How about this hypocrisy from the Tax Justice Network, eh?

From their blog:

Facebook\’s UK corporation tax bill last year was less than it pays a single average worker

I have to admit that I don\’t particularly get worked up about that. After all, it\’s true for any and every company that\’s making a loss. But they do think there\’s something wrong with that. It\’s appalling that a company should pay less corporation tax than it pays one of its own employees.

So, Tax Justice Network accounts.

Corporation tax paid £2,876.

Wage bill (not including director\’s top ups) was around £160 k that year and they had four, count them, four employees.

Average pay thus £40k a year.

So the Tax Justice Network pays its average employee 14 (yes, fourteen!) times what it hands over to the government for the permission to trade:

This company is taking the benefits from Britain – its roads, rule of law, regulated markets, educated workforce, universities, and so on – and then using the offshore system to get out of paying for any of these privileges. TJN (presumably) hasn\’t actually broken the law. But this sort of thing is, to use an expression, simply criminal.

Quite. Hang the bastards now.



12 thoughts on “How about this hypocrisy from the Tax Justice Network, eh?”

  1. Tried commenting and after I had filled in the required boxes they blanked my comment.
    Murphy told me he had blocked access to his blog after I had pointed out too many of his errors/lies, not to every associated blog.
    So yet another site that claims to inform but censors honest comments.

  2. Er, that’s different but they don’t have the time to explain why to imperialist running dog lackeys like this blog

  3. “Facebook’s UK corporation tax bill last year was less than it pays a single average worker”

    The Daily Mail wrote that, not TJN or Murphy.

    So once again, bollocks to you.

  4. @ Arnald
    “Facebook’s UK corporation tax bill last year was less than it pays a single average worker ” is the headline on the TJN blog which I have just copied and pasted
    They then quote the Daily Mail saying something very similar in different words.
    So, No – you have got it wrong as usual – the Daily Mail did *not* write that: their grammar was better and they talked about the average salary paid to each member of staff rather than “a single average worker”.

  5. You don’t understand what the campaigning is all about, do you?

    Just because you can move an HQ to a low tax regime, an HQ that doesn’t actually need to have anyone there doing any actual work, doesn’t mean that the corp shouldn’t pay tax on the profits it makes within the country it’s profiting from.

    It may be the way the law is now, but change the law, why not.

    You lot are all for getting all frothy about other laws. Jeebus.

    Stick to tits and abortion.

  6. Arnald

    So, if a major UK company makes huge sales in Germany, you would say that those profits should be taxable in Germany, based on your logic, which means that those same profits wouldn’t then also be taxed in the UK where the bulk of its employees and infrastructure are situated.

    At which point Murphy would cry foul and claims that the UK company isn’t paying enough UK tax. Yet if it was the other way round and the German company had huge sales in the UK but was paying tax on those profits in Germany rather than in the UK, he would again be crying foul.

    Murphy needs to decide whether he favours territorial tax, or tax based on corporate residency principles. And then stick to his view and accept the outcomes. He cannot have it both ways.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *