Not quite. VAT is basically paid by consumers, not the companies themselves. It is an end user tax. Of course in the EU you are not allowed to have an equivalent or competitive tax but we will soon be able to introduce a tax on the turnover achieved by any company in the UK from sales in the UK and I think we should.
Hang on, I think you are getting a bit ahead of the actualité there. The question of which EU rules on competition and tax we end up buying back into is as yet completely unknown. My guess is: most of them, in some form or another. The trend, after all, is for more, not less, harmonisation of international tax & competition law.
Mr. L, the time's almost more of an issue than the money, for me.
As a child I used to have holidays in Devon or Wales, and going round old bookshops and buying cheap second hand books (often Doctor Who stories) are something of which I have fond memories.
Anyway, if the finances improve I'll see about visiting Waterstones a bit more often (there's a rather good one in Leeds, which is just as well given Borders has gone).
Really the point I made the other day. The EU picks on Ireland but there are many and more egregious examples in Luxembourg which seem to be left alone. I wonder why....
I think action on those two is on the way, investigations ongoing. I don't think there is much for Amazon, they just have a business model not based on making money, McDonald's might be interesting, the US aren't going to be happy.
Goldman Sachs might begin to sweat soon as well given the dodgy deal HMRC signed with them in 2009/10.
I get so fed up with this. The Amazon share price is approaching $800 a share and has increased 15 fold since 2009. Their business model is built on not having a taxable profit but any argument that it has not been extremely profitable (and largely untaxed) for the shareholders is simply absurd.
You can say this is our and America's fault for having stupid tax laws which they have taken advantage of but you cannot say that their method of trading is anything other than parasitical of the societies in which they operate.
Maybe it is time to scrap corporation tax. We didn't have it until the mid sixties when it was first introduced as an extra tax on profits. It has now become so complex and, for some, so easy to avoid that it allows parasite companies such as Amazon to operate.
And replace it with what? Amazon are accumulating wealth at a rate possibly only Apple can match. How do we ensure that those gaining from that wealth accumulation pay their share of the society that generates the profit? When the shareholdings of these companies are so international very little of the wealth gained in the UK would be taxed here.
Maybe a revenue tax of some kind?
Like VAT, which we already have?
Not quite. VAT is basically paid by consumers, not the companies themselves. It is an end user tax. Of course in the EU you are not allowed to have an equivalent or competitive tax but we will soon be able to introduce a tax on the turnover achieved by any company in the UK from sales in the UK and I think we should.
Yes, I spent part of my time being an unpaid arm of HRMC. We do the accounting on their behalf.
My poor wife was up till 1.00 am doing my VAT return last night. Biggest quarterly payment ever as it happens. The vagaries of self employment.
Perhaps if he was a bit more up to date (he quotes a seven year old poll on UK Muslim attitudes to homosexuality.....the most recent is 4 months old...) he wouldn't be quite so worried, poor dear.
True, in the most recent poll the majority of Muslims thought homosexuality should be illegal (58%, not the '100%' Milo quotes), but when you look at Muslims born in the UK nearly two thirds (64%) think it should be legal.....
Given not only homosexuality but even sex outside of marriage is illegal in some Muslim nations those figures are not that surprising, especially with foreign born Muslims
Yes - also the poll showed the same age skews we see in the non-muslim population on attitudes - as someone remarked a few days ago, the issue of importing spouses and families remaining forever 'first generation' is something that needs careful consideration.....
Yes, as the more immigrant communities are integrated, the more they adopt western attitudes
The problem there is the assumption that immigrant communities become more integrated with time. I would suggest that Bangladeshis coming to UK now can live in a community that is entirely Bangladeshi in terms of food, church, language and dress with no need to adapt to anything but the weather. 50 years ago, a Bangladeshi would have more need to adapt to British ways.
I wonder why unemployment among that group is so high & educational achievement so low?
Its improved hugely. (the grades I mean, the jobs will come).
Have you got a link to that? The last data I saw that was broken down beyond wide racial groups ie Asian, stated that Chinese & Indian kids where the highest attainers & Somali & bangleshi at the bottom.
Yes Indian and Chinese perform the best, but Bangladeshi students have gone from below the avreave in 2004 to above white Britons in 2013, so a big improvement and not at the bottom of the table.
DavidL "Not quite. VAT is basically paid by consumers, not the companies themselves. It is an end user tax. Of course in the EU you are not allowed to have an equivalent or competitive tax but we will soon be able to introduce a tax on the turnover achieved by any company in the UK from sales in the UK and I think we should. "
All business taxes are ultimately passed on to the consumer. They are an expense that a company needs to cover if it wants to make an adequate return.
Obviously. But if we had a revenue tax Amazon and your local bookshop would both have to account for the same cost whilst at the moment they do not. If your local bookshop, despite Amazon, is lucky enough to turn a profit they get to pay additional taxes that Amazon opt out of.
Really the point I made the other day. The EU picks on Ireland but there are many and more egregious examples in Luxembourg which seem to be left alone. I wonder why....
I think action on those two is on the way, investigations ongoing. I don't think there is much for Amazon, they just have a business model not based on making money, McDonald's might be interesting, the US aren't going to be happy.
Goldman Sachs might begin to sweat soon as well given the dodgy deal HMRC signed with them in 2009/10.
I get so fed up with this. The Amazon share price is approaching $800 a share and has increased 15 fold since 2009. Their business model is built on not having a taxable profit but any argument that it has not been extremely profitable (and largely untaxed) for the shareholders is simply absurd.
You can say this is our and America's fault for having stupid tax laws which they have taken advantage of but you cannot say that their method of trading is anything other than parasitical of the societies in which they operate.
Maybe it is time to scrap corporation tax. We didn't have it until the mid sixties when it was first introduced as an extra tax on profits. It has now become so complex and, for some, so easy to avoid that it allows parasite companies such as Amazon to operate.
Maybe a revenue tax of some kind?
Like VAT, which we already have?
Not quite. VAT is basically paid by consumers, not the companies themselves. It is an end user tax. Of course in the EU you are not allowed to have an equivalent or competitive tax but we will soon be able to introduce a tax on the turnover achieved by any company in the UK from sales in the UK and I think we should.
Yes, I spent part of my time being an unpaid arm of HRMC. We do the accounting on their behalf.
My poor wife was up till 1.00 am doing my VAT return last night. Biggest quarterly payment ever as it happens. The vagaries of self employment.
I always treated it as part of the swings/roundabouts thing. I still have a very fine PC that I expensed against my business, along with my office furniture, my iPad and various other odds and sods. I think I came out ahead (just!) given my billing rate at the time.
Mr. L, if I had a nearby bookshop I'd use that as much as possible. There's one within walking distance, with a terrible selection. So, going bricks and mortar means spend* probably an hour to an hour and a half plus over a fiver.
Hard for high street stores to compete, sadly. [Wasn't helped by Borders going under due to the financial crisis].
Edited extra bit: *spending.
I try very hard to buy my books from real bookshops and only buy online stuff that is not readily accessible there. I love bookshops and a couple of extra quid on a book seems an eminently reasonable way of making sure they stay around.
