# Let's have a "People's Taxman"



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

https://www.change.org/p/consider-s...utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink


----------



## davidandgwen (Jun 25, 2008)

Signed


----------



## Spacerunner (Mar 18, 2006)

Done. Good petition.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Signed. Well spotted.

It'll do no good of course. Can't have attempts at fairness. Not British Old Boy.


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

Not signed, It will never happen.( Yes Minister)

cabby


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Well if you don't sign it you can be certain that it'll never happen.

I once heard of a guy who felt cold in Winter. He had a house with a perfectly good fireplace and chimney and it was surrounded by woods. The bugger was too lazy to collect a few sticks and light the fire. He deserved to be cold don't you think?


----------



## dghr272 (Jun 14, 2012)

Like the sound of that Stanner, thanks and signed.

Terry


----------



## Spacerunner (Mar 18, 2006)

cabby said:


> Not signed, It will never happen.( Yes Minister)
> 
> cabby


Oh go on, force yourself, he only needs 4000 more signatures!


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

cabby said:


> Not signed, It will never happen.( Yes Minister)
> 
> cabby


Of course it won't it would scare the Tory's paymasters witless to have someone who wasn't one of them asking awkward questions about why they "pay less tax than a waitress".*

You need to have seen the programme to understand that quote.

It is however intended to show the non-taxpayers and their collaborators that those that have to make up the difference are getting fed up with it.

Check it out here http://www.fairtaxtown.com/


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

Let me know when he gets to 3999 more then, Stop trying to harass me chaps, as I am entitled to respond to the post just as you were.

cabby


----------



## vicdicdoc (May 14, 2005)

erneboy said:


> Well if you don't sign it you can be certain that it'll never happen.
> 
> I once heard of a guy who felt cold in Winter. He had a house with a perfectly good fireplace and chimney and it was surrounded by woods. The bugger was too lazy to collect a few sticks and light the fire. He deserved to be cold don't you think?


- or having a toilet in your motor home & cr*pping into a plastic bag


----------



## ChrisandJohn (Feb 3, 2008)

Signed.

Usually I hate the term 'the tax man' because it tends to be used by people who begrudge paying taxes.

But the term 'the people's tax man' or (woman) makes it clearer that taxes are collected to spend on our services, and we should all care about that. 

So, I agree it won't happen, but anything that alerts the government to the strengh of feeling about tax avoidance (and evasion) can't be bad.


Chris


----------



## GEMMY (Jun 19, 2006)

Man from the street to be Mr Taxman........who in their right mind would think that would EVER happen.......................get real :nerd:


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

I've signed it, to not sign means deffo no change.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Sorry to put a dampener on this but Steve Lewis, although well intentioned, has misunderstood the purpose and responsibilities of the HMRC Board. The responsibilities are set out here https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-revenue-customs/groups/hmrc-board but it is specifically stated "The Board does not have a role in day-to-day operational decision-making, nor in tax policy or individual taxpayer matters".

HMRC does not cosy up to multinationals and nor does it take a soft approach in trying to tackle tax avoidance - and I'm not aware of accusations otherwise. The issue is one of government policy as well as of tax legislation and tax treaties in this country and overseas as well as in the EU.

Steve Lewis would do better trying to get into Parliament and changing matters there.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Here Peter http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1704527/Taxman-let-Vodafone-off-6bn-bill.html


----------



## mgdavid (Nov 27, 2014)

erneboy said:


> Here Peter http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1704527/Taxman-let-Vodafone-off-6bn-bill.html


 this was all more than 6 years ago, and was fully legal at the time, hence HMRC decided not to pursue. Remember they work similar to the CPS where an evaluation on the likelihood of success is used to decide whether it's worth the huge investment of time, staff and energy in pursuing such cases.


----------



## jo662 (Jul 27, 2010)

Well I signed it even though it wont happen.
Any little helps to bring these things to the public notice,and it could make a difference!


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

I'm aware that it was legal. That's not in dispute. As to when it was what's that got to do with the price of corn? Peter said he was unaware of it having happened, I remembered that it had happened with Vodafone and so posted a link to it.


----------



## grandadbaza (Jan 3, 2008)

Whether it does any good or not it is not a lot of effort to sign so I have :smile2:


----------



## Devonboy (Nov 19, 2009)

Signed.


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

Signed.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

erneboy said:


> Here Peter http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1704527/Taxman-let-Vodafone-off-6bn-bill.html


The Mail article Alan and similar reports that appeared in some other media were based on a Private Eye article that was complete and utter nonsense. There never was a tax bill to be settled and this perfectly illustrates the complexities of international tax laws and treaties - as well incidentally of EU regulations which I mentioned earlier.

A more accurate appraisal of the Vodafone matter is here http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/18/once_more_into_the_tax_breach_dear_friends/ but there are other reports around as well.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

The simple answer to taxing income where it is made, instead of where companies want it to be made, is a turnover tax.

A simple flat rate of around 3-5% should ensure that income made here gets adequately taxed here and we don't need to worry (or even care) if they are incapable of making a profit here.

There is nothing for the companies to complain about, as we will be doing them a favour by saving them bank charges transferring all their cash abroad and it would help reduce their tax bill (if any) elsewhere.

If they then want to avoid paying tax here, all they have to do is avoid having any turnover here.


----------



## mgdavid (Nov 27, 2014)

we have it in part already - Value added tax.
A widespread tax as you have suggested would be a quick way of exporting tens of thousands of jobs to more tax-friendly places, not what we want at all.

On a different note, breaking news tonight might cheer a few of you up:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35381130


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Stanner said:


> The simple answer to taxing income where it is made, instead of where companies want it to be made, is a turnover tax.
> 
> A simple flat rate of around 3-5% should ensure that income made here gets adequately taxed here and we don't need to worry (or even care) if they are incapable of making a profit here.


There are two ways of doing that - make the business i.e. the supplier / producer liable to pay the tax or make the consumer liable e.g. VAT. The trouble with the former is that there are hundreds of thousands of businesses in the UK that are genuinely loss making or at best break-even. Forcing them to pay tax on their turnover would drive many of them out of business as it's unlikely that they would be able to raise prices enough to generate the income to pay the tax. In turn there would be a steep rise in unemployment. So saying if a way could be found to avoid or mitigate those impacts then I think there is something to be said for it.

An increase in VAT rates presents many other challenges such as a slowdown in economic growth and an increase in avoidance and evasion.

With ever increasing globalisation it will (and already is) the low tax countries that will generally win through. This of course is an anathema to most politicians and governments (particularly those towards the left) that believe that taxation and spending is their raison d'etre. Having low rates of taxation, direct or indirect, also removes the incentive to avoid and evade.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

mgdavid said:


> we have it in part already - Value added tax.
> A widespread tax as you have suggested would be a quick way of exporting tens of thousands of jobs to more tax-friendly places, not what we want at all.
> 
> On a different note, breaking news tonight might cheer a few of you up:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35381130


You're right, well except that VAT isn't paid by companies on their activities at all. They do collect it and hand it over but in the main VAT is paid only by retail customers who aren't in a position to reclaim it.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

It's certainly possible to dismiss suggestions that HMRC are a bit too cosy with big business, as Peter points out there are plenty of stories out there doing just that. But then there are also plenty suggesting that they are too cosy. Here's another http://www.bbc.com/news/business-16253205

I think I'll remain suspicious till I'm convinced that it isn't happening.

The Google story this morning is missing the details of how the figure they're going to pay according to the BBC. It does seem a smallish sum given how much business they do in the UK. I understand the way that deals and profits are booked elsewhere but the legitimacy of that could be checked.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

I have only suggested the turnover tax in connection with large multi-national companies who engage in "profit displacement" - if, for tax purposes, a business is only located within the UK, the option would not apply*. 
The multi-nationals would still be free to move their "profit" wherever they want it to be taxed, but if they have made, say, £10bn pa here, £500,000,000 or so would remain behind every year, instead of £160,000,000 coming back 10 years late.

*However I do suspect, from discussions I have had with friends who run small businesses, that a simple, easy to administer and easy to understand tax, like a turnover tax, could be very attractive to them, if it were to replace all other business taxes.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

As someone who ran a small business for many years Stanner I don't see how a turnover tax could be in the least bit fair unless it was enormously complicated.

For instance let's look at two shops selling anything you care to mention. One is upmarket and sells relatively few items which cost a lot and return good margins, that business doesn't need a huge turnover. The other is downmarket and sell lots of items at low prices with small margins. That business depends on having a large turnover. 

