RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:

UGagain wrote: Indeed. There has been precious little talk about the banks that have set these trusts up.

People love to relate stories. So it's easier when it's about someone rather than a faceless corporation.

However, it's the responsibility of the opposition to bring up the big issues, and in that Labour have completely missed the point, which is a shame.

We need to close tax loopholes that exist around companies.

You may have missed this. It doesnt appear to have been widely reported in the Media.

Labour's 10-point tax plan in full

An immediate public inquiry "to establish the harm done to the UK’s tax revenue and consider detailed proposals for reform". These could include forcing firms and trusts to publish more information.

Change the register of MPs' interests forcing members to publish all offshore holdings, no matter how small.

Create a 'Specialised Tax Enforcement unit' in HMRC, doubling the number of staff who scrutinise the affairs of the wealthiest individuals and firms.

Force foreign firms to list their owners and beneficiaries if they are bidding for public sector contracts.

Negotiate an EU deal forcing to multinational firms to file public reports on their dealings, country by country, and protecting whistleblowers.

Introduce a "General Anti-Avoidance Principle" and extend current rules to cover offshore abuses.

Crack down on accounting tricks, including telling courts to ignore “artificial steps” inserted in transactions to try and reduce tax.

Work with banks to find out more about who owns the companies and trusts they work with.

Introduce 'strict minimum standards' on transparency for crown dependencies and overseas territories like the British Virgin Islands - where more than 100,000 Panama Papers firms were based. That includes a public register of owners, directors, major shareholders and beneficial owners.

Draw up plans for a register of trusts which transfer trustees' residence offshore and tax avoidance schemes involving trusts which are disclosed to the HMRC under the current law.

fivepointer wrote:

Stom wrote:

UGagain wrote: Indeed. There has been precious little talk about the banks that have set these trusts up.

People love to relate stories. So it's easier when it's about someone rather than a faceless corporation.

However, it's the responsibility of the opposition to bring up the big issues, and in that Labour have completely missed the point, which is a shame.

We need to close tax loopholes that exist around companies.

You may have missed this. It doesnt appear to have been widely reported in the Media.

Labour's 10-point tax plan in full

An immediate public inquiry "to establish the harm done to the UK’s tax revenue and consider detailed proposals for reform". These could include forcing firms and trusts to publish more information.

Change the register of MPs' interests forcing members to publish all offshore holdings, no matter how small.

Create a 'Specialised Tax Enforcement unit' in HMRC, doubling the number of staff who scrutinise the affairs of the wealthiest individuals and firms.

Force foreign firms to list their owners and beneficiaries if they are bidding for public sector contracts.

Negotiate an EU deal forcing to multinational firms to file public reports on their dealings, country by country, and protecting whistleblowers.

Introduce a "General Anti-Avoidance Principle" and extend current rules to cover offshore abuses.

Crack down on accounting tricks, including telling courts to ignore “artificial steps” inserted in transactions to try and reduce tax.

Work with banks to find out more about who owns the companies and trusts they work with.

Introduce 'strict minimum standards' on transparency for crown dependencies and overseas territories like the British Virgin Islands - where more than 100,000 Panama Papers firms were based. That includes a public register of owners, directors, major shareholders and beneficial owners.

Draw up plans for a register of trusts which transfer trustees' residence offshore and tax avoidance schemes involving trusts which are disclosed to the HMRC under the current law.

I guess it would be a start. But would this just create another opportunity for those with the best accountants and lawyers to work within? Is there a way to make the testing of tax law easier for the government? At the moment it seems that if a company can make it expensive enough for the government to proove that they haven't paid all tax due they simply get away with it. It might be pragmatic for the government to reach a settlement with a company like google, but that doesn't really change the impression that there is a different set of rules for some in society.

Would a more comprehensive set of sales taxes be an option. Looking at something like google adwords, could the tax paid on something like this fall on the advertiser rather than google? Assuming advertisers factored this into budget the money paid to google should reduce with the tax revenue staying in the country where the advertiser made the payment?

canta_brian wrote:

fivepointer wrote:

Stom wrote:
People love to relate stories. So it's easier when it's about someone rather than a faceless corporation.

However, it's the responsibility of the opposition to bring up the big issues, and in that Labour have completely missed the point, which is a shame.

We need to close tax loopholes that exist around companies.

You may have missed this. It doesnt appear to have been widely reported in the Media.

Labour's 10-point tax plan in full

An immediate public inquiry "to establish the harm done to the UK’s tax revenue and consider detailed proposals for reform". These could include forcing firms and trusts to publish more information.

