Way to go Crickhowell!

Great move and they are right, something needs to be done, trouble is people won't stop using the services of those not paying tax.
And it's a lovely town, was there only last month.
 
The likes of facebook, google, amazon, starbucks etc really boil my P*** with not paying tax. However reports of this kind of thing in the press typically ignore the fact that they employ people directly, and pay employers NI and PAYE on behalf staff, their existence in the UK also gives business opportunities to othe UK companies. The link above is typical," £11.9M paid in tax on sales of £5.3Bn", well I don't know any business that pays corporation tax on sales revenue, you pay on profit. And what about the VAT? That alone will have been around £1Bn surely?
 
BBR said:
The likes of facebook, google, amazon, starbucks etc really boil my P*** with not paying tax. However reports of this kind of thing in the press typically ignore the fact that they employ people directly, and pay employers NI and PAYE on behalf staff, their existence in the UK also gives business opportunities to othe UK companies. The link above is typical," £11.9M paid in tax on sales of £5.3Bn", well I don't know any business that pays corporation tax on sales revenue, you pay on profit. And what about the VAT? That alone will have been around £1Bn surely?
Click to expand...


All true. A couple of little things though.you (not your employer) are responsible for your income tax and NI. Your employer doesn't pay it for you. You do.
 
boyfalldown said:
All true. A couple of little things though.you (not your employer) are responsible for your income tax and NI. Your employer doesn't pay it for you. You do.
Click to expand...

I thought there was a segment of employers NI as well (13.8% less 3.4% if your employees are in a contracted out pension scheme)
 
big soft moose said:
I thought there was a segment of employers NI as well (13.8% less 3.4% if your employees are in a contracted out pension scheme)
Click to expand...


There is. But generally you're responsible for your tax and NI being paid. Ultimately if your employer f***s up collecting it its you the revenue come after. (Excluding employers NI)
 
boyfalldown said:
All true. A couple of little things though.you (not your employer) are responsible for your income tax and NI. Your employer doesn't pay it for you. You do.
Click to expand...
Yes but if we kicked them out of uk, or they left due to tax (many would say good riddance) those 5000 would lose jobs and instead of receiving tax receipts we would be paying out dole. That was the point.
 
BBR said:
Yes but if we kicked them out of uk, or they left due to tax (many would say good riddance) those 5000 would lose jobs and instead of receiving tax receipts we would be paying out dole. That was the point.
Click to expand...


I do get the point.

I think (just MHO) that they, like many smaller companies (whom also employ people) should pay their legally obligated taxes without hiding behind that
 
boyfalldown said:
I think (just MHO) that they, like many smaller companies (whom also employ people) should pay their legally obligated taxes without hiding behind that
Click to expand...
They do, though. The real problem is that these companies can deploy so many perfectly legal dodges to reduce their tax bills.
 
StewartR said:
They do, though. The real problem is that these companies can deploy so many perfectly legal dodges to reduce their tax bills.
Click to expand...

This. They pay all the tax they are legally obliged to. No more no less.
If that annoys people (don't mean you Stewart), then they need to lobby their government instead of simply grumbling about it.
 
StewartR said:
They do, though. The real problem is that these companies can deploy so many perfectly legal dodges to reduce their tax bills.
Click to expand...


I know you'll disagree, but the UK does have a general anti avoidance rule. Amazon's sweet heart deal with Luxemborg has been found illegal too. Its a bit debatable how perfectly legal these dodges are.

My point though, that you seem to have missed a little, is often in defence of those companies people state the number of employees (and the tax those employees pay) as if that makes a difference. It doesn't
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
This. They pay all the tax they are legally obliged to. No more no less.
If that annoys people (don't mean you Stewart), then they need to lobby their government instead of simply grumbling about it.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

It does annoy me, though it shouldn't because I'm just as guilty as these multi-nationals. Of course my business LensesForHire is on a completely different scale - it's what is defined in the EU as a micro-enterprise (less than 10 employees, turnover less than 2 million euros) - but that's not really relevant here.

I've recently discovered a handy little VAT loophole which I can exploit. If a client is hiring equipment for use outside the EU - and if I can prove that to the satisfaction of HMRC, which isn't necessarily as straightforward as you might think - then I don't have to charge VAT.

It's perfectly legal, and not even devious - I can point to the VAT Notice where it's spelt out in black and white. It benefits my clients and therefore, indirectly, benefits me. But it's tax avoidance, and every time I do it means less tax revenue for schools, hospitals, or the deserving public sector cause of your choice. Logically this puts me in the same position as Amazon, Starbucks et al, and complaining about their aggressive tax avoidance would be hypocritical of me.
 
StewartR said:
But it's tax avoidance.
Click to expand...
No it's not. No different to a UK company selling overseas and the buyer not having to pay VAT. Avoidance is not paying what you are obliged to pay, not paying tax where you don't have to is perfectly legal.
 
nilagin said:
No it's not. No different to a UK company selling overseas and the buyer not having to pay VAT. Avoidance is not paying what you are obliged to pay, not paying tax where you don't have to is perfectly legal.
Click to expand...

No, it's not.
 
StewartR said:
That's evasion. Different ball game altogether.
Click to expand...
Evade and avoid mean pretty much the same thing, it's only when used in terms of tax it's deemed as different, when it isn't.
 
nilagin said:
Evade and avoid mean pretty much the same thing, it's only when used in terms of tax it's deemed as different, when it isn't.
Click to expand...

No, no they don't.
 
nilagin said:
Look up the definition of evade, it even says "to avoid", so yes they do.
Click to expand...

