View Full Version : Any one else pick this up?
amazon paid £2,400,000 in tax and then received £2,500,000 from Holyrood so that they could build/expand their warehouse. Does that mean that the good folk of Scotland have just paid their tax bill and given them a nice profit to boot?
amazon paid £2,400,000 in tax and then received £2,500,000 from Holyrood so that they could build/expand their warehouse. Does that mean that the good folk of Scotland have just paid their tax bill and given them a nice profit to boot?I have been complaining for ever it seems that Westminster has failed to address the tax avoidance by huge companies. Its disgusting. We have also seen today the revenue win a case where they allowedGoldman Sachs to avoid tax they should have paid. Inward Investment is a sensible way to spend money but we need control of our tax laws to ensure that this ridiculous situation doesnt happen again.
I'm complaining about Holyrood not Westminster here, I suspect that this was a case of let's show that we are supporting jobs by The SNP and whilst we're at it, why are those Pandas here when China is responsible for putting African Elephants and Rhinos back on the endangered list?
What? You are complaining about money being spent on creating jobs (1500 i think across two sites) and securing investment in Scotland but not about the laws that allow massive companies to avoid tax? ALL governments offer incentives, grants, support to encourage inward investment. That is their job.
Remember that what Amazon did was LEGAL! When the necessary enquiries were made into the status of the company before deciding whether to support them then their tax affairs would have been and are in order.
I dont reallyunderstand why you are angry about the Scottish Government supporting jobs. They are the government ... That is their role - to encourage and secure investment, growth and jobs in Scotland.
As for the Pandas I amnt sure why they are here either but as they are paid for by the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland I assume they wanted them
It's very easy to protest this. Stop buying their stuff.
Thats exactly what I have done Ducati.
As for the Pandas I amnt sure why they are here either but as they are paid for by the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland I assume they wanted them
Eck tried to say they were a "Gift" from China and got his wrist slapped, he just cannot be trusted to tell the truth
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/advertising/alex-salmond-bamboozled-the-public-with-panda-advert-7631368.html
I can't really blame a company for doing what is legal under current tax law and almost all large companies do this. Rather than complaining in the media politicians should just change current tax law, unless of course they're using similar loopholes themselves.
To reiterate I don't see boycotting as an option because basically every company that can, does it or something similar to pay the minimum amount of tax they can.
I'm complaining about Holyrood not Westminster here, I suspect that this was a case of let's show that we are supporting jobs by The SNP and whilst we're at it, why are those Pandas here when China is responsible for putting African Elephants and Rhinos back on the endangered list?
Are you really that naive or are you just trying to make a cheap political point?
I can't really blame a company for doing what is legal under current tax law and almost all large companies do this. Rather than complaining in the media politicians should just change current tax law, unless of course they're using similar loopholes themselves.
To reiterate I don't see boycotting as an option because basically every company that can, does it or something similar to pay the minimum amount of tax they can.
Are you really that naive or are you just trying to make a cheap political point?
It is possible to boycott anyone you like. The companies that pay their way will then get all the business and we will all be better off because the correct amount will go to the treasury. It's a no-brainer.
Why on earth are the Scottish government giving grants to massive global enterprises? This money should be used for local companies to start, expand and employ.
I have been complaining for ever it seems that Westminster has failed to address the tax avoidance by huge companies. Its disgusting. We have also seen today the revenue win a case where they allowedGoldman Sachs to avoid tax they should have paid. Inward Investment is a sensible way to spend money but we need control of our tax laws to ensure that this ridiculous situation doesnt happen again.
Are you surprised? It's much easier for them to persecute and wring out the poor for every penny they can, because the poor cannot defend themselves.
Why on earth are the Scottish government giving grants to massive global enterprises? This money should be used for local companies to start, expand and employ.They need to be doing both. Massive Global Companies bring big investment and significant numbers of jobs. SMEs need support too and it is a balance but Governments should and must be doing both.
John Little
17-May-13, 08:22
So it's ok for Holyrood to give them money and wrong for Westminster not to take it.