People might think they are in the same business yet the business models are very different. If they both had the same level of turnover tax levied upon them it would have much more effect on one than on the other.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

I know I didn't actually say "option" but that was what it was intended to be. I know quite a few small business owners who really would like a simple option like that - isn't there a similar option for VAT payments by small businesses with a turnover of less than £150,000?

https://www.gov.uk/vat-flat-rate-scheme/overview


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Yes, but VAT is entirely different. It's something you collect and pass on. It's not a cost on your business which a turnover tax would be.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Again, I was pointing out that such arrangements can be options which like the VAT option may suit some but not others.

It however would NOT be optional for multi-nationals which choose to move taxable income out of the UK.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

And I was pointing out that it would not be equitable unlike the VAT scheme which, as far as possible, is.

In any case the VAT scheme is permitted at that low level of activity it is because it costs more to chase those businesses and do an accurate check than doing so yields.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Stanner said:


> It however would NOT be optional for multi-nationals which choose to move taxable income out of the UK.


Moving profits made in the UK out of the UK in order to avoid paying taxes in this country is not allowed - period. Were HMRC able to prove that such profits were being moved out of this country then they would tax them. Therefore it would be impossible to apply a turnover tax on such revenue because by definition it can't or hasn't been identified as such.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

What has turnover got to do with profits or otherwise?

Is is simply the total volume of money passing through the company.

What that money is, where it comes from, where it goes to and why it goes there is irrelevant.

The only way to avoid it, would be to not have a turnover in the UK.

turnover
ˈtəːnəʊvə
noun
1.
the amount of money taken by a business in a particular period.
"a turnover approaching £4 million"
synonyms:	(gross) revenue


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

It has nothing at all to do with profit, and that's exactly why taxing on it might drive all the high turnover companies who run on low margins away from the UK. I know it's your hobby horse but it's a very bad idea.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

erneboy said:


> it might drive all the high turnover companies who run on low margins away from the UK.


Such as?


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

I haven't made a study. But I assume you don't dispute that such a business model exists?


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Well until you can quote a high turnover low margin multi-national company that would be driven out of the UK by a low % turnover tax I think I have to.

I doubt that one exists.


----------



## Easyriders (May 16, 2011)

Thnks, Stanner, for bringing this to attention. We had both already signed this petition, as we are signed up with change.org.

We've signed quite a few of their petitions, but not all of them. We get sent so many! We both feel that if there are too many petitions, their effect will just be diluted, so we try to stick with what we feel are the really important ones.

What do you think?


----------



## HarleyDave (Jul 1, 2007)

Stanner said:


> Well until you can quote a high turnover low margin multi-national company that would be driven out of the UK by a low % turnover tax I think I have to.
> 
> I doubt that one exists.


Not sure if this is applicable but...

https://www.wikijob.co.uk/wiki/list-fmcg-fast-moving-consumer-goods-companies

Cheers

Dave


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

How would you decide which companies you would apply your tax too Stanner?


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

erneboy said:


> How would you decide which companies you would apply your tax too Stanner?


It would have to apply to all or none as it would be illegal to have different rates of tax for foreign companies trading in the UK - which presumably would be the situation as such companies would by definition be deemed multi-national.

Given that it would have to apply to all companies we are back to the very real scenario of tens of thousands UK businesses going bust.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

How about keeping Corporation tax and having a turnover tax as well?

The turnover tax could be on a sliding scale (just like Income Tax) with an exempt band at the bottom and a steady increase as turnover increases. The thresholds could be adjusted to make sure very few UK only companies paid it.

Or you could have a turnover tax toward which UK corporation tax actually paid could be credited. Underpay your corporation tax and you have to pay turnover tax to top it up.

All companies could then choose the option of paying UK corporation tax and having that payment credited toward their turnover tax liability or just paying the turnover tax - no need for different treatment at all.

Easy - plenty of tax consultants out there would be happy to advise on ways of making it work.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

It would bust struggling businesses, which might otherwise have survived, when times are bad.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

It is reported that the Treasury Committee has asked whether a turnover tax is a viable possibility so it will be interesting to see what they can come up with. http://www.theguardian.com/business...n-tax-inquiry-criticism-130m-google-hmrc-deal

The issue of high turnover but struggling companies is a very real one - think about UK supermarkets at the moment. Morrisons has had some shocking years and to have had to pay a turnover tax when it wasn't generating any free cash (or profits) might well have sent it under I would have thought. There are also some very marginal older UK companies with large turnover but no profits and no free cash but enormous final salary pension scheme deficits.

