Welcome to Newburytoday.co.uk’s message boards where you can have your say and share your views on any number of issues.
Anyone can read messages, but only registered users can post messages, reply to messages or create new topics. As part of the free and simple registration, you will be asked to read and conform to the house rules.
To register, click here ……Enjoy the debate. Newbury Today Forum > Categories > Random Rants
|
![Reply to this topic](style_images/NWN/t_reply.gif) ![Start new topic](style_images/NWN/t_new.gif) |
Jammie Tax Dodging |
|
|
|
Nov 19 2017, 09:22 AM
|
Advanced Member
![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif) ![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif) ![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif)
Group: Members
Posts: 3,933
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55
![](style_images/NWN/spacer.gif)
|
QUOTE (SirWilliam @ Nov 7 2017, 02:38 PM) ![*](style_images/NWN/post_snapback.gif) Conspiracy theorists amongst us may well ask if this is not some non-story dreamt up by the spin-doctor general in order to deflect from something a little less palatable . Surely if there is a loophole in the system it is up to HM collector of taxes to plug it ? I have no time for the idle rich but if someone made a cost effective offer to me to reduce my tax bill , my legs would move pretty rapidly . Interesting note to the remoners , Isles of Man and Channel are not members of the EU so soon our respective fiscal systems may be a little more comparable . Bangs on about Brexit, soveriegnity, and patriotism but is happy not to pay tax. How does that go together?
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 19 2017, 11:34 AM
|
Advanced Member
![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif) ![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif) ![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif)
Group: Members
Posts: 1,467
Joined: 6-March 14
From: West Berks
Member No.: 10,341
![](style_images/NWN/spacer.gif)
|
QUOTE (Strafin @ Nov 19 2017, 09:22 AM) ![*](style_images/NWN/post_snapback.gif) Bangs on about Brexit, soveriegnity, and patriotism but is happy not to pay tax. How does that go together? Surely the idea is that HM collector of Taxes closes any loopholes that allow avoidance of said payment ? They are , after all , paid to do exactly that . I do not recall advocating non-payment anymore than suggesting that somehow it is acceptable to engage the services of an accountant that is more au fait with current legislation than the people who drew it up . I very much doubt anyone would pay tax if they were not asked to but most of us abide by the law .
--------------------
Si non prius succederent.......... relinquere
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 22 2017, 01:23 PM
|
Advanced Member
![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif) ![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif) ![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif)
Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130
![](style_images/NWN/spacer.gif)
|
QUOTE (SirWilliam @ Nov 19 2017, 11:34 AM) ![*](style_images/NWN/post_snapback.gif) Surely the idea is that HM collector of Taxes closes any loopholes that allow avoidance of said payment ? They are , after all , paid to do exactly that . Surely they are paid to collect taxes - not to enact legislation. The Chancellor is the man responsible for tax law. I suspect the problem is with the tax itself - the method used by the likes of Starbucks, Apple etc is cleary a corporation tax avoidance scheme, but I struggle to see how corporation tax rules could be adjusted to overcome it. They set up a subsiduary in Jersey or similar that the US parent licences to control brand rights in Europe - this then charges Apple UK an immense sum for the right to use the Apple brand (name, logo, etc) - enough to ensure that the profits of the UK arm is around zero. Thus Apple Jersey rakes in immense sums from the national operations all over Europe and makes an immense profit - in a country where corporation tax does not exist. I suppose this loophole could be closed by a new 50% tax on brand rights payments - or 80% - as long as it is higher than Corporation Tax. But then we will have iPhones and Starbuck coffee imported via Jersey - with a huge mark up as they nominally pass through the tax haven - once again reducing the profitabilty of the national operations. Profits are so nebulous, so easily moved offshore by multinationals, taxing them will always be fraught with difficulty.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 22 2017, 02:17 PM
|
Advanced Member
![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif) ![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif) ![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif)
Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98
![](style_images/NWN/spacer.gif)
|
QUOTE (blackdog @ Nov 22 2017, 01:23 PM) ![*](style_images/NWN/post_snapback.gif) Surely they are paid to collect taxes - not to enact legislation. The Chancellor is the man responsible for tax law.