Right.
So if Holyrood gave the money direct to Westminster there would be no problem. Dodgy middle man cut out, sorted.
Oh jeeez here we go. What is RIGHT is for a government, either government, westminster or holyrood to invest in jobs and growth through encouraging inward investment. What is wrong is for a government either government to allow companies to walk away from their tax liabilities with impunity. Holyrood cannot influence or change tax law. Westminster can and doesnt.To complain that the scottish government DARED to spend money on creating jobs as opposed to complaining about the tax laws that allow this avoidance and westminsters failure to properly deal with this seems bizarre.
We should be reducing corporation tax to levels similar to Ireland etcThat will attract investment by big business rather than have big business pull fast ones to avoid paying the tax.
John Little
17-May-13, 09:13
So let me see. Amazon has tax liabilities?
Or maybe they have skilled accountants? And this is seen up in Scotland - and something should be done about it.
Okay.
So we have a dodgy company not paying its taxes.
Okay.
So let's throw a few more millions of taxpayers money at this company that does not pay its taxes so that it can create more underpaid and overworked jobs in Scotland.
Then they won't pay more taxes.
Okay! Got it! :)
So let me see. Amazon has tax liabilities?
Or maybe they have skilled accountants? And this is seen up in Scotland - and something should be done about it.
Okay.
So we have a dodgy company not paying its taxes.
Okay.
So let's throw a few more millions of taxpayers money at this company that does not pay its taxes so that it can create more underpaid and overworked jobs in Scotland.
Then they won't pay more taxes.
Okay! Got it! :)
As far as I can see it, they are meeting their UK tax liabilities, they are just clever in how they route their sales, these firms have been scutinised by HMRC are there is jack that they can do whilst the UK law stays as is.
It is certianly immorral but not illegal, and there is no place for morals in business.
P.S. They are paying their taxes
equusdriving
17-May-13, 10:50
I'm complaining about Holyrood not Westminster here, I suspect that this was a case of let's show that we are supporting jobs by The SNP and whilst we're at it, why are those Pandas here when China is responsible for putting African Elephants and Rhinos back on the endangered list?
its easy if you picture it through squidges eyes, everything good = Praise Holyrood, everything bad = blame Westminster, [disgust]
It is possible to boycott anyone you like. The companies that pay their way will then get all the business and we will all be better off because the correct amount will go to the treasury. It's a no-brainer.
Why on earth are the Scottish government giving grants to massive global enterprises? This money should be used for local companies to start, expand and employ.
It's better to change the law because that way companies that are good at manipulating the media or individuals with also be affected. Would you voluntarily pay tax you didn't have to pay?
So it's ok for Holyrood to give them money and wrong for Westminster not to take it.
Right.
So if Holyrood gave the money direct to Westminster there would be no problem. Dodgy middle man cut out, sorted.
Okay then perhaps Westminster could stop all the subsidies and grants it gives out. Come on John, you're not that stupid.
its easy if you picture it through squidges eyes, everything good = Praise Holyrood, everything bad = blame Westminster,
And for you and others we simply reverse this statement.
It's better to change the law because that way companies that are good at manipulating the media or individuals with also be affected. Would you voluntarily pay tax you didn't have to pay?
Precisely my point, if you had a completely legal method of avoiding paying income tax, would you use it?
John Little
17-May-13, 11:21
What's me being stupid got to do with anything?
Stupid I may be but I have seen GERS and know the meaning of £7.6bn.
Investment in low paid and exploitative companies using cheap labour opportunities is one thing. Companies being creative with tax is another.
Seems to me that part of inward investment adds up to an expected return. Otherwise it simply adds to the deficit. UK. Deficit as well.
Why reward companies, American ones, by providing their investment capital only for US shareholders to walkway with the profits?
I may be stupid but even in stupidity there are degrees.
We need to remember though that these big companies employ lots of people in the UK who if out of work will not be making PAYE or NIC payments and would be taking money from the coffers in benefit payments.
equusdriving
17-May-13, 11:38
And for you and others we simply reverse this statement.
Oh really? care to remind me where I have praised Westminster?
and I have certainly never blamed Holyrood for a decision clearly made in Westminster!
So thats about as wrong as 1 statement could be then, yes?
John Little
17-May-13, 11:43
We need to remember though that these big companies employ lots of people in the UK who if out of work will not be making PAYE or NIC payments and would be taking money from the coffers in benefit payments.
That is true, though Amazon are not renowned as the best of employers.
It's worth stating that I do not give a flying fig about who does it either at Holyrood - SNP, Labour or United Kippers Interrogators' Party - what we have here is not strictly Capitalism as I am comfortable with.
In Capitalism investors put up a stake, a company is floated and investors reap a reward. Fair enough.
Here we have a sort of state capitalism where tax money is given to companies, who want a profit....and the tax payer is supposed to benefit.
There are sweeteners enough without that I feel. Especially when tax is avoided on the scale of Amazon.
If they wanted Amazon to invest in Scotland, personally I would not have given them money- I would have offered them an Enterprise zone - but of course that is not much of an incentive if you are not paying too much tax anyway.
So what you are saying is that the Scottish Government should be criticised for the support it gave to Amazon. The question we need to ask is what would have happened if the Scottish government had not paid the support to Amazon. From a bit of research it seems that the investment and the jobs would have gone to Ireland or elsewhere. In order to receive this level of support it would have gone through a whole range of examinations to determine whether the project was worth funding. The Financial Times said this
If Amazon had been using tax evasion or illegal methods of avoiding tax then I would be appalled at the Scottish Governments decision to support them. However, as part of the process of awarding the support HMRC will have been contacted to see if Amazon had met their tax obligations. The answer is yes, Amazon HAVE met their tax obligations. Given that I think that the project secured and increased jobs - whether you like their business model or not is immaterial, it seems to me a worthwhile project. The issue is with the tax law which leaves this avoidance perfectly legal and a government who despite being aware of the opportunities to avoid tax have done little to rectify this.
John Little
17-May-13, 22:08
£6.20 an hour basic pay.
One penny above minimum wage.
Long hours.
Short breaks. A worthwhile project.
Sweatshop jobs provided courtesy of the tax payer.
Cheap labour pool.
There are no words.
The jobs you describe May not be for you John Little but I have had occasion to be very glad of that sort of job in the past and may very well be so again. There is of course more
http://www.indeed.co.uk/m/jobs?q=Amazon&l=
Lets assume there was an opportunity to secure those jobs for Caithness, should we take that opportunity? Or turn our nose up? It is the job of the government to secure investment and jobs. I would like to see those jobs paying a living wage in a union supported environment. I dont like the use of agencies to manAge temporary workers but for any of that to happen we have to have the damn jobs first.
Its a worthwhile project because today 750 people have permanent jobs which did not exist three years ago.
piratelassie
18-May-13, 01:23
I smell a wee bit of poo stirring here .
So it's ok for Holyrood to give them money and wrong for Westminster not to take it.
Right.
So if Holyrood gave the money direct to Westminster there would be no problem. Dodgy middle man cut out, sorted.
John Little
18-May-13, 10:00
Well I suppose that the bribing of foreign corporations to provide low paid work will help offset the 3-4000 jobs lost by rationalising the Police Force.
I would much appreciate reading less in the future about a better fairer Scotland and social justice etc. if this is an indication of what the future offers then it is not better or fairer - merely different.
Well when it comes to poo stirring, you've the expert spoon there Piratelassie. Just pull it out from where you stuck it in Eck's dock after your last stir and give a shottie of it to John.
