SHARE
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Vote up (36) down (33)
Cameron calls for transparency from 'British' tax havens

Cameron calls for transparency from 'British' tax havens

(2:40) Too rich to tax? British Prime Minister David Cameron promises to raise the issue of tax havens under British jurisdiction (Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Anguilla, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos Islands, Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man) ahead of the G8 Summit in June 2013.

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Blong Blong (3166 days ago)
I like her microphone - beautiful design
ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment
I like her microphone - beautiful design
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (3166 days ago)
what a surprise! the rich capitalist "job creators" pissing all over the "lazy stupid" working class, by not paying taxes!
ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment
what a surprise! the rich capitalist "job creators" pissing all over the "lazy stupid" working class, by not paying taxes!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (3165 days ago)
LOL! those Russian communists are at it again, calling Corporations Unpatriotic and stuff because they don't pay taxes and other stuff LINK
ReplyVote up (89)down (101)
Original comment
LOL! those Russian communists are at it again, calling Corporations Unpatriotic and stuff because they don't pay taxes and other stuff LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (3166 days ago)
Maybe a simple solution to tax avoidance is for the EU to say: If you want to trade in the EU, then you must pay a minimum tax (say 20%) somewhere in the world. So if Amazon pay 3% tax in Luxembourg, then they can't trade in the EU. That would be the price for trading in the EU.
ReplyVote up (87)down (101)
Original comment
Maybe a simple solution to tax avoidance is for the EU to say: If you want to trade in the EU, then you must pay a minimum tax (say 20%) somewhere in the world. So if Amazon pay 3% tax in Luxembourg, then they can't trade in the EU. That would be the price for trading in the EU.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (3166 days ago)
i don't see that working.
ReplyVote up (81)down (101)
Original comment
i don't see that working.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (3166 days ago)
I'm not sure it's workable either (my knowledge of how governments and corporations work together is patchy), but there could be interesting consequences. It might mean that all tax havens offering less than 20% tax rate would be out of business in one swoop, similar to what might happen if all drugs were legalised (dealers losing their customers overnight). If the EU tax minimum was set at 50%, it would take out the competition between nations trying to attract businesses by offering low tax rates. Nations can concentrate on improving infrastructure, skills, location etc. to attract foreign business, rather than on reducing their revenue by offering lower tax rates. If the EU do it, then other nations might as well do the same, because I doubt there are many multinationals that would make more money by not trading in the EU and paying a lower tax rate elsewhere. It would level the playing field between businesses who do pay their taxes and those who don't. Governments might quite like it too because they would have no good reason to set corporation tax below 50%.
ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment
I'm not sure it's workable either (my knowledge of how governments and corporations work together is patchy), but there could be interesting consequences. It might mean that all tax havens offering less than 20% tax rate would be out of business in one swoop, similar to what might happen if all drugs were legalised (dealers losing their customers overnight). If the EU tax minimum was set at 50%, it would take out the competition between nations trying to attract businesses by offering low tax rates. Nations can concentrate on improving infrastructure, skills, location etc. to attract foreign business, rather than on reducing their revenue by offering lower tax rates. If the EU do it, then other nations might as well do the same, because I doubt there are many multinationals that would make more money by not trading in the EU and paying a lower tax rate elsewhere. It would level the playing field between businesses who do pay their taxes and those who don't. Governments might quite like it too because they would have no good reason to set corporation tax below 50%.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Beau Guest (3166 days ago)
Steady on there Walter - we're not used to reasoned debate around here. And as for bright ideas: try to keep them to yourself, or the likes of cengland0 will have to be put back in care.
ReplyVote up (88)down (101)
Original comment
Steady on there Walter - we're not used to reasoned debate around here. And as for bright ideas: try to keep them to yourself, or the likes of cengland0 will have to be put back in care.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (3166 days ago)
Tariff taxes should already be in place to address these issues. If not, you can always put them in place. So if a company that is working outside of your country is not paying taxes, you can always put a tax on the product as it enters your country as an import tax. Problem solved. In the USA, we put a 20% tariff on most vegetables imported into our country. We put 25% on wool clothes and auto parts. 35% on canned tuna and Chinese tires. 48% on sneakers. 100% on European meats, truffles, and Roquefort cheese. 350% on tobacco. LINK
ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment
Tariff taxes should already be in place to address these issues. If not, you can always put them in place. So if a company that is working outside of your country is not paying taxes, you can always put a tax on the product as it enters your country as an import tax. Problem solved. In the USA, we put a 20% tariff on most vegetables imported into our country. We put 25% on wool clothes and auto parts. 35% on canned tuna and Chinese tires. 48% on sneakers. 100% on European meats, truffles, and Roquefort cheese. 350% on tobacco. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (3166 days ago)
So you are suggesting using tariff taxes on individual companies? So if Amazon don't pay their taxes, tax their sales at a higher rate than Barnes & Noble (assuming B&N pay theirs)? Talk about complicating an issue totally unnecessarily.
ReplyVote up (74)down (101)
Original comment
So you are suggesting using tariff taxes on individual companies? So if Amazon don't pay their taxes, tax their sales at a higher rate than Barnes & Noble (assuming B&N pay theirs)? Talk about complicating an issue totally unnecessarily.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (3166 days ago)
Perhaps you're not understanding how tariffs work. This video is about tax havens which are created when a company does business in another country to avoid paying taxes. In these situations, you can put a tariff tax on the imports of those products into your country. Amazon does pay taxes but let's say they don't as an example. If Amazon then sets up a warehouse in your country, you could tax their imports into that warehouse. If they ship directly to the customer, then you already have that covered with the customs forms that already have to be filled out. If you're not sure how that works, here's a site for you. LINK
ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment
Perhaps you're not understanding how tariffs work. This video is about tax havens which are created when a company does business in another country to avoid paying taxes. In these situations, you can put a tariff tax on the imports of those products into your country. Amazon does pay taxes but let's say they don't as an example. If Amazon then sets up a warehouse in your country, you could tax their imports into that warehouse. If they ship directly to the customer, then you already have that covered with the customs forms that already have to be filled out. If you're not sure how that works, here's a site for you. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (3166 days ago)
Recently I bought a Dell monitor on Amazon.co.uk from my home in London. Shortly afterwards, Barclaycard contacted me to check the purchase was mine as I rarely use my Barclaycard for large purchases. They asked me whether I bought a Dell monitor from Amazon in Luxembourg. Amazon pay 3% tax on UK sales in Luxembourg rather than 20% UK tax. As far as I'm aware, they haven't broken the law, but it is just not right. As a Brit living in London, my custom should be helping the British economy, rather than Luxembourg, who have added nothing to the transaction. A tax haven is a legal way to steal money from another nation.
ReplyVote up (87)down (101)
Original comment
Recently I bought a Dell monitor on Amazon.co.uk from my home in London. Shortly afterwards, Barclaycard contacted me to check the purchase was mine as I rarely use my Barclaycard for large purchases. They asked me whether I bought a Dell monitor from Amazon in Luxembourg. Amazon pay 3% tax on UK sales in Luxembourg rather than 20% UK tax. As far as I'm aware, they haven't broken the law, but it is just not right. As a Brit living in London, my custom should be helping the British economy, rather than Luxembourg, who have added nothing to the transaction. A tax haven is a legal way to steal money from another nation.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (3166 days ago)
Was there a custom's declaration attached to the package?
ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment
Was there a custom's declaration attached to the package?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (3166 days ago)
I don't know, but what's the relevance?
ReplyVote up (89)down (101)
Original comment
I don't know, but what's the relevance?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (3166 days ago)
Just to add, Amazon's warehouses are not in Luxembourg. Their European headquarters are in Luxembourg. LINK
ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment
Just to add, Amazon's warehouses are not in Luxembourg. Their European headquarters are in Luxembourg. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (3166 days ago)
Obviously being in the UK you know what the relevance is. But just in case you don't, it's so the EU can charge you VAT (Value Added Tax), create import statistics, determine tariff quotas, and determine country of origin. LINK You already know you have to pay taxes on things you buy on the Internet and that's why some people will scam the system by lying on their customs declaration form to help the buyer avoid these taxes especially when bought from sites like eBay. I doubt Amazon in Luxembourg will lie on the form.
ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment
Obviously being in the UK you know what the relevance is. But just in case you don't, it's so the EU can charge you VAT (Value Added Tax), create import statistics, determine tariff quotas, and determine country of origin. LINK You already know you have to pay taxes on things you buy on the Internet and that's why some people will scam the system by lying on their customs declaration form to help the buyer avoid these taxes especially when bought from sites like eBay. I doubt Amazon in Luxembourg will lie on the form.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (3165 days ago)
No I don't see the relevance. I'm talking about the profit that Amazon made from me. The tax from that profit should be paid to the UK, not Luxembourg.
ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment
No I don't see the relevance. I'm talking about the profit that Amazon made from me. The tax from that profit should be paid to the UK, not Luxembourg.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (3165 days ago)
When you pay your VAT, you're paying that to the UK because that's where you received the package. That's how it's relevant. If you're not paying VAT taxes, you're probably scamming the system and not paying your fair share of taxes.
ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment
When you pay your VAT, you're paying that to the UK because that's where you received the package. That's how it's relevant. If you're not paying VAT taxes, you're probably scamming the system and not paying your fair share of taxes.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (3165 days ago)
Don't keep trying to change the conversation, we are talking about the tax Amazon pays, not the tax I pay.
ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment
Don't keep trying to change the conversation, we are talking about the tax Amazon pays, not the tax I pay.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (3165 days ago)
It doesn't matter who pays the tax as long as it gets paid. If they cannot get it direct from Amazon, they will get it from you -- which they are doing. Problem solved.
ReplyVote up (101)down (77)
Original comment
It doesn't matter who pays the tax as long as it gets paid. If they cannot get it direct from Amazon, they will get it from you -- which they are doing. Problem solved.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (3165 days ago)
If it doesn't matter who pays the tax, then Amazon should pay it. That way is fair and smarter economically. Amazon would be paying towards making the UK good for their business. That is why they don't sell in Somalia. If I pay the tax, then my spending power is reduced which is bad for the economy. Maybe you can explain why you think Luxembourg (rather than the UK) should be the recipient of tax from my purchase of a Dell monitor in London?
ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment
If it doesn't matter who pays the tax, then Amazon should pay it. That way is fair and smarter economically. Amazon would be paying towards making the UK good for their business. That is why they don't sell in Somalia. If I pay the tax, then my spending power is reduced which is bad for the economy. Maybe you can explain why you think Luxembourg (rather than the UK) should be the recipient of tax from my purchase of a Dell monitor in London?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (3165 days ago)
Don't be ridiculous. Of course it matters who pays... and how much. Time to move on to another conversation.
ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment
Don't be ridiculous. Of course it matters who pays... and how much. Time to move on to another conversation.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (3165 days ago)
Okay, we can move on to another conversation if you wish. Just one last comment and this is it. If Amazon paid the taxes, you'd end up paying for it anyway through increased product prices. That's why I said it doesn't matter who actually pays the tax, the end buyer usually ends up paying one way or another.
ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment
Okay, we can move on to another conversation if you wish. Just one last comment and this is it. If Amazon paid the taxes, you'd end up paying for it anyway through increased product prices. That's why I said it doesn't matter who actually pays the tax, the end buyer usually ends up paying one way or another.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (3165 days ago)
income tax and VAT are 2 different things. Whilst you may be right when it comes to VAT, the issue remains: Walter pays VAT regardless of whether the VAT is included in the price of the product or if he has to pay for it separately, but he also pays income tax in a much bigger percentage that Amazon pays. Corporations choose to do business in tax havens because tax brakes are just another name for subsidies, it's only logical to do business where you get subsidized. So either the UK eliminates taxes in order to compete with Luxembourg (which is unrealistic) or it leaves the EU so that they can implement regulations that will deter these practices (among other reasons), which the EU doesn't allow.
ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment
income tax and VAT are 2 different things. Whilst you may be right when it comes to VAT, the issue remains: Walter pays VAT regardless of whether the VAT is included in the price of the product or if he has to pay for it separately, but he also pays income tax in a much bigger percentage that Amazon pays. Corporations choose to do business in tax havens because tax brakes are just another name for subsidies, it's only logical to do business where you get subsidized. So either the UK eliminates taxes in order to compete with Luxembourg (which is unrealistic) or it leaves the EU so that they can implement regulations that will deter these practices (among other reasons), which the EU doesn't allow.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (3165 days ago)
I think VAT is an unfair tax and should be scrapped, the shortfall made up by raising income tax, particularly at the high end. Scrapping VAT would help businesses by simplifying their tax affairs. It would also give a boost to tourism, because visiting the UK would be 20% cheaper. Increasing higher end income tax to make up for scrapping VAT would give a boost to the economy. For the poor and middle class, prices drop by 20%, so they will feel flush and spend more. Although the super rich will pay more tax, they will probably not spend less, because they've got more money than they know what to do with anyway. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
ReplyVote up (101)down (88)
Original comment
I think VAT is an unfair tax and should be scrapped, the shortfall made up by raising income tax, particularly at the high end. Scrapping VAT would help businesses by simplifying their tax affairs. It would also give a boost to tourism, because visiting the UK would be 20% cheaper. Increasing higher end income tax to make up for scrapping VAT would give a boost to the economy. For the poor and middle class, prices drop by 20%, so they will feel flush and spend more. Although the super rich will pay more tax, they will probably not spend less, because they've got more money than they know what to do with anyway. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (3165 days ago)
could work, but idk...
ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment
could work, but idk...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (3165 days ago)
Except what about the rich that are already rich and do not have any income. They are sitting on a pile of money so they will pay no taxes. VAT will still get tax dollars from those people.
ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment
Except what about the rich that are already rich and do not have any income. They are sitting on a pile of money so they will pay no taxes. VAT will still get tax dollars from those people.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (3165 days ago)
Is that your only objection?
ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment
Is that your only objection?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (3165 days ago)
I have a lot of objections. Regarding taxes, both of our systems are screwed up. I understand the purpose for taxes but I disagree about the way it's collected, the amounts we have to pay, and what it's spent on. Why should the rich pay more in taxes when they don't get any additional benefits for the extra money they pay. In other words, let's say Tom pays $20,000 in taxes and Bill pays $1,000,000 in taxes during the same year. Does Bill get any additional national defense than Tom? If not, then he shouldn't have to pay more for the same services. It would be like me going to the local barber to get my hair cut and them asking what my income is so they can charge me based on a percentage of what i earn. Ridiculous isn't it?
ReplyVote up (101)down (78)
Original comment
I have a lot of objections. Regarding taxes, both of our systems are screwed up. I understand the purpose for taxes but I disagree about the way it's collected, the amounts we have to pay, and what it's spent on. Why should the rich pay more in taxes when they don't get any additional benefits for the extra money they pay. In other words, let's say Tom pays $20,000 in taxes and Bill pays $1,000,000 in taxes during the same year. Does Bill get any additional national defense than Tom? If not, then he shouldn't have to pay more for the same services. It would be like me going to the local barber to get my hair cut and them asking what my income is so they can charge me based on a percentage of what i earn. Ridiculous isn't it?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (3164 days ago)
you're right! i propose to keep the VAT but to make it a progressive one (1% per flour, 100% per lamborghini and luxury items), lower the income tax to 15% for everyone and place a Robin hood tax of 1% on all financial transactions, LINK Would that work?
ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment
you're right! i propose to keep the VAT but to make it a progressive one (1% per flour, 100% per lamborghini and luxury items), lower the income tax to 15% for everyone and place a Robin hood tax of 1% on all financial transactions, LINK Would that work?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (3164 days ago)
First off, your link to Wikipedia doesn't work because you added a period at the end. Besides, since it's from Wikipedia, I refuse to read it. Regarding your reduction of income tax to 15%, that's still not good enough for me. That's still making government services at a variable cost for people and it's unfair to the hard working rich people. It would be better, in my opinion, to tax merchandise and services when they are used (consumption tax) but there's a problem implementing that. Today, people have an income tax so any money they have in the bank has been taxed already. So the moment you switch to a consumption tax, those people that saved all their lives will be taxed again. I do not have a good solution for the transition from income tax to consumption tax. Your 100% tax on a Lamborghini because it's a luxury item is really an opinion. You would probably agree that everyone needs a car to make it to the grocery store and their jobs. So exactly where is that line from a regular vehicle to a luxury one? Is a Lexus considered a luxury or a smart investment because of it's reliability factors? What happens if you bought a Lamborghini from a friend, would you still have to pay the same rate? What if I bought a kit and built it myself?
ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment
First off, your link to Wikipedia doesn't work because you added a period at the end. Besides, since it's from Wikipedia, I refuse to read it. Regarding your reduction of income tax to 15%, that's still not good enough for me. That's still making government services at a variable cost for people and it's unfair to the hard working rich people. It would be better, in my opinion, to tax merchandise and services when they are used (consumption tax) but there's a problem implementing that. Today, people have an income tax so any money they have in the bank has been taxed already. So the moment you switch to a consumption tax, those people that saved all their lives will be taxed again. I do not have a good solution for the transition from income tax to consumption tax. Your 100% tax on a Lamborghini because it's a luxury item is really an opinion. You would probably agree that everyone needs a car to make it to the grocery store and their jobs. So exactly where is that line from a regular vehicle to a luxury one? Is a Lexus considered a luxury or a smart investment because of it's reliability factors? What happens if you bought a Lamborghini from a friend, would you still have to pay the same rate? What if I bought a kit and built it myself?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (3164 days ago)
Latest comment: the line between luxury and common goods would have to be established by the law makers, the kinks will have to be ironed out but as a rule of thumb, if it's not necessary for a decent standard of living, it's luxury. Regarding the link, remove the dot and you don't have to go to wikipedia to know what a robin hood tax is, you're a banker, the link is for the other readers. The robin hood tax is what matters most. Let's just remove the income tax all together and implement a 5% robin hood tax. how about that?
ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment
Latest comment: the line between luxury and common goods would have to be established by the law makers, the kinks will have to be ironed out but as a rule of thumb, if it's not necessary for a decent standard of living, it's luxury. Regarding the link, remove the dot and you don't have to go to wikipedia to know what a robin hood tax is, you're a banker, the link is for the other readers. The robin hood tax is what matters most. Let's just remove the income tax all together and implement a 5% robin hood tax. how about that?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (3164 days ago)
you have a point there. VAT stays.
ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment
you have a point there. VAT stays.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (3166 days ago)
maybe a 20% transaction tax to all transactions to and from tax havens. "Tax havens" will have to be defined. IDK, just a thought...
ReplyVote up (72)down (101)
Original comment
maybe a 20% transaction tax to all transactions to and from tax havens. "Tax havens" will have to be defined. IDK, just a thought...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (3166 days ago)
And according to you, tax havens are government subsidies. Isn't that wonderful these large companies get so much money from the government? Now do you think tax breaks are government subsidies like you've claimed so many times before?
ReplyVote up (86)down (101)
Original comment
And according to you, tax havens are government subsidies. Isn't that wonderful these large companies get so much money from the government? Now do you think tax breaks are government subsidies like you've claimed so many times before?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (3166 days ago)
what? i don't get what you're saying... but yes, i do think that tax breaks are subsidies.
ReplyVote up (101)down (83)
Original comment
what? i don't get what you're saying... but yes, i do think that tax breaks are subsidies.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3166 days ago)
Double taxation is an issue but how about a top-up tax? You can ship profits abroad using the double Irish but if you are only paying 3% there and then you still have to pay the remaining 17% in the nation where the revenue was generated. Gives countries control over their own taxes without destroying multinationals with true double taxation and removes the incentive for companies to pay tax accountants large sums to save them from paying what the government of the country they are earning the profits in say they should.
ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment
Double taxation is an issue but how about a top-up tax? You can ship profits abroad using the double Irish but if you are only paying 3% there and then you still have to pay the remaining 17% in the nation where the revenue was generated. Gives countries control over their own taxes without destroying multinationals with true double taxation and removes the incentive for companies to pay tax accountants large sums to save them from paying what the government of the country they are earning the profits in say they should.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (3166 days ago)
If you have an oil rig out in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific oceans, which country is that?
ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment
If you have an oil rig out in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific oceans, which country is that?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3166 days ago)
not sure on the particulars but I'd go with wherever the oil first meets an internationally recognized border
ReplyVote up (77)down (101)
Original comment
not sure on the particulars but I'd go with wherever the oil first meets an internationally recognized border
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3166 days ago)
or perhaps where it is refined, either way drilling in international waters doesn't account for a particularly enormous % of global gdp
ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment
or perhaps where it is refined, either way drilling in international waters doesn't account for a particularly enormous % of global gdp
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (3166 days ago)
My point is that any corporation could use a ship or rig out in the middle of nowhere to get away from any governmental taxes and use that as their headquarters so using "the nation where the revenue was generated" will not work.
ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment
My point is that any corporation could use a ship or rig out in the middle of nowhere to get away from any governmental taxes and use that as their headquarters so using "the nation where the revenue was generated" will not work.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (3166 days ago)
I thought the spirit of capitalism was to make a profit by providing the best product or service, not by avoiding taxes, lobbying, misselling, price-fixing, or setting up HQ in the middle of the Atlantic.
ReplyVote up (101)down (83)
Original comment
I thought the spirit of capitalism was to make a profit by providing the best product or service, not by avoiding taxes, lobbying, misselling, price-fixing, or setting up HQ in the middle of the Atlantic.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (3166 days ago)
the spirit of capitalism is "Profit by any means necessary". The more you know...
ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment
the spirit of capitalism is "Profit by any means necessary". The more you know...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (3165 days ago)
You're probably right. To my mind, "profit by any means necessary" is corporatism, and "profit by providing the best product or service" is its natural precursor, capitalism.
ReplyVote up (83)down (101)
Original comment
You're probably right. To my mind, "profit by any means necessary" is corporatism, and "profit by providing the best product or service" is its natural precursor, capitalism.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (3166 days ago)
There are two numbers reported to shareholders of a corporation in quarterly and annual reports. One is Net Profit and the other is Net Profit after Taxes. The one after taxes is more important to notice because each shareholder can earn more money if the corporation can reduce their tax burdens. I'm more concerned about what I earn after tax so I'll do what I can to reduce my tax burdens. I have investments in municipal bonds which are tax free income as part of my diversified investment strategy. I invest in our company's 401K which is pre-tax. I also take advantage of all tax laws that help me reduce the amount of taxes I pay. I hire an accountant to handle this for me. The amount I pay the accountant is less than the amount she saves me.
ReplyVote up (69)down (101)
Original comment
There are two numbers reported to shareholders of a corporation in quarterly and annual reports. One is Net Profit and the other is Net Profit after Taxes. The one after taxes is more important to notice because each shareholder can earn more money if the corporation can reduce their tax burdens. I'm more concerned about what I earn after tax so I'll do what I can to reduce my tax burdens. I have investments in municipal bonds which are tax free income as part of my diversified investment strategy. I invest in our company's 401K which is pre-tax. I also take advantage of all tax laws that help me reduce the amount of taxes I pay. I hire an accountant to handle this for me. The amount I pay the accountant is less than the amount she saves me.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3166 days ago)
If Starbucks plans on building an enormous floating nation and only selling coffee there then go ahead and let them. Revenue isn't generated at the HQs, that's the issue with profits and intellectual property shenanigans. Revenue is generated at the point of sale, i.e. where the money leaves the hand of the consumer.
ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment
If Starbucks plans on building an enormous floating nation and only selling coffee there then go ahead and let them. Revenue isn't generated at the HQs, that's the issue with profits and intellectual property shenanigans. Revenue is generated at the point of sale, i.e. where the money leaves the hand of the consumer.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (3166 days ago)
Wait a second, are you planning on taxing the product when it's sold like a cup of coffee or taxing the profits of a company? When you sell a cup of coffee, not all of that is profit. You have to pay the employees, the electricity, the water, sewage, rent, and even the cups and coffee. Shouldn't companies only pay on their profitability? So the headquarters usually calculates profitability of all their branches together. Some might lose money and some might have profit. IN your model, what do you do about service related companies? What if I owned a company that writes software, how do you get the revenue from that if I did it offshore? What about banking, insurance, drafting/engineering, and MIS? The final product on these could be emailed to the client or sent through the mail.
ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment
Wait a second, are you planning on taxing the product when it's sold like a cup of coffee or taxing the profits of a company? When you sell a cup of coffee, not all of that is profit. You have to pay the employees, the electricity, the water, sewage, rent, and even the cups and coffee. Shouldn't companies only pay on their profitability? So the headquarters usually calculates profitability of all their branches together. Some might lose money and some might have profit. IN your model, what do you do about service related companies? What if I owned a company that writes software, how do you get the revenue from that if I did it offshore? What about banking, insurance, drafting/engineering, and MIS? The final product on these could be emailed to the client or sent through the mail.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3166 days ago)
I appreciate the difference between profit and revenue and that tax should be applied after costs have been calculated. I am saying that revenue is generated at the point of receipt of a product. When filing a tax return in a country where they do business they must demonstrate that any payments to other companies within their own shell structure must attract the same rate of corporation tax or else they must pay the difference on those amounts. The correct definition of 'their own shell structure' could be defined loosely enough in a similar fashion to anti-trust law so as to remove most of the issues with avoidance
ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment
I appreciate the difference between profit and revenue and that tax should be applied after costs have been calculated. I am saying that revenue is generated at the point of receipt of a product. When filing a tax return in a country where they do business they must demonstrate that any payments to other companies within their own shell structure must attract the same rate of corporation tax or else they must pay the difference on those amounts. The correct definition of 'their own shell structure' could be defined loosely enough in a similar fashion to anti-trust law so as to remove most of the issues with avoidance
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (3166 days ago)
So to avoid paying taxes in the UK, I'll setup my Starbucks outlets in the UK and the corporation that I buy my cups from (which I also setup but as a different entity) will charge me $10 each for those cups. I'll show a loss in the UK but the company that's on the boat that sold me those cups will show the profit. Still no taxes are paid to the UK.
ReplyVote up (61)down (101)
Original comment
So to avoid paying taxes in the UK, I'll setup my Starbucks outlets in the UK and the corporation that I buy my cups from (which I also setup but as a different entity) will charge me $10 each for those cups. I'll show a loss in the UK but the company that's on the boat that sold me those cups will show the profit. Still no taxes are paid to the UK.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3166 days ago)
except that company on the boat will show a profit, which they will pay 0% tax on. So all of that profit has British corporation tax imposed on it in this country. Unless that company has no affiliation with Starbucks.
ReplyVote up (100)down (92)
Original comment
except that company on the boat will show a profit, which they will pay 0% tax on. So all of that profit has British corporation tax imposed on it in this country. Unless that company has no affiliation with Starbucks.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (3166 days ago)
In my previous message, I stated the company that sells Starbucks the cups is a different company so there is no affiliation with them. However, since I own both companies, I still get the profit but pay no tax.
ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment
In my previous message, I stated the company that sells Starbucks the cups is a different company so there is no affiliation with them. However, since I own both companies, I still get the profit but pay no tax.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3166 days ago)
except that them being owned by the same parent is them being affiliated. That control would also be governed by similar laws to anti-trust as I stated above. At the point where things are being bought from one provider as opposed to another at great price differential it would be a fairly simple case to prove this was in order to facilitate tax evasion on the part of one or more controlling parties.
ReplyVote up (38)down (101)
Original comment
except that them being owned by the same parent is them being affiliated. That control would also be governed by similar laws to anti-trust as I stated above. At the point where things are being bought from one provider as opposed to another at great price differential it would be a fairly simple case to prove this was in order to facilitate tax evasion on the part of one or more controlling parties.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (3166 days ago)
Sorry if I'm not making myself clear. These will be two completely separate corporations. They will be owned by investors and those investors will own stocks. It just so happens that I will be the only stock holder. If that is a problem, then my wife, brother, or kids will own the other company.
ReplyVote up (94)down (100)
Original comment
Sorry if I'm not making myself clear. These will be two completely separate corporations. They will be owned by investors and those investors will own stocks. It just so happens that I will be the only stock holder. If that is a problem, then my wife, brother, or kids will own the other company.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3166 days ago)
Sure they will be separate in name but the fact is that by buying these cups at a price that is so divergent from the regular market price as to move profits they are engaging in behavior that is at least to a certain degree anti-competitive. Hence anti-trust
ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment
Sure they will be separate in name but the fact is that by buying these cups at a price that is so divergent from the regular market price as to move profits they are engaging in behavior that is at least to a certain degree anti-competitive. Hence anti-trust
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (3166 days ago)
Anticompetitive would be when you're selling a product below your cost to put other companies out of business. I don't know how you get this as anticompetitive when you're manipulating the profits of a company to avoid taxes.
Original comment
Anticompetitive would be when you're selling a product below your cost to put other companies out of business. I don't know how you get this as anticompetitive when you're manipulating the profits of a company to avoid taxes.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3166 days ago)
no, anti-trust is just as easily applied to companies paying too much, like in the case of cartels or monopolies (which are a form of anti-trust) anti-trust is an anti-competetive action of a company, i.e. refusing to buy cheaper cups from one company over another for a collusive reason. I am simply using it as an example of how to slightly change existing laws, or at least their enforcement in order to enforce the method of tax leveling I initially suggested.
ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment
no, anti-trust is just as easily applied to companies paying too much, like in the case of cartels or monopolies (which are a form of anti-trust) anti-trust is an anti-competetive action of a company, i.e. refusing to buy cheaper cups from one company over another for a collusive reason. I am simply using it as an example of how to slightly change existing laws, or at least their enforcement in order to enforce the method of tax leveling I initially suggested.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (3166 days ago)
Well, good luck with that tax model. I suspect it will not work. Have your country implement that and report back to let me know how it works for you.
ReplyVote up (101)down (83)
Original comment
Well, good luck with that tax model. I suspect it will not work. Have your country implement that and report back to let me know how it works for you.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3166 days ago)
I enjoyed talking it through anyhow. I fully appreciate that I'm not an expert in international tax law so no doubt it's full of holes that would be exploited somewhere.
ReplyVote up (101)down (82)
Original comment
I enjoyed talking it through anyhow. I fully appreciate that I'm not an expert in international tax law so no doubt it's full of holes that would be exploited somewhere.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (3166 days ago)
you convinced Cengland0 of something. Nice job :)
ReplyVote up (88)down (101)
Original comment
you convinced Cengland0 of something. Nice job :)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (3165 days ago)
No, I'm not convinced that his system will work. In fact, it's the opposite. It's probably the reason this has not been implemented either because the politicians in charge don't believe it will work either.
Original comment
No, I'm not convinced that his system will work. In fact, it's the opposite. It's probably the reason this has not been implemented either because the politicians in charge don't believe it will work either.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (3165 days ago)
I'm pretty sure that a law or system not being implemented isn't sufficient evidence that those in power believe it won't work. Vested interests, political capital, legislative timetable, international pressures and plain old corruption all have an impact on government decision making. I have no interest in convincing anyone, I enjoy working through issues like this because it gives me a better grasp of things. I am aware my argument most likely has flaws but being forced to question parts of my initial idea have enabled me to reach a slightly more informed point of view. I'm not kidding myself into thinking that anything here makes any difference but to my own personal understanding of the issues.
Original comment
I'm pretty sure that a law or system not being implemented isn't sufficient evidence that those in power believe it won't work. Vested interests, political capital, legislative timetable, international pressures and plain old corruption all have an impact on government decision making. I have no interest in convincing anyone, I enjoy working through issues like this because it gives me a better grasp of things. I am aware my argument most likely has flaws but being forced to question parts of my initial idea have enabled me to reach a slightly more informed point of view. I'm not kidding myself into thinking that anything here makes any difference but to my own personal understanding of the issues.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Counter Arguments - Political Correctness
Counter Arguments - Political Correctness
SyrianGirl: What the media is hiding?
SyrianGirl: What the media is hiding?
Tony Blair | The painful vs pointless Brexit dilemma
Tony Blair | The painful vs pointless Brexit dilemma
Could North Korea sink a US aircraft carrier?
Could North Korea sink a US aircraft carrier?
Tony Benn's 10 min history lesson
Tony Benn's 10 min history lesson