I had this link shared with me on FaceBook & thought it worth sharing here:
I know we hear about the masses of Corporate Tax Dodging companies over here - usually parts of International Conglomerates, but it's not something you think of with an old British Stalwart such as Boots.
Name Shame
Name Shame
FourPart;1473517 wrote: I had this link shared with me on FaceBook & thought it worth sharing here:
I know we hear about the masses of Corporate Tax Dodging companies over here - usually parts of International Conglomerates, but it's not something you think of with an old British Stalwart such as Boots.
I'm a firm believer that all money earned in this country should be taxed in this country but how does the tax man detect and stop a firm from setting up a subsidiary in a tax cheap country and cross charging the UK operation for "services" to reduce the apparent profit levels?
I know we hear about the masses of Corporate Tax Dodging companies over here - usually parts of International Conglomerates, but it's not something you think of with an old British Stalwart such as Boots.
I'm a firm believer that all money earned in this country should be taxed in this country but how does the tax man detect and stop a firm from setting up a subsidiary in a tax cheap country and cross charging the UK operation for "services" to reduce the apparent profit levels?
Name Shame
I thought that our true blue British BOOTS company had been bought by a foreign company a while ago, or am I wrong ?
If that's the case, then it is no surprise that Boots avoid paying taxes - our government don't want to risk loosing such a large company by it being removed to another country, do they? Think of all the unemployed people that would create ! I hasten to add that I am totally against these large companies avoiding paying tax to our government. It is not fair. The working man seems to be always the one to get clobbered when it comes to paying out money to the government.
If that's the case, then it is no surprise that Boots avoid paying taxes - our government don't want to risk loosing such a large company by it being removed to another country, do they? Think of all the unemployed people that would create ! I hasten to add that I am totally against these large companies avoiding paying tax to our government. It is not fair. The working man seems to be always the one to get clobbered when it comes to paying out money to the government.
I'm a Saga-lout, growing old disgracefully
Name Shame
They are all at it.
I have a hatred of the large super markets way of employing people on short hours contracts. It suites them very well, giving flexibility to flood their shops with staff at critical times, with no 'wasted' down time.
Many permanently established companies source staff from agencies, because the agencies can employ them on different terms, shorter hours, costing the employer less in NI and other costs, no recruitment hassle, instant staffing levels as and when required, and the power to refuse to employ certain persons without the legalities involved.
It is the cut throat world of big business where making profit at any cost with no responsibility to anyone other than the shareholder.
I have a hatred of the large super markets way of employing people on short hours contracts. It suites them very well, giving flexibility to flood their shops with staff at critical times, with no 'wasted' down time.
Many permanently established companies source staff from agencies, because the agencies can employ them on different terms, shorter hours, costing the employer less in NI and other costs, no recruitment hassle, instant staffing levels as and when required, and the power to refuse to employ certain persons without the legalities involved.
It is the cut throat world of big business where making profit at any cost with no responsibility to anyone other than the shareholder.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Name Shame
It strikes me that the very problem lies in the way that the companies are taxed on Net Profits. In this way, companies only need to divert their profits to invest in null companies, meaning that they are technically left with no profits & therefore not taxable. The solution, therefore, would be to charge a lower tax rate, but based on the Gross Income, as opposed to the profits.
It's all very well & good to say that the companies would simply go somewhere else, but even a lower profit, after having paid fair taxes is still a profit. They would just face the same problems elsewhere.
As things are, by the main corporations not paying taxes, that means that the burden of making up the revenue required by the budget has to come from the lesser taxpayers' pockets. If all the larger corporations were made to pay their taxes, then the balance of payments required of these companies would also be less, with more people to share the load.
It's all very well & good to say that the companies would simply go somewhere else, but even a lower profit, after having paid fair taxes is still a profit. They would just face the same problems elsewhere.
As things are, by the main corporations not paying taxes, that means that the burden of making up the revenue required by the budget has to come from the lesser taxpayers' pockets. If all the larger corporations were made to pay their taxes, then the balance of payments required of these companies would also be less, with more people to share the load.
Name Shame
I don't think companies should be taxed, but then again I think that profits should be distributed to shareholders and they should be paying personal taxes on their earnings.