I suspect the problem is with the tax itself - the method used by the likes of Starbucks, Apple etc is cleary a corporation tax avoidance scheme, but I struggle to see how corporation tax rules could be adjusted to overcome it. They set up a subsiduary in Jersey or similar that the US parent licences to control brand rights in Europe - this then charges Apple UK an immense sum for the right to use the Apple brand (name, logo, etc) - enough to ensure that the profits of the UK arm is around zero. Thus Apple Jersey rakes in immense sums from the national operations all over Europe and makes an immense profit - in a country where corporation tax does not exist.
I suppose this loophole could be closed by a new 50% tax on brand rights payments - or 80% - as long as it is higher than Corporation Tax. But then we will have iPhones and Starbuck coffee imported via Jersey - with a huge mark up as they nominally pass through the tax haven - once again reducing the profitabilty of the national operations. Profits are so nebulous, so easily moved offshore by multinationals, taxing them will always be fraught with difficulty. Yes, Corporation Tax is like Poll Tax was, unpopular but easy to 'legally' avoid.
--------------------
Know your place!
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 23 2017, 12:47 PM
|
Advanced Member
![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif) ![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif) ![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif)
Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130
![](style_images/NWN/spacer.gif)
|
QUOTE (On the edge @ Nov 22 2017, 02:17 PM) ![*](style_images/NWN/post_snapback.gif) Yes, Corporation Tax is like Poll Tax was, unpopular but easy to 'legally' avoid. Have to disagree there - Corporation Tax is pretty popular, though the popularity is from the perception that rich companies should be paying it. Conversely Poll Tax was unpopular - but far fairer than the Council Tax that that took its place.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 23 2017, 01:33 PM
|
Advanced Member
![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif) ![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif) ![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif)
Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98
![](style_images/NWN/spacer.gif)
|
QUOTE (blackdog @ Nov 23 2017, 12:47 PM) ![*](style_images/NWN/post_snapback.gif) Have to disagree there - Corporation Tax is pretty popular, though the popularity is from the perception that rich companies should be paying it.
Conversely Poll Tax was unpopular - but far fairer than the Council Tax that that took its place. Sorry, meant with the people doing (or not) the paying. I've not yet one firm who feel corporation tax is particularly fair. Mind, most business sees direct tax that it can't pass on as restricting growth and innovation.
--------------------
Know your place!
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 23 2017, 02:07 PM
|
Advanced Member
![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif) ![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif) ![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif)
Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317
![](style_images/NWN/spacer.gif)
|
QUOTE (blackdog @ Nov 23 2017, 12:47 PM) ![*](style_images/NWN/post_snapback.gif) Have to disagree there - Corporation Tax is pretty popular, though the popularity is from the perception that rich companies should be paying it. Not amongst the payers I believe. QUOTE (blackdog @ Nov 23 2017, 12:47 PM) ![*](style_images/NWN/post_snapback.gif) Conversely Poll Tax was unpopular - but far fairer than the Council Tax that that took its place. The principle is fairer, but the policy they tried to implement wasn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 24 2017, 07:04 AM
|
Advanced Member
![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif) ![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif) ![*](style_images/NWN/pip.gif)
Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130
![](style_images/NWN/spacer.gif)
|
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 23 2017, 02:07 PM) ![*](style_images/NWN/post_snapback.gif) Not amongst the payers I believe. A universal law of taxation I suspect. QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Nov 23 2017, 02:07 PM) ![*](style_images/NWN/post_snapback.gif) The principle is fairer, but the policy they tried to implement wasn't. How did the policy differ from the principle?
|
|
|
|
|
![Reply to this topic](style_images/NWN/t_reply.gif) ![Start new topic](style_images/NWN/t_new.gif) |
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|