Buying online only makes sense if you know exactly what you're looking for. Quite often, I prefer to browse in a bookshop, and see what's interesting.
The importance of the single market is certainly overstated, the interesting question is by exactly how much.
What is striking is how UK exports to the EU have been so weak over the last decade and showed so little obvious positive impact from the single market relative to the trends before.
Those arguing strongly for continued SM membership stress the importance of non-tariff barriers, which the SM supposedly has greatly reduced, but there seems to have been very little dividend from that for UK exporters at least. The income elasticity of UK exports with respect to EZ growth is pretty low, and seems to have got lower over time (the opposite of what you might expect from the SM).
Meanwhile exports outside the EU, including to some pretty protectionist states, have been performing strongly. It really seems to be far more about market growth than preferential trade terms. All the preferences in the world won't help you grow sales if the underlying market is stagnant.
Well this is one of the reasons I was comfortable with voting leave. The importance of the single market to our overseas trade is massively overstated, as long as we get free goods trade with the EU we should be fine, given that we have such a huge deficit in goods with them the chances of this are high. Free trade in services with the EU has a higher cost than benefit, we must adhere to EU regulations, but there isn't really a single market for services. It damages our ability to export services outside of the EU where companies do not have to adhere to EU regulation and we don't see much of a bonus from being inside the single market because it is incomplete. If we lose free trade in services, or at least only gain tariff free trade rather than ending NTBs for services, it won't be the end of the world. If the EU wants to say that shares listed in Europe can only be traded within the single market then that is up to them, but it is a one way ticket to long term irrelevance for them to close shop.
I find those arguments pretty compelling too. Its also a reminder that the economic performance of the EU has lagged way beyond other developing economies over the past decade, with the prospect of worse to come. Why the UK should choose to tie itself to that trading bloc at the expense of opportunities elsewhere has always escaped me.
It's notable that the focus of debate has changed. While the referendum was being contested, the case for continued UK participation in the EU single market went pretty well uncontested. I think the Leave campaign made a tactical calculation to that effect, choosing instead to put an argument that continued access to EU markets could be secured given the scale of the UK's trade deficit with the EU gave us such a powerful negotiating card. A card that, until now, the UK has been forbidden to play.
DavidL "Not quite. VAT is basically paid by consumers, not the companies themselves. It is an end user tax. Of course in the EU you are not allowed to have an equivalent or competitive tax but we will soon be able to introduce a tax on the turnover achieved by any company in the UK from sales in the UK and I think we should. "
All business taxes are ultimately passed on to the consumer. They are an expense that a company needs to cover if it wants to make an adequate return.
Obviously. But if we had a revenue tax Amazon and your local bookshop would both have to account for the same cost whilst at the moment they do not. If your local bookshop, despite Amazon, is lucky enough to turn a profit they get to pay additional taxes that Amazon opt out of.
Amazon doesn't turn a profit. If your local bookshop uses what would have been profit to either cut costs to customers to boost market share, or spends what would have been profit on investment, then it too would have no taxable profit and would owe no corporation tax.
DavidL "we will soon be able to introduce a tax on the turnover achieved by any company in the UK from sales in the UK"
No you won't. Not unless we tear up all our tax treaties with other countries, which would cripple investment abroad and invite retaliation by others.
What treaties? Most of the treaties I know are concerned with double taxation. So if a UK company makes a profit in a foreign country and is taxed there they don't pay that tax in the UK as well. Changing from corporation tax to a revenue tax would not change that at all.
DavidL "Not quite. VAT is basically paid by consumers, not the companies themselves. It is an end user tax. Of course in the EU you are not allowed to have an equivalent or competitive tax but we will soon be able to introduce a tax on the turnover achieved by any company in the UK from sales in the UK and I think we should. "
All business taxes are ultimately passed on to the consumer. They are an expense that a company needs to cover if it wants to make an adequate return.
Obviously. But if we had a revenue tax Amazon and your local bookshop would both have to account for the same cost whilst at the moment they do not. If your local bookshop, despite Amazon, is lucky enough to turn a profit they get to pay additional taxes that Amazon opt out of.
Amazon doesn't turn a profit. If your local bookshop uses what would have been profit to either cut costs to customers to boost market share, or spends what would have been profit on investment, then it too would have no taxable profit and would owe no corporation tax.
Amazon finally is, but past 10 years they haven't really instead reinvesting huge amounts in expansion.
I get so fed up with this. The Amazon share price is approaching $800 a share and has increased 15 fold since 2009. Their business model is built on not having a taxable profit but any argument that it has not been extremely profitable (and largely untaxed) for the shareholders is simply absurd.
You can say this is our and America's fault for having stupid tax laws which they have taken advantage of but you cannot say that their method of trading is anything other than parasitical of the societies in which they operate.
Maybe it is time to scrap corporation tax. We didn't have it until the mid sixties when it was first introduced as an extra tax on profits. It has now become so complex and, for some, so easy to avoid that it allows parasite companies such as Amazon to operate.
Maybe a revenue tax of some kind?
Like VAT, which we already have?
Not quite. VAT is basically paid by consumers, not the companies themselves. It is an end user tax. Of course in the EU you are not allowed to have an equivalent or competitive tax but we will soon be able to introduce a tax on the turnover achieved by any company in the UK from sales in the UK and I think we should.
Yes, I spent part of my time being an unpaid arm of HRMC. We do the accounting on their behalf.
My poor wife was up till 1.00 am doing my VAT return last night. Biggest quarterly payment ever as it happens. The vagaries of self employment.
I always treated it as part of the swings/roundabouts thing. I still have a very fine PC that I expensed against my business, along with my office furniture, my iPad and various other odds and sods. I think I came out ahead (just!) given my billing rate at the time.
Yep. Although it felt like it the tax was not paid by me but by my clients and in reality the non VAT registered ones at that. In the meantime I get to recoup a lot of tax I would otherwise pay on my petrol, hotel bills, IT etc. It is all just so cumbersome and time consuming.
DavidL "Obviously. But if we had a revenue tax Amazon and your local bookshop would both have to account for the same cost whilst at the moment they do not. If your local bookshop, despite Amazon, is lucky enough to turn a profit they get to pay additional taxes that Amazon opt out of."
Amazon (and I'm sure they have considered this, could just send the books from a warehouse outside the UK. You could have a situation where their IT infrastructure, their warehouse, their administration and their management was all based outside the UK and basically exported to consumers here. They would have no presence here to tax.
DavidL "Obviously. But if we had a revenue tax Amazon and your local bookshop would both have to account for the same cost whilst at the moment they do not. If your local bookshop, despite Amazon, is lucky enough to turn a profit they get to pay additional taxes that Amazon opt out of."
Amazon (and I'm sure they have considered this, could just send the books from a warehouse outside the UK. You could have a situation where their IT infrastructure, their warehouse, their administration and their management was all based outside the UK and basically exported to consumers here. They would have no presence here to tax.
I am not sure I get your point. Amazon, Google, Starbucks and many others make billions from their sales in the UK and contribute very little for that opportunity. The UK needs to stop this as does other developed countries. Osborne took the first steps in this respect with his "google tax" but there is a very long way to go.