Change the register of MPs' interests forcing members to publish all offshore holdings, no matter how small.

Create a 'Specialised Tax Enforcement unit' in HMRC, doubling the number of staff who scrutinise the affairs of the wealthiest individuals and firms.

Force foreign firms to list their owners and beneficiaries if they are bidding for public sector contracts.

Negotiate an EU deal forcing to multinational firms to file public reports on their dealings, country by country, and protecting whistleblowers.

Introduce a "General Anti-Avoidance Principle" and extend current rules to cover offshore abuses.

Crack down on accounting tricks, including telling courts to ignore “artificial steps” inserted in transactions to try and reduce tax.

Work with banks to find out more about who owns the companies and trusts they work with.

Introduce 'strict minimum standards' on transparency for crown dependencies and overseas territories like the British Virgin Islands - where more than 100,000 Panama Papers firms were based. That includes a public register of owners, directors, major shareholders and beneficial owners.

Draw up plans for a register of trusts which transfer trustees' residence offshore and tax avoidance schemes involving trusts which are disclosed to the HMRC under the current law.

I guess it would be a start. But would this just create another opportunity for those with the best accountants and lawyers to work within? Is there a way to make the testing of tax law easier for the government? At the moment it seems that if a company can make it expensive enough for the government to proove that they haven't paid all tax due they simply get away with it. It might be pragmatic for the government to reach a settlement with a company like google, but that doesn't really change the impression that there is a different set of rules for some in society.

Would a more comprehensive set of sales taxes be an option. Looking at something like google adwords, could the tax paid on something like this fall on the advertiser rather than google? Assuming advertisers factored this into budget the money paid to google should reduce with the tax revenue staying in the country where the advertiser made the payment?

The general anti-avoidance principle should do most of the heavy lifting - forcing companies to prove that there was a reason for any Byzantine arrangements. It won't solve the Google or Starbucks issue though - the reality is that actually the brand is extremely valuable so there is a genuine reason for separating out the brand rights from the selling coffee issue and basing themselves in the Netherlands is always going to be justifiable.

Your proposal to make the advertiser pay the tax is interesting but I think likely only to lead to worldwide ad deals or greater profits for Google.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The general anti-avoidance principle should do most of the heavy lifting - forcing companies to prove that there was a reason for any Byzantine arrangements. It won't solve the Google or Starbucks issue though - the reality is that actually the brand is extremely valuable so there is a genuine reason for separating out the brand rights from the selling coffee issue and basing themselves in the Netherlands is always going to be justifiable.

Your proposal to make the advertiser pay the tax is interesting but I think likely only to lead to worldwide ad deals or greater profits for Google.

I don't understand why a Point of Consumption Tax could not work...It would easily solve the Starbucks issue and has been introduced digitally already, for online gambling companies.

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The general anti-avoidance principle should do most of the heavy lifting - forcing companies to prove that there was a reason for any Byzantine arrangements. It won't solve the Google or Starbucks issue though - the reality is that actually the brand is extremely valuable so there is a genuine reason for separating out the brand rights from the selling coffee issue and basing themselves in the Netherlands is always going to be justifiable.

Your proposal to make the advertiser pay the tax is interesting but I think likely only to lead to worldwide ad deals or greater profits for Google.

I don't understand why a Point of Consumption Tax could not work...It would easily solve the Starbucks issue and has been introduced digitally already, for online gambling companies.

Work? It will probably kill off any nascent tech companies in the UK (why would you start a tech business here under those circumstances) whilst possibly making the likes of Google pay a bit more. Net gain? I'd like to see the sums.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

canta_brian wrote:I love the use of language from the Tories. I won't try a direct quote as I can't remember, but to paraphrase I believe the statement ran along the lines of <<No member of the cabinet benefits from offshore tax havens>>

To me this reads, we all have them but won't bring the money back to the UK until we are no longer in politics. Therefore we can technically say that we don't benefit from these funds in the present tense.

And to be clear, no it is not just the Tories, they are all as slippery as a bucket of snot.

I don't know how that would work because they'd clearly be benefiting from them whilst they owned them. The reason it's been phrased that way is because of the Cameron witch hunt: they want to exclude beneficial as well as legal ownership or any other interest they might have in such funds. i guess if you proceed from the absurd notion that all politicians are cunts then you might possibly come to your conclusion if you are prepared to assume they've lied.

