FPT: @rcs1000 I suppose there is a theft/fire risk with physical notes though ^^; Or a holding charge if you want to keep them in the vaults of SwissBank Co.
FPT: @rcs1000 I suppose there is a theft/fire risk with physical notes though ^^; Or a holding charge if you want to keep them in the vaults of SwissBank Co.
Yes.
In case anyone's interested, there's a small Swiss company called Orell Fussli Security Printing that prints Swiss bank notes.
Not forecasting the future, and I know nothing about its financials or anything like that, but it would be a clear beneficiary of any increase in people desiring to hold Swiss money.
As there is no truth in what the voice of the balls has been caught saying, the should have no problem with the suggestion that they should impose random independent drug testing for all employees then?
I'm interested why people think Cameron is doing well. OK we're not at war but beyond that he doesn't appear to be doing much beyond fending off Corbyn at PMQs and dashing round Europe.
I'm interested why people think Cameron is doing well. OK we're not at war but beyond that he doesn't appear to be doing much beyond fending off Corbyn at PMQs and dashing round Europe.
Frankly, a small net positive is "keeping Labour out, not frightening the horses"
Other thoughts - how the christ did Ed turn + 20 to - 14 in three months?
I'm interested why people think Cameron is doing well. OK we're not at war but beyond that he doesn't appear to be doing much beyond fending off Corbyn at PMQs and dashing round Europe.
Perhaps, the public just want a sense that everything is okay, and really don't want politicians busy-bodying and interfering in their lives?
As there is no truth in what the voice of the balls has been caught saying, the should have no problem with the suggestion that they should impose random independent drug testing for all employees then?
If taking cocaine and ecstacy doesn't affect your job performance, why should the BBC (or any employer) care?
FPT: Just seen the BBC main story, Corbyn asking for a guarantee nobody will be worse off (due to tax credit changes).
.....
A government that only ever does the nice things is a work of fiction.
We really are in a nutty situation where nobody is allowed to ever be worse off with any change. That mindset also stops governments doing radical things e.g. this kicking down the road of a new airport or combining NI / IC.
I strongly advocate merging NI and IC even though I would probably be worse off.
I'm interested why people think Cameron is doing well. OK we're not at war but beyond that he doesn't appear to be doing much beyond fending off Corbyn at PMQs and dashing round Europe.
Frankly, a small net positive is "keeping Labour out, not frightening the horses"
Other thoughts - how the christ did Ed turn + 20 to - 14 in three months?
The Tories ramped up their attacks on Ed.
Was when we saw the first Ed is the weirdo who stabbed his brother in the back meme take root.
As there is no truth in what the voice of the balls has been caught saying, the should have no problem with the suggestion that they should impose random independent drug testing for all employees then?
We really are in a nutty situation where nobody is allowed to ever be worse off with any change.
Voters aren't stupid. They know that if you cut the welfare bill (which the government has said it wants to do, and which has broad public support), then obviously there are going to be people who lose out. Labour are wrong to think that 'Look: some people are going to be given less money!', which was Jeremy Corbyn's PMQs line today, is some kind of killer argument; it's not, it's a statement of the obvious.
Mr. Eagles, the way Corbyn's going (no circumstances he'd ever deploy the army, unilateral disarmament, happy for the Lords to defeat the elected government on finance, wants a guarantee nobody will be worse off) the blues will probably portray him as a dangerous leftist fantasist.
As there is no truth in what the voice of the balls has been caught saying, the should have no problem with the suggestion that they should impose random independent drug testing for all employees then?
If taking cocaine and ecstacy doesn't affect your job performance, why should the BBC (or any employer) care?
There is a risk that you finish up like the Air Traffic Controller in Airplane.
As there is no truth in what the voice of the balls has been caught saying, the should have no problem with the suggestion that they should impose random independent drug testing for all employees then?
Doesn't he say it's not true and he was under some sort of serious misapprehension?
Mr. Eagles, the way Corbyn's going (no circumstances he'd ever deploy the army, unilateral disarmament, happy for the Lords to defeat the elected government on finance, wants a guarantee nobody will be worse off) the blues will probably portray him as a dangerous leftist fantasist.
You could say this is a great poll for Labour. Increases the chances Jez could be deposed before the election if his polling maintains this trajectory.
An elegant nuance can be observed when the post complains about the salaries paid to the directors (or the n highest paid staff) and contrasts that with the corporation tax, not bothering to note that substantially more tax (in the form of income tax and NICs) will have been paid as a result.