DavidL "Not quite. VAT is basically paid by consumers, not the companies themselves. It is an end user tax. Of course in the EU you are not allowed to have an equivalent or competitive tax but we will soon be able to introduce a tax on the turnover achieved by any company in the UK from sales in the UK and I think we should. "
All business taxes are ultimately passed on to the consumer. They are an expense that a company needs to cover if it wants to make an adequate return.
Obviously. But if we had a revenue tax Amazon and your local bookshop would both have to account for the same cost whilst at the moment they do not. If your local bookshop, despite Amazon, is lucky enough to turn a profit they get to pay additional taxes that Amazon opt out of.
Amazon doesn't turn a profit. If your local bookshop uses what would have been profit to either cut costs to customers to boost market share, or spends what would have been profit on investment, then it too would have no taxable profit and would owe no corporation tax.
Amazon finally is, but past 10 years they haven't really instead reinvesting huge amounts in expansion.
Which is no crime and I would suggest not immoral either. I would like to know since when investment and expansion was supposed to be a sin? Thirty years ago McDonald's was doing the same thing and then it reached saturation point and expansion slowed down dramatically as a result and profits got taxed. One day Amazon will (some will suggest it already has) reach the point where further expansion isn't viable and then it will need to turn a profit to survive. The shareholders only tolerate it not turning a profit because it is expanding, one day that has to change.
On a smaller scale every day of the year all nascent and developing businesses try and reinvest in order to grow and expand. That is how the nations economy grows and expands.
Trying to penalise investment seems to me to be a ridiculously punitive and mendacious act of economic self-harm. It would make investing in a new business much harder.
Whilst I have no time for the odious wretch, I imagine his opinion will carry some weight with the PLP [well, his wife, one assumes, if he isn't simply acting as spokesman for her].
DavidL "Not quite. VAT is basically paid by consumers, not the companies themselves. It is an end user tax. Of course in the EU you are not allowed to have an equivalent or competitive tax but we will soon be able to introduce a tax on the turnover achieved by any company in the UK from sales in the UK and I think we should. "
All business taxes are ultimately passed on to the consumer. They are an expense that a company needs to cover if it wants to make an adequate return.
Obviously. But if we had a revenue tax Amazon and your local bookshop would both have to account for the same cost whilst at the moment they do not. If your local bookshop, despite Amazon, is lucky enough to turn a profit they get to pay additional taxes that Amazon opt out of.
Amazon doesn't turn a profit. If your local bookshop uses what would have been profit to either cut costs to customers to boost market share, or spends what would have been profit on investment, then it too would have no taxable profit and would owe no corporation tax.
Amazon finally is, but past 10 years they haven't really instead reinvesting huge amounts in expansion.
Which is no crime and I would suggest not immoral either. I would like to know since when investment and expansion was supposed to be a sin? Thirty years ago McDonald's was doing the same thing and then it reached saturation point and expansion slowed down dramatically as a result and profits got taxed. One day Amazon will (some will suggest it already has) reach the point where further expansion isn't viable and then it will need to turn a profit to survive. The shareholders only tolerate it not turning a profit because it is expanding, one day that has to change.
On a smaller scale every day of the year all nascent and developing businesses try and reinvest in order to grow and expand. That is how the nations economy grows and expands.
Trying to penalise investment seems to me to be a ridiculously punitive and mendacious act of economic self-harm. It would make investing in a new business much harder.
Didn't say it was. My position on Amazon has been clear on here, it annoys me massively when they mention them in the same breath as Starbucks, as they aren't the same.
The new rules on watching iPlayer appear to have resulted in the TV Licensing website being overwhelmed and crashing, btw.
Typically idiotic timing. There will be tens of thousands of students buying a licence for their term flats at the beginning of this month. I would be surprised if it was not their biggest peak of the year even in normal circumstances.
Students buy tv licences these days....crickey times have changed.
Well my kids do! Seriously, I think they are much more inclined to do so now because the BBC are much more aggressive in chasing them. It would be a bloody stupid thing to get a criminal record for.
Oddly, you don't actually get a criminal record for not paying the Licence Fee. Even if you go to jail. It's one of those things the BBC doesn't bother to correct. Although, you might have an issue with potential employers, explaining quite what you were doing in a gap year at Wormwood Scrubs....
DavidL "Not quite. VAT is basically paid by consumers, not the companies themselves. It is an end user tax. Of course in the EU you are not allowed to have an equivalent or competitive tax but we will soon be able to introduce a tax on the turnover achieved by any company in the UK from sales in the UK and I think we should. "
All business taxes are ultimately passed on to the consumer. They are an expense that a company needs to cover if it wants to make an adequate return.
Obviously. But if we had a revenue tax Amazon and your local bookshop would both have to account for the same cost whilst at the moment they do not. If your local bookshop, despite Amazon, is lucky enough to turn a profit they get to pay additional taxes that Amazon opt out of.
Amazon doesn't turn a profit. If your local bookshop uses what would have been profit to either cut costs to customers to boost market share, or spends what would have been profit on investment, then it too would have no taxable profit and would owe no corporation tax.
Amazon finally is, but past 10 years they haven't really instead reinvesting huge amounts in expansion.
Which is no crime and I would suggest not immoral either. I would like to know since when investment and expansion was supposed to be a sin? Thirty years ago McDonald's was doing the same thing and then it reached saturation point and expansion slowed down dramatically as a result and profits got taxed. One day Amazon will (some will suggest it already has) reach the point where further expansion isn't viable and then it will need to turn a profit to survive. The shareholders only tolerate it not turning a profit because it is expanding, one day that has to change.
On a smaller scale every day of the year all nascent and developing businesses try and reinvest in order to grow and expand. That is how the nations economy grows and expands.
Trying to penalise investment seems to me to be a ridiculously punitive and mendacious act of economic self-harm. It would make investing in a new business much harder.
Didn't say it was. My position on Amazon has been clear on here, it annoys me massively when they mention them in the same breath as Starbucks, as they aren't the same.
I know but DavidL is suggesting it is. If his proposal went ahead why would any small business owner bother reinvesting profits rather than taking them in dividends?
On the subject of buying books - charity shops are the best place, I find. You never know what you will find, and the money goes to a good cause*. Where else could I have bought Mr Thomas' "Ice Twins" for 99p?
The philosophy book I'm currently reading was originally purchased in on 9th October 1968 by Benjamin (as written on the inside front cover), and also has between its pages a sales docket from Joseph Poole & Co, 86 Charing Cross Road from the 1970s. I feel a connection with those past owners and readers who also tried to comprehend the 28 variations of the meaning of the word 'know' contained in its pages.
*Please let's not start a debate about the relative goodness of different charities!
DavidL "What treaties? Most of the treaties I know are concerned with double taxation. So if a UK company makes a profit in a foreign country and is taxed there they don't pay that tax in the UK as well. "
Amazon, as a foreign multinational, would invoke the UK/US tax treaty. I suspect the US authorities would back them.