Donny osmond wrote:In amongst all the furore I've heard of some politicians who set themselves up as an unlimited company to get earnings from outside politicians salary. Is there an easy explanation as to how this is a tax dodge as it seems to me that when they take money out of their unlimited company they'll have to pay tax on it at that point??

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

You pay yourself by way of dividend rather than as salary because dividends are (or at least were) taxed at a lower rate. I think it may also enable you to drag in more expenses. It used to be the way forward if you were self employed and a number of my friends did it. I think they've changed it so that it's no longer tax efficient but I'm not sure.

Livingston did/does it, and pays corporation tax at 20/1% rather than income tax at 40+%

fivepointer wrote:

Stom wrote:

UGagain wrote: Indeed. There has been precious little talk about the banks that have set these trusts up.

People love to relate stories. So it's easier when it's about someone rather than a faceless corporation.

However, it's the responsibility of the opposition to bring up the big issues, and in that Labour have completely missed the point, which is a shame.

We need to close tax loopholes that exist around companies.

You may have missed this. It doesnt appear to have been widely reported in the Media.

Labour's 10-point tax plan in full

An immediate public inquiry "to establish the harm done to the UK’s tax revenue and consider detailed proposals for reform". These could include forcing firms and trusts to publish more information.

Change the register of MPs' interests forcing members to publish all offshore holdings, no matter how small.

Create a 'Specialised Tax Enforcement unit' in HMRC, doubling the number of staff who scrutinise the affairs of the wealthiest individuals and firms.

Force foreign firms to list their owners and beneficiaries if they are bidding for public sector contracts.

Negotiate an EU deal forcing to multinational firms to file public reports on their dealings, country by country, and protecting whistleblowers.

Introduce a "General Anti-Avoidance Principle" and extend current rules to cover offshore abuses.

Crack down on accounting tricks, including telling courts to ignore “artificial steps” inserted in transactions to try and reduce tax.

Work with banks to find out more about who owns the companies and trusts they work with.

Introduce 'strict minimum standards' on transparency for crown dependencies and overseas territories like the British Virgin Islands - where more than 100,000 Panama Papers firms were based. That includes a public register of owners, directors, major shareholders and beneficial owners.

Draw up plans for a register of trusts which transfer trustees' residence offshore and tax avoidance schemes involving trusts which are disclosed to the HMRC under the current law.

That's not a plan, that's a wish list....

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Work? It will probably kill off any nascent tech companies in the UK (why would you start a tech business here under those circumstances) whilst possibly making the likes of Google pay a bit more. Net gain? I'd like to see the sums.

Why would it kill off tech companies? Under what circumstances?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The general anti-avoidance principle should do most of the heavy lifting - forcing companies to prove that there was a reason for any Byzantine arrangements. It won't solve the Google or Starbucks issue though - the reality is that actually the brand is extremely valuable so there is a genuine reason for separating out the brand rights from the selling coffee issue and basing themselves in the Netherlands is always going to be justifiable.

Your proposal to make the advertiser pay the tax is interesting but I think likely only to lead to worldwide ad deals or greater profits for Google.

I don't understand why a Point of Consumption Tax could not work...It would easily solve the Starbucks issue and has been introduced digitally already, for online gambling companies.

Work? It will probably kill off any nascent tech companies in the UK (why would you start a tech business here under those circumstances) whilst possibly making the likes of Google pay a bit more. Net gain? I'd like to see the sums.

Tax rates have little to no bearing on business investment patterns.

Any maths that would be produced would tell you nothing because it would be guesswork.

The only reason for governments to allow transfer pricing is to give TNCs the opportunity to avoid taxation.

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Work? It will probably kill off any nascent tech companies in the UK (why would you start a tech business here under those circumstances) whilst possibly making the likes of Google pay a bit more. Net gain? I'd like to see the sums.

Why would it kill off tech companies? Under what circumstances?

They tend to be low margin high volume and ver cash poor businesses at start up and if you tax regardless of profit you are likely to strangle at birth a company hoping to set up. They also tend to be portable so you'd be much more inclined to start up elsewhere.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Work? It will probably kill off any nascent tech companies in the UK (why would you start a tech business here under those circumstances) whilst possibly making the likes of Google pay a bit more. Net gain? I'd like to see the sums.

Why would it kill off tech companies? Under what circumstances?

They tend to be low margin high volume and ver cash poor businesses at start up and if you tax regardless of profit you are likely to strangle at birth a company hoping to set up. They also tend to be portable so you'd be much more inclined to start up elsewhere.