We have the industrial relations we have as part of the UK. Are you telling me that if Amazon wanted to offer this amount of jobs in the place where you live, you would campaign against it? Are you unemployed John? These jobs at Amazon and other places meet the current laws. If we want a fairer and better society then we should be changing the laws but we cant. Employment law is a reserved power for Westminster. They have no desire to change the laws for the better and indeed have changed them to reduce the rights of workers over several years. These jobs are in Scotland now. If we vote for an independent Scotland then we will have an opportunity to look at our laws and change them if that is what the electorate wants. It wont happen overnight but it gives Scotland the power to change the laws governing employment practices which we dont have now. There is a but though, but but BUT.... We have to have the jobs first.
Well I suppose that the bribing of foreign corporations to provide low paid work will help offset the 3-4000 jobs lost by rationalising the Police Force. .http://www.unitetheunion.org/how-we-help/list-of-sectors/local-authorities/localauthoritiesnews/scottishpolicestaffupdate/Scottish
Police Staff update12 April 2013
Delegates from the Scottish Police Staff Branch met with •
Kenny MacAskill MSP Cabinet Secretary for Justice •
Vic Emery Chair of the Scottish Police Authority •
Iain Livingstone Deputy Chief Constable
The transfer to a single Scottish Police Force was discussed in detail with each speaker. There will be no compulsory redundancies and no privatisation. Efficiency savings will be made through voluntary job losses, a review of properties, contracts and ICT systems.
Considerable savings can be made through shared services, reorganisation and reform of the previous divisional structures. Questions were raised on the reported figure of 3000 potential police staff job cuts and the rationalisation of control rooms, call handling, forensics and fleet services. Concerns were put forward on the harmonisation of terms and conditions for staff and the timescale for reforms. There was a general view from all guest speakers that 3000 job losses were unlikely but it would be difficult at this stage to outline an exact figure. Harmonisation of terms and conditions would take place through consultation with the trade unions although the timescale was uncertain at this point. A dispersal model would be progressed to ensure that there was a geographical spread for specialist or centralised services.
rob murray
20-May-13, 16:58
We have the industrial relations we have as part of the UK. Are you telling me that if Amazon wanted to offer this amount of jobs in the place where you live, you would campaign against it? Are you unemployed John? These jobs at Amazon and other places meet the current laws. If we want a fairer and better society then we should be changing the laws but we cant. Employment law is a reserved power for Westminster. They have no desire to change the laws for the better and indeed have changed them to reduce the rights of workers over several years. These jobs are in Scotland now. If we vote for an independent Scotland then we will have an opportunity to look at our laws and change them if that is what the electorate wants. It wont happen overnight but it gives Scotland the power to change the laws governing employment practices which we dont have now. There is a but though, but but BUT.... We have to have the jobs first.
All jobs are welcome, we live in a global economy, Amazon etc pay what they see as the going rate in the UK, any interferences in this and they can decide to re locate. Its more skilled / brain driven work thats needed, thats where value is created and hence higher rates of pay are ( and harder to re locate as well ) However in the short term every job is a blessing.
rob murray
20-May-13, 17:02
We should be reducing corporation tax to levels similar to Ireland etcThat will attract investment by big business rather than have big business pull fast ones to avoid paying the tax.
A good point..lower tax thresholds across the board at corporate and individual levels, attract inward investment, people get to keep more of their pay, spend more, and the economy moves forward ! Yes I agree with you.
And isnt that planned for an Independent Scotland?
And isnt that planned for an Independent Scotland?
you tell me, it will take more than that to convince me though.
a proper thought out financial model for a start.
Yes it is planned for an Independent Scotland. Believe me Mi16, I am not trying to convince you. Simply making sure people know what is happening and sharing my own views.
Yes it is planned for an Independent Scotland.
where are all the figures?
From a quick squizz at the Scotland on Sunday webpage it sugests that the first minister is planning a backtrack on cutting corporation tax.
http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/scottish-independence-snp-tax-vow-may-be-slashed-1-2936464
"Published on 19/05/2013 00:00
THE SNP’s flagship pro-business policy to slash the headline rate of corporation tax in an independent Scotland could be reviewed amid claims it is costing the party support prior to the independence referendum.
