time for structural change to happen, and everything to shuffle through the system. Brown was a few years later, but the public sector didn't move in by some random act of God. It was a political decision by the Labour government that prices out the market and completely removed the incentive to retrain. You ended up with a whole bunch of public sector administrators with few transferrable skills and a terrible service culture.
@surbiton - Amazon also has $12bn of paid-up share capital. This sucker is not going bust any time soon!
There's no scandal here in terms of their tax policy. Amazon are simply continuing to invest in expanding their market. Ironically the biggest legitimate criticism one could make of them is that they are doing so partly by their aggressive pricing policy, ultimately driving out competitors but for the moment benefiting consumers (especially young, mobile, tech-savvy Corbyn-supporting consumers).
That is true. They also don't want any questions about "thin capitalisation" etc. to arise. But they are soundly based. They do believe in their business model. Profits will come, later.
With such a huge customer base, their risks are well spread.
Who suffers ? High Street shops.
I suffer. I like bookshops and there are far fewer of them than there used to be. However, I realise I am a dinosaur. But I do like to browse, have a flick through etc, before I buy.
Same here. Amazon is fine if, but only if, you know exactly what you're looking for.
I probably spend about 10 times as much a year in bookshops than I do buying books online.
It is a gravity defying rise, to me reminiscent of 1999/2000. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and Oracle have earned their valuations by showing massive profits and growth in profits for a long time. They also have hit products and have properly monetised business models.
Yeah, but they are very different kinds of business. In terms of barriers to entry for competitors, you could argue that Amazon looks more secure than Facebook (a fad which will pass and which in any case is hard to monitise), Microsoft (still stuck in the desktop PC market), or Apple (fine as long as the hype lasts, but reliant on repeatedly producing something newer and shinier).
I agree that at some point Amazon will need to stop chasing market share and entering new fields, and instead concentrate on extracting profit from its core businesses.
The problem is that this is not what happened with mining. Many of the big mining areas continue to be economically depressed. The same thing could well happen in Redcar.
The mining areas continued to be economically depressed because Gordon Brown decided the right way to deal with post-industrial unemployment was to employ them all in the public sector, on wage levels that priced out private firms. Thankfully this is now changing, and entrepreneurship is starting to come back.
Very true. GB made one good decision, keeping us out of Euro, otherwise he was absolutely crap and history will judge him so.
Is Amazon's core business still books any more even ?
I see them more as a marketmaker for small businesses, a sort of ebay without the auction button...
The main item to me judging by their accounts is the R&D expenses, how much of that r&d will carry on forever even as the business peaks out it's sales at $120 Bn or w/e.
Shareholders seem miffed at the lack of profits though, I know a couple of majors who might go on strike if Bezoz can't show a profit sooner rather than later. He is turning a public company into his toy which invests in areas at his behest.
They can't be that unhappy, given that the share price is up 63% in the last year.
I agree that ultimately they will need to start turning more of that humongous market share into profit.
It is a gravity defying rise, to me reminiscent of 1999/2000. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and Oracle have earned their valuations by showing massive profits and growth in profits for a long time. They also have hit products and have properly monetised business models. Amazon doesn't make money, is constantly "investing" for the future, doesn't pay a dividend and has, IMO, a crazy person as CEO. Other than AWS I can't think of the last Amazon service to be a big success other than the original webstore and marketplace. Kindle is great, but it is a niche product, their phone failed, tablets are already saturated, the set top box failed and they are too late to the market with video and music streaming services.
Their tablet is pretty good, but I have no idea how they make money on it by selling for ~ £100 or so.
I assume they hope users buy lots of apps and make their money that way (With the proprietory store). I can't believe the price I paid for mine was much above cost.
They are supposedly trying to run the razorblades model, but when apps are mostly free or low cost, 30% of not a lot of money is still not very much money. Worse still, the kind of people Amazon attract with their pricing model are not those who will spend extra on apps. Apple make so much money on apps because their products are specifically aimed at high end buyers who are ready to spend money, some metrics I have seen show that despite having 20% of the number of users as Google have with Android, the Appstore still makes more money than Google Play. The Amazon app store barely registers.
Plato, Amazon prime may or may not make money, it surely brings in revenue, but the cost of putting the service together makes it a low margin service, not as profitable as Xbox Live or PlayStation Network.
