FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Love them or hate them part 2
Love them or hate them part 2
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes." I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. " You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes." . I am fairly certain that the public are happy as well. It is a low margin , high turnover businness. Maybe Amazon could amend their system so that anyone making an order who wishes to pay more tax had the option to add the additional tax to their order . This would keep everyone happy . The pious and self righteous brigade could pay the additional tax and those who believe that Amazon provides an excellent value for money service can just pay current prices. Everyone would be a winner. Democracy in action. The dream of those who want Amazon to pay more tax would be instantly resolved. Any volunteers on here to indicate how much extra tax they personally propose to send to HMRC as a result of their belief that they paid too little for their orders . More likely, they simply want everyone else to pay the additional taxes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. " Would you prefer if Amazon relocated their operations to another country if we were to change some of the tax legislation. Their investment in infrastructure is enormous. Any inter company re charges have to be fully justified and would be looked at in detail by HMRC . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. " However any employee can write off part of their tax liability by investing in a pension scheme. Let's not forget all the employment that Amazon provide , both directly and indirectly ( and consequently all the income tax that is subsequently collected by HMRC ). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? " The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . " That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits!" Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone on here seems to think I have an issue with Amazon . I don’t it’s the way shopping is going. What I do have an issue with is companies such as Amazon do not ultimately benefit our society. The reason for low profits with these and other similar large multinationals is they that they are allowed through legal process to avoid paying a fair share of tax. They re- invest to avoid tax that’s good but as Bezos himself alluded to last year the profits will be kept down to create wealth at Amazon. . As a result his personal wealth based on the real value of his company is enormous and he doesn’t contribute fairly to any country supporting his business . I’m seriously not picking on him but I am amazed people think this company investing is just 100% positive An example is a market town has say 5000 population supporting maybe 20 local shops such as a greengrocer butcher newsagent coffee shop etc. The owners all live locally supporting footfall for local restaurants etc and the population enjoy a busy high street . Next a Tesco superstore with a coffee shop opens. They undercut the local shops and so one by one the local shops close . Those boarded shops look awful so no one wants to visit the coffee shops and restaurant in such a run down place. Next all the locals complain about the state of the high street and they demand action but there’s only Tesco’s operating and their profits go to London. The shops were owned by locals and they invested locally. Once the town dies it loses it attraction to visitors and who wants to open a business in such a dump. The people who can afford to just move away. Amazon has the same effect but on a much larger scale but people here don’t seem to see the link. It’s progress and it can’t be stopped because that’s how we shop but my point is those global giants shouldn’t have it so easy with tax breaks and movement of money offshore which small business has no hope of competing. The big business’ have it all their own way and w sit and watch them destroy our high streets and towns without complaint because they quote big numbers and huge investment . The losses felt locally are far greater but because it’s a slow death it’s not a large dramatic number to announce. Big business should pay into society it’s that simple. Look at the wealth of those global giants then looks at the number of run down towns where councils have no resource due to governments cutting their funding as the central government tax take isn’t enough. So defend Amazon etc that’s fine but don’t make it about job creation because it isn’t if you take all of their true effect into account. " I’m certainly not defending Amazon and personally I very rarely use them but I’m not going to demonise them for being successful. Our town high streets were dying long before Amazon came onto the scene, large supermarkets and out of town shopping outlets started the rot. The world changes and shopping habits change and these days people prefer to sit on their backsides and order from the internet rather than actively getting up on their feet and going to the shops. This past year has obviously not helped in that respect. All sorts of traditional businesses face challenges from the internet, travel agents, estate agents and even bank branches to name just a few. At the end of the day it’s up to the consumer to support the bricks and mortar businesses if they want them to survive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. " Figures are certainly speculative as they haven’t filed any accounts as of yet. I’m sure however, that they won’t be showing bottom line margins of 30% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. " I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . " Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. Figures are certainly speculative as they haven’t filed any accounts as of yet. I’m sure however, that they won’t be showing bottom line margins of 30%" They won’t as they would have to pay tax wouldn’t they  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . " Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Everyone on here seems to think I have an issue with Amazon . I don’t it’s the way shopping is going. What I do have an issue with is companies such as Amazon do not ultimately benefit our society. The reason for low profits with these and other similar large multinationals is they that they are allowed through legal process to avoid paying a fair share of tax. They re- invest to avoid tax that’s good but as Bezos himself alluded to last year the profits will be kept down to create wealth at Amazon. . As a result his personal wealth based on the real value of his company is enormous and he doesn’t contribute fairly to any country supporting his business . I’m seriously not picking on him but I am amazed people think this company investing is just 100% positive An example is a market town has say 5000 population supporting maybe 20 local shops such as a greengrocer butcher newsagent coffee shop etc. The owners all live locally supporting footfall for local restaurants etc and the population enjoy a busy high street . Next a Tesco superstore with a coffee shop opens. They undercut the local shops and so one by one the local shops close . Those boarded shops look awful so no one wants to visit the coffee shops and restaurant in such a run down place. Next all the locals complain about the state of the high street and they demand action but there’s only Tesco’s operating and their profits go to London. The shops were owned by locals and they invested locally. Once the town dies it loses it attraction to visitors and who wants to open a business in such a dump. The people who can afford to just move away. Amazon has the same effect but on a much larger scale but people here don’t seem to see the link. It’s progress and it can’t be stopped because that’s how we shop but my point is those global giants shouldn’t have it so easy with tax breaks and movement of money offshore which small business has no hope of competing. The big business’ have it all their own way and w sit and watch them destroy our high streets and towns without complaint because they quote big numbers and huge investment . The losses felt locally are far greater but because it’s a slow death it’s not a large dramatic number to announce. Big business should pay into society it’s that simple. Look at the wealth of those global giants then looks at the number of run down towns where councils have no resource due to governments cutting their funding as the central government tax take isn’t enough. So defend Amazon etc that’s fine but don’t make it about job creation because it isn’t if you take all of their true effect into account. I’m certainly not defending Amazon and personally I very rarely use them but I’m not going to demonise them for being successful. Our town high streets were dying long before Amazon came onto the scene, large supermarkets and out of town shopping outlets started the rot. The world changes and shopping habits change and these days people prefer to sit on their backsides and order from the internet rather than actively getting up on their feet and going to the shops. This past year has obviously not helped in that respect. All sorts of traditional businesses face challenges from the internet, travel agents, estate agents and even bank branches to name just a few. At the end of the day it’s up to the consumer to support the bricks and mortar businesses if they want them to survive. " I agree it’s been ongoing and inevitable but we can’t claim more jobs when it’s actually less. I still strongly believe they should pay a fair amount of tax to the society that’s making them so rich. Warehouse employees can’t shoulder all the burden!! I suspect they will if we continue down this unfair path. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other." You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are plenty of people running small companies and paying hardly any tax, coz they needed a new company range rover to drive to meetings in, even if they are a plumber! and the business hotel weekend away and the guard dog! lol I agree big companies should pay more but they can relocate and take all those tax paying warehouse workers to germany? Are they paying tax via the wages bill? sort of? Dont think there is a simple answer.. if you have it tell the chancellor!" Sales in the U.K. should attract tax in the U.K. now customs due to Brexit makes importing more expensive so they won’t move away | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. " Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are plenty of people running small companies and paying hardly any tax, coz they needed a new company range rover to drive to meetings in, even if they are a plumber! and the business hotel weekend away and the guard dog! lol I agree big companies should pay more but they can relocate and take all those tax paying warehouse workers to germany? Are they paying tax via the wages bill? sort of? Dont think there is a simple answer.. if you have it tell the chancellor!" I don’t think you you understand BIK with regards to small businesses - certainly talking about Range Rover’s. On line selling needs a transaction tax for any trader turning over more than the VAT threshold, simple as that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. " You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are plenty of people running small companies and paying hardly any tax, coz they needed a new company range rover to drive to meetings in, even if they are a plumber! and the business hotel weekend away and the guard dog! lol I agree big companies should pay more but they can relocate and take all those tax paying warehouse workers to germany? Are they paying tax via the wages bill? sort of? Dont think there is a simple answer.. if you have it tell the chancellor! Sales in the U.K. should attract tax in the U.K. now customs due to Brexit makes importing more expensive so they won’t move away " i know british airways pilots who flew london to hongkong were being employed out of the hongkong office not london office.... yeah shitty trick.. i agree with you but above is just an example of creative thinking regards dodging tax... like the guy who flew out of country in private jet and back again every night! The public could play a part in this, big companies who dont play fair... boycott them! Will the public do that? or buy cheap? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? " Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. " Please share the positive impact . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. Figures are certainly speculative as they haven’t filed any accounts as of yet. I’m sure however, that they won’t be showing bottom line margins of 30% They won’t as they would have to pay tax wouldn’t they "They would probably have to pay tax if the bottom line was 1%, so your comment is completely meaningless! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. Figures are certainly speculative as they haven’t filed any accounts as of yet. I’m sure however, that they won’t be showing bottom line margins of 30% They won’t as they would have to pay tax wouldn’t they
They would probably have to pay tax if the bottom line was 1%, so your comment is completely meaningless!"Considerably more at 30% so many millions and certainly not meaningless . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are plenty of people running small companies and paying hardly any tax, coz they needed a new company range rover to drive to meetings in, even if they are a plumber! and the business hotel weekend away and the guard dog! lol I agree big companies should pay more but they can relocate and take all those tax paying warehouse workers to germany? Are they paying tax via the wages bill? sort of? Dont think there is a simple answer.. if you have it tell the chancellor! Sales in the U.K. should attract tax in the U.K. now customs due to Brexit makes importing more expensive so they won’t move away " Sales in the UK do attract tax in the UK, VAT and Corporation/Income Tax on profits. In addition there is PAYE and NIC. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . " Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. Figures are certainly speculative as they haven’t filed any accounts as of yet. I’m sure however, that they won’t be showing bottom line margins of 30% They won’t as they would have to pay tax wouldn’t they
They would probably have to pay tax if the bottom line was 1%, so your comment is completely meaningless!
Considerably more at 30% so many millions and certainly not meaningless . "So you’re basically saying that Alibaba won’t show its true bottom line figures? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . " . I think someone has answered this question already . However in addition to all the positives that they have mentioned it is also great news for the packaging industry and companies such as MacFarlane , DS Smith Packaging and Mondi . In addition we have all the couriers , van sales and hauliers gaining business by delivering into the warehouses . All warehouses rented will be extra business for a commercial property landlord . Construction of the warehouses will have provided local employment . It seems to me that the benefits far outstrip the small number of negatives . We can all share in the success of Amazon. All that is required is to either buy the shares directly or in a trust such as the Scottish Mortgage investment trust . Companies such as Clipper logistics , Segro , DS Smith Packaging , Mondi , and Mac Farlane packaging all benefit significantly from the switch to online shopping . The bricks and mortar retailers simply adopt their business model to survive . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . " So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . . I think someone has answered this question already . However in addition to all the positives that they have mentioned it is also great news for the packaging industry and companies such as MacFarlane , DS Smith Packaging and Mondi . In addition we have all the couriers , van sales and hauliers gaining business by delivering into the warehouses . All warehouses rented will be extra business for a commercial property landlord . Construction of the warehouses will have provided local employment . It seems to me that the benefits far outstrip the small number of negatives . We can all share in the success of Amazon. All that is required is to either buy the shares directly or in a trust such as the Scottish Mortgage investment trust . Companies such as Clipper logistics , Segro , DS Smith Packaging , Mondi , and Mac Farlane packaging all benefit significantly from the switch to online shopping . The bricks and mortar retailers simply adopt their business model to survive . " I’m not pushing against the tide of change as it’s impossible but if you can’t see this operation will result in less jobs overall than your not looking hard enough. Efficiency and modern ways are great just like like self driving cars. Not so great if you’re a taxi driver eh! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. Figures are certainly speculative as they haven’t filed any accounts as of yet. I’m sure however, that they won’t be showing bottom line margins of 30% They won’t as they would have to pay tax wouldn’t they
They would probably have to pay tax if the bottom line was 1%, so your comment is completely meaningless!
Considerably more at 30% so many millions and certainly not meaningless .
So you’re basically saying that Alibaba won’t show its true bottom line figures?
"No I definitely didn’t say that ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . " Would that extra revenue go towards public services like the nhs and schools? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . Would that extra revenue go towards public services like the nhs and schools?" What extra revenue? I don’t see anyone on here arguing that major corporations should not pay any tax that they are legally obliged to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . Would that extra revenue go towards public services like the nhs and schools? What extra revenue? I don’t see anyone on here arguing that major corporations should not pay any tax that they are legally obliged to? " Neither am I. I am saying they should be brought to book and pay more . It’s unfair that they don’t. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . " I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. Figures are certainly speculative as they haven’t filed any accounts as of yet. I’m sure however, that they won’t be showing bottom line margins of 30% They won’t as they would have to pay tax wouldn’t they
They would probably have to pay tax if the bottom line was 1%, so your comment is completely meaningless!
Considerably more at 30% so many millions and certainly not meaningless .
So you’re basically saying that Alibaba won’t show its true bottom line figures?
No I definitely didn’t say that ! "So what are you saying? I said I doubt they will show bottom line margins of 30% and you said “they won’t as they will have to pay tax, won’t they?” | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . Would that extra revenue go towards public services like the nhs and schools? What extra revenue? I don’t see anyone on here arguing that major corporations should not pay any tax that they are legally obliged to? Neither am I. I am saying they should be brought to book and pay more . It’s unfair that they don’t. " Brought to book for what? And pay more than other companies? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? " . However Amazon had a tax charge last year of £293 million . I Would have thought that this a significant amount . I fail to see why Amazon should be penalised for their success . They have invested in the future and it would be incompetence to pay any more tax than necessary . Royalty payments , interest charges and inter company management charges are all legitimate expenses to offset against tax . It could be argued that Amazon would be engaged in false accounting if they did not put these expenses through their accounts as UK profits would potentially be over stated . They would have failed to recognise the cost of finance or services provided by other companies . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. " Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Robots packing biscuits are amazing and if you make robots it’s good business . If you are one of the hundred people who used to work on the packing line it doesn’t look so great does it. The technology progress is great but unemployment will increase as more is automated and increases in scale of operations take effect. Tax must be generated long term as there won’t be enough jobs to go around . That’s progress and it’s unstoppable but tax can be used to soften the blow to society . " Unfortunately automation etc replacing people is one of the major downsides to progress and it will only get worse as AI evolves. The solution is not as simple as charging the likes of Amazon a bit more tax, long term there will have to be a complete reform of taxation but it will have to be at an international level and I don’t think I’ll live long enough to see that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? . However Amazon had a tax charge last year of £293 million . I Would have thought that this a significant amount . I fail to see why Amazon should be penalised for their success . They have invested in the future and it would be incompetence to pay any more tax than necessary . Royalty payments , interest charges and inter company management charges are all legitimate expenses to offset against tax . It could be argued that Amazon would be engaged in false accounting if they did not put these expenses through their accounts as UK profits would potentially be over stated . They would have failed to recognise the cost of finance or services provided by other companies . " I don’t want them penalised or the likes of Google penalised as they have worked hard for success and that’s a good example to all. I’m saying they should contribute a fair amount of tax rather than nothing in real terms . It’s employees who have no choice on tax but the mega rich owners do. It’s the bias towards the rich ultimately that is not fair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Robots packing biscuits are amazing and if you make robots it’s good business . If you are one of the hundred people who used to work on the packing line it doesn’t look so great does it. The technology progress is great but unemployment will increase as more is automated and increases in scale of operations take effect. Tax must be generated long term as there won’t be enough jobs to go around . That’s progress and it’s unstoppable but tax can be used to soften the blow to society . Unfortunately automation etc replacing people is one of the major downsides to progress and it will only get worse as AI evolves. The solution is not as simple as charging the likes of Amazon a bit more tax, long term there will have to be a complete reform of taxation but it will have to be at an international level and I don’t think I’ll live long enough to see that." But good you agree with what I’m saying . The benefit being concentrated amongst a few is going in the wrong direction. If we don’t rein them in now they will be too powerful eventually. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Robots packing biscuits are amazing and if you make robots it’s good business . If you are one of the hundred people who used to work on the packing line it doesn’t look so great does it. The technology progress is great but unemployment will increase as more is automated and increases in scale of operations take effect. Tax must be generated long term as there won’t be enough jobs to go around . That’s progress and it’s unstoppable but tax can be used to soften the blow to society . Unfortunately automation etc replacing people is one of the major downsides to progress and it will only get worse as AI evolves. The solution is not as simple as charging the likes of Amazon a bit more tax, long term there will have to be a complete reform of taxation but it will have to be at an international level and I don’t think I’ll live long enough to see that. But good you agree with what I’m saying . The benefit being concentrated amongst a few is going in the wrong direction. If we don’t rein them in now they will be too powerful eventually. " Again, ‘reining them in’ would have to be at international level. The UK couldn’t do it alone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . " This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? . However Amazon had a tax charge last year of £293 million . I Would have thought that this a significant amount . I fail to see why Amazon should be penalised for their success . They have invested in the future and it would be incompetence to pay any more tax than necessary . Royalty payments , interest charges and inter company management charges are all legitimate expenses to offset against tax . It could be argued that Amazon would be engaged in false accounting if they did not put these expenses through their accounts as UK profits would potentially be over stated . They would have failed to recognise the cost of finance or services provided by other companies . I don’t want them penalised or the likes of Google penalised as they have worked hard for success and that’s a good example to all. I’m saying they should contribute a fair amount of tax rather than nothing in real terms . It’s employees who have no choice on tax but the mega rich owners do. It’s the bias towards the rich ultimately that is not fair. " . However the mega rich owners to whom you refer and probably ordinary people making provision for their future pension ( and probably saving the country money in the long term ) . Shareholders are not necessary wealthy or rich people . Many will have saved over a lifetime into either a pension fund , ISA or direct investment . In common with most people , I have no desire to see the value of my pension drop due to increased taxation . ( Gordon Brown has already done that ) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Robots packing biscuits are amazing and if you make robots it’s good business . If you are one of the hundred people who used to work on the packing line it doesn’t look so great does it. The technology progress is great but unemployment will increase as more is automated and increases in scale of operations take effect. Tax must be generated long term as there won’t be enough jobs to go around . That’s progress and it’s unstoppable but tax can be used to soften the blow to society . Unfortunately automation etc replacing people is one of the major downsides to progress and it will only get worse as AI evolves. The solution is not as simple as charging the likes of Amazon a bit more tax, long term there will have to be a complete reform of taxation but it will have to be at an international level and I don’t think I’ll live long enough to see that. But good you agree with what I’m saying . The benefit being concentrated amongst a few is going in the wrong direction. If we don’t rein them in now they will be too powerful eventually. Again, ‘reining them in’ would have to be at international level. The UK couldn’t do it alone." I agree the world needs to act but the EU was a good starting point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. " I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? . However Amazon had a tax charge last year of £293 million . I Would have thought that this a significant amount . I fail to see why Amazon should be penalised for their success . They have invested in the future and it would be incompetence to pay any more tax than necessary . Royalty payments , interest charges and inter company management charges are all legitimate expenses to offset against tax . It could be argued that Amazon would be engaged in false accounting if they did not put these expenses through their accounts as UK profits would potentially be over stated . They would have failed to recognise the cost of finance or services provided by other companies . I don’t want them penalised or the likes of Google penalised as they have worked hard for success and that’s a good example to all. I’m saying they should contribute a fair amount of tax rather than nothing in real terms . It’s employees who have no choice on tax but the mega rich owners do. It’s the bias towards the rich ultimately that is not fair. . However the mega rich owners to whom you refer and probably ordinary people making provision for their future pension ( and probably saving the country money in the long term ) . Shareholders are not necessary wealthy or rich people . Many will have saved over a lifetime into either a pension fund , ISA or direct investment . In common with most people , I have no desire to see the value of my pension drop due to increased taxation . ( Gordon Brown has already done that ) " You can only invest if you have an income . Not very easy without one . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Robots packing biscuits are amazing and if you make robots it’s good business . If you are one of the hundred people who used to work on the packing line it doesn’t look so great does it. The technology progress is great but unemployment will increase as more is automated and increases in scale of operations take effect. Tax must be generated long term as there won’t be enough jobs to go around . That’s progress and it’s unstoppable but tax can be used to soften the blow to society . Unfortunately automation etc replacing people is one of the major downsides to progress and it will only get worse as AI evolves. The solution is not as simple as charging the likes of Amazon a bit more tax, long term there will have to be a complete reform of taxation but it will have to be at an international level and I don’t think I’ll live long enough to see that. But good you agree with what I’m saying . The benefit being concentrated amongst a few is going in the wrong direction. If we don’t rein them in now they will be too powerful eventually. Again, ‘reining them in’ would have to be at international level. The UK couldn’t do it alone. I agree the world needs to act but the EU was a good starting point. " I don’t see the EU aligning their taxation rates any time soon. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Robots packing biscuits are amazing and if you make robots it’s good business . If you are one of the hundred people who used to work on the packing line it doesn’t look so great does it. The technology progress is great but unemployment will increase as more is automated and increases in scale of operations take effect. Tax must be generated long term as there won’t be enough jobs to go around . That’s progress and it’s unstoppable but tax can be used to soften the blow to society . Unfortunately automation etc replacing people is one of the major downsides to progress and it will only get worse as AI evolves. The solution is not as simple as charging the likes of Amazon a bit more tax, long term there will have to be a complete reform of taxation but it will have to be at an international level and I don’t think I’ll live long enough to see that. But good you agree with what I’m saying . The benefit being concentrated amongst a few is going in the wrong direction. If we don’t rein them in now they will be too powerful eventually. Again, ‘reining them in’ would have to be at international level. The UK couldn’t do it alone. I agree the world needs to act but the EU was a good starting point. I don’t see the EU aligning their taxation rates any time soon. " No true but they are going after the movement of money to avoid tax in the country of generation. It’s a start. Interestingly there is some movement to reform the non domicile rules in this country. You never know maybe there are a few MOs realising we need the money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Robots packing biscuits are amazing and if you make robots it’s good business . If you are one of the hundred people who used to work on the packing line it doesn’t look so great does it. The technology progress is great but unemployment will increase as more is automated and increases in scale of operations take effect. Tax must be generated long term as there won’t be enough jobs to go around . That’s progress and it’s unstoppable but tax can be used to soften the blow to society . Unfortunately automation etc replacing people is one of the major downsides to progress and it will only get worse as AI evolves. The solution is not as simple as charging the likes of Amazon a bit more tax, long term there will have to be a complete reform of taxation but it will have to be at an international level and I don’t think I’ll live long enough to see that. But good you agree with what I’m saying . The benefit being concentrated amongst a few is going in the wrong direction. If we don’t rein them in now they will be too powerful eventually. Again, ‘reining them in’ would have to be at international level. The UK couldn’t do it alone. I agree the world needs to act but the EU was a good starting point. I don’t see the EU aligning their taxation rates any time soon. No true but they are going after the movement of money to avoid tax in the country of generation. It’s a start. Interestingly there is some movement to reform the non domicile rules in this country. You never know maybe there are a few MOs realising we need the money. " Typo sorry MPs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? . However Amazon had a tax charge last year of £293 million . I Would have thought that this a significant amount . I fail to see why Amazon should be penalised for their success . They have invested in the future and it would be incompetence to pay any more tax than necessary . Royalty payments , interest charges and inter company management charges are all legitimate expenses to offset against tax . It could be argued that Amazon would be engaged in false accounting if they did not put these expenses through their accounts as UK profits would potentially be over stated . They would have failed to recognise the cost of finance or services provided by other companies . I don’t want them penalised or the likes of Google penalised as they have worked hard for success and that’s a good example to all. I’m saying they should contribute a fair amount of tax rather than nothing in real terms . It’s employees who have no choice on tax but the mega rich owners do. It’s the bias towards the rich ultimately that is not fair. . However the mega rich owners to whom you refer and probably ordinary people making provision for their future pension ( and probably saving the country money in the long term ) . Shareholders are not necessary wealthy or rich people . Many will have saved over a lifetime into either a pension fund , ISA or direct investment . In common with most people , I have no desire to see the value of my pension drop due to increased taxation . ( Gordon Brown has already done that ) You can only invest if you have an income . Not very easy without one . " . Hello . Not necessary true . Maybe you have been made redundant and received a substantial redundancy package or you could have no income but have sold a capital asset | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Robots packing biscuits are amazing and if you make robots it’s good business . If you are one of the hundred people who used to work on the packing line it doesn’t look so great does it. The technology progress is great but unemployment will increase as more is automated and increases in scale of operations take effect. Tax must be generated long term as there won’t be enough jobs to go around . That’s progress and it’s unstoppable but tax can be used to soften the blow to society . Unfortunately automation etc replacing people is one of the major downsides to progress and it will only get worse as AI evolves. The solution is not as simple as charging the likes of Amazon a bit more tax, long term there will have to be a complete reform of taxation but it will have to be at an international level and I don’t think I’ll live long enough to see that. But good you agree with what I’m saying . The benefit being concentrated amongst a few is going in the wrong direction. If we don’t rein them in now they will be too powerful eventually. Again, ‘reining them in’ would have to be at international level. The UK couldn’t do it alone. I agree the world needs to act but the EU was a good starting point. I don’t see the EU aligning their taxation rates any time soon. No true but they are going after the movement of money to avoid tax in the country of generation. It’s a start. Interestingly there is some movement to reform the non domicile rules in this country. You never know maybe there are a few MOs realising we need the money. Typo sorry MPs " I certainly have no problem with the non Dom rules being reformed. I won’t hold my breath though with regards to the EU going after the movement of money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? . However Amazon had a tax charge last year of £293 million . I Would have thought that this a significant amount . I fail to see why Amazon should be penalised for their success . They have invested in the future and it would be incompetence to pay any more tax than necessary . Royalty payments , interest charges and inter company management charges are all legitimate expenses to offset against tax . It could be argued that Amazon would be engaged in false accounting if they did not put these expenses through their accounts as UK profits would potentially be over stated . They would have failed to recognise the cost of finance or services provided by other companies . I don’t want them penalised or the likes of Google penalised as they have worked hard for success and that’s a good example to all. I’m saying they should contribute a fair amount of tax rather than nothing in real terms . It’s employees who have no choice on tax but the mega rich owners do. It’s the bias towards the rich ultimately that is not fair. . However the mega rich owners to whom you refer and probably ordinary people making provision for their future pension ( and probably saving the country money in the long term ) . Shareholders are not necessary wealthy or rich people . Many will have saved over a lifetime into either a pension fund , ISA or direct investment . In common with most people , I have no desire to see the value of my pension drop due to increased taxation . ( Gordon Brown has already done that ) You can only invest if you have an income . Not very easy without one . . Hello . Not necessary true . Maybe you have been made redundant and received a substantial redundancy package or you could have no income but have sold a capital asset " Lucky if your in that position. How do you get made redundant if you don’t have a job? How do you gain a capitol asset if you and your family also don’t have jobs? It’s the younger generations who are going to struggle most as this develops . Now definitely bed for me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sure some people live on a different planet." Another really insightful contribution. Standard! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. " Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isnt it against the rules to consistently bad mouth another user?" I would have thought that claiming other posters live on another planet would constitute bad mouthing. Wouldn’t you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. " “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? " “Quite rightly care about their 100%” - scenario - sorry wife and kids we are being evicted this week and there’s no food on the table because I’m worried about 50% of wealth being held by the 1% and so I’m not going to take the job at the new Amazon FC because it’s not fair that their revenue is so high, they pay tax but it really should be higher. That’s quite rightly not being worried about the 1%! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isnt it against the rules to consistently bad mouth another user? I would have thought that claiming other posters live on another planet would constitute bad mouthing. Wouldn’t you?" Suggesting people should be more down to earth is slightly different to mocking someone's opinion Happy to help | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sure some people live on a different planet." Yup. That's mocking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sure some people live on a different planet. Yup. That's mocking." Who did I mock? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sure some people live on a different planet. Yup. That's mocking. Who did I mock?" Whoever you believe 'some' to be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sure some people live on a different planet. Yup. That's mocking. Who did I mock?" Usual tact. Make a statement towards someone/several people but don't quote. The only reason you do this is so you can say 'who did I mock?'  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"mocking adjective: mocking making fun of someone or something in a cruel way; derisive." 2nd time Who did mock? And googling the defeniton of a word ,doesn't actually mean that your accusation is correct. Which obvs is isnt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm sure some people live on a different planet. Yup. That's mocking. Who did I mock? Whoever you believe 'some' to be. " So no one then essentially. Glad that's cleared up | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isnt it against the rules to consistently bad mouth another user? I would have thought that claiming other posters live on another planet would constitute bad mouthing. Wouldn’t you? Suggesting people should be more down to earth is slightly different to mocking someone's opinion Happy to help "But that’s not what you said. So yes, you were mocking in your usual style and adding nothing to the debate. Standard. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isnt it against the rules to consistently bad mouth another user? I would have thought that claiming other posters live on another planet would constitute bad mouthing. Wouldn’t you? Suggesting people should be more down to earth is slightly different to mocking someone's opinion Happy to help
But that’s not what you said. So yes, you were mocking in your usual style and adding nothing to the debate.
Standard."Yup. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yet again ..another personal dig..I'll leave you to it. And bid you good day "It’s not a personal dig. It’s a response to your personal dig! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had this in the V1 OP. _____________________________________ What everybody has failed to mention so far is all the ****tens of thousands of businesses that sell through Amazon****. They pay NI for the employees that they employ, they pay their proportion of Pension Contributions. The Corporation Tax at the end of the year. The Properties that they occupy and the Business rates that they pay. The VAT that they pay . . . !!!??? _____________________________________ I think that it's still very pertinent to the overall picture. Revenue into the treasury is enormous because of this." Ah yes, but those 3P businesses pay the same tax that Amazon do - and that’s not fair because Amazon’s revenues are huge and so Amazon should actually be paying more ....  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? “Quite rightly care about their 100%” - scenario - sorry wife and kids we are being evicted this week and there’s no food on the table because I’m worried about 50% of wealth being held by the 1% and so I’m not going to take the job at the new Amazon FC because it’s not fair that their revenue is so high, they pay tax but it really should be higher. That’s quite rightly not being worried about the 1%! " Yes and I don’t need to worry either because I’m financially sound. Your missing the point which is the trend and using individual examples to deflect from the bigger picture which is less jobs and lower wages while other get richer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had this in the V1 OP. _____________________________________ What everybody has failed to mention so far is all the ****tens of thousands of businesses that sell through Amazon****. They pay NI for the employees that they employ, they pay their proportion of Pension Contributions. The Corporation Tax at the end of the year. The Properties that they occupy and the Business rates that they pay. The VAT that they pay . . . !!!??? _____________________________________ I think that it's still very pertinent to the overall picture. Revenue into the treasury is enormous because of this. Ah yes, but those 3P businesses pay the same tax that Amazon do - and that’s not fair because Amazon’s revenues are huge and so Amazon should actually be paying more .... "But still the revenue from those businesses is huge into the Revenue. I still firmly believe that Amazon are paying their Tax as it is Legally set out for them. A change in Law is what's needed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had this in the V1 OP. _____________________________________ What everybody has failed to mention so far is all the ****tens of thousands of businesses that sell through Amazon****. They pay NI for the employees that they employ, they pay their proportion of Pension Contributions. The Corporation Tax at the end of the year. The Properties that they occupy and the Business rates that they pay. The VAT that they pay . . . !!!??? _____________________________________ I think that it's still very pertinent to the overall picture. Revenue into the treasury is enormous because of this. Ah yes, but those 3P businesses pay the same tax that Amazon do - and that’s not fair because Amazon’s revenues are huge and so Amazon should actually be paying more ....
But still the revenue from those businesses is huge into the Revenue.
I still firmly believe that Amazon are paying their Tax as it is Legally set out for them. A change in Law is what's needed.
"I think a change in the law is where we got to last night but it has to be at international level, the UK won’t be able to plough a lone furrow. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? “Quite rightly care about their 100%” - scenario - sorry wife and kids we are being evicted this week and there’s no food on the table because I’m worried about 50% of wealth being held by the 1% and so I’m not going to take the job at the new Amazon FC because it’s not fair that their revenue is so high, they pay tax but it really should be higher. That’s quite rightly not being worried about the 1%! Yes and I don’t need to worry either because I’m financially sound. Your missing the point which is the trend and using individual examples to deflect from the bigger picture which is less jobs and lower wages while other get richer. " Your point falls down when we actually see more jobs being created, businesses using Amazon to make profit. Your big picture, in real life, is flawed. Pop up to the North East - lots of real life examples to invalidate your big picture... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had this in the V1 OP. _____________________________________ What everybody has failed to mention so far is all the ****tens of thousands of businesses that sell through Amazon****. They pay NI for the employees that they employ, they pay their proportion of Pension Contributions. The Corporation Tax at the end of the year. The Properties that they occupy and the Business rates that they pay. The VAT that they pay . . . !!!??? _____________________________________ I think that it's still very pertinent to the overall picture. Revenue into the treasury is enormous because of this. Ah yes, but those 3P businesses pay the same tax that Amazon do - and that’s not fair because Amazon’s revenues are huge and so Amazon should actually be paying more ....
But still the revenue from those businesses is huge into the Revenue.
I still firmly believe that Amazon are paying their Tax as it is Legally set out for them. A change in Law is what's needed.
"I agree - Note the at the end of my post | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had this in the V1 OP. _____________________________________ What everybody has failed to mention so far is all the ****tens of thousands of businesses that sell through Amazon****. They pay NI for the employees that they employ, they pay their proportion of Pension Contributions. The Corporation Tax at the end of the year. The Properties that they occupy and the Business rates that they pay. The VAT that they pay . . . !!!??? _____________________________________ I think that it's still very pertinent to the overall picture. Revenue into the treasury is enormous because of this. Ah yes, but those 3P businesses pay the same tax that Amazon do - and that’s not fair because Amazon’s revenues are huge and so Amazon should actually be paying more ....