First Minister Alex Salmond and Finance Secretary John Swinney have backed a plan to undercut the UK’s tax on profits to signal that Scotland was “open for business”.
However, some within the party are now lobbying for a re-think, claiming Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is sympathetic.
Last week, asked whether she personally supported the plan, she said that a corporation tax (http://forum.caithness.org/#) cut was “one of the ways” of giving Scotland a competitive edge, but that “more detail” on the party’s business case would be unveiled.
The pressure for a rethink came after Chancellor George Osborne announced that business rates in the UK would be cut to 20 per cent by 2015 – the same figure used by Mr Swinney two years ago when he sought to highlight the benefits of a lower figure for Scotland.
The focus on low tax havens has been sharpened following revelations about the tiny sums of tax paid (http://forum.caithness.org/#) to the UK exchequer by multi-national firms operating in the UK, such as Google and Amazon, both of which route their profits elsewhere.
Google bases its sales wing in Ireland, which has a rate of 12.5 per cent.
Google’s huge advertising sales base for Europe is based in the country. It means that the company paid just £6m of tax to the UK in 2011 on £2.6bn of profits derived in the country.
The SNP pledge has won support from entrepreneurs such as Sir Tom Hunter and the pro-independence Jim McColl.
One senior SNP source said that the party’s low corporation tax (http://forum.caithness.org/#) policy was no longer such a red line issue, largely because Osborne was cutting the UK rate to 20 per cent.
“It’s not such an issue for business any more,” the source said.
Another well-placed source said that the policy had been debated internally for the last 18 months. “However, the backers haven’t won over John Swinney,” the figure said.
Other figures said that a rethink could see the party ditching its offer of a headline rate cut and instead offering a “zero-rating” to specific industries, such as Dundee’s thriving computer games industry.
It is understood the SNP will now set out its own manifesto for a post-independence government which may lay out its full plans. Senior party sources last night insisted that the pledge for a headline rate and such specific “zero-rating” offers were not mutually exclusive.
One said: “Having control over corporation tax means we could look at all these things. There is still that commitment to look at the headline rate.”
Och well maybe not then lol. Although its a point worth making that we will have the option to change corporation tax if we want in an independent Scotland. We dont have that now.
I think decisions about corporation tax remain a reserved power for Westminster.
Jokers to the left, Jokers to the right ...
Im stuck in the middle and know how to play you right!
I think decisions about corporation tax remain a reserved power for Westminster.exactly, our current government can reduce it.
I think decisions about corporation tax remain a reserved power for Westminster.
But not if we're in the EU.............
There's a reason why Ebay/Amazon/Apple etc base their "local" operations where taxes are low.
They are not British companies, they are "european" and in the interest of free trade cannot be liable for corporation tax where the sell.........
Blame hollyrood, blame westminster, blame whoever you like, but these companies are playing by the rules the elected politicians have set.
rob murray
21-May-13, 09:05
And isnt that planned for an Independent Scotland?
Dunno, but if it is fine !
Dunno, but if it is fine !As posted above they are back pedalling on that one
rob murray
21-May-13, 10:37
As posted above they are back pedalling on that one
Who are you referring to as "they" who is back peddling ? All I said was fine by me, I am a unionist, but if by some miracle separatism occurs and corporation tax is devolved ( it will have to be ) then as I said fine by me, or rather to put in bluntly it wont effect me one jot !! Dont try and pull me into your agenda please.
Who are you referring to as "they" who is back peddling ? All I said was fine by me, I am a unionist, but if by some miracle separatism occurs and corporation tax is devolved ( it will have to be ) then as I said fine by me, or rather to put in bluntly it wont effect me one jot !! Dont try and pull me into your agenda please.The SNP..........
There has been a whole lot of discussion about Corporation Tax. There were initially suggestions that Corporation tax would reduce to 12.5% in an independent Scotland. Although this didnt seem to be backed up. Then there was more suggestions that it would reduce from 23% to 20% which it has done. I dont really give a flying fig what it is as long as the companies that are supposed to pay it, do so.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.