Ah, yes - the howls of outrage over Facebook UK running a loss because they paid a large (taxable) bonus to all UK staff. Which anyone with any arithmetic skills could tell was beneficial to the UK Exchequer (40-50% of x is larger than 23% of x).
But it's blindingly obvious that x is an artificial figure entirely removed from the profit facebook actually makes from their UK users.
Hence howls of outrage.
Ah- the x in question was the amount paid in bonuses. If it hadn't been paid in bonuses, it'd remain in the accounts. Given that they logged a loss of the order of a quarter of that number, they'd actually only have logged a profit of three-quarters of x at best.
You think that if they hadn't paid massive bonuses to their staff, they'd have just logged a profit (and paid tax on it) instead?
Don't know if they would or wouldn't. What I do know is that a lot more tax got paid from that money than would have been paid if they had done just that.
I guess my point is the howls of outrage come, ultimately, from facebook representing themselves as unprofitable for tax purposes, while every man and his dog can see they're making money hand over fist from their UK operations. Arguing the minutiae of whether 40-50% of a tiny amount is better than ~23% of a tiny amount kinda misses the point.
You don't pay (relatively) huge bonuses to your staff if you aren't making any profit.
People sniff an accounting trick, with the loser being the taxman.
As there is no truth in what the voice of the balls has been caught saying, the should have no problem with the suggestion that they should impose random independent drug testing for all employees then?
If taking cocaine and ecstacy doesn't affect your job performance, why should the BBC (or any employer) care?
Because they have a responsibility to prevent criminal acts being carried out on their own premises.
You can get 11/2 with a few bookies on Bournemouth beating Liverpool tonight.
No Sturridge or Benteke tonight, which means Liverpool couldn't even score in a brothel. Plus Klopp is going to play a few kids.
Ordinarily I'd agree with you but Bournemouth are shot away with injuries and goalkeeping worries, I'd suggest a low scoring nervous win for Liverpool.
I'd love to see Bournemouth win though, Howe is clearly a decent bloke
You can get 11/2 with a few bookies on Bournemouth beating Liverpool tonight.
No Sturridge or Benteke tonight, which means Liverpool couldn't even score in a brothel. Plus Klopp is going to play a few kids.
Ordinarily I'd agree with you but Bournemouth are shot away with injuries and goalkeeping worries, I'd suggest a low scoring nervous win for Liverpool.
I'd love to see Bournemouth win though, Howe is clearly a decent bloke
I'm probably a pessimistic Liverpool fan, but I think we don't have a spark at the moment, and Origi is a poor man's Emile Heskey.
FPT: @rcs1000 I suppose there is a theft/fire risk with physical notes though ^^; Or a holding charge if you want to keep them in the vaults of SwissBank Co.
Yes.
In case anyone's interested, there's a small Swiss company called Orell Fussli Security Printing that prints Swiss bank notes.
Not forecasting the future, and I know nothing about its financials or anything like that, but it would be a clear beneficiary of any increase in people desiring to hold Swiss money.
I liked your theory that lower rates = more saving. I think it makes sense.
I also think very low inflation encourages saving. When your savings were depreciating at 5% a year the urge to use them in a way that protected you from the scourge of inflation was strong and there was therefore a reason to use them, not necessarily for something classed as savings. If your money is now holding its value then the incentive to spend it is reduced. I suspect some lucky people are now sitting with quite large cash balances in their current accounts which they can't be bothered to do much with.
In the years since the crash we have had very low interest rates and very low inflation. The savings rate has gone up, albeit it has fallen again more recently: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/personal-savings The 10 year chart shows a pronounced lift after 2008 which has not dissipated entirely.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You see, The PM has stated that he wants a devout Christian [appointed as bishop]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: . Now The Dean only believes in Islam, steam engines, and the MCC [Marylebone Cricket Club, the governing body of English cricket]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: . In fact, some smart-aleck once asked him on television if he knew what The Bible was.
Peter Harding: And did he?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes. He said it was some Christian version of The Koran.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You see, The PM has stated that he wants a devout Christian [appointed as bishop]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: . Now The Dean only believes in Islam, steam engines, and the MCC [Marylebone Cricket Club, the governing body of English cricket]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: . In fact, some smart-aleck once asked him on television if he knew what The Bible was.
Peter Harding: And did he?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes. He said it was some Christian version of The Koran.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You see, The PM has stated that he wants a devout Christian [appointed as bishop]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: . Now The Dean only believes in Islam, steam engines, and the MCC [Marylebone Cricket Club, the governing body of English cricket]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: . In fact, some smart-aleck once asked him on television if he knew what The Bible was.