But still the revenue from those businesses is huge into the Revenue.
I still firmly believe that Amazon are paying their Tax as it is Legally set out for them. A change in Law is what's needed.
"The tax revenue from the jobs going is bigger . I agree Amazon are not doing anything illegal as the other mega corporations aren’t either . The law and tax rules need changing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had this in the V1 OP. _____________________________________ What everybody has failed to mention so far is all the ****tens of thousands of businesses that sell through Amazon****. They pay NI for the employees that they employ, they pay their proportion of Pension Contributions. The Corporation Tax at the end of the year. The Properties that they occupy and the Business rates that they pay. The VAT that they pay . . . !!!??? _____________________________________ I think that it's still very pertinent to the overall picture. Revenue into the treasury is enormous because of this. Ah yes, but those 3P businesses pay the same tax that Amazon do - and that’s not fair because Amazon’s revenues are huge and so Amazon should actually be paying more ....
But still the revenue from those businesses is huge into the Revenue.
I still firmly believe that Amazon are paying their Tax as it is Legally set out for them. A change in Law is what's needed.
I agree - Note the at the end of my post "I wasn't arguing with you lol. There is very little that you write that I would find to argue with. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? “Quite rightly care about their 100%” - scenario - sorry wife and kids we are being evicted this week and there’s no food on the table because I’m worried about 50% of wealth being held by the 1% and so I’m not going to take the job at the new Amazon FC because it’s not fair that their revenue is so high, they pay tax but it really should be higher. That’s quite rightly not being worried about the 1%! Yes and I don’t need to worry either because I’m financially sound. Your missing the point which is the trend and using individual examples to deflect from the bigger picture which is less jobs and lower wages while other get richer. Your point falls down when we actually see more jobs being created, businesses using Amazon to make profit. Your big picture, in real life, is flawed. Pop up to the North East - lots of real life examples to invalidate your big picture... " If the likes of Amazon can sell and distribute more goods with less people than the previous infrastructure on sales process how can they create more jobs in the U.K. overall? That’s impossible ! They are cheaper because they are more efficient and use less employees through large scale automation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? “Quite rightly care about their 100%” - scenario - sorry wife and kids we are being evicted this week and there’s no food on the table because I’m worried about 50% of wealth being held by the 1% and so I’m not going to take the job at the new Amazon FC because it’s not fair that their revenue is so high, they pay tax but it really should be higher. That’s quite rightly not being worried about the 1%! Yes and I don’t need to worry either because I’m financially sound. Your missing the point which is the trend and using individual examples to deflect from the bigger picture which is less jobs and lower wages while other get richer. Your point falls down when we actually see more jobs being created, businesses using Amazon to make profit. Your big picture, in real life, is flawed. Pop up to the North East - lots of real life examples to invalidate your big picture... If the likes of Amazon can sell and distribute more goods with less people than the previous infrastructure on sales process how can they create more jobs in the U.K. overall? That’s impossible ! They are cheaper because they are more efficient and use less employees through large scale automation. " The car park at MME1 and MME2 suggest otherwise. And that’s before you look at the next level of the chain. For example - one local deli shop has had to take on additional staff to deal with the upsurge in business due to a greater amount of traffic within the area. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? “Quite rightly care about their 100%” - scenario - sorry wife and kids we are being evicted this week and there’s no food on the table because I’m worried about 50% of wealth being held by the 1% and so I’m not going to take the job at the new Amazon FC because it’s not fair that their revenue is so high, they pay tax but it really should be higher. That’s quite rightly not being worried about the 1%! Yes and I don’t need to worry either because I’m financially sound. Your missing the point which is the trend and using individual examples to deflect from the bigger picture which is less jobs and lower wages while other get richer. " . How can it possibly be less jobs if they have just announced that they are creating 10,000 new ones . This in turn will create further jobs at packaging manufacturers and various other associated industries. Not only that everyone in the UK can share in Amazons success . We can buy shares in Amazon either directly or indirectly. Why would anyone be bothered about how wealthy the chairman of Amazon is. ? He took some very big risks and it has paid off in the long term. Had it failed, he could have lost everything. Most consumers want a good service and value for money. This is exactly what Amazon provide. How much Corporation tax a company pay is irrelevant to most people. The danger of increasing Corporation Tax is that the amount collected overall actually decreases and companies might even leave the UK and consequently create job losses Anyone who feels strongly about Amazon not paying enough tax could of course offer to pay additional tax themselves to make up the shortfall . I am certain that HMRC would be happy to receive the additional contributions . In this case there would be no need to change the law . Amazon are a highly efficient and very successfull company. We should not be seeking to penalise them because of jealousy . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? “Quite rightly care about their 100%” - scenario - sorry wife and kids we are being evicted this week and there’s no food on the table because I’m worried about 50% of wealth being held by the 1% and so I’m not going to take the job at the new Amazon FC because it’s not fair that their revenue is so high, they pay tax but it really should be higher. That’s quite rightly not being worried about the 1%! Yes and I don’t need to worry either because I’m financially sound. Your missing the point which is the trend and using individual examples to deflect from the bigger picture which is less jobs and lower wages while other get richer. Your point falls down when we actually see more jobs being created, businesses using Amazon to make profit. Your big picture, in real life, is flawed. Pop up to the North East - lots of real life examples to invalidate your big picture... If the likes of Amazon can sell and distribute more goods with less people than the previous infrastructure on sales process how can they create more jobs in the U.K. overall? That’s impossible ! They are cheaper because they are more efficient and use less employees through large scale automation. " . Maybe the savings on rates are used to employ additional staff . One company I worked for were paying circa £1 million on rates at a prime London location . That would pay for quite a few extra staff . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? “Quite rightly care about their 100%” - scenario - sorry wife and kids we are being evicted this week and there’s no food on the table because I’m worried about 50% of wealth being held by the 1% and so I’m not going to take the job at the new Amazon FC because it’s not fair that their revenue is so high, they pay tax but it really should be higher. That’s quite rightly not being worried about the 1%! Yes and I don’t need to worry either because I’m financially sound. Your missing the point which is the trend and using individual examples to deflect from the bigger picture which is less jobs and lower wages while other get richer. Your point falls down when we actually see more jobs being created, businesses using Amazon to make profit. Your big picture, in real life, is flawed. Pop up to the North East - lots of real life examples to invalidate your big picture... If the likes of Amazon can sell and distribute more goods with less people than the previous infrastructure on sales process how can they create more jobs in the U.K. overall? That’s impossible ! They are cheaper because they are more efficient and use less employees through large scale automation. . Maybe the savings on rates are used to employ additional staff . One company I worked for were paying circa £1 million on rates at a prime London location . That would pay for quite a few extra staff . " They don’t need to and they are not a charity so won’t! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? “Quite rightly care about their 100%” - scenario - sorry wife and kids we are being evicted this week and there’s no food on the table because I’m worried about 50% of wealth being held by the 1% and so I’m not going to take the job at the new Amazon FC because it’s not fair that their revenue is so high, they pay tax but it really should be higher. That’s quite rightly not being worried about the 1%! Yes and I don’t need to worry either because I’m financially sound. Your missing the point which is the trend and using individual examples to deflect from the bigger picture which is less jobs and lower wages while other get richer. . How can it possibly be less jobs if they have just announced that they are creating 10,000 new ones . This in turn will create further jobs at packaging manufacturers and various other associated industries. Not only that everyone in the UK can share in Amazons success . We can buy shares in Amazon either directly or indirectly. Why would anyone be bothered about how wealthy the chairman of Amazon is. ? He took some very big risks and it has paid off in the long term. Had it failed, he could have lost everything. Most consumers want a good service and value for money. This is exactly what Amazon provide. How much Corporation tax a company pay is irrelevant to most people. The danger of increasing Corporation Tax is that the amount collected overall actually decreases and companies might even leave the UK and consequently create job losses Anyone who feels strongly about Amazon not paying enough tax could of course offer to pay additional tax themselves to make up the shortfall . I am certain that HMRC would be happy to receive the additional contributions . In this case there would be no need to change the law . Amazon are a highly efficient and very successfull company. We should not be seeking to penalise them because of jealousy . " You’re being obtuse I’m not jealous in the slightest as I mentioned I’m sorted financially so no personal concern to me. Amazon are a highly efficient company and save money due to scale and automation. We have a large filtration system at a plant in London. It’s used to be cleaned out every few years manually by around twenty guys. It would take two weeks . We now use a large scale mobile vacuum which is based and operated by a company in the Northwest. You could say we have created two new jobs in the Northwest ! Great let’s tell the press . I think we’ll keep quiet about what happens to the less efficient twenty guys with their shovels . Is that simple enough to show you the point? I’m not complaining about Amazon as an individual company as I keep repeatedly saying so jealousy is a stupid comment! I’m saying the mega corporations are not creating more jobs they are creating concentrations of jobs but overall modern technology will alway reduce employment and I personally am pleased for the North East but the U.K. will lose more than it gains from such companies over time with employment. I can’t understand why you can’t see that! Its not going to change and our future will be more of the same but they should contribute more in tax that’s all I’m saying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? “Quite rightly care about their 100%” - scenario - sorry wife and kids we are being evicted this week and there’s no food on the table because I’m worried about 50% of wealth being held by the 1% and so I’m not going to take the job at the new Amazon FC because it’s not fair that their revenue is so high, they pay tax but it really should be higher. That’s quite rightly not being worried about the 1%! Yes and I don’t need to worry either because I’m financially sound. Your missing the point which is the trend and using individual examples to deflect from the bigger picture which is less jobs and lower wages while other get richer. . How can it possibly be less jobs if they have just announced that they are creating 10,000 new ones . This in turn will create further jobs at packaging manufacturers and various other associated industries. Not only that everyone in the UK can share in Amazons success . We can buy shares in Amazon either directly or indirectly. Why would anyone be bothered about how wealthy the chairman of Amazon is. ? He took some very big risks and it has paid off in the long term. Had it failed, he could have lost everything. Most consumers want a good service and value for money. This is exactly what Amazon provide. How much Corporation tax a company pay is irrelevant to most people. The danger of increasing Corporation Tax is that the amount collected overall actually decreases and companies might even leave the UK and consequently create job losses Anyone who feels strongly about Amazon not paying enough tax could of course offer to pay additional tax themselves to make up the shortfall . I am certain that HMRC would be happy to receive the additional contributions . In this case there would be no need to change the law . Amazon are a highly efficient and very successfull company. We should not be seeking to penalise them because of jealousy . You’re being obtuse I’m not jealous in the slightest as I mentioned I’m sorted financially so no personal concern to me. Amazon are a highly efficient company and save money due to scale and automation. We have a large filtration system at a plant in London. It’s used to be cleaned out every few years manually by around twenty guys. It would take two weeks . We now use a large scale mobile vacuum which is based and operated by a company in the Northwest. You could say we have created two new jobs in the Northwest ! Great let’s tell the press . I think we’ll keep quiet about what happens to the less efficient twenty guys with their shovels . Is that simple enough to show you the point? I’m not complaining about Amazon as an individual company as I keep repeatedly saying so jealousy is a stupid comment! I’m saying the mega corporations are not creating more jobs they are creating concentrations of jobs but overall modern technology will alway reduce employment and I personally am pleased for the North East but the U.K. will lose more than it gains from such companies over time with employment. I can’t understand why you can’t see that! Its not going to change and our future will be more of the same but they should contribute more in tax that’s all I’m saying. " However the intention of equipment such as JCBs and powerfully tractors has not lead to large scale unemployment. It has simply made some very boring and repetitive jobs a lot easier and allowed people to seek more pleasant jobs . I cannot see Amazon being any different . If it was going to destroy the retail industry, share prices in retail would be collapsing. Retailers will simply adopt to changing markets and may even link up with Amazon to market some of their goods . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . Would that extra revenue go towards public services like the nhs and schools?" It would go hopefully somewhere better than the rich owners pocket!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? “Quite rightly care about their 100%” - scenario - sorry wife and kids we are being evicted this week and there’s no food on the table because I’m worried about 50% of wealth being held by the 1% and so I’m not going to take the job at the new Amazon FC because it’s not fair that their revenue is so high, they pay tax but it really should be higher. That’s quite rightly not being worried about the 1%! Yes and I don’t need to worry either because I’m financially sound. Your missing the point which is the trend and using individual examples to deflect from the bigger picture which is less jobs and lower wages while other get richer. . How can it possibly be less jobs if they have just announced that they are creating 10,000 new ones . This in turn will create further jobs at packaging manufacturers and various other associated industries. Not only that everyone in the UK can share in Amazons success . We can buy shares in Amazon either directly or indirectly. Why would anyone be bothered about how wealthy the chairman of Amazon is. ? He took some very big risks and it has paid off in the long term. Had it failed, he could have lost everything. Most consumers want a good service and value for money. This is exactly what Amazon provide. How much Corporation tax a company pay is irrelevant to most people. The danger of increasing Corporation Tax is that the amount collected overall actually decreases and companies might even leave the UK and consequently create job losses Anyone who feels strongly about Amazon not paying enough tax could of course offer to pay additional tax themselves to make up the shortfall . I am certain that HMRC would be happy to receive the additional contributions . In this case there would be no need to change the law . Amazon are a highly efficient and very successfull company. We should not be seeking to penalise them because of jealousy . You’re being obtuse I’m not jealous in the slightest as I mentioned I’m sorted financially so no personal concern to me. Amazon are a highly efficient company and save money due to scale and automation. We have a large filtration system at a plant in London. It’s used to be cleaned out every few years manually by around twenty guys. It would take two weeks . We now use a large scale mobile vacuum which is based and operated by a company in the Northwest. You could say we have created two new jobs in the Northwest ! Great let’s tell the press . I think we’ll keep quiet about what happens to the less efficient twenty guys with their shovels . Is that simple enough to show you the point? I’m not complaining about Amazon as an individual company as I keep repeatedly saying so jealousy is a stupid comment! I’m saying the mega corporations are not creating more jobs they are creating concentrations of jobs but overall modern technology will alway reduce employment and I personally am pleased for the North East but the U.K. will lose more than it gains from such companies over time with employment. I can’t understand why you can’t see that! Its not going to change and our future will be more of the same but they should contribute more in tax that’s all I’m saying. However the intention of equipment such as JCBs and powerfully tractors has not lead to large scale unemployment. It has simply made some very boring and repetitive jobs a lot easier and allowed people to seek more pleasant jobs . I cannot see Amazon being any different . If it was going to destroy the retail industry, share prices in retail would be collapsing. Retailers will simply adopt to changing markets and may even link up with Amazon to market some of their goods . " Have you seen the crisis in the high street with all the closures ? And I’m talking before Covid!! Arcadia, Debenhams etc they are being replaced by online . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? “Quite rightly care about their 100%” - scenario - sorry wife and kids we are being evicted this week and there’s no food on the table because I’m worried about 50% of wealth being held by the 1% and so I’m not going to take the job at the new Amazon FC because it’s not fair that their revenue is so high, they pay tax but it really should be higher. That’s quite rightly not being worried about the 1%! Yes and I don’t need to worry either because I’m financially sound. Your missing the point which is the trend and using individual examples to deflect from the bigger picture which is less jobs and lower wages while other get richer. . How can it possibly be less jobs if they have just announced that they are creating 10,000 new ones . This in turn will create further jobs at packaging manufacturers and various other associated industries. Not only that everyone in the UK can share in Amazons success . We can buy shares in Amazon either directly or indirectly. Why would anyone be bothered about how wealthy the chairman of Amazon is. ? He took some very big risks and it has paid off in the long term. Had it failed, he could have lost everything. Most consumers want a good service and value for money. This is exactly what Amazon provide. How much Corporation tax a company pay is irrelevant to most people. The danger of increasing Corporation Tax is that the amount collected overall actually decreases and companies might even leave the UK and consequently create job losses Anyone who feels strongly about Amazon not paying enough tax could of course offer to pay additional tax themselves to make up the shortfall . I am certain that HMRC would be happy to receive the additional contributions . In this case there would be no need to change the law . Amazon are a highly efficient and very successfull company. We should not be seeking to penalise them because of jealousy . You’re being obtuse I’m not jealous in the slightest as I mentioned I’m sorted financially so no personal concern to me. Amazon are a highly efficient company and save money due to scale and automation. We have a large filtration system at a plant in London. It’s used to be cleaned out every few years manually by around twenty guys. It would take two weeks . We now use a large scale mobile vacuum which is based and operated by a company in the Northwest. You could say we have created two new jobs in the Northwest ! Great let’s tell the press . I think we’ll keep quiet about what happens to the less efficient twenty guys with their shovels . Is that simple enough to show you the point? I’m not complaining about Amazon as an individual company as I keep repeatedly saying so jealousy is a stupid comment! I’m saying the mega corporations are not creating more jobs they are creating concentrations of jobs but overall modern technology will alway reduce employment and I personally am pleased for the North East but the U.K. will lose more than it gains from such companies over time with employment. I can’t understand why you can’t see that! Its not going to change and our future will be more of the same but they should contribute more in tax that’s all I’m saying. However the intention of equipment such as JCBs and powerfully tractors has not lead to large scale unemployment. It has simply made some very boring and repetitive jobs a lot easier and allowed people to seek more pleasant jobs . I cannot see Amazon being any different . If it was going to destroy the retail industry, share prices in retail would be collapsing. Retailers will simply adopt to changing markets and may even link up with Amazon to market some of their goods . Have you seen the crisis in the high street with all the closures ? And I’m talking before Covid!! Arcadia, Debenhams etc they are being replaced by online . " Arcadia and Debenhams were late to the game with their online presence. This meant they didn't have online sales that could not support a bloated and expensive high street presence. Thats not Amazons fault... that's poor management and perhaps an element of taking for granted the idea that people will always want to buy in person. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? “Quite rightly care about their 100%” - scenario - sorry wife and kids we are being evicted this week and there’s no food on the table because I’m worried about 50% of wealth being held by the 1% and so I’m not going to take the job at the new Amazon FC because it’s not fair that their revenue is so high, they pay tax but it really should be higher. That’s quite rightly not being worried about the 1%! Yes and I don’t need to worry either because I’m financially sound. Your missing the point which is the trend and using individual examples to deflect from the bigger picture which is less jobs and lower wages while other get richer. . How can it possibly be less jobs if they have just announced that they are creating 10,000 new ones . This in turn will create further jobs at packaging manufacturers and various other associated industries. Not only that everyone in the UK can share in Amazons success . We can buy shares in Amazon either directly or indirectly. Why would anyone be bothered about how wealthy the chairman of Amazon is. ? He took some very big risks and it has paid off in the long term. Had it failed, he could have lost everything. Most consumers want a good service and value for money. This is exactly what Amazon provide. How much Corporation tax a company pay is irrelevant to most people. The danger of increasing Corporation Tax is that the amount collected overall actually decreases and companies might even leave the UK and consequently create job losses Anyone who feels strongly about Amazon not paying enough tax could of course offer to pay additional tax themselves to make up the shortfall . I am certain that HMRC would be happy to receive the additional contributions . In this case there would be no need to change the law . Amazon are a highly efficient and very successfull company. We should not be seeking to penalise them because of jealousy . You’re being obtuse I’m not jealous in the slightest as I mentioned I’m sorted financially so no personal concern to me. Amazon are a highly efficient company and save money due to scale and automation. We have a large filtration system at a plant in London. It’s used to be cleaned out every few years manually by around twenty guys. It would take two weeks . We now use a large scale mobile vacuum which is based and operated by a company in the Northwest. You could say we have created two new jobs in the Northwest ! Great let’s tell the press . I think we’ll keep quiet about what happens to the less efficient twenty guys with their shovels . Is that simple enough to show you the point? I’m not complaining about Amazon as an individual company as I keep repeatedly saying so jealousy is a stupid comment! I’m saying the mega corporations are not creating more jobs they are creating concentrations of jobs but overall modern technology will alway reduce employment and I personally am pleased for the North East but the U.K. will lose more than it gains from such companies over time with employment. I can’t understand why you can’t see that! Its not going to change and our future will be more of the same but they should contribute more in tax that’s all I’m saying. However the intention of equipment such as JCBs and powerfully tractors has not lead to large scale unemployment. It has simply made some very boring and repetitive jobs a lot easier and allowed people to seek more pleasant jobs . I cannot see Amazon being any different . If it was going to destroy the retail industry, share prices in retail would be collapsing. Retailers will simply adopt to changing markets and may even link up with Amazon to market some of their goods . Have you seen the crisis in the high street with all the closures ? And I’m talking before Covid!! Arcadia, Debenhams etc they are being replaced by online . Arcadia and Debenhams were late to the game with their online presence. This meant they didn't have online sales that could not support a bloated and expensive high street presence. Thats not Amazons fault... that's poor management and perhaps an element of taking for granted the idea that people will always want to buy in person. " Where did I say it was Amazon’s fault?? You said there would be trouble in the high street it’s what I was saying is true . So tell me with so many large national stores closing for good, is that a sign they are in trouble ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? “Quite rightly care about their 100%” - scenario - sorry wife and kids we are being evicted this week and there’s no food on the table because I’m worried about 50% of wealth being held by the 1% and so I’m not going to take the job at the new Amazon FC because it’s not fair that their revenue is so high, they pay tax but it really should be higher. That’s quite rightly not being worried about the 1%! Yes and I don’t need to worry either because I’m financially sound. Your missing the point which is the trend and using individual examples to deflect from the bigger picture which is less jobs and lower wages while other get richer. . How can it possibly be less jobs if they have just announced that they are creating 10,000 new ones . This in turn will create further jobs at packaging manufacturers and various other associated industries. Not only that everyone in the UK can share in Amazons success . We can buy shares in Amazon either directly or indirectly. Why would anyone be bothered about how wealthy the chairman of Amazon is. ? He took some very big risks and it has paid off in the long term. Had it failed, he could have lost everything. Most consumers want a good service and value for money. This is exactly what Amazon provide. How much Corporation tax a company pay is irrelevant to most people. The danger of increasing Corporation Tax is that the amount collected overall actually decreases and companies might even leave the UK and consequently create job losses Anyone who feels strongly about Amazon not paying enough tax could of course offer to pay additional tax themselves to make up the shortfall . I am certain that HMRC would be happy to receive the additional contributions . In this case there would be no need to change the law . Amazon are a highly efficient and very successfull company. We should not be seeking to penalise them because of jealousy . You’re being obtuse I’m not jealous in the slightest as I mentioned I’m sorted financially so no personal concern to me. Amazon are a highly efficient company and save money due to scale and automation. We have a large filtration system at a plant in London. It’s used to be cleaned out every few years manually by around twenty guys. It would take two weeks . We now use a large scale mobile vacuum which is based and operated by a company in the Northwest. You could say we have created two new jobs in the Northwest ! Great let’s tell the press . I think we’ll keep quiet about what happens to the less efficient twenty guys with their shovels . Is that simple enough to show you the point? I’m not complaining about Amazon as an individual company as I keep repeatedly saying so jealousy is a stupid comment! I’m saying the mega corporations are not creating more jobs they are creating concentrations of jobs but overall modern technology will alway reduce employment and I personally am pleased for the North East but the U.K. will lose more than it gains from such companies over time with employment. I can’t understand why you can’t see that! Its not going to change and our future will be more of the same but they should contribute more in tax that’s all I’m saying. However the intention of equipment such as JCBs and powerfully tractors has not lead to large scale unemployment. It has simply made some very boring and repetitive jobs a lot easier and allowed people to seek more pleasant jobs . I cannot see Amazon being any different . If it was going to destroy the retail industry, share prices in retail would be collapsing. Retailers will simply adopt to changing markets and may even link up with Amazon to market some of their goods . Have you seen the crisis in the high street with all the closures ? And I’m talking before Covid!! Arcadia, Debenhams etc they are being replaced by online . Arcadia and Debenhams were late to the game with their online presence. This meant they didn't have online sales that could not support a bloated and expensive high street presence. Thats not Amazons fault... that's poor management and perhaps an element of taking for granted the idea that people will always want to buy in person. Where did I say it was Amazon’s fault?? You said there would be trouble in the high street it’s what I was saying is true . So tell me with so many large national stores closing for good, is that a sign they are in trouble ? " You will also be aware of new stores opening.. I can think of at least 3 national retailers that are expanding the number of stores they have... Point being made - trouble in the High Street is not exclusively a problem due to online and Amazon | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? “Quite rightly care about their 100%” - scenario - sorry wife and kids we are being evicted this week and there’s no food on the table because I’m worried about 50% of wealth being held by the 1% and so I’m not going to take the job at the new Amazon FC because it’s not fair that their revenue is so high, they pay tax but it really should be higher. That’s quite rightly not being worried about the 1%! Yes and I don’t need to worry either because I’m financially sound. Your missing the point which is the trend and using individual examples to deflect from the bigger picture which is less jobs and lower wages while other get richer. . How can it possibly be less jobs if they have just announced that they are creating 10,000 new ones . This in turn will create further jobs at packaging manufacturers and various other associated industries. Not only that everyone in the UK can share in Amazons success . We can buy shares in Amazon either directly or indirectly. Why would anyone be bothered about how wealthy the chairman of Amazon is. ? He took some very big risks and it has paid off in the long term. Had it failed, he could have lost everything. Most consumers want a good service and value for money. This is exactly what Amazon provide. How much Corporation tax a company pay is irrelevant to most people. The danger of increasing Corporation Tax is that the amount collected overall actually decreases and companies might even leave the UK and consequently create job losses Anyone who feels strongly about Amazon not paying enough tax could of course offer to pay additional tax themselves to make up the shortfall . I am certain that HMRC would be happy to receive the additional contributions . In this case there would be no need to change the law . Amazon are a highly efficient and very successfull company. We should not be seeking to penalise them because of jealousy . You’re being obtuse I’m not jealous in the slightest as I mentioned I’m sorted financially so no personal concern to me. Amazon are a highly efficient company and save money due to scale and automation. We have a large filtration system at a plant in London. It’s used to be cleaned out every few years manually by around twenty guys. It would take two weeks . We now use a large scale mobile vacuum which is based and operated by a company in the Northwest. You could say we have created two new jobs in the Northwest ! Great let’s tell the press . I think we’ll keep quiet about what happens to the less efficient twenty guys with their shovels . Is that simple enough to show you the point? I’m not complaining about Amazon as an individual company as I keep repeatedly saying so jealousy is a stupid comment! I’m saying the mega corporations are not creating more jobs they are creating concentrations of jobs but overall modern technology will alway reduce employment and I personally am pleased for the North East but the U.K. will lose more than it gains from such companies over time with employment. I can’t understand why you can’t see that! Its not going to change and our future will be more of the same but they should contribute more in tax that’s all I’m saying. However the intention of equipment such as JCBs and powerfully tractors has not lead to large scale unemployment. It has simply made some very boring and repetitive jobs a lot easier and allowed people to seek more pleasant jobs . I cannot see Amazon being any different . If it was going to destroy the retail industry, share prices in retail would be collapsing. Retailers will simply adopt to changing markets and may even link up with Amazon to market some of their goods . Have you seen the crisis in the high street with all the closures ? And I’m talking before Covid!! Arcadia, Debenhams etc they are being replaced by online . " Hello. I cannot see any real evidence of a crisis in the high street . Stores that failed to adopt to changing times have suffered. Others have continued to expand. Just look at the success of Next or B and M retail . Travis Perkins are floating off Wickes . Most companies have adopted to changing times. Again look at JD Sports or Sports Direct. These are all high street success stories. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? “Quite rightly care about their 100%” - scenario - sorry wife and kids we are being evicted this week and there’s no food on the table because I’m worried about 50% of wealth being held by the 1% and so I’m not going to take the job at the new Amazon FC because it’s not fair that their revenue is so high, they pay tax but it really should be higher. That’s quite rightly not being worried about the 1%! Yes and I don’t need to worry either because I’m financially sound. Your missing the point which is the trend and using individual examples to deflect from the bigger picture which is less jobs and lower wages while other get richer. . How can it possibly be less jobs if they have just announced that they are creating 10,000 new ones . This in turn will create further jobs at packaging manufacturers and various other associated industries. Not only that everyone in the UK can share in Amazons success . We can buy shares in Amazon either directly or indirectly. Why would anyone be bothered about how wealthy the chairman of Amazon is. ? He took some very big risks and it has paid off in the long term. Had it failed, he could have lost everything. Most consumers want a good service and value for money. This is exactly what Amazon provide. How much Corporation tax a company pay is irrelevant to most people. The danger of increasing Corporation Tax is that the amount collected overall actually decreases and companies might even leave the UK and consequently create job losses Anyone who feels strongly about Amazon not paying enough tax could of course offer to pay additional tax themselves to make up the shortfall . I am certain that HMRC would be happy to receive the additional contributions . In this case there would be no need to change the law . Amazon are a highly efficient and very successfull company. We should not be seeking to penalise them because of jealousy . You’re being obtuse I’m not jealous in the slightest as I mentioned I’m sorted financially so no personal concern to me. Amazon are a highly efficient company and save money due to scale and automation. We have a large filtration system at a plant in London. It’s used to be cleaned out every few years manually by around twenty guys. It would take two weeks . We now use a large scale mobile vacuum which is based and operated by a company in the Northwest. You could say we have created two new jobs in the Northwest ! Great let’s tell the press . I think we’ll keep quiet about what happens to the less efficient twenty guys with their shovels . Is that simple enough to show you the point? I’m not complaining about Amazon as an individual company as I keep repeatedly saying so jealousy is a stupid comment! I’m saying the mega corporations are not creating more jobs they are creating concentrations of jobs but overall modern technology will alway reduce employment and I personally am pleased for the North East but the U.K. will lose more than it gains from such companies over time with employment. I can’t understand why you can’t see that! Its not going to change and our future will be more of the same but they should contribute more in tax that’s all I’m saying. However the intention of equipment such as JCBs and powerfully tractors has not lead to large scale unemployment. It has simply made some very boring and repetitive jobs a lot easier and allowed people to seek more pleasant jobs . I cannot see Amazon being any different . If it was going to destroy the retail industry, share prices in retail would be collapsing. Retailers will simply adopt to changing markets and may even link up with Amazon to market some of their goods . Have you seen the crisis in the high street with all the closures ? And I’m talking before Covid!! Arcadia, Debenhams etc they are being replaced by online . Arcadia and Debenhams were late to the game with their online presence. This meant they didn't have online sales that could not support a bloated and expensive high street presence. Thats not Amazons fault... that's poor management and perhaps an element of taking for granted the idea that people will always want to buy in person. Where did I say it was Amazon’s fault?? You said there would be trouble in the high street it’s what I was saying is true . So tell me with so many large national stores closing for good, is that a sign they are in trouble ? You will also be aware of new stores opening.. I can think of at least 3 national retailers that are expanding the number of stores they have... Point being made - trouble in the High Street is not exclusively a problem due to online and Amazon " It’s also rents and council business rates but it’s biggest reason by far is online . Your rent just gets bigger percentage wise if you sell less . All the closures have cited online purchasing habits . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? “Quite rightly care about their 100%” - scenario - sorry wife and kids we are being evicted this week and there’s no food on the table because I’m worried about 50% of wealth being held by the 1% and so I’m not going to take the job at the new Amazon FC because it’s not fair that their revenue is so high, they pay tax but it really should be higher. That’s quite rightly not being worried about the 1%! Yes and I don’t need to worry either because I’m financially sound. Your missing the point which is the trend and using individual examples to deflect from the bigger picture which is less jobs and lower wages while other get richer. . How can it possibly be less jobs if they have just announced that they are creating 10,000 new ones . This in turn will create further jobs at packaging manufacturers and various other associated industries. Not only that everyone in the UK can share in Amazons success . We can buy shares in Amazon either directly or indirectly. Why would anyone be bothered about how wealthy the chairman of Amazon is. ? He took some very big risks and it has paid off in the long term. Had it failed, he could have lost everything. Most consumers want a good service and value for money. This is exactly what Amazon provide. How much Corporation tax a company pay is irrelevant to most people. The danger of increasing Corporation Tax is that the amount collected overall actually decreases and companies might even leave the UK and consequently create job losses Anyone who feels strongly about Amazon not paying enough tax could of course offer to pay additional tax themselves to make up the shortfall . I am certain that HMRC would be happy to receive the additional contributions . In this case there would be no need to change the law . Amazon are a highly efficient and very successfull company. We should not be seeking to penalise them because of jealousy . You’re being obtuse I’m not jealous in the slightest as I mentioned I’m sorted financially so no personal concern to me. Amazon are a highly efficient company and save money due to scale and automation. We have a large filtration system at a plant in London. It’s used to be cleaned out every few years manually by around twenty guys. It would take two weeks . We now use a large scale mobile vacuum which is based and operated by a company in the Northwest. You could say we have created two new jobs in the Northwest ! Great let’s tell the press . I think we’ll keep quiet about what happens to the less efficient twenty guys with their shovels . Is that simple enough to show you the point? I’m not complaining about Amazon as an individual company as I keep repeatedly saying so jealousy is a stupid comment! I’m saying the mega corporations are not creating more jobs they are creating concentrations of jobs but overall modern technology will alway reduce employment and I personally am pleased for the North East but the U.K. will lose more than it gains from such companies over time with employment. I can’t understand why you can’t see that! Its not going to change and our future will be more of the same but they should contribute more in tax that’s all I’m saying. However the intention of equipment such as JCBs and powerfully tractors has not lead to large scale unemployment. It has simply made some very boring and repetitive jobs a lot easier and allowed people to seek more pleasant jobs . I cannot see Amazon being any different . If it was going to destroy the retail industry, share prices in retail would be collapsing. Retailers will simply adopt to changing markets and may even link up with Amazon to market some of their goods . Have you seen the crisis in the high street with all the closures ? And I’m talking before Covid!! Arcadia, Debenhams etc they are being replaced by online . Hello. I cannot see any real evidence of a crisis in the high street . Stores that failed to adopt to changing times have suffered. Others have continued to expand. Just look at the success of Next or B and M retail . Travis Perkins are floating off Wickes . Most companies have adopted to changing times. Again look at JD Sports or Sports Direct. These are all high street success stories. " Of course there are successes. Next have closed over 40 stores as their sales move online more. . Travis Perkins won’t post their bricks so not sure that’s valid?? B&M retail again selling stuff we already buy but cheaper . Why do you think Aldi and Lidl are such a threat to the major supermarkets . It’s called market share . We only buy so much food and they all fight for the same sale. Supermarkets are successful because they replace small shops. Good if you own shares in the supermarket but not if you work locally in a shop. Fewer jobs in a supermarket than the high street as its bulk buying and selling. It’s progress but we seriously have to plan for less people being employed long term and that’s going to require government intervention . They need to start by increasing the tax take of those not paying their share to pay for the unemployed whether they put them to other work or not is a challenge that they will be thinking about in the long term. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? “Quite rightly care about their 100%” - scenario - sorry wife and kids we are being evicted this week and there’s no food on the table because I’m worried about 50% of wealth being held by the 1% and so I’m not going to take the job at the new Amazon FC because it’s not fair that their revenue is so high, they pay tax but it really should be higher. That’s quite rightly not being worried about the 1%! Yes and I don’t need to worry either because I’m financially sound. Your missing the point which is the trend and using individual examples to deflect from the bigger picture which is less jobs and lower wages while other get richer. . How can it possibly be less jobs if they have just announced that they are creating 10,000 new ones . This in turn will create further jobs at packaging manufacturers and various other associated industries. Not only that everyone in the UK can share in Amazons success . We can buy shares in Amazon either directly or indirectly. Why would anyone be bothered about how wealthy the chairman of Amazon is. ? He took some very big risks and it has paid off in the long term. Had it failed, he could have lost everything. Most consumers want a good service and value for money. This is exactly what Amazon provide. How much Corporation tax a company pay is irrelevant to most people. The danger of increasing Corporation Tax is that the amount collected overall actually decreases and companies might even leave the UK and consequently create job losses Anyone who feels strongly about Amazon not paying enough tax could of course offer to pay additional tax themselves to make up the shortfall . I am certain that HMRC would be happy to receive the additional contributions . In this case there would be no need to change the law . Amazon are a highly efficient and very successfull company. We should not be seeking to penalise them because of jealousy . You’re being obtuse I’m not jealous in the slightest as I mentioned I’m sorted financially so no personal concern to me. Amazon are a highly efficient company and save money due to scale and automation. We have a large filtration system at a plant in London. It’s used to be cleaned out every few years manually by around twenty guys. It would take two weeks . We now use a large scale mobile vacuum which is based and operated by a company in the Northwest. You could say we have created two new jobs in the Northwest ! Great let’s tell the press . I think we’ll keep quiet about what happens to the less efficient twenty guys with their shovels . Is that simple enough to show you the point? I’m not complaining about Amazon as an individual company as I keep repeatedly saying so jealousy is a stupid comment! I’m saying the mega corporations are not creating more jobs they are creating concentrations of jobs but overall modern technology will alway reduce employment and I personally am pleased for the North East but the U.K. will lose more than it gains from such companies over time with employment. I can’t understand why you can’t see that! Its not going to change and our future will be more of the same but they should contribute more in tax that’s all I’m saying. However the intention of equipment such as JCBs and powerfully tractors has not lead to large scale unemployment. It has simply made some very boring and repetitive jobs a lot easier and allowed people to seek more pleasant jobs . I cannot see Amazon being any different . If it was going to destroy the retail industry, share prices in retail would be collapsing. Retailers will simply adopt to changing markets and may even link up with Amazon to market some of their goods . Have you seen the crisis in the high street with all the closures ? And I’m talking before Covid!! Arcadia, Debenhams etc they are being replaced by online . Hello. I cannot see any real evidence of a crisis in the high street . Stores that failed to adopt to changing times have suffered. Others have continued to expand. Just look at the success of Next or B and M retail . Travis Perkins are floating off Wickes . Most companies have adopted to changing times. Again look at JD Sports or Sports Direct. These are all high street success stories. Of course there are successes. Next have closed over 40 stores as their sales move online more. . Travis Perkins won’t post their bricks so not sure that’s valid?? B&M retail again selling stuff we already buy but cheaper . Why do you think Aldi and Lidl are such a threat to the major supermarkets . It’s called market share . We only buy so much food and they all fight for the same sale. Supermarkets are successful because they replace small shops. Good if you own shares in the supermarket but not if you work locally in a shop. Fewer jobs in a supermarket than the high street as its bulk buying and selling. It’s progress but we seriously have to plan for less people being employed long term and that’s going to require government intervention . They need to start by increasing the tax take of those not paying their share to pay for the unemployed whether they put them to other work or not is a challenge that they will be thinking about in the long term. " Not so long ago you were telling us that there would be a shortage of workers due to leaving the eu.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? “Quite rightly care about their 100%” - scenario - sorry wife and kids we are being evicted this week and there’s no food on the table because I’m worried about 50% of wealth being held by the 1% and so I’m not going to take the job at the new Amazon FC because it’s not fair that their revenue is so high, they pay tax but it really should be higher. That’s quite rightly not being worried about the 1%! Yes and I don’t need to worry either because I’m financially sound. Your missing the point which is the trend and using individual examples to deflect from the bigger picture which is less jobs and lower wages while other get richer. . How can it possibly be less jobs if they have just announced that they are creating 10,000 new ones . This in turn will create further jobs at packaging manufacturers and various other associated industries. Not only that everyone in the UK can share in Amazons success . We can buy shares in Amazon either directly or indirectly. Why would anyone be bothered about how wealthy the chairman of Amazon is. ? He took some very big risks and it has paid off in the long term. Had it failed, he could have lost everything. Most consumers want a good service and value for money. This is exactly what Amazon provide. How much Corporation tax a company pay is irrelevant to most people. The danger of increasing Corporation Tax is that the amount collected overall actually decreases and companies might even leave the UK and consequently create job losses Anyone who feels strongly about Amazon not paying enough tax could of course offer to pay additional tax themselves to make up the shortfall . I am certain that HMRC would be happy to receive the additional contributions . In this case there would be no need to change the law . Amazon are a highly efficient and very successfull company. We should not be seeking to penalise them because of jealousy . You’re being obtuse I’m not jealous in the slightest as I mentioned I’m sorted financially so no personal concern to me. Amazon are a highly efficient company and save money due to scale and automation. We have a large filtration system at a plant in London. It’s used to be cleaned out every few years manually by around twenty guys. It would take two weeks . We now use a large scale mobile vacuum which is based and operated by a company in the Northwest. You could say we have created two new jobs in the Northwest ! Great let’s tell the press . I think we’ll keep quiet about what happens to the less efficient twenty guys with their shovels . Is that simple enough to show you the point? I’m not complaining about Amazon as an individual company as I keep repeatedly saying so jealousy is a stupid comment! I’m saying the mega corporations are not creating more jobs they are creating concentrations of jobs but overall modern technology will alway reduce employment and I personally am pleased for the North East but the U.K. will lose more than it gains from such companies over time with employment. I can’t understand why you can’t see that! Its not going to change and our future will be more of the same but they should contribute more in tax that’s all I’m saying. However the intention of equipment such as JCBs and powerfully tractors has not lead to large scale unemployment. It has simply made some very boring and repetitive jobs a lot easier and allowed people to seek more pleasant jobs . I cannot see Amazon being any different . If it was going to destroy the retail industry, share prices in retail would be collapsing. Retailers will simply adopt to changing markets and may even link up with Amazon to market some of their goods . Have you seen the crisis in the high street with all the closures ? And I’m talking before Covid!! Arcadia, Debenhams etc they are being replaced by online . Hello. I cannot see any real evidence of a crisis in the high street . Stores that failed to adopt to changing times have suffered. Others have continued to expand. Just look at the success of Next or B and M retail . Travis Perkins are floating off Wickes . Most companies have adopted to changing times. Again look at JD Sports or Sports Direct. These are all high street success stories. Of course there are successes. Next have closed over 40 stores as their sales move online more. . Travis Perkins won’t post their bricks so not sure that’s valid?? B&M retail again selling stuff we already buy but cheaper . Why do you think Aldi and Lidl are such a threat to the major supermarkets . It’s called market share . We only buy so much food and they all fight for the same sale. Supermarkets are successful because they replace small shops. Good if you own shares in the supermarket but not if you work locally in a shop. Fewer jobs in a supermarket than the high street as its bulk buying and selling. It’s progress but we seriously have to plan for less people being employed long term and that’s going to require government intervention . They need to start by increasing the tax take of those not paying their share to pay for the unemployed whether they put them to other work or not is a challenge that they will be thinking about in the long term. Not so long ago you were telling us that there would be a shortage of workers due to leaving the eu. "75000 HGV driver shortage according to RHA Can’t see a queue of U.K. applicants !! Manchester screaming for waiters and cleaners in the hospitality trade. Don’t make this about Brexit it’s not it’s about fairness and our collective future . You’re not stupid Costa you know the point I’m making has merit. Now we are supposedly in charge of our own future . Tax avoidance and good value job creation should be priorities. Buy British is the mantra but we all know in truth we won’t, we will always buy cheaper . It’s how we source and manage that cheaper that matters in the long run. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? “Quite rightly care about their 100%” - scenario - sorry wife and kids we are being evicted this week and there’s no food on the table because I’m worried about 50% of wealth being held by the 1% and so I’m not going to take the job at the new Amazon FC because it’s not fair that their revenue is so high, they pay tax but it really should be higher. That’s quite rightly not being worried about the 1%! Yes and I don’t need to worry either because I’m financially sound. Your missing the point which is the trend and using individual examples to deflect from the bigger picture which is less jobs and lower wages while other get richer. . How can it possibly be less jobs if they have just announced that they are creating 10,000 new ones . This in turn will create further jobs at packaging manufacturers and various other associated industries. Not only that everyone in the UK can share in Amazons success . We can buy shares in Amazon either directly or indirectly. Why would anyone be bothered about how wealthy the chairman of Amazon is. ? He took some very big risks and it has paid off in the long term. Had it failed, he could have lost everything. Most consumers want a good service and value for money. This is exactly what Amazon provide. How much Corporation tax a company pay is irrelevant to most people. The danger of increasing Corporation Tax is that the amount collected overall actually decreases and companies might even leave the UK and consequently create job losses Anyone who feels strongly about Amazon not paying enough tax could of course offer to pay additional tax themselves to make up the shortfall . I am certain that HMRC would be happy to receive the additional contributions . In this case there would be no need to change the law . Amazon are a highly efficient and very successfull company. We should not be seeking to penalise them because of jealousy . You’re being obtuse I’m not jealous in the slightest as I mentioned I’m sorted financially so no personal concern to me. Amazon are a highly efficient company and save money due to scale and automation. We have a large filtration system at a plant in London. It’s used to be cleaned out every few years manually by around twenty guys. It would take two weeks . We now use a large scale mobile vacuum which is based and operated by a company in the Northwest. You could say we have created two new jobs in the Northwest ! Great let’s tell the press . I think we’ll keep quiet about what happens to the less efficient twenty guys with their shovels . Is that simple enough to show you the point? I’m not complaining about Amazon as an individual company as I keep repeatedly saying so jealousy is a stupid comment! I’m saying the mega corporations are not creating more jobs they are creating concentrations of jobs but overall modern technology will alway reduce employment and I personally am pleased for the North East but the U.K. will lose more than it gains from such companies over time with employment. I can’t understand why you can’t see that! Its not going to change and our future will be more of the same but they should contribute more in tax that’s all I’m saying. However the intention of equipment such as JCBs and powerfully tractors has not lead to large scale unemployment. It has simply made some very boring and repetitive jobs a lot easier and allowed people to seek more pleasant jobs . I cannot see Amazon being any different . If it was going to destroy the retail industry, share prices in retail would be collapsing. Retailers will simply adopt to changing markets and may even link up with Amazon to market some of their goods . Have you seen the crisis in the high street with all the closures ? And I’m talking before Covid!! Arcadia, Debenhams etc they are being replaced by online . Hello. I cannot see any real evidence of a crisis in the high street . Stores that failed to adopt to changing times have suffered. Others have continued to expand. Just look at the success of Next or B and M retail . Travis Perkins are floating off Wickes . Most companies have adopted to changing times. Again look at JD Sports or Sports Direct. These are all high street success stories. Of course there are successes. Next have closed over 40 stores as their sales move online more. . Travis Perkins won’t post their bricks so not sure that’s valid?? B&M retail again selling stuff we already buy but cheaper . Why do you think Aldi and Lidl are such a threat to the major supermarkets . It’s called market share . We only buy so much food and they all fight for the same sale. Supermarkets are successful because they replace small shops. Good if you own shares in the supermarket but not if you work locally in a shop. Fewer jobs in a supermarket than the high street as its bulk buying and selling. It’s progress but we seriously have to plan for less people being employed long term and that’s going to require government intervention . They need to start by increasing the tax take of those not paying their share to pay for the unemployed whether they put them to other work or not is a challenge that they will be thinking about in the long term. Not so long ago you were telling us that there would be a shortage of workers due to leaving the eu.
75000 HGV driver shortage according to RHA
Can’t see a queue of U.K. applicants !! Manchester screaming for waiters and cleaners in the hospitality trade.
Don’t make this about Brexit it’s not it’s about fairness and our collective future .
You’re not stupid Costa you know the point I’m making has merit.
Now we are supposedly in charge of our own future . Tax avoidance and good value job creation should be priorities.
Buy British is the mantra but we all know in truth we won’t, we will always buy cheaper . It’s how we source and manage that cheaper that matters in the long run. "you know as well as i do the uk has been moving away from manufacturing for decades now love it or hate it.The country is going down the route of services,tech etc so no good going on about people buying cheaper rather than British. Maybe you cant but thats all part of the governments scheme to retrain at any age so if you lose your job a Debenhams you have a chance to do something else.As long as there are systems in place of course they are going to avoid tax if its possible, its the ceo,s job to make its shareholders as much as possible they wouldnt be doing their job if they didnt. Tax avoidance is legal tax evasion isnt but i shouldnt have to be tellin you this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? “Quite rightly care about their 100%” - scenario - sorry wife and kids we are being evicted this week and there’s no food on the table because I’m worried about 50% of wealth being held by the 1% and so I’m not going to take the job at the new Amazon FC because it’s not fair that their revenue is so high, they pay tax but it really should be higher. That’s quite rightly not being worried about the 1%! Yes and I don’t need to worry either because I’m financially sound. Your missing the point which is the trend and using individual examples to deflect from the bigger picture which is less jobs and lower wages while other get richer. . How can it possibly be less jobs if they have just announced that they are creating 10,000 new ones . This in turn will create further jobs at packaging manufacturers and various other associated industries. Not only that everyone in the UK can share in Amazons success . We can buy shares in Amazon either directly or indirectly. Why would anyone be bothered about how wealthy the chairman of Amazon is. ? He took some very big risks and it has paid off in the long term. Had it failed, he could have lost everything. Most consumers want a good service and value for money. This is exactly what Amazon provide. How much Corporation tax a company pay is irrelevant to most people. The danger of increasing Corporation Tax is that the amount collected overall actually decreases and companies might even leave the UK and consequently create job losses Anyone who feels strongly about Amazon not paying enough tax could of course offer to pay additional tax themselves to make up the shortfall . I am certain that HMRC would be happy to receive the additional contributions . In this case there would be no need to change the law . Amazon are a highly efficient and very successfull company. We should not be seeking to penalise them because of jealousy . You’re being obtuse I’m not jealous in the slightest as I mentioned I’m sorted financially so no personal concern to me. Amazon are a highly efficient company and save money due to scale and automation. We have a large filtration system at a plant in London. It’s used to be cleaned out every few years manually by around twenty guys. It would take two weeks . We now use a large scale mobile vacuum which is based and operated by a company in the Northwest. You could say we have created two new jobs in the Northwest ! Great let’s tell the press . I think we’ll keep quiet about what happens to the less efficient twenty guys with their shovels . Is that simple enough to show you the point? I’m not complaining about Amazon as an individual company as I keep repeatedly saying so jealousy is a stupid comment! I’m saying the mega corporations are not creating more jobs they are creating concentrations of jobs but overall modern technology will alway reduce employment and I personally am pleased for the North East but the U.K. will lose more than it gains from such companies over time with employment. I can’t understand why you can’t see that! Its not going to change and our future will be more of the same but they should contribute more in tax that’s all I’m saying. However the intention of equipment such as JCBs and powerfully tractors has not lead to large scale unemployment. It has simply made some very boring and repetitive jobs a lot easier and allowed people to seek more pleasant jobs . I cannot see Amazon being any different . If it was going to destroy the retail industry, share prices in retail would be collapsing. Retailers will simply adopt to changing markets and may even link up with Amazon to market some of their goods . Have you seen the crisis in the high street with all the closures ? And I’m talking before Covid!! Arcadia, Debenhams etc they are being replaced by online . Hello. I cannot see any real evidence of a crisis in the high street . Stores that failed to adopt to changing times have suffered. Others have continued to expand. Just look at the success of Next or B and M retail . Travis Perkins are floating off Wickes . Most companies have adopted to changing times. Again look at JD Sports or Sports Direct. These are all high street success stories. Of course there are successes. Next have closed over 40 stores as their sales move online more. . Travis Perkins won’t post their bricks so not sure that’s valid?? B&M retail again selling stuff we already buy but cheaper . Why do you think Aldi and Lidl are such a threat to the major supermarkets . It’s called market share . We only buy so much food and they all fight for the same sale. Supermarkets are successful because they replace small shops. Good if you own shares in the supermarket but not if you work locally in a shop. Fewer jobs in a supermarket than the high street as its bulk buying and selling. It’s progress but we seriously have to plan for less people being employed long term and that’s going to require government intervention . They need to start by increasing the tax take of those not paying their share to pay for the unemployed whether they put them to other work or not is a challenge that they will be thinking about in the long term. Not so long ago you were telling us that there would be a shortage of workers due to leaving the eu.
75000 HGV driver shortage according to RHA
Can’t see a queue of U.K. applicants !! Manchester screaming for waiters and cleaners in the hospitality trade.
Don’t make this about Brexit it’s not it’s about fairness and our collective future .
You’re not stupid Costa you know the point I’m making has merit.
Now we are supposedly in charge of our own future . Tax avoidance and good value job creation should be priorities.
Buy British is the mantra but we all know in truth we won’t, we will always buy cheaper . It’s how we source and manage that cheaper that matters in the long run. ". Hello. I cannot think of many hauliers unable to fulfill contracts because of a shortage of drivers . If it is true it would of course be very good news. You just need about eight days training and you can be out on the road. This would be the answer to your concerns about Amazon putting people out of jobs. Those made redundant can retrain as LGV drivers . Wincanton logistics announced very good results recently and they made no mention about any difficulty in recruiting drivers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ploughingtheland said ‘Corporation tax paid last year was 14.4 million. !!!!!! But its main British subsidiary, Amazon UK Services Ltd, reported revenues of a much lower figure of £2.9 billion. On this, it paid just £14.46 million in corporation tax – a figure the company said had been reduced by government incentives linked to its investment infrastructure’ The computed CT figure was indeed £14.4 million but there was deferred tax of £8.1 million( ie the reference to government incentives) Leaving tax to be paid of £6.3 million. I’m sure all those on here that claim to be business owners will understand the principal of Deferred Tax. In answer to the question I was asked, ‘Do I think it’s enough?’ If it is the correct tax liability under existing UK tax law then the obvious answer is yes. I agree it’s the correct amount. I disagree that it’s enough. An employee has no option to invest and defer such a high percentage of tax or the option to be paid in another country to save tax. Such a successful company ( estimates of trading profits before deferments schemes etc is 28-38% ) should not be allowed to get richer and richer without making a fair contribution to society. You do realise that every single company registered in the UK is able to utilise UK taxation laws in the same way as Amazon? You do also realise that Deferred Tax is what is says on the tin? Deferred! Ie it will be paid somewhere further down the line. The trading profits of 28-38% that you have repeatedly referred to, do you mean gross profit or net profir? The net margin in the USA is as reported below - I would assume that the operating model in the UK is similar as are margins Amazon reported a net income of $10 billion during 2018 and the net profit margin was 4.3%. The diagram below provides the charts for Amazon revenues, revenue growth, net income, and net profit margins for the past five years. In light of the above you would hardly expect Amazon to be paying substantial amounts of Corporation Tax in the UK . That’s the sort of bottom line margin I would expect but some are posting that Amazon can’t be paying enough tax as their margins should be 28-38% but that will be gross profit, if in fact they do achieve those sort of figures. I was asking for clarification as it would appear that some on here think that Amazon should be paying CT on its Gross Profits and not it’s taxable net profits! Figures are speculative as Amazon is a good at hiding it’s true margins, however comparing to a similar company Alibaba the estimates of gross profit reach 48% so nett could indeed be up in the mid 30s . Add their IT services and it’s could be more. Again I say it’s speculation as they spend and move the money. I don’t think it’s correct to compare Amazon and Alibaba, as the core business model for Amazon is quite different to that of Alibaba - accordingly the operating margins are very different . Feel free to disagree it was the comment of share market advisors I read . Alibabas taobao platform is more comparable with e-bay - Amazon is direct selling. Taobao has fewer overhead costs. In some respects it’s like comparing the overheads of bricks and mortar retail with online retail. No way the profits of one are going to be anything like the profits of the other. You’re not including the IT then ? It’s from a leading market investment company I think I’ll take their advice as best guess. Even they state is estimates based on free cash. Amazon do have a huge amount of free cash. Is the IT services profit generated by building massive FCs and filling them with product and staff? Amazons global profit margin will undoubtedly be bolstered by IT services - however that’s not to say it’s FCs and direct selling core business is operating at double digit profit margins. Having had several product operating through Amazon I was often astounded to see the items being sold at less than their buy price. You seem to want to defend a corporation which has grown to sales of 880Billion on seemingly no profits. Your defence is admirable but it’s not just Amazon I’m aiming this at, its our acceptance that the bigger you are the easier we make it!! It’s ridiculous how people just say oh well never mind. When no one pays tax and we can’t afford our NHS maybe people will ask why isn’t there enough money to pay for our local hospital? Bottom line - Amazon pay the taxes they are required to. Why do I defend Amazon? I have seen first hand the positive impact Amazon can have. Please share the positive impact . Derelict wasteland at 2 sites - converted to huge FCs supporting hundreds of jobs and opportunity for apprenticeships, training and skill building. Location of these FCs now support additional leisure and retail outlets (more jobs) as a result greatly improved infrastructure (roads) which has now created the demand for new housing - which is now being built. - jobs jobs jobs ! That’s the FC impact. Positive impact on business experience - direct relationship with Amazon for over 10 years as well as more recently supporting other businesses become established and grow on the platform - businesses which are able to remain open. Most who benefit really don’t think too long about whether Amazon are paying enough tax - they have money in their pocket and that’s all that matters to them . So it’s all good then and I’m talking rubbish. Don’t know why I’m worried about the long term effect of major corporations not paying tax. It’s nothing but good news . I’m not suggesting you are talking rubbish . I just happen to be quite close to Amazon and the real effect it has on everyday life. Talking corporate and taxes, shares and ethics of this and that is all very good - but at the end of the day for everyday people it’s about jobs and money in their pockets. You asking people to forego these essentials because they are a bad company and should be paying more tax will in most cases not be met with open arms - unless of course you happen to be in a position where you can afford to. Amazon , Google , Facebook , JCB, the Daily Mail etc etc can all afford to pay more tax and less dividends to their owners I’m not against progress and not a shop keeper so not affected . We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative . This isn’t a discussion about not embracing progress - it never has been, so no point trying to suggest it is. I happen to see the contribution Amazon make to society - it’s real and not just a set of figures on a balance sheet that everyone feels they can pull apart and hypothesise about. So to throw out a one liner like “ We just have to make the monster corporations contribute to society before they control the narrative” is, I believe, a misplaced opinion. I haven’t just thrown outa one liner I have made many pints in both threads so don’t be so dismissive. I will be happy to be corrected here, but less than 1% of the worlds population own over 50% of the worlds wealth With the growth of these corporations that will only get worse . That’s is not a good thing. Those who are finding employment and careers with Amazon are not bothered about the 1% - they quite rightly only care about 100% of the income in their own life. “Quite rightly”. You mean keep them in their place and keep them ignorant of how they are being fleeced while others walk away with all their income tax free. Hmm you sure about that? “Quite rightly care about their 100%” - scenario - sorry wife and kids we are being evicted this week and there’s no food on the table because I’m worried about 50% of wealth being held by the 1% and so I’m not going to take the job at the new Amazon FC because it’s not fair that their revenue is so high, they pay tax but it really should be higher. That’s quite rightly not being worried about the 1%! Yes and I don’t need to worry either because I’m financially sound. Your missing the point which is the trend and using individual examples to deflect from the bigger picture which is less jobs and lower wages while other get richer. . How can it possibly be less jobs if they have just announced that they are creating 10,000 new ones . This in turn will create further jobs at packaging manufacturers and various other associated industries. Not only that everyone in the UK can share in Amazons success . We can buy shares in Amazon either directly or indirectly. Why would anyone be bothered about how wealthy the chairman of Amazon is. ? He took some very big risks and it has paid off in the long term. Had it failed, he could have lost everything. Most consumers want a good service and value for money. This is exactly what Amazon provide. How much Corporation tax a company pay is irrelevant to most people. The danger of increasing Corporation Tax is that the amount collected overall actually decreases and companies might even leave the UK and consequently create job losses Anyone who feels strongly about Amazon not paying enough tax could of course offer to pay additional tax themselves to make up the shortfall . I am certain that HMRC would be happy to receive the additional contributions . In this case there would be no need to change the law . Amazon are a highly efficient and very successfull company. We should not be seeking to penalise them because of jealousy . You’re being obtuse I’m not jealous in the slightest as I mentioned I’m sorted financially so no personal concern to me. Amazon are a highly efficient company and save money due to scale and automation. We have a large filtration system at a plant in London. It’s used to be cleaned out every few years manually by around twenty guys. It would take two weeks . We now use a large scale mobile vacuum which is based and operated by a company in the Northwest. You could say we have created two new jobs in the Northwest ! Great let’s tell the press . I think we’ll keep quiet about what happens to the less efficient twenty guys with their shovels . Is that simple enough to show you the point? I’m not complaining about Amazon as an individual company as I keep repeatedly saying so jealousy is a stupid comment! I’m saying the mega corporations are not creating more jobs they are creating concentrations of jobs but overall modern technology will alway reduce employment and I personally am pleased for the North East but the U.K. will lose more than it gains from such companies over time with employment. I can’t understand why you can’t see that! Its not going to change and our future will be more of the same but they should contribute more in tax that’s all I’m saying. However the intention of equipment such as JCBs and powerfully tractors has not lead to large scale unemployment. It has simply made some very boring and repetitive jobs a lot easier and allowed people to seek more pleasant jobs . I cannot see Amazon being any different . If it was going to destroy the retail industry, share prices in retail would be collapsing. Retailers will simply adopt to changing markets and may even link up with Amazon to market some of their goods . Have you seen the crisis in the high street with all the closures ? And I’m talking before Covid!! Arcadia, Debenhams etc they are being replaced by online . Hello. I cannot see any real evidence of a crisis in the high street . Stores that failed to adopt to changing times have suffered. Others have continued to expand. Just look at the success of Next or B and M retail . Travis Perkins are floating off Wickes . Most companies have adopted to changing times. Again look at JD Sports or Sports Direct. These are all high street success stories. Of course there are successes. Next have closed over 40 stores as their sales move online more. . Travis Perkins won’t post their bricks so not sure that’s valid?? B&M retail again selling stuff we already buy but cheaper . Why do you think Aldi and Lidl are such a threat to the major supermarkets . It’s called market share . We only buy so much food and they all fight for the same sale. Supermarkets are successful because they replace small shops. Good if you own shares in the supermarket but not if you work locally in a shop. Fewer jobs in a supermarket than the high street as its bulk buying and selling. It’s progress but we seriously have to plan for less people being employed long term and that’s going to require government intervention . They need to start by increasing the tax take of those not paying their share to pay for the unemployed whether they put them to other work or not is a challenge that they will be thinking about in the long term. Not so long ago you were telling us that there would be a shortage of workers due to leaving the eu.
75000 HGV driver shortage according to RHA
Can’t see a queue of U.K. applicants !! Manchester screaming for waiters and cleaners in the hospitality trade.
Don’t make this about Brexit it’s not it’s about fairness and our collective future .
You’re not stupid Costa you know the point I’m making has merit.
Now we are supposedly in charge of our own future . Tax avoidance and good value job creation should be priorities.
