Cyprus-Forum.com

[Maximus]

Some companies operate in high volume low margin industries,

if you think that every business makes more than 20% profit margin you are really clueless.

Then you made the mistake of taxing the second company based on their 50% profit margin. When you are supposed to be doing it based on turnover without discrimination to profit.

Get lost you prat.

[Lordo]

Some companies operate in high volume low margin industries,

if you think that every business makes more than 20% profit margin you are really clueless.

Then you made the mistake of taxing the second company based on their 50% profit margin. When you are supposed to be doing it based on turnover without discrimination to profit.

Get lost you prat.

Boooooy how many businesses have you set up and run? Let me guess you will start one as soon as you are out of your nappies right?

[Lordo]

If you are wondering how they avoid tax avoid no more. Here are thre experts explaining it some better than others.

The 12th of November was a day of unusually entertaining political theatre at Westminster.

Three executives from large multinational corporations were ritually flagellated by Parliament's Public Accounts Committee as penance for the alleged tax sins of their employers.

Starbucks' head of finance, Troy Alstead, was forced to portray his company as a perennial commercial flop, in order to account for its peculiar failure to record a taxable profit in the UK for 14 out of the last 15 years.

He was followed by Amazon's Andrew Cecil, who was reduced to stuttering when he was accused of being "pathetic" for his inability to disclose something as basic as how much of his firm's European sales came from the UK last year.

Last up was Google's Matt Brittin. In contrast to his two peers, Mr Brittin did not seek to evade or apologise.

Yes, of course Google minimises its tax bill, by operating in Bermuda and Ireland, he said. Google had a duty to its shareholders to minimise its costs. And besides, the UK still benefited from Google's many free products, not least its search engine, which were engineered by thousands of employees in California.

But although Mr Brittin acquitted himself best by virtue of sheer bravado, was his confidence justified?

Why do major insurance companies have offices in one of the tax havens?

[Pyrpolizer]

I was thinking about the system in Sweden which taxes anyone making more than double the average, by 60%.
It looks that when humans feel most part of their "unfair" earnings will end in someone else's pocket, they become more humane. It's a fact that lots of Corporations in Sweden make donations to charities, to Universities for research, while most offer unconditional bonuses to their employees.
It surely helps control the unrestricted greediness.

Their system is successful, I don't see any reason why not do the same elsewhere.

[Lordo]

I was thinking about the system in Sweden which taxes anyone making more than double the average, by 60%.
It looks that when humans feel most part of their "unfair" earnings will end in someone else's pocket, they become more humane. It's a fact that lots of Corporations in Sweden make donations to charities, to Universities for research, while most offer unconditional bonuses to their employees.
It surely helps control the unrestricted greediness.

Their system is successful, I don't see any reason why not do the same elsewhere.

They do say that Sweden is a good country to live in except it is very cold in the winter. And Alcohol is quite heavily taxed and so it should be. Somebody has to pay the hospital bills caused by alcohol consumption.

[Lordo]

Talking of tax evation, here is a bit of info to think about.

Starbucks said that it sourced its UK coffee from its wholesale trading subsidiary in Switzerland. That may be sensible commercially - it's cheaper to have one team responsible for sourcing all of Starbucks' coffee, and Switzerland is apparently the centre of the world coffee-trading business.

But it is hard escape the conclusion that Switzerland would not be a major centre for coffee trading in the first place if it did not charge a lowly 12% tax rate on the trading profits.

What what is not even considered is what price does the Swiss subsidiary charge the UK operation for the coffee supplied and how does it compare to coffee sourced from within the UK.

Clearly it is the easiest way to transfer the profits to Swiss subsidiary.

[Pyrpolizer]

Talking of tax evation, here is a bit of info to think about.

Starbucks said that it sourced its UK coffee from its wholesale trading subsidiary in Switzerland. That may be sensible commercially - it's cheaper to have one team responsible for sourcing all of Starbucks' coffee, and Switzerland is apparently the centre of the world coffee-trading business.

But it is hard escape the conclusion that Switzerland would not be a major centre for coffee trading in the first place if it did not charge a lowly 12% tax rate on the trading profits.

What what is not even considered is what price does the Swiss subsidiary charge the UK operation for the coffee supplied and how does it compare to coffee sourced from within the UK.

Clearly it is the easiest way to transfer the profits to Swiss subsidiary.

Isn't Starbucks a franchise business in the UK? If it is then it's impossible to have a Swiss subsidiary.
Regardless, when a company with millions of turnover declares losses 14 out of it's 15 year operations, that's obviously a fraud. From there on it's a matter of how competent the British Authorities are in putting some wise guys in jail.

[Lordo]

Starbucks does not franchise to individuals, they are all company run shops. There are some exceptions in certain places where they allow their name to be used within another organisation.

But I agree that HMRC should be able to see if the price of coffee coming from the subsiduary is being inflated to avoid tax. How else can a company declare a loss for years and still keep going? By agreeing to pay tax without changing their decleration proves that they are cheating. HMRC is not that hard on corporations that do not pay their taxes. But you make a mistake as a small firm and they wil be onto you like a tonne of bricks.

[repulsewarrior]

And this actually giving examples of solutions to manipulate capitalism to help the working class. Look at 12 minutes in, little old haricut is mentioned.

...thanks Lordo, very informative; worth watching.

[Pyrpolizer]

Something has to be done though. Money creates more money that's an axiom. We shouldn't make it stop, as the bigger the corporations the more the jobs they provide. I think what they 've done in Spain should become a law. No manager, no executive, no shareholder, no board of directors, should get more than 6 times the average salary. There could be ajustments and grace periods for those who made the initial investment only.