Tax Rebellion in the UK.

[Trik'Stari]

Fair enough but is this going to make companies jack up prices in retaliation to paying more tax once the loopholes are close? (assuming they do close them)

This is my problem with taxes. They don't do anything. where as forcing a company to give a percentage of its profit margins (I would say 50% just to be a dick to the rich assholes), regardless of where those employees live (for instance, Apple would be FUCKED in the US, because of all their overseas "contractors") would work. Because raising their prices would just mean paying their employees more than they do now.

[Bensemus]

I'm still in favor of a free market economy, but I want some rules in place where the ridiculous profits that companies make, are directly distributed to the people who you know....actually do the work.

 

It's not a limit on business, just a mandate that people make a decent living. The better off a company does, the better off the employees should be.

 

 

Oh, I forgot. If the company says "screw that, we're moving all our business to China", we take away all their copyright holdings, PERMANENTLY. Sure, they can still sell things here in the US, but so can anyone else, without having to give them bullshit royalties.

 

Then, we would have what a capitalist economy is supposed to be. A competitive environment.

But then companies would have to spend money to create competitive products. That would never work! /s

[Trik'Stari]

But then companies would have to spend money to create competitive products. That would never work! /s

I know right? It's not like competition has ever worked for anything on planet Earth.....you know, like evolution and what not.

[Nexus]

So a bunch of companies took a look at tax law and realised they can play less? Good for them.

 

Hopefully in the coming months and years we actually see a huge decrease in tax in the UK both corporate and personal. As it stands both companies and people are taxes too much and with this our current and previous government (labour) we have seen some really poor financial management. 

 

I think too many people have been looking at this the wrong way. They see the little guy paying his tax and Amazon avoiding it. For some reason the assume that the best course of action is to make Amazon and the others pay up. All this would do is translate to an increase in prices making everyone poorer. It would also disproportionately affect the poor.

 

 

TLDR: I think this is good, everyone should pay less tax - it makes everyone better off.

[Albatross]

So a bunch of companies took a look at tax law and realised they can play less? Good for them.

 

Hopefully in the coming months and years we actually see a huge decrease in tax in the UK both corporate and personal. As it stands both companies and people are taxes too much and with this our current and previous government (labour) we have seen some really poor financial management. 

 

I think too many people have been looking at this the wrong way. They see the little guy paying his tax and Amazon avoiding it. For some reason the assume that the best course of action is to make Amazon and the others pay up. All this would do is translate to an increase in prices making everyone poorer. It would also disproportionately affect the poor.

 

 

TLDR: I think this is good, everyone should pay less tax - it makes everyone better off.

 

The wrong way? The big companies shouldn't be able to go around laws or through loopholes that don't work for the little guy. If it exists in the first place everyone should follow it, not just the poorer/smaller companies. If it were the smaller companies avoiding their taxes or paying as little as the big guys, they would have been hit with the hammer.

[Nexus]

The wrong way? The big companies shouldn't be able to go around laws or through loopholes that don't work for the little guy. If it exists in the first place everyone should follow it, not just the poorer/smaller companies. If it were the smaller companies avoiding their taxes or paying as little as the big guys, they would have been hit with the hammer.

Yes the wrong way. Instead of trying to force big companies to pay more tax we should be lowering tax. It costs money to pay accounts and lawyers to legally avoid tax (please note the difference between tax avoidance which is legal, and tax evasion which is not). If amount of tax payable is lower than the cost of employing teams of expensive accounts its cheaper and easier just to pay. At the same time this would also mean smaller companies would pay less tax - as it stands the amount they would save through tax avoidance is too low to justify the expense. This would be a win win situation. This would result in two things. Firstly, lower tax for business - thus lower cost products for consumers, everyone wins. Secondly, more revenue generated for the treasury - due to more people paying.

 

"If it exists in the first place everyone should follow it"

Other than some rare exceptions most of the large companies are not actually doing anything illegal, they are just following the law like everyone else. 

 

" If it were the smaller companies avoiding their taxes or paying as little as the big guys, they would have been hit with the hammer."

Entirely untrue, many smaller companies do this. In fact many people, my grandfather included, build their careers around giving such advice to small companies. The fact that the source article exists is proof that its possible for the little guy.

[Albatross]

Yes the wrong way. Instead of trying to force big companies to pay more tax we should be lowering tax. It costs money to pay accounts and lawyers to legally avoid tax (please note the difference between tax avoidance which is legal, and tax evasion which is not). If amount of tax payable is lower than the cost of employing teams of expensive accounts its cheaper and easier just to pay. At the same time this would also mean smaller companies would pay less tax - as it stands the amount they would save through tax avoidance is too low to justify the expense. This would be a win win situation. This would result in two things. Firstly, lower tax for business - thus lower cost products for consumers, everyone wins. Secondly, more revenue generated for the treasury - due to more people paying.

