Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Banjax]

because Barclays pay just 4.5% (strange as corporation tax is 28% in the UK and aren't Barclays a listed company on the London Stock Exchange?)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/barclays-paid-113m-tax-as-staff-enjoyed-bonuses-2219279.html

shome mishtake surely, still I'm sure someones looking into it on our behalf, perhaps Barclays have mislaid some receipts? 

[albitz]

Typical bulls*t headline from a crap paper (no wonder the readership is in single figures) to appeal to left wing bigots.
Barclays have paid over £5 billion in taxes to the U.K. exchequer in the last two years. It just so happens that a small percentage of that was in corperation tax. In very difficult times, £5 billion isnt bad going imo, and without it there would have to be even more savage cuts to the notfair welfare system.
Barclays (iirc) like the vast majority of banks operating in this country, didnt receive a bailout from the taxpayer.
Like any other business,if the board didnt take all legal steps to reduce the companies tax bill, the shareholders would (rightly) be calling for the chairmans head on a stick.

[Banjax]

they didn't take money directly, preferring to avoid any unwelcome examination of their books - instead took the morale high ground by begging Qatar to help them........that'll end well i'm sure, besides:


"Barclays was not bailed out directly by the tax-payer in the 2008-09 banking crisis, but the Government's announcement of an "asset protection scheme" – an insurance policy for banks' toxic debts – helped its share price to recover from lows of 51p. Yesterday they were trading at around 325p.

Many banking analysts believe its profits have been increased sizeably by an implicit guarantee from UK taxpayers that it would never be allowed to go under."

directly or indirectly they were saved Albs, just my opinion, but i reckon we deserve a little bit more acknowledgement....or maybe we're so dumb that we don't? that seems to be Diamonds thinking on it 

[albitz]

your quote from the article confirms what I said. They had the option of a bailout ,but they declined to take up the option, but while your quoting from the article BJ, why not quote the part which backs up what I said about the tax they pay (which was the point of your first post) ? they paid £5 billion in tax in the last 2 years.

[albitz]

Diamond was the man who Peter Mandelson described as "the unacceptable face of banking" iirc ?
Peter Mandelson is now an advisor to...............the same Mr. Diamond. As Littlejohn would say, you couldnt make it up.

[bigegg]

If they've made a loss in the last six years, they can claim that loss against this year's figures.

So if they lost 4Bn £ last year, and made 5Bn£ this year, they'll only pay corporation tax on 1Bn pounds.
Then they'll knock off bonuses to the management, interest on loans, etc...

Surprised they haven't claimed a rebate...   :-?

[Banjax]

your quote from the article confirms what I said. They had the option of a bailout ,but they declined to take up the option, but while your quoting from the article BJ, why not quote the part which backs up what I said about the tax they pay (which was the point of your first post) ? they paid £5 billion in tax in the last 2 years.

i linked the whole piece, Albs which you obviously didn't read or misread - they actually paid £113m corporation tax on profits of £5bn, now as half their profits are generated in the UK and corporation tax in the UK is currently 28%, then thats way more than the paltry sum they coughed up (should be nearer £700m) 

[Varche]

your quote from the article confirms what I said. They had the option of a bailout ,but they declined to take up the option, but while your quoting from the article BJ, why not quote the part which backs up what I said about the tax they pay (which was the point of your first post) ? they paid £5 billion in tax in the last 2 years.

Sounds a lot to the man in the street but the reality is that by employing very highly paid, very clever tax avoidance experts they didn't pay what might have been expected on say their corporation tax.
That shortfall is made up by taxing the drones (us normal folk) who can't afford clever tax avoidance experts and in any case all loopholes available to us have long since been closed.

So it is actually very pertinent to every person who pays tax even if they happen to be a Barclays shareholder (unless they have millions of pounds worth of shares). Tax avoidance is a very clever form of theft  but the corporate perpetrators generally get away without going to jail. 

[albitz]

Evasion is theft, avoidance is good business practice. Im sure Banjax has an accountant go over his books annually, to try to reduce his tax bill. Its the same thing for Barclays but with more 0,s on the nd of the figures.

