Xann Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 Quote Tories lobbying to protect Google’s £30bn island tax haven Treasury ministers have told the European commission that they are “strongly opposed” to proposed sanctions against Bermuda, a favoured shelter for Google’s profits and one of 30 tax jurisdictions in Brussels’ sights. ■ Britain has complained to the European commission about an EU blacklist designed to hit tax havens, including Bermuda, describing it as “misleading and deeply unhelpful” and rejecting suggestions of “countermeasures”. ■ Tory MEPs were instructed on six different occasions last year to vote against proposals that would clamp down on multinationals that engage in aggressive tax avoidance. ■ A transcript of an interview from 2006 with Real Business magazine has emerged in which David Cameron says he believes Google has “headquartered” elsewhere because “we’re no longer tax-competitive”. Osborne warned in the same year that Gordon Brown’s government was “pricing Britain out of the future” with its tax demands on the search company. Grauniad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mockingbird_franklin Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Seems like the £130million in corporation tax from google is a bit of a lie, who would have thought it, this government being economical with the truth. Apparently Georgie girl included £33 million which was claimed from a employee share option scheme and not from company profits. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/04/google-uk-tax-deal-share-options-scheme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lapal_fan Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 There needs to be a blanket, worldwide agreement on tax for large multinationals. It'll never happen, because there will always be someone who will offer the services for cheaper, but it would stop the everyman being shit on from a great height. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted February 5, 2016 Moderator Share Posted February 5, 2016 7 hours ago, lapal_fan said: There needs to be a blanket, worldwide agreement on tax for large multinationals. They're working towards it - they just have to remove the last of these pesky interfering govern-ment things first. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 I really dont like Jeremy Hunt, probably one of the most unpopular health ministers ive experienced. hope they sack this arrogant clown 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 15 minutes ago, Demitri_C said: I really dont like Jeremy Hunt, probably one of the most unpopular health ministers ive experienced. hope they sack this arrogant clown To be fair 'The Hunt' is a tactic this government have found works really quite well. You put somebody in place that comes over as arrogant, hard line, uncaring, incompetent. They cause massive disruption, slash budgets, get everyone involved in internal wars etc.. Then, at the next re shuffle, somebody 'nicer' is put in post. Now the 'nicer' person is actually a relative measure. Once you've had Grayling run your department, the likes of Gove can appear quite reasonable. Expect a Gove type to take over Health at some point and implement 80% of what Hunt is attempting and everyone will think it's a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Quote Nearly 14,000 disabled people who rely on a specialist motoring allowance have had their cars taken away from them following government welfare changes. BBC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 2 hours ago, Xann said: BBC Despite being an amputee with spina bifida, who is only able to take a few steps, Christine Mitchell did not score the points she needed to keep her Motability car that is absolutely shocking I can appreciate the need in some cases for reassessment but the assessor who "failed" her deserves shooting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Dave's Mom signs anti-cuts petition! Bwhahahaha! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 5 hours ago, chrisp65 said: To be fair 'The Hunt' is a tactic this government have found works really quite well. You put somebody in place that comes over as arrogant, hard line, uncaring, incompetent. They cause massive disruption, slash budgets, get everyone involved in internal wars etc.. Then, at the next re shuffle, somebody 'nicer' is put in post. Now the 'nicer' person is actually a relative measure. Once you've had Grayling run your department, the likes of Gove can appear quite reasonable. Expect a Gove type to take over Health at some point and implement 80% of what Hunt is attempting and everyone will think it's a result. I'm not carefully following Michael Gove's progress, but I had been under the impression that he was indeed cutting back on a lot of Grayling measures . . . what am I missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 9, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted February 9, 2016 1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said: he was indeed cutting back on a lot of Grayling measures He's reversed some of it. Mind you Grayling is an utter, utter numpty and made a humungous mess of things - so bad even Gove and Co. could see it was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 9, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted February 9, 2016 So, this snooper's charter thing. That's going down well - or being ripped into. Quote The UK parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) says that the draft Investigatory Powers Bill "lacks clarity and undermines the importance of the safeguards associated with these [surveillance] powers." Offering unexpectedly strong criticism of the proposed Snooper's Charter, the ISC says in its report on the proposed legislation that "privacy protections should form the backbone of the draft legislation, around which the exceptional powers are then built." The ISC is particularly concerned by plans to allow intelligence agencies to obtain "bulk equipment interference" warrants, which would allow them to hack into the systems of large groups of people, locations, or organisations. The ISC points out this is far too broad a power, and recommends that "Bulk Equipment Interference warrants are removed from the new legislation." Another part of the Bill that comes in for harsh criticism is the section covering the collection of bulk personal datasets. The problem is that this "allows the Agencies to obtain any number of datasets