As you say its a step in the right direction - it is crazy that the likes of Apple pay virtually no CT in this country despite huge profits.

We need to be mindful that this situation will be happing in reverse to some of our global companies. BP will generate huge profits in higher taxation countries but pay into our coffers. Do our companies make more profits abroad than overseas companies make in the UK?

I doubt that its a balanced equation though, for this to be fair we'd have to assume that BP diverted all of its overseas revenue to the UK and paid tax here - I bet they don't though.

BP is but one company even if it did pay tax elsewhere it still paid about 3bn in UK CT - you think of all the British companies that trade abroad and the tax revenues HMRC get on those revenues. The company I work for trades in US, Romania, UAE, Singapore, India, China, Malysia and Australia as well as the UK - all the profits are taxed in the UK. We moan here about the likes of Apple and Google etc but we are not so squeaky clean ourselves.

The question is if profits were all taxed in the country in which they were generated would HMRC be better or worse off?

Its not quite the same thing but you may be interested in a new regulation that sneaked in on Jan 1st that was brought to my attention by 38 degrees or some other pressure group because it might even affect me - the Useless Vince has been petitioned about it anyway.

From Jan 1st it became a requirement for anyone who traded in web sales of media to levy VAT on those sales - this will mainly affect independent bands who sell their own audio tracks and the worst thing about it is there is no opt-out below a threshold of turnover as there normally is with VAT, even worse is that you have to levy VAT at the rate applicable to the country that the user was located in when they downloaded it (its a European ruling).

There is a threat that this will include all web sales of any type from next year, hence my own interest.

Its all gone quiet since I first read of it so not sure if its actually being implemented now but it sort of addresses the issue of taxation being diverted to the country in which the revenue was derived albeit a ridiculous sledgehammer for sole traders turning over less than the current UK VAT threshold - the petition to old Vince was to introduce the threshold to this sort of legislation but its not his governments law to tinker with.

I'll throw another "what if" into the equation now.

Many trans-national companies are diverting tax away from emerging and 3rd world economies. Many of these countries are receiving support by way of UK Aid, how much could our overseas aid budget be equitably reduced if these economies received their fare share of the tax-take?

I agree with the principle but I think even if this was all sorted out we would still find a way of donating huge amounts of foreign aid. This is one of the ways the likes of Blair get influence and help them get high powered job after they finish in parliament. When Clegg loses his seat what will he do? We currently give aid to India, a country with a GDP almost the size of ours so I would suggest foreign aid has nothing to do with loss of tax revenues through diverted profits

You can't simply compare the total GDP of India and the UK. Try comparing the per-capita GDP and then see how we compare.

What about all those countries below India? Many of the sub-Saharan countries are victims of trans-national tax-dodging and their economies are nowhere near as developed as India's

Just to clarify I am with you in wanting tax paid on profits generated in the country they were earned. If that means the tax take here falls so be it - I suspect it would be so be it.

If you compare the GDP per capita Australia is roughly twice as wealthy as us Norway is nearly 3 times as wealthy as us so pretty meaningless in this argument.

If you look at the foreign aid we give out I would suspect a good chunk is given to countries where most global companies would not trade in a serious way e.g. Sub-saharan Africa. We also give >1bn to the world bank, >1bn is spent in Europe.

Do you really think if global companies paid their CT in say Ethiopia or Congo that the general wealth of the population would increase? More likely the Swiss bank accounts of a few despots might.

How is the Reichmark debt going?
How is the French Franc debt going?
How is the £ s.d debt going?
How is the groat debt going?
How is the Confederate Dollar debt going?
What is money?
What is debt?
What is the true value of "goodwill"?
What is a concept?
What is magic?
What is something for nothing AKA Profit?
Why isn't there a global currency?
Why are people still malnourished?
Why are people still dying of thirst?
Why is all "right wing politics" about greed?
Is there any humanity left?
Is now greed the ultimate for human beings to aspire to?
Perhaps it always been this way but with modern methods of communication allied to educating people it appears that the world is a very nasty place and no one wants it to be a nice place especially if "money" is to be made.
You know we are in trouble when a government makes it illegal to catch rainwater, just after they have privatised the water business in their country!

You are a very strange individual with very obtuse views - perhaps a spell in Putin's Russia might help you overcome your misconception about the advantages of Capitalism.

At least we didn't get RIGHT WING in capitals this time for no apparent reason.

Its not.
Hence the millions of people who have water butts in their gardens.

I can't think of many who have the ability to capture enough rainwater on their property to cause a shortage of water amongst their neighbours and a drop in profits at a water company, file this misinformation under "bin" along with the one that says its illegal to completely concrete over your garden as it prevents water soaking away.

It wasn't this country, and no I'm not going to say where. The Information is available if people are interested. I Suspect most are not.

Oh please do explain where I am being obtuse.
Also are you actually capable of answering the questions asked?
Can you see any connection?

I'll hazard a guess you will not understand why!

You have been picked up on the rain water - the point about malnourishment, thirst do I need to go any further - you are just plain bonkers

A couple of desert states in America and some districts in Australia have local legislation to prevent farmers from hoarding rainwater in dams without first being approved so as to prevent their actions from accidentally contaminating the water which is then used on the land and gets into the water table - thats all, its a classic urban myth and conspiracy theory which holds no water at all.

This is necessary for fairness.

No, its necessary because the member states cannot agree on a level at which to pitch VAT or to pitch a threshold below which its not applicable.

Have a read at some of the guidelines to the new legislation (which is now active), there is a working example of an Australian touring Europe who downloads an app for his mobile from a UK company whilst he is in Belgium - what rate of VAT should he be charged ?

His mobile is registered to a provider in Australia, he' is billed by his phone service provider for the download, he is an Australian citizen and non-EU B2B or B2C scenarios do not attract VAT, furthermore the app provider in the UK won't know where he is when he downloads unless the information is passed on to them by his phone provider in Australia.

What rate of VAT, if any, should he be billed ?

If a UK company makes a supply then it must charge VAT. Unless the buyer produces appropriate exemption papers. it may well be that this buyer would not have to pay UK VAT on his 79p app. He should get his accountant in Australia to open up a case and have a multi-national correspondence to establish who if anyone should get the 15p or so tax. Though I'm not sure the cost-benefit case is made out.

Thats the pre-Jan 1st situation IF you were above the VAT turnover threshold and registered with HMRC.

The new situation is a bit more complex, even for sole traders trading from their bedroom offices.

It's not, the guy downloads the app on paying his 79p and the seller accounts for the VAT element. Nobody knows or cares about anything else. It is of no interest to the bedroom trader whether the buyer is a foreign national, etc and would be wholly impractical and impossible for the trader to even attempt to ascertain this on a sale-by-sale basis. He'll just charge the default VAT (or his computer will) and that's that.

You might want to read this tangled web of complete bollax and do a quick search for some of the advisory platforms that accountants have set up, as I said it applies to digital media at the moment, next year its supposed to apply to all media, Vince is still sitting on his hands. [urlhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-supplying-digital-services-to-private-consumers/vat-businesses-supplying-digital-services-to-private-consumers[/url


Or from a small business forum : [urlhttp://www.smallbusiness.co.uk/financing-a-business/accounts-and-tax/2475862/eu-vat-changes-affecting-digital-content-and-eservice-sellers.thtml[/url

Have a quick read of [url=https://idea15.wordpress.com/category/vatmoss-euvat/this blog[/url. Heather Burns seems to have got it summed up pretty well

This us just another example of why the EU is dragging us all into an uncompetitive more. Small businesses general provide most employment growth but are disproportionately affected by regulation - not just tax but employment law, etc, etc which stifles growth and gives further advantage to big businesses. The EU is rapidly making its citizens poorer in a competitive world.