This is fun

No, I don’t know either.

Clearly, they’re idiots so that could be why:

Amazon does that untaxed bit by not making very much profit to be taxed. By, that is, reinvesting earnings in any one period back into expanding the business. Such a horror, eh?

9 thoughts on “This is fun”

  1. So if i’ve got this right a non- profit organisation that ploughs surplus income into its operations is calling for Amazon to make more profit and cease ploughing surplus income into its operations.

  2. Paul Monaghan, their Chief Executive, is one of the nastiest people on the planet. He makes Ritchie look positively avuncular.

  3. ‘..l on the back of income that is largely untaxed.’

    Corporation tax is on earnings not income.

    Income = monetary payment for goods sold; earnings (profit) what is left after all costs for goods sold have been met.

    Words do have meaning. And we do have dictionaries.

  4. And of course, the re-invested bit is mostly into labour. Which with NI etc is taxed at a higher rate than Corp tax. Hence, “re-investing” pays more tax than “not re-investing and making a profit instead”.

    God only knows how he passed those exams.

  5. It’s too bad you can’t do the same with income tax.

    Go back to school and claim the expense against taxable income (more education is always better, right).

    Get a bigger car or wear a suit to work (dress for the job you want).

  6. Some things you can put against income tax. Income tax is the same as corporation tax, it’s a tax on the profits you make from working. Paying for your delivery van is a work expense, you pay for it out of your pre-profit turnover. Paying your mortgage or childcare isn’t a work expense, it’s a personal expense, you pay for it out of your post-tax “profits”.

    If training and education are a legitimate business expenses, then yes, it’s a business expense and gets taken out of your turnover before you calculate the resultant income that is taxed.

  7. One of the reasons given to Ritchie why FTM would be unsuitable as a requirement for public procurements is that it cannot evidence impartiality in awarding the mark. It could refuse the mark to its enemies, denying them access to public contracts.

    A public body couldn’t touch it.

    This now confirms that FTM has enemies who cannot be confident in impartial treatment.

    They don’t get it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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