Something similar happened in the 1980s or 1990s (I can't remember the exact date). California wanted to impose a sales based tax on the profits of Midland Bank in the state. The Californian sub made losses and the Californian authorities wanted to split Midland's group profits according to the sales in different jurisdictions. It was called Unitary taxation. I looked after the tax affairs of a large US multinational at the time and the Californian authorities had to back down.
Yep. Although it felt like it the tax was not paid by me but by my clients and in reality the non VAT registered ones at that. In the meantime I get to recoup a lot of tax I would otherwise pay on my petrol, hotel bills, IT etc. It is all just so cumbersome and time consuming.
If you're doing business to business deals (and so get to quote prices exclusive of VAT) that may be the case.
If you're doing business to public sales (with prices inclusive of VAT) then it's completely different.
If I think I can charge £5 for a product because people have an emotional problem with paying more than a five pound note (or £10 or £20 for same logic) then I currently get £4.1666 in sales. Under previous VAT rates I would have had sales of £4.2553 or £4.3478 respectively. I do not get £5 of sales and then charge an extra pound and say to the customer "oh that's VAT, you need to pay that too".
The new rules on watching iPlayer appear to have resulted in the TV Licensing website being overwhelmed and crashing, btw.
Typically idiotic timing. There will be tens of thousands of students buying a licence for their term flats at the beginning of this month. I would be surprised if it was not their biggest peak of the year even in normal circumstances.
Students buy tv licences these days....crickey times have changed.
Well my kids do! Seriously, I think they are much more inclined to do so now because the BBC are much more aggressive in chasing them. It would be a bloody stupid thing to get a criminal record for.
Oddly, you don't actually get a criminal record for not paying the Licence Fee. Even if you go to jail. It's one of those things the BBC doesn't bother to correct. Although, you might have an issue with potential employers, explaining quite what you were doing in a gap year at Wormwood Scrubs....
You do get a criminal record (in E&W) . It's just not held in the database of recordable offences. The issue comes when you are asked by a potential employer whether you have a criminal record and you don't declare it. Arguably they won't know, of course, but it could count as fraud if discovered, which is a SERIOUS criminal offence. You save all that potential trouble by buying a licence. Which I think is David's point
DavidL "I am not sure I get your point. Amazon, Google, Starbucks and many others make billions from their sales in the UK and contribute very little for that opportunity. The UK needs to stop this as does other developed countries. Osborne took the first steps in this respect with his "google tax" but there is a very long way to go. "
Companies that sell here pay VAT on those sales. Amazon doesn't on books but that is an anomaly, which IMO should be changed. Corporation tax is levied on the profits of a permanent establishment or business enterprise. If you just export from outside the UK into the UK there is nothing to tax.
If I go on-line and order something from abroad, which is shipped from abroad, I don't expect that company to pay corporation tax.
The so-called Google tax is irrelevant. If multi-nationals were found to break the existing rules an additional levy could be imposed. It did not change any of the existing rules.
DavidL "I am not sure I get your point. Amazon, Google, Starbucks and many others make billions from their sales in the UK and contribute very little for that opportunity. The UK needs to stop this as does other developed countries. Osborne took the first steps in this respect with his "google tax" but there is a very long way to go. "
Companies that sell here pay VAT on those sales. Amazon doesn't on books but that is an anomaly, which IMO should be changed. Corporation tax is levied on the profits of a permanent establishment or business enterprise. If you just export from outside the UK into the UK there is nothing to tax.
If I go on-line and order something from abroad, which is shipped from abroad, I don't expect that company to pay corporation tax.
The so-called Google tax is irrelevant. If multi-nationals were found to break the existing rules an additional levy could be imposed. It did not change any of the existing rules.
Quite right, but the problem is that we do have businesses that are permanently established in the UK that are able to avoid paying corporation tax because they can afford the clever tax experts to set up the structures necessary or they are so big that they can convince the Treasury to do sweet heart deals. There is no suggestion that they are doing anything against the rules but they are imposing costs on UK society that they are not paying what was supposed to be their fair share for.
The rules need changing so that everyone, including Goldman Sachs, Starbucks and Amazon to name but three, cannot buy their way out of their obligations and are treated exactly the same way as the family building firm down the road or indeed Bob the Builder.
Thanks. Hannan's article is very good. p.s. (edit) particularly on "passporting".
p.p.s. I am coming to the realisation that the Remain/Leave campaigns were a form of H-C Andersen's fairy tale about the emperor's new clothes. Remainers = emperor and advisers, Leavers = innocent boy.
We get annoyed about the awarding of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups to Russia and Qatar, but there are plenty of questions over the awarding of the 2006 and 2010 World Cups to Germany and South Africa.
Really the point I made the other day. The EU picks on Ireland but there are many and more egregious examples in Luxembourg which seem to be left alone. I wonder why....
I think action on those two is on the way, investigations ongoing. I don't think there is much for Amazon, they just have a business model not based on making money, McDonald's might be interesting, the US aren't going to be happy.
Goldman Sachs might begin to sweat soon as well given the dodgy deal HMRC signed with them in 2009/10.
I get so fed up with this. The Amazon share price is approaching $800 a share and has increased 15 fold since 2009. Their business model is built on not having a taxable profit but any argument that it has not been extremely profitable (and largely untaxed) for the shareholders is simply absurd.
You can say this is our and America's fault for having stupid tax laws which they have taken advantage of but you cannot say that their method of trading is anything other than parasitical of the societies in which they operate.
Maybe it is time to scrap corporation tax. We didn't have it until the mid sixties when it was first introduced as an extra tax on profits. It has now become so complex and, for some, so easy to avoid that it allows parasite companies such as Amazon to operate.
And replace it with what? Amazon are accumulating wealth at a rate possibly only Apple can match. How do we ensure that those gaining from that wealth accumulation pay their share of the society that generates the profit? When the shareholdings of these companies are so international very little of the wealth gained in the UK would be taxed here.
Maybe a revenue tax of some kind?
Yes, or on cash outflows as Allister Heath has suggested.
The new rules on watching iPlayer appear to have resulted in the TV Licensing website being overwhelmed and crashing, btw.
Typically idiotic timing. There will be tens of thousands of students buying a licence for their term flats at the beginning of this month. I would be surprised if it was not their biggest peak of the year even in normal circumstances.
Students buy tv licences these days....crickey times have changed.
Well my kids do! Seriously, I think they are much more inclined to do so now because the BBC are much more aggressive in chasing them. It would be a bloody stupid thing to get a criminal record for.
Oddly, you don't actually get a criminal record for not paying the Licence Fee. Even if you go to jail. It's one of those things the BBC doesn't bother to correct. Although, you might have an issue with potential employers, explaining quite what you were doing in a gap year at Wormwood Scrubs....
Well unless it has changed in the last decade you do in Scotland. When I worked as a fiscal lists of previous convictions showed such convictions which had significant implications because there are presumptions to protect first offenders that did not then apply.
Thanks. Hannan's article is very good. p.s. (edit) particularly on "passporting".
