Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Well said Boris

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

50% OFF new PortraitPro 12, plus EXTRA 5% OFF code EPHZROS414
CaptivePhotons
CaptivePhotons e2 Member 101497 forum postsCaptivePhotons vcard England2 Constructive Critique Points
18 Sep 2012 - 10:10 PM


Quote: D'oh. Of course I did *emarassed*

I bet you meant embarassed Tongue

I'd go to bed if I were you, it's not your day Smile

Last Modified By CaptivePhotons at 18 Sep 2012 - 10:10 PM
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
18 Sep 2012 - 10:10 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mikehit
mikehit e2 Member 45779 forum postsmikehit vcard United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
18 Sep 2012 - 10:10 PM


Quote: but Asil Nadir aside, and how long has he taken to come to trial,

He ran away to a country without an extradition treaty so the authorities couldn't do anything even though they desperately wanted to.
Point taken though


Quote: And as for the pittance some huge companies pay in Tax, in relation to how much they earn, it is laughable, and if they were pursued, the country as a whole may not have to endure cuts as deep as we all are having to.

They can't be pursued for tax because according to (internationally accepted) rules they are basing (ha! ha!) their operations where they are not liable for tax. The perpetual problem for Governments everywhere is how do you chase them down without being so punitive that other companies who are paying their way up sticks and leave because they don't like the way it is turning.
Getting these companies to pay their full tax share will require international cooperation which is highly unlikely which means any country that introduces legislation will find the intended taxpayers leaving in droves.
Personally I think this is overstated by the more rabid right, but it is a genuine concern.

redhed17
redhed17  8614 forum posts England
19 Sep 2012 - 1:41 AM

If a company offers a service or sells goods here, and they are making (lots of) money from it here, but are not paying Tax here, then if they were to leave because they were forced to pay Tax, another company would fill the void because there is obviously money to be made.

I think Usain Bolt doesn't come to this country often because of the Tax he has to pay on the money he earns here, why should it be different for a company? :-/ Earn it here, pay Tax on it here. Sound too simple. Wink

You can't let people get away with something because of perceived threats to withdraw. The companies still have to make money, they would just be making less, and if they do leave then see my point above.

If enough countries got together to enforce a common Tax policy (I know, highly unlikely too Wink) then you could say to some of these multinationals, 'nevermind you'll withdraw, you can go an eff off until you're willing to pay your proper Tax'.

Wishful thinking. Smile

monstersnowman
19 Sep 2012 - 2:30 AM

1) I am no expert but the might of large companies means they can and do employ tax lawyers to devise tax avoidance schemes that operate with a more complex mantra than 'if you earn it here you pay tax on it here'. The world is global and business is now done in a split second across the globe ... it just isnt as simple as we would like it and I doubt anyone here has enough knowledge or experience of global industry tax issues to devise simple bar room one line tax schemes - nice in the pub or on a forum but in reality it needs more substance and less scentiment.

2) Bolt has to visit here physically to race ... now if you get into the realms of image rights then we know many sports stars avoid massive tax even though they live here and play here (see Wayne Rooney) .. again it just aint that simple.

3) Getting enough countries to agree is a lovely fluffy nice idea but again it just aint that easy .. each country has different rules on tax, different motivations, different pressures, different industry bases, different tax avoidance losses - some even may gain from our tax avoidance losses. Most countries couldnt agree on what they are trying to agree on let alone agree on the details (see the EU) ... it just aint that easy.

4) To go for your first point last - the company may move abroad and then utilise tax benefits from trading as a company here with a tiny offshore office ... they dont just leave in some nice way like an office manager leaving to buy a cottage in france, emptying their desk for the next incumbant to seamlessly move into .. they leave, with a massive outstanding tax bill, set up an even more challenging offshore set up and trade in a different way .... global business doesnt need a lovely office sat on the local high street. And who says the replacement company is a good one that I want to buy from. If Canon moved would you buy Nikon ? If Sony moved would you buy Teknica ... if Carlsberg moved would you buy Hoffenheimerbrau. It just aint that simple. Would the staff from the old company be reemployed in the new one ... would the old company, that may be supporting a whole town be replaced by a new company coming into the same town to avoid that towns financial and social demise?

I dont claim to understand tax but i also dont claim to be able to think up simple one or two line solutions to tax issues that have plagued our country for years and baffled the best tax minds in HM Tax Revenue - if you or i could then we wouldnt need massivley wealthy tax lawyers OR we would be one :o) You have tried to oversimplify an uminaginably complex problem and none of your points, whilst applaudable, work in the real world as simply as you or i would want them to.

redhed17
redhed17  8614 forum posts England
19 Sep 2012 - 8:48 AM

But that's no fun. Wink Smile

Seriously, I know something like that can be sorted in a sentence or two, just like any complex political issue can't be either. But like in any issue, the lack of progress provokes outrage.

