Amazon.co.uk pay ZERO tax in the UK. Why are people more annoyed about the bloke down the road maybe getting a benefit that he shouldn't than that. I don't understand.

[Pagwatch]

Seriously. This weasel on radio 5 this morning just kept saying 'we pay all relevant taxes for the region' but wouldn't answer when Andrew Verity pressed 'yes, but that means tat you pay no tax in the ZuK because you have chosen to place Amazon.co.uk registered head office in Luxemborg.

If everyone phoned their mp about corporate tax evasion rather than mrs smiggins who is getting DLA when she looks fine we could pay off the deficit.

Hooray!

No. Seriously. Why don't we care about this?

A company dh recently had dealings with was based in A, incorporated in B, accounted for in C, despite having operations in X,Y and Z.

It's just how business is done. UK is deeply unattractive for business, which is why so many of my friends live in different parts ofthe globe. Tax free economies are very attractive for self supporting families. 3 years paying zero tax on a high salary can boost a pension very nicely. In fact a few years not paying VAt on petrol can turn into a saving of thousands. Paying for Health Insurance is often cheaper than the tax they would have to pay here, the same with School Fees. Often these will be paid for as part of an ex pat package. When overseas governments target a particular industry or skill set they will often offer attractive tax reductions and caps.

Much as I dislike it, it's difficult to stop Amazon doing what they've done. For Boots to claim they are an international company based in Switzerland is a whole different kettle of fish though. It makes me furious. Boots employ thousands of people - most of whom were educated by the British taxpayer, dispense prescriptions paid for by the British taxpayer, have shops on British high streets, managed, swept and maintained thanks to the British taxpayer. Their profitability is entirely a function of British society and the taxpayer's role in that. How dare they refuse to contribute their share in return? The original founders of Boots, who were traditional paternalistic employers of the sort we used to have, would be turning in their graves.

Amazon was set up and incorporated in America. That remains the HQ. They pay tax in America AFAIK. They were not moving their headquarters or ceasing to pay tax in their home country when they set up amazon.co.uk. They trade in lots of European countries and could choose where to register. Not surprisingly, they chose the most financially beneficial option. That is not the same as setting up a company here originally, then later transferring it to Bermuda or wherever for tax purposes.

I didn't know Boots do that!

Yep, Ponders

Take a look at the Targets listed on the right: ukuncut.org.uk/targets

Follow the links if you want - the facts are authoritative.

pag if that meant your DH business would thrive and he could employ more staff, expand etc is it such a bad thing. (Bermuda aside!!)

Is it just big companies that offend? At what point does a company become a huge money grabbing beast?

If you are in a shop and an item has two prices, your not going to offer to pay the higher one so the shop has increased profits and the staff might get their bonus - you would argue for the lower price. Its a nice thought but it jusst wouldnt happen. Business is ruthless and out for itself.

Well Henwelly it seems that certain MN'ers believe anyone who tries to make a profit is a tax dodging poor hating Tory.

There was the recent greedy landlord bashing, many of whom are essentially one man band businesses.

Corporation tax is only a small amount of our overall tax revenues. What I'd rather see is a cut in corporation tax for those companies who create new jobs in the UK. Income tax and national insurance are the government's big earners so I'd rather see more people employed and more taxes come flowing as a result. Rather than see companies leaving in droves or worse still not coming in the first place because of the negative tax regime.

Just as an aside, Henry Boot's grave is in Jersey. Perhaps he wasn't as high minded as you thought?

You've got to be careful if you start looking at where companies "ought" to be based. Because it goes both ways - I'm sure UK was delighted when HSBC left HK to list in London.

Henwelly

He is doing fine and employs loads. As the majority shareholder etc etc the primary difference would be how much money we have. And the holidays of course.

Niceguy2
It is possible that you are over generalising there. I think asking the question, being irritated that there are tax swerves going on by large corporations does not make every one anti-company, anti-profit

I recognise that there are lots of threads that seem to have irritated you, quite possibly with justification. But the response to stereotyping and knee jerk postings is not doing exactly the same back is it?

I don't mind companies making shit loads for their shareholders and creating jobs. I don't mind the tax system encouraging this. And I recognise it is a balancing act.
But to pretend that there are no companies totally taking the piss is a bit odd tbh.

Henry Boot?

oh, Jesse Boot!

His wife was from Jersey according to wiki

It's been suggested ^^ that unpaid tax money goes back into the economy, so it's no real loss. So does benefit fraud money.

Henry Boot's grave is in Jersey - Is that Henry Boot the builder, then?
The Boots of Boot's the Chemist were all from Nottingham, where the company was based until becoming Swiss in 2008.