Anyway if there is a will to change the tax regime (which I think most people believe should happen) then maybe they will find a way to introduce a modified turnover tax of some sort.

The Guardian also makes the point (which I have made before) that a company (through its directors) has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. This includes minimising its tax liability. Although this hasn't yer been stated publicly what I think we are seeing is the likes of google, Starbucks etc actually agreeing to pay more tax than they need to in order to avoid reputational damage. This is hardly a very satisfactory way to calculate a tax liability so the sooner the tax system is sorted the better.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Taxing companies which are already struggling would be seen as very naive and anti business I think. Can't see any Tory Government ever considering it.

It'll be interesting to find out what those considering it come up with. I'd bet it's a non starter though.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

To be effective a tax must be unavoidable.

If so many of these multi-billion turnover, multi-national companies are in such a poor way financially perhaps the question is "should they be kept going by being let off paying tax that other companies have to pay?"

How can it be right that Caffe Nero in Crickhowell (and elsewhere) pay no UK corporation tax yet Steve Lewis' much smaller, but apparently far more profitable, coffee shop a few doors away pays 20% (or whatever).

And if shifting profit abroad is "illegal, period" what exactly is happening in Caffe Nero's unstaffed "Office" on the Isle of Man, where profits go and promptly vanish abroad?


----------



## mgdavid (Nov 27, 2014)

Stanner said:


> ......
> How can it be right that Caffe Nero in Crickhowell (and elsewhere) pay no UK corporation tax ............


you do realise Caffe Nero is a franchise operation? SO by all means talk about the central company (franchise supplier) but the individual branches are all small businesses.
Looking at the central company, this is from the CEO:
"We have a relatively high interest rate that we're paying to UK banks that wipes out our corporate profit. We're profitable before we pay our debt bills. Our debt is just short of £250m"
Therefore it's easy to see why they don't pay corporation tax.... 
Here is a guy who's risked everything, taken on £250 million of debt, created thousands of jobs, and you'd hound him out of the country?
Dear God.....


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Stanner said:


> And if shifting profit abroad is "illegal, period" what exactly is happening in Caffe Nero's unstaffed "Office" on the Isle of Man, where profits go and promptly vanish abroad?


As HMRC says in its explanatory note on transfer pricing legislation http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/intmanual/intm412040.htm

"The complexities of applying the arm's length principle in practice should not be underestimated. Because of the closeness of the relationship between the parties there can be genuine difficulties in determining what arm's length terms would have been - especially where it is not possible to find wholly comparable transactions between unconnected parties. There are many factors to take into account."

This doesn't excuse abuse of the system but if Company A in the UK agrees to pay Company B in some tax haven an amount by way of a franchise fee for using its name, how do you go about proving that the payment is excessive, especially when that brand name is probably unique?


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

mgdavid said:


> you do realise Caffe Nero is a franchise operation? SO by all means talk about the central company (franchise supplier) but the individual branches are all small businesses.
> Looking at the central company, this is from the CEO:
> "We have a relatively high interest rate that we're paying to UK banks that wipes out our corporate profit. We're profitable before we pay our debt bills. Our debt is just short of £250m"
> Therefore it's easy to see why they don't pay corporation tax....
> ...


Clearly he's not a very good business man then, interest rates at an all time low and he ties himself into paying so much in interest it wipes out his profit.

If his business model is so good he should no problem whatsoever renegotiating (or going elsewhere for) his borrowing.

As I say. if some businesses are so badly run that they can't make a profit perhaps they ought to go bust.


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Stanner said:


> As I say. if some businesses are so badly run that they can't make a profit perhaps they ought to go bust.


Which is what does happen if the problems aren't fixed, but many business go through bad patches for all kinds of reasons, some of which are beyond their control or could not reasonably be foreseen. Should they all close too? A few recent examples include M&S, Teco and Morrisons as already mentioned.

Should we allow the steel industry to vanish because times are hard at the minute? Was closing the coal mines the right decision, I seem to remember that you weren't in favour of that?