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Name Shame
flopstock;1473559 wrote: I don't think companies should be taxed, but then again I think that profits should be distributed to shareholders and they should be paying personal taxes on their earnings.
That would just go into to same circle again. 'Investing' the incomes into dummy resources, thus nullifying the income on which to be taxed. Tax the income at source before they get the chance to divert it.
eg. On, say, a 10% tax rate:
As things stand -
Income = £1000
Expenses = £200
Profit = £800
10% Tax on £800 = £80
With Tax Avoidance
Income - £1000
Expenses - £200
'Investments' - £750
Profit - £50
10% Tax on £50 = £5
However, if taxed on income only, a lower rate of tax would achieve the same return.
Income = £1000
8% Tax on £1000 = £80
This would mean that if the idea were to be instigated across the board, with all companies, the %age rate could be lower still, having the cost shared out more. Plus fewer costs for the companies to employ specialist accountants to find ways of cheating the system.
That would just go into to same circle again. 'Investing' the incomes into dummy resources, thus nullifying the income on which to be taxed. Tax the income at source before they get the chance to divert it.
eg. On, say, a 10% tax rate:
As things stand -
Income = £1000
Expenses = £200
Profit = £800
10% Tax on £800 = £80
With Tax Avoidance
Income - £1000
Expenses - £200
'Investments' - £750
Profit - £50
10% Tax on £50 = £5
However, if taxed on income only, a lower rate of tax would achieve the same return.
Income = £1000
8% Tax on £1000 = £80
This would mean that if the idea were to be instigated across the board, with all companies, the %age rate could be lower still, having the cost shared out more. Plus fewer costs for the companies to employ specialist accountants to find ways of cheating the system.
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Name Shame
G#Gill;1473525 wrote: I thought that our true blue British BOOTS company had been bought by a foreign company a while ago, or am I wrong ?
If that's the case, then it is no surprise that Boots avoid paying taxes - our government don't want to risk loosing such a large company by it being removed to another country, do they? Think of all the unemployed people that would create ! I hasten to add that I am totally against these large companies avoiding paying tax to our government. It is not fair. The working man seems to be always the one to get clobbered when it comes to paying out money to the government.
No, I do not think that you are wrong. If I'm not mistaken the Americans own it.
If that's the case, then it is no surprise that Boots avoid paying taxes - our government don't want to risk loosing such a large company by it being removed to another country, do they? Think of all the unemployed people that would create ! I hasten to add that I am totally against these large companies avoiding paying tax to our government. It is not fair. The working man seems to be always the one to get clobbered when it comes to paying out money to the government.
No, I do not think that you are wrong. If I'm not mistaken the Americans own it.
Name Shame
Actually, the CEO of Boots, I think it was was interviewed on TV news the other day, and he had a foreign accent, although he was fluent in English. :-3
I'm a Saga-lout, growing old disgracefully
Name Shame
According to Boots company website:
Boots UK is part of the Retail Pharmacy International Division of Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. (Nasdaq: WBA), the first global pharmacy-led, health and wellbeing enterprise.
Their principle Stock holder is a fellow named Thomas J Sabatino, Jr
Interesting:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 21715.html
Boots UK is part of the Retail Pharmacy International Division of Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. (Nasdaq: WBA), the first global pharmacy-led, health and wellbeing enterprise.
Their principle Stock holder is a fellow named Thomas J Sabatino, Jr
Interesting:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases ... 21715.html
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
High Threshold
- Posts: 2856
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 2:20 am
Name Shame
G#Gill;1473595 wrote: Actually, the CEO of Boots, I think it was was interviewed on TV news the other day, and he had a foreign accent, although he was fluent in English. :-3
Italian ... but the company is owned (largely?) by the Americans.
Italian ... but the company is owned (largely?) by the Americans.
Name Shame
FourPart;1473568 wrote: That would just go into to same circle again. 'Investing' the incomes into dummy resources, thus nullifying the income on which to be taxed. Tax the income at source before they get the chance to divert it.
eg. On, say, a 10% tax rate:
As things stand -
Income = £1000
Expenses = £200
Profit = £800
10% Tax on £800 = £80
With Tax Avoidance
Income - £1000
Expenses - £200
'Investments' - £750
Profit - £50
10% Tax on £50 = £5
However, if taxed on income only, a lower rate of tax would achieve the same return.
Income = £1000
8% Tax on £1000 = £80
This would mean that if the idea were to be instigated across the board, with all companies, the %age rate could be lower still, having the cost shared out more. Plus fewer costs for the companies to employ specialist accountants to find ways of cheating the system.
I don't think that's the idea - tax the money coming out of the company to its owners instead of and notional income or profit within the company.
It would only work if it was applied worldwide or if tax ewas also applied to and monies paid overseas.
eg. On, say, a 10% tax rate:
As things stand -
Income = £1000
Expenses = £200
Profit = £800
10% Tax on £800 = £80
With Tax Avoidance
Income - £1000
Expenses - £200
'Investments' - £750
Profit - £50
10% Tax on £50 = £5
However, if taxed on income only, a lower rate of tax would achieve the same return.
Income = £1000
8% Tax on £1000 = £80
This would mean that if the idea were to be instigated across the board, with all companies, the %age rate could be lower still, having the cost shared out more. Plus fewer costs for the companies to employ specialist accountants to find ways of cheating the system.
I don't think that's the idea - tax the money coming out of the company to its owners instead of and notional income or profit within the company.
It would only work if it was applied worldwide or if tax ewas also applied to and monies paid overseas.
Name Shame
Bryn Mawr;1473605 wrote: It would only work if it was applied worldwide or if tax ewas also applied to and monies paid overseas.
Once they've paid their taxes they can send whatever they want overseas.
Once they've paid their taxes they can send whatever they want overseas.
Name Shame
FourPart;1473625 wrote: Once they've paid their taxes they can send whatever they want overseas.
But if the money they send overseas is accounted for as an operational cost then it is pre-tax, that is the whole problem. Set up a holding company in a tax haven which charges their "subsidiary" a franchise fee for a licence to operating under that name in the UK (as a silly example, I believe that's how the likes of Starbucks do it) then the taxable profit in the UK is near zero and they declare the profit in a country where they pay nearly zero tax.
But if the money they send overseas is accounted for as an operational cost then it is pre-tax, that is the whole problem. Set up a holding company in a tax haven which charges their "subsidiary" a franchise fee for a licence to operating under that name in the UK (as a silly example, I believe that's how the likes of Starbucks do it) then the taxable profit in the UK is near zero and they declare the profit in a country where they pay nearly zero tax.
Name Shame
That's why I said to tax them at a lower rate, but on their gross income - before costs are incurred, operational or otherwise.
Name Shame
The probem is global.
Every country is suffering from certain countries harbouring multinationals for tax purposes.
It is far too complicated for me to understand, but the likes of Starbucks buyers is strategically placed somewhere like Switzerland, where they never even smell any of the coffee let alone handle it, it is all done to dupe the Tax man in the countris where the profit is made. Some smoke and mirrors concerning costs and franchisment and paper shuffling between departments of the same company set up in various countries .......and voila......one day it will be made illegal.
The world will have to put their collective heads together first though.............they can't agree about anything else....why this?
Every country is suffering from certain countries harbouring multinationals for tax purposes.
It is far too complicated for me to understand, but the likes of Starbucks buyers is strategically placed somewhere like Switzerland, where they never even smell any of the coffee let alone handle it, it is all done to dupe the Tax man in the countris where the profit is made. Some smoke and mirrors concerning costs and franchisment and paper shuffling between departments of the same company set up in various countries .......and voila......one day it will be made illegal.
The world will have to put their collective heads together first though.............they can't agree about anything else....why this?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Name Shame
FourPart;1473656 wrote: That's why I said to tax them at a lower rate, but on their gross income - before costs are incurred, operational or otherwise.
That just would not work - you have service companies running high incomes with low costs making high profits alongside manufacturing industries running equally high incomes but with high raw materials and processing costs giving low profits.
Taxing both the same amount because they have the same gross income would cripple the latter and destroy the economy.
That just would not work - you have service companies running high incomes with low costs making high profits alongside manufacturing industries running equally high incomes but with high raw materials and processing costs giving low profits.
Taxing both the same amount because they have the same gross income would cripple the latter and destroy the economy.