He's not being entirely honest there, the EU didn't recommend extending the passporting zone to those countries. They recommended that countries should be able to sell into the zone without facing tariffs or NTBs as their regulatory environment was a close enough match to the passporting zone. It does mean that the EU would have to actively seek a fight with the UK if we didn't get the same status in leaving, even if we got rid of the bonus cap, BRRD and other such stupid regulations given that none of the nations given equivalency have similar provisions.
Why is there even a remnant of the Remain campaign or a future direction for it? Vote Leave as far as I know effectively disbanded and haven't tweeted since June 24. Same as to why does Leave.EU still exist?
The campaign is over, the campaigns shouldn't exist let alone have a future.
DavidL "I am not sure I get your point. Amazon, Google, Starbucks and many others make billions from their sales in the UK and contribute very little for that opportunity. The UK needs to stop this as does other developed countries. Osborne took the first steps in this respect with his "google tax" but there is a very long way to go. "
Companies that sell here pay VAT on those sales. Amazon doesn't on books but that is an anomaly, which IMO should be changed. Corporation tax is levied on the profits of a permanent establishment or business enterprise. If you just export from outside the UK into the UK there is nothing to tax.
If I go on-line and order something from abroad, which is shipped from abroad, I don't expect that company to pay corporation tax.
The so-called Google tax is irrelevant. If multi-nationals were found to break the existing rules an additional levy could be imposed. It did not change any of the existing rules.
Quite right, but the problem is that we do have businesses that are permanently established in the UK that are able to avoid paying corporation tax because they can afford the clever tax experts to set up the structures necessary or they are so big that they can convince the Treasury to do sweet heart deals. There is no suggestion that they are doing anything against the rules but they are imposing costs on UK society that they are not paying what was supposed to be their fair share for.
The rules need changing so that everyone, including Goldman Sachs, Starbucks and Amazon to name but three, cannot buy their way out of their obligations and are treated exactly the same way as the family building firm down the road or indeed Bob the Builder.
I have never seen Bob the Builder fill in a tax return or a VAT return. I think he works on the black.
Thanks. Hannan's article is very good. p.s. (edit) particularly on "passporting".
Actually, he seems to be confused on 'passporting', which is not the same as 'equivalence'.
No he's not, he explicitly deals with passporting.
Last month, the EU’s regulator recommended that passporting rights be extended to firms regulated in Australia, Canada, the Cayman Islands, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Japan, Jersey, Switzerland and the United States. Now remember that, on the day Brexit takes effect, Britain won’t just have equivalent regulation to the EU; it will have identical regulation. The idea that the Cayman Islands might enjoy passporting rights but not the UK is risible.
The new rules on watching iPlayer appear to have resulted in the TV Licensing website being overwhelmed and crashing, btw.
Typically idiotic timing. There will be tens of thousands of students buying a licence for their term flats at the beginning of this month. I would be surprised if it was not their biggest peak of the year even in normal circumstances.
Students buy tv licences these days....crickey times have changed.
Well my kids do! Seriously, I think they are much more inclined to do so now because the BBC are much more aggressive in chasing them. It would be a bloody stupid thing to get a criminal record for.
Oddly, you don't actually get a criminal record for not paying the Licence Fee. Even if you go to jail. It's one of those things the BBC doesn't bother to correct. Although, you might have an issue with potential employers, explaining quite what you were doing in a gap year at Wormwood Scrubs....
You do get a criminal record (in E&W) . It's just not held in the database of recordable offences. The issue comes when you are asked by a potential employer whether you have a criminal record and you don't declare it. Arguably they won't know, of course, but it could count as fraud if discovered, which is a SERIOUS criminal offence. You save all that potential trouble by buying a licence. Which I think is David's point
About the TV licence - you are still covered by your parents if you only watch stuff on a device that is powered by it's own internal batteries when receiving the signal/stream/data. So all phones/tablets and even laptops are covered if not plugged in whilst watching.
What about for example using airplay? The receiving device isn't plugged in but the apple TV/regular TV would be. Looking at the wording this will be fine as it talks about the recieving device rather than the displaying device.
Thanks. Hannan's article is very good. p.s. (edit) particularly on "passporting".
Actually, he seems to be confused on 'passporting', which is not the same as 'equivalence'.
Indeed, but it does raise the question of just how close we have to get in order to achieve equivalent status. As I mentioned just now, the nations who have been granted this status have no regulatory equivalent of the bonus cap, BRRD or Solvency II. They have the status anyway. It's definitely something the Treasury, BoE and FCA will need to look at in detail, I'm just glad I'm not anywhere near the compliance division!
Thanks. Hannan's article is very good. p.s. (edit) particularly on "passporting".
It's pretty obvious that Dan isn't bothered by free movement of people, but is prepared to concede that others are and recognise that as a benefit of Brexit.
Thanks. Hannan's article is very good. p.s. (edit) particularly on "passporting".
Actually, he seems to be confused on 'passporting', which is not the same as 'equivalence'.
No he's not, he explicitly deals with passporting.
Last month, the EU’s regulator recommended that passporting rights be extended to firms regulated in Australia, Canada, the Cayman Islands, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Japan, Jersey, Switzerland and the United States. Now remember that, on the day Brexit takes effect, Britain won’t just have equivalent regulation to the EU; it will have identical regulation. The idea that the Cayman Islands might enjoy passporting rights but not the UK is risible.
I don't think that proposal applies to banking, insurance and other key sectors.
Thanks. Hannan's article is very good. p.s. (edit) particularly on "passporting".
It's pretty obvious that Dan isn't bothered by free movement of people, but is prepared to concede that others are and recognise that as a benefit of Brexit.
The new rules on watching iPlayer appear to have resulted in the TV Licensing website being overwhelmed and crashing, btw.
Typically idiotic timing. There will be tens of thousands of students buying a licence for their term flats at the beginning of this month. I would be surprised if it was not their biggest peak of the year even in normal circumstances.
Students buy tv licences these days....crickey times have changed.
Well my kids do! Seriously, I think they are much more inclined to do so now because the BBC are much more aggressive in chasing them. It would be a bloody stupid thing to get a criminal record for.
Oddly, you don't actually get a criminal record for not paying the Licence Fee. Even if you go to jail. It's one of those things the BBC doesn't bother to correct. Although, you might have an issue with potential employers, explaining quite what you were doing in a gap year at Wormwood Scrubs....
You do get a criminal record (in E&W) . It's just not held in the database of recordable offences. The issue comes when you are asked by a potential employer whether you have a criminal record and you don't declare it. Arguably they won't know, of course, but it could count as fraud if discovered, which is a SERIOUS criminal offence. You save all that potential trouble by buying a licence. Which I think is David's point
About the TV licence - you are still covered by your parents if you only watch stuff on a device that is powered by it's own internal batteries when receiving the signal/stream/data. So all phones/tablets and even laptops are covered if not plugged in whilst watching.
What about for example using airplay? The receiving device isn't plugged in but the apple TV/regular TV would be. Looking at the wording this will be fine as it talks about the recieving device rather than the displaying device.
The legislation is made for 20 years ago...
There is all the stuff about multiple occupancy houses that is terribly flawed as well.
Thanks. Hannan's article is very good. p.s. (edit) particularly on "passporting".
Actually, he seems to be confused on 'passporting', which is not the same as 'equivalence'.
This concept of equivalence that Daniel Hannan pushes is very vague and somewhat spurious. Equivalent for whom? Not the EU, as various spokespeople have made clear over the past few weeks. They get to decide whether it's equivalent and will therefore treat the UK origin goods and service as the same as an EU origin one. With the single market you get a guarantee of equal treatment.
Quite a coup for those enterprising youngsters. I doubt they'd have enjoyed such a warm welcome in the currently clown occupied Oval Office.
I doubt if they would have had a look in if from City college Leicester either. This is how oligarchies keep the power in their own hands.
Thought you were smart when you took them on, But you didn't take a peep in their artillery room All that rugby puts hairs on your chest What chance have you got against a tie and a crest?
Last word on today's PMI figures. The consensus here is that the drop in the European PMI figures is because of falling demand from the UK, specifically Italy and France have lost the most because of this. While Germany's order book from the UK may also begin showing signs of weakness from UK purchasers soon.
Our gain is turning into their loss, just as their gain was our loss from 2013-2016.
Quite a coup for those enterprising youngsters. I doubt they'd have enjoyed such a warm welcome in the currently clown occupied Oval Office.
I doubt if they would have had a look in if from City college Leicester either. This is how oligarchies keep the power in their own hands.
Don't put Leicester down. Ranieri has recently been prominently featured in an Italian Sky Calcio advertisement which makes your home town look desirable.
Last word on today's PMI figures. The consensus here is that the drop in the European PMI figures is because of falling demand from the UK, specifically Italy and France have lost the most because of this. While Germany's order book from the UK may also begin showing signs of weakness from UK purchasers soon.
Our gain is turning into their loss, just as their gain was our loss from 2013-2016.
The importance of the PMI stats is more in their psychological impact than one month's rebound. The narrative that "voting Brexit = immediate meltdown" has now been utterly scuttled. And an immediate meltdown - the Full Chernobyl - was the one and only way the vote might have been reversed.
Moreover, confidence breeds confidence. As others look around and see the economy doing fine, they think Why not join in, and the good times return.
Nunu could be right and we'll enjoy 0.6% growth in the THIRD quarter. It will be interesting to see what that does to the Brexit debate over there, on the continent.
Though we await Construction & Services, natch..
The notion from Richard of this parish that there is a zero per cent chance in the short to medium term that Brexit will boost the economy is looking more and more foolhardy by the day.
Change brings both risk and opportunity. Looks like increasingly like the British spirit is embracing the opportunities while minimising the risks.
Last word on today's PMI figures. The consensus here is that the drop in the European PMI figures is because of falling demand from the UK, specifically Italy and France have lost the most because of this. While Germany's order book from the UK may also begin showing signs of weakness from UK purchasers soon.
Our gain is turning into their loss, just as their gain was our loss from 2013-2016.
The importance of the PMI stats is more in their psychological impact than one month's rebound. The narrative that "voting Brexit = immediate meltdown" has now been utterly scuttled. And an immediate meltdown - the Full Chernobyl - was the one and only way the vote might have been reversed.
Moreover, confidence breeds confidence. As others look around and see the economy doing fine, they think Why not join in, and the good times return.
Nunu could be right and we'll enjoy 0.6% growth in the THIRD quarter. It will be interesting to see what that does to the Brexit debate over there, on the continent.
Though we await Construction & Services, natch..
Brexit has put a seam of lead in the national pencil. I'm expecting a new baby boom.
The notion from Richard of this parish that there is a zero per cent chance in the short to medium term that Brexit will boost the economy is looking more and more foolhardy by the day.
Change brings both risk and opportunity. Looks like increasingly like the British spirit is embracing the opportunities while minimising the risks.
Any new opportunities will take many months, even years, to take effect. Sure, the fall in sterling is helpful to some sectors, but it's still a symptom of a problem.
Quite a coup for those enterprising youngsters. I doubt they'd have enjoyed such a warm welcome in the currently clown occupied Oval Office.
I doubt if they would have had a look in if from City college Leicester either. This is how oligarchies keep the power in their own hands.
Don't put Leicester down. Ranieri has recently been prominently featured in an Italian Sky Calcio advertisement which makes your home town look desirable.
Not putting Leicester down (and Claudio lives quite happily in swish Stoneygate, I see him in the Italian restaurant there sometimes). Just that an Eton name gets access where others cannot.
The notion from Richard of this parish that there is a zero per cent chance in the short to medium term that Brexit will boost the economy is looking more and more foolhardy by the day.
Change brings both risk and opportunity. Looks like increasingly like the British spirit is embracing the opportunities while minimising the risks.
Any new opportunities will take many months, even years, to take effect. Sure, the fall in sterling is helpful to some sectors, but it's still a symptom of a problem.
New opportunities have arisen already. PMI is rising already. You defined it as zero per cent change of an improvement in up to two years, yet these exports are already getting booked.
Last word on today's PMI figures. The consensus here is that the drop in the European PMI figures is because of falling demand from the UK, specifically Italy and France have lost the most because of this. While Germany's order book from the UK may also begin showing signs of weakness from UK purchasers soon.
Our gain is turning into their loss, just as their gain was our loss from 2013-2016.
The importance of the PMI stats is more in their psychological impact than one month's rebound. The narrative that "voting Brexit = immediate meltdown" has now been utterly scuttled. And an immediate meltdown - the Full Chernobyl - was the one and only way the vote might have been reversed.
Moreover, confidence breeds confidence. As others look around and see the economy doing fine, they think Why not join in, and the good times return.
Nunu could be right and we'll enjoy 0.6% growth in the THIRD quarter. It will be interesting to see what that does to the Brexit debate over there, on the continent.
Though we await Construction & Services, natch..
Brexit has put a seam of lead in the national pencil. I'm expecting a new baby boom.
Thanks. Hannan's article is very good. p.s. (edit) particularly on "passporting".
Actually, he seems to be confused on 'passporting', which is not the same as 'equivalence'.
No he's not, he explicitly deals with passporting.
Last month, the EU’s regulator recommended that passporting rights be extended to firms regulated in Australia, Canada, the Cayman Islands, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Japan, Jersey, Switzerland and the United States. Now remember that, on the day Brexit takes effect, Britain won’t just have equivalent regulation to the EU; it will have identical regulation. The idea that the Cayman Islands might enjoy passporting rights but not the UK is risible.
I don't think that proposal applies to banking, insurance and other key sectors.
'Alternative Investment Fund Managers' (what ever they are.....)
The notion from Richard of this parish that there is a zero per cent chance in the short to medium term that Brexit will boost the economy is looking more and more foolhardy by the day.
Change brings both risk and opportunity. Looks like increasingly like the British spirit is embracing the opportunities while minimising the risks.
Any new opportunities will take many months, even years, to take effect. Sure, the fall in sterling is helpful to some sectors, but it's still a symptom of a problem.
New opportunities have arisen already. PMI is rising already. You defined it as zero per cent change of an improvement in up to two years, yet these exports are already getting booked.