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Just a little research seems to show that the debt isn't by the UK company to UK banks, but corporate debt by companies based in the Isle of Man and Luxembourg.

http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...hing-on-the-millions-it-makes-selling-coffee/

If it is debt to UK banks it isn't by the UK company, which is profitable yet pays no UK corporation tax on that profit.


----------



## mgdavid (Nov 27, 2014)

Stanner said:


> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
> 
> Just a little research seems to show that the debt isn't by the UK company to UK banks, but corporate debt by companies based in the Isle of Man and Luxembourg.
> 
> ...


As the crusading Mr Murphy says:
'The structure used is, no doubt, entirely legal and has met with tax authority approval. But that does not mean it is ethical'

as we all know, one man's ethics is another's hypocrisy.
The fact is, no-one has done anything wrong.
Some people hold a different opinion.
Those opinions appear to be worth nowt, especially now that Corbyn is such a fan of them.

Basically the guy sponges off trade unions and charities, so he's just a hired gun (pen) and will stir up whatever they want him to. Credibility = zero.
How do you stand on the ethics around his own 6-figure income?


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

And just a little more research shows that you are wrong in stating the Caffe Nero in the UK is a franchise operation.

From..................http://www.whichfranchise.com/feature_template.cfm?FeatureID=314



> *Caffe Nero franchise - is it available in the UK? *
> 
> *Caffe Nero is one of the leading, and most recognisable, coffee shop chains in the UK and the world, with over 500 stores globally.*
> _*There are however no Caffe Nero franchise business opportunities in the UK currently; all existing stores are company operated.*_
> There are however a number of other UK coffee franchises available in the UK, such as a Coffee Republic franchise, Costa Coffee franchise, Cafe2u franchise and Esquires Coffee House franchise.


Strange how the knitting unravels so quickly once the loose ends are tugged at.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

From.... http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/buyersguides/drink/coffeeshops.aspx



> *Starbucks boycott and the rise of Costa
> *
> 
> The Starbucks boycott over tax avoidance was not an organised affair, yet plenty of evidence emerged about how effective it was. This makes it a very useful case for those studying ethical consumption campaigns, where direct evidence of impact is often difficult to come by.
> ...


The answer is to support Costa Coffee, it's owner Whitbread manages to pay their tax AND still make a profit.

Or even better get a "My Waitrose" card and get a free coffee per day from Waitrose.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

mgdavid said:


> As the crusading Mr Murphy says:
> 'The structure used is, no doubt, entirely legal and has met with tax authority approval. But that does not mean it is ethical'
> 
> as we all know, one man's ethics is another's hypocrisy.
> ...


And?

Isn't that just what any journalist is? and isn't that just your (rather biased*) opinion?

How do you stand on the "ethics" of you ( I presume - unless you are an active "aggressive" tax avoider as well) and I and all the other mugs who pay their taxes here paying more than we ought to because very rich profitable companies choose not to?

* My unbiased opinion.:wink2:


----------



## mgdavid (Nov 27, 2014)

Stanner said:


> And just a little more research shows that you are wrong in stating the Caffe Nero in the UK is a franchise operation.
> 
> From..................http://www.whichfranchise.com/feature_template.cfm?FeatureID=314
> 
> Strange how the knitting unravels so quickly once the loose ends are tugged at.


My apologies. :surprise:
I misled myself by speedreading this:
http://www.worldfranchiseassociates.com/franchise-news-article.php?nid=147


----------



## mgdavid (Nov 27, 2014)

Stanner said:


> ......
> 
> How do you stand on the "ethics" of you ( I presume - unless you are an active "aggressive" tax avoider as well) and I and all the other mugs who pay their taxes here paying more than we ought to .........


Absolutely I'm an aggressive tax avoider.
In your own words, anyone that pays more than they ought to (_or need to - my words_) is a mug.
I am very comfortable with making best use of the various allowances that the Government make available to me and have invested a fair bit of time to arrange my affairs to my advantage. Why wouldn't you?
<baffled>


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Stanner said:


> If it is debt to UK banks it isn't by the UK company, which is profitable yet pays no UK corporation tax on that profit.