HSBC is going back to Hong Kong, having wriggled out of its interest and tax obligations while ripping off the NHS.

\link{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Boot\Jesse Boot} died in Jersey

he was a big local benefactor in both Nottingham & Jersey

but he "sold out his controlling interest to American investors in 1920"

interesting that it says sold out, not just sold...

About half of benefit money, fraudulent or not, goes overseas, Julia, because the utility companies and supermarket chains are foreign-owned. Rents probably stay in this country long enough to circulate.

Avoided tax money goes directly overseas, as that's how most of the tax is avoided.

I guess you could say rich people are more likely to shop at Waitrose, which is at least British

The argument that tax concessions to multinationals encourage local economic activity is no longer true. It hasn't been for quite a while.

Some of you might like to know that Bermuda boasts a shockingly poor underclass - there are people living in caves, orphaned children with no home or education, etc. The rapidly widening wealth gap is giving rise to unprecedented levels of crime - still quite low compared with Jamaica, for example, but it's getting worse and it tax haven status along with handy location makes it a popular drug-running hub.

(not really going to Bermuda)

I agree- sold out! The Americans messed it up, though, so he (or his son?) had to buy it back. When I worked for them in the 1970s it was extremely philanthropic. It ran a profit-sharing scheme, much like John Lewis without the partnership, provided tons of free healthcare services to pensioners and was benevolent in terms of employee care.

Mind you, M&S did quite a bit of that back then too.

I expressed that badly - I mean the attitudes/justification/demonisation varies so much between tax evaders and benefit claimants scrounging wastrels

But to pretend that there are no companies totally taking the piss is a bit odd tbh.

I'm sure there are companies taking the piss but so are there many individuals. And I'd argue that it's much harder for a multinational company to [b]evade[/b] tax because of their high profile.

But the problem is that we have a lot of people who genuinely believe our financial difficulties are because the rich are avoiding paying tax and not because quite simply we're overspending.

And the press are happy to feed off this by printing articles which twist the truth to sell more papers and the government are happy to let this continue as it means they're being let off the hook.

To bring it back to the original point of the thread and that is you claim we should be bothered about Amazon not paying taxes in the UK when in reality it doesn't/shouldn't have to because it is registered in another EU country. If we suddenly expect Amazon to pay UK corporation tax because it sells stuff here then surely it would only be fair for say....Dyson to pay corporation tax across all EU member states because it flogs overpriced hoovers there.

The whole reason d etre for the EU is any company anywhere within member states can trade freely with each other.

To imply Amazon of dodging tax because it hasn't paid corporation tax here is akin to a Frenchman accusing you of avoiding paying income tax in France because you sold something to him via eBay.

So if you are going to complain about tax avoidance from big companies I think your evidence needs to be stronger.

My apologies for getting my Boots muddled up!

our financial difficulties are not because the rich are avoiding paying tax but because quite simply we're overspending.
(I had to switch your negatives to make the quote read logically.)

I must be ever so stupid; I thought our financial difficulties were because we provided almost a trillion pounds to super-rich companies, run by super-rich men, at pathetically low interest and with no expectation of repayment, so they could remain super-rich and pay as little tax as possible. Do put me right

I was under the impression, likewise, that the super-rich men who run super-rich companies, like our very British Philip Green, gained greatly from our benevolence by taking out even bigger loans from UK banks and offsetting those loans against earnings in Britain. I thought, perhaps, they wouldn't have been able to get those loans if we hadn't kindly helped the banks?

Do correct me, niceguy

If the UK is so European wrt taxation, how come we're the ones holding out against the Tobin tax? That one would have my vote in half a heartbeat.

What trillion pounds are you referring to? Do you mean this one? Government debt rises to £1trillion

Or are you referring to the banking bailout where the government have insured bad debts (for a price)? In which case there hasn't been a trillion pound spent and that would only happen if every debt was bad. A bit like if every car in the UK crashed and Directline had to pay out on every policy.

And as for the Tobin tax, Cameron is on public record saying that we'd back the Tobin tax if it was on a global basis. 'Mr Cameron will make it clear at the Group of 20 summit in Cannes on Thursday that Britain will not support a tax unless it is implemented at a global level ? something which is highly unlikely to happen because of opposition from the US, Canada and other countries' FT source

Seems sensible to me. Especially given we're the financial services hub of the world. If we implemented a tax unilaterally then our best banks like HSBC may leave. Now given the massive amounts of tax they actually pay to the Treasury and the numbers of highly paid jobs they create, this would be a hell of a gamble. The other EU countries don't care. Their financial services sectors are tiny in comparison. The equivalent would be asking the french to tax farmers. See what Sarkosy would make of that?? In fact we know. Everytime we suggest reform to the CAP the French tell us to pissoff.