falling within a category (e.g. travel data) without specifically informing Ministers of each one." In other words, a single warrant allows collection of personal data on a vast scale, with practically no oversight. Again, the ISC's solution is quite drastic: "We therefore recommend that Class Bulk Personal Dataset warrants are removed from the new legislation." The IPC is even more scathing about the proposed powers to gather metadata—called "Communications Data" by the draft Investigatory Powers Bill: "The approach towards the examination of Communications Data in the draft Bill is inconsistent and largely incomprehensible." The Intelligence and Security Committee is clearly unhappy with allowing the UK's spies to police themselves: "To leave the safeguards up to the Agencies as a matter of good practice is simply unacceptable: this new legislation is an opportunity to provide clarity and assurance and it fails to do so in this regard." The ISC says that this must be rectified. The report adds its voice to the growing chorus deeply concerned about the open-ended power the Snooper's Charter would give the Home Secretary to force companies to backdoor or ban crypto in their services and products. On this point, the Committee says: "The Home Office must ensure that the legislation provides clarity as to the nature and scale of these obligations." The depth and breadth of the ISC's criticisms is astonishing given its extremely meek "Privacy and Security: A modern and transparent legal framework" report from March last year, which basically gave its blessing to everything that the UK's intelligence agencies were doing. By contrast, today's report finds the Investigatory Powers Bill flawed both in overall design and in detail. If the ISC has this many problems with the new Snooper's Charter, it suggests that its passage through the full UK parliament will be even rockier than expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 7 minutes ago, blandy said: So, this snooper's charter thing. That's going down well - or being ripped into. I'm sure there will be a convenient terror attack on the UK as it's going through parliament to ease it's passing into law 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 2 hours ago, tonyh29 said: I'm sure there will be a convenient terror attack on the UK as it's going through parliament to ease it's passing into law Call 0800-ERDOGAN 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 On 25 January 2016 at 16:00, blandy said: To be fair to Osborne, the reason, or part of it, there's been a bit of a rush for these companies to "volunteer" agreements with HMRC to pay a modicum of tax, is because after the start if the next financial year, they will be liable to a much more hefty new charge for tax avoidance - any money they are deemed to have shuffled around to artificially avoid tax, will be taxed at something like 30%. So if they volunteer to settle it before that comes into effect, they will save themselves a tidy sum. Facebook will be next. I don't think that's anything to do with it whatsoever, sorry Pete. I suspect that you're talking about this bit of the budget " 1.242 Building on this, the government will toughen sanctions for those who continue to evade tax by closing the existing disclosure facilities for tax evaders early. A tougher ‘last chance’ disclosure facility will be offered between 2016 and mid-2017, with penalties of at least 30% on top of tax owed and interest and with no immunity from criminal prosecutions in appropriate cases. " But this isn't aimed at big multinationals, as they aren't "evading" but "avoiding". The disclosure facility is a partial amnesty for wealthy individuals with undisclosed offshore income and assets. It basically says "fess up to that Cayman Islands account and the penalties won't be severe, and we won't try to stick you in the big house." The reason why Google paid up and HMRC accepted is probably because it's much cheaper for both sides than a protracted legal battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 10, 2016 Author Moderator Share Posted February 10, 2016 12 hours ago, Risso said: I don't think that's anything to do with it whatsoever, sorry I bow to your bean counting expertise, Martin. thanks. I thought it a bit weird typing "to be fair to osborne" it just didn't seem right, and it turns out it wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 1 hour ago, blandy said: I bow to your bean counting expertise, Martin. thanks. I thought it a bit weird typing "to be fair to osborne" it just didn't seem right, and it turns out it wasn't. The main thing is, tax at that sort of level is incredibly complex, and is the legislation is failing to keep up with the digital age and the fact that different jurisdictions charge different amounts. The main complexity is that the rules say that profits from a foreign company are exempt from UK tax unless they have been artificially diverted from the UK. This is where the army of lawyers and accountants get involved. On a very simplistic level, Google will argue that it is based in Ireland, and because it is not selling physical goods, it very much is selling stuff from Ireland. HMRC will say come off it lads, you're effectively managed and controlled in the UK, so really should be paying UK corporation tax. The QCs involved will argue about the chances of success, and have come up with a settlement figure that takes into consideration the relative chances of success and the legal costs of involved. What they have probably agreed is to say "fine, we agree that this small bit of profit IS chargeable to UK CT" and applied the relative percentages. It all seems hugely unfair to the average small businessman in the street, but it's the side effect of having such stupidly complex tax law, and as I said before, different countries with wildly differing tax rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Quote Evidence obtained by Channel 4 News appears to show that the Conservatives racked up tens of thousands of pounds in undisclosed spending across three by-elections. Breaking rules on election expenditure, nice accommodation for bigwigs. Channel 4 News Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 A doctor talking about stuff, like liars and strikes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Quote Jeremy Hunt to resume meaningful contract negotiations with the BMA. UK Government and Parliament Petitions 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts