Why is remain at the top of the ballot, "L" comes before "R" in the alphabet so far as I can recall.
Because it's the first option in the referendum question.
Yes, I realise that begs a further question.
I've just checked the AV ballot "Yes" was above "No" in that too.
I might do another thread on AV based on that.
Sunil J. Prasannan is calling for a total and complete shut-down of AV threads entering PB.com, until our Forum's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on!
You'll be delighted to know Sunday's thread is Star Trek themed and compares George Osborne to James T. Kirk.
Cool! Will there be a "Khan" involved?
No. I did do a Wrath of Khan thread last year. Was too subtle for most PBers.
"He tasks me! He tasks me and I shall have him! I'll chase him round the Moons of Newbury, round the Angus Maelstrom, and round Pendle's flames before I give him up!
Sounds good, Mr. Max, but would straightforward income tax be even fairer, easier to collect and very difficult to fiddle?
If memory serves, until 1964 companies were treated as individuals and taxed on income (albeit with squillions of exemptions and loopholes). Then the Wilson government introduced an additional "Profits Tax" and that has since morphed into what we now know as Corporation Tax. Perhaps it is time to go back to what corporations and companies were originally set up for - to be treated as individuals in law.
If a company wants to do business in the UK then it wants to take advantage of the physical and legal infrastructure of the UK and so can damn well cough up a percentage of its earnings to pay for those things. A company income tax, set at a suitable level with no exemptions or allowances, would knock all fiddles on the head, Starbucks, Google, Amazon, Apple et al would all be paying their share.
Oh, I'd also make it an offence punishable by a minimum five year term of imprisonment for any CEO and CFO whose company was found guilty of not paying due taxes and the whole board of directors (including non-executives) would be disqualified for life from any UK directorship or position of public office.
Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.
No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.
From memory, the old-style corporate income tax allowed (as personal income tax has always done) for subtraction of costs. When dealing with companies that operate in multiple countries, it can be difficult to pin down quite where the costs are taking place, or how much they really are. (In fact as rcs notes it can also be difficult to identify quite where the sales are taking place too!)
Why is remain at the top of the ballot, "L" comes before "R" in the alphabet so far as I can recall.
Because it's the first option in the referendum question.
Yes, I realise that begs a further question.
I've just checked the AV ballot "Yes" was above "No" in that too.
I might do another thread on AV based on that.
Sunil J. Prasannan is calling for a total and complete shut-down of AV threads entering PB.com, until our Forum's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on!
You'll be delighted to know Sunday's thread is Star Trek themed and compares George Osborne to James T. Kirk.
Cool! Will there be a "Khan" involved?
No. I did do a Wrath of Khan thread last year. Was too subtle for most PBers.
"He tasks me! He tasks me and I shall have him! I'll chase him round the Moons of Newbury, round the Angus Maelstrom, and round Pendle's flames before I give him up!
The smoke and mirrors on the renegotiated deal may be instructive this time round too:
"THE NEW DEAL
The better terms which Britain will enjoy if we stay in the Common Market were secured only after long and tough negotiations.
These started in April 1974 and did not end until March of this year.
On March 10 and 11 the Heads of Government met in Dublin and clinched the bargain. On March 18 the Prime Minister was able to make this announcements:
'I believe that our renegotiation objectives have been substantially though not completely achieved.'
What were the main objectives to which Mr. Wilson referred? The most important were FOOD and MONEY and JOBS.
FOOD
Britain had to ensure that shoppers could get secure supplies of food at fair prices.
As a result of these negotiations the Common Agricultural policy (known as CAP) now works more flexibly to the benefit of both housewives and farmers in Britain. The special arrangements made for sugar and beef are a good example.
At the same time many food prices in the rest of the world have shot up, and our food prices are now no higher because Britain is in the Market than if we were outside.
The Government also won a better deal on food imports from countries outside the Common Market, particularly for Commonwealth sugar and for New Zealand dairy products. These will continue to be on sale in our shops.
This is not the end of improvements in the Market's food policy. There will be further reviews. Britain, as a member, will be able to seek further changes to our advantage. And we shall be more sure of our supplies when food is scarce in the world.
MONEY AND JOBS
Under the previous terms, Britain's contribution to the Common Market budget imposed too heavy a burden on us. The new terms ensure that Britain will pay a fairer share. We now stand, under the Dublin agreement, to get back from Market funds up to £125 million a year.
There was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards an Economic & Monetary Union. This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed.
Britain will not have to put VAT on necessities like food.
We have also maintained our freedom to pursue our own policies on taxation and on industry, and to develop Scotland and Wales and the Regions where unemployment is high."
I've been thinking about problems with your operating margin idea. There are two possible isses:
1. Genuinely cross border transactions: If I sign up as an Amazon Web Services customer, where my contract is with Amazon Inc (and the server I'm renting is in the US), does that count as part of UK sales, or do we just add up the consolidated sales of UK limited companies as part of the Amazon group?
2. Companies where there are lots of different margin profiles (i.e. conglomerates). If I have a widget distribution business in the US earning me margins on 2% on massive volumes, and I have a software business in the UK with margins of 25%, leading to an overall group margin of 3%, then I'll just pay tax at 3% on my UK software business. It will encourage companies to bulk up low margin businesses to make it hard to catch them.
3. Companies where the same product is sold internationally but costs are determined locally. ie Netflix, Spotify. Should they pay a higher rate of tax in the UK even though their costs in licensing deals are higher here leading to lower profits, or should they not bother trying to expand in higher-margin countries such as India and China? Or will they just have several companies, far enough detached from each other to avoid being caught in the tax trap?
Unless the Swedish Democrats get 30%+ I don't think anyone else will dance.
The Swedish police continue to cause controversy:
"'Who knows what horrors he has been through?' Swedish police chief sparks anger by sympathising with Somali boy, 15, 'who stabbed refugee worker to death'"
Why is remain at the top of the ballot, "L" comes before "R" in the alphabet so far as I can recall.
Because it's the first option in the referendum question.
Yes, I realise that begs a further question.
I've just checked the AV ballot "Yes" was above "No" in that too.
I might do another thread on AV based on that.
Sunil J. Prasannan is calling for a total and complete shut-down of AV threads entering PB.com, until our Forum's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on!
You'll be delighted to know Sunday's thread is Star Trek themed and compares George Osborne to James T. Kirk.
Cool! Will there be a "Khan" involved?
No. I did do a Wrath of Khan thread last year. Was too subtle for most PBers.
"He tasks me! He tasks me and I shall have him! I'll chase him round the Moons of Newbury, round the Angus Maelstrom, and round Pendle's flames before I give him up!
Why is remain at the top of the ballot, "L" comes before "R" in the alphabet so far as I can recall.
Because it's the first option in the referendum question.
Yes, I realise that begs a further question.
I've just checked the AV ballot "Yes" was above "No" in that too.
I might do another thread on AV based on that.
Sunil J. Prasannan is calling for a total and complete shut-down of AV threads entering PB.com, until our Forum's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on!
You'll be delighted to know Sunday's thread is Star Trek themed and compares George Osborne to James T. Kirk.
Cool! Will there be a "Khan" involved?
No. I did do a Wrath of Khan thread last year. Was too subtle for most PBers.
"He tasks me! He tasks me and I shall have him! I'll chase him round the Moons of Newbury, round the Angus Maelstrom, and round Pendle's flames before I give him up!
I half agree with Matt Chorley. I think the deal is essentially done (indeed, a couple of EU figures have more or less said as much). But for maximum impact, I think we'll get one more bit of panto at the February meeting and a "grand" bargain struck at the April meeting, just in time for the local election cycle.
I think there could be a rabbit. It may well be linked to Gove's draft British Bill of Rights.
I think it will be a guarantee that we can continue to have red post boxes, or something equally significant.
I was hoping that we can continue to drive on the left.
It'll be the British Sausage.
I reckon it'll be that MPs will move out to the Euro Parliament while the refurb works in Westminister are going on. So that means 3 weeks a month in Strasbourg, and hot-footing it to Brussels for the final week while the MEPs do the opposite journey
Unless the Swedish Democrats get 30%+ I don't think anyone else will dance.
The Swedish police continue to cause controversy:
"'Who knows what horrors he has been through?' Swedish police chief sparks anger by sympathising with Somali boy, 15, 'who stabbed refugee worker to death'"
Sounds good, Mr. Max, but would straightforward income tax be even fairer, easier to collect and very difficult to fiddle?
If memory serves, until 1964 companies were treated as individuals and taxed on income (albeit with squillions of exemptions and loopholes). Then the Wilson government introduced an additional "Profits Tax" and that has since morphed into what we now know as Corporation Tax. Perhaps it is time to go back to what corporations and companies were originally set up for - to be treated as individuals in law.
If a company wants to do business in the UK then it wants to take advantage of the physical and legal infrastructure of the UK and so can damn well cough up a percentage of its earnings to pay for those things. A company income tax, set at a suitable level with no exemptions or allowances, would knock all fiddles on the head, Starbucks, Google, Amazon, Apple et al would all be paying their share.
Oh, I'd also make it an offence punishable by a minimum five year term of imprisonment for any CEO and CFO whose company was found guilty of not paying due taxes and the whole board of directors (including non-executives) would be disqualified for life from any UK directorship or position of public office.
Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.
No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.