[albitz]

your quote from the article confirms what I said. They had the option of a bailout ,but they declined to take up the option, but while your quoting from the article BJ, why not quote the part which backs up what I said about the tax they pay (which was the point of your first post) ? they paid £5 billion in tax in the last 2 years.

i linked the whole piece, Albs which you obviously didn't read or misread - they actually paid £113m corporation tax on profits of £5bn, now as half their profits are generated in the UK and corporation tax in the UK is currently 28%, then thats way more than the paltry sum they coughed up (should be nearer £700m) 

Wrong again Im afraid BJ. The article says "Mr Diamond told the commitee that Barclays had paid £2 billion to the exchequer in 2009. " "The group paid "2.8 billion to the exchequer in 2010".
Anyway, how wonderful to see a British company making £5 billion profit in very difficult trading conditions. Just imagine how skint the treasury would be without the revenue it recieves from the financial sector.

[Gaffers]

The corporation tax piece is small fry next to the income tax, ni and council tax paid by their employees 

[Banjax]

your quote from the article confirms what I said. They had the option of a bailout ,but they declined to take up the option, but while your quoting from the article BJ, why not quote the part which backs up what I said about the tax they pay (which was the point of your first post) ? they paid £5 billion in tax in the last 2 years.

i linked the whole piece, Albs which you obviously didn't read or misread - they actually paid £113m corporation tax on profits of £5bn, now as half their profits are generated in the UK and corporation tax in the UK is currently 28%, then thats way more than the paltry sum they coughed up (should be nearer £700m) 

Wrong again Im afraid BJ. The article says "Mr Diamond told the commitee that Barclays had paid £2 billion to the exchequer in 2009. " "The group paid "2.8 billion to the exchequer in 2010".
Anyway, how wonderful to see a British company making £5 billion profit in very difficult trading conditions. Just imagine how skint the treasury would be without the revenue it recieves from the financial sector.

jeesus....you actually believe the bailout had no bearing on them? without it they and every other bank wouldve gone down the tubes I'm afraid 

[bigegg]

jeesus....you actually believe the bailout had no bearing on them? without it they and every other bank wouldve gone down the tubes I'm afraid 

just like any other company would have done if they'd made a balls-up like the banks did.

Imagine a steel company selling 40 bridges when they only had the steel to build one.
Actually, that analogy doesn't work, unless the bridge company could build bridges using imaginary steel which would only support people crossing it if they believed it would.

Then multiply that by a thousand bridge companies all selling 40 bridges each based on 1 imaginary bridge they'd ordered from the steel company, and each other

[albitz]

The majority of Financial institutions in this country(most of which arent household names) didnt take a penny of taxpayers money.Most of them went quietly about their business and are still doing so.
The ones which did, and have  had the most interference from politicians are the ones which have ended up performing the worst since. RBS being a prime example, its share price is still struggling to reach 50p! .Its chairman Fred the shred became the tabloid image which was hung on the whole financial industry. But lets not forget who it was who bestowed the title !"Sir Fred" upon him. The institution which suffered from the most political interference - HBOS - disappeared altogether, and ended up being swallowed up by Lloyds, in a shotgun marriage arranged by Gordon Brown which did no-one any favours. Particularily Lloyds, whose share holders are so angry that they are still trying to get the matter into a court of law afaik.
And lets not forget that the origins of the toxic debt crisis can be traced back to politicians interfering in the financial industry in the U.S. by arm twisting lenders into lending money to people who couldnt afford to pay it back. Precisely what they are once again pressurising banks in this country to do right now.
Did some of the banks get it wrong - yes. But dont ffs let the politicians of the hook, because they were up to their necks in it, and this country would have recovered faster and stronger, if Brown hadnt already wrecked the British economy before the crisis even started.

[Varche]

jeesus....you actually believe the bailout had no bearing on them? without it they and every other bank wouldve gone down the tubes I'm afraid 

just like any other company would have done if they'd made a balls-up like the banks did.

Imagine a steel company selling 40 bridges when they only had the steel to build one.
Actually, that analogy doesn't work, unless the bridge company could build bridges using imaginary steel which would only support people crossing it if they believed it would.

Then multiply that by a thousand bridge companies all selling 40 bridges each based on 1 imaginary bridge they'd ordered from the steel company, and each other

And shares n steel making companies etc  rocketed, some of the bridge making companies thought that they would package imaginary bridges into more complex concepts  like  "valley crossings" "link" and so on and then sold those to other companies.

Meanwhile the country was quite happy as their journeys would be shorter. The regulator was happy because the people were happy. The politicians were happy because they were fiddling their expenses.