I'm no accountant but isn't it corporation tax that's being avoided, rather than income tax or VAT? I don't see why they're being brought into it to be honest.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Because it muddies the waters and distracts us from the entire point of the argument - deflect, deflect, deflect.
Amazon pay huge taxes in NI, employee PAYE, VAT, business rates, fuel duties etcetc. I'd imagine Amazon are among the highest tax payers in the country (and world). For some reason people focus on corporation tax which is a small % of the overall taxes a company like Amazon (and others) pay.
All taxes are paid for by the consumer.
RLB didn't state corporation tax... She just stated tax.
I think the point is that the original analogy by Rebecca Long-Bailly is fairly specious. A bit like arguing that the Government's spending is akin to a household budget, makes for a nice line but falls apart when you actually stop and think about it. But sadly politics has to fit into tweets these days.
Which makes me wonder that if corporation tax is so easily avoidable then perhaps it would be better to scrap it and increase the other taxes to raise the same revenue. It would be fairer to those that honestly pay their corporation tax now.
Absolutely agreed. If we accept that the government need the current amount of tax revenue then business rates and corporation tax (amongst others such as fuel duties) should be abolished in favour of a luxury goods tax. That would result in cheaper products for the people who can't afford to bear the brunt of these taxes.
Well possibly because they are dodging it? PAYE and VAT are collected but not paid by them. Every British company has to pay business rates, fuel duties etc. too + proper corporate tax on top of that. Why let amazon get away without it?
Not strictly true. If you buy 1£ worth of goods from a loss making supermarket or from a profit making supermarket doesn't matter to you (if the goods and price are the same). Yet the profit making supermarket pays taxes on it's profits while the one losing money doesn't. The taxes are paid by the organisation making the profit.
All taxes (VAT, Fuel duty, corporation tax, NI contribuitions, Rates) are ultiamatley paid by consumers as its all covered in the price Amazon charge to consumers - tripple fuel duty - yup delivery goes up, increase NI or VAT and oh look sales price goes up... double rates on depots and yup prices go up again
Amazon pay what is legally due on profits which is defined by corporation tax rates - they are no different from any other company in this regard - HMRC do not set two corporation tax schedules - one for Amazon and one for everybody else.
they also pay all other legally due taxes in the country of operation - (they dont get arebate of fuel duty, nor do they get to skip employer NI contributions)
If you want Amzon to pay a £1 billion more in tax each year then they need to be charging customer around £6 billion more at point of sale (5 billion gross profit to fall to the bottom line to generate £1bn tax and 1 billion additional VAT) - essentially they need to increase prices by around 70% based on an £8.6bn turnover (at which point they wont sell anything and tax take would actually fall- dont get me wrong I'm sure they would love an extra £4bn in their pocket each year but its not viable)
Should amazon pay more than is legally due (pretty sure they have a legal obligation to shareholders not to)? or should they charge unrealistically high rates and put themselves out of business (again pretty sure they have a legal obligation to shareholders not to do that) or should people like wrong daily actually come up with a coherent tax regime for multinationals focused on transfer pricing and you know do their feking job instead of moaning about shit they clearly either don't understand or are deliberately mis-representing for a cheap party political point
Interestingly under a no deal brexit then VAT rules might actually change and provide an opportunity for more profit for multinationals
Depending what was decided it might well be that VAT would no longer be charged should you buy something in Germany and ship to the UK and vice versa... at which point tariffs (and handling charges) would apply - so actually the customer could be paying the same but government tax take fall dramatically as fees would be say 10% tarrif and 10% handling fees (for example instead of 20% VAT) which would effectively half the VAT due to a government as prices paid the same... it will depend on VAT rules under a free trade deal but i suspect it will have longer term implications and must be something all retailers are looking into (what might be better to ship from abroad keeping costs in line but taking a % of revenue onto the books directly as handling fees vs paying straight to government.
Aye and all of the sudden they would face the same costs as everyone else.
All taxes are ultimately paid with consumer money but they aren't all paid by the consumer.
Put another way: If it's all paid for by consumers how come Bezos has money? It's all ours, isn't it?