Multinational businesses don't evade tax, by and large, by using loopholes. They evade taxes by the wonder of transfer pricing.
Yes, I know. But tax the income and whatever internal arrangements a company may have is neither here nor there and may actually increase tax liability.
Why is remain at the top of the ballot, "L" comes before "R" in the alphabet so far as I can recall.
Because it's the first option in the referendum question.
Yes, I realise that begs a further question.
I've just checked the AV ballot "Yes" was above "No" in that too.
I might do another thread on AV based on that.
Sunil J. Prasannan is calling for a total and complete shut-down of AV threads entering PB.com, until our Forum's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on!
You'll be delighted to know Sunday's thread is Star Trek themed and compares George Osborne to James T. Kirk.
Cool! Will there be a "Khan" involved?
No. I did do a Wrath of Khan thread last year. Was too subtle for most PBers.
"He tasks me! He tasks me and I shall have him! I'll chase him round the Moons of Newbury, round the Angus Maelstrom, and round Pendle's flames before I give him up!
"Prepare to alter course."
I prefer the other misquote from Moby Dick
"To the last I grapple with thee!"
From Hell's heart I stab at thee
"For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee." - Khan said those lines, an exact word for word hat-tip to the novel
You know that all sense of perspective has been lost when even the DT keep the PMQs live blog running, and rename it to be about the PMs comments on migrants that all the lefties are queueing up to criticise. Some are even trying to link it to Holocaust Memorial Day.
Sounds good, Mr. Max, but would straightforward income tax be even fairer, easier to collect and very difficult to fiddle?
If memory serves, until 1964 companies were treated as individuals and taxed on income (albeit with squillions of exemptions and loopholes). Then the Wilson government introduced an additional "Profits Tax" and that has since morphed into what we now know as Corporation Tax. Perhaps it is time to go back to what corporations and companies were originally set up for - to be treated as individuals in law.
If a company wants to do business in the UK then it wants to take advantage of the physical and legal infrastructure of the UK and so can damn well cough up a percentage of its earnings to pay for those things. A company income tax, set at a suitable level with no exemptions or allowances, would knock all fiddles on the head, Starbucks, Google, Amazon, Apple et al would all be paying their share.
Oh, I'd also make it an offence punishable by a minimum five year term of imprisonment for any CEO and CFO whose company was found guilty of not paying due taxes and the whole board of directors (including non-executives) would be disqualified for life from any UK directorship or position of public office.
Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.
No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.
From memory, the old-style corporate income tax allowed (as personal income tax has always done) for subtraction of costs. When dealing with companies that operate in multiple countries, it can be difficult to pin down quite where the costs are taking place, or how much they really are. (In fact as rcs notes it can also be difficult to identify quite where the sales are taking place too!)
Doesn't matter, Mr. Ears, is the company doing business in the UK? If so then n% of its income goes to HMG.
For example if a company registered in Luxembourg for tax purposes issues invoices worth £1,000 to its UK customers then, say, 5% of that £1,000 goes to HMG in tax. If a company registered in Nottingham issues £1,000 of invoices then they are liable for the same 5%. As they say, a level playing field.
Unless the Swedish Democrats get 30%+ I don't think anyone else will dance.
The Swedish police continue to cause controversy:
"'Who knows what horrors he has been through?' Swedish police chief sparks anger by sympathising with Somali boy, 15, 'who stabbed refugee worker to death'"
Sounds good, Mr. Max, but would straightforward income tax be even fairer, easier to collect and very difficult to fiddle?
[...]
If a company wants to do business in the UK then it wants to take advantage of the physical and legal infrastructure of the UK and so can damn well cough up a percentage of its earnings to pay for those things. A company income tax, set at a suitable level with no exemptions or allowances, would knock all fiddles on the head, Starbucks, Google, Amazon, Apple et al would all be paying their share.
Oh, I'd also make it an offence punishable by a minimum five year term of imprisonment for any CEO and CFO whose company was found guilty of not paying due taxes and the whole board of directors (including non-executives) would be disqualified for life from any UK directorship or position of public office.
Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.
No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.
From memory, the old-style corporate income tax allowed (as personal income tax has always done) for subtraction of costs. When dealing with companies that operate in multiple countries, it can be difficult to pin down quite where the costs are taking place, or how much they really are. (In fact as rcs notes it can also be difficult to identify quite where the sales are taking place too!)
Doesn't matter, Mr. Ears, is the company doing business in the UK? If so then n% of its income goes to HMG.
For example if a company registered in Luxembourg for tax purposes issues invoices worth £1,000 to its UK customers then, say, 5% of that £1,000 goes to HMG in tax. If a company registered in Nottingham issues £1,000 of invoices then they are liable for the same 5%. As they say, a level playing field.
So that's where turnover is generated? What if Company A in the UK invoices Company B in France for goods?
The overwhelming consensus on here is that Remain wins yet Leave is 2s on betfair having been matched at 6s. We've done polling to death and the EU ones are inconclusive but I can't help thinking there's a lot of hearts and heads going on.
OK its wishful thinking on my part but 2s has to be overpriced on something that is becoming a toss of the coin scenario. I'm not sure even the committed Remainers on here are laying Leave at 2s
Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.
No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.
Multinational businesses don't evade tax, by and large, by using loopholes. They evade taxes by the wonder of transfer pricing.
Yes, I know. But tax the income and whatever internal arrangements a company may have is neither here nor there and may actually increase tax liability.
The point is that profits are calculated after costs.
When Google (UK) Ltd buy electricity from Southern Electric that's all well and good and simple.
Complications arise when Google (UK) Ltd buys things from Google Inc. For example, it is highly likely that Google will have a single SAP system that is administered out of the US. It is right that Google Inc should charge Google (UK) Ltd for the use of that system - because if it bought its own SAP system, and hired its own support, etc, it would cost more. However, it is how these transactions are charged (i.e. how costs are allocated internally) that allows companies to evade tax.
HMRC needs to be beefed up so it is able to look through the books of multinationals and identify charges which it believes are at non-market rates. But, even at that point the multinational will have hundred page dossier on what it thinks the market price is. Taking all these court is difficult and expensive, and there is genuine scope for disagreement.
I wish there was a simple solution. But the truth is that we need to increase enforcement, and make the penalties much more serious for pricing things at non-market rates. That will improve things somewhat, but multinationals will be continually working to reduce tax rates and take full advantage of whatever loopholes we've created.
Unless the Swedish Democrats get 30%+ I don't think anyone else will dance.
The Swedish police continue to cause controversy:
"'Who knows what horrors he has been through?' Swedish police chief sparks anger by sympathising with Somali boy, 15, 'who stabbed refugee worker to death'"
I've been thinking about problems with your operating margin idea. There are two possible isses:
1. Genuinely cross border transactions: If I sign up as an Amazon Web Services customer, where my contract is with Amazon Inc (and the server I'm renting is in the US), does that count as part of UK sales, or do we just add up the consolidated sales of UK limited companies as part of the Amazon group?
2. Companies where there are lots of different margin profiles (i.e. conglomerates). If I have a widget distribution business in the US earning me margins on 2% on massive volumes, and I have a software business in the UK with margins of 25%, leading to an overall group margin of 3%, then I'll just pay tax at 3% on my UK software business. It will encourage companies to bulk up low margin businesses to make it hard to catch them.
The revenue would be booked from a UK IP address so it would be classed as UK revenue.
Then they are creating employment and destroying their own business profile, it's their decision to do that. Honestly if companies are petty enough to look into anything like this then we will just end up moving to a turnover tax which as I said is not a good idea.
In the same way that landlords didn't get their house in order for over 20 years and now the government is stepping in to do it for them, corporations are heading for the same fate. Eventually governments are just going to use the nuclear option and implement turnover taxes which will be impossible to avoid.
The overwhelming consensus on here is that Remain wins yet Leave is 2s on betfair having been matched at 6s. We've done polling to death and the EU ones are inconclusive but I can't help thinking there's a lot of hearts and heads going on.
OK its wishful thinking on my part but 2s has to be overpriced on something that is becoming a toss of the coin scenario. I'm not sure even the committed Remainers on here are laying Leave at 2s
I'm long "Leave", as I reckon it's a 40-45% chance.
I've been thinking about problems with your operating margin idea. There are two possible isses:
1. Genuinely cross border transactions: If I sign up as an Amazon Web Services customer, where my contract is with Amazon Inc (and the server I'm renting is in the US), does that count as part of UK sales, or do we just add up the consolidated sales of UK limited companies as part of the Amazon group?
2. Companies where there are lots of different margin profiles (i.e. conglomerates). If I have a widget distribution business in the US earning me margins on 2% on massive volumes, and I have a software business in the UK with margins of 25%, leading to an overall group margin of 3%, then I'll just pay tax at 3% on my UK software business. It will encourage companies to bulk up low margin businesses to make it hard to catch them.
The revenue would be booked from a UK IP address so it would be classed as UK revenue.
Then they are creating employment and destroying their own business profile, it's their decision to do that. Honestly if companies are petty enough to look into anything like this then we will just end up moving to a turnover tax which as I said is not a good idea.
In the same way that landlords didn't get their house in order for over 20 years and now the government is stepping in to do it for them, corporations are heading for the same fate. Eventually governments are just going to use the nuclear option and implement turnover taxes which will be impossible to avoid.
How do you enforce on companies without a UK presence?
You know that all sense of perspective has been lost when even the DT keep the PMQs live blog running, and rename it to be about the PMs comments on migrants that all the lefties are queueing up to criticise. Some are even trying to link it to Holocaust Memorial Day.
You need to pause there and consider that you used 'perspective' in the same sentence as 'Telegraph'.
True, the new 'Digital First' Telegraph website is increasingly resembling the Mail in its sensationalist and clickbait headlines.
All the more reason not to visit them. On the subject of the Mail, you would think there was only so much celebrity cellulite its readers could put up with.
"Kinnock had principles once. He was once for the 99%. He was once the future. He became like all the rest with his snout in the trough. He can't understand the revolution Corbyn fronts. It's a people's revolution. It will sweep "Lord" Kinnock and his Blairite colleagues aside. The future is bright. Unleash the ideas!"
The overwhelming consensus on here is that Remain wins yet Leave is 2s on betfair having been matched at 6s. We've done polling to death and the EU ones are inconclusive but I can't help thinking there's a lot of hearts and heads going on.
OK its wishful thinking on my part but 2s has to be overpriced on something that is becoming a toss of the coin scenario. I'm not sure even the committed Remainers on here are laying Leave at 2s
We've got all our betting readies tied up on Donald Trump I'm afraid.
Doesn't matter, Mr. Ears, is the company doing business in the UK? If so then n% of its income goes to HMG.
For example if a company registered in Luxembourg for tax purposes issues invoices worth £1,000 to its UK customers then, say, 5% of that £1,000 goes to HMG in tax. If a company registered in Nottingham issues £1,000 of invoices then they are liable for the same 5%. As they say, a level playing field.
In that case it sounds like you are suggesting a tax based on turnover rather than income? With no allowances for costs whatsoever, let alone any way of carrying losses? There are all kinds of problems with that, as rcs will explain to you. One hint: margins.
(As a chap who operates a very small business myself, I still manage to export thousands of pounds annually to the USA, China, Russia, India, various spots around continental Europe, Africa and the Middle East... the day they all start taxing me with different rates and different paperwork is the day I go back to working for the public sector. Let alone the other complications, like the US or Swedish clients who pay me via their British bank accounts. But this isn't a killer flaw.)
The overwhelming consensus on here is that Remain wins yet Leave is 2s on betfair having been matched at 6s. We've done polling to death and the EU ones are inconclusive but I can't help thinking there's a lot of hearts and heads going on.
OK its wishful thinking on my part but 2s has to be overpriced on something that is becoming a toss of the coin scenario. I'm not sure even the committed Remainers on here are laying Leave at 2s
If it's a toss of a coin then 2/1 is naturally value. But it isn't becoming that scenario; all the mood music is that Cameron has basically got his deal (insipid though it may be) and we've been set up for a referendum in June which wouldn't be happening if they didn't think it was [relatively easily] winnable.
Meanwhile the Leave campaigns(!) are largely incoherent.
Sounds good, Mr. Max, but would straightforward income tax be even fairer, easier to collect and very difficult to fiddle?
If memory serves, until 1964 companies were treated as individuals and taxed on income (albeit with squillions of exemptions and loopholes). Then the Wilson government introduced an additional "Profits Tax" and that has since morphed into what we now know as Corporation Tax. Perhaps it is time to go back to what corporations and companies were originally set up for - to be treated as individuals in law.
If a company wants to do business in the UK then it wants to take advantage of the physical and legal infrastructure of the UK and so can damn well cough up a percentage of its earnings to pay for those things. A company income tax, set at a suitable level with no exemptions or allowances, would knock all fiddles on the head, Starbucks, Google, Amazon, Apple et al would all be paying their share.
Oh, I'd also make it an offence punishable by a minimum five year term of imprisonment for any CEO and CFO whose company was found guilty of not paying due taxes and the whole board of directors (including non-executives) would be disqualified for life from any UK directorship or position of public office.
Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.
No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.
But then you are getting into trusting companies to declare the correct amount of income to HMRC.
Someone told me that Apple declared UK profits of £50m last year on which they paid just over £10m in tax after a few deductions. Does anyone really believe that Apple made just £50m from their vast UK operations when their global operating profit for the same tax year was something like $51bn.
No, the only way to make it work is to assume that corporations are cheating, lying scum and work from there. They haven't done very much to challenge that opinion.
Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.
No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.
Multinational businesses don't evade tax, by and large, by using loopholes. They evade taxes by the wonder of transfer pricing.
Yes, I know. But tax the income and whatever internal arrangements a company may have is neither here nor there and may actually increase tax liability.
The point is that profits are calculated after costs.
When Google (UK) Ltd buy electricity from Southern Electric that's all well and good and simple.
Complications arise when Google (UK) Ltd buys things from Google Inc. For example, it is highly likely that Google will have a single SAP system that is administered out of the US. It is right that Google Inc should charge Google (UK) Ltd for the use of that system - because if it bought its own SAP system, and hired its own support, etc, it would cost more. However, it is how these transactions are charged (i.e. how costs are allocated internally) that allows companies to evade tax.
HMRC needs to be beefed up so it is able to look through the books of multinationals and identify charges which it believes are at non-market rates. But, even at that point the multinational will have hundred page dossier on what it thinks the market price is. Taking all these court is difficult and expensive, and there is genuine scope for disagreement.
I wish there was a simple solution. But the truth is that we need to increase enforcement, and make the penalties much more serious for pricing things at non-market rates. That will improve things somewhat, but multinationals will be continually working to reduce tax rates and take full advantage of whatever loopholes we've created.
You keep talking about profits, Mr. Robert. I am talking about taxing income not taxing profits.
"Whatever Dave recommends will win as has been seen in poll after poll."
Frankly it's an issue on which I am ignorant. Most of teh claims from both sides seem exaggerated claptrap.
I personally will vote for Dave...as will millions of other non political voters..
Why?
Simple . Dave makes mistakes, promises he does not keep etc.. But generally I like him and on this issue trust him.
I do not trust fervent supporters of Remain or Exit.
I'm not sure about this, it's undeniable that Cameron has a Messianic following among tories but the reverse applies to non Tories, I can see them giving him a bloody nose.
The overwhelming consensus on here is that Remain wins yet Leave is 2s on betfair having been matched at 6s. We've done polling to death and the EU ones are inconclusive but I can't help thinking there's a lot of hearts and heads going on.
OK its wishful thinking on my part but 2s has to be overpriced on something that is becoming a toss of the coin scenario. I'm not sure even the committed Remainers on here are laying Leave at 2s
We've got all our betting readies tied up on Donald Trump I'm afraid.
The overwhelming consensus on here is that Remain wins yet Leave is 2s on betfair having been matched at 6s. We've done polling to death and the EU ones are inconclusive but I can't help thinking there's a lot of hearts and heads going on.
OK its wishful thinking on my part but 2s has to be overpriced on something that is becoming a toss of the coin scenario. I'm not sure even the committed Remainers on here are laying Leave at 2s
We've got all our betting readies tied up on Donald Trump I'm afraid.
I've been thinking about problems with your operating margin idea. There are two possible isses:
1. Genuinely cross border transactions: If I sign up as an Amazon Web Services customer, where my contract is with Amazon Inc (and the server I'm renting is in the US), does that count as part of UK sales, or do we just add up the consolidated sales of UK limited companies as part of the Amazon group?
2. Companies where there are lots of different margin profiles (i.e. conglomerates). If I have a widget distribution business in the US earning me margins on 2% on massive volumes, and I have a software business in the UK with margins of 25%, leading to an overall group margin of 3%, then I'll just pay tax at 3% on my UK software business. It will encourage companies to bulk up low margin businesses to make it hard to catch them.
The revenue would be booked from a UK IP address so it would be classed as UK revenue.
Then they are creating employment and destroying their own business profile, it's their decision to do that. Honestly if companies are petty enough to look into anything like this then we will just end up moving to a turnover tax which as I said is not a good idea.
In the same way that landlords didn't get their house in order for over 20 years and now the government is stepping in to do it for them, corporations are heading for the same fate. Eventually governments are just going to use the nuclear option and implement turnover taxes which will be impossible to avoid.
How do you enforce on companies without a UK presence?
Bar them from conducting business in the UK and make them go through a UK intermediary that can be taxed. There has to be a UK based merchant who will conduct the transaction, that is where the money needs to be taxed if they have no UK presence. Take the 25% from there, if they cease to do business in the UK because they don't get any allowances for their expenses then so be it. We are a huge market, it is time to take advantage of that status.
Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.
No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.
Multinational businesses don't evade tax, by and large, by using loopholes. They evade taxes by the wonder of transfer pricing.
Yes, I know. But tax the income and whatever internal arrangements a company may have is neither here nor there and may actually increase tax liability.
The point is that profits are calculated after costs.
When Google (UK) Ltd buy electricity from Southern Electric that's all well and good and simple.
Complications arise when Google (UK) Ltd buys things from Google Inc. For example, it is highly likely that Google will have a single SAP system that is administered out of the US. It is right that Google Inc should charge Google (UK) Ltd for the use of that system - because if it bought its own SAP system, and hired its own support, etc, it would cost more. However, it is how these transactions are charged (i.e. how costs are allocated internally) that allows companies to evade tax.
