LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThe Compliance functions of HMRC are constantly putting these schemes to the test.Originally Posted by Willzzz
The Compliance functions of HMRC are constantly putting these schemes to the test.
Society's to blame,
Or possibly Atari.
Well yes, but they rarely, if ever, take it all the way. They usually end up with some gentlemen's agreement where the company agree to pay a bit more if HMRC stop snooping around.
The point is that the current law is probably sufficient to force companies to pay a lot more tax, but that HMRC generally speaking don't want to rock the boat too much.
Aye it's a balancing act to keep the country tax-friendly so that companies will want to base themselves here, and continue to pay VAT, Payroll taxes etc and provide jobs.
Society's to blame,
Or possibly Atari.
They're doing no different to what millions of us do (e.g. with ISAs, child care vouchers, etc.), namely legally lowering their tax bill.
They're doing no different to my own employer, namely legally lowering their tax bill by contracting as much as possible through legal entities in low tax locations.
They're doing no different to numerous other UK and non-UK HQ'd companies (Vodafone anyone?)
This is the reality of the global economy. National governments need to deal with it. Throwing their toys out of the pram is not a practical solution - change the law if it's not working as intended. The electorate is not as dumb as they think.
I agree with the thrust of your point, but differ a bit on VAT. Very few companies pay VAT. To do so, they are either very small indeed, or are in one of a pretty small set of businesses where their supplies are exempt.
What they do is collect VAT for HMRC. They are unpaid tax collectors that get the hassle of all the administration, fines and penalties if they mess up and no actual benefit from the process.
Any VAT they pay to HMRC, with almost no exceptions, is money that have added to their cost of supplying product or service. And they deduct any VAT they pay on goods or services and pay over the net amount.
But they don't pay it. It is not an overhead on business, it's not part of their cost structure. All they do is take it off of consumers and hand it over to the government.
And, as the rates are the same regardless of supplier (with the exception of the consumer going to a business so small as to not pass the VAT registration threshold, who therefore doesn't have to add VAT), it's not a factor under their control.
If you buy a widget, or a cup of coffee, it makes no difference who you buy it from, as the tax rate will be the same. The actual VAT you pay, of course, will vary if the different suppliers charge different prices for their widgets or coffee, but they do not benefit at all from any difference in VAT.
I've seen businesses often claim that they "pay" VAT, including one of those before the Select Committee the other day, and it winds me up. Do they hell pay VAT. They merely collect it. And that, by the way, includes me, and a number of others on here too. All I get is the hassle and grief of having to do HMRC's work for them on this.
I don't know if I'm being political but.... This really just strikes me of this. As I said above the Ministor who was leading the grilling of these evil companies herself comes from a family which is directly involved in such accountancy. Her education was paid for by people providing the services she complains about.
She also expensed 3 bedroom carpets, for her 1 bedroom flat......
I honestly consider her much more of a paracistic skum, than Amazon SARL or Google or anyone else.
One of the papers which was loudest about campaiging about these pratices, themselves do it too.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Right. The worst thing about politics = career politicians.
I for one will be voting for independents in the Mayoral and Police Commissioner elections tomorrow.
The one thing I liked about being self-employed was being too small to have to worry about VAT
As to Career politicians, that's what happens when you make it possible to make a career out of politics. OTOH, if we made all politicians have to be self supporting only the very rich could afford to do it, which would put something of an inherent bias on the Commons, dontchathink?Ultimately, I suspect that most people who go into politics do it because they genuinely want to make a difference, and they're the ones who sit on the back benches and mutter a lot, and a small minority do it because they want to be politicians, and they're the ones we always hear from. And none of it actually makes a blind bit of difference to the public, as no-one is willing to make the really big changes that could improve things for fear of alienating one set of voters or another, and risk the rather comfortable lifestyle they find themselves enjoying if they ever actually get elected.
The tax system is not, by a long way, the only thing in British politics that doesn't work as intended...
The difference is that with ISAs etc. there are clear, explicit, black and white rules. This just isn't the case with big business.
The chances are that what Starbucks and others are doing IS illegal, but it's hard to prove that it is illegal because the laws are so complex and vague.