Look up the legal definition.
One will land you in court, the other won't.
English is a fluid language.
 
viv1969 said:
Look up the legal definition.
One will land you in court, the other won't.
English is a fluid language.
Click to expand...
If looking up legal definition of words could land me in court, I don't think I'll bother. ;)
 
boyfalldown said:
My point though, that you seem to have missed a little, is often in defence of those companies people state the number of employees (and the tax those employees pay) as if that makes a difference. It doesn't
Click to expand...
I maybe wrong, but the way I see it, if they started to pay the full amount of tax, the money would need to come from somewhere,
it sure as hell wouldn't be from the directors pockets, so the prices would go up, sure they would pay tax on that increase to,
but which ever way you look at it, we lose.
Either as a country, because they have very clever accountants, or as a consumer, because they decided to do the right thing, and raise prices to compensate ( for the directors bonus's) .
 
Cobra said:
I maybe wrong, but the way I see it, if they started to pay the full amount of tax, the money would need to come from somewhere....
Click to expand...
I think you are wrong. Here's why.

I think there's an analogy here with tax credits. As things stand, the likes of Tesco don't have to bother paying their staff decent wages, because they know that the tax credits system will make up the difference. Effectively as taxpayers we're subsidising Tesco's payroll bills so that they can keep prices low. That's mad. But that's also what we're doing with Amazon, Starbucks etc.

If tax credits didn't exist, Tesco would have to pay their staff more and prices would go up. If the corporation tax loopholes were closed, Amazon would pay more tax and prices would go up. But that's surely a more sensible situation than the current one where they're being subsidised by taxpayers. Other things being equal, society benefits when markets are free, fair, and undistorted.

(PS - I'm not implying any position with regard the current government's proposals on tax credits. I don't know all the ins and outs and I haven't researched the effects. I'm restricting myself to the narrow point that taxpayers subsidising large corporations' payroll bills is mad.)
 
StewartR said:
I think you are wrong. Here's why.

I think there's an analogy here with tax credits. As things stand, the likes of Tesco don't have to bother paying their staff decent wages, because they know that the tax credits system will make up the difference. Effectively as taxpayers we're subsidising Tesco's payroll bills so that they can keep prices low. That's mad. But that's also what we're doing with Amazon, Starbucks etc.

If tax credits didn't exist, Tesco would have to pay their staff more and prices would go up. If the corporation tax loopholes were closed, Amazon would pay more tax and prices would go up. But that's surely a more sensible situation than the current one where they're being subsidised by taxpayers. Other things being equal, society benefits when markets are free, fair, and undistorted.

(PS - I'm not implying any position with regard the current government's proposals on tax credits. I don't know all the ins and outs and I haven't researched the effects. I'm restricting myself to the narrow point that taxpayers subsidising large corporations' payroll bills is mad.)
Click to expand...

I'm not certain they would, unless you mean that they should be legally obliged to pay more?
 
Rapscallion said:
I'm not certain they would, unless you mean that they should be legally obliged to pay more?
Click to expand...
Well there is talk of the minimum wage being raised significantly so yes, perhaps they would be legally obliged.

But what I meant was that if the wages they offer are not sufficient to live on - which the tax credits regime seems to imply - then they're going to struggle to attract people to work for them.
 
StewartR said:
I've recently discovered a handy little VAT loophole which I can exploit. If a client is hiring equipment for use outside the EU - and if I can prove that to the satisfaction of HMRC, which isn't necessarily as straightforward as you might think - then I don't have to charge VAT.
Click to expand...
It's not a 'loophole' if it's how it's meant to work!
Why do you think every European airport has a 'reclaim VAT' desk for international visitors? :)
 
StewartR said:
If the corporation tax loopholes were closed, Amazon would pay more tax and prices would go up.)
Click to expand...

And if prices went up maybe their customers would just shop elsewhere?, if they decide to stay loyal to Amazon, the turn over increases, then surely HMRC would see a rise in their tax return?
 
StewartR said:
I think you are wrong. Here's why.
Click to expand...
Cobra said:
You've lost me on that
Click to expand...
Yeah. Sorry. I confused myself, and quoting the wrong bit of your post didn't help.

Let's try again.

I totally agree with this bit:
Cobra said:
the way I see it, if they started to pay the full amount of tax, the money would need to come from somewhere,
it sure as hell wouldn't be from the directors pockets, so the prices would go up...
Click to expand...
But this is where I think you are wrong:
Cobra said:
but which ever way you look at it, we lose
Click to expand...
I don't think that Amazon having to put their prices up means that we lose. As I said earlier (and it makes more sense in the correct context!), society gains if markets are free, fair and undistorted. Currently, we taxpayers are subsidising Amazon's prices, which distorts the market and makes it hard for smaller companies to compete against them. Removing that distortion would be highly desirable.
 
Last edited:
Llamaman said:
It's not a 'loophole' if it's how it's meant to work!
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right, of course. In this context a loophole would be something which is legal but unintended; and what I've discovered is just an aspect of the way VAT is supposed to work.

But it did feel like a loophole when I discovered it. I mean, a UK company selling to a UK citizen and delivering the goods to a UK address... it doesn't feel like it qualifies for a VAT reclaim scheme. My accountant didn't suggest it, and none of the travel/safari companies I work with have ever suggested it; but there it is, buried in the thicket of VAT rules.
 
StewartR said:
Well there is talk of the minimum wage being raised significantly so yes, perhaps they would be legally obliged.

But what I meant was that if the wages they offer are not sufficient to live on - which the tax credits regime seems to imply - then they're going to struggle to attract people to work for them.
Click to expand...

But only if there was alternative, better-paid work available for those working in Tescos. Not sure if that is generally the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top