PDA

View Full Version : Barclays Corporation Tax



DaveB
18th February 2011, 23:21
For 2009 on Profits of £4.85bn

Any guesses? (no peeking at the news sites)







































£113m, or 2.4% of profits. And they accuse contractors of dodging tax. :winker:

minestrone
19th February 2011, 00:10
Are segments of Barclays not operating through Holland these days?

stek
19th February 2011, 00:12
Are segments of Barclays not operating through Holland these days?

Should it not be 'Barclies' or do I not know nothing about grammar?

amcdonald
19th February 2011, 00:17
Are you getting mixed up with the Barclays brothers, sorry I'm too lazy to google

LMGTFY yada yada

TimberWolf
19th February 2011, 13:11
Tax protesters target Barclays bank (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5ivaDnElA6Ig9c-ktrbxPUpMIftjg?docId=B403691298116589A0)

It's legal but immoral.


Yep, there's gold being mined in that widening gap that exists between illegal and immoral.

centurian
19th February 2011, 15:15
There's some serious exaggeration occurring on both sides of this argument.

UK Uncut (and others) seem to imply that any corporation that pays even a penny less than 28% are basically thieves.

Yet no multi-national organisation will ever pay 28% in UK corporation tax - even if they comply with the letter and 'spirit' of the rules.

This is because overseas earnings are first taxed in the country of origin - and only then taxed in the UK on the difference between 28% - if there is any. This isn't even tax avoidance - it's just how international tax works - and has worked for yonks. The company still pays 28% tax - just not all of it as UK corporation tax.

For a large company with major overseas operations, this can significantly distort the apparent percentage paid, even if they pay every penny due - although even with this, the amount paid by Barclays does seem low.





Now on the other side, Barclays are being very crafty about their definition of what they have paid in tax. One of their statements said something like "We made 6bn profit and paid 2bn in tax" - seems about right. But apparently some of this is income tax paid by their employees.

Next they'll start claiming that the decorators they use for their branch makeovers will pay tax, so they'll include that in their tax figure as well.

d000hg
19th February 2011, 18:45
2.4% in total, or 2.4% in the UK?

Besides if a company pays lesss tax, it has more profit to give out in bonuses, increasing personal wealth and infuriating immigrant squirrel-fanciers.

AtW
19th February 2011, 18:51
The company still pays 28% tax - just not all of it as UK corporation tax.

If that was the case their defense would be very easy and they'd just say - we paid 27% in country XYZ.

fullyautomatix
19th February 2011, 18:59
Good on them!

If they had acted like any honest citizen and paid a billion in taxes all that would have been wasted by the government in vote mining projects or frittered it away on benefits etc.

minestrone
19th February 2011, 19:03
The blunt argument is that they have paid what has been expected of them to pay.

If I go into a shop and ask for a can of coke and the shop keeper asks for 60 pence should I have to pay 80 pence if someone shouts from the back of the shop 60 pence is too cheap?

The tax rules are there, we all know that, to say that they are somehow cheating the system is total piffle.

suityou01
19th February 2011, 19:08
The blunt argument is that they have paid what has been expected of them to pay.

If I go into a shop and ask for a can of coke and the shop keeper asks for 60 pence should I have to pay 80 pence if someone shouts from the back of the shop 60 pence is too cheap?

The tax rules are there, we all know that, to say that they are somehow cheating the system is total piffle.

It sells newspapers though. :rolleyes:

AtW
19th February 2011, 19:11
They should have paid around £3 bln in corp tax - 6 years of that single bank paying what is due would have fully financed High Speed 2 to Birmingham without having to need to plan it being ready by 2026 - this could have been done 10 years earlier.

minestrone
19th February 2011, 19:17
They should have paid around £3 bln in corp tax - 6 years of that single bank paying what is due would have fully financed High Speed 2 to Birmingham without having to need to plan it being ready by 2026 - this could have been done 10 years earlier.

We might have had enough money to fund that if we were not paying benefits to immigrants.

suityou01
19th February 2011, 19:19
We might have had enough money to fund that if we were not paying benefits to immigrants.

Not just immigrants. Plenty of dole bludging chav scum feeding off the state as well. :mad

portseven
19th February 2011, 20:23
If I go into a shop and ask for a can of coke and the shop keeper asks for 60 pence should I have to pay 80 pence if someone shouts from the back of the shop 60 pence is too cheap?

I like the analogy! These effing tree huggers, don't seem to grasp the basic concept that tax is a forced extraction rather than a voluntary contribution.

Freamon
20th February 2011, 11:13
The blunt argument is that they have paid what has been expected of them to pay.

If I go into a shop and ask for a can of coke and the shop keeper asks for 60 pence should I have to pay 80 pence if someone shouts from the back of the shop 60 pence is too cheap?

The tax rules are there, we all know that, to say that they are somehow cheating the system is total piffle.

There is a lot of public anger towards banks, largely due to the narrative created by the previous government and amplified by the media. This is obviously not going to go away.

Regardless of whether you think banks are good or bad (personally I think they are criminals, as has been proven in many courts in many countries), the main issue I have with this is that, thanks to this smokescreen, the government gets a free pass on the issues at hand, namely regulation, supervision, and (in this case) tax law.

centurian
20th February 2011, 17:50
That's because there is a strong public belief that the deficit is solely and completely down to the banks.

Never mind the fact that the government were overspending since 2003 - long before we'd ever heard of sub-prime.

The banks had/have a large part to play in the crisis, but the true blame probably lies 50/50 with the previous government. However the left have managed to convince the majority that the blame ratio is 99/1 (and they won't even fully admit to the "1"). Fantastic marketing, it has to be said, because so many have been suckered by it.

But that means that every single government cut is being blamed completely on bankers.