If we vote for Brexit what happens

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

It looks big news but let's not get carried away.

No time frame mentioned
Negotiating position to "lean" on the EU
In 2017/2018 all international Global Company's will have to declare (at the moment privately) to tax authority's their licence income by Country and then pay tax to each country.
Sadly no big financial gain to the UK.
But good publicity and when they do move Britain will gain a few jobs

So good news for Britain.

Not so good for Luxembourg and it's high dependence on financial services for it's income. The under the table tax deals that Juncker made in years gone by are slowly going to drip out of the woodwork.

As for country by country declaration. There's still plenty of ways to legitimately move profits around to mitigate liability.

gfplux

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Tell us how exactly it could be proven - since you would reject any attempt just as you have rubbished how much tax is paid as I show below.

But here you go:
Bloomemberg suggests that McDonalds has confidence in post-Brexit Britain.
Very clearly in fact.

As for why:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-08/mcdonald-s-moves-tax-base-to-u-k-amid-eu-attack-on-burger-giant

Wriggle though you may, you cannot deny that the EU have influenced the decision to move by probing the company and suggesting large fines are imminent.
Which they are also doing with Apple and Amazon amongst others, as I have posted before.
Also today with news of investigations surrounding VW following the emissions scandal.

So Amazon are the first to move due to EU greed; who will be next?
And will you still deny that the EU themselves are a major cause of these companies seeking to move?

At least you don't deny that the UK will benefit - though as for your fatuous comment "assuming we can make Mcdonalds pay tax when no-one else does" you ignore the following:


Oh and as for your "0.5% " tax comment and from the same article:


Again kindly note that these are mostly the words of Bloomberg in the aricle linked-to.
Not personal "spin" unlike yours, as I have proven.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
It is not EU greed but the EU seeking a level playing field for competitors of Macdo and others. Macdo had negotiated a sweetheart deal with the Luxembourg Government that the EU alleges gives them an unfair competitive edge by reducing the total tax being paid.
If Macdo are found guilty they will probably pay a fine AND have to pay all the unpaid tax to Luxembourg! (An embarrassing but welcome win for Luxembourg)

In 2017/18 all licence revenue will have to be declared by Country (by all Company's) to the tax authority's which should begin to stamp out transfer pricing which is the main aim of this type of action by the EU.
IMO Britain is a little late to this particular trough having been beaten to it by Dublin and Luxembourg to just name two.

Making Britain a shady Tax haven after leaving the EU might increase revenues but I am not sure that I understand that as taking back control.

Tromking

Rinoa wrote: »

If they don't love the tories they should.

Old age pensions are far more generous (Ask Toastie) , very important for poor pensioners.

Minimum wage has increased far more than under Labour - and is set to rise further.

Income tax starts at £11000, not £6745.

30% more poor kids go to university than in 2010.

2,000,000 more people have jobs.

The college lecturer self proclaimed intellectual leftie has never understood the inbuilt social conservatism of the old dyed in the wool labour voter. Perhaps when Corbyn's Labour is left with a greatly reduced rump of MP's based only in metropolitan areas they'll stop hating them so much.

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

If Macdo are found guilty they will probably pay a fine AND have to pay all the unpaid tax to Luxembourg! (An embarrassing but welcome win for Luxembourg)

Why is Eire fighting the Apple ruling though. The consequences extend far further than purely embarrassment. Without the incentives why would the multi nationals wish to remain in Luxembourg at all.

gfplux

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Why is Eire fighting the Apple ruling though. The consequences extend far further than purely embarrassment. Without the incentives why would the multi nationals wish to remain in Luxembourg at all.

You are quite right.
Unless Britain becomes a shady Tax Haven, post Brexit, they will all move a long, long way, probably to Singapore or the Cayman Islands, who knows.
However the EU will be hunting them down together with the USA.

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

You are quite right.
Unless Britain becomes a shady Tax Haven, post Brexit, they will all move a long, long way, probably to Singapore or the Cayman Islands, who knows.
However the EU will be hunting them down together with the USA.

I was thinking totally the opposite. The attractions of London are enormous now that the veil has been lifted on the shady deals.

gfplux

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Not so good for Luxembourg and it's high dependence on financial services for it's income. The under the table tax deals that Juncker made in years gone by are slowly going to drip out of the woodwork.

As for country by country declaration. There's still plenty of ways to legitimately move profits around to mitigate liability.

Not sure I see your link between Sweetheart tax deals and Luxembourgs huge financial services industry.
I see that Paris is claiming some UK based Banks are checking out the lie of the land, I suspect those same Bankers are eating in some of the Michelin starred resteraunts of Luxembourg too.
It's all to play for.

gfplux

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I was thinking totally the opposite. The attractions of London are enormous now that the veil has been lifted on the shady deals.

Good idea. The EU investigators will not have far to travel.
Britain can/will leave the EU but International Tax law is getting harder to avoid that's why I suggested distance as an idea.

Thrugelmir

gfplux wrote: »

Good idea. The EU investigators will not have far to travel.
Britain can/will leave the EU but International Tax law is getting harder to avoid that's why I suggested distance as an idea.

I seem to be missing your point I'm afraid to say. As seems to be a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face. This isn't about Tax Law but underhand arrangements between Governments and Companies. Longer term the loss of income will hurt.

Tromking

Thrugelmir wrote: »

I seem to be missing your point I'm afraid to say. As seems to be a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face. This isn't about Tax Law but underhand arrangements between Governments and Companies. Longer term the loss of income will hurt.

I think gfplux's point is that Luxembourg doing illegal sweetheart deals with corporations is the legitimate action for a nation that has a "huge financial services industry" but if a corporation moves its affairs to the UK with competitively priced tax law then its because we're akin to a "shady tax haven" 😀.