Well that's the point, it's point of consumption, so it treats every company the same, no matter where they are located. Obviously, smaller companies could quite easily skip this tax - unless there is some way of tracking all transactions - but the big ones would all be caught in the net.

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stom wrote:
Why would it kill off tech companies? Under what circumstances?

They tend to be low margin high volume and ver cash poor businesses at start up and if you tax regardless of profit you are likely to strangle at birth a company hoping to set up. They also tend to be portable so you'd be much more inclined to start up elsewhere.

Well that's the point, it's point of consumption, so it treats every company the same, no matter where they are located. Obviously, smaller companies could quite easily skip this tax - unless there is some way of tracking all transactions - but the big ones would all be caught in the net.

I don't understand. If there isn't a way of tracking transactions then how would the larger companies be caught? You surely don't mean that the point is to drive tech start ups out of the country.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: They tend to be low margin high volume and ver cash poor businesses at start up and if you tax regardless of profit you are likely to strangle at birth a company hoping to set up. They also tend to be portable so you'd be much more inclined to start up elsewhere.

Well that's the point, it's point of consumption, so it treats every company the same, no matter where they are located. Obviously, smaller companies could quite easily skip this tax - unless there is some way of tracking all transactions - but the big ones would all be caught in the net.

I don't understand. If there isn't a way of tracking transactions then how would the larger companies be caught? You surely don't mean that the point is to drive tech start ups out of the country.

It doesn't matter where the company is based. That's the problem. It doesn't effect smaller companies (and this isn't just about tech, so don't make it that way), as they are unlikely to move as the cost of moving will wipe out any tax savings. It's basically a way of ensuring that any business done "in the UK", or in any other country for that matter, is taxed in that country. So a company like Starbucks, who currently move all their income abroad, would be taxed for every transaction completed in the UK.

Now, that's easy to track.

Google ad spend is also easy to track: every ad served to a UK based user is already tracked. So every time that happens, the 4p+ that Google takes in is immediately taxed in the UK, before the company can move it abroad.

Likewise, most small companies do their international business through paypal, so every transaction there is easily trackable, and can be taxed.

However, you would have to register your company as doing business in the UK. Which is where the problem comes in. There's nothing to stop a small business simply not declaring it, and thus HMRC will never have the manpower to track every single transaction.

But for larger companies, it will be obvious.

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stom wrote:
Well that's the point, it's point of consumption, so it treats every company the same, no matter where they are located. Obviously, smaller companies could quite easily skip this tax - unless there is some way of tracking all transactions - but the big ones would all be caught in the net.

I don't understand. If there isn't a way of tracking transactions then how would the larger companies be caught? You surely don't mean that the point is to drive tech start ups out of the country.

It doesn't matter where the company is based. That's the problem. It doesn't effect smaller companies (and this isn't just about tech, so don't make it that way), as they are unlikely to move as the cost of moving will wipe out any tax savings. It's basically a way of ensuring that any business done "in the UK", or in any other country for that matter, is taxed in that country. So a company like Starbucks, who currently move all their income abroad, would be taxed for every transaction completed in the UK.

Now, that's easy to track.

Google ad spend is also easy to track: every ad served to a UK based user is already tracked. So every time that happens, the 4p+ that Google takes in is immediately taxed in the UK, before the company can move it abroad.

Likewise, most small companies do their international business through paypal, so every transaction there is easily trackable, and can be taxed.

However, you would have to register your company as doing business in the UK. Which is where the problem comes in. There's nothing to stop a small business simply not declaring it, and thus HMRC will never have the manpower to track every single transaction.

But for larger companies, it will be obvious.

There is an automatic regulation safeguard built into my proposal to tax user rather than google. If my business is spending on google as a cost (and therefore paying tax on the spend) my business will be accounting for that spend in my accounts. The Point of Sale tax will be being paid but the cost to the business of the non-tax portion of the cost will be showing against profits. Simply have the purchaser do the reporting to HMRC on their behalf.

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stom wrote:
Well that's the point, it's point of consumption, so it treats every company the same, no matter where they are located. Obviously, smaller companies could quite easily skip this tax - unless there is some way of tracking all transactions - but the big ones would all be caught in the net.

I don't understand. If there isn't a way of tracking transactions then how would the larger companies be caught? You surely don't mean that the point is to drive tech start ups out of the country.

