Asks for $252 million in back taxes
(, Tue 13 Nov 2012, 10:48, Reply)
(, Tue 13 Nov 2012, 10:53, Reply)
but it's 70% of their incomes over a certain level. I know that's still unacceptable to some people, but saying it's 70% of their income is misstating how graduated income tax works.
Also maybe worth noting that the top rate of federal income tax in the US was over 80% for 20 years after World War 2 when they experienced a massive boom in prosperity, and remained at 70% or over until the Reagan years without the nation collapsing into the sea.
(, Tue 13 Nov 2012, 11:05, Reply)
hence my cynicism. I think I should leave the house and visit my fluffy animal friends
(, Tue 13 Nov 2012, 11:11, Reply)
Or, at least, so said the the late Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the USA. Seems these days taxes are what the proles pay for a civilized society while certain large corporations are content to take all the benefits of various states' infrastructures while contributing as little as possible to them. I think people's concern is justified on those grounds alone.
But yay, fluffy animals. Bring back pictures, maybe? :)
(, Tue 13 Nov 2012, 11:18, Reply)
It's not as worrying now all the kids have learnt to kick box.
(, Tue 13 Nov 2012, 11:44, Reply)
And don't even get me started on Iraq and Afghanistan.
(, Tue 13 Nov 2012, 12:14, Reply)
(, Tue 13 Nov 2012, 12:25, Reply)
(, Tue 13 Nov 2012, 12:57, Reply)
Have an amusing video of an Amazon exec floundering in front of a Government committee.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20301381
(, Tue 13 Nov 2012, 10:58, Reply)
Basically didn't take the committee seriously and sent an ill prepared underling.
(, Tue 13 Nov 2012, 11:02, Reply)
but forgot the "plausible" part of plausible deniability
(, Tue 13 Nov 2012, 11:08, Reply)
but: can't we wait till after Christmas before the collective taxmen of the world fire a broadside at Amazon that sinks it to the depths of the fiscal seas?
(, Tue 13 Nov 2012, 11:04, Reply)
they're a massive company with very good accountants and lots of lawyers, they'll find some way of wriggling out of it.
(, Tue 13 Nov 2012, 11:11, Reply)
(admittedly on their weaker than weak drivetime show)
had some tax bod from some tax specialist co (was it kpmg?) arguing that poor Starbucks' had consistently made a loss in the UK and therefore paying no tax was fair. The interviewer just wasn't equipped at all to argue how the flow of money might be engineered in such a way to make this look plausable, and completely missed the point that if they make 1% profit (as he admitted "some" of the shops do), 20% of whatever the real number/amount for that should still be payable.
(, Tue 13 Nov 2012, 11:24, Reply)