The cheek of Labour !

[Napster]

I think the one person who has spoken any sense on this is Nigel Lawson. He is suggesting that corporation tax is based on sales rather than profit.

On the face of it, that would make a huge amount of sense because it would stop companies like Google and Amazon from manipulating their UK profits in favour of their, say Luxembourg, profits.

What a kick in the teeth for small businesses though.

 

[londonblue]

People have been suggesting that corporation tax should be paid on revenues in the countries where big multinational companies operate (not just Google,btw) rather than on profits for some time now.

It's certainly not a new idea and NL didn't come up with it (though he is certainly a convert).

I didn't say it was his idea. I said he was talking sense.

 

[londonblue]

What a kick in the teeth for small businesses though.

That will depend on the tax rate. For example, a company has sales of £100,000, and expenses of £50,000. It has profits of £50,000. Tax rate is currently 20%, so the amount of tax paid is £10,000.

If tax is paid on sales then the tax rate only needs to be 10% for the same outcome.

There are other considerations obviously, but there is some merit to this idea.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

But then Google never went out and brought armalite rifles with that loose change, did they.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Jeremy Corbyn ever contributed to IRA funding (if that's what you're implying).

 

[Benfleet A1]

There is no evidence whatsoever that Jeremy Corbyn ever contributed to IRA funding (if that's what you're implying).

You were the one suggesting a bit of loose change was getting chucked in buckets, not me. I wonder how many Kilburn pubs he used to get round, if you know what I mean.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

This thread has sort of gone off message but that kind of fits the intention of the opening post - that you can deflect people's attention but leading a discussion off in another direction.


Cameron was doing the same by sneering 'bunch of migrants' when asked questions about the bedroom Tax ruling and EU investigation into the Chancellors dodgy tax deal with Google. Maybe a calculated deflection tactic?


When these distraction tactics are used its worth highlighting again:


Google are paying 3% tax


The bedroom tax costs more to implement than it saves


1 million using foodbanks


Tory Councils rebelling again government funding cuts


The government classes £450k houses as affordable


The majority of doctors are still due to strike due to enforced contracts




Or we can focus on Blair and what Corbyn may or may not have said in the 1980's.....

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

You were the one suggesting a bit of loose change was getting chucked in buckets, not me. I wonder how many Kilburn pubs he used to get round, if you know what I mean.

No, actually it was SAM.

And that incidentally was an indirect reference to a Hamas rally, where JC admitted to putting some loose change in a collection bucket but couldn't remember (understandibly) how much he'd contributed.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

This thread has sort of gone off message but that kind of fits the intention of the opening post - that you can deflect people's attention but leading a discussion off in another direction.


Cameron was doing the same by sneering 'bunch of migrants' when asked questions about the bedroom Tax ruling and EU investigation into the Chancellors dodgy tax deal with Google. Maybe a calculated deflection tactic?


When these distraction tactics are used its worth highlighting again:


Google are paying 3% tax


The bedroom tax costs more to implement than it saves


1 million using foodbanks


Tory Councils rebelling again government funding cuts


The government classes £450k houses as affordable


The majority of doctors are still due to strike due to enforced contracts




Or we can focus on Blair and what Corbyn may or may not have said in the 1980's.....

Absolutely.It's something he learnt from his Aussie election guru,Lynton Crosby. Apparently down under it's called "throwing a dead dog on the table" ie a classic diversionary tactic which everyone then starts talking about.

Expect to see a lot more of it at PMQ's.

 

[Napster]

Absolutely.It's something he learnt from his Aussie election guru,Lynton Crosby. Apparently down under it's called "throwing a dead dog on the table" ie a classic diversionary tactic which everyone then starts talking about.

Expect to see a lot more of it at PMQ's.

nah, Im sure Jo Moore did it first under Stephen Byers....

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

nah, Im sure Jo Moore did it first under Stephen Byers....

That was choosing a good day to bury a bad news story.:smile:

Not the same thing at all really.

 

[londonblue]

No, actually it was SAM.

And that incidentally was an indirect reference to a Hamas rally, where JC admitted to putting some loose change in a collection bucket but couldn't remember (understandibly) how much he'd contributed.

Surely giving any amount of money to any terrorist organisation is too much?

 

[MK Shrimper]

Surely giving any amount of money to any terrorist organisation is too much?

Surely it depends on whether you consider them freedom fighters or terrorists. I've given money to Greenpeace, they have been considered a terrorist organisation by the UN. http://nationalreport.net/united-nations-designates-greenpeace-terrorist-organization/


However this thread surely is about Google doing it's responsibilty to pay tax.

 

[Napster]

However this thread surely is about Google doing it's responsibilty to pay tax.

why should be a responsibility to pay tax? the only responsibility a company should have is to its shareholders.

 

[londonblue]

Surely it depends on whether you consider them freedom fighters or terrorists. I've given money to Greenpeace, they have been considered a terrorist organisation by the UN. http://nationalreport.net/united-nations-designates-greenpeace-terrorist-organization/


However this thread surely is about Google doing it's responsibilty to pay tax.

An organisation that is designated as a terrorist organisation usually is one.

 

[MK Shrimper]

why should be a responsibility to pay tax? the only responsibility a company should have is to its shareholders.

Sorry Naps, profoundly disagree with you on this. If corporation tax was removed, the tax burden on the rest of us will have to rise to cover the shortfall.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

why should be a responsibility to pay tax? the only responsibility a company should have is to its shareholders.

Tax avoidance, while legal, is often extremely unethical, as it is in Google's case (and in that of many other large multi-nationals).

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

An organisation that is designated as a terrorist organisation usually is one.

Really? Tell that to Nelson Mandella and the ANC.

 

[londonblue]

Tax avoidance, while legal, is often extremely unethical, as it in Google's case (and in that of many other large multi-nationals).

I would argue any person or company that over pays its tax is behaving unethically. No person or company should support any government by overpaying. I certainly wouldn't, just as I wouldn't overpay for my train ticket.

"Here you go Mr. TOC, have extra because I don't believe you charge me enough."

No chance.

BTW: I've picked some random words and made them bold just like you.

 

[londonblue]

Really? Tell that to Nelson Mandella and the ANC.

As far as I know the ANC aren't a terrorist organisation anymore. There's no need. Anyway, I said USUALLY.

 

[MK Shrimper]

I would argue any person or company that over pays its tax is behaving unethically. No person or company support any government by overpaying. I certainly wouldn't, just as I wouldn't overpay for my train ticket.

"Here you go Mr. TOC, have extra because I don't believe you charge me enough."

No chance.

BTW: I've picked some random words and made them bold just like you.

Overpaying isn't unethical, just bad business.