We are talking about a volatile monthly figure measuring sentiment in one smallish sector. It collapsed last month. It's bounced back this month. It represents a very small proportion of GDP. But yes, it's good news as far as it goes. Mark Carney has done a good job stabilising things.
Last word on today's PMI figures. The consensus here is that the drop in the European PMI figures is because of falling demand from the UK, specifically Italy and France have lost the most because of this. While Germany's order book from the UK may also begin showing signs of weakness from UK purchasers soon.
Our gain is turning into their loss, just as their gain was our loss from 2013-2016.
The importance of the PMI stats is more in their psychological impact than one month's rebound. The narrative that "voting Brexit = immediate meltdown" has now been utterly scuttled. And an immediate meltdown - the Full Chernobyl - was the one and only way the vote might have been reversed.
Moreover, confidence breeds confidence. As others look around and see the economy doing fine, they think Why not join in, and the good times return.
Nunu could be right and we'll enjoy 0.6% growth in the THIRD quarter. It will be interesting to see what that does to the Brexit debate over there, on the continent.
Though we await Construction & Services, natch..
Its also about trust. If every mainstream economist was screaming Armageddon before the vote and instead we get steady growth what will happen next time we really need average Joe to trust the establishment? Say if there is another financial crisis and a run on a bank and everyone says calm down "everything is going to be OK" how will people in Sunderland or Tory shires react?
Last word on today's PMI figures. The consensus here is that the drop in the European PMI figures is because of falling demand from the UK, specifically Italy and France have lost the most because of this. While Germany's order book from the UK may also begin showing signs of weakness from UK purchasers soon.
Our gain is turning into their loss, just as their gain was our loss from 2013-2016.
The importance of the PMI stats is more in their psychological impact than one month's rebound. The narrative that "voting Brexit = immediate meltdown" has now been utterly scuttled. And an immediate meltdown - the Full Chernobyl - was the one and only way the vote might have been reversed.
Moreover, confidence breeds confidence. As others look around and see the economy doing fine, they think Why not join in, and the good times return.
Nunu could be right and we'll enjoy 0.6% growth in the THIRD quarter. It will be interesting to see what that does to the Brexit debate over there, on the continent.
Though we await Construction & Services, natch..
The notion from Richard of this parish that there is a zero per cent chance in the short to medium term that Brexit will boost the economy is looking more and more foolhardy by the day.
Change brings both risk and opportunity. Looks like increasingly like the British spirit is embracing the opportunities while minimising the risks.
I run a manufacturing company which exports about 70% of output in medical technology. We have not had Brexit and I am not happy about the idea that shipping to countries in Europe may become more complicated. I can see no way that we can remove ourselves from CE marking and I am worried that the UK may no longer get to vote on the reglatory legislation that determines the products I make.
There is no confidence amongst business owners that politcians have a clue about how business works. So any agreements they sign may create a mess. In the meantime the drop in sterling and free movement of people across Europe makes the UK an amazingly cheap place to manufacture.
The best thing for the UK at the moment is for Theresa May to go away and spend a year creating a discussion paper on leaving Europe and letting business get on with its job. The worst thing she can do is trigger the Article 50 which will truly create a mess.
BTW. On taxes the majority of the UK mid sized medical technology industry has been bought by large MNCs who can instantly pay for their purchase by cutting the tax paid. If this issue is not solved soon there will be little domestic industry left.
The notion from Richard of this parish that there is a zero per cent chance in the short to medium term that Brexit will boost the economy is looking more and more foolhardy by the day.
Change brings both risk and opportunity. Looks like increasingly like the British spirit is embracing the opportunities while minimising the risks.
Any new opportunities will take many months, even years, to take effect. Sure, the fall in sterling is helpful to some sectors, but it's still a symptom of a problem.
New opportunities have arisen already. PMI is rising already. You defined it as zero per cent change of an improvement in up to two years, yet these exports are already getting booked.
We are talking about a volatile monthly figure measuring sentiment in one smallish sector. It collapsed last month. It's bounced back this month. It represents a very small proportion of GDP. But yes, it's good news as far as it goes. Mark Carney has done a good job stabilising things.
Stephanie Flanders acknowledged today on BBCR4 that the move by Carney may have undermined confidence. An interesting view from a staunch REMAINer.
"EU chief Jean-Claude Juncker faces embarrassment over sweetheart tax deals signed by Luxembourg with Amazon and McDonald's when he was prime minister.
Amazon faces similar claims that it lowered its tax bill by making sales to European customers through an arm of the company in Luxembourg. In 2014, the online retailer’s UK business paid £11.9million in tax on £5.3billion of sales to British shoppers. McDonald’s and Amazon both deny any wrongdoing."
Really the point I made the other day. The EU picks on Ireland but there are many and more egregious examples in Luxembourg which seem to be left alone. I wonder why....
Some of these global companies stink. It seems that they think that avoiding tax is the be all and end all of their existence.
Companies have a duty to their shareholders to maximise the profit they make.
No they don't.
They don't?
What are they there for then?
Well for a start companies have no duty to their shareholders. Directors do.
And if you read the companies act for the duties of directors maximising profit is not there.
Maintaining the reputation of the company in wider society is though.
I have a pin.
Would you like to count the number of angels dancing on its head?
So you are agreeing there is no legal duty to maximise profit then?
Well the business of business is making money..
The business of a company is to undertake the business of the company.
Last word on today's PMI figures. The consensus here is that the drop in the European PMI figures is because of falling demand from the UK, specifically Italy and France have lost the most because of this. While Germany's order book from the UK may also begin showing signs of weakness from UK purchasers soon.
Our gain is turning into their loss, just as their gain was our loss from 2013-2016.
The importance of the PMI stats is more in their psychological impact than one month's rebound. The narrative that "voting Brexit = immediate meltdown" has now been utterly scuttled. And an immediate meltdown - the Full Chernobyl - was the one and only way the vote might have been reversed.
Moreover, confidence breeds confidence. As others look around and see the economy doing fine, they think Why not join in, and the good times return.
Nunu could be right and we'll enjoy 0.6% growth in the THIRD quarter. It will be interesting to see what that does to the Brexit debate over there, on the continent.
Though we await Construction & Services, natch..
I never heard or saw the "narrative" that voting Brexit = immediate meltdown. This must be a figment of the Leavers' imagination. It will take a few years before the true effects of Brexit can be quantified. Any conclusions reached before then will be pure speculation and used by Leavers and Remainers to justify their votes.
I don't know if the Independent counts but, before the referendum, they reported,
"Brexit could plunge Britain into an instant recession, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said in the starkest economic warning yet of the consequences of Britain leaving the European Union. According to a new analysis by the Treasury the recession – defined as at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth – would last for a year and leave the level of UK GDP 3.6 per cent lower in two years' time than otherwise if Britons vote to leave the 28-member bloc on 23 June."
Comments
As a child I used to have holidays in Devon or Wales, and going round old bookshops and buying cheap second hand books (often Doctor Who stories) are something of which I have fond memories.