Peter Harding: And did he?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes. He said it was some Christian version of The Koran.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You see, The PM has stated that he wants a devout Christian [appointed as bishop]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: . Now The Dean only believes in Islam, steam engines, and the MCC [Marylebone Cricket Club, the governing body of English cricket]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: . In fact, some smart-aleck once asked him on television if he knew what The Bible was.
Peter Harding: And did he?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes. He said it was some Christian version of The Koran.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You see, The PM has stated that he wants a devout Christian [appointed as bishop]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: . Now The Dean only believes in Islam, steam engines, and the MCC [Marylebone Cricket Club, the governing body of English cricket]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: . In fact, some smart-aleck once asked him on television if he knew what The Bible was.
Peter Harding: And did he?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes. He said it was some Christian version of The Koran.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You see, The PM has stated that he wants a devout Christian [appointed as bishop]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: . Now The Dean only believes in Islam, steam engines, and the MCC [Marylebone Cricket Club, the governing body of English cricket]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: . In fact, some smart-aleck once asked him on television if he knew what The Bible was.
Peter Harding: And did he?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes. He said it was some Christian version of The Koran.
As there is no truth in what the voice of the balls has been caught saying, the should have no problem with the suggestion that they should impose random independent drug testing for all employees then?
If taking cocaine and ecstacy doesn't affect your job performance, why should the BBC (or any employer) care?
Because they have a responsibility to prevent criminal acts being carried out on their own premises.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You see, The PM has stated that he wants a devout Christian [appointed as bishop]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: . Now The Dean only believes in Islam, steam engines, and the MCC [Marylebone Cricket Club, the governing body of English cricket]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: . In fact, some smart-aleck once asked him on television if he knew what The Bible was.
Peter Harding: And did he?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes. He said it was some Christian version of The Koran.
An elegant nuance can be observed when the post complains about the salaries paid to the directors (or the n highest paid staff) and contrasts that with the corporation tax, not bothering to note that substantially more tax (in the form of income tax and NICs) will have been paid as a result.
Ah, yes - the howls of outrage over Facebook UK running a loss because they paid a large (taxable) bonus to all UK staff. Which anyone with any arithmetic skills could tell was beneficial to the UK Exchequer (40-50% of x is larger than 23% of x).
But it's blindingly obvious that x is an artificial figure entirely removed from the profit facebook actually makes from their UK users.
Hence howls of outrage.
Ah- the x in question was the amount paid in bonuses. If it hadn't been paid in bonuses, it'd remain in the accounts. Given that they logged a loss of the order of a quarter of that number, they'd actually only have logged a profit of three-quarters of x at best.
You think that if they hadn't paid massive bonuses to their staff, they'd have just logged a profit (and paid tax on it) instead?
Don't know if they would or wouldn't. What I do know is that a lot more tax got paid from that money than would have been paid if they had done just that.
I guess my point is the howls of outrage come, ultimately, from facebook representing themselves as unprofitable for tax purposes, while every man and his dog can see they're making money hand over fist from their UK operations. Arguing the minutiae of whether 40-50% of a tiny amount is better than ~23% of a tiny amount kinda misses the point.
You don't pay (relatively) huge bonuses to your staff if you aren't making any profit.
People sniff an accounting trick, with the loser being the taxman.
Return of the Jedi (the 15th biggest ever box office) has not made a penny 'profit', and the last harry potter film is claimed to have lost $167 million.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You see, The PM has stated that he wants a devout Christian [appointed as bishop]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: . Now The Dean only believes in Islam, steam engines, and the MCC [Marylebone Cricket Club, the governing body of English cricket]
Sir Humphrey Appleby: . In fact, some smart-aleck once asked him on television if he knew what The Bible was.
Peter Harding: And did he?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Yes. He said it was some Christian version of The Koran.
An elegant nuance can be observed when the post complains about the salaries paid to the directors (or the n highest paid staff) and contrasts that with the corporation tax, not bothering to note that substantially more tax (in the form of income tax and NICs) will have been paid as a result.
Ah, yes - the howls of outrage over Facebook UK running a loss because they paid a large (taxable) bonus to all UK staff. Which anyone with any arithmetic skills could tell was beneficial to the UK Exchequer (40-50% of x is larger than 23% of x).
But it's blindingly obvious that x is an artificial figure entirely removed from the profit facebook actually makes from their UK users.
Hence howls of outrage.
Ah- the x in question was the amount paid in bonuses. If it hadn't been paid in bonuses, it'd remain in the accounts. Given that they logged a loss of the order of a quarter of that number, they'd actually only have logged a profit of three-quarters of x at best.
You think that if they hadn't paid massive bonuses to their staff, they'd have just logged a profit (and paid tax on it) instead?
Don't know if they would or wouldn't. What I do know is that a lot more tax got paid from that money than would have been paid if they had done just that.
I guess my point is the howls of outrage come, ultimately, from facebook representing themselves as unprofitable for tax purposes, while every man and his dog can see they're making money hand over fist from their UK operations. Arguing the minutiae of whether 40-50% of a tiny amount is better than ~23% of a tiny amount kinda misses the point.
You don't pay (relatively) huge bonuses to your staff if you aren't making any profit.
People sniff an accounting trick, with the loser being the taxman.
Return of the Jedi (the 15th biggest ever box office) has not made a penny 'profit', and the last harry potter film is claimed to have lost $167 million.
Standard practice for Hollywood. Many actors have been caught out by having points of the Net/Gross on a film.
An elegant nuance can be observed when the post complains about the salaries paid to the directors (or the n highest paid staff) and contrasts that with the corporation tax, not bothering to note that substantially more tax (in the form of income tax and NICs) will have been paid as a result.
Ah, yes - the howls of outrage over Facebook UK running a loss because they paid a large (taxable) bonus to all UK staff. Which anyone with any arithmetic skills could tell was beneficial to the UK Exchequer (40-50% of x is larger than 23% of x).
But it's blindingly obvious that x is an artificial figure entirely removed from the profit facebook actually makes from their UK users.
Hence howls of outrage.
Ah- the x in question was the amount paid in bonuses. If it hadn't been paid in bonuses, it'd remain in the accounts. Given that they logged a loss of the order of a quarter of that number, they'd actually only have logged a profit of three-quarters of x at best.
You think that if they hadn't paid massive bonuses to their staff, they'd have just logged a profit (and paid tax on it) instead?
Don't know if they would or wouldn't. What I do know is that a lot more tax got paid from that money than would have been paid if they had done just that.
I guess my point is the howls of outrage come, ultimately, from facebook representing themselves as unprofitable for tax purposes, while every man and his dog can see they're making money hand over fist from their UK operations. Arguing the minutiae of whether 40-50% of a tiny amount is better than ~23% of a tiny amount kinda misses the point.
You don't pay (relatively) huge bonuses to your staff if you aren't making any profit.
People sniff an accounting trick, with the loser being the taxman.
Return of the Jedi (the 15th biggest ever box office) has not made a penny 'profit', and the last harry potter film is claimed to have lost $167 million.
Standard practice for Hollywood. Many actors have been caught out by having points of the Net/Gross on a film.
Its the same technique that is used by companies like starbucks though. The charges and recharges on the supply chain mean that the only entity that makes any profit is the one based in the place with the lowest tax. The gross profit of a £2 cup of coffee will be around 95%. Yet, the way the company is constructed, it will appear to make a loss or break even on each one.
The left is in retreat all over the world, jobs are being digitised, Corbyn himself is impersonating a robot amalgamation of unsuccessful leaders, and all he can do is present the complaints of those who are living at other people’s expense.
“Can he guarantee no one will be worse off next year?” was his burden. Cameron didn’t answer it but it didn’t deserve an answer.
This really isn’t the way to prepare a party for government. Why don’t they go off and join Make Poverty History?
@DanHannanMEP: I voted for David Cameron as leader and think he's a fine PM, but disagree with him on the EU. Why do journalists find this so difficult?
An elegant nuance can be observed when the post complains about the salaries paid to the directors (or the n highest paid staff) and contrasts that with the corporation tax, not bothering to note that substantially more tax (in the form of income tax and NICs) will have been paid as a result.
Ah, yes - the howls of outrage over Facebook UK running a loss because they paid a large (taxable) bonus to all UK staff. Which anyone with any arithmetic skills could tell was beneficial to the UK Exchequer (40-50% of x is larger than 23% of x).
But it's blindingly obvious that x is an artificial figure entirely removed from the profit facebook actually makes from their UK users.
Hence howls of outrage.
Ah- the x in question was the amount paid in bonuses. If it hadn't been paid in bonuses, it'd remain in the accounts. Given that they logged a loss of the order of a quarter of that number, they'd actually only have logged a profit of three-quarters of x at best.
You think that if they hadn't paid massive bonuses to their staff, they'd have just logged a profit (and paid tax on it) instead?
Don't know if they would or wouldn't. What I do know is that a lot more tax got paid from that money than would have been paid if they had done just that.
I guess my point is the howls of outrage come, ultimately, from facebook representing themselves as unprofitable for tax purposes, while every man and his dog can see they're making money hand over fist from their UK operations. Arguing the minutiae of whether 40-50% of a tiny amount is better than ~23% of a tiny amount kinda misses the point.
You don't pay (relatively) huge bonuses to your staff if you aren't making any profit.
People sniff an accounting trick, with the loser being the taxman.
The thing is, if there's an accounting trick, the Inland Revenue should jump on it. Personally, I've got no idea if Facebook UK really does make a load of money over its UK operations; I'm not completely au fait with the revenue generation side (it's something in the advertising area, I believe). If they're misrepresenting their income, then they should be jumped on. From experience, the taxman isn't usually sanguine about being ripped off. Howling about them paying large taxable bonuses seems to be a diversion to me.
Its the same technique that is used by companies like starbucks though. The charges and recharges on the supply chain mean that the only entity that makes any profit is the one based in the place with the lowest tax. The gross profit of a £2 cup of coffee will be around 95%. Yet, the way the company is constructed, it will appear to make a loss or break even on each one.
How on earth do you figure a 95% profit on a cup of coffee!?
I don't work for Starbucks, never have done, but figure that while there is no VAT on coffee, but there is: Cost of goods Wages Utilities Equipment Business Rates Rent Payroll taxes
And more. I'd love to see you explain how all that costs 10p per cup.
@MichaelLCrick: Contenders for Lab candidate in Oldham W must apply by this Friday. Interviews in London on Monday. Hustings & vote in Oldham next Thursday.
Hammond has secured release of pensioner in Saudi in the next 7 days without lashings punishment should then be on way home.
Why doesn't he hang around for a few years at the Saudi's expense and whine about his human rights?
I am sure that will be done when he's back in the UK along with criticism of the government for not doing enough. This happens whatever government is in.
This guy can consider himself extremely lucky to leave unscathed.
Before anyone jumps up and down I worked in Saudi and we all know the rules. Break them sure but it's your own risk. There are accepted ways to drink if you wish which the Saudis don't like but accept (basically as they quite often are in the same places.)
Personally I hated the place but that's another matter.
Its the same technique that is used by companies like starbucks though. The charges and recharges on the supply chain mean that the only entity that makes any profit is the one based in the place with the lowest tax. The gross profit of a £2 cup of coffee will be around 95%. Yet, the way the company is constructed, it will appear to make a loss or break even on each one.
How on earth do you figure a 95% profit on a cup of coffee!?
I don't work for Starbucks, never have done, but figure that while there is no VAT on coffee, but there is: Cost of goods
I'd be a bit worried if I were a Labour supporter about the 19% of 2015 Labour voters who think that Jeremy Corbyn is a man with extreme left-wing views and unworkable policies who would be a threat to the economy and national security.
Ah, yes - the howls of outrage over Facebook UK running a loss because they paid a large (taxable) bonus to all UK staff. Which anyone with any arithmetic skills could tell was beneficial to the UK Exchequer (40-50% of x is larger than 23% of x).
But it's blindingly obvious that x is an artificial figure entirely removed from the profit facebook actually makes from their UK users.
Hence howls of outrage.
Ah- the x in question was the amount paid in bonuses. If it hadn't been paid in bonuses, it'd remain in the accounts. Given that they logged a loss of the order of a quarter of that number, they'd actually only have logged a profit of three-quarters of x at best.
You think that if they hadn't paid massive bonuses to their staff, they'd have just logged a profit (and paid tax on it) instead?
Don't know if they would or wouldn't. What I do know is that a lot more tax got paid from that money than would have been paid if they had done just that.
I guess my point is the howls of outrage come, ultimately, from facebook representing themselves as unprofitable for tax purposes, while every man and his dog can see they're making money hand over fist from their UK operations. Arguing the minutiae of whether 40-50% of a tiny amount is better than ~23% of a tiny amount kinda misses the point.
You don't pay (relatively) huge bonuses to your staff if you aren't making any profit.
People sniff an accounting trick, with the loser being the taxman.
Return of the Jedi (the 15th biggest ever box office) has not made a penny 'profit', and the last harry potter film is claimed to have lost $167 million.
Standard practice for Hollywood. Many actors have been caught out by having points of the Net/Gross on a film.
Its the same technique that is used by companies like starbucks though. The charges and recharges on the supply chain mean that the only entity that makes any profit is the one based in the place with the lowest tax. The gross profit of a £2 cup of coffee will be around 95%. Yet, the way the company is constructed, it will appear to make a loss or break even on each one.
Then try setting up a coffee shop. If the profit rate is 95%, you'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
The thing is, if there's an accounting trick, the Inland Revenue should jump on it. Personally, I've got no idea if Facebook UK really does make a load of money over its UK operations; I'm not completely au fait with the revenue generation side (it's something in the advertising area, I believe). If they're misrepresenting their income, then they should be jumped on. From experience, the taxman isn't usually sanguine about being ripped off. Howling about them paying large taxable bonuses seems to be a diversion to me.
The Revenue really hate being ripped off, unless the miscreant is a very large company, in which case a few cosy meetings at very senior level and the tax liability is suddenly massively reduced and no penalty sought. When HMRC go after the really big boys, like Starbucks, with the same vim and vigour that they go after the little people then they will be deserving of respect.
As an aside I would love to know how much VAT alone the government has raised from Starbucks. Since coffee beans don't have VAT virtually the entire cost of VAT would be paid since there would be very little Starbucks could reclaim.
That is before we get into other taxes like Business Rates (I'd estimate that'd be in the millions too) and Payroll Taxes etc
The left is in retreat all over the world, jobs are being digitised, Corbyn himself is impersonating a robot amalgamation of unsuccessful leaders, and all he can do is present the complaints of those who are living at other people’s expense.
“Can he guarantee no one will be worse off next year?” was his burden. Cameron didn’t answer it but it didn’t deserve an answer.
This really isn’t the way to prepare a party for government. Why don’t they go off and join Make Poverty History?
PMQ now equals POV ( points of view) we just now need Anne Robinson ....
Oh wait a minute.... on a closer look that might actually be Ann Robinson.
As an aside I would love to know how much VAT alone the government has raised from Starbucks. Since coffee beans don't have VAT virtually the entire cost of VAT would be paid since there would be very little Starbucks could reclaim.
That is before we get into other taxes like Business Rates (I'd estimate that'd be in the millions too) and Payroll Taxes etc
The thing is, if there's an accounting trick, the Inland Revenue should jump on it. Personally, I've got no idea if Facebook UK really does make a load of money over its UK operations; I'm not completely au fait with the revenue generation side (it's something in the advertising area, I believe). If they're misrepresenting their income, then they should be jumped on. From experience, the taxman isn't usually sanguine about being ripped off. Howling about them paying large taxable bonuses seems to be a diversion to me.
The Revenue really hate being ripped off, unless the miscreant is a very large company, in which case a few cosy meetings at very senior level and the tax liability is suddenly massively reduced and no penalty sought. When HMRC go after the really big boys, like Starbucks, with the same vim and vigour that they go after the little people then they will be deserving of respect.
Have you any actual EVIDENCE that they are not going after the big boys?
I suspect the big boys are more whiter than white than some small companies can be, they play within the rules. Smaller companies who have nobody else to answer to can try and push the limits more (or fail to understand where the limits are).
In fact it isn't even a measure of profitability (for that you'd need asboprtion costing under GAAP principles (yes, RAS syndrome). You could still describe that as gross profit, because fixed overheads would be included in your cost of sales (not sure if that happens in practice though) - but you wouldn't make a 95% margin on that basis.
Ah, yes - the howls of outrage over Facebook UK running a loss because they paid a large (taxable) bonus to all UK staff. Which anyone with any arithmetic skills could tell was beneficial to the UK Exchequer (40-50% of x is larger than 23% of x).
But it's blindingly obvious that x is an artificial figure entirely removed from the profit facebook actually makes from their UK users.
Hence howls of outrage.
Ah- the x in question was the amount paid in bonuses. If it hadn't been paid in bonuses, it'd remain in the accounts. Given that they logged a loss of the order of a quarter of that number, they'd actually only have logged a profit of three-quarters of x at best.
You think that if they hadn't paid massive bonuses to their staff, they'd have just logged a profit (and paid tax on it) instead?
Don't know if they would or wouldn't. What I do know is that a lot more tax got paid from that money than would have been paid if they had done just that.
I guess my point is the howls of outrage come, ultimately, from facebook representing themselves as unprofitable for tax purposes, while every man and his dog can see they're making money hand over fist from their UK operations. Arguing the minutiae of whether 40-50% of a tiny amount is better than ~23% of a tiny amount kinda misses the point.
You don't pay (relatively) huge bonuses to your staff if you aren't making any profit.
People sniff an accounting trick, with the loser being the taxman.
Return of the Jedi (the 15th biggest ever box office) has not made a penny 'profit', and the last harry potter film is claimed to have lost $167 million.
Standard practice for Hollywood. Many actors have been caught out by having points of the Net/Gross on a film.
Its the same technique that is used by companies like starbucks though. The charges and recharges on the supply chain mean that the only entity that makes any profit is the one based in the place with the lowest tax. The gross profit of a £2 cup of coffee will be around 95%. Yet, the way the company is constructed, it will appear to make a loss or break even on each one.
Then try setting up a coffee shop. If the profit rate is 95%, you'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
You clearly do not understand the difference between gross and net profit! See earlier posts!
As an aside I would love to know how much VAT alone the government has raised from Starbucks. Since coffee beans don't have VAT virtually the entire cost of VAT would be paid since there would be very little Starbucks could reclaim.
That is before we get into other taxes like Business Rates (I'd estimate that'd be in the millions too) and Payroll Taxes etc
All you mention will be paid by the franchisees
Not if its a corporate store it won't. Since Starbucks opened their first franchise store in 2013 I suspect there are plenty of corporate stores.
On topic, spectacular differences between the age groups. Corbyn at +5 with under 25s while Cameron scores -18; while Corbyn's at -43 with the 60+ age group, against a net zero for the PM.
Also always worth watching the party leader's score with their own side. Cameron rates +72, which isn't Sturgeoneque but is still very respectable; Corbyn is only +26.
On topic, spectacular differences between the age groups. Corbyn at +5 with under 25s while Cameron scores -18; while Corbyn's at -43 with the 60+ age group, against a net zero for the PM.
Also always worth watching the party leader's score with their own side. Cameron rates +72, which isn't Sturgeoneque but is still very respectable; Corbyn is only +26.
Cameron's slipped - or was it YouGov that had him at 91% "fascist" levels of support?
I don't imagine Starbucks franchisees are particularly wealthy
Don't know about outside the US, but here Starbucks only does franchises where the demographics don't match up to their requirements. For the rest, the stores are owned by the corporation. Thus all the Starbucks in black neighborhoods are owned by a group headed up by Magic Johnson. On the Eastern Shore of MD and VA, a friend of mine bought up the franchise rights as there weren't enough people for Starbucks to bother with their own store.
Knowing what he sold the rights for having done the market analysis and gained the requisite permissions, I would bet even the franchises, if well located and well run, make a fair bit of money.
Its the same technique that is used by companies like starbucks though. The charges and recharges on the supply chain mean that the only entity that makes any profit is the one based in the place with the lowest tax. The gross profit of a £2 cup of coffee will be around 95%. Yet, the way the company is constructed, it will appear to make a loss or break even on each one.
Then try setting up a coffee shop. If the profit rate is 95%, you'll be laughing all the way to the bank.
You clearly do not understant the difference between gross and net profit!
Wages count within gross profit. No way are wages less than 5%.
Starbucks has an accounting fiction with it's Dutch royalties sweetheart deal. The EU tax bods rumbled it recently. An argument in favour of the EU actually !
Comments
So the more you get to know/see of Corbyn, the worse you think he is doing.
Thanks Labour for electing him as leader.
Just seen the BBC main story, Corbyn asking for a guarantee nobody will be worse off (due to tax credit changes).
.....
A government that only ever does the nice things is a work of fiction.
If the Greek government has collapsed, it must be Tuesday
If Labour want never ending handouts, it must be Wednesday
That's the kicker.
In case anyone's interested, there's a small Swiss company called Orell Fussli Security Printing that prints Swiss bank notes.
Not forecasting the future, and I know nothing about its financials or anything like that, but it would be a clear beneficiary of any increase in people desiring to hold Swiss money.
As there is no truth in what the voice of the balls has been caught saying, the should have no problem with the suggestion that they should impose random independent drug testing for all employees then?
He deserves some gentle teasing.
Other thoughts - how the christ did Ed turn + 20 to - 14 in three months?
See Boris.
I strongly advocate merging NI and IC even though I would probably be worse off.
And then I saw Spectre last night.
So I'm finally looking forward to playing it tonight...
We all know how Ed’s story ended, I see little chance of Corbyn’s being much better.
Was when we saw the first Ed is the weirdo who stabbed his brother in the back meme take root.
Mr. Eagles, the way Corbyn's going (no circumstances he'd ever deploy the army, unilateral disarmament, happy for the Lords to defeat the elected government on finance, wants a guarantee nobody will be worse off) the blues will probably portray him as a dangerous leftist fantasist.
You don't pay (relatively) huge bonuses to your staff if you aren't making any profit.
People sniff an accounting trick, with the loser being the taxman.
You can get 11/2 with a few bookies on Bournemouth beating Liverpool tonight.
