Slashdot Mirror
UK Chancellor Confirms Introduction of 'Google Tax'
mrspoonsi sends this report from the BBC:
Companies that move their profits overseas to avoid tax will be subject to a "diverted profits tax" from April, the chancellor has said. In his final Budget before the election, George Osborne said firms that aid tax evasion will also face new penalties and criminal prosecutions. The so-called "Google Tax" is designed to discourage large companies diverting profits out of the the UK to avoid tax. "Let the message go out: this country's tolerance for those who will not pay their fair share of taxes has come to an end," Mr. Osborne said. In 2012 it emerged that internet giant Google avoided tax on £10bn UK revenue in 2011 by doubling the amount of money put into a shell company in Bermuda. Doing so helped it avoid £1bn in corporation tax. Under the new tax regime, companies with an annual turnover of £10m will have to tell HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) if they think their company structure could make them liable for diverted profit tax. Once HMRC has assessed the structures, and decided how much profit has been artificially diverted from the UK, multinationals will have only 30 days to object to the 25% tax.
The typical libertarian who wants complete deregulation of *everything*
No, you've described an absolutist Libertarian. This is like saying the typical Socialist wants no privately owned possessions. The typical libertarian wants a lot less regulation than most developed countries have taken on.
Last year the rate they *would* have paid on those profits, if left in the UK, was 21%, so yes it's (somewhat) punitive.
You realize that almost always the reason there's only one cable company is because of regulation, don't you?
Not true. In a competitive market, costs tend to approach the marginal cost. That means that fixed costs (like the cost of trenching and laying cable) are sunk costs, and may not be recovered. So once one company has run cable into an area, there is little incentive for another company to do the same. Competition will just ensure they both lose. So cable service is a natural monopoly, where the first mover has a huge advantage.
An unregulated market will NOT fix this problem. It will make it worse, either through explicit or tacit collusion. One solution is to decrease the fixed cost, by trenching just once, and installing a wide, publicly owned, conduit. Then allow any bonded company to pull cable through the conduit. This can cost less than 1% of the cost or retrenching, and greatly reduce the barriers to entry.
It is very important to understand that an "unregulated" market, and a "competitive" market are not the same thing, and are often opposites. The government should promote competition, and sometimes that means more regulation, not less.
Because my kids goto war and die to protect the rich persons money. You know the one that has an untaxed Trust fund, no tax on inherited wealth, hidden accounts around the world, and never really pay's their fair share while telling me, I didn't pay enough.
Flat tax is a fail, consumption tax is a fail, not taxing inherited wealth is a fail. When you get drafted to protect their money, let me know how you feel in the trenches, and when you get out and can't find a job.
Perhaps your one of the many that believe you will be filthy rich someday so you dont want to be taxed. Good luck, go back and learn some math in school, because you forgot how to do percentage chances.
I think we need laws stating that anyone who has ever worked for an industry, and their immediate families and their known business associates, is not allowed to work in any capacity for a regulating agency, and vice-versa.
The downside to this idea is that you would be left with pretty much only two groups of people available for a regulatory agency: people who don't know anything about the field that the agency is responsible for, and new graduates whose only knowledge of the field is from their time in college. The FCC needs people with telecommunications knowledge, the EPA needs ecologists and chemists, etc. If you disallow anyone who has worked in the industry, you aren't left with much.
So what's the right answer? Damned if I know.
Can't do that in Australia as we have Fringe Benefits Tax. Anything, including business lunches or business cars parked at your private home are considered personal income and if paid by the business are taxed at very high rates.
46137
Simple:
there are MILLIONS of each Average Joe for every Mr. Rich CEO out there. And, combined, they will SPEND more money.
Is that a difficult concept to grasp? Give Average Joe more money to spend, and HE WILL SPEND IT. And look! It will end up in Mr. Rich CEO's bank account anyway! Because he'll be selling more.
The rest of your comment is just stupid rambling I won't bother addressing, because you're so incredibly dense, obtuse and unwilling to accept any idea other than your own.