Anyway, if the finances improve I'll see about visiting Waterstones a bit more often (there's a rather good one in Leeds, which is just as well given Borders has gone).
My employer gets a big rebate every quarter. Joys of being an exporter. Makes no odds to the profits of course.
No you won't. Not unless we tear up all our tax treaties with other countries, which would cripple investment abroad and invite retaliation by others.
It's notable that the focus of debate has changed. While the referendum was being contested, the case for continued UK participation in the EU single market went pretty well uncontested. I think the Leave campaign made a tactical calculation to that effect, choosing instead to put an argument that continued access to EU markets could be secured given the scale of the UK's trade deficit with the EU gave us such a powerful negotiating card. A card that, until now, the UK has been forbidden to play.
Momentum Derbyshire has ELEVEN people in its media team. Pretty sure that's more than @UKLabour https://t.co/YcWAI3AfXN
Amazon (and I'm sure they have considered this, could just send the books from a warehouse outside the UK. You could have a situation where their IT infrastructure, their warehouse, their administration and their management was all based outside the UK and basically exported to consumers here. They would have no presence here to tax.
On a smaller scale every day of the year all nascent and developing businesses try and reinvest in order to grow and expand. That is how the nations economy grows and expands.
Trying to penalise investment seems to me to be a ridiculously punitive and mendacious act of economic self-harm. It would make investing in a new business much harder.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37243029
Whilst I have no time for the odious wretch, I imagine his opinion will carry some weight with the PLP [well, his wife, one assumes, if he isn't simply acting as spokesman for her].
https://recombu.com/digital/article/tv-licence-fee-myths-busted
The philosophy book I'm currently reading was originally purchased in on 9th October 1968 by Benjamin (as written on the inside front cover), and also has between its pages a sales docket from Joseph Poole & Co, 86 Charing Cross Road from the 1970s. I feel a connection with those past owners and readers who also tried to comprehend the 28 variations of the meaning of the word 'know' contained in its pages.
*Please let's not start a debate about the relative goodness of different charities!
Amazon, as a foreign multinational, would invoke the UK/US tax treaty. I suspect the US authorities would back them.
Something similar happened in the 1980s or 1990s (I can't remember the exact date). California wanted to impose a sales based tax on the profits of Midland Bank in the state. The Californian sub made losses and the Californian authorities wanted to split Midland's group profits according to the sales in different jurisdictions. It was called Unitary taxation. I looked after the tax affairs of a large US multinational at the time and the Californian authorities had to back down.
If you're doing business to public sales (with prices inclusive of VAT) then it's completely different.
If I think I can charge £5 for a product because people have an emotional problem with paying more than a five pound note (or £10 or £20 for same logic) then I currently get £4.1666 in sales. Under previous VAT rates I would have had sales of £4.2553 or £4.3478 respectively. I do not get £5 of sales and then charge an extra pound and say to the customer "oh that's VAT, you need to pay that too".
http://order-order.com/2016/09/01/remainer-split-coming-over-free-movement/
Companies that sell here pay VAT on those sales. Amazon doesn't on books but that is an anomaly, which IMO should be changed. Corporation tax is levied on the profits of a permanent establishment or business enterprise. If you just export from outside the UK into the UK there is nothing to tax.
If I go on-line and order something from abroad, which is shipped from abroad, I don't expect that company to pay corporation tax.
The so-called Google tax is irrelevant. If multi-nationals were found to break the existing rules an additional levy could be imposed. It did not change any of the existing rules.
Jeremy Corbyn supporters expelled from Labour for threats to 'cut Tony Blair's eyes out and set him on fire'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/01/jeremy-corbyn-supporters-expelled-from-labour-for-threats-to-cut/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37246543
Surprised it’s only thousands…
p.s. (edit) particularly on "passporting".
The rules need changing so that everyone, including Goldman Sachs, Starbucks and Amazon to name but three, cannot buy their way out of their obligations and are treated exactly the same way as the family building firm down the road or indeed Bob the Builder.
Eton boys given private audience with Vladimir Putin
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37242146
http://tinyurl.com/j7r6x97
We get annoyed about the awarding of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups to Russia and Qatar, but there are plenty of questions over the awarding of the 2006 and 2010 World Cups to Germany and South Africa.
The campaign is over, the campaigns shouldn't exist let alone have a future.
Last month, the EU’s regulator recommended that passporting rights be extended to firms regulated in Australia, Canada, the Cayman Islands, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Japan, Jersey, Switzerland and the United States. Now remember that, on the day Brexit takes effect, Britain won’t just have equivalent regulation to the EU; it will have identical regulation. The idea that the Cayman Islands might enjoy passporting rights but not the UK is risible.
What about for example using airplay? The receiving device isn't plugged in but the apple TV/regular TV would be. Looking at the wording this will be fine as it talks about the recieving device rather than the displaying device.
The legislation is made for 20 years ago...
#OnThisDay in 1939, Germany invaded Poland, marking the beginning of #WW2. The outbreak of the war explained: https://t.co/kgnWwFxrSO
But you didn't take a peep in their artillery room
All that rugby puts hairs on your chest
What chance have you got against a tie and a crest?
Our gain is turning into their loss, just as their gain was our loss from 2013-2016.
U.S. immigrant deportations declined in 2014, but remain near record high https://t.co/Eq47UYGvvI https://t.co/Abe4luWy6q
Much lower numbers than I expected.
Change brings both risk and opportunity. Looks like increasingly like the British spirit is embracing the opportunities while minimising the risks.
NEW THREAD
https://www.esma.europa.eu/press-news/esma-news/esma-advises-extension-funds-passport-12-non-eu-countries
I run a manufacturing company which exports about 70% of output in medical technology. We have not had Brexit and I am not happy about the idea that shipping to countries in Europe may become more complicated. I can see no way that we can remove ourselves from CE marking and I am worried that the UK may no longer get to vote on the reglatory legislation that determines the products I make.
There is no confidence amongst business owners that politcians have a clue about how business works. So any agreements they sign may create a mess. In the meantime the drop in sterling and free movement of people across Europe makes the UK an amazingly cheap place to manufacture.
The best thing for the UK at the moment is for Theresa May to go away and spend a year creating a discussion paper on leaving Europe and letting business get on with its job. The worst thing she can do is trigger the Article 50 which will truly create a mess.
BTW. On taxes the majority of the UK mid sized medical technology industry has been bought by large MNCs who can instantly pay for their purchase by cutting the tax paid. If this issue is not solved soon there will be little domestic industry left.
I never heard or saw the "narrative" that voting Brexit = immediate meltdown. This must be a figment of the Leavers' imagination. It will take a few years before the true effects of Brexit can be quantified. Any conclusions reached before then will be pure speculation and used by Leavers and Remainers to justify their votes.
"Brexit could plunge Britain into an instant recession, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said in the starkest economic warning yet of the consequences of Britain leaving the European Union. According to a new analysis by the Treasury the recession – defined as at least two consecutive quarters of negative growth – would last for a year and leave the level of UK GDP 3.6 per cent lower in two years' time than otherwise if Britons vote to leave the 28-member bloc on 23 June."