@MaxPB Yes, well the tablet's appeal for me was the cheap price. And there are enough free apps to keep me amused... as you say I'm not exactly the sort of penny pinching customer a business wants or needs particularly...
Avramopoulos, 62, is the European commissioner in charge of the contentious migration issue, and the man who is steering EU policy to deal with an exodus of refugees from the Middle East and Africa that has reached almost biblical proportions.
The recent months have seen a lot of finger-pointing and name-calling over Europe’s response to the crisis. But in an interview with POLITICO in his Brussels office, Avramopoulos said those who argue that the Commission caused the chaos are misguided.
“The Commission does not take the blame because it does not care about the political cost,” he said. “The Commission is here for five years to do its job and we did it with vision, responsibility and commitment. Because what is driving us is not to be reelected. That is why for us the political cost means nothing.”
Is Amazon's core business still books any more even ?
I see them more as a marketmaker for small businesses, a sort of ebay without the auction button...
The main item to me judging by their accounts is the R&D expenses, how much of that r&d will carry on forever even as the business peaks out it's sales at $120 Bn or w/e.
I am getting a bit fed up already with photos of Corbyn/McDonnell with Billy Bunter joyously toadying along in the background. As triumvirates go I think I've seen better, but the general gist was they were interested in empire building.
It is a gravity defying rise, to me reminiscent of 1999/2000. Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and Oracle have earned their valuations by showing massive profits and growth in profits for a long time. They also have hit products and have properly monetised business models.
Yeah, but they are very different kinds of business. In terms of barriers to entry for competitors, you could argue that Amazon looks more secure than Facebook (a fad which will pass and which in any case is hard to monitise), Microsoft (still stuck in the desktop PC market), or Apple (fine as long as the hype lasts, but reliant on repeatedly producing something newer and shinier).
I agree that at some point Amazon will need to stop chasing market share and entering new fields, and instead concentrate on extracting profit from its core businesses.
Facebook have a net profit margin of around 20%, it was hard to monetise, not any more. People have been saying its a passing fad for ages, but it continues to accumulate users and their M&A team has been securing their future as well, WhatsApp is the number one global messaging service and it works on all platforms. Once they unlock the monetisation of WhatsApp it Facebook will be worth even more. Microsoft is a highly diverse business, Windows is just one aspect of it, Azure and their other B2B services are more profitable and stable than any of Amazon's businesses. Azure competes directly with AWS and is more successful and more profitable. People have said this about Apple for years, I'm still waiting for their value to drop and their phones to stop being popular.
Avramopoulos, 62, is the European commissioner in charge of the contentious migration issue, and the man who is steering EU policy to deal with an exodus of refugees from the Middle East and Africa that has reached almost biblical proportions.
The recent months have seen a lot of finger-pointing and name-calling over Europe’s response to the crisis. But in an interview with POLITICO in his Brussels office, Avramopoulos said those who argue that the Commission caused the chaos are misguided.
“The Commission does not take the blame because it does not care about the political cost,” he said. “The Commission is here for five years to do its job and we did it with vision, responsibility and commitment. Because what is driving us is not to be reelected. That is why for us the political cost means nothing.”
Hmm. I don't think I'm overstretching here; he's arguing that politicians should ignore democracy. Christ, I hope we vote to leave.
I am getting a bit fed up already with photos of Corbyn/McDonnell with Billy Bunter joyously toadying along in the background. As triumvirates go I think I've seen better, but the general gist was they were interested in empire building.
Avramopoulos, 62, is the European commissioner in charge of the contentious migration issue, and the man who is steering EU policy to deal with an exodus of refugees from the Middle East and Africa that has reached almost biblical proportions.
The recent months have seen a lot of finger-pointing and name-calling over Europe’s response to the crisis. But in an interview with POLITICO in his Brussels office, Avramopoulos said those who argue that the Commission caused the chaos are misguided.
“The Commission does not take the blame because it does not care about the political cost,” he said. “The Commission is here for five years to do its job and we did it with vision, responsibility and commitment. Because what is driving us is not to be reelected. That is why for us the political cost means nothing.”
I suppose its "job" is to cause more power integrated to the centre regardless of what the peoples of Europe think.
Die Welt is reporting that Muslim asylum seekers are attacking Christian asylum seekers. Apparently they're going to separate them by religion to stop this sort of thing:
People have said this about Apple for years, I'm still waiting for their value to drop and their phones to stop being popular.
Ahem. Sony. Nokia. Ericsson. Blackberry. Palm.
I'm not saying that they will falter, but the business model is extremely dependent on new-product cycles in a faddish techno-world. They need to get it right, if not every time, at least nearly all the time. And now they don't have Steve Jobs.
The Press Association has filed a story saying the Labour MP Dan Jarvis “has warned the party that it must be ruthless about removing failing leaders”. That sounds dramatic, not least because Jarvis is seen as a favourite to become Labour leader if Jeremy Corbyn is replaced in around 2017 or 2018, but his actual words were not quite that strong. Asked if the party should have got rid of Ed Miliband before the election, when people were questioning his leadership, Jarvis replied:
I think it is a good thing that we are instinctively loyal as a Labour Party, as a Parliamentary Labour Party. But in the end politics has got to be about giving our party the opportunity to change this country for the better using our values. It is a Labour prime minister, it is a Labour government that we have got to work towards.
Jarvis also strongly criticised the comments John McDonnell made in 2003 paying tribute to the IRA for which McDonnell recently apologised.
People have said this about Apple for years, I'm still waiting for their value to drop and their phones to stop being popular.
Ahem. Sony. Nokia. Ericsson. Blackberry. Palm.
I'm not saying that they will falter, but the business model is extremely dependent on new-product cycles in a faddish techno-world. They need to get it right, if not every time, at least nearly all the time. And now they don't have Steve Jobs.
The average Fortune 500 company lasts around fifty years.
People have said this about Apple for years, I'm still waiting for their value to drop and their phones to stop being popular.
Ahem. Sony. Nokia. Ericsson. Blackberry. Palm.
I'm not saying that they will falter, but the business model is extremely dependent on new-product cycles in a faddish techno-world. They need to get it right, if not every time, at least nearly all the time. And now they don't have Steve Jobs.
Apple have their followers, those other companies never had that. There are enough people who will buy whatever Apple dish up that they will always make money. Maybe not as much as today, but still enough for baseline profitability. Plus iTunes and App Store revenue is much higher than competing services, again because of the kind of buyer Apple attract. I would love to see it happen, but the chances are remote.
Apple make money, are growing profits, have the most successful phone in the world, have the most successful tablet in the world, have the number one digital market place for portable devices (AIUI PlayStation Network makes more money because they sell $60 games vs $3 apps). I'm not of the cult of Apple, but that doesn't mean I won't deny their success, and they are very, very successful. Amazon don't even register on the same level despite their truly massive market value.
The mines closed down and nothing replaced them. The public sector moved in as a result. We handled the decline of heavy industry very badly in the UK, with all the long term social ills that has created.
It's a difficult problem, because heavy industries tended to be dominant employers in their areas and those areas are often ones which are badly-placed for replacement employers. Nationalisation and union militancy didn't help, of course.
All the same, I'm not convinced that the UK handled it any worse than France, Germany or the US - look at the Nord-Pas de Calais region, for example.
We had oil income. The French didn't.
I agree it's tough to do, but I am not convinced that much effort was made, by either the Tories or Labour. Deindustrialisation was inevitable, but its consequences were not.
Die Welt is reporting that Muslim asylum seekers are attacking Christian asylum seekers. Apparently they're going to separate them by religion to stop this sort of thing:
Yes - their P&L show very little profit yet their balance sheet shows that cash and short term investments have increased from $8b to $14b in the last 12 months.
It is odd that you can increase your liquid assets by $6b in a year while making no profit. I confess I don't understand it.
If you don't understand it, perhaps it would be sensible not to make a fool of yourself by posting on the subject? As it happens, your very own link answers the question if you click on the 'Cash flow' tab.
There is a $1.7b cash item called unsurprisingly "non-cash items". I dion't understand what that is but I can guess. It is the accounting fudge that writes off non-cash items against the P&L to reduce the profit. Because it is non-cash (amortization or some such) it has to be added back to the profit in the cash flow statement.
I don't know how much you know about accounting for profit for taxation purposes to the latest IFRSs but you probably do know that it is not at all transparent. Cash flow is more difficult to fudge. Perhaps corprate taxation should be based on net cash flow with an appropriate scope.