It doesn't matter where the company is based. That's the problem. It doesn't effect smaller companies (and this isn't just about tech, so don't make it that way), as they are unlikely to move as the cost of moving will wipe out any tax savings. It's basically a way of ensuring that any business done "in the UK", or in any other country for that matter, is taxed in that country. So a company like Starbucks, who currently move all their income abroad, would be taxed for every transaction completed in the UK.

Now, that's easy to track.

Google ad spend is also easy to track: every ad served to a UK based user is already tracked. So every time that happens, the 4p+ that Google takes in is immediately taxed in the UK, before the company can move it abroad.

Likewise, most small companies do their international business through paypal, so every transaction there is easily trackable, and can be taxed.

However, you would have to register your company as doing business in the UK. Which is where the problem comes in. There's nothing to stop a small business simply not declaring it, and thus HMRC will never have the manpower to track every single transaction.

But for larger companies, it will be obvious.

I'm using tech companies as an example. A team of 3 or 4 could easily move to somewhere like the Netherlands and the costs would be marginally more than 4 easyjet flights. That's not really my point though. My point is that those companies basically wouldn't set up here as they wouldn't be economic. That seems like a bloody stupid change.

If all you and canta_brian are talking about is a sales tax then we already have one of those which is VAT. Starbucks and others already collect that on behalf of the government. Adding another won't help anything.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: I don't understand. If there isn't a way of tracking transactions then how would the larger companies be caught? You surely don't mean that the point is to drive tech start ups out of the country.

It doesn't matter where the company is based. That's the problem. It doesn't effect smaller companies (and this isn't just about tech, so don't make it that way), as they are unlikely to move as the cost of moving will wipe out any tax savings. It's basically a way of ensuring that any business done "in the UK", or in any other country for that matter, is taxed in that country. So a company like Starbucks, who currently move all their income abroad, would be taxed for every transaction completed in the UK.

Now, that's easy to track.

Google ad spend is also easy to track: every ad served to a UK based user is already tracked. So every time that happens, the 4p+ that Google takes in is immediately taxed in the UK, before the company can move it abroad.

Likewise, most small companies do their international business through paypal, so every transaction there is easily trackable, and can be taxed.

However, you would have to register your company as doing business in the UK. Which is where the problem comes in. There's nothing to stop a small business simply not declaring it, and thus HMRC will never have the manpower to track every single transaction.

But for larger companies, it will be obvious.

I'm using tech companies as an example. A team of 3 or 4 could easily move to somewhere like the Netherlands and the costs would be marginally more than 4 easyjet flights. That's not really my point though. My point is that those companies basically wouldn't set up here as they wouldn't be economic. That seems like a bloody stupid change.

If all you and canta_brian are talking about is a sales tax then we already have one of those which is VAT. Starbucks and others already collect that on behalf of the government. Adding another won't help anything.

I don't get why moving would be beneficial? It would make no difference...In fact, it encourages companies to set up here, as they can take advantage of being close to their users, and there's no difference in the tax.

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stom wrote:
It doesn't matter where the company is based. That's the problem. It doesn't effect smaller companies (and this isn't just about tech, so don't make it that way), as they are unlikely to move as the cost of moving will wipe out any tax savings. It's basically a way of ensuring that any business done "in the UK", or in any other country for that matter, is taxed in that country. So a company like Starbucks, who currently move all their income abroad, would be taxed for every transaction completed in the UK.

Now, that's easy to track.

Google ad spend is also easy to track: every ad served to a UK based user is already tracked. So every time that happens, the 4p+ that Google takes in is immediately taxed in the UK, before the company can move it abroad.

Likewise, most small companies do their international business through paypal, so every transaction there is easily trackable, and can be taxed.

However, you would have to register your company as doing business in the UK. Which is where the problem comes in. There's nothing to stop a small business simply not declaring it, and thus HMRC will never have the manpower to track every single transaction.

But for larger companies, it will be obvious.

I'm using tech companies as an example. A team of 3 or 4 could easily move to somewhere like the Netherlands and the costs would be marginally more than 4 easyjet flights. That's not really my point though. My point is that those companies basically wouldn't set up here as they wouldn't be economic. That seems like a bloody stupid change.

If all you and canta_brian are talking about is a sales tax then we already have one of those which is VAT. Starbucks and others already collect that on behalf of the government. Adding another won't help anything.

I don't get why moving would be beneficial? It would make no difference...In fact, it encourages companies to set up here, as they can take advantage of being close to their users, and there's no difference in the tax.

Start ups don't tend to have the resources to launch in several companies at the same time. The tax wouldn't be the same in the UK and Netherlands under your suggestion that we institute a point of sales tax. In order to avoid losing more money they wouldn't launch in the uk. Given the tax regime you suggest there's every chance they'll struggle to get finance as the period before which they'll be in the black.