 

"If it exists in the first place everyone should follow it"

Other than some rare exceptions most of the large companies are not actually doing anything illegal, they are just following the law like everyone else. 

 

" If it were the smaller companies avoiding their taxes or paying as little as the big guys, they would have been hit with the hammer."

Entirely untrue, many smaller companies do this. In fact many people, my grandfather included, build their careers around giving such advice to small companies. The fact that the source article exists is proof that its possible for the little guy.

 

Well that's not going to happen though. So as it stands, if a law exists etc etc, everyone should have to follow it or everyone should be able to do the same things. It shouldn't be that only the rich and powerful can go through the loopholes. 

[marldorthegreat]

Taxing facebook more will be WORSE for the uk as they will just cut jobs. On amazon they will cut jobs and but up prices.

[blu4]

Am I getting this right, Facebook- THE Facebook paid 5000 quid for taxes in a financial year?

[Trik'Stari]

The wrong way? The big companies shouldn't be able to go around laws or through loopholes that don't work for the little guy. If it exists in the first place everyone should follow it, not just the poorer/smaller companies. If it were the smaller companies avoiding their taxes or paying as little as the big guys, they would have been hit with the hammer.

He's pointing out that companies react to having to cough up more money, by simply charging more and cutting jobs. Which is absolutely true. That's why Minimum Wage increases don't work.

 

The issue is finding a way to stop them from doing that. I proposed simply requiring a big chunk of their profit margin to be distributed amongst their employees. Something like %50 percent, however, that CANNOT be considered overhead (like payroll is). It's simply giving the people who actually made the money, what they deserve. And by making it a set percentage, they can raise or lower prices all they want, and they just end up paying their employees that same %50.

 

Hell, my dad has generated millions in sales for the company he works for. you know what his "commission" is? Somewhere around $2600. And his boss has the nerve to send him photos of him and his wife on honeymoon in the fucking amazon jungle. His boss is also an incompetent prick, who just happens to be the owners son. How is any of that right?

 

Am I getting this right, Facebook- THE Facebook paid 5000 quid for taxes in a financial year?

Yep. Because that's somehow acceptable in society.

[blu4]

He's pointing out that companies react to having to cough up more money, by simply charging more and cutting jobs. Which is absolutely true. That's why Minimum Wage increases don't work.

 

The issue is finding a way to stop them from doing that. I proposed simply requiring a big chunk of their profit margin to be distributed amongst their employees. Something like %50 percent, however, that CANNOT be considered overhead (like payroll is). It's simply giving the people who actually made the money, what they deserve. And by making it a set percentage, they can raise or lower prices all they want, and they just end up paying their employees that same %50.

 

Hell, my dad has generated millions in sales for the company he works for. you know what his "commission" is? Somewhere around $2600. And his boss has the nerve to send him photos of him and his wife on honeymoon in the fucking amazon jungle. His boss is also an incompetent prick, who just happens to be the owners son. How is any of that right?

 

Yep. Because that's somehow acceptable in society.

Wow, I paid almost half of what facebook did!

[Trik'Stari]

Wow, I paid almost half of what facebook did!

Yep.

 

That alone should be causing riots in the entire UK. Or at least mass protests.

[blu4]

Yep.

 

That alone should be causing riots in the entire UK. Or at least mass protests.

I'm going to become a drug dealer and not pay a single dime to the government- fucking us without lube. Nice.

[Trik'Stari]

I'm going to become a drug dealer and not pay a single dime to the government- fucking us without lube. Nice.

Sadly, that's probably their biggest actual problem with drugs, they can't tax it as easily.

 

Government always gotta have its pound of flesh, from the wrong fucking people.

[Misanthrope]

Too bad this is going to be almost impossible to pull off. Not when the government or leading powers have their hands (or interests) in the pockets of the problematic companies.

Not really, lots of small businesses can create a conglomerate called "Fuck tax laws" and evade a lot of taxes legally. They can even donate a bunch to a charity organization called "Fight Cancer AND Taxes" non profit.

[Trik'Stari]

Not really, lots of small businesses can create a conglomerate called "Fuck tax laws" and evade a lot of taxes legally. They can even donate a bunch to a charity organization called "Fight Cancer AND Taxes" non profit.

Better to start a charity aimed at bribing politicians to stop the corporations from getting away with this shit.

 

Oh wait, in the US isn't that called a SuperPAC?

[Misanthrope]

I'm going to become a drug dealer and not pay a single dime to the government- fucking us without lube. Nice.

Better act fast: weed is becoming legal fast and many others will be decriminalized eventually.

[CommandMan7]

I do to.

 

Me for world dictator. I'd fix everything, create a TRUE DEMOCRACY (not "representative" government) and then retire.

