Diageo, Unilever threaten to leave UK

Degenerate

smamst wrote: »

Actually it is theft. All tax is theft. It's just something we have to come to accept in human society. Taking money from someone whatever the reason is theft.

Fiat currencies are basically claim notes that can be exchanged for a share of society's limited resources. The value of those notes is dependent on the authority of government anyway, so I'm not sure that you can call it "theft".

Furthermore, the very concept of theft requires private property, which without government would be enforcable purely on the basis of personal strength.

PasturesNew

50% ... I wish. You have to earn over about £40k to pay that much

blueboy43

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So you are happy to risk an industry which generates around 15% of GDP and 25% of Tax Revenues........

While it is right to question the right level of tax both for companies and individuals, we should put it in context that Diageo paid only £43m in UK corporation tax last year on profits of £2 billion.

They have already transferred ownership of many brands to Holland to reduce tax liabilities (a bit like the Rolling Stones).

In 2006 according to the National Audit Office 30% of the UK's 700 biggest firms paid no corporation tax in the UK at all. That's rights nil, nada, nothing.

The fact that Diageo or Unilever moved their headquarters overseas would have little impact on corporation tax receipts at all (companies are taxed on where their profits arise not where they are based).

It would however be a pretty bad sign if they moved say 3000 highly paid people from London to say Geneva. Anything that chips away at London being a centre for Headquarters, Law, Banking, Accountancy and Insurance is inherently bad for the UK.

To suggest that this endangers 15% of GDP or 25% of our tax receipts is simply laughable though.

purch

Should we tell the Finance Industry to do the same?

Certainly.

If they want to threaten to go unless we meet their demands, then go !!!

Spartacus_Mills

purch wrote: »

Goodbye...

Yes, good idea. Let's get rid of job creators and employers. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

The point of this seems to be being missed by all.

Two businesses put pressure on government/opposition parties over jobs in the run up to the election.

Pre-election sabre rattling to influence policy.

Nothing new in that.

Thrugelmir

blueboy43 wrote: »

While it is right to question the right level of tax both for companies and individuals, we should put it in context that Diageo paid only £43m in UK corporation tax last year on profits of £2 billion.

They have already transferred ownership of many brands to Holland to reduce tax liabilities (a bit like the Rolling Stones).

In 2006 according to the National Audit Office 30% of the UK's 700 biggest firms paid no corporation tax in the UK at all. That's rights nil, nada, nothing.

The fact that Diageo or Unilever moved their headquarters overseas would have little impact on corporation tax receipts at all (companies are taxed on where their profits arise not where they are based).

It would however be a pretty bad sign if they moved say 3000 highly paid people from London to say Geneva. Anything that chips away at London being a centre for Headquarters, Law, Banking, Accountancy and Insurance is inherently bad for the UK.

To suggest that this endangers 15% of GDP or 25% of our tax receipts is simply laughable though.

Within the 25% for finance, that includes all taxes. Corporation, Income, NIC etc. Same would apply to Diageo.

blueboy43

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Within the 25% for finance, that includes all taxes. Corporation, Income, NIC etc. Same would apply to Diageo.

But the vast majority of tax receipts from these industries come from VAT, NI, PAYE, Excise duties from sales in the UK and the employment of people here.

Are Diageo suggesting that they are not going to sell Guinness in the UK and close every single distillery they own in Scotland ?

Are Unilever going to withdraw Persil & PG tips ?

Are banks going to stop selling loans, mortages, insurance and pensions in the UK ?

It's a serious issue, but to suggest that 25% of tax revenue is at risk is simply ludicrous scare-mongering.

Pennywise

blueboy43 wrote: »

But the vast majority of tax receipts from these industries come from VAT, NI, PAYE, Excise duties from sales in the UK and the employment of people here.

Are Diageo suggesting that they are not going to sell Guinness in the UK and close every single distillery they own in Scotland ?

Are Unilever going to withdraw Persil & PG tips ?

Are banks going to stop selling loans, mortages, insurance and pensions in the UK ?

It's a serious issue, but to suggest that 25% of tax revenue is at risk is simply ludicrous scare-mongering.

Some of the losses to the UK Treasury will be from the head office employment which will be shipped to another country. So that's employment tax of 40% - 50% of wages cost, and of course, those people are now abroad, so buying goods and services abroad (and paying local indirect taxes there instead of here).

Then, the company's "profit" made on sales to UK customers will be taxed in the other country, not the UK. It's not difficult to manipulate figures to show that the lion's share of profits arose in the head office country rather than each country where the sales are actually made by the use of management charges, apportionment of overheads, etc.

Why do you think that the European arms of Amazon, Ebay, Paypal, Google, etc., aren't based in the UK despite the UK being one of their largest markets? It's because they pay less tax by being based somewhere else. If UK tax rates were lower, they'd be based in the UK, paying far more tax to UK Treasury than they are at the moment!

Generali

Pennywise wrote: »

Some of the losses to the UK Treasury will be from the head office employment which will be shipped to another country. So that's employment tax of 40% - 50% of wages cost, and of course, those people are now abroad, so buying goods and services abroad (and paying local indirect taxes there instead of here).

Then, the company's "profit" made on sales to UK customers will be taxed in the other country, not the UK. It's not difficult to manipulate figures to show that the lion's share of profits arose in the head office country rather than each country where the sales are actually made by the use of management charges, apportionment of overheads, etc.

Why do you think that the European arms of Amazon, Ebay, Paypal, Google, etc., aren't based in the UK despite the UK being one of their largest markets? It's because they pay less tax by being based somewhere else. If UK tax rates were lower, they'd be based in the UK, paying far more tax to UK Treasury than they are at the moment!

Not forgetting the expensive services that are provided to head offices such as accountancy (esp audit) and legal services. Also, a company is less likely to close a business unit in the same country as its head office.

Thrugelmir

blueboy43 wrote: »

But the vast majority of tax receipts from these industries come from VAT, NI, PAYE, Excise duties from sales in the UK and the employment of people here.

Are Diageo suggesting that they are not going to sell Guinness in the UK and close every single distillery they own in Scotland ?

Are Unilever going to withdraw Persil & PG tips ?

Are banks going to stop selling loans, mortages, insurance and pensions in the UK ?

It's a serious issue, but to suggest that 25% of tax revenue is at risk is simply ludicrous scare-mongering.

I am merely illustrating the importance of one part of the economy to the UK. What would the effect be if HSBC moved its HQ to Hong Kong?

The operations can be moved elsewhere. Yes jobs would remain but how many and of what level.

Name me a company that currently manufactures or even assembles white goods in this country?

The economy as a whole is an interaction of sorts of activities. To have the attitude that the UK is immune is shortsighted.

No protection was available to Cadburys as 50% of its share capital was US owned even prior to the bid. What will go is the Management tier. Highly skilled talented individuals. Whats left is the more mundane production work. Even then, the old management were in the process of transferring some production to Poland prior to the Kraft bid. So what's left?

We need to protect and support the Companies that we still have. Not care less.