HMRC needs to be beefed up so it is able to look through the books of multinationals and identify charges which it believes are at non-market rates. But, even at that point the multinational will have hundred page dossier on what it thinks the market price is. Taking all these court is difficult and expensive, and there is genuine scope for disagreement.
I wish there was a simple solution. But the truth is that we need to increase enforcement, and make the penalties much more serious for pricing things at non-market rates. That will improve things somewhat, but multinationals will be continually working to reduce tax rates and take full advantage of whatever loopholes we've created.
You keep talking about profits, Mr. Robert. I am talking about taxing income not taxing profits.
I don't see the difference? If you aren't classing income as either revenue or profit I don't understand the concept you are getting at.
You keep talking about profits, Mr. Robert. I am talking about taxing income not taxing profits.
I think the cross-purposes here are that you are using the word "income" to mean "turnover", whereas as a technical term it actually means something rather closer to the "profits" you are trying to avoid. (Note that UK income tax for individuals has always allowed deductions for costs for a person running their own business, and indeed for them to be able to carry forward losses. It's not that due to some corporate tomfoolery, "income" acquires a brand new definition when talking about companies.)
The overwhelming consensus on here is that Remain wins yet Leave is 2s on betfair having been matched at 6s. We've done polling to death and the EU ones are inconclusive but I can't help thinking there's a lot of hearts and heads going on.
OK its wishful thinking on my part but 2s has to be overpriced on something that is becoming a toss of the coin scenario. I'm not sure even the committed Remainers on here are laying Leave at 2s
We've got all our betting readies tied up on Donald Trump I'm afraid.
Backed or layed him?
Backed him and laid him.
But I am a net backer, and a nice green on Mr Trump.
I've been thinking about problems with your operating margin idea. There are two possible isses:
1. Genuinely cross border transactions: If I sign up as an Amazon Web Services customer, where my contract is with Amazon Inc (and the server I'm renting is in the US), does that count as part of UK sales, or do we just add up the consolidated sales of UK limited companies as part of the Amazon group?
2. Companies where there are lots of different margin profiles (i.e. conglomerates). If I have a widget distribution business in the US earning me margins on 2% on massive volumes, and I have a software business in the UK with margins of 25%, leading to an overall group margin of 3%, then I'll just pay tax at 3% on my UK software business. It will encourage companies to bulk up low margin businesses to make it hard to catch them.
The revenue would be booked from a UK IP address so it would be classed as UK revenue.
Then they are creating employment and destroying their own business profile, it's their decision to do that. Honestly if companies are petty enough to look into anything like this then we will just end up moving to a turnover tax which as I said is not a good idea.
In the same way that landlords didn't get their house in order for over 20 years and now the government is stepping in to do it for them, corporations are heading for the same fate. Eventually governments are just going to use the nuclear option and implement turnover taxes which will be impossible to avoid.
How do you enforce on companies without a UK presence?
Bar them from conducting business in the UK and make them go through a UK intermediary that can be taxed. There has to be a UK based merchant who will conduct the transaction, that is where the money needs to be taxed if they have no UK presence. Take the 25% from there, if they cease to do business in the UK because they don't get any allowances for their expenses then so be it. We are a huge market, it is time to take advantage of that status.
You need to be careful there. If you prevent UK individuals from entering into contractual arrangements with US domiciled firms, you will not be eligible for Most Favored Nation status.
The overwhelming consensus on here is that Remain wins yet Leave is 2s on betfair having been matched at 6s. We've done polling to death and the EU ones are inconclusive but I can't help thinking there's a lot of hearts and heads going on.
OK its wishful thinking on my part but 2s has to be overpriced on something that is becoming a toss of the coin scenario. I'm not sure even the committed Remainers on here are laying Leave at 2s
If it's a toss of a coin then 2/1 is naturally value. But it isn't becoming that scenario; all the mood music is that Cameron has basically got his deal (insipid though it may be) and we've been set up for a referendum in June which wouldn't be happening if they didn't think it was [relatively easily] winnable.
Meanwhile the Leave campaigns(!) are largely incoherent.
Further to that, if we don't now get a June 23 referendum I'd be reversing out of that opinion fairly sharpish :-)
The overwhelming consensus on here is that Remain wins yet Leave is 2s on betfair having been matched at 6s. We've done polling to death and the EU ones are inconclusive but I can't help thinking there's a lot of hearts and heads going on.
OK its wishful thinking on my part but 2s has to be overpriced on something that is becoming a toss of the coin scenario. I'm not sure even the committed Remainers on here are laying Leave at 2s
I don't think Remain will win (though, unlike you, I hope it does) but I think Leave's price will ease further when the agreement is announced and Cameron struts his stuff and Remain opens up a lead. Then I think it will come back towards Leave.
Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.
No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.
Multinational businesses don't evade tax, by and large, by using loopholes. They evade taxes by the wonder of transfer pricing.
Yes, I know. But tax the income and whatever internal arrangements a company may have is neither here nor there and may actually increase tax liability.
The point is that profits are calculated after costs.
When Google (UK) Ltd buy electricity from Southern Electric that's all well and good and simple.
Complications arise when Google (UK) Ltd buys things from Google Inc. For example, it is highly likely that Google will have a single SAP system that is administered out of the US. It is right that Google Inc should charge Google (UK) Ltd for the use of that system - because if it bought its own SAP system, and hired its own support, etc, it would cost more. However, it is how these transactions are charged (i.e. how costs are allocated internally) that allows companies to evade tax.
HMRC needs to be beefed up so it is able to look through the books of multinationals and identify charges which it believes are at non-market rates. But, even at that point the multinational will have hundred page dossier on what it thinks the market price is. Taking all these court is difficult and expensive, and there is genuine scope for disagreement.
I wish there was a simple solution. But the truth is that we need to increase enforcement, and make the penalties much more serious for pricing things at non-market rates. That will improve things somewhat, but multinationals will be continually working to reduce tax rates and take full advantage of whatever loopholes we've created.
You keep talking about profits, Mr. Robert. I am talking about taxing income not taxing profits.
Income is revenue minus costs.
If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.
But then you are getting into trusting companies to declare the correct amount of income to HMRC.
Someone told me that Apple declared UK profits of £50m last year on which they paid just over £10m in tax after a few deductions. Does anyone really believe that Apple made just £50m from their vast UK operations when their global operating profit for the same tax year was something like $51bn.
No, the only way to make it work is to assume that corporations are cheating, lying scum and work from there. They haven't done very much to challenge that opinion.
I should have thought that it is very easy to track a company's income - it has to arrive in a bank account, it also has to be reported on the company's balance sheet. Reconciling one against the other is not that hard. For overseas companies doing business in the UK nearly all payments will move through a UK bank account to which HMRC have access. Aggregating such payments would not be hard and someone on the fiddle will stand out like a turd on a billiard table. Then the criminal law can come out to play.
Unless the Swedish Democrats get 30%+ I don't think anyone else will dance.
The Swedish police continue to cause controversy:
"'Who knows what horrors he has been through?' Swedish police chief sparks anger by sympathising with Somali boy, 15, 'who stabbed refugee worker to death'"
You need to be careful there. If you prevent UK individuals from entering into contractual arrangements with US domiciled firms, you will not be eligible for Most Favored Nation status.
I know, it is a minefield, one in which the US is putting down the mines to protect their companies from foreign taxation.
I don't doubt that some companies will find a way around a pro-rata tax, but we will also catch enough to make a difference and it's not like companies can just leave the UK market. As I am continually told by my dad about the 40p rate of tax, it's better to have 60% of something than 100% of nothing. The same applies to corporations and UK profits, better to have 80% of something than 100% of nothing if they decide to leave.
Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.
No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.
Multinational businesses don't evade tax, by and large, by using loopholes. They evade taxes by the wonder of transfer pricing.
Yes, I know. But tax the income and whatever internal arrangements a company may have is neither here nor there and may actually increase tax liability.
The point is that profits are calculated after costs.
When Google (UK) Ltd buy electricity from Southern Electric that's all well and good and simple.
Complications arise when Google (UK) Ltd buys things from Google Inc. For example, it is highly likely that Google will have a single SAP system that is administered out of the US. It is right that Google Inc should charge Google (UK) Ltd for the use of that system - because if it bought its own SAP system, and hired its own support, etc, it would cost more. However, it is how these transactions are charged (i.e. how costs are allocated internally) that allows companies to evade
You keep talking about profits, Mr. Robert. I am talking about taxing income not taxing profits.
Income is revenue minus costs.
If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.
A turnover or sales tax is harder for companies to dodge via transfer pricing. I suspect that the Inland Revenue gets more out of Apple in VAT than in Corporation by orders of magnitude.
But then you are getting into trusting companies to declare the correct amount of income to HMRC.
Someone told me that Apple declared UK profits of £50m last year on which they paid just over £10m in tax after a few deductions. Does anyone really believe that Apple made just £50m from their vast UK operations when their global operating profit for the same tax year was something like $51bn.
No, the only way to make it work is to assume that corporations are cheating, lying scum and work from there. They haven't done very much to challenge that opinion.
I should have thought that it is very easy to track a company's income - it has to arrive in a bank account, it also has to be reported on the company's balance sheet. Reconciling one against the other is not that hard. For overseas companies doing business in the UK nearly all payments will move through a UK bank account to which HMRC have access. Aggregating such payments would not be hard and someone on the fiddle will stand out like a turd on a billiard table. Then the criminal law can come out to play.