It depends what your definition of "profitable" is. Tax is based on profits after all allowable charges and deuctions including interest and in this instance the business was not profitable at that level so paid no tax.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

mgdavid said:


> Absolutely I'm an aggressive tax avoider.
> In your own words, anyone that pays more than they ought to (_or need to - my words_) is a mug.
> I am very comfortable with making best use of the various allowances that the Government make available to me and have invested a fair bit of time to arrange my affairs to my advantage. Why wouldn't you?
> <baffled>


An "aggressive" tax avoider isone who takes advantage of artificial schemes dreamed up to take advantage of loop holes that may or may not exist.

Fake schemes to invest in stage/film productions etc.

I don't actually have a problem with tax avoidance within the "spirit" of tax law - ISAs claiming your full allowances etc.
It's the invention of totally artificial circumstances with the sole intention of getting around the law I have a problem with.

Arrangements where "profits" are passed from company to company in tax haven after tax haven until they are so "lost" it is impossible to prove where they have gone, who has them and where the profit was finally made.

If you are happy with that, you must be a very useful person to meet up with regularly in a pub - you must be one of the ones who would be happy to buy a round week after week and just shrug it off when the last guy in the buying round sinks the last drink before his turn to buy and says "That's enough for me tonight, see you next week" time after time. 
He isn't legally obliged to take part in the round buying, so doesn't and the rest of the drinkers just have to make up the difference. 
He probably thinks he has a fiduciary duty to his family to minimise his pub expenditure and does that by sponging off the rest.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

peribro said:


> It depends what your definition of "profitable" is. Tax is based on profits after all allowable charges and deuctions including interest and in this instance the business was not profitable at that level so paid no tax.


Then obviously the definition of "allowable deduction" needs to be tightened - First in line - only losses actually and necessarily incurred in the UK by the UK company to be allowable against UK corporation tax. 
Sorry but if your "parent" company is losing money hand over fist in a tax haven that is IT'S problem and the UK company doesn't help out with the transfer of UK profits. 
Let the obviously very poorly managed parent company go broke and leave the well managed, profitable UK subsidiary to continue.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Maybe Stanner and Lord Lawson are one and the same? I think we should be told.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35447152


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

peribro said:


> Maybe Stanner and Lord Lawson are one and the same? I think we should be told.
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35447152


It just goes to show that common sense exists at both ends of the political spectrum, even if some on here can't see the eminent sense of it.

Isn't it also strange how the very anti-europe Lord Lawson seems to be in total agreement with the EU on this 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35426593

All we need now is for Camerborn to see the light as well, I suppose they need time for the cheques to clear first before they join in the clampdown.

I'd rather have 3-5% of £3.800,000,000* pa than £130,000,000 after 10 years

After they have paid that they can shift their profit wherever they want.

*£114-190,000,000pa


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

Doing the rounds on Farcebook; >


----------



## erneboy (Feb 8, 2007)

Not that I like Mr Osborne but I believe I should point out that businesses which aren't making profits don't pay tax.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

That begs the question..... "Is someone who is involved with a company with that level of turnover and that cannot make a profit, someone we should be trusting to run the economy?"

Perhaps his time would be better spent sorting out the profitability of his own company before all those shares he owns become worthless?

Alternatively sign here.

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/osborne-pay-your-taxes#petition


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

erneboy said:


> Not that I like Mr Osborne but I believe I should point out that businesses which aren't making profits don't pay tax.


Or should that be businesses that don't show they are making a profit........


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

greygit said:


> Or should that be businesses that don't show they are making a profit........


A bit like a mobile welder I used to know, wife & 3 kids, always well dressed and fed, 2 new cars and a van, large self built bungalow with heated outdoor pool and very well stocked pool bar and 2 holidays a year in the Carribean.

But somehow the poor chap never ever made a profit and managed to claim every benefit going.

Every election there was a large Tory poster in his window - I bet he really hated spongers.:wink2:


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

Stanner said:


> A bit like a mobile welder I used to know, wife & 3 kids, always well dressed and fed, 2 new cars and a van, large self built bungalow with heated outdoor pool and very well stocked pool bar and 2 holidays a year in the Carribean.
> 
> But somehow the poor chap never ever made a profit and managed to claim every benefit going.
> 
> Every election there was a large Tory poster in his window - I bet he really hated spongers.:wink2:


 I think that about sums up the Tory philosophy and the frightening thing is they are "running" the country..........we are all doomed! :smile2:


----------