The EU is ultimately a collection of countries all vying to get the best deal it can for it's own country. There is no 'common good'. If there were, France would reform the CAP and Germany would guarantee the bad debts of the PIIGS countries, so ending the Euro crisis overnight.

*'niceguy'-

I'm sure there are companies taking the piss but so are there many individuals. And I'd argue that it's much harder for a multinational company to [b]evade[/b] tax because of their high profile.

You might argue that, but you'd be wrong. Not many individuals manage to make millions in income, the way large corporations make millions (or billions) in profit, and yet pay 0% in tax.

Corporations can get away with this because they can offshore their operations in a way that households can't. Furthermore, most individuals aren't able to 'negotiate' themselves out of billions of pounds in tax the way Goldman Sachs or Vodafone can.

But the problem is that we have a lot of people who genuinely believe our financial difficulties are because the rich are avoiding paying tax and not because quite simply we're overspending.

Our financial difficulties are not because we're overspending, as I have shown a million time before. We were not experiencing a deficit crisis before the financial crisis. Our problem is lack on tax revenue, caused by the financial crisis. Our deficit was at 3% prior to the crisis. Post-crisis, it is at 11%. This is not because our public spending shot up 8%, but because a lowering in tax revenue, caused by a recession, which was caused by the financial crisis.

And the press are happy to feed off this by printing articles which twist the truth to sell more papers and the government are happy to let this continue as it means they're being let off the hook.

The press aren't doing this. Unfortunately, the Tory scum have successfully created a narrative that the problem we have is that we spent too much. This is false. The economic crisis was caused by the financial meltdown and bailout, and subsequent recession.

So if you are going to complain about tax avoidance from big companies I think your evidence needs to be stronger.

You're not really one to listen to evidence, niceguy.

'niceguy'-

What trillion pounds are you referring to? Do you mean this one? Government debt rises to £1trillion

If bad news is good news for Labour, then it's been a good week. Ed Miliband's challenge to the Hester bank bonus sprang from his well-prepared critique of irresponsible capitalism. Ed Balls drew support from the IFS, finding that a £10bn growth stimulus might indeed be available, supporting his own remedies ? an emergency VAT cut, a cut in employers' national insurance, and ready-to-go building projects to stir moribund demand. IFS charts obligingly showed what a small fraction of the debt problem was caused by Labour overspending in the good years, the rest caused by the crash

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/02/welfare-reform-bill-cameron-frightening

Or are you referring to the banking bailout where the government have insured bad debts (for a price)? In which case there hasn't been a trillion pound spent and that would only happen if every debt was bad. A bit like if every car in the UK crashed and Directline had to pay out on every policy.

There is no chance that we will recover all the money lost to the banks. Secondly, there is even a slimmer chance that all the cuts to public services, once lost, will be put back, even assuming that we recover a substantial amount from the banks.

These cuts are ideological. The purpose of them is to reduce the size of the state, decrease public spending, and introduce yet more privitisation in to public services - the same failed neo-liberal policies which have been destroying the middle class for the past 30 years.

And as for the Tobin tax, Cameron is on public record saying that we'd back the Tobin tax if it was on a global basis. 'Mr Cameron will make it clear at the Group of 20 summit in Cannes on Thursday that Britain will not support a tax unless it is implemented at a global level ? something which is highly unlikely to happen because of opposition from the US, Canada and other countries' FT source

Seems sensible to me. Especially given we're the financial services hub of the world. If we implemented a tax unilaterally then our best banks like HSBC may leave.

Except they wont, because the amount they pay is tiny, and the benefits of operating in the UK, with such low corporation tax and lax rules on banks to gamble and exploit people makes the UK such an attractive destination. If the banks mess up, the public will bail them out.

Now given the massive amounts of tax they actually pay to the Treasury and the numbers of highly paid jobs they create, this would be a hell of a gamble. The other EU countries don't care. Their financial services sectors are tiny in comparison. The equivalent would be asking the french to tax farmers. See what Sarkosy would make of that?? In fact we know. Everytime we suggest reform to the CAP the French tell us to pissoff.

The difference is that French farmers didn't cause the financial crisis. They didn't commit fraud on a massive scale. They don't gamble with public money. They don't speculate. They don't cause economic instability. They don't cause the tax payer to bail them out hundreds of trillions of pounds (whatever the subsidies). They don't pay their CEOs million dollar bonuses from the public purse.

The banks absolutely should pay the Tobin tax because they're responsible for the financial crisis.