That sounds like a lot more work than just pro-rating their operating profit margin on UK revenue.
Again the issue is that you are talking about takings/revenue without allowing for costs and when it comes to transfer pricing you end up with legal challenge after legal challenge on what is permissible and what the market rate is for certain intracompany transactions.
No, it is much easier to pro-rate at 25% and then watch them squirm as they get their house in order to pay the lower rate of 20%.
The overwhelming consensus on here is that Remain wins yet Leave is 2s on betfair having been matched at 6s. We've done polling to death and the EU ones are inconclusive but I can't help thinking there's a lot of hearts and heads going on.
OK its wishful thinking on my part but 2s has to be overpriced on something that is becoming a toss of the coin scenario. I'm not sure even the committed Remainers on here are laying Leave at 2s
If it's a toss of a coin then 2/1 is naturally value. But it isn't becoming that scenario; all the mood music is that Cameron has basically got his deal (insipid though it may be) and we've been set up for a referendum in June which wouldn't be happening if they didn't think it was [relatively easily] winnable.
Meanwhile the Leave campaigns(!) are largely incoherent.
Further to that, if we don't now get a June 23 referendum I'd be reversing out of that opinion fairly sharpish :-)
That's a very plausible scenario for a Remain win. My gut feeling is that it relies on choreography over too long a period (even 144 days is a long time). There's a migration crisis. The EU is not liked. And Leave may get a leader than can swing Conservative supporters away from Dave. So much depends on how Con voters break. Cameron's recommendation will count for a lot, but whether it's enough, dunno.
Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.
No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.
Multinational businesses don't evade tax, by and large, by using loopholes. They evade taxes by the wonder of transfer pricing.
Yes, I know. But tax the income and whatever internal arrangements a company may have is neither here nor there and may actually increase tax liability.
The point is that profits are calculated after costs.
When Google (UK) Ltd buy electricity from Southern Electric that's all well and good and simple.
Complications arise when Google (UK) Ltd buys things from Google Inc. For example, it is highly likely that Google will have a single SAP system that is administered out of the US. It is right that Google Inc should charge Google (UK) Ltd for the use of that system - because if it bought its own SAP system, and hired its own support, etc, it would cost more. However, it is how these transactions are charged (i.e. how costs are allocated internally) that allows companies to evade
You keep talking about profits, Mr. Robert. I am talking about taxing income not taxing profits.
Income is revenue minus costs.
If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.
A turnover or sales tax is harder for companies to dodge via transfer pricing. I suspect that the Inland Revenue gets more out of Apple in VAT than in Corporation by orders of magnitude.
Does HMRC get ANYTHING out of Apple by VAT ?
VAT is an entirely balance sheet item. Apple's customer's OTOH
Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.
No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.
Multinational businesses don't evade tax, by and large, by using loopholes. They evade taxes by the wonder of transfer pricing.
Yes, I know. But tax the income and whatever internal arrangements a company may have is neither here nor there and may actually increase tax liability.
The point is that profits are calculated after costs.
When Google (UK) Ltd buy electricity from Southern Electric that's all well and good and simple.
Complications arise when Google (UK) Ltd buys things from Google Inc. For example, it is highly likely that Google will have a single SAP system that is administered out of the US. It is right that Google Inc should charge Google (UK) Ltd for the use of that system - because if it bought its own SAP system, and hired its own support, etc, it would cost more. However, it is how these transactions are charged (i.e. how costs are allocated internally) that allows companies to evade
You keep talking about profits, Mr. Robert. I am talking about taxing income not taxing profits.
Income is revenue minus costs.
If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.
A turnover or sales tax is harder for companies to dodge via transfer pricing. I suspect that the Inland Revenue gets more out of Apple in VAT than in Corporation by orders of magnitude.
For sure, but VAT is a consumer tax, we pay it and Apple just acts as the collection agency.
Unless the Swedish Democrats get 30%+ I don't think anyone else will dance.
The Swedish police continue to cause controversy:
"'Who knows what horrors he has been through?' Swedish police chief sparks anger by sympathising with Somali boy, 15, 'who stabbed refugee worker to death'"
If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.
Income is income. Income minus costs is profit. Or have I got that wrong?
Income is turnover, gross profit is turnover less cost of sales, operating profit is gross profit minus operating costs. My guess is that you would want to levy your tax on the gross profit, but even that can be gamed by overcharging and transfer pricing.
For sure, but VAT is a consumer tax, we pay it and Apple just acts as the collection agency.
But tax incidence suggests that Apple then charge a lower [yet still profit-maximising] price because they take into account the fact that the consumer is paying VAT.
Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.
No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.
Multinational businesses don't evade tax, by and large, by using loopholes. They evade taxes by the wonder of transfer pricing.
Yes, I know. But tax the income and whatever internal arrangements a company may have is neither here nor there and may actually increase tax liability.
The point is that profits are calculated after costs.
When Google (UK) Ltd buy electricity from Southern Electric that's all well and good and simple.
Complications arise when Google (UK) Ltd buys things from Google Inc. For example, it is highly likely that Google will have a single SAP system that is administered out of the US. It is right that Google Inc should charge Google (UK) Ltd for the use of that system - because if it bought its own SAP system, and hired its own support, etc, it would cost more. However, it is how these transactions are charged (i.e. how costs are allocated internally) that allows companies to evade
You keep talking about profits, Mr. Robert. I am talking about taxing income not taxing profits.
Income is revenue minus costs.
If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.
A turnover or sales tax is harder for companies to dodge via transfer pricing. I suspect that the Inland Revenue gets more out of Apple in VAT than in Corporation by orders of magnitude.
Does HMRC get ANYTHING out of Apple by VAT ?
VAT is an entirely balance sheet item. Apple's customer's OTOH
But if Apple didn't make great products we might spend our money on holidays in France not on shiny electronic gadgets.
If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.
Income is income. Income minus costs is profit. Or have I got that wrong?
Income is turnover, gross profit is turnover less cost of sales, operating profit is gross profit minus operating costs. My guess is that you would want to levy your tax on the gross profit, but even that can be gamed by overcharging and transfer pricing.
Gross profit would not get around the Starbucks problem, but would work for Google and Apple
Listening to the report on the BBC re the spare room subsidy/bedroom tax regarding grandparents with a disabled grandchild no one commented that the grandparents are paid the subsidy under a discretionary fund by their local authority. Apparently the grandfather admits this but is concerned it may be withdrawn by future council cuts. Surely if it legislated for it cannot be cut. Also it shows how journalists either don't know the full circumstances or their report fits a particular political narrative.
The overwhelming consensus on here is that Remain wins yet Leave is 2s on betfair having been matched at 6s. We've done polling to death and the EU ones are inconclusive but I can't help thinking there's a lot of hearts and heads going on.
OK its wishful thinking on my part but 2s has to be overpriced on something that is becoming a toss of the coin scenario. I'm not sure even the committed Remainers on here are laying Leave at 2s
I don't think Remain will win (though, unlike you, I hope it does) but I think Leave's price will ease further when the agreement is announced and Cameron struts his stuff and Remain opens up a lead. Then I think it will come back towards Leave.
Interesting, I'm curious to see the tory eurosceptics reaction to Cameron's negotiations, he's bullied the cabinet into submission but backbenchers might not be so obedient. The assumption on here that whichever way Cameron goes is the winner (we all know which way he's going) is based on him being popular outside of the conservative party. He's not.
I'm trying to be objective, in such a close contest I'll always back the 2/1 chance
Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.
No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.
Multinational businesses don't evade tax, by and large, by using loopholes. They evade taxes by the wonder of transfer pricing.
Yes, I know. But tax the income and whatever internal arrangements a company may have is neither here nor there and may actually increase tax liability.
The point is that profits are calculated after costs.
When Google (UK) Ltd buy electricity from Southern Electric that's all well and good and simple.
Complications arise when Google (UK) Ltd buys things from Google Inc. For example, it is highly likely that Google will have a single SAP system that is administered out of the US. It is right that Google Inc should charge Google (UK) Ltd for the use of that system - because if it bought its own SAP system, and hired its own support, etc, it would cost more. However, it is how these transactions are charged (i.e. how costs are allocated internally) that allows companies to evade
You keep talking about profits, Mr. Robert. I am talking about taxing income not taxing profits.
Income is revenue minus costs.
If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.
A turnover or sales tax is harder for companies to dodge via transfer pricing. I suspect that the Inland Revenue gets more out of Apple in VAT than in Corporation by orders of magnitude.
Does HMRC get ANYTHING out of Apple by VAT ?
VAT is an entirely balance sheet item. Apple's customer's OTOH
I would guess that the App Store sales and Apple Music subscriptions were subject to UK VAT. Can anyone definitely confirm this?
Most of their phones are of course sold subsidised by the networks, and other hardware sales will have the VAT paid by the retailer.
@CourtNewsUK · Juror asks ex Dragon Doug Richard: 'If this was your daughter would you blame the man and think what he did was wrong?'
If I were the defence lawyer, I'd regard this development as sub-optimal.
Even on the basis of what he's admitted, it doesn't look very good for him.
I suspect the jury will correctly adjudge him Guilty as charged. He knew they were kids at school. He had his own children, so he must have suspected they might be below 16.
Do you mean a turnover tax? That would unfairly penalise low margin businesses such as retailing and the issue there is that what may start out as a way to get foreign companies to pay tax will morph into a turnover tax on all companies in Britain under a future Labour government.
No, Mr. Max, I mean an income tax payable by every company, British or Foreign owned, on the money they earn from doing business in the UK. Forget corporation tax, just a straightforward income tax instead payable by all businesses who do business in the UK with no exemptions, no allowances, no loopholes and imprisonment and professional ruin for those directors whose companies are caught not paying up.
Multinational businesses don't evade tax, by and large, by using loopholes. They evade taxes by the wonder of transfer pricing.
Yes, I know. But tax the income and whatever internal arrangements a company may have is neither here nor there and may actually increase tax liability.
The point is that profits are calculated after costs.
When Google (UK) Ltd buy electricity from Southern Electric that's all well and good and simple.
Complications arise when Google (UK) Ltd buys things from Google Inc. For example, it is highly likely that Google will have a single SAP system that is administered out of the US. It is right that Google Inc should charge Google (UK) Ltd for the use of that system - because if it bought its own SAP system, and hired its own support, etc, it would cost more. However, it is how these transactions are charged (i.e. how costs are allocated internally) that allows companies to evade
You keep talking about profits, Mr. Robert. I am talking about taxing income not taxing profits.
Income is revenue minus costs.
If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.
A turnover or sales tax is harder for companies to dodge via transfer pricing. I suspect that the Inland Revenue gets more out of Apple in VAT than in Corporation by orders of magnitude.
Does HMRC get ANYTHING out of Apple by VAT ?
VAT is an entirely balance sheet item. Apple's customer's OTOH
I imagine HMRC gets billions in VAT from the sale of Apple products in the UK.
If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.
Income is income. Income minus costs is profit. Or have I got that wrong?
Income is turnover, gross profit is turnover less cost of sales, operating profit is gross profit minus operating costs. My guess is that you would want to levy your tax on the gross profit, but even that can be gamed by overcharging and transfer pricing.
No, I want to levy my tax on income. Not sure why this is proving such a difficult idea to get across.
A company is a legal construct that was brought about to enable a group to function as an individual in terms of contracts etc.. Just treat companies doing business in the UK as though they were individuals resident in the UK but without any taxable deductions and, probably, at a lower rate of income tax.
If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.
Income is income. Income minus costs is profit. Or have I got that wrong?
Income is turnover, gross profit is turnover less cost of sales, operating profit is gross profit minus operating costs. My guess is that you would want to levy your tax on the gross profit, but even that can be gamed by overcharging and transfer pricing.
You can even game the top line to some degree, 'contract payments on account' journals and various other balance sheet stuff.
@CourtNewsUK · Juror asks ex Dragon Doug Richard: 'If this was your daughter would you blame the man and think what he did was wrong?'
If I were the defence lawyer, I'd regard this development as sub-optimal.
This is one of those cases where, no matter how much he claims he was stitched up and/or lied to, he's going to find it difficult to persuade the jury of his innocence, given that he was in his mid 50s and she was 13.
If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.
Income is income. Income minus costs is profit. Or have I got that wrong?
Income is turnover, gross profit is turnover less cost of sales, operating profit is gross profit minus operating costs. My guess is that you would want to levy your tax on the gross profit, but even that can be gamed by overcharging and transfer pricing.
Gross profit would not get around the Starbucks problem, but would work for Google and Apple
Google possibly, but not Apple. They can increase the cost of sales at will. Apple Ireland will raise the cost of the iPhone 7 decreasing the gross margin in the rest of Europe.
If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.
Income is income. Income minus costs is profit. Or have I got that wrong?
Income is turnover, gross profit is turnover less cost of sales, operating profit is gross profit minus operating costs. My guess is that you would want to levy your tax on the gross profit, but even that can be gamed by overcharging and transfer pricing.
Gross profit would not get around the Starbucks problem, but would work for Google and Apple
NYC has an off-the-top 1% tax on revenue, as do a few other US cities. For corporations where revenue is clearly generated in the UK, that sort of tax might work - or like the withholding tax, make it the greater of that or normal corporation tax so that there is a minimum tax take of x% of revenues.
Edit: this applicable only to multinational corporations not domiciled in the UK, so that marginal or temporarily loss-making UK corporations are not forced out of business.
@CourtNewsUK · Juror asks ex Dragon Doug Richard: 'If this was your daughter would you blame the man and think what he did was wrong?'
If I were the defence lawyer, I'd regard this development as sub-optimal.
This is one of those cases where, no matter how much he claims he was stitched up and/or lied to, he's going to find it difficult to persuade the jury of his innocence, given that he was in his mid 50s and she was 13.
I'm still fascinated that a juror has asked a question though, didn't realise that could happen.
Young stepmother moves into big old Cornish House with ancient Cornish family. Stepson - eight years old, clever, soulful, beautiful - starts acting strangely, predicting things. Then he predicts her death. By Christmas,
The clock is ticking. the young stepmum urgently needs to discover, is he genuinely clairvoyant, or is he somehow troubled by the dark mysteries surrounding his mother's death, two years before?
DARK CHRISTMAS CHRISTMAS IS COMING (Game of Thrones fans will know what you mean) or, combined... DARK CHRISTMAS IS COMING
I can predict the reply to those suggestions - anything with Christmas in only sells in November / December?
A Death Foretold?
Yep. You can allude to Xmas but saying it is commercial death.
Chronicle of a Death Foretold is a famous book
Cancel Santa
Can't believe I missed this - I love thinking up titles for things. (tee hee @ 'Cancel Santa')
The advent cullendar? The badvent calendar? (joking)
10 more sleeps? (half joking - something along these lines might work as a strapline?)
Silent Night? (because she's dead innit)
SILENT NIGHT
she's got 10 more sleeps...
There we go. A bit 'Goosebumps' for your purposes perhaps!
If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.
Income is income. Income minus costs is profit. Or have I got that wrong?
Income is turnover, gross profit is turnover less cost of sales, operating profit is gross profit minus operating costs. My guess is that you would want to levy your tax on the gross profit, but even that can be gamed by overcharging and transfer pricing.
No, I want to levy my tax on income. Not sure why this is proving such a difficult idea to get across.
A company is a legal construct that was brought about to enable a group to function as an individual in terms of contracts etc.. Just treat companies doing business in the UK as though they were individuals resident in the UK but without any taxable deductions and, probably, at a lower rate of income tax.
That's a turnover tax. It will put a lot of legitimate low margin companies out of business.
How utterly pathetic of the also highly privileged Rachel Cohen to force her perverted views on people in this way.
And yes, I do view her world view as a perversion of reality.
Schools should all celebrate excellence and encourage their students to strive for the best. Lewis is an internationally acclaimed actor - what has Cohen ever done for the world?
The overwhelming consensus on here is that Remain wins yet Leave is 2s on betfair having been matched at 6s. We've done polling to death and the EU ones are inconclusive but I can't help thinking there's a lot of hearts and heads going on.
OK its wishful thinking on my part but 2s has to be overpriced on something that is becoming a toss of the coin scenario. I'm not sure even the committed Remainers on here are laying Leave at 2s
I don't think Remain will win (though, unlike you, I hope it does) but I think Leave's price will ease further when the agreement is announced and Cameron struts his stuff and Remain opens up a lead. Then I think it will come back towards Leave.
Interesting, I'm curious to see the tory eurosceptics reaction to Cameron's negotiations, he's bullied the cabinet into submission but backbenchers might not be so obedient. The assumption on here that whichever way Cameron goes is the winner (we all know which way he's going) is based on him being popular outside of the conservative party. He's not.
I'm trying to be objective, in such a close contest I'll always back the 2/1 chance
Oh dear bless them, he's bullied them into submission? How sad you are.
Young stepmother moves into big old Cornish House with ancient Cornish family. Stepson - eight years old, clever, soulful, beautiful - starts acting strangely, predicting things. Then he predicts her death. By Christmas,
The clock is ticking. the young stepmum urgently needs to discover, is he genuinely clairvoyant, or is he somehow troubled by the dark mysteries surrounding his mother's death, two years before?
DARK CHRISTMAS CHRISTMAS IS COMING (Game of Thrones fans will know what you mean) or, combined... DARK CHRISTMAS IS COMING
I can predict the reply to those suggestions - anything with Christmas in only sells in November / December?
A Death Foretold?
Yep. You can allude to Xmas but saying it is commercial death.
Chronicle of a Death Foretold is a famous book
Cancel Santa
Can't believe I missed this - I love thinking up titles for things. (tee hee @ 'Cancel Santa')
The advent cullendar? The badvent calendar? (joking)
10 more sleeps? (half joking - something along these lines might work as a strapline?)
Silent Night? (because she's dead innit)
SILENT NIGHT
she's got 10 more sleeps...
There we go. A bit 'Goosebumps' for your purposes perhaps!
Love's Portent - ambiguity as to whether it the step-son's love for his mother, or the new wife's love for the father.
But if Apple didn't make great products we might spend our money on holidays in France not on shiny electronic gadgets.
Apple don't make great products. They just con people they do, and then make them pay more for the 'joy' of being imprisoned in a walled garden. A stylish garden, yes. A garden where you can hang out with similar unfortunates, yes. But a walled garden nonetheless.
It's genius.
I quite like the fact the new iPad Pro has a stylus (pencil), given what Jobs thought of them.
The overwhelming consensus on here is that Remain wins yet Leave is 2s on betfair having been matched at 6s. We've done polling to death and the EU ones are inconclusive but I can't help thinking there's a lot of hearts and heads going on.
OK its wishful thinking on my part but 2s has to be overpriced on something that is becoming a toss of the coin scenario. I'm not sure even the committed Remainers on here are laying Leave at 2s
I don't think Remain will win (though, unlike you, I hope it does) but I think Leave's price will ease further when the agreement is announced and Cameron struts his stuff and Remain opens up a lead. Then I think it will come back towards Leave.
Interesting, I'm curious to see the tory eurosceptics reaction to Cameron's negotiations, he's bullied the cabinet into submission but backbenchers might not be so obedient. The assumption on here that whichever way Cameron goes is the winner (we all know which way he's going) is based on him being popular outside of the conservative party. He's not.
I'm trying to be objective, in such a close contest I'll always back the 2/1 chance
Oh dear bless them, he's bullied them into submission? How sad you are.
I'm not sad about anything. However I saw Villiers embarrassing squirming on QT last week.
But if Apple didn't make great products we might spend our money on holidays in France not on shiny electronic gadgets.
Apple don't make great products. They just con people they do, and then make them pay more for the 'joy' of being imprisoned in a walled garden. A stylish garden, yes. A garden where you can hang out with similar unfortunates, yes. But a walled garden nonetheless.
It's genius.
I quite like the fact the new iPad Pro has a stylus (pencil), given what Jobs thought of them.
@CourtNewsUK · Juror asks ex Dragon Doug Richard: 'If this was your daughter would you blame the man and think what he did was wrong?'
If I were the defence lawyer, I'd regard this development as sub-optimal.
This is one of those cases where, no matter how much he claims he was stitched up and/or lied to, he's going to find it difficult to persuade the jury of his innocence, given that he was in his mid 50s and she was 13.
I'm still fascinated that a juror has asked a question though, didn't realise that could happen.
It's interesting that the juror can ask a question of opinion from the Defendant, rather than a question of fact from the Judge.
I imagine the defendant would be furious at his well underage daughter, if he found out that she was advertising herself as an escort. I can also imagine that a young but legal aged lady advertising similar services may roleplay her being at 'school' as part of the 'experience'.
He's still going to struggle to convince the jury though. She was still only 13, even if she said she was 16.
But if Apple didn't make great products we might spend our money on holidays in France not on shiny electronic gadgets.
Apple don't make great products. They just con people they do, and then make them pay more for the 'joy' of being imprisoned in a walled garden. A stylish garden, yes. A garden where you can hang out with similar unfortunates, yes. But a walled garden nonetheless.
It's genius.
I quite like the fact the new iPad Pro has a stylus (pencil), given what Jobs thought of them.
Young stepmother moves into big old Cornish House with ancient Cornish family. Stepson - eight years old, clever, soulful, beautiful - starts acting strangely, predicting things. Then he predicts her death. By Christmas,
The clock is ticking. the young stepmum urgently needs to discover, is he genuinely clairvoyant, or is he somehow troubled by the dark mysteries surrounding his mother's death, two years before?
DARK CHRISTMAS CHRISTMAS IS COMING (Game of Thrones fans will know what you mean) or, combined... DARK CHRISTMAS IS COMING
I can predict the reply to those suggestions - anything with Christmas in only sells in November / December?
A Death Foretold?
Yep. You can allude to Xmas but saying it is commercial death.
Chronicle of a Death Foretold is a famous book
Cancel Santa
Can't believe I missed this - I love thinking up titles for things. (tee hee @ 'Cancel Santa')
The advent cullendar? The badvent calendar? (joking)
10 more sleeps? (half joking - something along these lines might work as a strapline?)
Silent Night? (because she's dead innit)
SILENT NIGHT
she's got 10 more sleeps...
There we go. A bit 'Goosebumps' for your purposes perhaps!
Love's Portent - ambiguity as to whether it the step-son's love for his mother, or the new wife's love for the father.
It does show you should write the title and then do the book...
The overwhelming consensus on here is that Remain wins yet Leave is 2s on betfair having been matched at 6s. We've done polling to death and the EU ones are inconclusive but I can't help thinking there's a lot of hearts and heads going on.
OK its wishful thinking on my part but 2s has to be overpriced on something that is becoming a toss of the coin scenario. I'm not sure even the committed Remainers on here are laying Leave at 2s
LEAVE has a very significant chance of winning. From a Paris-style terrorist incident to a migrant rape spree to a Calais invasion to a bomb in a school to some euro cataclysm, virtually all the possible black swans favour LEAVE, and they are already nudging REMAIN close in the polls.
I'd give LEAVE a 40-45% chance of winning, as of now. If Cameron wasn't leading REMAIN I'd make LEAVE favourite.
It's indyref all over again. Complacent presumption that the status quo will triumph easily.
@CourtNewsUK · Juror asks ex Dragon Doug Richard: 'If this was your daughter would you blame the man and think what he did was wrong?'
If I were the defence lawyer, I'd regard this development as sub-optimal.
This is one of those cases where, no matter how much he claims he was stitched up and/or lied to, he's going to find it difficult to persuade the jury of his innocence, given that he was in his mid 50s and she was 13.
I'm still fascinated that a juror has asked a question though, didn't realise that could happen.
It's interesting that the juror can ask a question of opinion from the Defendant, rather than a question of fact from the Judge.
I imagine the defendant would be furious at his well underage daughter, if he found out that she was advertising herself as an escort. I can also imagine that a young but legal aged lady advertising similar services may roleplay her being at 'school' as part of the 'experience'.
He's still going to struggle to convince the jury though. She was still only 13, even if she said she was 16.
Prostitution with an under 18 year old is child prostitution. That's why he's so adamant that he wasn't paying for services.
If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.
Income is income. Income minus costs is profit. Or have I got that wrong?
Income is turnover, gross profit is turnover less cost of sales, operating profit is gross profit minus operating costs. My guess is that you would want to levy your tax on the gross profit, but even that can be gamed by overcharging and transfer pricing.
No, I want to levy my tax on income. Not sure why this is proving such a difficult idea to get across.
A company is a legal construct that was brought about to enable a group to function as an individual in terms of contracts etc.. Just treat companies doing business in the UK as though they were individuals resident in the UK but without any taxable deductions and, probably, at a lower rate of income tax.
That's a turnover tax. It will put a lot of legitimate low margin companies out of business.
It works in other locations, e.g. NYC. And it could be applied only to non-domiciled international corporations, to protect domestic and low margin corporations.
As in last year's General Election I believe the polls will be proved wrong, the 'Don't Knows' average about 17% but there's no way on Earth there's going to be an 83% turnout. A lot of people saying 'Remain' will prove soft I reckon and large numbers won't bother to turn out, people who have little or no interest in politics will be bored to tears after weeks of this in the media. The leavers will be much more motivated to actually vote and my guess is that the turnout will be about 55% around half way between the GE and 2011's AV referendum with about 58% voting 'leave'
If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.
Income is income. Income minus costs is profit. Or have I got that wrong?
Income is turnover, gross profit is turnover less cost of sales, operating profit is gross profit minus operating costs. My guess is that you would want to levy your tax on the gross profit, but even that can be gamed by overcharging and transfer pricing.
No, I want to levy my tax on income. Not sure why this is proving such a difficult idea to get across.
A company is a legal construct that was brought about to enable a group to function as an individual in terms of contracts etc.. Just treat companies doing business in the UK as though they were individuals resident in the UK but without any taxable deductions and, probably, at a lower rate of income tax.
That's a turnover tax. It will put a lot of legitimate low margin companies out of business.
No it won't. It might put some companies with unsustainable business models out of business. Companies that currently pay corporation tax should barely notice a difference, except a reduction in the costs involved in compliance. Companies that do not currently pay corporation tax or which will notice a big increase in their tax bill are either unsustainable or currently taking the piss.
Just a reminder, this is not a new idea it is in fact how businesses used to be taxed except that I suggest the exemptions and chargeable expenses are removed. If companies could cope with an income tax before 1964 there is no reason why they could not now. The biggts losers will be the accountants, oh, and any thieving buggers who try and avoid paying their company's dues.
The overwhelming consensus on here is that Remain wins yet Leave is 2s on betfair having been matched at 6s. We've done polling to death and the EU ones are inconclusive but I can't help thinking there's a lot of hearts and heads going on.
OK its wishful thinking on my part but 2s has to be overpriced on something that is becoming a toss of the coin scenario. I'm not sure even the committed Remainers on here are laying Leave at 2s
LEAVE has a very significant chance of winning. From a Paris-style terrorist incident to a migrant rape spree to a Calais invasion to a bomb in a school to some euro cataclysm, virtually all the possible black swans favour LEAVE, and they are already nudging REMAIN close in the polls.
I'd give LEAVE a 40-45% chance of winning, as of now. If Cameron wasn't leading REMAIN I'd make LEAVE favourite.
It's indyref all over again. Complacent presumption that the status quo will triumph easily.
Ed Miliband, Eddie Izzard and the posh chap that used to run that underwear store will announce a "vow" on the eve of the referendum promising nothing but further talks.
When a moon on a stick is not delivered to every home the "outers" will wail betrayal for the next 10 years.
Comments
"Prepare to alter course."
"THE NEW DEAL
The better terms which Britain will enjoy if we stay in the Common Market were secured only after long and tough negotiations.
These started in April 1974 and did not end until March of this year.
On March 10 and 11 the Heads of Government met in Dublin and clinched the bargain. On March 18 the Prime Minister was able to make this announcements:
'I believe that our renegotiation objectives have been substantially though not completely achieved.'
What were the main objectives to which Mr. Wilson referred? The most important were FOOD and MONEY and JOBS.
FOOD
Britain had to ensure that shoppers could get secure supplies of food at fair prices.
As a result of these negotiations the Common Agricultural policy (known as CAP) now works more flexibly to the benefit of both housewives and farmers in Britain. The special arrangements made for sugar and beef are a good example.
At the same time many food prices in the rest of the world have shot up, and our food prices are now no higher because Britain is in the Market than if we were outside.
The Government also won a better deal on food imports from countries outside the Common Market, particularly for Commonwealth sugar and for New Zealand dairy products. These will continue to be on sale in our shops.
This is not the end of improvements in the Market's food policy. There will be further reviews. Britain, as a member, will be able to seek further changes to our advantage. And we shall be more sure of our supplies when food is scarce in the world.
MONEY AND JOBS
Under the previous terms, Britain's contribution to the Common Market budget imposed too heavy a burden on us. The new terms ensure that Britain will pay a fairer share. We now stand, under the Dublin agreement, to get back from Market funds up to £125 million a year.
There was a threat to employment in Britain from the movement in the Common Market towards an Economic & Monetary Union. This could have forced us to accept fixed exchange rates for the pound, restricting industrial growth and putting jobs at risk. This threat has been removed.
Britain will not have to put VAT on necessities like food.
We have also maintained our freedom to pursue our own policies on taxation and on industry, and to develop Scotland and Wales and the Regions where unemployment is high."
If I go, there will be trouble
And if I stay it will be double
ToriesUKIP???"'Who knows what horrors he has been through?' Swedish police chief sparks anger by sympathising with Somali boy, 15, 'who stabbed refugee worker to death'"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3419094/Who-knows-horrors-Police-chief-sparks-anger-sympathising-Somali-boy-stabbed-refugee-worker.html
Welcome or is it hello again?
Temba, his arms wide!
Jalad at Tanagra. Uzani, his army. Shaka, when the walls fell.
For example if a company registered in Luxembourg for tax purposes issues invoices worth £1,000 to its UK customers then, say, 5% of that £1,000 goes to HMG in tax. If a company registered in Nottingham issues £1,000 of invoices then they are liable for the same 5%. As they say, a level playing field.
OK its wishful thinking on my part but 2s has to be overpriced on something that is becoming a toss of the coin scenario. I'm not sure even the committed Remainers on here are laying Leave at 2s
When Google (UK) Ltd buy electricity from Southern Electric that's all well and good and simple.
Complications arise when Google (UK) Ltd buys things from Google Inc. For example, it is highly likely that Google will have a single SAP system that is administered out of the US. It is right that Google Inc should charge Google (UK) Ltd for the use of that system - because if it bought its own SAP system, and hired its own support, etc, it would cost more. However, it is how these transactions are charged (i.e. how costs are allocated internally) that allows companies to evade tax.
HMRC needs to be beefed up so it is able to look through the books of multinationals and identify charges which it believes are at non-market rates. But, even at that point the multinational will have hundred page dossier on what it thinks the market price is. Taking all these court is difficult and expensive, and there is genuine scope for disagreement.
I wish there was a simple solution. But the truth is that we need to increase enforcement, and make the penalties much more serious for pricing things at non-market rates. That will improve things somewhat, but multinationals will be continually working to reduce tax rates and take full advantage of whatever loopholes we've created.
https://twitter.com/BRTMerrill/status/692370921135423488
Then they are creating employment and destroying their own business profile, it's their decision to do that. Honestly if companies are petty enough to look into anything like this then we will just end up moving to a turnover tax which as I said is not a good idea.
In the same way that landlords didn't get their house in order for over 20 years and now the government is stepping in to do it for them, corporations are heading for the same fate. Eventually governments are just going to use the nuclear option and implement turnover taxes which will be impossible to avoid.
Frankly it's an issue on which I am ignorant. Most of teh claims from both sides seem exaggerated claptrap.
I personally will vote for Dave...as will millions of other non political voters..
Why?
Simple .
Dave makes mistakes, promises he does not keep etc.. But generally I like him and on this issue trust him.
I do not trust fervent supporters of Remain or Exit.
On the subject of the Mail, you would think there was only so much celebrity cellulite its readers could put up with.
"Kinnock had principles once. He was once for the 99%. He was once the future. He became like all the rest with his snout in the trough. He can't understand the revolution Corbyn fronts. It's a people's revolution. It will sweep "Lord" Kinnock and his Blairite colleagues aside. The future is bright. Unleash the ideas!"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/jan/27/pmqs-cameron-corbyn-google-tax-hilton-as-above-the-law-says-former-cameron-aide-steve-hilton-politics-live
(As a chap who operates a very small business myself, I still manage to export thousands of pounds annually to the USA, China, Russia, India, various spots around continental Europe, Africa and the Middle East... the day they all start taxing me with different rates and different paperwork is the day I go back to working for the public sector. Let alone the other complications, like the US or Swedish clients who pay me via their British bank accounts. But this isn't a killer flaw.)
Meanwhile the Leave campaigns(!) are largely incoherent.
Someone told me that Apple declared UK profits of £50m last year on which they paid just over £10m in tax after a few deductions. Does anyone really believe that Apple made just £50m from their vast UK operations when their global operating profit for the same tax year was something like $51bn.
No, the only way to make it work is to assume that corporations are cheating, lying scum and work from there. They haven't done very much to challenge that opinion.
But I am a net backer, and a nice green on Mr Trump.
If you plan on changing to a turnover tax, I apologise, as I've misunderstood you.
I don't doubt that some companies will find a way around a pro-rata tax, but we will also catch enough to make a difference and it's not like companies can just leave the UK market. As I am continually told by my dad about the 40p rate of tax, it's better to have 60% of something than 100% of nothing. The same applies to corporations and UK profits, better to have 80% of something than 100% of nothing if they decide to leave.
Again the issue is that you are talking about takings/revenue without allowing for costs and when it comes to transfer pricing you end up with legal challenge after legal challenge on what is permissible and what the market rate is for certain intracompany transactions.
No, it is much easier to pro-rate at 25% and then watch them squirm as they get their house in order to pay the lower rate of 20%.
VAT is an entirely balance sheet item. Apple's customer's OTOH
Juror asks ex Dragon Doug Richard: 'If this was your daughter would you blame the man and think what he did was wrong?'
If I were the defence lawyer, I'd regard this development as sub-optimal.
I'm trying to be objective, in such a close contest I'll always back the 2/1 chance
Most of their phones are of course sold subsidised by the networks, and other hardware sales will have the VAT paid by the retailer.
@CourtNewsUK · 16m16 minutes ago
Jurors can send a note to a judge asking questions of the defendant
A company is a legal construct that was brought about to enable a group to function as an individual in terms of contracts etc.. Just treat companies doing business in the UK as though they were individuals resident in the UK but without any taxable deductions and, probably, at a lower rate of income tax.
Edit: this applicable only to multinational corporations not domiciled in the UK, so that marginal or temporarily loss-making UK corporations are not forced out of business.
The advent cullendar? The badvent calendar? (joking)
10 more sleeps? (half joking - something along these lines might work as a strapline?)
Silent Night? (because she's dead innit)
SILENT NIGHT
she's got 10 more sleeps...
There we go. A bit 'Goosebumps' for your purposes perhaps!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-35419500
How utterly pathetic of the also highly privileged Rachel Cohen to force her perverted views on people in this way.
And yes, I do view her world view as a perversion of reality.
Schools should all celebrate excellence and encourage their students to strive for the best. Lewis is an internationally acclaimed actor - what has Cohen ever done for the world?
He's screwed isn't he.
It's genius.
I quite like the fact the new iPad Pro has a stylus (pencil), given what Jobs thought of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YY3MSaUqMg
Did you see it, and if so what did you think?
I imagine the defendant would be furious at his well underage daughter, if he found out that she was advertising herself as an escort. I can also imagine that a young but legal aged lady advertising similar services may roleplay her being at 'school' as part of the 'experience'.
He's still going to struggle to convince the jury though. She was still only 13, even if she said she was 16.
A lot of people saying 'Remain' will prove soft I reckon and large numbers won't bother to turn out, people who have little or no interest in politics will be bored to tears after weeks of this in the media.
The leavers will be much more motivated to actually vote and my guess is that the turnout will be about 55% around half way between the GE and 2011's AV referendum with about 58% voting 'leave'
Just a reminder, this is not a new idea it is in fact how businesses used to be taxed except that I suggest the exemptions and chargeable expenses are removed. If companies could cope with an income tax before 1964 there is no reason why they could not now. The biggts losers will be the accountants, oh, and any thieving buggers who try and avoid paying their company's dues.
When a moon on a stick is not delivered to every home the "outers" will wail betrayal for the next 10 years.
- if it's Indyref all over again.