AsI say i'd like to see the figures worked out but it seems a bad idea.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: I don't understand. If there isn't a way of tracking transactions then how would the larger companies be caught? You surely don't mean that the point is to drive tech start ups out of the country.

It doesn't matter where the company is based. That's the problem. It doesn't effect smaller companies (and this isn't just about tech, so don't make it that way), as they are unlikely to move as the cost of moving will wipe out any tax savings. It's basically a way of ensuring that any business done "in the UK", or in any other country for that matter, is taxed in that country. So a company like Starbucks, who currently move all their income abroad, would be taxed for every transaction completed in the UK.

Now, that's easy to track.

Google ad spend is also easy to track: every ad served to a UK based user is already tracked. So every time that happens, the 4p+ that Google takes in is immediately taxed in the UK, before the company can move it abroad.

Likewise, most small companies do their international business through paypal, so every transaction there is easily trackable, and can be taxed.

However, you would have to register your company as doing business in the UK. Which is where the problem comes in. There's nothing to stop a small business simply not declaring it, and thus HMRC will never have the manpower to track every single transaction.

But for larger companies, it will be obvious.

I'm using tech companies as an example. A team of 3 or 4 could easily move to somewhere like the Netherlands and the costs would be marginally more than 4 easyjet flights. That's not really my point though. My point is that those companies basically wouldn't set up here as they wouldn't be economic. That seems like a bloody stupid change.

If all you and canta_brian are talking about is a sales tax then we already have one of those which is VAT. Starbucks and others already collect that on behalf of the government. Adding another won't help anything.

With the right exemptions for essentials for living I am all for more point of sales tax and less income taxation. How is it all managed in the US where different states have different sales taxes/rates and on different products? Morepork, you are in the states are you not?

Sheite man, I'm just a working girl. Sales tax here is not like VAT there, and is administered by state governments and so varies from state to state. A few don't have sales tax at all. Corporate tax varies from state to state as well, and I have no idea of the definitions of the type of business conducted as they pertain to applying sales tax to businesses rates, but overall corporate tax contributes less than 10% of tax income across the country.

Couldn't you just tax the total profit of the company in proportion to how much revenue was booked here?

Zhivago wrote:Couldn't you just tax the total profit of the company in proportion to how much revenue was booked here?

Possibly. The difficulty being that there are various different entities. So Starbucks have a company that sells coffee which doesn't make much money because it pays a licensing fee to Starbucks Netherlands who own the intellectual property for the Starbucks brand

Or, you could abandon trying to tax people and businesses based on income and profit and instead tax them on the land they own.

http://www.c4ej.com/resources/a-simple- ... -value-tax

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:Couldn't you just tax the total profit of the company in proportion to how much revenue was booked here?

Possibly. The difficulty being that there are various different entities. So Starbucks have a company that sells coffee which doesn't make much money because it pays a licensing fee to Starbucks Netherlands who own the intellectual property for the Starbucks brand

Transfer pricing is easy to stop.

fivepointer wrote:Or, you could abandon trying to tax people and businesses based on income and profit and instead tax them on the land they own.

http://www.c4ej.com/resources/a-simple- ... -value-tax

I tell you who'd love that. Tax lawyers. Enjoy trying to value property in london devoid of the housing stock on it or around it. the idea that Chelsea is expensive because of the public amenities is palpably false.

It's also archaic. How much land do you reckon is owned by Google? Or hedge funds (not as an investment).

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

fivepointer wrote:Or, you could abandon trying to tax people and businesses based on income and profit and instead tax them on the land they own.

http://www.c4ej.com/resources/a-simple- ... -value-tax

I tell you who'd love that. Tax lawyers. Enjoy trying to value property in london devoid of the housing stock on it or around it. the idea that Chelsea is expensive because of the public amenities is palpably false.

It's also archaic. How much land do you reckon is owned by Google? Or hedge funds (not as an investment).

The notion that taxation is revenue for the government to spend is obsolete. Taxation gives the state the economic space to command resources for distribution.

The object is to remove state money from the system so as to stop runaway inflation and to discourage practices that are harmful to society. The acquisition of inordinate wealth by individuals, interest groups and cartels is harmful to society and the economy.

Hoarding land and property is a passtime of the inordinately wealthy. It serves to extract economic rent, distort the production/consumption economy and inflate private debt levels (bank credit).