Just because you are involved in accountancy doesn't necessarily mean you approve of the practices. The sector I work in I have to do some things I am not proud of, but I don't feel I have any choice. If we don't use the same practices that the competition use, we simply can't keep up.
I'm sure many accounting firms would actually like the rules to be tightened up so that you didn't have to be a sneaky bastard in order to attract big clients.
Being self-employed, per se, gives no no immunity to VAT though. Whether self-employed or running a company, only being in one of the exempt businesses, or having too small a turnover (which is the case for a lot of self-employed) mean you aren't obliged to register. It's worth noting that sometimes, even if you're self-employed, optional registration is financially beneficial .... if you can handle the admin. For instance, as a generalisation, if you sell goods/services to consumers and don't have to register, then don't. But if you sell to businesses, it's very likely to be in your interests, even if self-employed, to register voluntarily even if below the threshold that would compel you to do so. I'll explain why if anyone is interested enough to care.The one thing I liked about being self-employed was being too small to have to worry about VAT
....
I considered this carefully when I started the business, but in the end worked out that for my main client base (which were either charities or other small businesses well below the compulsory VAT-registration threshold) it wasn't worth it for me. If I'd been in the position of selling services/products to VAT-registered businesses I'd certainly have registered, although I think I might have folded that business even quicker if I'd had to deal with an other layer of paperwork...
So how many times have you complained vocally about these things, written to an MP or actually made any noise?
Or are you only following orders? No wait, your a leftie champaign socialist aren't you? Do as I think we should behave, but don't expect me to live like that.
Do you know what I did last time I was offered a very lucrative role, that was questionable legality and very poor from a moral point of view.... I turned it down.
You have a choice, if everyone actually thought "hmm this is imoral, we shouldn't support it" and didn't, these things wouldn't happen. Instead its a acknowledged shirking of responsibility, which quite frankly makes me think of you as a terrible person.
I do things many legal things people wouldn't approve of, that is my right. I however never criticse others for doing the same, might warn them, but never judge them. I also never do anything that I consider wrong, unless I did not at the time.
The fact of the matter the MP in question is one of the richest members of parliment. She has shown complete disregard for the expenses system, making you and me buy her luxury items someone who earns £100k a year wouldn't afford.
She now has the ordasity to lambast others for behaviour which is no worse, and on the whole more moral than her own makes me rather angry with this whole situation. Even more so that a lot of the 'problems' we have now are directly due to her compliancy in the last government.
This is just a circus, a smoke screen.
The fact you don't see this saddens me.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
As I said above - albeit rather less forcefully.
I suspect that it's Bread & Circuses. We can expect the bread in the Chancellors Autumn statement.
Society's to blame,
Or possibly Atari.
You seem to be contradicting yourself.
First you say that one should complain and make a noise, then you say that you should never criticise others.
I don't see how you can make a fuss without there being some implied criticism.
I personally have made a fuss, and the current government are actually doing something about it. Sometimes it is worse morally to do nothing than to settle for second best.
Just because you don't like the person, doesn't mean that what they are doing is wrong.
You missed the whole hypocrascy. I don't use an offshore haven to funnel my money back to me as a loan. If I did, I would be about £60k richer. I would have a nice little 1969 E-Type, instead I have a deisel, and eco disiel. So let me be clear I will happily and vocally criticise the people and the legislation that allow offshoring to loan back.
If on the other hand I'd decided to do that, and was hearing the warm sound of a V8 every time instead of the angry whasp stuck in a tuba of my french car, I would not be allowed to complain about someone else doing it.
You can make a fuss, you can critise, but not with any credability when you personally profit from it.
It can be more than just implied.
But you still say you support companies doing this action you find reprehensible. Now if you say "I really dislike this, here is why, but I still profit from it" in an upfront way, that is very differen't to supporting the bad behaviour, profiting from it and then chastising only others.
Its not about like or dislike, its not that she voted for a war with the possibility of knowing things had been falsified. Its not.
Its about her chasting others, when she behaves worse herself, has and has had for a long time the power to stop it.
That is why its about credability.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote