Stop talking rot PwC

Britain’s biggest 100 businesses collected and paid £82.3bn in taxes this year, up from £80.5bn in 2015 and the highest level ever.

The firms paid £23.7bn directly, according to figures from PwC, and collected £58.6bn in the form of charges such as PAYE income tax and VAT.

Sigh.

The so called “direct” taxes are not incident upon the firms either. All taxes lead to the wallets of some live human beings getting picked. Simply because there’s only us humans here to pay taxes.

Just as Ritchie continues his illiterate screeds about how “companies” should pay MOAR TAX we must continue to point out that those direct taxes are incident upon investors and workers, not the company.

12 comments on “Stop talking rot PwC

  1. “All taxes lead to the wallets of some live human beings getting picked”

    Which is why, of course, the Murphatollah should be singing the praises of the ‘Big 4’ accountancy practices as they are LLPs and so the taxes they pay as a business really do come out of the wallets of human beings.

    Strangely, though, he never does.

  2. Mmmm…a quibble
    If you’re ignoring incorporation as creating a legal “persona”, (which you are) then you have to go back to the original definition of a “company” being a group of individuals engaged in trade.

  3. No, the legal distinction is between legal persons and natural persons. And we all agree that legal persons have some of the rights of natural persons – the ability to enter into a contract for example – and not some other rights of natural persons – we execute corporations all the time, called bankruptcy.

    All the economics is doing is insisting that taxes are incident upon natural persons, not legal ones.

  4. “those direct taxes are incident upon investors and workers, not the company”

    investors, workers, and customers.

    Tax a corporation, and it could pay less dividends to investors, or raise prices. It’s still just people.

  5. To expand on pendantry.
    “Stop talking rot PwC”
    PwC, of course, talked no rot at all. Because PwC has neither teeth nor tongue nor breath to say anything at all. It was one of those individuals trading together as a company called PwC.
    But if we are to accept that there is a “persona” labelled PwC. Then we have to accept that persona might refer to other “personae”, being companies paying tax.

  6. Accepting they are accountants, they are talking about the mechanics of collection rather than incidence. As a business vat means its cost is the net value added at uk vat rate. Incidence does not get you through the exams, and it is also not something the Sherriff’s men care about either. Guess it would be nice if the piggies in parliament got it, but candidly, you’ve got no chance there.

  7. I was at Coopers & Lybrand before the PW merger, and there was a story told about the former Coopers Brothers – the English firm that merged with Lybrand, Ross Brothers & Montgomery.
    The firm was located on Gutter Lane, Cheapside, and at some point in the ’50s was coming up to its 100th anniversary of formation. The partners felt that ‘Gutter Lane’ didn’t carry the prestige they would have liked (I suppose particularly for people not familiar with the City), and wrote to the City of London Corporation, requesting that in honour of the rich history of the firm carrying the name of ‘Coopers’ for over 100 years, perhaps Gutter Lane (or their stretch of it) could be renamed “Coopers Lane” or something similar.
    The City declined, and very politely pointed out that Gutter Lane had been known by that name for over 500 years. They indicated that the City would have no objection if the firm wished to change its name to “Gutter Brothers” in honour of that rich history.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.