Sigh

Google paid £36.4million in UK corporation tax last year – despite making a turnover of £1billion.

Sigh

Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Susan Kramer said: ‘It is appalling that Google are still getting away with paying such a paltry amount of their total revenue back in taxes.

It’s a profit tax you ignorant git!

22 comments on “Sigh

  1. “John Cullinane, of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, said: ‘The amount of corporation tax Google pays in the UK is not based on the amount of profit Google makes from its sales to UK customers.”

    Has anyone else noticed the colossal intersection between those who demand that companies that do business here should pay taxes here and those who think the Single Market is a great thing and we all love the EU ?

    Seems to me to be about 100%.

    (Not discussing whether booking profits in Ireland or wherever is reasonable or not ; just the basic ideas).

  2. So tax/revenue was 3.64%

    TJN pays 0.00%. Every year. By arrangement with HMRC. Who is it that has the deal with HMRC then?

  3. No qualifications needed to be an MP (or even a Treasury Spokesman) and doesn’t it show…..

  4. Have I read the numbers wrongly?

    £36m of corporation tax (at 20%) would mean very roughly £180m Profit before tax (ignore adjustments).

    If the turnover number was exactly £1bn, that would be 18% (PBT / Turnover), which really is not too shabby at all. Ie, without seeing the actual numbers, it all looks to be in “sensible” land?

    After all the adverse press coverage, I didn’t realise that Google were paying that much tax (as a %)? Perhaps that £1bn turnover number actually much, much higher?

  5. “Why is this so, so difficult for people to grasp?”

    Because they are either liars (knowing it to be rubbish, but it suits their political ends to lie) or are so moronic that they just parrot whatever is pushed under their noses by someone further up the political food chain who is a liar.

  6. OK. Let’s try this:
    MPs pay not only tax on their incomes & pensions but tax on their expenses. Also they pay tax on all their assistants & spads etc. Treating the services provided as income. Not forgetting those un-paid interns, of course. It’s the service provided, not the cost.
    So now we’re taxing MPs on turnover. Seems fair. Surely none would complain. Least of all Susan Kramer

  7. Abacab>

    If you were going to pick a line of bullshit to push for money or power, wouldn’t you pick something proven successful at persuading people of its nonsense? No surprise they’ve picked Jew-baiting and Nazism, those have always been popular with a fairly large minority.

    This line of propaganda, as with everything from people like Ritchie and Corbyn, is straight-up Nazi propaganda. Henry Ford and Hitler both ranted about the Jew corporations avoiding/evading tax, and about how the entire tax system was set up to rook the hard-working white labourer while the Jew didn’t pay. It’s one of the fundamental ideas of Nazism. Familiar, isn’t it?

  8. Given that all the Liberal Democrat MPs would fit in a single toilet stall, I’m not sure Kramer’s announcement is going to have much of an impact on the body politic.

  9. Calm down, Dave. You are behaving like the Murphatollah – that is, by requiring minimal evidence for what you believe to be true, and the highest standards of evidence for whatever you disagree with.

  10. Given that post-Brexit, the EU (that is, the EuroZone) would be most likely to push for fiscal union pretty much immediately, and that the FTT was an attempt to introduce a tax that was paid directly to the EU (bypassing national governments), and given the Ireland/Apple decision, I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if a turnover tax were to be proposed (say, by the French) in some form, PDQ.

  11. BiS, yes I love that line of attack. As I’ve said before, tax newspaper writers (shurly not journalists) on their gross income including expenses and they might change their tune.

  12. These people know exactly what they are doing. Sadly, many people do not think beyond the headline on stories such as these. I’ve typically found that when someone gives you an in on subjects such as landlords offsetting interest, multinationals not paying their ‘fair share’ or paying tax where it is earned, as long as the person is not a rusted on lying lefty, only a few minutes are required to have the person saying “I’d never thought of it like that.”

  13. When MrsBud owned a village shop and PO, about 20 years ago, her annual turnover was around £200k. The margin was about 18%, so about £36k sale of goods minus cost of goods. After all other deductions, if memory serves, she paid about £6k, a disgracefully paltry sum on a total revenue of £200k. In fact, when looking at the ratio of revenue to tax paid, it is paltrier than Google’s tax, she really should be tax shamed by Spud, Baroness Kramer and Dame Hodge.

  14. Assuming that all goes well, we intend this year to have zero profit on about $1M of turnover, provided we’ve got the cashflow to do it. By paying all profit out as bonuses to the employees.

    If we don’t have the cash to do this, we’ll have to pay corp tax…

  15. Ditto, abacab.

    Or almost. We need to make a paltry profit just in order to keep the finance gurus who work people who lease us kit happy.

    So we pay paltry corporation tax.

  16. I’ve been in the situation of being told to bring forward significant project spending planned for next FY so that it would fall in the current FY. I assumed the reason was to reduce the current FY’s profit while spending money we’d be spending soon anyway.

    Is there a Pigovian element to corporation tax, as in it is partly meant to keep money flowing rather than being sat on?

Leave a Reply

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