They are being accused of running a shell game where they push profits to wherever is convenient for them and I am convinced they are guilty of it. (Either that or they make no profits in most large markets they operate in and huge profits in tiny nations. They're magicians).
This is nonsensical. No one wants them to pay 1 billion more in VAT and I have no clue why you go through the trouble of calculating this.
They make 10billion profits on 220billion revenue. So about 4.3%. They have a revenue of 8.6 billion in the UK so one would expect them to make about 370 million in profits in the UK, and pay 70 million taxes on it (Probably more because UK is more lucrative than most Amazon markets).
Totally agree. Corporation tax is broken when applied to these global companies. Letting them stockpile cash and then asking them to please give us a bit is obviously never going to work. Best thing to do is to take corporation tax out of the equation and simply tax the cost of doing business, which is unavoidable. In particular focus on taxing negative externalities like non-renewable energy so that they're incentivised into greener or better forms of business.
Successful companies grow and therefore pay more tax overall, unsuccessful companies shrink and eventually close and therefore pay less and then no tax. Therefore the example of a fictitious similar company paying maximum possible corporation taxes is spurious as they would not grow as Amazon have and so would pay less in other taxes.
A company like Amazon is successful partly because it pays less corporation tax and can therefore charge less for its goods and win more consumers. This success means the company grows and pays far more in VAT, fuel duties, NI, employee PAYE etc than its rivals. Therefore Amazon aren't "getting away with it". Amazon's ability to avoid corporation tax means it can offer cheaper goods to its consumers, which means they grow and pays more tax due to their growth.
Every business pays as little tax as it can legally of course.
FFS... might literally be the last day they have a chance to secure a peoples vote... aaaaaand ... twats
This thread has taken a weird turn are people truly arguing Amazon pays fair tax? Really?
Also it doesn't just follow the rules like everyone else it avoids as much as possible through loopholes which HMRC then try and claw back but most of the time give up and come to some reduced fee as an agreement.
Also it doesn't just follow the rules like everyone else it avoids as much as possible through loopholes which HMRC then try and claw back but most of the time give up and come to some reduced fee as an agreement.
It really is beyond belief. A time where half the country have an opposition who can't tie their own shoelaces without falling over and the key political action group who are more concerned with beating each other up than actually representing anyone.
Hard not to feel totally politically unrepresented at the moment. If anyone doesn't understand why the Lib Dems have resurged despite their issues, then this right here is exactly why. Who the feck else is there?
True - if there is an election in December I'll probably vote libs based on the fact that they are the only party likley to be standing in my area representing a clear remain option - its not that I'm impressed with the local candidate - nor is it that I think the libs would be an effective long term government - essentially it will be a protest vote at the fact that 48% of the country (probably more now accounting for demographics and Eu residents in the country) have had their vote thrown in the bin by labour who seem to be more concerned with kicking out jews and blairites than brexit
I look forward to re-branding as the European democrats and the long fight to rejoin!
I'd prefer a party that doesn't stand by their horrendous treatment of disabled people cheers.
Its amazing how many people forget this.
Dam Commie. Voting for attacks on disabled people is the most sensible left position someone can have. You don't know what its like to feel political homeless.
Anyway I bet you are one of those Corbyn cultists.
Last edited:
that issue is that amazon don't report profit in the uk, which is how they don't pay tax in the uk. in the absence of that information, we only have revenue to go by.
Do any of the Libs here know why the party is backing an election which is going to bring hard Brexit?
It's an odd story this as reading it they appear to think it's a huge issue and yet it's quite clear many of them have and do cocaine regularly.
Personally i think all MPs should be drug tested.
That's only even partially true if you believe that Amazon stimulates a greater demand and increases the size of the overall workforce. If Amazon crowds out other companies by paying lower corporation tax it obviously doesn't pay far more in VAT, fuel duties, NI, employent PAYE than those it surplants - it simply replaces them.
I think unless you're arguing that there exists a perfect system of collecting corporation tax that no country has yet discovered then it's somewhat irrelevant.