Thanks for the very detailed reply though, makes me feel better now I know more about the subject. Smile

Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
19 Sep 2012 - 8:58 AM


Quote: a few facts and figures to those of you who support the Tory onslaught on the poorer members in societySad

There is no onslaught - just a rebalancing after the crazy way that Labour under both Anthony Blair Esq and Gordon, Profligate, Brown, gave away taxpayers money to those who didn't deserve it. I don't mean the genuine disabled (I have a blue badge but do not claim any benefit) or those genuinely too ill to work, they gave it and massive unlimited housing benefits to all who asked, immigrants, layabouts and those just too idle to work and content to be on the benefit and cash-in-hand work bandwagon.

To mention 'onslaught' when the idea is to ensure that those who genuinely need it get it and more but those who have been fiddling the system stop getting it. The only people who support the Labour lost cause are those who stand to lose, most certainly not the genuine

Last Modified By Focus_Man at 19 Sep 2012 - 8:58 AM
Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
19 Sep 2012 - 9:05 AM

Unfortunately companies have been leaving the UK because of increased tax. A lot of companies recently moved to Southern Ireland because their corporation tax was lower than ours. Apparently all they need to do is move the registered office, not the actual plant or factory. This is why we have toi be careful about the levels of different taxes we deploy. Currently taxes are too high. Add National Insurance to 40% tax and that is half of your wages gone. Out of the other half you ahve to live and travel to and from work all at great cost. Those on the benefit system can receive what is said to be the minimum wage £26.000 pa but they pay no NI no Tax and have no expenses for travel to work.

mikehit
mikehit e2 Member 45779 forum postsmikehit vcard United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
19 Sep 2012 - 9:29 AM


Quote: Add National Insurance to 40% tax

40% is the high rate, not the standard rate so fo rmost people 'half their wages' will not be gone


Quote: Those on the benefit system can receive what is said to be the minimum wage £26.000 pa

Reading the Daily Mail? The minimum wage is under 13,000


I sympathise with a few of your points but getting issues like this completely wrong just undermines you POV.

Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
19 Sep 2012 - 9:37 AM


Quote: Add National Insurance to 40% tax
40% is the high rate, not the standard rate so fo rmost people 'half their wages' will not be gone

Those on the benefit system can receive what is said to be the minimum wage £26.000 pa
Reading the Daily Mail? The minimum wage is under 13,000


I sympathise with a few of your points but getting issues like this completely wrong just undermines you POV.

Daily Mail????????????? (The paper for the left Ha! Ha! this is right of Ghengis Khan but the figure you quote is completely incorrect) read the office of National Statistics report - £26,000

I stand by my point on 'half wages gone' more people than you think pay this iniquitous tax to support the benefit system.

So as far as getting it wrong is concerned - think again my friend.

mikehit
mikehit e2 Member 45779 forum postsmikehit vcard United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
19 Sep 2012 - 9:42 AM

what parts did I get wrong?

lobsterboy
lobsterboy Site Moderator 1013939 forum postslobsterboy vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
19 Sep 2012 - 9:55 AM

Maybe for most of us, the welfare state is just good value for money compared to the alternatives.

collywobles
19 Sep 2012 - 10:32 AM


Quote: I'm sure at least a fair number of the more loutish characters could be helped if maybe they had more playing fields, proper places to use skate boards, gyms or whatever.
I think the problem is that these areas have been allowed to "fester" for years and so it's next to impossible to lift the standard of behaviour of some of the characters there.

You are right Garth, with no prospects, no hope, no jobs and no future I have to say that the governments over many years have an enormous responsibility in creating the sub cultures that exist in places.

triumphv8
triumphv8  6446 forum posts United Kingdom
19 Sep 2012 - 11:31 AM

But with free money going their way every week, what's the incentive - they have no social responsibility - and in many case are in fact anti-social.

We should at least have a rule that says anyone claiming benefits has to prove they've been nice kind and helpful to everyone during the week.

You could have a bob-a-job type card to prove they've done old people shopping, or picked up litter, done a bit of gardening in the park etc

That would be truly social responsibility from ALL.

collywobles
19 Sep 2012 - 11:59 AM

I agree with all you say Triumphv8.

I do believe that anyone claiming benefits should make some contribution to society to earn their free benefits, there are thousands of social projects and charities that need help and if people on benefits had to help in this way to receive their benefits the rest of us who pay their benefits might not be so resentful.

However as my wife said to me, what do you do about the woman that has 4 children by 3 fathers on that Panorama Program and who has all the excuses why she cannot go to work. One of her comments was " Its even hard to get up in the morning to get the children off to school.

Last Modified By collywobles at 19 Sep 2012 - 12:01 PM
keith selmes
19 Sep 2012 - 12:32 PM


Quote: Those on the benefit system can receive what is said to be the minimum wage £26.000 pa

Untangling this confusion , it appears the average household income is just under £26,000, so a cap has been placed on benefits paid to working age families of £26,000 - although I have the impression there is provision to pay more in some circumstances, so it isn't really a maximum ammount.

Minimum wage is entirely different, there is no annual minimum wage, but there is an hourly rate.
An individual working 40 hours per week for 50 weeks of the year would indeed get less than £13,000.
But I suppose if they worked longer hours or shift work, they could get quite a bit extra.

Clearly, the statement quoted is inaccurate and misleading, and Mikehit is quite right.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.