I am fully with you on all that, Mr. Ears. Nevertheless, companies doing business in the UK take advantage of UK infrastructure, from roads to legal services to the rule of law itself and all that has to be paid for. Companies that are making sales in the UK are generating profit in the UK, a profit which is only possible because of the infrastructure that they use. Furthermore the companies will know precisely in which countries they have made a profit and how much that profit was. Therefore what we are left with is companies arranging their affairs, completely legally, to avoid paying tax.
I merely suggest that the situation is now reaching the point where the public will not continue to put up with it. Something will change.
I agree that unless the bandwagon moves on (and no sign of that yet, though historically there are things that used to be the focus of national outcry that, despite not being resolved, simply left centre-stage of public debate) then something has got to change.
But there's a "can't have it two ways" issue with your view, though.
Would you honestly be happier if Google UK simply upped sticks and stuck everyone back in their (far larger) Dublin office? Then they wouldn't be using UK roads etc anymore. But we'd lose out far more on the lost income tax and NI on those workers than we'd gain from not having to keep the roads smooth for them.
Ultimately it's not really Google's team in London that is making them loadsamoney in Britain*, so it's not surprising we can't tax them for a big slice of that loadsamoney.
And if you want a tax system that works on the basis of taxing exports from Ireland (and that's not just some dodgy nameplate on a deserted office, that really is their major European basis) on the basis that it's making money from Britain so should pay British taxes, then you would have to accept more stereotypically "British" exporters to stop paying taxes here because, although this is where their major cost centre is, their revenue (and in your view, their profits) comes from overseas and should therefore be taxed there.
* At least, if we're to believe Google that their UK office isn't really responsible for sales. Which as I've said before is somewhat open to contest. Having said that, it's true that a lot of their workers here are software people and for them the point stands.
The thing about Mugabe is that he took (by African standards) a reasonably prosperous country, and turned it into a sewer, worse than Haiti. Rhodes and his ilk actually created industry, infrastructure, and prosperity, however dubious their ethics.
"Chuka Umunna MP says the continued violence experienced by vulnerable youth in the capital is ‘a damming indictment of the situation on London’s streets’ and calls for more to be done to prevent ‘these tragic deaths.’"
"Chuka Umunna MP says the continued violence experienced by vulnerable youth in the capital is ‘a damming indictment of the situation on London’s streets’ and calls for more to be done to prevent ‘these tragic deaths.’"
Why not do both? Tighten up the law, but if it proves impossible to get these chisellers to cough up a decent sum, legally, then, yes a good shaming might do it.
As long as you're happy to be treated in the same way...
I have just had my accountant's email, detailing my returns. I will be paying roughly 40% of my income to HMRC next week. I claim my justifiable expenses, and no more. I don't evade or avoid tax.
Unlike Facebook, Google, amazon, etc
Same here. The Norwegian approach of publishing all tax returns online might be the simplest approach - the Government doesn't need to shame anyone itself, but the media will notice if Famous Rock Star X and Huge Company Y are paying tuppence, and it would probably produce some useful leads for HMRC.
Think it would be good idea for companies, but not sure it would be good for social harmony if you could look up your next door neighbours income.
I am fully with you on all that, Mr. Ears. Nevertheless, companies doing business in the UK take advantage of UK infrastructure, from roads to legal services to the rule of law itself and all that has to be paid for. Companies that are making sales in the UK are generating profit in the UK, a profit which is only possible because of the infrastructure that they use. Furthermore the companies will know precisely in which countries they have made a profit and how much that profit was. Therefore what we are left with is companies arranging their affairs, completely legally, to avoid paying tax.
I merely suggest that the situation is now reaching the point where the public will not continue to put up with it. Something will change.
snip
And if you want a tax system that works on the basis of taxing exports from Ireland (and that's not just some dodgy nameplate on a deserted office, that really is their major European basis) on the basis that it's making money from Britain so should pay British taxes, then you would have to accept more stereotypically "British" exporters to stop paying taxes here because, although this is where their major cost centre is, their revenue (and in your view, their profits) comes from overseas and should therefore be taxed there. snip
Yes. The vast majority of our car output is exported. Its all mostly foreign owned. JLR actually made £2.6bn profit last year ! An amazing figure when you thin what a state the businesses used to be in. JLR actually spent in this country some £3.15bn over the year on capital expenditure and research and development. Again an amazing sum. I have no idea if this was subject to corporation tax but since JLR plans to double the size of its Coventry base and the firm has created 18,000 new jobs in the last five years, well I'm tempted to think it does not matter.
BTW - its planning to open a factory in China, its parent company is based in India - so we should all be aware how ephemeral these things can be.
#Rhodesmustfall does raise a question which British people haven't had to battle with but many other nations have had to think about a lot - when is history not past?
When the Berlin Wall fell, all of eastern Europe had to consider what it would do about its communist statuary. Different decisions were made in different countries (and sometimes in different parts of the same country).
I can well understand why to a young black South African student a statue of Rhodes is as symbolic of oppression as a statue of Lenin would be to a young Pole.
I've havered back and forth on this one. Ultimately I come to the view that if it were my decision I would leave the statue of Rhodes standing, given that its erection reflected his generosity of his funding of the college rather than a statement of political intent. I would feel differently if the struggles of southern Africa had a particularly close connection with rural Oxfordshire, but they don't.
It's not a straightforward question for me though.
British people haven't had to battle with but many other nations have had to think about a lot - when is history not past?
#Rhodesmustfall does raise a question which British people haven't had to battle with but many other nations have had to think about a lot - when is history not past?
When the Berlin Wall fell, all of eastern Europe had to consider what it would do about its communist statuary. Different decisions were made in different countries (and sometimes in different parts of the same country).
I can well understand why to a young black South African student a statue of Rhodes is as symbolic of oppression as a statue of Lenin would be to a young Pole.
I've havered back and forth on this one. Ultimately I come to the view that if it were my decision I would leave the statue of Rhodes standing, given that its erection reflected his generosity of his funding of the college rather than a statement of political intent. I would feel differently if the struggles of southern Africa had a particularly close connection with rural Oxfordshire, but they don't.
It's not a straightforward question for me though.
Going back to Alastair's original comments, intellectually, yes, it's not a straightforward issue, and there are many sound arguments for both removing and keeping the statue. Emotionally, however, the student concerned seems such a whiney self-righteous gobshite and argues his case so poorly and simplistically that he makes it very hard not to take the keep-the-statue side. Similarly, I though the second Iraq war was ill-conceived until the celebrity anti-war machine kicked in, and usually argued the case for staying out so poorly that by default I came round to Tony Blair's point of view on the matter without him really having to say anything.
Just watched vintage Top of the Pops on BBC4. Star by Kiki Dee is one of those tunes that you're convinced you've heard before, even if you actually haven't.
Just watched vintage Top of the Pops on BBC4. Star by Kiki Dee is one of those tunes that you're convinced you've heard before, even if you actually haven't.
Did you ever watch Opportunity knocks in the 80s ?
By the standards of today, Churchill was also a racist.
It's silly: Rhodes was a very successful capitalist, imperialist and politician who had a huge effect on the uniting South Africa, and the development of Zimbabwe and Zambia.
The thing about Mugabe is that he took (by African standards) a reasonably prosperous country, and turned it into a sewer, worse than Haiti. Rhodes and his ilk actually created industry, infrastructure, and prosperity, however dubious their ethics.
#Rhodesmustfall does raise a question which British people haven't had to battle with but many other nations have had to think about a lot - when is history not past?
When the Berlin Wall fell, all of eastern Europe had to consider what it would do about its communist statuary. Different decisions were made in different countries (and sometimes in different parts of the same country).
I can well understand why to a young black South African student a statue of Rhodes is as symbolic of oppression as a statue of Lenin would be to a young Pole.
I've havered back and forth on this one. Ultimately I come to the view that if it were my decision I would leave the statue of Rhodes standing, given that its erection reflected his generosity of his funding of the college rather than a statement of political intent. I would feel differently if the struggles of southern Africa had a particularly close connection with rural Oxfordshire, but they don't.
It's not a straightforward question for me though.
Going back to Alastair's original comments, intellectually, yes, it's not a straightforward issue, and there are many sound arguments for both removing and keeping the statue. Emotionally, however, the student concerned seems such a whiney self-righteous gobshite and argues his case so poorly and simplistically that he makes it very hard not to take the keep-the-statue side. Similarly, I though the second Iraq war was ill-conceived until the celebrity anti-war machine kicked in, and usually argued the case for staying out so poorly that by default I came round to Tony Blair's point of view on the matter without him really having to say anything.
Comments
But there's a "can't have it two ways" issue with your view, though.
Would you honestly be happier if Google UK simply upped sticks and stuck everyone back in their (far larger) Dublin office? Then they wouldn't be using UK roads etc anymore. But we'd lose out far more on the lost income tax and NI on those workers than we'd gain from not having to keep the roads smooth for them.
Ultimately it's not really Google's team in London that is making them loadsamoney in Britain*, so it's not surprising we can't tax them for a big slice of that loadsamoney.
And if you want a tax system that works on the basis of taxing exports from Ireland (and that's not just some dodgy nameplate on a deserted office, that really is their major European basis) on the basis that it's making money from Britain so should pay British taxes, then you would have to accept more stereotypically "British" exporters to stop paying taxes here because, although this is where their major cost centre is, their revenue (and in your view, their profits) comes from overseas and should therefore be taxed there.
* At least, if we're to believe Google that their UK office isn't really responsible for sales. Which as I've said before is somewhat open to contest. Having said that, it's true that a lot of their workers here are software people and for them the point stands.
History can look back on him as The Unknown Wanker....
https://www.politicshome.com/home-affairs/articles/opinion/house-commons/chuka-umunna-mp-safer-somalia-its-time-end-londons
The vast majority of our car output is exported.
Its all mostly foreign owned.
JLR actually made £2.6bn profit last year ! An amazing figure when you thin what a state the businesses used to be in.
JLR actually spent in this country some £3.15bn over the year on capital expenditure and research and development. Again an amazing sum.
I have no idea if this was subject to corporation tax but since JLR plans to double the size of its Coventry base and the firm has created 18,000 new jobs in the last five years, well I'm tempted to think it does not matter.
BTW - its planning to open a factory in China, its parent company is based in India - so we should all be aware how ephemeral these things can be.
Don't you talk to your partner ?
Similarly, I though the second Iraq war was ill-conceived until the celebrity anti-war machine kicked in, and usually argued the case for staying out so poorly that by default I came round to Tony Blair's point of view on the matter without him really having to say anything.
Just watched vintage Top of the Pops on BBC4. Star by Kiki Dee is one of those tunes that you're convinced you've heard before, even if you actually haven't.
It's silly: Rhodes was a very successful capitalist, imperialist and politician who had a huge effect on the uniting South Africa, and the development of Zimbabwe and Zambia.
He was a great man.