No Sturridge or Benteke tonight, which means Liverpool couldn't even score in a brothel. Plus Klopp is going to play a few kids.
I'd love to see Bournemouth win though, Howe is clearly a decent bloke
But agree about Eddie Howe.
Hammond has secured release of pensioner in Saudi in the next 7 days without lashings punishment should then be on way home.
I also think very low inflation encourages saving. When your savings were depreciating at 5% a year the urge to use them in a way that protected you from the scourge of inflation was strong and there was therefore a reason to use them, not necessarily for something classed as savings. If your money is now holding its value then the incentive to spend it is reduced. I suspect some lucky people are now sitting with quite large cash balances in their current accounts which they can't be bothered to do much with.
In the years since the crash we have had very low interest rates and very low inflation. The savings rate has gone up, albeit it has fallen again more recently: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/personal-savings
The 10 year chart shows a pronounced lift after 2008 which has not dissipated entirely.
Hmmm....
Balliol
LOL. Would do a smiley but no idea how..?
It's a small world ....
Type
: lol :
but without the spaces between the colons and lol
: lol :
but without the spaces between the colons and lol
Ta much
And I thought today was going to be wasted.
Effortlessly superior is what we are
No wonder they moved to Salford.
Wrong. It's the fictional Baillie College.
Though Humphrey does wear a Balliol tie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_Oxford_colleges#Other_works
Return of the Jedi (the 15th biggest ever box office) has not made a penny 'profit', and the last harry potter film is claimed to have lost $167 million.
Well nobody is perfect.
At least you didn't go to Christ Church, that place produced Mark Reckless.
And as for Tim Farron, getting your mum surveyed twice in a row to confirm that he is indeed very good is a remarkable achievement.
What has the slaphead lunatic been wibbling?
Has reportedly said the Tories are influenced by Jewish money.
He should have been booted out long ago, the only downside being his possible elevation to the House of Troughers, err, Lords.
http://bit.ly/1GJijlz
Personally, I've got no idea if Facebook UK really does make a load of money over its UK operations; I'm not completely au fait with the revenue generation side (it's something in the advertising area, I believe). If they're misrepresenting their income, then they should be jumped on. From experience, the taxman isn't usually sanguine about being ripped off.
Howling about them paying large taxable bonuses seems to be a diversion to me.
I don't work for Starbucks, never have done, but figure that while there is no VAT on coffee, but there is:
Cost of goods
Wages
Utilities
Equipment
Business Rates
Rent
Payroll taxes
And more. I'd love to see you explain how all that costs 10p per cup.
This guy can consider himself extremely lucky to leave unscathed.
Before anyone jumps up and down I worked in Saudi and we all know the rules. Break them sure but it's your own risk. There are accepted ways to drink if you wish which the Saudis don't like but accept (basically as they quite often are in the same places.)
Personally I hated the place but that's another matter.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-notice-7091-catering-and-take-away-food/vat-notice-7091-catering-and-take-away-food
There's of course also VAT charged on food or drink consumed on the premises.
You then still have to pay rent, rates, wages etc from the remaining 1.67
Pound symbol broken on my keyboard, apologies.
That is before we get into other taxes like Business Rates (I'd estimate that'd be in the millions too) and Payroll Taxes etc
Oh wait a minute.... on a closer look that might actually be Ann Robinson.
Jeremy Corbyn is good for politics - even if he loses in 2020
I'm not convinced Jeremy Corbyn can win in 2020. But I am convinced he'll change Britain - and Labour - for the better.
http://bit.ly/1HbbaFn
I suspect the big boys are more whiter than white than some small companies can be, they play within the rules. Smaller companies who have nobody else to answer to can try and push the limits more (or fail to understand where the limits are).
In fact it isn't even a measure of profitability (for that you'd need asboprtion costing under GAAP principles (yes, RAS syndrome). You could still describe that as gross profit, because fixed overheads would be included in your cost of sales (not sure if that happens in practice though) - but you wouldn't make a 95% margin on that basis.
See earlier posts!
Also always worth watching the party leader's score with their own side. Cameron rates +72, which isn't Sturgeoneque but is still very respectable; Corbyn is only +26.
Knowing what he sold the rights for having done the market analysis and gained the requisite permissions, I would bet even the franchises, if well located and well run, make a fair bit of money.
Trump 22, Carson 23, Cruz 14, Bush 13, Fiorina 5, Rubio 7, Huckabee 3, Christie 2, Paul 1, Kasich 0, Jindal 0, Santorum 0, Pataki 0 in KTVT-CBS 11 poll