Buy British is the mantra but we all know in truth we won’t, we will always buy cheaper . It’s how we source and manage that cheaper that matters in the long run. you know as well as i do the uk has been moving away from manufacturing for decades now love it or hate it.The country is going down the route of services,tech etc so no good going on about people buying cheaper rather than British. Maybe you cant but thats all part of the governments scheme to retrain at any age so if you lose your job a Debenhams you have a chance to do something else.As long as there are systems in place of course they are going to avoid tax if its possible, its the ceo,s job to make its shareholders as much as possible they wouldnt be doing their job if they didnt. Tax avoidance is legal tax evasion isnt but i shouldnt have to be tellin you this. "It’s why I use the word avoidance not evasion . I know it’s not illegal . It’s the moral attitude and unfairness of it!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The EU will have a chance to flex its muscles shortly, as Alibaba plan to build a huge european hub at Liege airport in Belguim. That area has suffered with neglect for many years, so the inward investment would be welcome. How it sits with the EU's stance on China, and also with taxation policy, will be interesting to see. " If this Alibaba place sets up in the EU as mentioned and employs thousands of people like Amazon are doing here does that mean its bad news for workers in the EU? Also I have never looked into this or taken much notice of the stuff I buy from Amazon but does Amazon sell only items made outside the UK or do the sell UK made goods as well? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The article below shows that Amazon probably pay more than their fair share of tax . There is a lot more to taxation than just Corporation Tax . Our tax contributions in the UK As we continue to hire and grow in the UK, we help fund public services and infrastructure throughout the country. We do this through the taxes that are collected by the Exchequer as a consequence of our activities in the UK. Those taxes fall into two categories: • Directly incurred taxes: the taxes that are directly incurred and payable by Amazon, including Employer National Insurance, business rates, Corporation Tax, import duties, and Stamp Duty Land Tax; and • Indirect taxes collected: the taxes we collect and remit from our customers, employees, and other third parties because of our business activities in the UK. These include VAT and the taxes paid by our employees through PAYE. It’s important to understand both of those categories, because focusing narrowly on one aspect of taxation, such as Corporation Tax – which according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies accounts for only around 6% of total taxes collected from UK businesses and individual taxpayers – doesn’t tell the whole story. This is one of the reasons why PwC produces a total tax contribution study for The 100 Group (an organisation which represents the Finance Directors of the UK’s largest companies, including many FTSE 100 firms). The study highlights that, of the receipts paid over by these companies to the UK Government, over two thirds are indirect taxes (such as payroll taxes and VAT), while around one third are directly incurred taxes. This is particularly relevant for growing businesses like Amazon which have a high volume of sales, but where operating profits remain relatively low due to price pressure in competitive markets, intense capital investment programmes, and increasing operating costs (including those from a growing workforce). Most governments —including the UK Government—actively encourage companies to make these investments, and they often use the taxation system to do so. Capital allowances and R&D credits are designed to stimulate the kind of investment necessary to grow the economy and create jobs. On the one hand, these reduce Corporation Tax, but this is more than made up for by the increased tax revenue or lower costs for the Government in other areas. So what has Amazon recorded as its UK investments, directly incurred tax charge and indirect taxes collected for 2018? • In 2018, the total revenues of Amazon’s activities in the UK were £10.89bn ($14.524bn) • We invested more than £625m in our infrastructure • Our total directly incurred taxes were £220m. Employer taxes accounted for the largest proportion of these, followed by business rates, Corporation Tax, then other taxes such as Stamp Duty Land Tax • The indirect taxes we collected were an additional £573m as a result of our business activities in the UK • Our total tax contribution (combining direct and indirect) was therefore £793m In addition, we also assist third-party sellers with the collection and payment of VAT in the UK. To put this in a global context, sales by our selling partners — who are mostly small and medium-sized businesses – in Amazon stores worldwide accounted for 58% of Amazon’s total global physical gross merchandise sales in 2018. In the UK, we estimate that the Government has collected more than £1bn in VAT receipts from the proportion of UK sales in Amazon stores that are subject to UK VAT. We haven’t included those numbers in our indirect tax figure above since these are taxes paid by third parties to HMRC. Amazon was the first signatory to the government’s voluntary cooperation agreement to drive HMRC collection of these taxes owed, and we’ve also introduced low-cost and simple tools for third-party sellers to register, report, and remit VAT. Our contribution to UK exports, innovation and business growth In addition to our direct investment, job creation and tax contributions, our business provides opportunities for thousands of small business owners across the UK, in both rural and urban locations, to become global sellers through the training, tools and services we invent for entrepreneurs. There are now tens of thousands of UK-based small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who sell their products in Amazon’s UK store and also now reach national and international customers. They achieved total export sales of more than £2bn in 2018. Many of these businesses are based outside of London and other large UK cities. The largest proportion of our UK-based selling partners by volume of sales (44%), are sellers located in the North of England and the Midlands. Many are in rural or semi-urban locations. Amazon Web Services is also helping UK business growth. We now have more than 100,000 UK customers using AWS cloud technologies to manage their workloads, innovate, and grow their businesses. Public sector and government departments frequently say they have seen a 40% to 60% cost saving when they use AWS, and many UK enterprise businesses and FTSE 100 listed companies say they get greater reliability with AWS, which is why they rely on our technology for their mission-critical applications. Many UK start-ups and SMEs also run their businesses on AWS, often saying it saves them money and simplifies processes. They are able to pay for what they use and don’t need to buy their own server hardware. Many more people are taking advantage of our training and certification programs, as well as other upskilling initiatives such as AWS Academy, AWS Educate, AWS Get IT and AWS re/start. AWS re/start trains people with no previous technical knowledge to get a job in the IT industry, working with AWS, one of our customers or AWS Partner Network Partners. The UK is a hotbed of talent and opportunity, and we’re pleased to play a role in nourishing that and supporting growth. Twenty years since our UK launch, we continue to be excited by the potential to continue to invest, invent, and create jobs and income in communities across the country. " As did the Companies have disappeared because of Amazon - but they ALSO paid CT when they were profitable. No-one is arguing that Amazon isn’t a global success story. The issue is that U.K. tax codes need to recognise the changing times because it can’t only be workers paying tax. All online retailers who are VAT registered should be paying an additional transaction tax alongside their VAT returns. If you are happy that literally £billions in potential tax revenues are being lost because of an archaic tax code, then you cannot have any National conscience whatsoever. The big picture moving forward post-Covid and post-Brexit is going to be about balancing the books as the nation struggles with reduced tax revenues from reduced economic activity. It will need a progressive and imaginative approach to resolve the problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The article below shows that Amazon probably pay more than their fair share of tax . There is a lot more to taxation than just Corporation Tax . Our tax contributions in the UK As we continue to hire and grow in the UK, we help fund public services and infrastructure throughout the country. We do this through the taxes that are collected by the Exchequer as a consequence of our activities in the UK. Those taxes fall into two categories: • Directly incurred taxes: the taxes that are directly incurred and payable by Amazon, including Employer National Insurance, business rates, Corporation Tax, import duties, and Stamp Duty Land Tax; and • Indirect taxes collected: the taxes we collect and remit from our customers, employees, and other third parties because of our business activities in the UK. These include VAT and the taxes paid by our employees through PAYE. It’s important to understand both of those categories, because focusing narrowly on one aspect of taxation, such as Corporation Tax – which according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies accounts for only around 6% of total taxes collected from UK businesses and individual taxpayers – doesn’t tell the whole story. This is one of the reasons why PwC produces a total tax contribution study for The 100 Group (an organisation which represents the Finance Directors of the UK’s largest companies, including many FTSE 100 firms). The study highlights that, of the receipts paid over by these companies to the UK Government, over two thirds are indirect taxes (such as payroll taxes and VAT), while around one third are directly incurred taxes. This is particularly relevant for growing businesses like Amazon which have a high volume of sales, but where operating profits remain relatively low due to price pressure in competitive markets, intense capital investment programmes, and increasing operating costs (including those from a growing workforce). Most governments —including the UK Government—actively encourage companies to make these investments, and they often use the taxation system to do so. Capital allowances and R&D credits are designed to stimulate the kind of investment necessary to grow the economy and create jobs. On the one hand, these reduce Corporation Tax, but this is more than made up for by the increased tax revenue or lower costs for the Government in other areas. So what has Amazon recorded as its UK investments, directly incurred tax charge and indirect taxes collected for 2018? • In 2018, the total revenues of Amazon’s activities in the UK were £10.89bn ($14.524bn) • We invested more than £625m in our infrastructure • Our total directly incurred taxes were £220m. Employer taxes accounted for the largest proportion of these, followed by business rates, Corporation Tax, then other taxes such as Stamp Duty Land Tax • The indirect taxes we collected were an additional £573m as a result of our business activities in the UK • Our total tax contribution (combining direct and indirect) was therefore £793m In addition, we also assist third-party sellers with the collection and payment of VAT in the UK. To put this in a global context, sales by our selling partners — who are mostly small and medium-sized businesses – in Amazon stores worldwide accounted for 58% of Amazon’s total global physical gross merchandise sales in 2018. In the UK, we estimate that the Government has collected more than £1bn in VAT receipts from the proportion of UK sales in Amazon stores that are subject to UK VAT. We haven’t included those numbers in our indirect tax figure above since these are taxes paid by third parties to HMRC. Amazon was the first signatory to the government’s voluntary cooperation agreement to drive HMRC collection of these taxes owed, and we’ve also introduced low-cost and simple tools for third-party sellers to register, report, and remit VAT. Our contribution to UK exports, innovation and business growth In addition to our direct investment, job creation and tax contributions, our business provides opportunities for thousands of small business owners across the UK, in both rural and urban locations, to become global sellers through the training, tools and services we invent for entrepreneurs. There are now tens of thousands of UK-based small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who sell their products in Amazon’s UK store and also now reach national and international customers. They achieved total export sales of more than £2bn in 2018. Many of these businesses are based outside of London and other large UK cities. The largest proportion of our UK-based selling partners by volume of sales (44%), are sellers located in the North of England and the Midlands. Many are in rural or semi-urban locations. Amazon Web Services is also helping UK business growth. We now have more than 100,000 UK customers using AWS cloud technologies to manage their workloads, innovate, and grow their businesses. Public sector and government departments frequently say they have seen a 40% to 60% cost saving when they use AWS, and many UK enterprise businesses and FTSE 100 listed companies say they get greater reliability with AWS, which is why they rely on our technology for their mission-critical applications. Many UK start-ups and SMEs also run their businesses on AWS, often saying it saves them money and simplifies processes. They are able to pay for what they use and don’t need to buy their own server hardware. Many more people are taking advantage of our training and certification programs, as well as other upskilling initiatives such as AWS Academy, AWS Educate, AWS Get IT and AWS re/start. AWS re/start trains people with no previous technical knowledge to get a job in the IT industry, working with AWS, one of our customers or AWS Partner Network Partners. The UK is a hotbed of talent and opportunity, and we’re pleased to play a role in nourishing that and supporting growth. Twenty years since our UK launch, we continue to be excited by the potential to continue to invest, invent, and create jobs and income in communities across the country. As did the Companies have disappeared because of Amazon - but they ALSO paid CT when they were profitable. No-one is arguing that Amazon isn’t a global success story. The issue is that U.K. tax codes need to recognise the changing times because it can’t only be workers paying tax. All online retailers who are VAT registered should be paying an additional transaction tax alongside their VAT returns. If you are happy that literally £billions in potential tax revenues are being lost because of an archaic tax code, then you cannot have any National conscience whatsoever. The big picture moving forward post-Covid and post-Brexit is going to be about balancing the books as the nation struggles with reduced tax revenues from reduced economic activity. It will need a progressive and imaginative approach to resolve the problem." You do realise that tax codes relate to PAYE and not Corporation Tax? Do you mean tax rates? If so, what is the ‘archaic’ rate to which you refer? You still seem to think that Amazon don’t pay Corporation Tax, they do as I posted yesterday. It’s very simple to look it up on the Companies House website. As for an additional transaction tax to be levied against online retailers, the probability would be that any such tax would be passed down the line to the end user, ie the customer. Would your transaction tax be levied to on all online sales, including those retailers that traded both online and by traditional bricks and mortar? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The article below shows that Amazon probably pay more than their fair share of tax . There is a lot more to taxation than just Corporation Tax . Our tax contributions in the UK As we continue to hire and grow in the UK, we help fund public services and infrastructure throughout the country. We do this through the taxes that are collected by the Exchequer as a consequence of our activities in the UK. Those taxes fall into two categories: • Directly incurred taxes: the taxes that are directly incurred and payable by Amazon, including Employer National Insurance, business rates, Corporation Tax, import duties, and Stamp Duty Land Tax; and • Indirect taxes collected: the taxes we collect and remit from our customers, employees, and other third parties because of our business activities in the UK. These include VAT and the taxes paid by our employees through PAYE. It’s important to understand both of those categories, because focusing narrowly on one aspect of taxation, such as Corporation Tax – which according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies accounts for only around 6% of total taxes collected from UK businesses and individual taxpayers – doesn’t tell the whole story. This is one of the reasons why PwC produces a total tax contribution study for The 100 Group (an organisation which represents the Finance Directors of the UK’s largest companies, including many FTSE 100 firms). The study highlights that, of the receipts paid over by these companies to the UK Government, over two thirds are indirect taxes (such as payroll taxes and VAT), while around one third are directly incurred taxes. This is particularly relevant for growing businesses like Amazon which have a high volume of sales, but where operating profits remain relatively low due to price pressure in competitive markets, intense capital investment programmes, and increasing operating costs (including those from a growing workforce). Most governments —including the UK Government—actively encourage companies to make these investments, and they often use the taxation system to do so. Capital allowances and R&D credits are designed to stimulate the kind of investment necessary to grow the economy and create jobs. On the one hand, these reduce Corporation Tax, but this is more than made up for by the increased tax revenue or lower costs for the Government in other areas. So what has Amazon recorded as its UK investments, directly incurred tax charge and indirect taxes collected for 2018? • In 2018, the total revenues of Amazon’s activities in the UK were £10.89bn ($14.524bn) • We invested more than £625m in our infrastructure • Our total directly incurred taxes were £220m. Employer taxes accounted for the largest proportion of these, followed by business rates, Corporation Tax, then other taxes such as Stamp Duty Land Tax • The indirect taxes we collected were an additional £573m as a result of our business activities in the UK • Our total tax contribution (combining direct and indirect) was therefore £793m In addition, we also assist third-party sellers with the collection and payment of VAT in the UK. To put this in a global context, sales by our selling partners — who are mostly small and medium-sized businesses – in Amazon stores worldwide accounted for 58% of Amazon’s total global physical gross merchandise sales in 2018. In the UK, we estimate that the Government has collected more than £1bn in VAT receipts from the proportion of UK sales in Amazon stores that are subject to UK VAT. We haven’t included those numbers in our indirect tax figure above since these are taxes paid by third parties to HMRC. Amazon was the first signatory to the government’s voluntary cooperation agreement to drive HMRC collection of these taxes owed, and we’ve also introduced low-cost and simple tools for third-party sellers to register, report, and remit VAT. Our contribution to UK exports, innovation and business growth In addition to our direct investment, job creation and tax contributions, our business provides opportunities for thousands of small business owners across the UK, in both rural and urban locations, to become global sellers through the training, tools and services we invent for entrepreneurs. There are now tens of thousands of UK-based small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who sell their products in Amazon’s UK store and also now reach national and international customers. They achieved total export sales of more than £2bn in 2018. Many of these businesses are based outside of London and other large UK cities. The largest proportion of our UK-based selling partners by volume of sales (44%), are sellers located in the North of England and the Midlands. Many are in rural or semi-urban locations. Amazon Web Services is also helping UK business growth. We now have more than 100,000 UK customers using AWS cloud technologies to manage their workloads, innovate, and grow their businesses. Public sector and government departments frequently say they have seen a 40% to 60% cost saving when they use AWS, and many UK enterprise businesses and FTSE 100 listed companies say they get greater reliability with AWS, which is why they rely on our technology for their mission-critical applications. Many UK start-ups and SMEs also run their businesses on AWS, often saying it saves them money and simplifies processes. They are able to pay for what they use and don’t need to buy their own server hardware. Many more people are taking advantage of our training and certification programs, as well as other upskilling initiatives such as AWS Academy, AWS Educate, AWS Get IT and AWS re/start. AWS re/start trains people with no previous technical knowledge to get a job in the IT industry, working with AWS, one of our customers or AWS Partner Network Partners. The UK is a hotbed of talent and opportunity, and we’re pleased to play a role in nourishing that and supporting growth. Twenty years since our UK launch, we continue to be excited by the potential to continue to invest, invent, and create jobs and income in communities across the country. As did the Companies have disappeared because of Amazon - but they ALSO paid CT when they were profitable. No-one is arguing that Amazon isn’t a global success story. The issue is that U.K. tax codes need to recognise the changing times because it can’t only be workers paying tax. All online retailers who are VAT registered should be paying an additional transaction tax alongside their VAT returns. If you are happy that literally £billions in potential tax revenues are being lost because of an archaic tax code, then you cannot have any National conscience whatsoever. The big picture moving forward post-Covid and post-Brexit is going to be about balancing the books as the nation struggles with reduced tax revenues from reduced economic activity. It will need a progressive and imaginative approach to resolve the problem. You do realise that tax codes relate to PAYE and not Corporation Tax? Do you mean tax rates? If so, what is the ‘archaic’ rate to which you refer? You still seem to think that Amazon don’t pay Corporation Tax, they do as I posted yesterday. It’s very simple to look it up on the Companies House website. As for an additional transaction tax to be levied against online retailers, the probability would be that any such tax would be passed down the line to the end user, ie the customer. Would your transaction tax be levied to on all online sales, including those retailers that traded both online and by traditional bricks and mortar?" You posted a figure that Amazon paid CT at a rate equivalent of 0.05% of turnover. Don’t you see that this is a massive loss of potential tax revenue? An online transaction tax is common sense, it would be based on quarterly turnover and paid retrospectively like VAT. If the consumer pays a bit more because they are also saving a bit by buying online - so be it. Tax collection methods have to change. It is obvious that this has to happen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The article below shows that Amazon probably pay more than their fair share of tax . There is a lot more to taxation than just Corporation Tax . Our tax contributions in the UK As we continue to hire and grow in the UK, we help fund public services and infrastructure throughout the country. We do this through the taxes that are collected by the Exchequer as a consequence of our activities in the UK. Those taxes fall into two categories: • Directly incurred taxes: the taxes that are directly incurred and payable by Amazon, including Employer National Insurance, business rates, Corporation Tax, import duties, and Stamp Duty Land Tax; and • Indirect taxes collected: the taxes we collect and remit from our customers, employees, and other third parties because of our business activities in the UK. These include VAT and the taxes paid by our employees through PAYE. It’s important to understand both of those categories, because focusing narrowly on one aspect of taxation, such as Corporation Tax – which according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies accounts for only around 6% of total taxes collected from UK businesses and individual taxpayers – doesn’t tell the whole story. This is one of the reasons why PwC produces a total tax contribution study for The 100 Group (an organisation which represents the Finance Directors of the UK’s largest companies, including many FTSE 100 firms). The study highlights that, of the receipts paid over by these companies to the UK Government, over two thirds are indirect taxes (such as payroll taxes and VAT), while around one third are directly incurred taxes. This is particularly relevant for growing businesses like Amazon which have a high volume of sales, but where operating profits remain relatively low due to price pressure in competitive markets, intense capital investment programmes, and increasing operating costs (including those from a growing workforce). Most governments —including the UK Government—actively encourage companies to make these investments, and they often use the taxation system to do so. Capital allowances and R&D credits are designed to stimulate the kind of investment necessary to grow the economy and create jobs. On the one hand, these reduce Corporation Tax, but this is more than made up for by the increased tax revenue or lower costs for the Government in other areas. So what has Amazon recorded as its UK investments, directly incurred tax charge and indirect taxes collected for 2018? • In 2018, the total revenues of Amazon’s activities in the UK were £10.89bn ($14.524bn) • We invested more than £625m in our infrastructure • Our total directly incurred taxes were £220m. Employer taxes accounted for the largest proportion of these, followed by business rates, Corporation Tax, then other taxes such as Stamp Duty Land Tax • The indirect taxes we collected were an additional £573m as a result of our business activities in the UK • Our total tax contribution (combining direct and indirect) was therefore £793m In addition, we also assist third-party sellers with the collection and payment of VAT in the UK. To put this in a global context, sales by our selling partners — who are mostly small and medium-sized businesses – in Amazon stores worldwide accounted for 58% of Amazon’s total global physical gross merchandise sales in 2018. In the UK, we estimate that the Government has collected more than £1bn in VAT receipts from the proportion of UK sales in Amazon stores that are subject to UK VAT. We haven’t included those numbers in our indirect tax figure above since these are taxes paid by third parties to HMRC. Amazon was the first signatory to the government’s voluntary cooperation agreement to drive HMRC collection of these taxes owed, and we’ve also introduced low-cost and simple tools for third-party sellers to register, report, and remit VAT. Our contribution to UK exports, innovation and business growth In addition to our direct investment, job creation and tax contributions, our business provides opportunities for thousands of small business owners across the UK, in both rural and urban locations, to become global sellers through the training, tools and services we invent for entrepreneurs. There are now tens of thousands of UK-based small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who sell their products in Amazon’s UK store and also now reach national and international customers. They achieved total export sales of more than £2bn in 2018. Many of these businesses are based outside of London and other large UK cities. The largest proportion of our UK-based selling partners by volume of sales (44%), are sellers located in the North of England and the Midlands. Many are in rural or semi-urban locations. Amazon Web Services is also helping UK business growth. We now have more than 100,000 UK customers using AWS cloud technologies to manage their workloads, innovate, and grow their businesses. Public sector and government departments frequently say they have seen a 40% to 60% cost saving when they use AWS, and many UK enterprise businesses and FTSE 100 listed companies say they get greater reliability with AWS, which is why they rely on our technology for their mission-critical applications. Many UK start-ups and SMEs also run their businesses on AWS, often saying it saves them money and simplifies processes. They are able to pay for what they use and don’t need to buy their own server hardware. Many more people are taking advantage of our training and certification programs, as well as other upskilling initiatives such as AWS Academy, AWS Educate, AWS Get IT and AWS re/start. AWS re/start trains people with no previous technical knowledge to get a job in the IT industry, working with AWS, one of our customers or AWS Partner Network Partners. The UK is a hotbed of talent and opportunity, and we’re pleased to play a role in nourishing that and supporting growth. Twenty years since our UK launch, we continue to be excited by the potential to continue to invest, invent, and create jobs and income in communities across the country. As did the Companies have disappeared because of Amazon - but they ALSO paid CT when they were profitable. No-one is arguing that Amazon isn’t a global success story. The issue is that U.K. tax codes need to recognise the changing times because it can’t only be workers paying tax. All online retailers who are VAT registered should be paying an additional transaction tax alongside their VAT returns. If you are happy that literally £billions in potential tax revenues are being lost because of an archaic tax code, then you cannot have any National conscience whatsoever. The big picture moving forward post-Covid and post-Brexit is going to be about balancing the books as the nation struggles with reduced tax revenues from reduced economic activity. It will need a progressive and imaginative approach to resolve the problem. You do realise that tax codes relate to PAYE and not Corporation Tax? Do you mean tax rates? If so, what is the ‘archaic’ rate to which you refer? You still seem to think that Amazon don’t pay Corporation Tax, they do as I posted yesterday. It’s very simple to look it up on the Companies House website. As for an additional transaction tax to be levied against online retailers, the probability would be that any such tax would be passed down the line to the end user, ie the customer. Would your transaction tax be levied to on all online sales, including those retailers that traded both online and by traditional bricks and mortar? You posted a figure that Amazon paid CT at a rate equivalent of 0.05% of turnover. Don’t you see that this is a massive loss of potential tax revenue? An online transaction tax is common sense, it would be based on quarterly turnover and paid retrospectively like VAT. If the consumer pays a bit more because they are also saving a bit by buying online - so be it. Tax collection methods have to change. It is obvious that this has to happen." You haven’t explained what you mean by archaic tax code. I thought you were a business owner and therefore would have some knowledge as to how Corporation Tax works. Turnover ( alone) has no bearing on the rate paid. Retailers would not accept the loss of margin, it would be passed onto the customer. You didn’t answer the question I asked about retailers who sold both online and in store. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The article below shows that Amazon probably pay more than their fair share of tax . There is a lot more to taxation than just Corporation Tax . Our tax contributions in the UK As we continue to hire and grow in the UK, we help fund public services and infrastructure throughout the country. We do this through the taxes that are collected by the Exchequer as a consequence of our activities in the UK. Those taxes fall into two categories: • Directly incurred taxes: the taxes that are directly incurred and payable by Amazon, including Employer National Insurance, business rates, Corporation Tax, import duties, and Stamp Duty Land Tax; and • Indirect taxes collected: the taxes we collect and remit from our customers, employees, and other third parties because of our business activities in the UK. These include VAT and the taxes paid by our employees through PAYE. It’s important to understand both of those categories, because focusing narrowly on one aspect of taxation, such as Corporation Tax – which according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies accounts for only around 6% of total taxes collected from UK businesses and individual taxpayers – doesn’t tell the whole story. This is one of the reasons why PwC produces a total tax contribution study for The 100 Group (an organisation which represents the Finance Directors of the UK’s largest companies, including many FTSE 100 firms). The study highlights that, of the receipts paid over by these companies to the UK Government, over two thirds are indirect taxes (such as payroll taxes and VAT), while around one third are directly incurred taxes. This is particularly relevant for growing businesses like Amazon which have a high volume of sales, but where operating profits remain relatively low due to price pressure in competitive markets, intense capital investment programmes, and increasing operating costs (including those from a growing workforce). Most governments —including the UK Government—actively encourage companies to make these investments, and they often use the taxation system to do so. Capital allowances and R&D credits are designed to stimulate the kind of investment necessary to grow the economy and create jobs. On the one hand, these reduce Corporation Tax, but this is more than made up for by the increased tax revenue or lower costs for the Government in other areas. So what has Amazon recorded as its UK investments, directly incurred tax charge and indirect taxes collected for 2018? • In 2018, the total revenues of Amazon’s activities in the UK were £10.89bn ($14.524bn) • We invested more than £625m in our infrastructure • Our total directly incurred taxes were £220m. Employer taxes accounted for the largest proportion of these, followed by business rates, Corporation Tax, then other taxes such as Stamp Duty Land Tax • The indirect taxes we collected were an additional £573m as a result of our business activities in the UK • Our total tax contribution (combining direct and indirect) was therefore £793m In addition, we also assist third-party sellers with the collection and payment of VAT in the UK. To put this in a global context, sales by our selling partners — who are mostly small and medium-sized businesses – in Amazon stores worldwide accounted for 58% of Amazon’s total global physical gross merchandise sales in 2018. In the UK, we estimate that the Government has collected more than £1bn in VAT receipts from the proportion of UK sales in Amazon stores that are subject to UK VAT. We haven’t included those numbers in our indirect tax figure above since these are taxes paid by third parties to HMRC. Amazon was the first signatory to the government’s voluntary cooperation agreement to drive HMRC collection of these taxes owed, and we’ve also introduced low-cost and simple tools for third-party sellers to register, report, and remit VAT. Our contribution to UK exports, innovation and business growth In addition to our direct investment, job creation and tax contributions, our business provides opportunities for thousands of small business owners across the UK, in both rural and urban locations, to become global sellers through the training, tools and services we invent for entrepreneurs. There are now tens of thousands of UK-based small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who sell their products in Amazon’s UK store and also now reach national and international customers. They achieved total export sales of more than £2bn in 2018. Many of these businesses are based outside of London and other large UK cities. The largest proportion of our UK-based selling partners by volume of sales (44%), are sellers located in the North of England and the Midlands. Many are in rural or semi-urban locations. Amazon Web Services is also helping UK business growth. We now have more than 100,000 UK customers using AWS cloud technologies to manage their workloads, innovate, and grow their businesses. Public sector and government departments frequently say they have seen a 40% to 60% cost saving when they use AWS, and many UK enterprise businesses and FTSE 100 listed companies say they get greater reliability with AWS, which is why they rely on our technology for their mission-critical applications. Many UK start-ups and SMEs also run their businesses on AWS, often saying it saves them money and simplifies processes. They are able to pay for what they use and don’t need to buy their own server hardware. Many more people are taking advantage of our training and certification programs, as well as other upskilling initiatives such as AWS Academy, AWS Educate, AWS Get IT and AWS re/start. AWS re/start trains people with no previous technical knowledge to get a job in the IT industry, working with AWS, one of our customers or AWS Partner Network Partners. The UK is a hotbed of talent and opportunity, and we’re pleased to play a role in nourishing that and supporting growth. Twenty years since our UK launch, we continue to be excited by the potential to continue to invest, invent, and create jobs and income in communities across the country. As did the Companies have disappeared because of Amazon - but they ALSO paid CT when they were profitable. No-one is arguing that Amazon isn’t a global success story. The issue is that U.K. tax codes need to recognise the changing times because it can’t only be workers paying tax. All online retailers who are VAT registered should be paying an additional transaction tax alongside their VAT returns. If you are happy that literally £billions in potential tax revenues are being lost because of an archaic tax code, then you cannot have any National conscience whatsoever. The big picture moving forward post-Covid and post-Brexit is going to be about balancing the books as the nation struggles with reduced tax revenues from reduced economic activity. It will need a progressive and imaginative approach to resolve the problem. You do realise that tax codes relate to PAYE and not Corporation Tax? Do you mean tax rates? If so, what is the ‘archaic’ rate to which you refer? You still seem to think that Amazon don’t pay Corporation Tax, they do as I posted yesterday. It’s very simple to look it up on the Companies House website. As for an additional transaction tax to be levied against online retailers, the probability would be that any such tax would be passed down the line to the end user, ie the customer. Would your transaction tax be levied to on all online sales, including those retailers that traded both online and by traditional bricks and mortar? You posted a figure that Amazon paid CT at a rate equivalent of 0.05% of turnover. Don’t you see that this is a massive loss of potential tax revenue? An online transaction tax is common sense, it would be based on quarterly turnover and paid retrospectively like VAT. If the consumer pays a bit more because they are also saving a bit by buying online - so be it. Tax collection methods have to change. It is obvious that this has to happen." . As Amazon are a low margin businness you would expect tax as a percentage of turnover to be very small . Amazon also manage to reduce tax ( in the short term) by engaging in substantial investments in local infrastructure, which in turn creates further employment and that in turn results in further tax being paid by the third parties concerned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The article below shows that Amazon probably pay more than their fair share of tax . There is a lot more to taxation than just Corporation Tax . Our tax contributions in the UK As we continue to hire and grow in the UK, we help fund public services and infrastructure throughout the country. We do this through the taxes that are collected by the Exchequer as a consequence of our activities in the UK. Those taxes fall into two categories: • Directly incurred taxes: the taxes that are directly incurred and payable by Amazon, including Employer National Insurance, business rates, Corporation Tax, import duties, and Stamp Duty Land Tax; and • Indirect taxes collected: the taxes we collect and remit from our customers, employees, and other third parties because of our business activities in the UK. These include VAT and the taxes paid by our employees through PAYE. It’s important to understand both of those categories, because focusing narrowly on one aspect of taxation, such as Corporation Tax – which according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies accounts for only around 6% of total taxes collected from UK businesses and individual taxpayers – doesn’t tell the whole story. This is one of the reasons why PwC produces a total tax contribution study for The 100 Group (an organisation which represents the Finance Directors of the UK’s largest companies, including many FTSE 100 firms). The study highlights that, of the receipts paid over by these companies to the UK Government, over two thirds are indirect taxes (such as payroll taxes and VAT), while around one third are directly incurred taxes. This is particularly relevant for growing businesses like Amazon which have a high volume of sales, but where operating profits remain relatively low due to price pressure in competitive markets, intense capital investment programmes, and increasing operating costs (including those from a growing workforce). Most governments —including the UK Government—actively encourage companies to make these investments, and they often use the taxation system to do so. Capital allowances and R&D credits are designed to stimulate the kind of investment necessary to grow the economy and create jobs. On the one hand, these reduce Corporation Tax, but this is more than made up for by the increased tax revenue or lower costs for the Government in other areas. So what has Amazon recorded as its UK investments, directly incurred tax charge and indirect taxes collected for 2018? • In 2018, the total revenues of Amazon’s activities in the UK were £10.89bn ($14.524bn) • We invested more than £625m in our infrastructure • Our total directly incurred taxes were £220m. Employer taxes accounted for the largest proportion of these, followed by business rates, Corporation Tax, then other taxes such as Stamp Duty Land Tax • The indirect taxes we collected were an additional £573m as a result of our business activities in the UK • Our total tax contribution (combining direct and indirect) was therefore £793m In addition, we also assist third-party sellers with the collection and payment of VAT in the UK. To put this in a global context, sales by our selling partners — who are mostly small and medium-sized businesses – in Amazon stores worldwide accounted for 58% of Amazon’s total global physical gross merchandise sales in 2018. In the UK, we estimate that the Government has collected more than £1bn in VAT receipts from the proportion of UK sales in Amazon stores that are subject to UK VAT. We haven’t included those numbers in our indirect tax figure above since these are taxes paid by third parties to HMRC. Amazon was the first signatory to the government’s voluntary cooperation agreement to drive HMRC collection of these taxes owed, and we’ve also introduced low-cost and simple tools for third-party sellers to register, report, and remit VAT. Our contribution to UK exports, innovation and business growth In addition to our direct investment, job creation and tax contributions, our business provides opportunities for thousands of small business owners across the UK, in both rural and urban locations, to become global sellers through the training, tools and services we invent for entrepreneurs. There are now tens of thousands of UK-based small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who sell their products in Amazon’s UK store and also now reach national and international customers. They achieved total export sales of more than £2bn in 2018. Many of these businesses are based outside of London and other large UK cities. The largest proportion of our UK-based selling partners by volume of sales (44%), are sellers located in the North of England and the Midlands. Many are in rural or semi-urban locations. Amazon Web Services is also helping UK business growth. We now have more than 100,000 UK customers using AWS cloud technologies to manage their workloads, innovate, and grow their businesses. Public sector and government departments frequently say they have seen a 40% to 60% cost saving when they use AWS, and many UK enterprise businesses and FTSE 100 listed companies say they get greater reliability with AWS, which is why they rely on our technology for their mission-critical applications. Many UK start-ups and SMEs also run their businesses on AWS, often saying it saves them money and simplifies processes. They are able to pay for what they use and don’t need to buy their own server hardware. Many more people are taking advantage of our training and certification programs, as well as other upskilling initiatives such as AWS Academy, AWS Educate, AWS Get IT and AWS re/start. AWS re/start trains people with no previous technical knowledge to get a job in the IT industry, working with AWS, one of our customers or AWS Partner Network Partners. The UK is a hotbed of talent and opportunity, and we’re pleased to play a role in nourishing that and supporting growth. Twenty years since our UK launch, we continue to be excited by the potential to continue to invest, invent, and create jobs and income in communities across the country. As did the Companies have disappeared because of Amazon - but they ALSO paid CT when they were profitable. No-one is arguing that Amazon isn’t a global success story. The issue is that U.K. tax codes need to recognise the changing times because it can’t only be workers paying tax. All online retailers who are VAT registered should be paying an additional transaction tax alongside their VAT returns. If you are happy that literally £billions in potential tax revenues are being lost because of an archaic tax code, then you cannot have any National conscience whatsoever. The big picture moving forward post-Covid and post-Brexit is going to be about balancing the books as the nation struggles with reduced tax revenues from reduced economic activity. It will need a progressive and imaginative approach to resolve the problem. You do realise that tax codes relate to PAYE and not Corporation Tax? Do you mean tax rates? If so, what is the ‘archaic’ rate to which you refer? You still seem to think that Amazon don’t pay Corporation Tax, they do as I posted yesterday. It’s very simple to look it up on the Companies House website. As for an additional transaction tax to be levied against online retailers, the probability would be that any such tax would be passed down the line to the end user, ie the customer. Would your transaction tax be levied to on all online sales, including those retailers that traded both online and by traditional bricks and mortar? You posted a figure that Amazon paid CT at a rate equivalent of 0.05% of turnover. Don’t you see that this is a massive loss of potential tax revenue? An online transaction tax is common sense, it would be based on quarterly turnover and paid retrospectively like VAT. If the consumer pays a bit more because they are also saving a bit by buying online - so be it. Tax collection methods have to change. It is obvious that this has to happen. You haven’t explained what you mean by archaic tax code. I thought you were a business owner and therefore would have some knowledge as to how Corporation Tax works. Turnover ( alone) has no bearing on the rate paid. Retailers would not accept the loss of margin, it would be passed onto the customer. You didn’t answer the question I asked about retailers who sold both online and in store." This is the problem with social media, it is not about debate anymore m, point scoring seems to be what it is all about. The U.K. tax codes with regards to both personal and Corporate taxation do not reflect the way that world is currently functioning. I cannot be any clearer than that. I also said very clearly in an earlier thread that I know that CT is related to taxable profit, but I also know from years of experience that HMRC absolutely know how much CT should be coming from a given turnover according to the business category. This is EXACTLY how historically can offices, pubs and restaurants would get raided, because HMRC have comii on arable data. I actually don’t even know why you are arguing other than to prove a point. Tax has to change when the world around us changes. That surely must be obvious??? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The article below shows that Amazon probably pay more than their fair share of tax . There is a lot more to taxation than just Corporation Tax . Our tax contributions in the UK As we continue to hire and grow in the UK, we help fund public services and infrastructure throughout the country. We do this through the taxes that are collected by the Exchequer as a consequence of our activities in the UK. Those taxes fall into two categories: • Directly incurred taxes: the taxes that are directly incurred and payable by Amazon, including Employer National Insurance, business rates, Corporation Tax, import duties, and Stamp Duty Land Tax; and • Indirect taxes collected: the taxes we collect and remit from our customers, employees, and other third parties because of our business activities in the UK. These include VAT and the taxes paid by our employees through PAYE. It’s important to understand both of those categories, because focusing narrowly on one aspect of taxation, such as Corporation Tax – which according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies accounts for only around 6% of total taxes collected from UK businesses and individual taxpayers – doesn’t tell the whole story. This is one of the reasons why PwC produces a total tax contribution study for The 100 Group (an organisation which represents the Finance Directors of the UK’s largest companies, including many FTSE 100 firms). The study highlights that, of the receipts paid over by these companies to the UK Government, over two thirds are indirect taxes (such as payroll taxes and VAT), while around one third are directly incurred taxes. This is particularly relevant for growing businesses like Amazon which have a high volume of sales, but where operating profits remain relatively low due to price pressure in competitive markets, intense capital investment programmes, and increasing operating costs (including those from a growing workforce). Most governments —including the UK Government—actively encourage companies to make these investments, and they often use the taxation system to do so. Capital allowances and R&D credits are designed to stimulate the kind of investment necessary to grow the economy and create jobs. On the one hand, these reduce Corporation Tax, but this is more than made up for by the increased tax revenue or lower costs for the Government in other areas. So what has Amazon recorded as its UK investments, directly incurred tax charge and indirect taxes collected for 2018? • In 2018, the total revenues of Amazon’s activities in the UK were £10.89bn ($14.524bn) • We invested more than £625m in our infrastructure • Our total directly incurred taxes were £220m. Employer taxes accounted for the largest proportion of these, followed by business rates, Corporation Tax, then other taxes such as Stamp Duty Land Tax • The indirect taxes we collected were an additional £573m as a result of our business activities in the UK • Our total tax contribution (combining direct and indirect) was therefore £793m In addition, we also assist third-party sellers with the collection and payment of VAT in the UK. To put this in a global context, sales by our selling partners — who are mostly small and medium-sized businesses – in Amazon stores worldwide accounted for 58% of Amazon’s total global physical gross merchandise sales in 2018. In the UK, we estimate that the Government has collected more than £1bn in VAT receipts from the proportion of UK sales in Amazon stores that are subject to UK VAT. We haven’t included those numbers in our indirect tax figure above since these are taxes paid by third parties to HMRC. Amazon was the first signatory to the government’s voluntary cooperation agreement to drive HMRC collection of these taxes owed, and we’ve also introduced low-cost and simple tools for third-party sellers to register, report, and remit VAT. Our contribution to UK exports, innovation and business growth In addition to our direct investment, job creation and tax contributions, our business provides opportunities for thousands of small business owners across the UK, in both rural and urban locations, to become global sellers through the training, tools and services we invent for entrepreneurs. There are now tens of thousands of UK-based small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who sell their products in Amazon’s UK store and also now reach national and international customers. They achieved total export sales of more than £2bn in 2018. Many of these businesses are based outside of London and other large UK cities. The largest proportion of our UK-based selling partners by volume of sales (44%), are sellers located in the North of England and the Midlands. Many are in rural or semi-urban locations. Amazon Web Services is also helping UK business growth. We now have more than 100,000 UK customers using AWS cloud technologies to manage their workloads, innovate, and grow their businesses. Public sector and government departments frequently say they have seen a 40% to 60% cost saving when they use AWS, and many UK enterprise businesses and FTSE 100 listed companies say they get greater reliability with AWS, which is why they rely on our technology for their mission-critical applications. Many UK start-ups and SMEs also run their businesses on AWS, often saying it saves them money and simplifies processes. They are able to pay for what they use and don’t need to buy their own server hardware. Many more people are taking advantage of our training and certification programs, as well as other upskilling initiatives such as AWS Academy, AWS Educate, AWS Get IT and AWS re/start. AWS re/start trains people with no previous technical knowledge to get a job in the IT industry, working with AWS, one of our customers or AWS Partner Network Partners. The UK is a hotbed of talent and opportunity, and we’re pleased to play a role in nourishing that and supporting growth. Twenty years since our UK launch, we continue to be excited by the potential to continue to invest, invent, and create jobs and income in communities across the country. As did the Companies have disappeared because of Amazon - but they ALSO paid CT when they were profitable. No-one is arguing that Amazon isn’t a global success story. The issue is that U.K. tax codes need to recognise the changing times because it can’t only be workers paying tax. All online retailers who are VAT registered should be paying an additional transaction tax alongside their VAT returns. If you are happy that literally £billions in potential tax revenues are being lost because of an archaic tax code, then you cannot have any National conscience whatsoever. The big picture moving forward post-Covid and post-Brexit is going to be about balancing the books as the nation struggles with reduced tax revenues from reduced economic activity. It will need a progressive and imaginative approach to resolve the problem. You do realise that tax codes relate to PAYE and not Corporation Tax? Do you mean tax rates? If so, what is the ‘archaic’ rate to which you refer? You still seem to think that Amazon don’t pay Corporation Tax, they do as I posted yesterday. It’s very simple to look it up on the Companies House website. As for an additional transaction tax to be levied against online retailers, the probability would be that any such tax would be passed down the line to the end user, ie the customer. Would your transaction tax be levied to on all online sales, including those retailers that traded both online and by traditional bricks and mortar? You posted a figure that Amazon paid CT at a rate equivalent of 0.05% of turnover. Don’t you see that this is a massive loss of potential tax revenue? An online transaction tax is common sense, it would be based on quarterly turnover and paid retrospectively like VAT. If the consumer pays a bit more because they are also saving a bit by buying online - so be it. Tax collection methods have to change. It is obvious that this has to happen. You haven’t explained what you mean by archaic tax code. I thought you were a business owner and therefore would have some knowledge as to how Corporation Tax works. Turnover ( alone) has no bearing on the rate paid. Retailers would not accept the loss of margin, it would be passed onto the customer. You didn’t answer the question I asked about retailers who sold both online and in store." . Your last point is a very interesting question and one which I have often thought about. If for example you shopped at Tescos and orders your groceries on line you could potentially end up paying more for your food. Or you could end up in the situation where retailers could only use their sites for marketing purposes, but people would have to come into the store to make payment in order to avoid a transaction tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The article below shows that Amazon probably pay more than their fair share of tax . There is a lot more to taxation than just Corporation Tax . Our tax contributions in the UK As we continue to hire and grow in the UK, we help fund public services and infrastructure throughout the country. We do this through the taxes that are collected by the Exchequer as a consequence of our activities in the UK. Those taxes fall into two categories: • Directly incurred taxes: the taxes that are directly incurred and payable by Amazon, including Employer National Insurance, business rates, Corporation Tax, import duties, and Stamp Duty Land Tax; and • Indirect taxes collected: the taxes we collect and remit from our customers, employees, and other third parties because of our business activities in the UK. These include VAT and the taxes paid by our employees through PAYE. It’s important to understand both of those categories, because focusing narrowly on one aspect of taxation, such as Corporation Tax – which according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies accounts for only around 6% of total taxes collected from UK businesses and individual taxpayers – doesn’t tell the whole story. This is one of the reasons why PwC produces a total tax contribution study for The 100 Group (an organisation which represents the Finance Directors of the UK’s largest companies, including many FTSE 100 firms). The study highlights that, of the receipts paid over by these companies to the UK Government, over two thirds are indirect taxes (such as payroll taxes and VAT), while around one third are directly incurred taxes. This is particularly relevant for growing businesses like Amazon which have a high volume of sales, but where operating profits remain relatively low due to price pressure in competitive markets, intense capital investment programmes, and increasing operating costs (including those from a growing workforce). Most governments —including the UK Government—actively encourage companies to make these investments, and they often use the taxation system to do so. Capital allowances and R&D credits are designed to stimulate the kind of investment necessary to grow the economy and create jobs. On the one hand, these reduce Corporation Tax, but this is more than made up for by the increased tax revenue or lower costs for the Government in other areas. So what has Amazon recorded as its UK investments, directly incurred tax charge and indirect taxes collected for 2018? • In 2018, the total revenues of Amazon’s activities in the UK were £10.89bn ($14.524bn) • We invested more than £625m in our infrastructure • Our total directly incurred taxes were £220m. Employer taxes accounted for the largest proportion of these, followed by business rates, Corporation Tax, then other taxes such as Stamp Duty Land Tax • The indirect taxes we collected were an additional £573m as a result of our business activities in the UK • Our total tax contribution (combining direct and indirect) was therefore £793m In addition, we also assist third-party sellers with the collection and payment of VAT in the UK. To put this in a global context, sales by our selling partners — who are mostly small and medium-sized businesses – in Amazon stores worldwide accounted for 58% of Amazon’s total global physical gross merchandise sales in 2018. In the UK, we estimate that the Government has collected more than £1bn in VAT receipts from the proportion of UK sales in Amazon stores that are subject to UK VAT. We haven’t included those numbers in our indirect tax figure above since these are taxes paid by third parties to HMRC. Amazon was the first signatory to the government’s voluntary cooperation agreement to drive HMRC collection of these taxes owed, and we’ve also introduced low-cost and simple tools for third-party sellers to register, report, and remit VAT. Our contribution to UK exports, innovation and business growth In addition to our direct investment, job creation and tax contributions, our business provides opportunities for thousands of small business owners across the UK, in both rural and urban locations, to become global sellers through the training, tools and services we invent for entrepreneurs. There are now tens of thousands of UK-based small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who sell their products in Amazon’s UK store and also now reach national and international customers. They achieved total export sales of more than £2bn in 2018. Many of these businesses are based outside of London and other large UK cities. The largest proportion of our UK-based selling partners by volume of sales (44%), are sellers located in the North of England and the Midlands. Many are in rural or semi-urban locations. Amazon Web Services is also helping UK business growth. We now have more than 100,000 UK customers using AWS cloud technologies to manage their workloads, innovate, and grow their businesses. Public sector and government departments frequently say they have seen a 40% to 60% cost saving when they use AWS, and many UK enterprise businesses and FTSE 100 listed companies say they get greater reliability with AWS, which is why they rely on our technology for their mission-critical applications. Many UK start-ups and SMEs also run their businesses on AWS, often saying it saves them money and simplifies processes. They are able to pay for what they use and don’t need to buy their own server hardware. Many more people are taking advantage of our training and certification programs, as well as other upskilling initiatives such as AWS Academy, AWS Educate, AWS Get IT and AWS re/start. AWS re/start trains people with no previous technical knowledge to get a job in the IT industry, working with AWS, one of our customers or AWS Partner Network Partners. The UK is a hotbed of talent and opportunity, and we’re pleased to play a role in nourishing that and supporting growth. Twenty years since our UK launch, we continue to be excited by the potential to continue to invest, invent, and create jobs and income in communities across the country. As did the Companies have disappeared because of Amazon - but they ALSO paid CT when they were profitable. No-one is arguing that Amazon isn’t a global success story. The issue is that U.K. tax codes need to recognise the changing times because it can’t only be workers paying tax. All online retailers who are VAT registered should be paying an additional transaction tax alongside their VAT returns. If you are happy that literally £billions in potential tax revenues are being lost because of an archaic tax code, then you cannot have any National conscience whatsoever. The big picture moving forward post-Covid and post-Brexit is going to be about balancing the books as the nation struggles with reduced tax revenues from reduced economic activity. It will need a progressive and imaginative approach to resolve the problem. You do realise that tax codes relate to PAYE and not Corporation Tax? Do you mean tax rates? If so, what is the ‘archaic’ rate to which you refer? You still seem to think that Amazon don’t pay Corporation Tax, they do as I posted yesterday. It’s very simple to look it up on the Companies House website. As for an additional transaction tax to be levied against online retailers, the probability would be that any such tax would be passed down the line to the end user, ie the customer. Would your transaction tax be levied to on all online sales, including those retailers that traded both online and by traditional bricks and mortar? You posted a figure that Amazon paid CT at a rate equivalent of 0.05% of turnover. Don’t you see that this is a massive loss of potential tax revenue? An online transaction tax is common sense, it would be based on quarterly turnover and paid retrospectively like VAT. If the consumer pays a bit more because they are also saving a bit by buying online - so be it. Tax collection methods have to change. It is obvious that this has to happen. You haven’t explained what you mean by archaic tax code. I thought you were a business owner and therefore would have some knowledge as to how Corporation Tax works. Turnover ( alone) has no bearing on the rate paid. Retailers would not accept the loss of margin, it would be passed onto the customer. You didn’t answer the question I asked about retailers who sold both online and in store. This is the problem with social media, it is not about debate anymore m, point scoring seems to be what it is all about. The U.K. tax codes with regards to both personal and Corporate taxation do not reflect the way that world is currently functioning. I cannot be any clearer than that. I also said very clearly in an earlier thread that I know that CT is related to taxable profit, but I also know from years of experience that HMRC absolutely know how much CT should be coming from a given turnover according to the business category. This is EXACTLY how historically can offices, pubs and restaurants would get raided, because HMRC have comii on arable data. I actually don’t even know why you are arguing other than to prove a point. Tax has to change when the world around us changes. That surely must be obvious??? " It’s not about point scoring whatsoever. You are making claims and I’m asking you to substantiate those claims. Once again, you mention Corporation Tax code. Please explain what Corporation Tax code is. Also the paragraph re HMRC knowing how much CT should be coming from businesses purely down to turnover is nonsense. HMRC will know the approximate GP percentage that a company operating in a particular sector is likely to make. That ratio will undoubtedly be looked at but that is not what determines either income or corporation tax. Those taxes are determined by the adjusted NET profit, and then allowing for capital allowances, deferred tax, timing differences etc etc. So just by looking at the Turnover, there is no way in which anyone, including HMRC can compute IT or CT. Tax may indeed have to change but I’m asking you to explain how the system you claim will have to be introduced will work in practice and you still have not answered that! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The article below shows that Amazon probably pay more than their fair share of tax . There is a lot more to taxation than just Corporation Tax . Our tax contributions in the UK As we continue to hire and grow in the UK, we help fund public services and infrastructure throughout the country. We do this through the taxes that are collected by the Exchequer as a consequence of our activities in the UK. Those taxes fall into two categories: • Directly incurred taxes: the taxes that are directly incurred and payable by Amazon, including Employer National Insurance, business rates, Corporation Tax, import duties, and Stamp Duty Land Tax; and • Indirect taxes collected: the taxes we collect and remit from our customers, employees, and other third parties because of our business activities in the UK. These include VAT and the taxes paid by our employees through PAYE. It’s important to understand both of those categories, because focusing narrowly on one aspect of taxation, such as Corporation Tax – which according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies accounts for only around 6% of total taxes collected from UK businesses and individual taxpayers – doesn’t tell the whole story. This is one of the reasons why PwC produces a total tax contribution study for The 100 Group (an organisation which represents the Finance Directors of the UK’s largest companies, including many FTSE 100 firms). The study highlights that, of the receipts paid over by these companies to the UK Government, over two thirds are indirect taxes (such as payroll taxes and VAT), while around one third are directly incurred taxes. This is particularly relevant for growing businesses like Amazon which have a high volume of sales, but where operating profits remain relatively low due to price pressure in competitive markets, intense capital investment programmes, and increasing operating costs (including those from a growing workforce). Most governments —including the UK Government—actively encourage companies to make these investments, and they often use the taxation system to do so. Capital allowances and R&D credits are designed to stimulate the kind of investment necessary to grow the economy and create jobs. On the one hand, these reduce Corporation Tax, but this is more than made up for by the increased tax revenue or lower costs for the Government in other areas. So what has Amazon recorded as its UK investments, directly incurred tax charge and indirect taxes collected for 2018? • In 2018, the total revenues of Amazon’s activities in the UK were £10.89bn ($14.524bn) • We invested more than £625m in our infrastructure • Our total directly incurred taxes were £220m. Employer taxes accounted for the largest proportion of these, followed by business rates, Corporation Tax, then other taxes such as Stamp Duty Land Tax • The indirect taxes we collected were an additional £573m as a result of our business activities in the UK • Our total tax contribution (combining direct and indirect) was therefore £793m In addition, we also assist third-party sellers with the collection and payment of VAT in the UK. To put this in a global context, sales by our selling partners — who are mostly small and medium-sized businesses – in Amazon stores worldwide accounted for 58% of Amazon’s total global physical gross merchandise sales in 2018. In the UK, we estimate that the Government has collected more than £1bn in VAT receipts from the proportion of UK sales in Amazon stores that are subject to UK VAT. We haven’t included those numbers in our indirect tax figure above since these are taxes paid by third parties to HMRC. Amazon was the first signatory to the government’s voluntary cooperation agreement to drive HMRC collection of these taxes owed, and we’ve also introduced low-cost and simple tools for third-party sellers to register, report, and remit VAT. Our contribution to UK exports, innovation and business growth In addition to our direct investment, job creation and tax contributions, our business provides opportunities for thousands of small business owners across the UK, in both rural and urban locations, to become global sellers through the training, tools and services we invent for entrepreneurs. There are now tens of thousands of UK-based small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who sell their products in Amazon’s UK store and also now reach national and international customers. They achieved total export sales of more than £2bn in 2018. Many of these businesses are based outside of London and other large UK cities. The largest proportion of our UK-based selling partners by volume of sales (44%), are sellers located in the North of England and the Midlands. Many are in rural or semi-urban locations. Amazon Web Services is also helping UK business growth. We now have more than 100,000 UK customers using AWS cloud technologies to manage their workloads, innovate, and grow their businesses. Public sector and government departments frequently say they have seen a 40% to 60% cost saving when they use AWS, and many UK enterprise businesses and FTSE 100 listed companies say they get greater reliability with AWS, which is why they rely on our technology for their mission-critical applications. Many UK start-ups and SMEs also run their businesses on AWS, often saying it saves them money and simplifies processes. They are able to pay for what they use and don’t need to buy their own server hardware. Many more people are taking advantage of our training and certification programs, as well as other upskilling initiatives such as AWS Academy, AWS Educate, AWS Get IT and AWS re/start. AWS re/start trains people with no previous technical knowledge to get a job in the IT industry, working with AWS, one of our customers or AWS Partner Network Partners. The UK is a hotbed of talent and opportunity, and we’re pleased to play a role in nourishing that and supporting growth. Twenty years since our UK launch, we continue to be excited by the potential to continue to invest, invent, and create jobs and income in communities across the country. As did the Companies have disappeared because of Amazon - but they ALSO paid CT when they were profitable. No-one is arguing that Amazon isn’t a global success story. The issue is that U.K. tax codes need to recognise the changing times because it can’t only be workers paying tax. All online retailers who are VAT registered should be paying an additional transaction tax alongside their VAT returns. If you are happy that literally £billions in potential tax revenues are being lost because of an archaic tax code, then you cannot have any National conscience whatsoever. The big picture moving forward post-Covid and post-Brexit is going to be about balancing the books as the nation struggles with reduced tax revenues from reduced economic activity. It will need a progressive and imaginative approach to resolve the problem. You do realise that tax codes relate to PAYE and not Corporation Tax? Do you mean tax rates? If so, what is the ‘archaic’ rate to which you refer? You still seem to think that Amazon don’t pay Corporation Tax, they do as I posted yesterday. It’s very simple to look it up on the Companies House website. As for an additional transaction tax to be levied against online retailers, the probability would be that any such tax would be passed down the line to the end user, ie the customer. Would your transaction tax be levied to on all online sales, including those retailers that traded both online and by traditional bricks and mortar? You posted a figure that Amazon paid CT at a rate equivalent of 0.05% of turnover. Don’t you see that this is a massive loss of potential tax revenue? An online transaction tax is common sense, it would be based on quarterly turnover and paid retrospectively like VAT. If the consumer pays a bit more because they are also saving a bit by buying online - so be it. Tax collection methods have to change. It is obvious that this has to happen. You haven’t explained what you mean by archaic tax code. I thought you were a business owner and therefore would have some knowledge as to how Corporation Tax works. Turnover ( alone) has no bearing on the rate paid. Retailers would not accept the loss of margin, it would be passed onto the customer. You didn’t answer the question I asked about retailers who sold both online and in store.. Your last point is a very interesting question and one which I have often thought about. If for example you shopped at Tescos and orders your groceries on line you could potentially end up paying more for your food. Or you could end up in the situation where retailers could only use their sites for marketing purposes, but people would have to come into the store to make payment in order to avoid a transaction tax. " That’s exactly the point I’m making. It’s not as simple as it sounds. In addition, if I bought something from Amazon for £10, would I pay the same tax if I bought a £10K holiday from TUI? It is a single transaction in each instance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The article below shows that Amazon probably pay more than their fair share of tax . There is a lot more to taxation than just Corporation Tax . Our tax contributions in the UK As we continue to hire and grow in the UK, we help fund public services and infrastructure throughout the country. We do this through the taxes that are collected by the Exchequer as a consequence of our activities in the UK. Those taxes fall into two categories: • Directly incurred taxes: the taxes that are directly incurred and payable by Amazon, including Employer National Insurance, business rates, Corporation Tax, import duties, and Stamp Duty Land Tax; and • Indirect taxes collected: the taxes we collect and remit from our customers, employees, and other third parties because of our business activities in the UK. These include VAT and the taxes paid by our employees through PAYE. It’s important to understand both of those categories, because focusing narrowly on one aspect of taxation, such as Corporation Tax – which according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies accounts for only around 6% of total taxes collected from UK businesses and individual taxpayers – doesn’t tell the whole story. This is one of the reasons why PwC produces a total tax contribution study for The 100 Group (an organisation which represents the Finance Directors of the UK’s largest companies, including many FTSE 100 firms). The study highlights that, of the receipts paid over by these companies to the UK Government, over two thirds are indirect taxes (such as payroll taxes and VAT), while around one third are directly incurred taxes. This is particularly relevant for growing businesses like Amazon which have a high volume of sales, but where operating profits remain relatively low due to price pressure in competitive markets, intense capital investment programmes, and increasing operating costs (including those from a growing workforce). Most governments —including the UK Government—actively encourage companies to make these investments, and they often use the taxation system to do so. Capital allowances and R&D credits are designed to stimulate the kind of investment necessary to grow the economy and create jobs. On the one hand, these reduce Corporation Tax, but this is more than made up for by the increased tax revenue or lower costs for the Government in other areas. So what has Amazon recorded as its UK investments, directly incurred tax charge and indirect taxes collected for 2018? • In 2018, the total revenues of Amazon’s activities in the UK were £10.89bn ($14.524bn) • We invested more than £625m in our infrastructure • Our total directly incurred taxes were £220m. Employer taxes accounted for the largest proportion of these, followed by business rates, Corporation Tax, then other taxes such as Stamp Duty Land Tax • The indirect taxes we collected were an additional £573m as a result of our business activities in the UK • Our total tax contribution (combining direct and indirect) was therefore £793m In addition, we also assist third-party sellers with the collection and payment of VAT in the UK. To put this in a global context, sales by our selling partners — who are mostly small and medium-sized businesses – in Amazon stores worldwide accounted for 58% of Amazon’s total global physical gross merchandise sales in 2018. In the UK, we estimate that the Government has collected more than £1bn in VAT receipts from the proportion of UK sales in Amazon stores that are subject to UK VAT. We haven’t included those numbers in our indirect tax figure above since these are taxes paid by third parties to HMRC. Amazon was the first signatory to the government’s voluntary cooperation agreement to drive HMRC collection of these taxes owed, and we’ve also introduced low-cost and simple tools for third-party sellers to register, report, and remit VAT. Our contribution to UK exports, innovation and business growth In addition to our direct investment, job creation and tax contributions, our business provides opportunities for thousands of small business owners across the UK, in both rural and urban locations, to become global sellers through the training, tools and services we invent for entrepreneurs. There are now tens of thousands of UK-based small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who sell their products in Amazon’s UK store and also now reach national and international customers. They achieved total export sales of more than £2bn in 2018. Many of these businesses are based outside of London and other large UK cities. The largest proportion of our UK-based selling partners by volume of sales (44%), are sellers located in the North of England and the Midlands. Many are in rural or semi-urban locations. Amazon Web Services is also helping UK business growth. We now have more than 100,000 UK customers using AWS cloud technologies to manage their workloads, innovate, and grow their businesses. Public sector and government departments frequently say they have seen a 40% to 60% cost saving when they use AWS, and many UK enterprise businesses and FTSE 100 listed companies say they get greater reliability with AWS, which is why they rely on our technology for their mission-critical applications. Many UK start-ups and SMEs also run their businesses on AWS, often saying it saves them money and simplifies processes. They are able to pay for what they use and don’t need to buy their own server hardware. Many more people are taking advantage of our training and certification programs, as well as other upskilling initiatives such as AWS Academy, AWS Educate, AWS Get IT and AWS re/start. AWS re/start trains people with no previous technical knowledge to get a job in the IT industry, working with AWS, one of our customers or AWS Partner Network Partners. The UK is a hotbed of talent and opportunity, and we’re pleased to play a role in nourishing that and supporting growth. Twenty years since our UK launch, we continue to be excited by the potential to continue to invest, invent, and create jobs and income in communities across the country. As did the Companies have disappeared because of Amazon - but they ALSO paid CT when they were profitable. No-one is arguing that Amazon isn’t a global success story. The issue is that U.K. tax codes need to recognise the changing times because it can’t only be workers paying tax. All online retailers who are VAT registered should be paying an additional transaction tax alongside their VAT returns. If you are happy that literally £billions in potential tax revenues are being lost because of an archaic tax code, then you cannot have any National conscience whatsoever. The big picture moving forward post-Covid and post-Brexit is going to be about balancing the books as the nation struggles with reduced tax revenues from reduced economic activity. It will need a progressive and imaginative approach to resolve the problem. You do realise that tax codes relate to PAYE and not Corporation Tax? Do you mean tax rates? If so, what is the ‘archaic’ rate to which you refer? You still seem to think that Amazon don’t pay Corporation Tax, they do as I posted yesterday. It’s very simple to look it up on the Companies House website. As for an additional transaction tax to be levied against online retailers, the probability would be that any such tax would be passed down the line to the end user, ie the customer. Would your transaction tax be levied to on all online sales, including those retailers that traded both online and by traditional bricks and mortar? You posted a figure that Amazon paid CT at a rate equivalent of 0.05% of turnover. Don’t you see that this is a massive loss of potential tax revenue? An online transaction tax is common sense, it would be based on quarterly turnover and paid retrospectively like VAT. If the consumer pays a bit more because they are also saving a bit by buying online - so be it. Tax collection methods have to change. It is obvious that this has to happen. You haven’t explained what you mean by archaic tax code. I thought you were a business owner and therefore would have some knowledge as to how Corporation Tax works. Turnover ( alone) has no bearing on the rate paid. Retailers would not accept the loss of margin, it would be passed onto the customer. You didn’t answer the question I asked about retailers who sold both online and in store. This is the problem with social media, it is not about debate anymore m, point scoring seems to be what it is all about. The U.K. tax codes with regards to both personal and Corporate taxation do not reflect the way that world is currently functioning. I cannot be any clearer than that. I also said very clearly in an earlier thread that I know that CT is related to taxable profit, but I also know from years of experience that HMRC absolutely know how much CT should be coming from a given turnover according to the business category. This is EXACTLY how historically can offices, pubs and restaurants would get raided, because HMRC have comii on arable data. I actually don’t even know why you are arguing other than to prove a point. Tax has to change when the world around us changes. That surely must be obvious??? It’s not about point scoring whatsoever. You are making claims and I’m asking you to substantiate those claims. Once again, you mention Corporation Tax code. Please explain what Corporation Tax code is. Also the paragraph re HMRC knowing how much CT should be coming from businesses purely down to turnover is nonsense. HMRC will know the approximate GP percentage that a company operating in a particular sector is likely to make. That ratio will undoubtedly be looked at but that is not what determines either income or corporation tax. Those taxes are determined by the adjusted NET profit, and then allowing for capital allowances, deferred tax, timing differences etc etc. So just by looking at the Turnover, there is no way in which anyone, including HMRC can compute IT or CT. Tax may indeed have to change but I’m asking you to explain how the system you claim will have to be introduced will work in practice and you still have not answered that!" You are asking me to substantiate a claim that tax collection methods have to change? Is it not obvious? HMRC is losing potential revenue because the current methods of assessing and collecting taxes do not reflect the current world of commerce. I have no idea why you are banging on about tax codes other than pedantry. CT as a tax is based on taxable profit and the rate is set periodically by the sitting Chancellor. The method of assessing, collecting and the rating is (a system, a code, a method) call it what you like - it doesn’t change the fact that HMRC have a code that tells them how much tax is due on a given taxable profit. As for collecting an online transaction tax - that is easy. Once the tax rating is assessed (for example say 0.5% of gross sales up to a certain point, 0.75% above another... and so on) then the quarterly VAT return can be amended to illustrate the tax required to be paid at the end of every quarter. Could this tax be transferred on to the consumer? Yes quite possibly it could but then it is the consumers choice to buy on line or get in the car/bus/train and visit a store instead - or not buy at all. I hope that is clearer?? Perhaps now, you can comment on how you think the Govt is going to increase is tax revenues in the post-Covid, post-Brexit world with an underperforming economy? It can’t all be down to personal taxation - there have to be ways of collecting tax from the Companies who use the infrastructures and demographic make up of this country to earn colossal amounts of money, but who are also able to play the system for their own financial gain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The article below shows that Amazon probably pay more than their fair share of tax . There is a lot more to taxation than just Corporation Tax . Our tax contributions in the UK As we continue to hire and grow in the UK, we help fund public services and infrastructure throughout the country. We do this through the taxes that are collected by the Exchequer as a consequence of our activities in the UK. Those taxes fall into two categories: • Directly incurred taxes: the taxes that are directly incurred and payable by Amazon, including Employer National Insurance, business rates, Corporation Tax, import duties, and Stamp Duty Land Tax; and • Indirect taxes collected: the taxes we collect and remit from our customers, employees, and other third parties because of our business activities in the UK. These include VAT and the taxes paid by our employees through PAYE. It’s important to understand both of those categories, because focusing narrowly on one aspect of taxation, such as Corporation Tax – which according to the Institute of Fiscal Studies accounts for only around 6% of total taxes collected from UK businesses and individual taxpayers – doesn’t tell the whole story. This is one of the reasons why PwC produces a total tax contribution study for The 100 Group (an organisation which represents the Finance Directors of the UK’s largest companies, including many FTSE 100 firms). The study highlights that, of the receipts paid over by these companies to the UK Government, over two thirds are indirect taxes (such as payroll taxes and VAT), while around one third are directly incurred taxes. This is particularly relevant for growing businesses like Amazon which have a high volume of sales, but where operating profits remain relatively low due to price pressure in competitive markets, intense capital investment programmes, and increasing operating costs (including those from a growing workforce). Most governments —including the UK Government—actively encourage companies to make these investments, and they often use the taxation system to do so. Capital allowances and R&D credits are designed to stimulate the kind of investment necessary to grow the economy and create jobs. On the one hand, these reduce Corporation Tax, but this is more than made up for by the increased tax revenue or lower costs for the Government in other areas. So what has Amazon recorded as its UK investments, directly incurred tax charge and indirect taxes collected for 2018? • In 2018, the total revenues of Amazon’s activities in the UK were £10.89bn ($14.524bn) • We invested more than £625m in our infrastructure • Our total directly incurred taxes were £220m. Employer taxes accounted for the largest proportion of these, followed by business rates, Corporation Tax, then other taxes such as Stamp Duty Land Tax • The indirect taxes we collected were an additional £573m as a result of our business activities in the UK • Our total tax contribution (combining direct and indirect) was therefore £793m In addition, we also assist third-party sellers with the collection and payment of VAT in the UK. To put this in a global context, sales by our selling partners — who are mostly small and medium-sized businesses – in Amazon stores worldwide accounted for 58% of Amazon’s total global physical gross merchandise sales in 2018. In the UK, we estimate that the Government has collected more than £1bn in VAT receipts from the proportion of UK sales in Amazon stores that are subject to UK VAT. We haven’t included those numbers in our indirect tax figure above since these are taxes paid by third parties to HMRC. Amazon was the first signatory to the government’s voluntary cooperation agreement to drive HMRC collection of these taxes owed, and we’ve also introduced low-cost and simple tools for third-party sellers to register, report, and remit VAT. Our contribution to UK exports, innovation and business growth In addition to our direct investment, job creation and tax contributions, our business provides opportunities for thousands of small business owners across the UK, in both rural and urban locations, to become global sellers through the training, tools and services we invent for entrepreneurs. There are now tens of thousands of UK-based small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) who sell their products in Amazon’s UK store and also now reach national and international customers. They achieved total export sales of more than £2bn in 2018. Many of these businesses are based outside of London and other large UK cities. The largest proportion of our UK-based selling partners by volume of sales (44%), are sellers located in the North of England and the Midlands. Many are in rural or semi-urban locations. Amazon Web Services is also helping UK business growth. We now have more than 100,000 UK customers using AWS cloud technologies to manage their workloads, innovate, and grow their businesses. Public sector and government departments frequently say they have seen a 40% to 60% cost saving when they use AWS, and many UK enterprise businesses and FTSE 100 listed companies say they get greater reliability with AWS, which is why they rely on our technology for their mission-critical applications. Many UK start-ups and SMEs also run their businesses on AWS, often saying it saves them money and simplifies processes. They are able to pay for what they use and don’t need to buy their own server hardware. Many more people are taking advantage of our training and certification programs, as well as other upskilling initiatives such as AWS Academy, AWS Educate, AWS Get IT and AWS re/start. AWS re/start trains people with no previous technical knowledge to get a job in the IT industry, working with AWS, one of our customers or AWS Partner Network Partners. The UK is a hotbed of talent and opportunity, and we’re pleased to play a role in nourishing that and supporting growth. Twenty years since our UK launch, we continue to be excited by the potential to continue to invest, invent, and create jobs and income in communities across the country. As did the Companies have disappeared because of Amazon - but they ALSO paid CT when they were profitable. No-one is arguing that Amazon isn’t a global success story. The issue is that U.K. tax codes need to recognise the changing times because it can’t only be workers paying tax. All online retailers who are VAT registered should be paying an additional transaction tax alongside their VAT returns. If you are happy that literally £billions in potential tax revenues are being lost because of an archaic tax code, then you cannot have any National conscience whatsoever. The big picture moving forward post-Covid and post-Brexit is going to be about balancing the books as the nation struggles with reduced tax revenues from reduced economic activity. It will need a progressive and imaginative approach to resolve the problem. You do realise that tax codes relate to PAYE and not Corporation Tax? Do you mean tax rates? If so, what is the ‘archaic’ rate to which you refer? You still seem to think that Amazon don’t pay Corporation Tax, they do as I posted yesterday. It’s very simple to look it up on the Companies House website. As for an additional transaction tax to be levied against online retailers, the probability would be that any such tax would be passed down the line to the end user, ie the customer. Would your transaction tax be levied to on all online sales, including those retailers that traded both online and by traditional bricks and mortar? You posted a figure that Amazon paid CT at a rate equivalent of 0.05% of turnover. Don’t you see that this is a massive loss of potential tax revenue? An online transaction tax is common sense, it would be based on quarterly turnover and paid retrospectively like VAT. If the consumer pays a bit more because they are also saving a bit by buying online - so be it. Tax collection methods have to change. It is obvious that this has to happen. You haven’t explained what you mean by archaic tax code. I thought you were a business owner and therefore would have some knowledge as to how Corporation Tax works. Turnover ( alone) has no bearing on the rate paid. Retailers would not accept the loss of margin, it would be passed onto the customer. You didn’t answer the question I asked about retailers who sold both online and in store. This is the problem with social media, it is not about debate anymore m, point scoring seems to be what it is all about. The U.K. tax codes with regards to both personal and Corporate taxation do not reflect the way that world is currently functioning. I cannot be any clearer than that. I also said very clearly in an earlier thread that I know that CT is related to taxable profit, but I also know from years of experience that HMRC absolutely know how much CT should be coming from a given turnover according to the business category. This is EXACTLY how historically can offices, pubs and restaurants would get raided, because HMRC have comii on arable data. I actually don’t even know why you are arguing other than to prove a point. Tax has to change when the world around us changes. That surely must be obvious??? It’s not about point scoring whatsoever. You are making claims and I’m asking you to substantiate those claims. Once again, you mention Corporation Tax code. Please explain what Corporation Tax code is. Also the paragraph re HMRC knowing how much CT should be coming from businesses purely down to turnover is nonsense. HMRC will know the approximate GP percentage that a company operating in a particular sector is likely to make. That ratio will undoubtedly be looked at but that is not what determines either income or corporation tax. Those taxes are determined by the adjusted NET profit, and then allowing for capital allowances, deferred tax, timing differences etc etc. So just by looking at the Turnover, there is no way in which anyone, including HMRC can compute IT or CT. Tax may indeed have to change but I’m asking you to explain how the system you claim will have to be introduced will work in practice and you still have not answered that! You are asking me to substantiate a claim that tax collection methods have to change? Is it not obvious? HMRC is losing potential revenue because the current methods of assessing and collecting taxes do not reflect the current world of commerce. I have no idea why you are banging on about tax codes other than pedantry. CT as a tax is based on taxable profit and the rate is set periodically by the sitting Chancellor. The method of assessing, collecting and the rating is (a system, a code, a method) call it what you like - it doesn’t change the fact that HMRC have a code that tells them how much tax is due on a given taxable profit. As for collecting an online transaction tax - that is easy. Once the tax rating is assessed (for example say 0.5% of gross sales up to a certain point, 0.75% above another... and so on) then the quarterly VAT return can be amended to illustrate the tax required to be paid at the end of every quarter. Could this tax be transferred on to the consumer? Yes quite possibly it could but then it is the consumers choice to buy on line or get in the car/bus/train and visit a store instead - or not buy at all. I hope that is clearer?? Perhaps now, you can comment on how you think the Govt is going to increase is tax revenues in the post-Covid, post-Brexit world with an underperforming economy? It can’t all be down to personal taxation - there have to be ways of collecting tax from the Companies who use the infrastructures and demographic make up of this country to earn colossal amounts of money, but who are also able to play the system for their own financial gain." You were the one who was ‘banging on’ about Corporation Tax code in the first instance. I’ve merely asked you to explain what you meant. Isn’t that debate? So the tax you are proposing is NOT a transaction tax, which is what you said in the first instance but an additional tax on TURNOVER. This is why I have been asking for clarification. You do understand the difference? So, just to be crystal clear, you are proposing the online tax should be applicable to ALL online retailers, including those who also have physical outlets? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"HMRC can asses what’s company’s profits should be based on their turnover as they have information on each industry group to refer to. Tax should be paid on profits in the country of origin and the allowance to offset tax should be changed to stop a company earning £14 billion only paying £6-15 m in CT. The taxes they claim to pay are probably PAYE NI, council tax and VAT which they have collected for HMRC. So in these figures the tax is mostly paid by employees and customers NOT AMAZON. It’s perfectly legal but totally wrong and stupid of our government to let it happen. " Another thing that needs sorting, is the "sweetheart" deals that some large corporations do with HMRC. Basically coming to a cozy arrangement on how much tax they are going to pay. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"there are plenty of people running small companies and paying hardly any tax, coz they needed a new company range rover to drive to meetings in, even if they are a plumber! and the business hotel weekend away and the guard dog! lol I agree big companies should pay more but they can relocate and take all those tax paying warehouse workers to germany? Are they paying tax via the wages bill? sort of? Dont think there is a simple answer.. if you have it tell the chancellor! Sales in the U.K. should attract tax in the U.K. now customs due to Brexit makes importing more expensive so they won’t move away i know british airways pilots who flew london to hongkong were being employed out of the hongkong office not london office.... yeah shitty trick.. i agree with you but above is just an example of creative thinking regards dodging tax... like the guy who flew out of country in private jet and back again every night! The public could play a part in this, big companies who dont play fair... boycott them! Will the public do that? or buy cheap?" https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-08-06-taxwatch-activision-blizzard-has-dodged-taxes-on-billions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"HMRC can asses what’s company’s profits should be based on their turnover as they have information on each industry group to refer to. Tax should be paid on profits in the country of origin and the allowance to offset tax should be changed to stop a company earning £14 billion only paying £6-15 m in CT. The taxes they claim to pay are probably PAYE NI, council tax and VAT which they have collected for HMRC. So in these figures the tax is mostly paid by employees and customers NOT AMAZON. It’s perfectly legal but totally wrong and stupid of our government to let it happen. " No, once again you are wrong! HMRC can assess what a company’s GROSS PROFIT should be from its turnover in a lot of instances as specific sectors will work on margins within set parameters. However there will be many companies that will not fit nicely into these parameters and HMRC will have no idea as to what a company’s overheads will be as these will differ widely from sector to sector and indeed company to company. Corporation Tax is paid on the adjusted NET PROFIT and then after taking into account capital allowances, deferred tax etc etc. To say it’s stupid of our government shows that in reality you have no idea as to how this country’s. ( and most other countries) tax systems work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"HMRC can asses what’s company’s profits should be based on their turnover as they have information on each industry group to refer to. Tax should be paid on profits in the country of origin and the allowance to offset tax should be changed to stop a company earning £14 billion only paying £6-15 m in CT. The taxes they claim to pay are probably PAYE NI, council tax and VAT which they have collected for HMRC. So in these figures the tax is mostly paid by employees and customers NOT AMAZON. It’s perfectly legal but totally wrong and stupid of our government to let it happen. No, once again you are wrong! HMRC can assess what a company’s GROSS PROFIT should be from its turnover in a lot of instances as specific sectors will work on margins within set parameters. However there will be many companies that will not fit nicely into these parameters and HMRC will have no idea as to what a company’s overheads will be as these will differ widely from sector to sector and indeed company to company. Corporation Tax is paid on the adjusted NET PROFIT and then after taking into account capital allowances, deferred tax etc etc. To say it’s stupid of our government shows that in reality you have no idea as to how this country’s. ( and most other countries) tax systems work. " You’re very rude !! And no I’m not wrong and definitely not again. You agree HMRC. An calculate what a company should be earning . Yes variables can be thrown in but the industry sectors have repetitive profit ratios. I know how HMRC works I know how tax is calculated and paid. For your information I have multiple country locations with the business I own and employ a lot of people. I know very well how the tax system works along with other country’s individual arrangements As a result also know many of the avoidance schemes that can be used to benefit both companies and individuals. Mrs Thatcher’s government introduced some of the best “investment” schemes. So quite simply wind your neck in and stop being so obnoxious in your messages. I’m here to chat and don’t need a lecture lecture from you thanks very much. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"HMRC can asses what’s company’s profits should be based on their turnover as they have information on each industry group to refer to. Tax should be paid on profits in the country of origin and the allowance to offset tax should be changed to stop a company earning £14 billion only paying £6-15 m in CT. The taxes they claim to pay are probably PAYE NI, council tax and VAT which they have collected for HMRC. So in these figures the tax is mostly paid by employees and customers NOT AMAZON. It’s perfectly legal but totally wrong and stupid of our government to let it happen. No, once again you are wrong! HMRC can assess what a company’s GROSS PROFIT should be from its turnover in a lot of instances as specific sectors will work on margins within set parameters. However there will be many companies that will not fit nicely into these parameters and HMRC will have no idea as to what a company’s overheads will be as these will differ widely from sector to sector and indeed company to company. Corporation Tax is paid on the adjusted NET PROFIT and then after taking into account capital allowances, deferred tax etc etc. To say it’s stupid of our government shows that in reality you have no idea as to how this country’s. ( and most other countries) tax systems work. You’re very rude !! And no I’m not wrong and definitely not again. You agree HMRC. An calculate what a company should be earning . Yes variables can be thrown in but the industry sectors have repetitive profit ratios. I know how HMRC works I know how tax is calculated and paid. For your information I have multiple country locations with the business I own and employ a lot of people. I know very well how the tax system works along with other country’s individual arrangements As a result also know many of the avoidance schemes that can be used to benefit both companies and individuals. Mrs Thatcher’s government introduced some of the best “investment” schemes. So quite simply wind your neck in and stop being so obnoxious in your messages. I’m here to chat and don’t need a lecture lecture from you thanks very much. " I’m rude for highlighting what you’re posting is incorrect? I agree that HMRC will have an idea of what certain sectors gross profit percentages should be but not the NET PROFIT that is the base line that is used to calculate tax. If you are a business owner as you claim to be then your ignorance of the corporate tax system is staggering. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Look up Amazon’s free cash and then say they aren’t avoiding tax. They are of course entitled to but we are letting them and similar companies avoid contributions to HMRC as they chose to spend their money on themselves. " By spending money on themselves you mean investment? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It does not look like the idea of an internet sales tax is that feasible ( see summary from I.E.A . website below ) Nonetheless, the thinking behind the current proposals still seems fundamentally flawed. For a start, it is plain wrong to assume that online retailers are making unreasonable profits, even during the pandemic. It has been suggested that the lockdown has granted them an effective monopoly, but online firms still have to compete with each other and many more physical shops now have an online presence too. What’s more, there is little evidence that online firms are making ‘monopoly profits’. Most are still operating on thin margins, or even at a loss, partly due to higher costs during the pandemic. Amazon and Ocado are good examples. One of the laziest things you can do is compare the value of sales that take place on Amazon’s site with the relatively small amount that the company itself has paid in corporation tax, and then conclude that the firm must be paying less than its fair share. This misunderstands both the company’s business model and how corporation tax actually works (it is of course paid on profits, not turnover). Amazon does sell some products on its own behalf (on which, by the way, the DST is not payable, because this is Amazon acting as a retailer rather than an online marketplace). But it operates mainly as a platform for other businesses, which are therefore the ones making the bulk of any profits (and paying the DST). Amazon’s own margins (globally, not just those booked in the UK) are low, ranging between 0% and 4% historically and perhaps still only 5% or so last year. In addition, Amazon, like other digital companies, has presumably reduced its corporate tax bill by legitimate use of government incentives, such as investment and R&D allowances. The story for Ocado is similar. Despite a surge in sales, the company has just reported a pre-tax loss of £44m in the 52 weeks to November. This was at least an improvement on the £215m loss in the previous year. But it shows that being a thriving internet business is no guarantee of decent profits – or any profits at all. Contrast this with the toxic language being used by some advocates of an online sales tax. Companies that increased sales during the crisis are often described as ‘cashing in’, even though they are simply responding to consumer demand, are facing much higher costs, and have had to invest heavily. Would we rather that they didn’t bother? The idea that the new taxes would only hit ‘online giants’ is nonsense, too. It can’t be stressed often enough that companies are only legal entities and cannot bear the economic burden of tax increases themselves. Instead, all taxes are ultimately paid by real people. This will include shareholders, very few of whom will be as rich as Jeff Bezos. But the burden will also land on employees, in the form of lower wages, and above all on consumers, as higher prices. Of course, the government might argue that people should pay more to shop online, in order to redirect business back to the High Street. Indeed, the Sunday Times reported a ‘close ally’ of the Chancellor as saying that ‘he does accept that the way we tax online sales at the moment is killing the high street and something needs to be done on it’. This argument is very weak. At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, the main reason why the High Street is struggling at the moment is that most non-essential shops can’t open because of the pandemic. For many, selling online is actually a lifeline. Even once the Covid restrictions are lifted, an additional tax on online shopping could only be justified if there is some wider public interest in subsidising High Street retail, or some hard evidence that digital companies are currently under-taxed in some systematic way. I’ve yet to see any. In reality, there are many good reasons why people might continue to prefer to shop online, including greater choice and convenience. Price is obviously a factor as well, but lower prices are generally considered to be a ‘good thing’. There are also sound economic reasons why digital businesses might have lower costs and pay lower taxes, including business rates; for example, they may be able to operate from more efficient out-of-town warehouses, rather than occupy prime city-centre properties. One of the daftest ideas I’ve read is therefore that high street firms which also sell online (i.e. most of them) will be allowed to offset their business rates against the online sales tax. This would further complicate the tax system, reduce any increase in overall revenues, and distort the playing field in favour of businesses who operate from more expensive properties. Why would we want to do this? (If the problem lies with business rates, then the playing field should be levelled by reforming business rates, rather than attempt to correct one bad tax by introducing another.) The argument that we need to protect jobs on the High Street doesn’t stack up either. The purpose of economic policy shouldn’t be to employ people in particular types of activity. But as it happens, digital businesses employ people too. It makes no more sense to argue that consumers should pay extra to shop online than it does to say that people should be encouraged to waste hours commuting to work in order to buy an over-priced sandwich for lunch. Nor is it good enough to point to polling evidence that an online sales tax would be popular, or that it’s backed by some High Street retailers (who have an obvious vested interest), or that people think online retailers don’t pay their fair share of tax. Responsible politicians (and serious journalists) should try to correct any misconceptions, rather than encourage them. I wonder how the polling would look if it were first explained that an online sales tax would mean higher prices, including for food and clothing (which are largely exempt from VAT), or that many of the ‘online giants’ are actually losing money. I’m also not sure that an online sales tax would raise much more money than the DST. Some have suggested a starting figure of 1% which, even if applied to most online retail sales, might not raise much more than £1 billion a year, compared to the £31 billion from business rates and £134 billion from VAT (in 2019-20). (Total retail sales, excluding fuel, are about £400 billion a year, of which around 25% might remain online after Covid.) That’s a lot of hassle for not a lot of revenue, and a 1% tax probably won’t be large enough to change consumer behavior anyway. The idea of an ‘excess profits tax’ is at least as bad. Companies that have made more profits during the pandemic will already pay more in tax. Charging an arbitrary and retrospective windfall tax on top would send a terrible signal to anyone thinking of growing a business in the UK. The good news is that neither an online sales tax nor an ‘excess profits tax’ are likely to be ready in time for the next Budget on 3rd March. The Treasury and Downing Street Policy Unit still seem determined to work on these ideas as options for the future. But hopefully it should soon become clear that a strong economic recovery will remove the need for tax rises of any kind – let alone new taxes targeting one part of the economy that has served us relatively well. In summary, a new online sales tax could help to fill the hole in the public finances in a relatively fair and efficient way. However, there is no obvious public interest in taxing online spending more than spending on the High Street. There is also little evidence that the ‘online giants’ are making unreasonable profits, or that digital businesses are systematically under-taxed. To cap it all, an online sales tax may not even raise a large amount of money. First published on 9th February 2021 " Very interesting article which unfortunately will go over the heads of some on here! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Look up Amazon’s free cash and then say they aren’t avoiding tax. They are of course entitled to but we are letting them and similar companies avoid contributions to HMRC as they chose to spend their money on themselves. " If we use your terminology ( spending money on themselves ) the money that they are spending is creating work both directly ( for additional employees ) and indirectly for other businesses such as packaging and construction companies . Amazon are also regarded as a good company to work for ( assuming you are a grafter ) . The perks are good and include a very tax effective share incentive scheme . I cannot see many Amazon employees complaining about a rising share price . Every single resident in the uk can benefit from the success of Amazon . They supply goods at highly competitive prices and yet some people are proposing to criticise them for success . I regard the £292 million taxes either paid or deferred as a more than fair contribution to the UK economy . Every single company in the UK can claim exactly the same tax breaks as those claimed by Amazon | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"HMRC can asses what’s company’s profits should be based on their turnover as they have information on each industry group to refer to. Tax should be paid on profits in the country of origin and the allowance to offset tax should be changed to stop a company earning £14 billion only paying £6-15 m in CT. The taxes they claim to pay are probably PAYE NI, council tax and VAT which they have collected for HMRC. So in these figures the tax is mostly paid by employees and customers NOT AMAZON. It’s perfectly legal but totally wrong and stupid of our government to let it happen. No, once again you are wrong! HMRC can assess what a company’s GROSS PROFIT should be from its turnover in a lot of instances as specific sectors will work on margins within set parameters. However there will be many companies that will not fit nicely into these parameters and HMRC will have no idea as to what a company’s overheads will be as these will differ widely from sector to sector and indeed company to company. Corporation Tax is paid on the adjusted NET PROFIT and then after taking into account capital allowances, deferred tax etc etc. To say it’s stupid of our government shows that in reality you have no idea as to how this country’s. ( and most other countries) tax systems work. You’re very rude !! And no I’m not wrong and definitely not again. You agree HMRC. An calculate what a company should be earning . Yes variables can be thrown in but the industry sectors have repetitive profit ratios. I know how HMRC works I know how tax is calculated and paid. For your information I have multiple country locations with the business I own and employ a lot of people. I know very well how the tax system works along with other country’s individual arrangements As a result also know many of the avoidance schemes that can be used to benefit both companies and individuals. Mrs Thatcher’s government introduced some of the best “investment” schemes. So quite simply wind your neck in and stop being so obnoxious in your messages. I’m here to chat and don’t need a lecture lecture from you thanks very much. I’m rude for highlighting what you’re posting is incorrect? I agree that HMRC will have an idea of what certain sectors gross profit percentages should be but not the NET PROFIT that is the base line that is used to calculate tax. If you are a business owner as you claim to be then your ignorance of the corporate tax system is staggering. " Again with the insults, this time I’m ignorant . You are a real pleasant guy aren’t you. Been in business for over 30 years so i suspect I do have a clue how it works. Industry sectors by their nature compete in the same markets and it doesn’t take a genius to interrogate publicly available accounts Can you read a set of accounts ?? It’s why there is so much discussion over avoidance as it’s obvious how the system is being legally played to avoid responsibility. Like I said read about the free cash Amazon has. Yes the government I insulted but they aren’t really stupid as they have cosy arrangements with many of these companies. Boris was on the JCB payroll for a number of years. These companies are however short changing every hard working U.K. resident paying full due tax. Denmark for many years have had special tax rates for large shipping companies which is why all the majors have serious financial representation in Copenhagen. Ireland supports Amazon’s avoidance allowing funds to be transferred to a lower tax regime. We let Amazon move those funds from the U.K. tax regime. How many hospitals and nurses or social services staff would that lost revenue cover? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"HMRC can asses what’s company’s profits should be based on their turnover as they have information on each industry group to refer to. Tax should be paid on profits in the country of origin and the allowance to offset tax should be changed to stop a company earning £14 billion only paying £6-15 m in CT. The taxes they claim to pay are probably PAYE NI, council tax and VAT which they have collected for HMRC. So in these figures the tax is mostly paid by employees and customers NOT AMAZON. It’s perfectly legal but totally wrong and stupid of our government to let it happen. No, once again you are wrong! HMRC can assess what a company’s GROSS PROFIT should be from its turnover in a lot of instances as specific sectors will work on margins within set parameters. However there will be many companies that will not fit nicely into these parameters and HMRC will have no idea as to what a company’s overheads will be as these will differ widely from sector to sector and indeed company to company. Corporation Tax is paid on the adjusted NET PROFIT and then after taking into account capital allowances, deferred tax etc etc. To say it’s stupid of our government shows that in reality you have no idea as to how this country’s. ( and most other countries) tax systems work. You’re very rude !! And no I’m not wrong and definitely not again. You agree HMRC. An calculate what a company should be earning . Yes variables can be thrown in but the industry sectors have repetitive profit ratios. I know how HMRC works I know how tax is calculated and paid. For your information I have multiple country locations with the business I own and employ a lot of people. I know very well how the tax system works along with other country’s individual arrangements As a result also know many of the avoidance schemes that can be used to benefit both companies and individuals. Mrs Thatcher’s government introduced some of the best “investment” schemes. So quite simply wind your neck in and stop being so obnoxious in your messages. I’m here to chat and don’t need a lecture lecture from you thanks very much. I’m rude for highlighting what you’re posting is incorrect? I agree that HMRC will have an idea of what certain sectors gross profit percentages should be but not the NET PROFIT that is the base line that is used to calculate tax. If you are a business owner as you claim to be then your ignorance of the corporate tax system is staggering. Again with the insults, this time I’m ignorant . You are a real pleasant guy aren’t you. Been in business for over 30 years so i suspect I do have a clue how it works. Industry sectors by their nature compete in the same markets and it doesn’t take a genius to interrogate publicly available accounts Can you read a set of accounts ?? It’s why there is so much discussion over avoidance as it’s obvious how the system is being legally played to avoid responsibility. Like I said read about the free cash Amazon has. Yes the government I insulted but they aren’t really stupid as they have cosy arrangements with many of these companies. Boris was on the JCB payroll for a number of years. These companies are however short changing every hard working U.K. resident paying full due tax. Denmark for many years have had special tax rates for large shipping companies which is why all the majors have serious financial representation in Copenhagen. Ireland supports Amazon’s avoidance allowing funds to be transferred to a lower tax regime. We let Amazon move those funds from the U.K. tax regime. How many hospitals and nurses or social services staff would that lost revenue cover? " In answer to your question, yes I can read a set of accounts. I can also prepare them! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Look up Amazon’s free cash and then say they aren’t avoiding tax. They are of course entitled to but we are letting them and similar companies avoid contributions to HMRC as they chose to spend their money on themselves. If we use your terminology ( spending money on themselves ) the money that they are spending is creating work both directly ( for additional employees ) and indirectly for other businesses such as packaging and construction companies . Amazon are also regarded as a good company to work for ( assuming you are a grafter ) . The perks are good and include a very tax effective share incentive scheme . I cannot see many Amazon employees complaining about a rising share price . Every single resident in the uk can benefit from the success of Amazon . They supply goods at highly competitive prices and yet some people are proposing to criticise them for success . I regard the £292 million taxes either paid or deferred as a more than fair contribution to the UK economy . Every single company in the UK can claim exactly the same tax breaks as those claimed by Amazon " Not every company can move money abroad if they don’t have the structure. Try getting that past HMRC if you own a bike shop. Look how much tax al those high street shops used to pay and compare sales turns over with Amazon on an equal amount. HMRC are worse off overall . It’s the future and won’t be stopped and I don’t claim it should be I say they should pay more than they do that’s all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"HMRC can asses what’s company’s profits should be based on their turnover as they have information on each industry group to refer to. Tax should be paid on profits in the country of origin and the allowance to offset tax should be changed to stop a company earning £14 billion only paying £6-15 m in CT. The taxes they claim to pay are probably PAYE NI, council tax and VAT which they have collected for HMRC. So in these figures the tax is mostly paid by employees and customers NOT AMAZON. It’s perfectly legal but totally wrong and stupid of our government to let it happen. No, once again you are wrong! HMRC can assess what a company’s GROSS PROFIT should be from its turnover in a lot of instances as specific sectors will work on margins within set parameters. However there will be many companies that will not fit nicely into these parameters and HMRC will have no idea as to what a company’s overheads will be as these will differ widely from sector to sector and indeed company to company. Corporation Tax is paid on the adjusted NET PROFIT and then after taking into account capital allowances, deferred tax etc etc. To say it’s stupid of our government shows that in reality you have no idea as to how this country’s. ( and most other countries) tax systems work. You’re very rude !! And no I’m not wrong and definitely not again. You agree HMRC. An calculate what a company should be earning . Yes variables can be thrown in but the industry sectors have repetitive profit ratios. I know how HMRC works I know how tax is calculated and paid. For your information I have multiple country locations with the business I own and employ a lot of people. I know very well how the tax system works along with other country’s individual arrangements As a result also know many of the avoidance schemes that can be used to benefit both companies and individuals. Mrs Thatcher’s government introduced some of the best “investment” schemes. So quite simply wind your neck in and stop being so obnoxious in your messages. I’m here to chat and don’t need a lecture lecture from you thanks very much. I’m rude for highlighting what you’re posting is incorrect? I agree that HMRC will have an idea of what certain sectors gross profit percentages should be but not the NET PROFIT that is the base line that is used to calculate tax. If you are a business owner as you claim to be then your ignorance of the corporate tax system is staggering. Again with the insults, this time I’m ignorant . You are a real pleasant guy aren’t you. Been in business for over 30 years so i suspect I do have a clue how it works. Industry sectors by their nature compete in the same markets and it doesn’t take a genius to interrogate publicly available accounts Can you read a set of accounts ?? It’s why there is so much discussion over avoidance as it’s obvious how the system is being legally played to avoid responsibility. Like I said read about the free cash Amazon has. Yes the government I insulted but they aren’t really stupid as they have cosy arrangements with many of these companies. Boris was on the JCB payroll for a number of years. These companies are however short changing every hard working U.K. resident paying full due tax. Denmark for many years have had special tax rates for large shipping companies which is why all the majors have serious financial representation in Copenhagen. Ireland supports Amazon’s avoidance allowing funds to be transferred to a lower tax regime. We let Amazon move those funds from the U.K. tax regime. How many hospitals and nurses or social services staff would that lost revenue cover? In answer to your question, yes I can read a set of accounts. I can also prepare them! " Good you should know therefore how HMRC can use algorithms to asses a company not matching the profile for their industry . You should also see how they are avoiding their tax to such an extent it is laughable . It’s all legal and every company tries to hang on to profits I just think we are too soft with global multi nationals who certainly can afford to pay more. We will regret it in the distant future when these companies are so powerful and control so much of our daily life that they will be telling us what’s the rules will be. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Look up Amazon’s free cash and then say they aren’t avoiding tax. They are of course entitled to but we are letting them and similar companies avoid contributions to HMRC as they chose to spend their money on themselves. If we use your terminology ( spending money on themselves ) the money that they are spending is creating work both directly ( for additional employees ) and indirectly for other businesses such as packaging and construction companies . Amazon are also regarded as a good company to work for ( assuming you are a grafter ) . The perks are good and include a very tax effective share incentive scheme . I cannot see many Amazon employees complaining about a rising share price . Every single resident in the uk can benefit from the success of Amazon . They supply goods at highly competitive prices and yet some people are proposing to criticise them for success . I regard the £292 million taxes either paid or deferred as a more than fair contribution to the UK economy . Every single company in the UK can claim exactly the same tax breaks as those claimed by Amazon Not every company can move money abroad if they don’t have the structure. Try getting that past HMRC if you own a bike shop. Look how much tax al those high street shops used to pay and compare sales turns over with Amazon on an equal amount. HMRC are worse off overall . It’s the future and won’t be stopped and I don’t claim it should be I say they should pay more than they do that’s all. " How are Amazon moving uk generated revenue out of the uk ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Look up Amazon’s free cash and then say they aren’t avoiding tax. They are of course entitled to but we are letting them and similar companies avoid contributions to HMRC as they chose to spend their money on themselves. If we use your terminology ( spending money on themselves ) the money that they are spending is creating work both directly ( for additional employees ) and indirectly for other businesses such as packaging and construction companies . Amazon are also regarded as a good company to work for ( assuming you are a grafter ) . The perks are good and include a very tax effective share incentive scheme . I cannot see many Amazon employees complaining about a rising share price . Every single resident in the uk can benefit from the success of Amazon . They supply goods at highly competitive prices and yet some people are proposing to criticise them for success . I regard the £292 million taxes either paid or deferred as a more than fair contribution to the UK economy . Every single company in the UK can claim exactly the same tax breaks as those claimed by Amazon Not every company can move money abroad if they don’t have the structure. Try getting that past HMRC if you own a bike shop. Look how much tax al those high street shops used to pay and compare sales turns over with Amazon on an equal amount. HMRC are worse off overall . It’s the future and won’t be stopped and I don’t claim it should be I say they should pay more than they do that’s all. How are Amazon moving uk generated revenue out of the uk ?" With ease Amazon , Google etc have given Ireland’s GDP a massive boost by diverting money there so as to pay less tax. The sales were made in other countries. The tax is being paid in Ireland which has a lower corporate rate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"HMRC can asses what’s company’s profits should be based on their turnover as they have information on each industry group to refer to. Tax should be paid on profits in the country of origin and the allowance to offset tax should be changed to stop a company earning £14 billion only paying £6-15 m in CT. The taxes they claim to pay are probably PAYE NI, council tax and VAT which they have collected for HMRC. So in these figures the tax is mostly paid by employees and customers NOT AMAZON. It’s perfectly legal but totally wrong and stupid of our government to let it happen. No, once again you are wrong! HMRC can assess what a company’s GROSS PROFIT should be from its turnover in a lot of instances as specific sectors will work on margins within set parameters. However there will be many companies that will not fit nicely into these parameters and HMRC will have no idea as to what a company’s overheads will be as these will differ widely from sector to sector and indeed company to company. Corporation Tax is paid on the adjusted NET PROFIT and then after taking into account capital allowances, deferred tax etc etc. To say it’s stupid of our government shows that in reality you have no idea as to how this country’s. ( and most other countries) tax systems work. You’re very rude !! And no I’m not wrong and definitely not again. You agree HMRC. An calculate what a company should be earning . Yes variables can be thrown in but the industry sectors have repetitive profit ratios. I know how HMRC works I know how tax is calculated and paid. For your information I have multiple country locations with the business I own and employ a lot of people. I know very well how the tax system works along with other country’s individual arrangements As a result also know many of the avoidance schemes that can be used to benefit both companies and individuals. Mrs Thatcher’s government introduced some of the best “investment” schemes. So quite simply wind your neck in and stop being so obnoxious in your messages. I’m here to chat and don’t need a lecture lecture from you thanks very much. I’m rude for highlighting what you’re posting is incorrect? I agree that HMRC will have an idea of what certain sectors gross profit percentages should be but not the NET PROFIT that is the base line that is used to calculate tax. If you are a business owner as you claim to be then your ignorance of the corporate tax system is staggering. Again with the insults, this time I’m ignorant . You are a real pleasant guy aren’t you. Been in business for over 30 years so i suspect I do have a clue how it works. Industry sectors by their nature compete in the same markets and it doesn’t take a genius to interrogate publicly available accounts Can you read a set of accounts ?? It’s why there is so much discussion over avoidance as it’s obvious how the system is being legally played to avoid responsibility. Like I said read about the free cash Amazon has. Yes the government I insulted but they aren’t really stupid as they have cosy arrangements with many of these companies. Boris was on the JCB payroll for a number of years. These companies are however short changing every hard working U.K. resident paying full due tax. Denmark for many years have had special tax rates for large shipping companies which is why all the majors have serious financial representation in Copenhagen. Ireland supports Amazon’s avoidance allowing funds to be transferred to a lower tax regime. We let Amazon move those funds from the U.K. tax regime. How many hospitals and nurses or social services staff would that lost revenue cover? In answer to your question, yes I can read a set of accounts. I can also prepare them! Good you should know therefore how HMRC can use algorithms to asses a company not matching the profile for their industry . You should also see how they are avoiding their tax to such an extent it is laughable . It’s all legal and every company tries to hang on to profits I just think we are too soft with global multi nationals who certainly can afford to pay more. We will regret it in the distant future when these companies are so powerful and control so much of our daily life that they will be telling us what’s the rules will be. " In addition to reading a set of accounts and preparing a set of accounts, I can also audit them and sign them off, so I know how HMRC work. Probably a damn sight better than you. If it is so obvious to you that Amazon are evading UK tax, ( I’m using the term evading as that is illegal) then I suggest you contact the Chancellor and point out exactly what it is that they are doing that is illegal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Look up Amazon’s free cash and then say they aren’t avoiding tax. They are of course entitled to but we are letting them and similar companies avoid contributions to HMRC as they chose to spend their money on themselves. If we use your terminology ( spending money on themselves ) the money that they are spending is creating work both directly ( for additional employees ) and indirectly for other businesses such as packaging and construction companies . Amazon are also regarded as a good company to work for ( assuming you are a grafter ) . The perks are good and include a very tax effective share incentive scheme . I cannot see many Amazon employees complaining about a rising share price . Every single resident in the uk can benefit from the success of Amazon . They supply goods at highly competitive prices and yet some people are proposing to criticise them for success . I regard the £292 million taxes either paid or deferred as a more than fair contribution to the UK economy . Every single company in the UK can claim exactly the same tax breaks as those claimed by Amazon Not every company can move money abroad if they don’t have the structure. Try getting that past HMRC if you own a bike shop. Look how much tax al those high street shops used to pay and compare sales turns over with Amazon on an equal amount. HMRC are worse off overall . It’s the future and won’t be stopped and I don’t claim it should be I say they should pay more than they do that’s all. How are Amazon moving uk generated revenue out of the uk ? With ease Amazon , Google etc have given Ireland’s GDP a massive boost by diverting money there so as to pay less tax. The sales were made in other countries. The tax is being paid in Ireland which has a lower corporate rate. " Uk sales are recorded in uk Uk purchases are recorded in uk So how are Amazon moving these sales and purchase off their uk books ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Look up Amazon’s free cash and then say they aren’t avoiding tax. They are of course entitled to but we are letting them and similar companies avoid contributions to HMRC as they chose to spend their money on themselves. If we use your terminology ( spending money on themselves ) the money that they are spending is creating work both directly ( for additional employees ) and indirectly for other businesses such as packaging and construction companies . Amazon are also regarded as a good company to work for ( assuming you are a grafter ) . The perks are good and include a very tax effective share incentive scheme . I cannot see many Amazon employees complaining about a rising share price . Every single resident in the uk can benefit from the success of Amazon . They supply goods at highly competitive prices and yet some people are proposing to criticise them for success . I regard the £292 million taxes either paid or deferred as a more than fair contribution to the UK economy . Every single company in the UK can claim exactly the same tax breaks as those claimed by Amazon Not every company can move money abroad if they don’t have the structure. Try getting that past HMRC if you own a bike shop. Look how much tax al those high street shops used to pay and compare sales turns over with Amazon on an equal amount. HMRC are worse off overall . It’s the future and won’t be stopped and I don’t claim it should be I say they should pay more than they do that’s all. How are Amazon moving uk generated revenue out of the uk ? With ease Amazon , Google etc have given Ireland’s GDP a massive boost by diverting money there so as to pay less tax. The sales were made in other countries. The tax is being paid in Ireland which has a lower corporate rate. " . Hello . Could you explain in a little more detail how this could happen . I thought that you would normally report sale and purchases in the county in which the sales and associated costs were made ? . Or are you referring to bona fide re charges such as management fees , royalties and interest charges on working capital . The reason I ask is that I was completely unaware that you could simply move your profits from one country to another in order to reduce your tax liability . I have never come across this before . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"HMRC can asses what’s company’s profits should be based on their turnover as they have information on each industry group to refer to. Tax should be paid on profits in the country of origin and the allowance to offset tax should be changed to stop a company earning £14 billion only paying £6-15 m in CT. The taxes they claim to pay are probably PAYE NI, council tax and VAT which they have collected for HMRC. So in these figures the tax is mostly paid by employees and customers NOT AMAZON. It’s perfectly legal but totally wrong and stupid of our government to let it happen. No, once again you are wrong! HMRC can assess what a company’s GROSS PROFIT should be from its turnover in a lot of instances as specific sectors will work on margins within set parameters. However there will be many companies that will not fit nicely into these parameters and HMRC will have no idea as to what a company’s overheads will be as these will differ widely from sector to sector and indeed company to company. Corporation Tax is paid on the adjusted NET PROFIT and then after taking into account capital allowances, deferred tax etc etc. To say it’s stupid of our government shows that in reality you have no idea as to how this country’s. ( and most other countries) tax systems work. You’re very rude !! And no I’m not wrong and definitely not again. You agree HMRC. An calculate what a company should be earning . Yes variables can be thrown in but the industry sectors have repetitive profit ratios. I know how HMRC works I know how tax is calculated and paid. For your information I have multiple country locations with the business I own and employ a lot of people. I know very well how the tax system works along with other country’s individual arrangements As a result also know many of the avoidance schemes that can be used to benefit both companies and individuals. Mrs Thatcher’s government introduced some of the best “investment” schemes. So quite simply wind your neck in and stop being so obnoxious in your messages. I’m here to chat and don’t need a lecture lecture from you thanks very much. I’m rude for highlighting what you’re posting is incorrect? I agree that HMRC will have an idea of what certain sectors gross profit percentages should be but not the NET PROFIT that is the base line that is used to calculate tax. If you are a business owner as you claim to be then your ignorance of the corporate tax system is staggering. Again with the insults, this time I’m ignorant . You are a real pleasant guy aren’t you. Been in business for over 30 years so i suspect I do have a clue how it works. Industry sectors by their nature compete in the same markets and it doesn’t take a genius to interrogate publicly available accounts Can you read a set of accounts ?? It’s why there is so much discussion over avoidance as it’s obvious how the system is being legally played to avoid responsibility. Like I said read about the free cash Amazon has. Yes the government I insulted but they aren’t really stupid as they have cosy arrangements with many of these companies. Boris was on the JCB payroll for a number of years. These companies are however short changing every hard working U.K. resident paying full due tax. Denmark for many years have had special tax rates for large shipping companies which is why all the majors have serious financial representation in Copenhagen. Ireland supports Amazon’s avoidance allowing funds to be transferred to a lower tax regime. We let Amazon move those funds from the U.K. tax regime. How many hospitals and nurses or social services staff would that lost revenue cover? In answer to your question, yes I can read a set of accounts. I can also prepare them! Good you should know therefore how HMRC can use algorithms to asses a company not matching the profile for their industry . You should also see how they are avoiding their tax to such an extent it is laughable . It’s all legal and every company tries to hang on to profits I just think we are too soft with global multi nationals who certainly can afford to pay more. We will regret it in the distant future when these companies are so powerful and control so much of our daily life that they will be telling us what’s the rules will be. In addition to reading a set of accounts and preparing a set of accounts, I can also audit them and sign them off, so I know how HMRC work. Probably a damn sight better than you. If it is so obvious to you that Amazon are evading UK tax, ( I’m using the term evading as that is illegal) then I suggest you contact the Chancellor and point out exactly what it is that they are doing that is illegal. " Good for you that you can count! Actually I can’t sign off but I have staff who can so excuse me for doing well and employing people of your standard. Im now assuming you are FCA level which I seem to remember the guys in the U.K. are. So apologies if I’m wrong. I’m not claiming anything is illegal !! Have you read anything posted ?? I have always said avoiding not evading. I’m saying its not fair to let such companies keep their money without contributing to the society where they make their money If everyone on PAYE said actually I want to buy a newer more efficient car to get to work so don’t want to pay any tax we would say you have to pay so don’t try to avoid it! It’s not the legality it’s the fairness . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"HMRC can asses what’s company’s profits should be based on their turnover as they have information on each industry group to refer to. Tax should be paid on profits in the country of origin and the allowance to offset tax should be changed to stop a company earning £14 billion only paying £6-15 m in CT. The taxes they claim to pay are probably PAYE NI, council tax and VAT which they have collected for HMRC. So in these figures the tax is mostly paid by employees and customers NOT AMAZON. It’s perfectly legal but totally wrong and stupid of our government to let it happen. No, once again you are wrong! HMRC can assess what a company’s GROSS PROFIT should be from its turnover in a lot of instances as specific sectors will work on margins within set parameters. However there will be many companies that will not fit nicely into these parameters and HMRC will have no idea as to what a company’s overheads will be as these will differ widely from sector to sector and indeed company to company. Corporation Tax is paid on the adjusted NET PROFIT and then after taking into account capital allowances, deferred tax etc etc. To say it’s stupid of our government shows that in reality you have no idea as to how this country’s. ( and most other countries) tax systems work. You’re very rude !! And no I’m not wrong and definitely not again. You agree HMRC. An calculate what a company should be earning . Yes variables can be thrown in but the industry sectors have repetitive profit ratios. I know how HMRC works I know how tax is calculated and paid. For your information I have multiple country locations with the business I own and employ a lot of people. I know very well how the tax system works along with other country’s individual arrangements As a result also know many of the avoidance schemes that can be used to benefit both companies and individuals. Mrs Thatcher’s government introduced some of the best “investment” schemes. So quite simply wind your neck in and stop being so obnoxious in your messages. I’m here to chat and don’t need a lecture lecture from you thanks very much. I’m rude for highlighting what you’re posting is incorrect? I agree that HMRC will have an idea of what certain sectors gross profit percentages should be but not the NET PROFIT that is the base line that is used to calculate tax. If you are a business owner as you claim to be then your ignorance of the corporate tax system is staggering. Again with the insults, this time I’m ignorant . You are a real pleasant guy aren’t you. Been in business for over 30 years so i suspect I do have a clue how it works. Industry sectors by their nature compete in the same markets and it doesn’t take a genius to interrogate publicly available accounts Can you read a set of accounts ?? It’s why there is so much discussion over avoidance as it’s obvious how the system is being legally played to avoid responsibility. Like I said read about the free cash Amazon has. Yes the government I insulted but they aren’t really stupid as they have cosy arrangements with many of these companies. Boris was on the JCB payroll for a number of years. These companies are however short changing every hard working U.K. resident paying full due tax. Denmark for many years have had special tax rates for large shipping companies which is why all the majors have serious financial representation in Copenhagen. Ireland supports Amazon’s avoidance allowing funds to be transferred to a lower tax regime. We let Amazon move those funds from the U.K. tax regime. How many hospitals and nurses or social services staff would that lost revenue cover? In answer to your question, yes I can read a set of accounts. I can also prepare them! Good you should know therefore how HMRC can use algorithms to asses a company not matching the profile for their industry . You should also see how they are avoiding their tax to such an extent it is laughable . It’s all legal and every company tries to hang on to profits I just think we are too soft with global multi nationals who certainly can afford to pay more. We will regret it in the distant future when these companies are so powerful and control so much of our daily life that they will be telling us what’s the rules will be. " . It does not look like we have too much to worry about concerning either JCBs contribution to the economy or the amount of taxation that they are paying According to independent analysis by Oxford Economics, JCB contributes £1.4 billion to GDP, £545 million to the Exchequer and 24,000 jobs to the UK economy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"HMRC can asses what’s company’s profits should be based on their turnover as they have information on each industry group to refer to. Tax should be paid on profits in the country of origin and the allowance to offset tax should be changed to stop a company earning £14 billion only paying £6-15 m in CT. The taxes they claim to pay are probably PAYE NI, council tax and VAT which they have collected for HMRC. So in these figures the tax is mostly paid by employees and customers NOT AMAZON. It’s perfectly legal but totally wrong and stupid of our government to let it happen. No, once again you are wrong! HMRC can assess what a company’s GROSS PROFIT should be from its turnover in a lot of instances as specific sectors will work on margins within set parameters. However there will be many companies that will not fit nicely into these parameters and HMRC will have no idea as to what a company’s overheads will be as these will differ widely from sector to sector and indeed company to company. Corporation Tax is paid on the adjusted NET PROFIT and then after taking into account capital allowances, deferred tax etc etc. To say it’s stupid of our government shows that in reality you have no idea as to how this country’s. ( and most other countries) tax systems work. You’re very rude !! And no I’m not wrong and definitely not again. You agree HMRC. An calculate what a company should be earning . Yes variables can be thrown in but the industry sectors have repetitive profit ratios. I know how HMRC works I know how tax is calculated and paid. For your information I have multiple country locations with the business I own and employ a lot of people. I know very well how the tax system works along with other country’s individual arrangements As a result also know many of the avoidance schemes that can be used to benefit both companies and individuals. Mrs Thatcher’s government introduced some of the best “investment” schemes. So quite simply wind your neck in and stop being so obnoxious in your messages. I’m here to chat and don’t need a lecture lecture from you thanks very much. I’m rude for highlighting what you’re posting is incorrect? I agree that HMRC will have an idea of what certain sectors gross profit percentages should be but not the NET PROFIT that is the base line that is used to calculate tax. If you are a business owner as you claim to be then your ignorance of the corporate tax system is staggering. Again with the insults, this time I’m ignorant . You are a real pleasant guy aren’t you. Been in business for over 30 years so i suspect I do have a clue how it works. Industry sectors by their nature compete in the same markets and it doesn’t take a genius to interrogate publicly available accounts Can you read a set of accounts ?? It’s why there is so much discussion over avoidance as it’s obvious how the system is being legally played to avoid responsibility. Like I said read about the free cash Amazon has. Yes the government I insulted but they aren’t really stupid as they have cosy arrangements with many of these companies. Boris was on the JCB payroll for a number of years. These companies are however short changing every hard working U.K. resident paying full due tax. Denmark for many years have had special tax rates for large shipping companies which is why all the majors have serious financial representation in Copenhagen. Ireland supports Amazon’s avoidance allowing funds to be transferred to a lower tax regime. We let Amazon move those funds from the U.K. tax regime. How many hospitals and nurses or social services staff would that lost revenue cover? In answer to your question, yes I can read a set of accounts. I can also prepare them! Good you should know therefore how HMRC can use algorithms to asses a company not matching the profile for their industry . You should also see how they are avoiding their tax to such an extent it is laughable . It’s all legal and every company tries to hang on to profits I just think we are too soft with global multi nationals who certainly can afford to pay more. We will regret it in the distant future when these companies are so powerful and control so much of our daily life that they will be telling us what’s the rules will be. In addition to reading a set of accounts and preparing a set of accounts, I can also audit them and sign them off, so I know how HMRC work. Probably a damn sight better than you. If it is so obvious to you that Amazon are evading UK tax, ( I’m using the term evading as that is illegal) then I suggest you contact the Chancellor and point out exactly what it is that they are doing that is illegal. Good for you that you can count! Actually I can’t sign off but I have staff who can so excuse me for doing well and employing people of your standard. Im now assuming you are FCA level which I seem to remember the guys in the U.K. are. So apologies if I’m wrong. I’m not claiming anything is illegal !! Have you read anything posted ?? I have always said avoiding not evading. I’m saying its not fair to let such companies keep their money without contributing to the society where they make their money If everyone on PAYE said actually I want to buy a newer more efficient car to get to work so don’t want to pay any tax we would say you have to pay so don’t try to avoid it! It’s not the legality it’s the fairness . " just maybe you should sit and talk with all those FCA’s that you employ. You may actually learn something. You may even learn that your analogy re the employees buying new cars is absurd! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Look up Amazon’s free cash and then say they aren’t avoiding tax. They are of course entitled to but we are letting them and similar companies avoid contributions to HMRC as they chose to spend their money on themselves. If we use your terminology ( spending money on themselves ) the money that they are spending is creating work both directly ( for additional employees ) and indirectly for other businesses such as packaging and construction companies . Amazon are also regarded as a good company to work for ( assuming you are a grafter ) . The perks are good and include a very tax effective share incentive scheme . I cannot see many Amazon employees complaining about a rising share price . Every single resident in the uk can benefit from the success of Amazon . They supply goods at highly competitive prices and yet some people are proposing to criticise them for success . I regard the £292 million taxes either paid or deferred as a more than fair contribution to the UK economy . Every single company in the UK can claim exactly the same tax breaks as those claimed by Amazon Not every company can move money abroad if they don’t have the structure. Try getting that past HMRC if you own a bike shop. Look how much tax al those high street shops used to pay and compare sales turns over with Amazon on an equal amount. HMRC are worse off overall . It’s the future and won’t be stopped and I don’t claim it should be I say they should pay more than they do that’s all. How are Amazon moving uk generated revenue out of the uk ? With ease Amazon , Google etc have given Ireland’s GDP a massive boost by diverting money there so as to pay less tax. The sales were made in other countries. The tax is being paid in Ireland which has a lower corporate rate. . Hello . Could you explain in a little more detail how this could happen . I thought that you would normally report sale and purchases in the county in which the sales and associated costs were made ? . Or are you referring to bona fide re charges such as management fees , royalties and interest charges on working capital . The reason I ask is that I was completely unaware that you could simply move your profits from one country to another in order to reduce your tax liability . I have never come across this before . " Everything is bona fide. Just look at the GDP of Ireland Interesting how much their economy is taking in tax compared to the country’s sales. Amazing how the amount of management fees and legal charges just seem to help the process run so smoothly All perfectly legal France took Facebook to court and won by stopping such charges being made from another country and therefore resulting in the tax being paid in France not another lower tax country. Good progress from France. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"HMRC can asses what’s company’s profits should be based on their turnover as they have information on each industry group to refer to. Tax should be paid on profits in the country of origin and the allowance to offset tax should be changed to stop a company earning £14 billion only paying £6-15 m in CT. The taxes they claim to pay are probably PAYE NI, council tax and VAT which they have collected for HMRC. So in these figures the tax is mostly paid by employees and customers NOT AMAZON. It’s perfectly legal but totally wrong and stupid of our government to let it happen. No, once again you are wrong! HMRC can assess what a company’s GROSS PROFIT should be from its turnover in a lot of instances as specific sectors will work on margins within set parameters. However there will be many companies that will not fit nicely into these parameters and HMRC will have no idea as to what a company’s overheads will be as these will differ widely from sector to sector and indeed company to company. Corporation Tax is paid on the adjusted NET PROFIT and then after taking into account capital allowances, deferred tax etc etc. To say it’s stupid of our government shows that in reality you have no idea as to how this country’s. ( and most other countries) tax systems work. You’re very rude !! And no I’m not wrong and definitely not again. You agree HMRC. An calculate what a company should be earning . Yes variables can be thrown in but the industry sectors have repetitive profit ratios. I know how HMRC works I know how tax is calculated and paid. For your information I have multiple country locations with the business I own and employ a lot of people. I know very well how the tax system works along with other country’s individual arrangements As a result also know many of the avoidance schemes that can be used to benefit both companies and individuals. Mrs Thatcher’s government introduced some of the best “investment” schemes. So quite simply wind your neck in and stop being so obnoxious in your messages. I’m here to chat and don’t need a lecture lecture from you thanks very much. I’m rude for highlighting what you’re posting is incorrect? I agree that HMRC will have an idea of what certain sectors gross profit percentages should be but not the NET PROFIT that is the base line that is used to calculate tax. If you are a business owner as you claim to be then your ignorance of the corporate tax system is staggering. Again with the insults, this time I’m ignorant . You are a real pleasant guy aren’t you. Been in business for over 30 years so i suspect I do have a clue how it works. Industry sectors by their nature compete in the same markets and it doesn’t take a genius to interrogate publicly available accounts Can you read a set of accounts ?? It’s why there is so much discussion over avoidance as it’s obvious how the system is being legally played to avoid responsibility. Like I said read about the free cash Amazon has. Yes the government I insulted but they aren’t really stupid as they have cosy arrangements with many of these companies. Boris was on the JCB payroll for a number of years. These companies are however short changing every hard working U.K. resident paying full due tax. Denmark for many years have had special tax rates for large shipping companies which is why all the majors have serious financial representation in Copenhagen. Ireland supports Amazon’s avoidance allowing funds to be transferred to a lower tax regime. We let Amazon move those funds from the U.K. tax regime. How many hospitals and nurses or social services staff would that lost revenue cover? In answer to your question, yes I can read a set of accounts. I can also prepare them! Good you should know therefore how HMRC can use algorithms to asses a company not matching the profile for their industry . You should also see how they are avoiding their tax to such an extent it is laughable . It’s all legal and every company tries to hang on to profits I just think we are too soft with global multi nationals who certainly can afford to pay more. We will regret it in the distant future when these companies are so powerful and control so much of our daily life that they will be telling us what’s the rules will be. In addition to reading a set of accounts and preparing a set of accounts, I can also audit them and sign them off, so I know how HMRC work. Probably a damn sight better than you. If it is so obvious to you that Amazon are evading UK tax, ( I’m using the term evading as that is illegal) then I suggest you contact the Chancellor and point out exactly what it is that they are doing that is illegal. Good for you that you can count! Actually I can’t sign off but I have staff who can so excuse me for doing well and employing people of your standard. Im now assuming you are FCA level which I seem to remember the guys in the U.K. are. So apologies if I’m wrong. I’m not claiming anything is illegal !! Have you read anything posted ?? I have always said avoiding not evading. I’m saying its not fair to let such companies keep their money without contributing to the society where they make their money If everyone on PAYE said actually I want to buy a newer more efficient car to get to work so don’t want to pay any tax we would say you have to pay so don’t try to avoid it! It’s not the legality it’s the fairness . " However it is not companies who use the health service or claim benefits . These are used by the companies employees , so you could argue that the health service should be funded by employees ( via PAYE ) , not corporation tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"HMRC can asses what’s company’s profits should be based on their turnover as they have information on each industry group to refer to. Tax should be paid on profits in the country of origin and the allowance to offset tax should be changed to stop a company earning £14 billion only paying £6-15 m in CT. The taxes they claim to pay are probably PAYE NI, council tax and VAT which they have collected for HMRC. So in these figures the tax is mostly paid by employees and customers NOT AMAZON. It’s perfectly legal but totally wrong and stupid of our government to let it happen. No, once again you are wrong! HMRC can assess what a company’s GROSS PROFIT should be from its turnover in a lot of instances as specific sectors will work on margins within set parameters. However there will be many companies that will not fit nicely into these parameters and HMRC will have no idea as to what a company’s overheads will be as these will differ widely from sector to sector and indeed company to company. Corporation Tax is paid on the adjusted NET PROFIT and then after taking into account capital allowances, deferred tax etc etc. To say it’s stupid of our government shows that in reality you have no idea as to how this country’s. ( and most other countries) tax systems work. You’re very rude !! And no I’m not wrong and definitely not again. You agree HMRC. An calculate what a company should be earning . Yes variables can be thrown in but the industry sectors have repetitive profit ratios. I know how HMRC works I know how tax is calculated and paid. For your information I have multiple country locations with the business I own and employ a lot of people. I know very well how the tax system works along with other country’s individual arrangements As a result also know many of the avoidance schemes that can be used to benefit both companies and individuals. Mrs Thatcher’s government introduced some of the best “investment” schemes. So quite simply wind your neck in and stop being so obnoxious in your messages. I’m here to chat and don’t need a lecture lecture from you thanks very much. I’m rude for highlighting what you’re posting is incorrect? I agree that HMRC will have an idea of what certain sectors gross profit percentages should be but not the NET PROFIT that is the base line that is used to calculate tax. If you are a business owner as you claim to be then your ignorance of the corporate tax system is staggering. Again with the insults, this time I’m ignorant . You are a real pleasant guy aren’t you. Been in business for over 30 years so i suspect I do have a clue how it works. Industry sectors by their nature compete in the same markets and it doesn’t take a genius to interrogate publicly available accounts Can you read a set of accounts ?? It’s why there is so much discussion over avoidance as it’s obvious how the system is being legally played to avoid responsibility. Like I said read about the free cash Amazon has. Yes the government I insulted but they aren’t really stupid as they have cosy arrangements with many of these companies. Boris was on the JCB payroll for a number of years. These companies are however short changing every hard working U.K. resident paying full due tax. Denmark for many years have had special tax rates for large shipping companies which is why all the majors have serious financial representation in Copenhagen. Ireland supports Amazon’s avoidance allowing funds to be transferred to a lower tax regime. We let Amazon move those funds from the U.K. tax regime. How many hospitals and nurses or social services staff would that lost revenue cover? In answer to your question, yes I can read a set of accounts. I can also prepare them! Good you should know therefore how HMRC can use algorithms to asses a company not matching the profile for their industry . You should also see how they are avoiding their tax to such an extent it is laughable . It’s all legal and every company tries to hang on to profits I just think we are too soft with global multi nationals who certainly can afford to pay more. We will regret it in the distant future when these companies are so powerful and control so much of our daily life that they will be telling us what’s the rules will be. In addition to reading a set of accounts and preparing a set of accounts, I can also audit them and sign them off, so I know how HMRC work. Probably a damn sight better than you. If it is so obvious to you that Amazon are evading UK tax, ( I’m using the term evading as that is illegal) then I suggest you contact the Chancellor and point out exactly what it is that they are doing that is illegal. Good for you that you can count! Actually I can’t sign off but I have staff who can so excuse me for doing well and employing people of your standard. Im now assuming you are FCA level which I seem to remember the guys in the U.K. are. So apologies if I’m wrong. I’m not claiming anything is illegal !! Have you read anything posted ?? I have always said avoiding not evading. I’m saying its not fair to let such companies keep their money without contributing to the society where they make their money If everyone on PAYE said actually I want to buy a newer more efficient car to get to work so don’t want to pay any tax we would say you have to pay so don’t try to avoid it! It’s not the legality it’s the fairness . just maybe you should sit and talk with all those FCA’s that you employ. You may actually learn something. You may even learn that your analogy re the employees buying new cars is absurd!"You see you are now just being pedantic. Of course it’s absurd but it’s the same principal I want to spend my money where I want so can’t afford to pay tax. Btw the FCA’s listen to me. That’s how it works. I make the money they count. !! They guide the legal process count the numbers report last and create mechanisms to gain maximum financial efficiency. They are very valuable. But you would know that if your a company's accountant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"HMRC can asses what’s company’s profits should be based on their turnover as they have information on each industry group to refer to. Tax should be paid on profits in the country of origin and the allowance to offset tax should be changed to stop a company earning £14 billion only paying £6-15 m in CT. The taxes they claim to pay are probably PAYE NI, council tax and VAT which they have collected for HMRC. So in these figures the tax is mostly paid by employees and customers NOT AMAZON. It’s perfectly legal but totally wrong and stupid of our government to let it happen. No, once again you are wrong! HMRC can assess what a company’s GROSS PROFIT should be from its turnover in a lot of instances as specific sectors will work on margins within set parameters. However there will be many companies that will not fit nicely into these parameters and HMRC will have no idea as to what a company’s overheads will be as these will differ widely from sector to sector and indeed company to company. Corporation Tax is paid on the adjusted NET PROFIT and then after taking into account capital allowances, deferred tax etc etc. To say it’s stupid of our government shows that in reality you have no idea as to how this country’s. ( and most other countries) tax systems work. You’re very rude !! And no I’m not wrong and definitely not again. You agree HMRC. An calculate what a company should be earning . Yes variables can be thrown in but the industry sectors have repetitive profit ratios. I know how HMRC works I know how tax is calculated and paid. For your information I have multiple country locations with the business I own and employ a lot of people. I know very well how the tax system works along with other country’s individual arrangements As a result also know many of the avoidance schemes that can be used to benefit both companies and individuals. Mrs Thatcher’s government introduced some of the best “investment” schemes. So quite simply wind your neck in and stop being so obnoxious in your messages. I’m here to chat and don’t need a lecture lecture from you thanks very much. I’m rude for highlighting what you’re posting is incorrect? I agree that HMRC will have an idea of what certain sectors gross profit percentages should be but not the NET PROFIT that is the base line that is used to calculate tax. If you are a business owner as you claim to be then your ignorance of the corporate tax system is staggering. Again with the insults, this time I’m ignorant . You are a real pleasant guy aren’t you. Been in business for over 30 years so i suspect I do have a clue how it works. Industry sectors by their nature compete in the same markets and it doesn’t take a genius to interrogate publicly available accounts Can you read a set of accounts ?? It’s why there is so much discussion over avoidance as it’s obvious how the system is being legally played to avoid responsibility. Like I said read about the free cash Amazon has. Yes the government I insulted but they aren’t really stupid as they have cosy arrangements with many of these companies. Boris was on the JCB payroll for a number of years. These companies are however short changing every hard working U.K. resident paying full due tax. Denmark for many years have had special tax rates for large shipping companies which is why all the majors have serious financial representation in Copenhagen. Ireland supports Amazon’s avoidance allowing funds to be transferred to a lower tax regime. We let Amazon move those funds from the U.K. tax regime. How many hospitals and nurses or social services staff would that lost revenue cover? In answer to your question, yes I can read a set of accounts. I can also prepare them! Good you should know therefore how HMRC can use algorithms to asses a company not matching the profile for their industry . You should also see how they are avoiding their tax to such an extent it is laughable . It’s all legal and every company tries to hang on to profits I just think we are too soft with global multi nationals who certainly can afford to pay more. We will regret it in the distant future when these companies are so powerful and control so much of our daily life that they will be telling us what’s the rules will be. In addition to reading a set of accounts and preparing a set of accounts, I can also audit them and sign them off, so I know how HMRC work. Probably a damn sight better than you. If it is so obvious to you that Amazon are evading UK tax, ( I’m using the term evading as that is illegal) then I suggest you contact the Chancellor and point out exactly what it is that they are doing that is illegal. Good for you that you can count! Actually I can’t sign off but I have staff who can so excuse me for doing well and employing people of your standard. Im now assuming you are FCA level which I seem to remember the guys in the U.K. are. So apologies if I’m wrong. I’m not claiming anything is illegal !! Have you read anything posted ?? I have always said avoiding not evading. I’m saying its not fair to let such companies keep their money without contributing to the society where they make their money If everyone on PAYE said actually I want to buy a newer more efficient car to get to work so don’t want to pay any tax we would say you have to pay so don’t try to avoid it! It’s not the legality it’s the fairness . just maybe you should sit and talk with all those FCA’s that you employ. You may actually learn something. You may even learn that your analogy re the employees buying new cars is absurd!
You see you are now just being pedantic. Of course it’s absurd but it’s the same principal I want to spend my money where I want so can’t afford to pay tax.
Btw the FCA’s listen to me. That’s how it works. I make the money they count. !! They guide the legal process count the numbers report last and create mechanisms to gain maximum financial efficiency. They are very valuable.
But you would know that if your a company's accountant.
"But that’s not how it works. I suspect the FCA’s stopped talking to you long since. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"HMRC can asses what’s company’s profits should be based on their turnover as they have information on each industry group to refer to. Tax should be paid on profits in the country of origin and the allowance to offset tax should be changed to stop a company earning £14 billion only paying £6-15 m in CT. The taxes they claim to pay are probably PAYE NI, council tax and VAT which they have collected for HMRC. So in these figures the tax is mostly paid by employees and customers NOT AMAZON. It’s perfectly legal but totally wrong and stupid of our government to let it happen. No, once again you are wrong! HMRC can assess what a company’s GROSS PROFIT should be from its turnover in a lot of instances as specific sectors will work on margins within set parameters. However there will be many companies that will not fit nicely into these parameters and HMRC will have no idea as to what a company’s overheads will be as these will differ widely from sector to sector and indeed company to company. Corporation Tax is paid on the adjusted NET PROFIT and then after taking into account capital allowances, deferred tax etc etc. To say it’s stupid of our government shows that in reality you have no idea as to how this country’s. ( and most other countries) tax systems work. You’re very rude !! And no I’m not wrong and definitely not again. You agree HMRC. An calculate what a company should be earning . Yes variables can be thrown in but the industry sectors have repetitive profit ratios. I know how HMRC works I know how tax is calculated and paid. For your information I have multiple country locations with the business I own and employ a lot of people. I know very well how the tax system works along with other country’s individual arrangements As a result also know many of the avoidance schemes that can be used to benefit both companies and individuals. Mrs Thatcher’s government introduced some of the best “investment” schemes. So quite simply wind your neck in and stop being so obnoxious in your messages. I’m here to chat and don’t need a lecture lecture from you thanks very much. I’m rude for highlighting what you’re posting is incorrect? I agree that HMRC will have an idea of what certain sectors gross profit percentages should be but not the NET PROFIT that is the base line that is used to calculate tax. If you are a business owner as you claim to be then your ignorance of the corporate tax system is staggering. Again with the insults, this time I’m ignorant . You are a real pleasant guy aren’t you. Been in business for over 30 years so i suspect I do have a clue how it works. Industry sectors by their nature compete in the same markets and it doesn’t take a genius to interrogate publicly available accounts Can you read a set of accounts ?? It’s why there is so much discussion over avoidance as it’s obvious how the system is being legally played to avoid responsibility. Like I said read about the free cash Amazon has. Yes the government I insulted but they aren’t really stupid as they have cosy arrangements with many of these companies. Boris was on the JCB payroll for a number of years. These companies are however short changing every hard working U.K. resident paying full due tax. Denmark for many years have had special tax rates for large shipping companies which is why all the majors have serious financial representation in Copenhagen. Ireland supports Amazon’s avoidance allowing funds to be transferred to a lower tax regime. We let Amazon move those funds from the U.K. tax regime. How many hospitals and nurses or social services staff would that lost revenue cover? In answer to your question, yes I can read a set of accounts. I can also prepare them! Good you should know therefore how HMRC can use algorithms to asses a company not matching the profile for their industry . You should also see how they are avoiding their tax to such an extent it is laughable . It’s all legal and every company tries to hang on to profits I just think we are too soft with global multi nationals who certainly can afford to pay more. We will regret it in the distant future when these companies are so powerful and control so much of our daily life that they will be telling us what’s the rules will be. In addition to reading a set of accounts and preparing a set of accounts, I can also audit them and sign them off, so I know how HMRC work. Probably a damn sight better than you. If it is so obvious to you that Amazon are evading UK tax, ( I’m using the term evading as that is illegal) then I suggest you contact the Chancellor and point out exactly what it is that they are doing that is illegal. Good for you that you can count! Actually I can’t sign off but I have staff who can so excuse me for doing well and employing people of your standard. Im now assuming you are FCA level which I seem to remember the guys in the U.K. are. So apologies if I’m wrong. I’m not claiming anything is illegal !! Have you read anything posted ?? I have always said avoiding not evading. I’m saying its not fair to let such companies keep their money without contributing to the society where they make their money If everyone on PAYE said actually I want to buy a newer more efficient car to get to work so don’t want to pay any tax we would say you have to pay so don’t try to avoid it! It’s not the legality it’s the fairness . However it is not companies who use the health service or claim benefits . These are used by the companies employees , so you could argue that the health service should be funded by employees ( via PAYE ) , not corporation tax. " Look at the principal and where do you think company tax goes? It not ring fenced it contributes to all government services including benefits. Road tax revenue is far greater than the money spent on roads. Tax is a pot and it’s only just keeping up with demand. We had to borrow to fund furlough . We don’t have a bag of money saved up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"HMRC can asses what’s company’s profits should be based on their turnover as they have information on each industry group to refer to. Tax should be paid on profits in the country of origin and the allowance to offset tax should be changed to stop a company earning £14 billion only paying £6-15 m in CT. The taxes they claim to pay are probably PAYE NI, council tax and VAT which they have collected for HMRC. So in these figures the tax is mostly paid by employees and customers NOT AMAZON. It’s perfectly legal but totally wrong and stupid of our government to let it happen. No, once again you are wrong! HMRC can assess what a company’s GROSS PROFIT should be from its turnover in a lot of instances as specific sectors will work on margins within set parameters. However there will be many companies that will not fit nicely into these parameters and HMRC will have no idea as to what a company’s overheads will be as these will differ widely from sector to sector and indeed company to company. Corporation Tax is paid on the adjusted NET PROFIT and then after taking into account capital allowances, deferred tax etc etc. To say it’s stupid of our government shows that in reality you have no idea as to how this country’s. ( and most other countries) tax systems work. You’re very rude !! And no I’m not wrong and definitely not again. You agree HMRC. An calculate what a company should be earning . Yes variables can be thrown in but the industry sectors have repetitive profit ratios. I know how HMRC works I know how tax is calculated and paid. For your information I have multiple country locations with the business I own and employ a lot of people. I know very well how the tax system works along with other country’s individual arrangements As a result also know many of the avoidance schemes that can be used to benefit both companies and individuals. Mrs Thatcher’s government introduced some of the best “investment” schemes. So quite simply wind your neck in and stop being so obnoxious in your messages. I’m here to chat and don’t need a lecture lecture from you thanks very much. I’m rude for highlighting what you’re posting is incorrect? I agree that HMRC will have an idea of what certain sectors gross profit percentages should be but not the NET PROFIT that is the base line that is used to calculate tax. If you are a business owner as you claim to be then your ignorance of the corporate tax system is staggering. Again with the insults, this time I’m ignorant . You are a real pleasant guy aren’t you. Been in business for over 30 years so i suspect I do have a clue how it works. Industry sectors by their nature compete in the same markets and it doesn’t take a genius to interrogate publicly available accounts Can you read a set of accounts ?? It’s why there is so much discussion over avoidance as it’s obvious how the system is being legally played to avoid responsibility. Like I said read about the free cash Amazon has. Yes the government I insulted but they aren’t really stupid as they have cosy arrangements with many of these companies. Boris was on the JCB payroll for a number of years. These companies are however short changing every hard working U.K. resident paying full due tax. Denmark for many years have had special tax rates for large shipping companies which is why all the majors have serious financial representation in Copenhagen. Ireland supports Amazon’s avoidance allowing funds to be transferred to a lower tax regime. We let Amazon move those funds from the U.K. tax regime. How many hospitals and nurses or social services staff would that lost revenue cover? In answer to your question, yes I can read a set of accounts. I can also prepare them! Good you should know therefore how HMRC can use algorithms to asses a company not matching the profile for their industry . You should also see how they are avoiding their tax to such an extent it is laughable . It’s all legal and every company tries to hang on to profits I just think we are too soft with global multi nationals who certainly can afford to pay more. We will regret it in the distant future when these companies are so powerful and control so much of our daily life that they will be telling us what’s the rules will be. In addition to reading a set of accounts and preparing a set of accounts, I can also audit them and sign them off, so I know how HMRC work. Probably a damn sight better than you. If it is so obvious to you that Amazon are evading UK tax, ( I’m using the term evading as that is illegal) then I suggest you contact the Chancellor and point out exactly what it is that they are doing that is illegal. Good for you that you can count! Actually I can’t sign off but I have staff who can so excuse me for doing well and employing people of your standard. Im now assuming you are FCA level which I seem to remember the guys in the U.K. are. So apologies if I’m wrong. I’m not claiming anything is illegal !! Have you read anything posted ?? I have always said avoiding not evading. I’m saying its not fair to let such companies keep their money without contributing to the society where they make their money If everyone on PAYE said actually I want to buy a newer more efficient car to get to work so don’t want to pay any tax we would say you have to pay so don’t try to avoid it! It’s not the legality it’s the fairness . just maybe you should sit and talk with all those FCA’s that you employ. You may actually learn something. You may even learn that your analogy re the employees buying new cars is absurd!
You see you are now just being pedantic. Of course it’s absurd but it’s the same principal I want to spend my money where I want so can’t afford to pay tax.
Btw the FCA’s listen to me. That’s how it works. I make the money they count. !! They guide the legal process count the numbers report last and create mechanisms to gain maximum financial efficiency. They are very valuable.
But you would know that if your a company's accountant.
But that’s not how it works. I suspect the FCA’s stopped talking to you long since."Oh bitterness that’s sad. Well my bank account tells me it does seem to work very well thanks Feel free to keep your direction and each to their own. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Look up Amazon’s free cash and then say they aren’t avoiding tax. They are of course entitled to but we are letting them and similar companies avoid contributions to HMRC as they chose to spend their money on themselves. If we use your terminology ( spending money on themselves ) the money that they are spending is creating work both directly ( for additional employees ) and indirectly for other businesses such as packaging and construction companies . Amazon are also regarded as a good company to work for ( assuming you are a grafter ) . The perks are good and include a very tax effective share incentive scheme . I cannot see many Amazon employees complaining about a rising share price . Every single resident in the uk can benefit from the success of Amazon . They supply goods at highly competitive prices and yet some people are proposing to criticise them for success . I regard the £292 million taxes either paid or deferred as a more than fair contribution to the UK economy . Every single company in the UK can claim exactly the same tax breaks as those claimed by Amazon Not every company can move money abroad if they don’t have the structure. Try getting that past HMRC if you own a bike shop. Look how much tax al those high street shops used to pay and compare sales turns over with Amazon on an equal amount. HMRC are worse off overall . It’s the future and won’t be stopped and I don’t claim it should be I say they should pay more than they do that’s all. How are Amazon moving uk generated revenue out of the uk ? With ease Amazon , Google etc have given Ireland’s GDP a massive boost by diverting money there so as to pay less tax. The sales were made in other countries. The tax is being paid in Ireland which has a lower corporate rate. . Hello . Could you explain in a little more detail how this could happen . I thought that you would normally report sale and purchases in the county in which the sales and associated costs were made ? . Or are you referring to bona fide re charges such as management fees , royalties and interest charges on working capital . The reason I ask is that I was completely unaware that you could simply move your profits from one country to another in order to reduce your tax liability . I have never come across this before . Everything is bona fide. Just look at the GDP of Ireland Interesting how much their economy is taking in tax compared to the country’s sales. Amazing how the amount of management fees and legal charges just seem to help the process run so smoothly All perfectly legal France took Facebook to court and won by stopping such charges being made from another country and therefore resulting in the tax being paid in France not another lower tax country. Good progress from France. " . Thank you for the reply . It appears that the transfers to which you refer are all bona fide and would need to be justified in detail should HMRC decide to investigate . I think you mentioned that you own a property in France . In this case you would be aware how expensive it is to employ people in France ( or to find employment ) . I would not want to be using France as an example of a successful taxation system . ( though the health service appears to be very good ) . However you still have to pay for a visit to the Doctor | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"HMRC can asses what’s company’s profits should be based on their turnover as they have information on each industry group to refer to. Tax should be paid on profits in the country of origin and the allowance to offset tax should be changed to stop a company earning £14 billion only paying £6-15 m in CT. The taxes they claim to pay are probably PAYE NI, council tax and VAT which they have collected for HMRC. So in these figures the tax is mostly paid by employees and customers NOT AMAZON. It’s perfectly legal but totally wrong and stupid of our government to let it happen. No, once again you are wrong! HMRC can assess what a company’s GROSS PROFIT should be from its turnover in a lot of instances as specific sectors will work on margins within set parameters. However there will be many companies that will not fit nicely into these parameters and HMRC will have no idea as to what a company’s overheads will be as these will differ widely from sector to sector and indeed company to company. Corporation Tax is paid on the adjusted NET PROFIT and then after taking into account capital allowances, deferred tax etc etc. To say it’s stupid of our government shows that in reality you have no idea as to how this country’s. ( and most other countries) tax systems work. You’re very rude !! And no I’m not wrong and definitely not again. You agree HMRC. An calculate what a company should be earning . Yes variables can be thrown in but the industry sectors have repetitive profit ratios. I know how HMRC works I know how tax is calculated and paid. For your information I have multiple country locations with the business I own and employ a lot of people. I know very well how the tax system works along with other country’s individual arrangements As a result also know many of the avoidance schemes that can be used to benefit both companies and individuals. Mrs Thatcher’s government introduced some of the best “investment” schemes. So quite simply wind your neck in and stop being so obnoxious in your messages. I’m here to chat and don’t need a lecture lecture from you thanks very much. I’m rude for highlighting what you’re posting is incorrect? I agree that HMRC will have an idea of what certain sectors gross profit percentages should be but not the NET PROFIT that is the base line that is used to calculate tax. If you are a business owner as you claim to be then your ignorance of the corporate tax system is staggering. Again with the insults, this time I’m ignorant . You are a real pleasant guy aren’t you. Been in business for over 30 years so i suspect I do have a clue how it works. Industry sectors by their nature compete in the same markets and it doesn’t take a genius to interrogate publicly available accounts Can you read a set of accounts ?? It’s why there is so much discussion over avoidance as it’s obvious how the system is being legally played to avoid responsibility. Like I said read about the free cash Amazon has. Yes the government I insulted but they aren’t really stupid as they have cosy arrangements with many of these companies. Boris was on the JCB payroll for a number of years. These companies are however short changing every hard working U.K. resident paying full due tax. Denmark for many years have had special tax rates for large shipping companies which is why all the majors have serious financial representation in Copenhagen. Ireland supports Amazon’s avoidance allowing funds to be transferred to a lower tax regime. We let Amazon move those funds from the U.K. tax regime. How many hospitals and nurses or social services staff would that lost revenue cover? In answer to your question, yes I can read a set of accounts. I can also prepare them! Good you should know therefore how HMRC can use algorithms to asses a company not matching the profile for their industry . You should also see how they are avoiding their tax to such an extent it is laughable . It’s all legal and every company tries to hang on to profits I just think we are too soft with global multi nationals who certainly can afford to pay more. We will regret it in the distant future when these companies are so powerful and control so much of our daily life that they will be telling us what’s the rules will be. In addition to reading a set of accounts and preparing a set of accounts, I can also audit them and sign them off, so I know how HMRC work. Probably a damn sight better than you. If it is so obvious to you that Amazon are evading UK tax, ( I’m using the term evading as that is illegal) then I suggest you contact the Chancellor and point out exactly what it is that they are doing that is illegal. Good for you that you can count! Actually I can’t sign off but I have staff who can so excuse me for doing well and employing people of your standard. Im now assuming you are FCA level which I seem to remember the guys in the U.K. are. So apologies if I’m wrong. I’m not claiming anything is illegal !! Have you read anything posted ?? I have always said avoiding not evading. I’m saying its not fair to let such companies keep their money without contributing to the society where they make their money If everyone on PAYE said actually I want to buy a newer more efficient car to get to work so don’t want to pay any tax we would say you have to pay so don’t try to avoid it! It’s not the legality it’s the fairness . just maybe you should sit and talk with all those FCA’s that you employ. You may actually learn something. You may even learn that your analogy re the employees buying new cars is absurd!
You see you are now just being pedantic. Of course it’s absurd but it’s the same principal I want to spend my money where I want so can’t afford to pay tax.
Btw the FCA’s listen to me. That’s how it works. I make the money they count. !! They guide the legal process count the numbers report last and create mechanisms to gain maximum financial efficiency. They are very valuable.
But you would know that if your a company's accountant.
But that’s not how it works. I suspect the FCA’s stopped talking to you long since.
Oh bitterness that’s sad.
Well my bank account tells me it does seem to work very well thanks
Feel free to keep your direction and each to their own.
"No bitterness on my behalf. I’m pleased that your bank account is healthy, mine isn’t too bad either.it’s certainly going to see me through retirement. BTW, I’m not a company accountant, just in case you thought that attempted put down may offend me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"HMRC can asses what’s company’s profits should be based on their turnover as they have information on each industry group to refer to. Tax should be paid on profits in the country of origin and the allowance to offset tax should be changed to stop a company earning £14 billion only paying £6-15 m in CT. The taxes they claim to pay are probably PAYE NI, council tax and VAT which they have collected for HMRC. So in these figures the tax is mostly paid by employees and customers NOT AMAZON. It’s perfectly legal but totally wrong and stupid of our government to let it happen. No, once again you are wrong! HMRC can assess what a company’s GROSS PROFIT should be from its turnover in a lot of instances as specific sectors will work on margins within set parameters. However there will be many companies that will not fit nicely into these parameters and HMRC will have no idea as to what a company’s overheads will be as these will differ widely from sector to sector and indeed company to company. Corporation Tax is paid on the adjusted NET PROFIT and then after taking into account capital allowances, deferred tax etc etc. To say it’s stupid of our government shows that in reality you have no idea as to how this country’s. ( and most other countries) tax systems work. You’re very rude !! And no I’m not wrong and definitely not again. You agree HMRC. An calculate what a company should be earning . Yes variables can be thrown in but the industry sectors have repetitive profit ratios. I know how HMRC works I know how tax is calculated and paid. For your information I have multiple country locations with the business I own and employ a lot of people. I know very well how the tax system works along with other country’s individual arrangements As a result also know many of the avoidance schemes that can be used to benefit both companies and individuals. Mrs Thatcher’s government introduced some of the best “investment” schemes. So quite simply wind your neck in and stop being so obnoxious in your messages. I’m here to chat and don’t need a lecture lecture from you thanks very much. I’m rude for highlighting what you’re posting is incorrect? I agree that HMRC will have an idea of what certain sectors gross profit percentages should be but not the NET PROFIT that is the base line that is used to calculate tax. If you are a business owner as you claim to be then your ignorance of the corporate tax system is staggering. Again with the insults, this time I’m ignorant . You are a real pleasant guy aren’t you. Been in business for over 30 years so i suspect I do have a clue how it works. Industry sectors by their nature compete in the same markets and it doesn’t take a genius to interrogate publicly available accounts Can you read a set of accounts ?? It’s why there is so much discussion over avoidance as it’s obvious how the system is being legally played to avoid responsibility. Like I said read about the free cash Amazon has. Yes the government I insulted but they aren’t really stupid as they have cosy arrangements with many of these companies. Boris was on the JCB payroll for a number of years. These companies are however short changing every hard working U.K. resident paying full due tax. Denmark for many years have had special tax rates for large shipping companies which is why all the majors have serious financial representation in Copenhagen. Ireland supports Amazon’s avoidance allowing funds to be transferred to a lower tax regime. We let Amazon move those funds from the U.K. tax regime. How many hospitals and nurses or social services staff would that lost revenue cover? In answer to your question, yes I can read a set of accounts. I can also prepare them! Good you should know therefore how HMRC can use algorithms to asses a company not matching the profile for their industry . You should also see how they are avoiding their tax to such an extent it is laughable . It’s all legal and every company tries to hang on to profits I just think we are too soft with global multi nationals who certainly can afford to pay more. We will regret it in the distant future when these companies are so powerful and control so much of our daily life that they will be telling us what’s the rules will be. In addition to reading a set of accounts and preparing a set of accounts, I can also audit them and sign them off, so I know how HMRC work. Probably a damn sight better than you. If it is so obvious to you that Amazon are evading UK tax, ( I’m using the term evading as that is illegal) then I suggest you contact the Chancellor and point out exactly what it is that they are doing that is illegal. Good for you that you can count! Actually I can’t sign off but I have staff who can so excuse me for doing well and employing people of your standard. Im now assuming you are FCA level which I seem to remember the guys in the U.K. are. So apologies if I’m wrong. I’m not claiming anything is illegal !! Have you read anything posted ?? I have always said avoiding not evading. I’m saying its not fair to let such companies keep their money without contributing to the society where they make their money If everyone on PAYE said actually I want to buy a newer more efficient car to get to work so don’t want to pay any tax we would say you have to pay so don’t try to avoid it! It’s not the legality it’s the fairness . However it is not companies who use the health service or claim benefits . These are used by the companies employees , so you could argue that the health service should be funded by employees ( via PAYE ) , not corporation tax. Look at the principal and where do you think company tax goes? It not ring fenced it contributes to all government services including benefits. Road tax revenue is far greater than the money spent on roads. Tax is a pot and it’s only just keeping up with demand. We had to borrow to fund furlough . We don’t have a bag of money saved up. " You really must insist that all those FCAs that you employ keep you abreast of the up to date taxes. Road Tax was abolished in 1937! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"HMRC can asses what’s company’s profits should be based on their turnover as they have information on each industry group to refer to. Tax should be paid on profits in the country of origin and the allowance to offset tax should be changed to stop a company earning £14 billion only paying £6-15 m in CT. The taxes they claim to pay are probably PAYE NI, council tax and VAT which they have collected for HMRC. So in these figures the tax is mostly paid by employees and customers NOT AMAZON. It’s perfectly legal but totally wrong and stupid of our government to let it happen. No, once again you are wrong! HMRC can assess what a company’s GROSS PROFIT should be from its turnover in a lot of instances as specific sectors will work on margins within set parameters. However there will be many companies that will not fit nicely into these parameters and HMRC will have no idea as to what a company’s overheads will be as these will differ widely from sector to sector and indeed company to company. Corporation Tax is paid on the adjusted NET PROFIT and then after taking into account capital allowances, deferred tax etc etc. To say it’s stupid of our government shows that in reality you have no idea as to how this country’s. ( and most other countries) tax systems work. You’re very rude !! And no I’m not wrong and definitely not again. You agree HMRC. An calculate what a company should be earning . Yes variables can be thrown in but the industry sectors have repetitive profit ratios. I know how HMRC works I know how tax is calculated and paid. For your information I have multiple country locations with the business I own and employ a lot of people. I know very well how the tax system works along with other country’s individual arrangements As a result also know many of the avoidance schemes that can be used to benefit both companies and individuals. Mrs Thatcher’s government introduced some of the best “investment” schemes. So quite simply wind your neck in and stop being so obnoxious in your messages. I’m here to chat and don’t need a lecture lecture from you thanks very much. I’m rude for highlighting what you’re posting is incorrect? I agree that HMRC will have an idea of what certain sectors gross profit percentages should be but not the NET PROFIT that is the base line that is used to calculate tax. If you are a business owner as you claim to be then your ignorance of the corporate tax system is staggering. Again with the insults, this time I’m ignorant . You are a real pleasant guy aren’t you. Been in business for over 30 years so i suspect I do have a clue how it works. Industry sectors by their nature compete in the same markets and it doesn’t take a genius to interrogate publicly available accounts Can you read a set of accounts ?? It’s why there is so much discussion over avoidance as it’s obvious how the system is being legally played to avoid responsibility. Like I said read about the free cash Amazon has. Yes the government I insulted but they aren’t really stupid as they have cosy arrangements with many of these companies. Boris was on the JCB payroll for a number of years. These companies are however short changing every hard working U.K. resident paying full due tax. Denmark for many years have had special tax rates for large shipping companies which is why all the majors have serious financial representation in Copenhagen. Ireland supports Amazon’s avoidance allowing funds to be transferred to a lower tax regime. We let Amazon move those funds from the U.K. tax regime. How many hospitals and nurses or social services staff would that lost revenue cover? In answer to your question, yes I can read a set of accounts. I can also prepare them! Good you should know therefore how HMRC can use algorithms to asses a company not matching the profile for their industry . You should also see how they are avoiding their tax to such an extent it is laughable . It’s all legal and every company tries to hang on to profits I just think we are too soft with global multi nationals who certainly can afford to pay more. We will regret it in the distant future when these companies are so powerful and control so much of our daily life that they will be telling us what’s the rules will be. In addition to reading a set of accounts and preparing a set of accounts, I can also audit them and sign them off, so I know how HMRC work. Probably a damn sight better than you. If it is so obvious to you that Amazon are evading UK tax, ( I’m using the term evading as that is illegal) then I suggest you contact the Chancellor and point out exactly what it is that they are doing that is illegal. Good for you that you can count! Actually I can’t sign off but I have staff who can so excuse me for doing well and employing people of your standard. Im now assuming you are FCA level which I seem to remember the guys in the U.K. are. So apologies if I’m wrong. I’m not claiming anything is illegal !! Have you read anything posted ?? I have always said avoiding not evading. I’m saying its not fair to let such companies keep their money without contributing to the society where they make their money If everyone on PAYE said actually I want to buy a newer more efficient car to get to work so don’t want to pay any tax we would say you have to pay so don’t try to avoid it! It’s not the legality it’s the fairness . just maybe you should sit and talk with all those FCA’s that you employ. You may actually learn something. You may even learn that your analogy re the employees buying new cars is absurd!
You see you are now just being pedantic. Of course it’s absurd but it’s the same principal I want to spend my money where I want so can’t afford to pay tax.
Btw the FCA’s listen to me. That’s how it works. I make the money they count. !! They guide the legal process count the numbers report last and create mechanisms to gain maximum financial efficiency. They are very valuable.
But you would know that if your a company's accountant.
But that’s not how it works. I suspect the FCA’s stopped talking to you long since.
Oh bitterness that’s sad.
Well my bank account tells me it does seem to work very well thanks
Feel free to keep your direction and each to their own.
No bitterness on my behalf. I’m pleased that your bank account is healthy, mine isn’t too bad either.it’s certainly going to see me through retirement.
BTW, I’m not a company accountant, just in case you thought that attempted put down may offend me.
"Childish banter on my part so publicly I will apologies. Hopefully my ignorance comments will be put behind us too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"HMRC can asses what’s company’s profits should be based on their turnover as they have information on each industry group to refer to. Tax should be paid on profits in the country of origin and the allowance to offset tax should be changed to stop a company earning £14 billion only paying £6-15 m in CT. The taxes they claim to pay are probably PAYE NI, council tax and VAT which they have collected for HMRC. So in these figures the tax is mostly paid by employees and customers NOT AMAZON. It’s perfectly legal but totally wrong and stupid of our government to let it happen. No, once again you are wrong! HMRC can assess what a company’s GROSS PROFIT should be from its turnover in a lot of instances as specific sectors will work on margins within set parameters. However there will be many companies that will not fit nicely into these parameters and HMRC will have no idea as to what a company’s overheads will be as these will differ widely from sector to sector and indeed company to company. Corporation Tax is paid on the adjusted NET PROFIT and then after taking into account capital allowances, deferred tax etc etc. To say it’s stupid of our government shows that in reality you have no idea as to how this country’s. ( and most other countries) tax systems work. You’re very rude !! And no I’m not wrong and definitely not again. You agree HMRC. An calculate what a company should be earning . Yes variables can be thrown in but the industry sectors have repetitive profit ratios. I know how HMRC works I know how tax is calculated and paid. For your information I have multiple country locations with the business I own and employ a lot of people. I know very well how the tax system works along with other country’s individual arrangements As a result also know many of the avoidance schemes that can be used to benefit both companies and individuals. Mrs Thatcher’s government introduced some of the best “investment” schemes. So quite simply wind your neck in and stop being so obnoxious in your messages. I’m here to chat and don’t need a lecture lecture from you thanks very much. I’m rude for highlighting what you’re posting is incorrect? I agree that HMRC will have an idea of what certain sectors gross profit percentages should be but not the NET PROFIT that is the base line that is used to calculate tax. If you are a business owner as you claim to be then your ignorance of the corporate tax system is staggering. Again with the insults, this time I’m ignorant . You are a real pleasant guy aren’t you. Been in business for over 30 years so i suspect I do have a clue how it works. Industry sectors by their nature compete in the same markets and it doesn’t take a genius to interrogate publicly available accounts Can you read a set of accounts ?? It’s why there is so much discussion over avoidance as it’s obvious how the system is being legally played to avoid responsibility. Like I said read about the free cash Amazon has. Yes the government I insulted but they aren’t really stupid as they have cosy arrangements with many of these companies. Boris was on the JCB payroll for a number of years. These companies are however short changing every hard working U.K. resident paying full due tax. Denmark for many years have had special tax rates for large shipping companies which is why all the majors have serious financial representation in Copenhagen. Ireland supports Amazon’s avoidance allowing funds to be transferred to a lower tax regime. We let Amazon move those funds from the U.K. tax regime. How many hospitals and nurses or social services staff would that lost revenue cover? In answer to your question, yes I can read a set of accounts. I can also prepare them! Good you should know therefore how HMRC can use algorithms to asses a company not matching the profile for their industry . You should also see how they are avoiding their tax to such an extent it is laughable . It’s all legal and every company tries to hang on to profits I just think we are too soft with global multi nationals who certainly can afford to pay more. We will regret it in the distant future when these companies are so powerful and control so much of our daily life that they will be telling us what’s the rules will be. In addition to reading a set of accounts and preparing a set of accounts, I can also audit them and sign them off, so I know how HMRC work. Probably a damn sight better than you. If it is so obvious to you that Amazon are evading UK tax, ( I’m using the term evading as that is illegal) then I suggest you contact the Chancellor and point out exactly what it is that they are doing that is illegal. Good for you that you can count! Actually I can’t sign off but I have staff who can so excuse me for doing well and employing people of your standard. Im now assuming you are FCA level which I seem to remember the guys in the U.K. are. So apologies if I’m wrong. I’m not claiming anything is illegal !! Have you read anything posted ?? I have always said avoiding not evading. I’m saying its not fair to let such companies keep their money without contributing to the society where they make their money If everyone on PAYE said actually I want to buy a newer more efficient car to get to work so don’t want to pay any tax we would say you have to pay so don’t try to avoid it! It’s not the legality it’s the fairness . However it is not companies who use the health service or claim benefits . These are used by the companies employees , so you could argue that the health service should be funded by employees ( via PAYE ) , not corporation tax. Look at the principal and where do you think company tax goes? It not ring fenced it contributes to all government services including benefits. Road tax revenue is far greater than the money spent on roads. Tax is a pot and it’s only just keeping up with demand. We had to borrow to fund furlough . We don’t have a bag of money saved up. You really must insist that all those FCAs that you employ keep you abreast of the up to date taxes. Road Tax was abolished in 1937!" Really So you’ve never called you vehicle tax road tax?? How petty!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"HMRC can asses what’s company’s profits should be based on their turnover as they have information on each industry group to refer to. Tax should be paid on profits in the country of origin and the allowance to offset tax should be changed to stop a company earning £14 billion only paying £6-15 m in CT. The taxes they claim to pay are probably PAYE NI, council tax and VAT which they have collected for HMRC. So in these figures the tax is mostly paid by employees and customers NOT AMAZON. It’s perfectly legal but totally wrong and stupid of our government to let it happen. No, once again you are wrong! HMRC can assess what a company’s GROSS PROFIT should be from its turnover in a lot of instances as specific sectors will work on margins within set parameters. However there will be many companies that will not fit nicely into these parameters and HMRC will have no idea as to what a company’s overheads will be as these will differ widely from sector to sector and indeed company to company. Corporation Tax is paid on the adjusted NET PROFIT and then after taking into account capital allowances, deferred tax etc etc. To say it’s stupid of our government shows that in reality you have no idea as to how this country’s. ( and most other countries) tax systems work. You’re very rude !! And no I’m not wrong and definitely not again. You agree HMRC. An calculate what a company should be earning . Yes variables can be thrown in but the industry sectors have repetitive profit ratios. I know how HMRC works I know how tax is calculated and paid. For your information I have multiple country locations with the business I own and employ a lot of people. I know very well how the tax system works along with other country’s individual arrangements As a result also know many of the avoidance schemes that can be used to benefit both companies and individuals. Mrs Thatcher’s government introduced some of the best “investment” schemes. So quite simply wind your neck in and stop being so obnoxious in your messages. I’m here to chat and don’t need a lecture lecture from you thanks very much. I’m rude for highlighting what you’re posting is incorrect? I agree that HMRC will have an idea of what certain sectors gross profit percentages should be but not the NET PROFIT that is the base line that is used to calculate tax. If you are a business owner as you claim to be then your ignorance of the corporate tax system is staggering. Again with the insults, this time I’m ignorant . You are a real pleasant guy aren’t you. Been in business for over 30 years so i suspect I do have a clue how it works. Industry sectors by their nature compete in the same markets and it doesn’t take a genius to interrogate publicly available accounts Can you read a set of accounts ?? It’s why there is so much discussion over avoidance as it’s obvious how the system is being legally played to avoid responsibility. Like I said read about the free cash Amazon has. Yes the government I insulted but they aren’t really stupid as they have cosy arrangements with many of these companies. Boris was on the JCB payroll for a number of years. These companies are however short changing every hard working U.K. resident paying full due tax. Denmark for many years have had special tax rates for large shipping companies which is why all the majors have serious financial representation in Copenhagen. Ireland supports Amazon’s avoidance allowing funds to be transferred to a lower tax regime. We let Amazon move those funds from the U.K. tax regime. How many hospitals and nurses or social services staff would that lost revenue cover? In answer to your question, yes I can read a set of accounts. I can also prepare them! Good you should know therefore how HMRC can use algorithms to asses a company not matching the profile for their industry . You should also see how they are avoiding their tax to such an extent it is laughable . It’s all legal and every company tries to hang on to profits I just think we are too soft with global multi nationals who certainly can afford to pay more. We will regret it in the distant future when these companies are so powerful and control so much of our daily life that they will be telling us what’s the rules will be. In addition to reading a set of accounts and preparing a set of accounts, I can also audit them and sign them off, so I know how HMRC work. Probably a damn sight better than you. If it is so obvious to you that Amazon are evading UK tax, ( I’m using the term evading as that is illegal) then I suggest you contact the Chancellor and point out exactly what it is that they are doing that is illegal. Good for you that you can count! Actually I can’t sign off but I have staff who can so excuse me for doing well and employing people of your standard. Im now assuming you are FCA level which I seem to remember the guys in the U.K. are. So apologies if I’m wrong. I’m not claiming anything is illegal !! Have you read anything posted ?? I have always said avoiding not evading. I’m saying its not fair to let such companies keep their money without contributing to the society where they make their money If everyone on PAYE said actually I want to buy a newer more efficient car to get to work so don’t want to pay any tax we would say you have to pay so don’t try to avoid it! It’s not the legality it’s the fairness . just maybe you should sit and talk with all those FCA’s that you employ. You may actually learn something. You may even learn that your analogy re the employees buying new cars is absurd!
You see you are now just being pedantic. Of course it’s absurd but it’s the same principal I want to spend my money where I want so can’t afford to pay tax.
Btw the FCA’s listen to me. That’s how it works. I make the money they count. !! They guide the legal process count the numbers report last and create mechanisms to gain maximum financial efficiency. They are very valuable.
But you would know that if your a company's accountant.
But that’s not how it works. I suspect the FCA’s stopped talking to you long since.
Oh bitterness that’s sad.
Well my bank account tells me it does seem to work very well thanks
Feel free to keep your direction and each to their own.
No bitterness on my behalf. I’m pleased that your bank account is healthy, mine isn’t too bad either.it’s certainly going to see me through retirement.
BTW, I’m not a company accountant, just in case you thought that attempted put down may offend me.
Childish banter on my part so publicly I will apologies. Hopefully my ignorance comments will be put behind us too. "No problem, it’s just internet banter. No offence taken, at my age my hide is pretty thick ?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Look up Amazon’s free cash and then say they aren’t avoiding tax. They are of course entitled to but we are letting them and similar companies avoid contributions to HMRC as they chose to spend their money on themselves. If we use your terminology ( spending money on themselves ) the money that they are spending is creating work both directly ( for additional employees ) and indirectly for other businesses such as packaging and construction companies . Amazon are also regarded as a good company to work for ( assuming you are a grafter ) . The perks are good and include a very tax effective share incentive scheme . I cannot see many Amazon employees complaining about a rising share price . Every single resident in the uk can benefit from the success of Amazon . They supply goods at highly competitive prices and yet some people are proposing to criticise them for success . I regard the £292 million taxes either paid or deferred as a more than fair contribution to the UK economy . Every single company in the UK can claim exactly the same tax breaks as those claimed by Amazon Not every company can move money abroad if they don’t have the structure. Try getting that past HMRC if you own a bike shop. Look how much tax al those high street shops used to pay and compare sales turns over with Amazon on an equal amount. HMRC are worse off overall . It’s the future and won’t be stopped and I don’t claim it should be I say they should pay more than they do that’s all. How are Amazon moving uk generated revenue out of the uk ? With ease Amazon , Google etc have given Ireland’s GDP a massive boost by diverting money there so as to pay less tax. The sales were made in other countries. The tax is being paid in Ireland which has a lower corporate rate. . Hello . Could you explain in a little more detail how this could happen . I thought that you would normally report sale and purchases in the county in which the sales and associated costs were made ? . Or are you referring to bona fide re charges such as management fees , royalties and interest charges on working capital . The reason I ask is that I was completely unaware that you could simply move your profits from one country to another in order to reduce your tax liability . I have never come across this before . Everything is bona fide. Just look at the GDP of Ireland Interesting how much their economy is taking in tax compared to the country’s sales. Amazing how the amount of management fees and legal charges just seem to help the process run so smoothly All perfectly legal France took Facebook to court and won by stopping such charges being made from another country and therefore resulting in the tax being paid in France not another lower tax country. Good progress from France. . Thank you for the reply . It appears that the transfers to which you refer are all bona fide and would need to be justified in detail should HMRC decide to investigate . I think you mentioned that you own a property in France . In this case you would be aware how expensive it is to employ people in France ( or to find employment ) . I would not want to be using France as an example of a successful taxation system . ( though the health service appears to be very good ) . However you still have to pay for a visit to the Doctor " Holding major tech firms to account on tax is a positive whatever you think if the rest of the country. You should also look up employment ratio calculations compared between France and the U.K. we are very similar it’s just how we count students and training courses in tne U.K. that lowers our number of unemployed whereas France include them. *I don’t own any property in France . We are looking at fiscal representation but that’s only a plaque on the wall stuff and a part time admin. Some customs and vat payments . It will help some of our logistics . All Brexit related | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu on tuesday is having another go at a universal corporate eu tax rule book. I wonder how Ireland will react to that and is it the first step to the eu controlling nation tax systems?" The US are starting to sing the same tune so it’s all good to stop tax avoidance and evasion . Ireland are taking the piss as are Luxembourg, U.K. dependencies and U.K. banks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu on tuesday is having another go at a universal corporate eu tax rule book. I wonder how Ireland will react to that and is it the first step to the eu controlling nation tax systems? The US are starting to sing the same tune so it’s all good to stop tax avoidance and evasion . Ireland are taking the piss as are Luxembourg, U.K. dependencies and U.K. banks. " I wouldn't hold your breath i think like me they will see this as another step nearer a federal Europe and the next step will be a universal income tax rate. Once that happens The commission will have total control. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The eu on tuesday is having another go at a universal corporate eu tax rule book. I wonder how Ireland will react to that and is it the first step to the eu controlling nation tax systems? The US are starting to sing the same tune so it’s all good to stop tax avoidance and evasion . Ireland are taking the piss as are Luxembourg, U.K. dependencies and U.K. banks. I wouldn't hold your breath i think like me they will see this as another step nearer a federal Europe and the next step will be a universal income tax rate. Once that happens The commission will have total control." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