Anyway - I'm now off to the cinema to see Everest so I can't continue this rather academic conversation.
People have said this about Apple for years, I'm still waiting for their value to drop and their phones to stop being popular.
Ahem. Sony. Nokia. Ericsson. Blackberry. Palm.
I'm not saying that they will falter, but the business model is extremely dependent on new-product cycles in a faddish techno-world. They need to get it right, if not every time, at least nearly all the time. And now they don't have Steve Jobs.
Apple have their followers, those other companies never had that. There are enough people who will buy whatever Apple dish up that they will always make money. Maybe not as much as today, but still enough for baseline profitability. Plus iTunes and App Store revenue is much higher than competing services, again because of the kind of buyer Apple attract. I would love to see it happen, but the chances are remote.
Apple make money, are growing profits, have the most successful phone in the world, have the most successful tablet in the world, have the number one digital market place for portable devices (AIUI PlayStation Network makes more money because they sell $60 games vs $3 apps). I'm not of the cult of Apple, but that doesn't mean I won't deny their success, and they are very, very successful. Amazon don't even register on the same level despite their truly massive market value.
The other companies had their followers, enough that many had started to use Blackberry as a noun in the same way that a vacuum cleaner was pre-Dyson called a Hoover.
There's no guarantee Apple will keep its fans. I had three consecutive iPhones on two year contracts (so six years of iPhone) before switching to a Samsung in the current generation.
Yes - their P&L show very little profit yet their balance sheet shows that cash and short term investments have increased from $8b to $14b in the last 12 months.
It is odd that you can increase your liquid assets by $6b in a year while making no profit. I confess I don't understand it.
If you don't understand it, perhaps it would be sensible not to make a fool of yourself by posting on the subject? As it happens, your very own link answers the question if you click on the 'Cash flow' tab.
There is a $1.7b cash item called unsurprisingly "non-cash items". I dion't understand what that is but I can guess. It is the accounting fudge that writes off non-cash items against the P&L to reduce the profit. Because it is non-cash (amortization or some such) it has to be added back to the profit in the cash flow statement.
I don't know how much you know about accounting for profit for taxation purposes to the latest IFRSs but you probably do know that it is not at all transparent. Cash flow is more difficult to fudge. Perhaps corprate taxation should be based on net cash flow with an appropriate scope.
Anyway - I'm now off to the cinema to see Everest so I can't continue this rather academic conversation.
Depreciation and amorization are very real and not fudges. To call them such shows your ignorance again.
The way depreciation works actually increases the speed of corporation tax payments being made necessary, rather than decreases it. If you invest £20 million in a plant that will be depreciated flat line over 20 years using a flat line model then you are allowed to write off £1 million in depreciation per annum. Meaning it takes 20 years for your accounts to write off the £20 million that you've spent. If £2 million profit before depreciation is made each year then £1 million depreciation is written off and £1 million in taxes is owed.
If depreciation didn't exist all £20 million would be written off in year one. No accrued profit would be made as all profit for the first ten years would be nullified by the loss of the £20 million investment at the start. Only in year 11 onwards once the investment had been repaid in full would tax become owed.
To call this a fudge shows tremendous ignorance. The government requires ideas like depreciation and amortization to be accounted for as it both makes sense for the company and assists the government in accurate and prompt tax collection. To abolish that would make things worse.
People have said this about Apple for years, I'm still waiting for their value to drop and their phones to stop being popular.
Apple seem to have created a ... dare I say it... religion.
Apple create products that work out of the box, first time. Yes, one pays a premium but relative to the time that isn't spent wasted trying to get the technology to work properly, it's money well spent.
Yes - their P&L show very little profit yet their balance sheet shows that cash and short term investments have increased from $8b to $14b in the last 12 months.
It is odd that you can increase your liquid assets by $6b in a year while making no profit. I confess I don't understand it.
If you don't understand it, perhaps it would be sensible not to make a fool of yourself by posting on the subject? As it happens, your very own link answers the question if you click on the 'Cash flow' tab.
There is a $1.7b cash item called unsurprisingly "non-cash items". I dion't understand what that is but I can guess. It is the accounting fudge that writes off non-cash items against the P&L to reduce the profit. Because it is non-cash (amortization or some such) it has to be added back to the profit in the cash flow statement.
I don't know how much you know about accounting for profit for taxation purposes to the latest IFRSs but you probably do know that it is not at all transparent. Cash flow is more difficult to fudge. Perhaps corprate taxation should be based on net cash flow with an appropriate scope.
Anyway - I'm now off to the cinema to see Everest so I can't continue this rather academic conversation.
Depreciation and amorization are very real and not fudges. To call them such shows your ignorance again.
The way depreciation works actually increases the speed of corporation tax payments being made necessary, rather than decreases it. If you invest £20 million in a plant that will be depreciated flat line over 20 years using a flat line model then you are allowed to write off £1 million in depreciation per annum. Meaning it takes 20 years for your accounts to write off the £20 million that you've spent. If £2 million profit before depreciation is made each year then £1 million depreciation is written off and £1 million in taxes is owed.
If depreciation didn't exist all £20 million would be written off in year one. No accrued profit would be made as all profit for the first ten years would be nullified by the loss of the £20 million investment at the start. Only in year 11 onwards once the investment had been repaid in full would tax become owed.
To call this a fudge shows tremendous ignorance. The government requires ideas like depreciation and amortization to be accounted for as it both makes sense for the company and assists the government in accurate and prompt tax collection. To abolish that would make things worse.
Quite correct. You write back depreication, but you gain Capital Allowances.
Twitter spat still ongoing between Iain Dale and Louise Mensch. He told her to f---- right off - charming man! He has just had David Blanchflower on his show and described him as someone we respect on LBC!! lol
Watching President Obama and David Cameron at the UN and then watching the Labour Party conference is like living in a parallel universe.
Twitter spat still ongoing between Iain Dale and Louise Mensch. He told her to f---- right off - charming man! He has just had David Blanchflower on his show and described him as someone we respect on LBC!! lol
Watching President Obama and David Cameron at the UN and then watching the Labour Party conference is like living in a parallel universe.
Labour will make Internet access, coffee and entertainment more expensive for everyone in the country...
Awesome
If Amazon was forced to pay a fair level of UK Corporation Tax, they would have to put up prices to maintain their current level of after tax profit. That would be great as it would allow UK companies including many independent booksellers to compete on a more level playing field.
Corporation tax is on profit.
Amazon invest rather than make profits, ergo no Corporation Tax is due while the strategy persists.
They make "no" profits after clever transfer pricing. That is where a global agreement is needed . All countries are losers except ultimately, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Andorra, Cayman Islands, Bahamas, etc....
Agree. So the ideal solution is 0% corporation tax - which is a tax on success.
Comments
On the so-called "Robin Hood" tax, Mr McDonnell said it was a policy "on the basis it could be introduced globally".
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34377338
Note the weasel words "introduced globally". Ie. When the USA approves it. And China. And Japan.
In other words: never.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2015
Did I miss any?
I'd vote against the Conservatives just for inflicting that on me if I were Canadian.
Buy on 30- 90 days credit.Sell for immediate cash.
See all supermarkets.
It seems banks are prepared to finance them based on their revenue growth. 9 months ended 30/09/14 it was 59bn. 9 months ended 30/06/15 it was 85bn.
As long as Amazon make the repayments and pays the interest , the banks will finance them.
There is no suggestion that Osborne is doing that. Whatever, he may have been doing in China was not gymnastics of that sort. Or, so I believe.
There's no scandal here in terms of their tax policy. Amazon are simply continuing to invest in expanding their market. Ironically the biggest legitimate criticism one could make of them is that they are doing so partly by their aggressive pricing policy, ultimately driving out competitors but for the moment benefiting consumers (especially young, mobile, tech-savvy Corbyn-supporting consumers).
With such a huge customer base, their risks are well spread.
Who suffers ? High Street shops.
I agree that ultimately they will need to start turning more of that humongous market share into profit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-amazon-wrestling-big-ideas-in-a-bruising-workplace.html?_r=0
Personally I'm not convinced by Bezoz, he doesn't rank up there with Jobs, Brin/Page or Musk. A lot of the time he comes across as a crazy person who is just flinging shit around to see what sticks, but that seems to be in fashion right now.
All the same, I'm not convinced that the UK handled it any worse than France, Germany or the US - look at the Nord-Pas de Calais region, for example.
I have a lot of sympathy with governments of all stripes who try and deal with de-industrialisation; sometimes just throwing money at a problem doesn't help. We can't just point the finger at politicians - there are other factors, such as this countries poor labour mobility (there are people in Pontypool and Merthyr who are still waiting for the mines to come back, poor sods).
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2432288-jce-uk-legality-context.html#document/p6
I agree it's tough to do, but I am not convinced that much effort was made, by either the Tories or Labour. Deindustrialisation was inevitable, but its consequences were not.
I assume they hope users buy lots of apps and make their money that way (With the proprietory store). I can't believe the price I paid for mine was much above cost.
I probably spend about 10 times as much a year in bookshops than I do buying books online.
I agree that at some point Amazon will need to stop chasing market share and entering new fields, and instead concentrate on extracting profit from its core businesses.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/amazon-ends-contract-of-neo-nazi-security-firm-over-alleged-mistreatment-of-immigrant-workers-8500115.html
I see them more as a marketmaker for small businesses, a sort of ebay without the auction button...
The main item to me judging by their accounts is the R&D expenses, how much of that r&d will carry on forever even as the business peaks out it's sales at $120 Bn or w/e.
Plato, Amazon prime may or may not make money, it surely brings in revenue, but the cost of putting the service together makes it a low margin service, not as profitable as Xbox Live or PlayStation Network.
http://www.politico.eu/article/migration-news-political-europe-cost/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Web_Services
As triumvirates go I think I've seen better, but the general gist was they were interested in empire building.
All these grand plans in every dept, reviewing everything da de da. Nothing that predates Comrade Corbyn's appt seems to exist anymore.
https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article146919471/Islamisten-bedrohen-Christen-in-Fluechtlingsheimen.html&edit-text=&act=url
I'm sure it'll all work wonderfully once they have residency in a few years.
I'm not saying that they will falter, but the business model is extremely dependent on new-product cycles in a faddish techno-world. They need to get it right, if not every time, at least nearly all the time. And now they don't have Steve Jobs.
Apple make money, are growing profits, have the most successful phone in the world, have the most successful tablet in the world, have the number one digital market place for portable devices (AIUI PlayStation Network makes more money because they sell $60 games vs $3 apps). I'm not of the cult of Apple, but that doesn't mean I won't deny their success, and they are very, very successful. Amazon don't even register on the same level despite their truly massive market value.
I don't know how much you know about accounting for profit for taxation purposes to the latest IFRSs but you probably do know that it is not at all transparent. Cash flow is more difficult to fudge. Perhaps corprate taxation should be based on net cash flow with an appropriate scope.
Anyway - I'm now off to the cinema to see Everest so I can't continue this rather academic conversation.
There's no guarantee Apple will keep its fans. I had three consecutive iPhones on two year contracts (so six years of iPhone) before switching to a Samsung in the current generation.
Goodwill is very real but can really be lost too.
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html
The way depreciation works actually increases the speed of corporation tax payments being made necessary, rather than decreases it. If you invest £20 million in a plant that will be depreciated flat line over 20 years using a flat line model then you are allowed to write off £1 million in depreciation per annum. Meaning it takes 20 years for your accounts to write off the £20 million that you've spent. If £2 million profit before depreciation is made each year then £1 million depreciation is written off and £1 million in taxes is owed.
If depreciation didn't exist all £20 million would be written off in year one. No accrued profit would be made as all profit for the first ten years would be nullified by the loss of the £20 million investment at the start. Only in year 11 onwards once the investment had been repaid in full would tax become owed.
To call this a fudge shows tremendous ignorance. The government requires ideas like depreciation and amortization to be accounted for as it both makes sense for the company and assists the government in accurate and prompt tax collection. To abolish that would make things worse.
The potential for water on Mars is very significant news.
Watching President Obama and David Cameron at the UN and then watching the Labour Party conference is like living in a parallel universe.
Thank you.
Coalition Government then. Or NDP minority.
Mr. Antifrank, at this very moment the Martian Conservatives could be laughing at the election of Jezzaqlafonk Corbashixa to lead Martian Labour.
Anna Turley, Redcar MP, "Government should step in and save our steel plant".
Labour are all over the place.
Difficult call really...
http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html