In the world we live the companies who're most successful survive and grow and the ones who aren't do not. The ones that grow by definition will pay more tax. The ones that die will inevitably pay less and then none. In the current system we (or anyone else) operate within Amazon are paying huge amounts of tax whilst doing whatever needs to be done to stay competitive and ahead of the curve,
Of course the government would be better of abolishing the taxes that can't be equitably collected (e.g. corporation tax) in favour or taxes that can be equitably collected (luxury goods tax); but we can't blame Amazon for that. If consumers really believed that Amazon needed to pay more tax they would:
a) Not buy from Amazon; or
b) Pass on the savings that Amazon give to the consumer to the treasury via a donation
Just watching Corbyn now.
Shameful....
Shameful....
Dreadful.
Don't know he was better than Redwood spreading illusions from 60 years ago
They also find ways to dodge tax which could go towards public services etc in a number of countries, and have a CEO who has amassed obscene wealth while low-level employees work in awful conditions for not that much money. Once a corporation reaches the size of Amazon it's less about innovation and skill because they have so much influence and power they can use their money to influence politicians etc, while stifling competition as well.
Drunk old man lecturing us on respect. (Mr. Cash in parliament, not the poster above)
If a business can dodge tax then it's their obligation to do so to stay competitive. If the next government made income tax somewhat optional they shouldn't be surprised when people don't pay it.
I agree regarding lobbyists, again though that's a governmental issue rather than a business one.
Just as an example of how utterly stupid Parliament has become.
The next step, if Johnson doesn't get the go ahead for a GE tonight, is for the Tory Government to call for a Vote of No Confidence in themseleves.
Just let that sink in...
On the other hand, it will be spellbinding to listen to Corbyn's excuse for not voting for it.
The next step, if Johnson doesn't get the go ahead for a GE tonight, is for the Tory Government to call for a Vote of No Confidence in themseleves.
Just let that sink in...
On the other hand, it will be spellbinding to listen to Corbyn's excuse for not voting for it.
Amazon could pay obscene amounts of tax and remain remarkably profitable - it's sheer greed as opposed to competitiveness. It's not their obligation at all - they should be able to recognise the benefits they gain through taxation insofar as it means governments can ensure their workers are educated to a higher level and have good healthcare etc.
The problem with lobbyists is that when a business becomes as big as Amazon they have enough money to influence government and sway public opinion.
I don't think Amazon needs public investment. The bulk of their workforce doesn't need to be literate beyond primary school. For the rest, they will have a sufficient pool to choose from if university was fully private and un-subsidised (and there is always the pool of 3rd world labour). The only thing they need are roads. They have the resources to build their own airline (airports if they wanted, as well) and probably trains.
Also, they have calculated that it is worthwhile to have staff working at such a rate that more than a hoptialisation per day is common. There will always be replacement labour supplied by the market - they don't need employees to be in good shape.
Can't believe there are people defending Amazon on here. They have been taking the piss basically forever, even in the US.Aye and all of the sudden they would face the same costs as everyone else.
All taxes are ultimately paid with consumer money but they aren't all paid by the consumer.
Put another way: If it's all paid for by consumers how come Bezos has money? It's all ours, isn't it?
They are being accused of running a shell game where they push profits to wherever is convenient for them and I am convinced they are guilty of it. (Either that or they make no profits in most large markets they operate in and huge profits in tiny nations. They're magicians).
This is nonsensical. No one wants them to pay 1 billion more in VAT and I have no clue why you go through the trouble of calculating this.
They make 10billion profits on 220billion revenue. So about 4.3%. They have a revenue of 8.6 billion in the UK so one would expect them to make about 370 million in profits in the UK, and pay 70 million taxes on it (Probably more because UK is more lucrative than most Amazon markets).
Just a daily reminder about how god awful this country is
That's largely true - but on a basic level even huge companies need governments that have enough public finds to uphold the law, and to have legal systems in place which, say, ensures Amazon have a right to land they own for warehouses etc. They're obviously not arsed about that, because they rely on other companies who don't dodge taxes doing it for them, but even businesses which don't depend on a lot of public investment still need governments to have enough to be able to stay afloat and keep the state stable.
Quoted for emphasis.