 

To a private Island where I would grow weed and play video games for the rest of my life lol

 

(also, take down North Korea, because that NEEDS to happen)

 

That's signature-worthy 

 

 

Trik'Stari 2016

 

Honestly I think that government will never reform to truly serve the people, at least on earth. It's too resource limited, and everyone's too close to one another. If humanity were to embark into space on hundreds of different ships, it'd give us the physical separation and abundant resources we need to look past greed and corruption. Then each ship can govern itself as it pleases, yet still allow us to work together with others through electronic communication. The population of any one ship, though, would have to be pretty low to allow for proper representation.

[Misanthrope]

Better to start a charity aimed at bribing politicians to stop the corporations from getting away with this shit.

Oh wait, in the US isn't that called a SuperPAC?

Hard to compete with corporations that already have tons of Cash due to previous bribes and can outbid you.

Quite the modern slave market if you think about it.

[Trik'Stari]

That's signature-worthy 

 

-snip

 

Trik'Stari 2016

 

Honestly I think that government will never reform to truly serve the people, at least on earth. It's too resource limited, and everyone's too close to one another. If humanity were to embark into space on hundreds of different ships, it'd give us the physical separation and abundant resources we need to look past greed and corruption. Then each ship can govern itself as it pleases, yet still allow us to work together with others through electronic communication. The population of any one ship, though, would have to be pretty low to allow for proper representation.

We need to reform into small countries that are self sufficient and simply focus on free trade between one another

 

The only need for big government is to maintain a military to defend from other  groups of small nations (should the need arise). They aren't needed for infrastructure. They can't even get that right 99% of the time.

 

 

Hard to compete with corporations that already have tons of Cash due to previous bribes and can outbid you.

Quite the modern slave market if you think about it.

 

It really is.

[stconquest]

This is being done by a bunch of Libs.  They can't fight lobbying on the federal level, so they are going state by state.  The end goal is to amend the constitution, to get the corporate money away from politics:  http://www.wolf-pac.com/

 

If you get the money away from the politicians, they won't have to peer over their shoulders at their overlords every time they want to do anything good for their constituency.  The crappy lapdog politicians won't be funded the way they are now and will likely not race.... not if they have to campaign on things like... oh IDK... their policies?

[Trik'Stari]

This is being done by a bunch of Libs.  They can't fight lobbying on the federal level, so they are going state by state.  The end goal is to amend the constitution, to get the corporate money away from politics:  http://www.wolf-pac.com/

 

If you get the money away from the politicians, they won't have to peer over their shoulders at their overlords every time they want to do anything good for their constituency.  The crappy lapdog politicians won't be funded the way they are now and will likely not race.... not if they have to campaign on things like... oh IDK... their policies?

The problem with taking money out of politics in the US is that with out current system of "debates" (they're not really debates) and whatnot, only the rich will be able to run for office.

 

We need to completely revamp the entire system. All public forums, publicly funded, with anyone being able to take part in a series of debates, and then have multiple sets of votes based on those debates. Kind of like a tournament. (local debates. State level debates, then regional and national debates etc.) And then bar the media from advertising or monetizing during those debates, if they decide to cover them.

 

Also, no more political parties. No more organizations that can wield influence and money on a national level.

 

Again, we need TRUE DEMOCRACY. Over the generations, "representative" governments have proven that they don't work, and can't be trusted.

[stconquest]

The problem with taking money out of politics in the US is that with out current system of "debates" (they're not really debates) and whatnot, only the rich will be able to run for office.

 

We need to completely revamp the entire system. All public forums, publicly funded, with anyone being able to take part in a series of debates, and then have multiple sets of votes based on those debates. Kind of like a tournament. (local debates. State level debates, then regional and national debates etc.) And then bar the media from advertising or monetizing during those debates, if they decide to cover them.

 

Also, no more political parties. No more organizations that can wield influence and money on a national level.

 

Media is a tough one... public scrutiny can put an end to that.  Imagine 80% of the population ridiculing and mocking debates put forward by FOX or MSNBC.  An informed populous can affect how policy is discussed, and if done right will force debates to be insightful (to get a true look at a candidate) and relevant (how to improve things, not stagnate them or make them worse).

 

There has to be some management of who gets to debate on a national level.  Getting the corporate money out means those meeting the requirement for national debates have done so with public donations as their campaign backbone... and/or like you said:  worked their way up through the local debates. 

 

I mean come on, who is Hilary going to office for?  The 1M people that donated $10 each, or the two or three corporations giving her hundreds of millions.  Works for almost every candidate running for party leader in the USA right now.  That corporate money has to come out. 

 

How the fuck is a corporation a person because money is treated like it is equal to the the spoken word?  That is just so ass-backward.

[typographie]

If the government tries to stop them, it's an obvious move to protect their corporate masters,

 

Oh, do politicians in the UK shy away from openly protecting their corporate benefactors from taxation? Wow, that must be nice. There's no attempt at such illusion here. We call that being "business friendly" or "fiscally conservative," and we think it's a positive. That wins elections here.

[suicidalfranco]

Me for world dictator. I'd fix everything, create a TRUE DEMOCRACY (not "representative" government) and then retire.

closest thing to the original definition of dictator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator