5 ms·

Is this true? Edit: holy moly it is! https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/12/ed-sheeran-may-be-the-worlds-richest-solo-artist-but-he-pays-more-tax-than-e-com-giant-amaz

by biggio 8y ago

Is this true? Edit: holy moly it is! https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/12/ed-sheeran-may-be-the-worlds-richest-solo-artist-but-he-pays-more-tax-than-e-com-giant-amazon-8030199/ https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/12/ed-sheeran-may-be-the-worlds-...

IanCal 8y ago
Highly unlikely. People like to look only at corporation tax, and ignore everything else.
samspenc 8y ago
That article seems to be confusing revenue with profit. The $2 billion Amazon made in the UK is revenue; I suspect its profit is actually smaller.
- cortesoft 8y ago
  Yeah, that confusion is made clear by the earlier statement that he made `1/5` the profit.... he did not make $400 million, which is 1/5th of 2 billion. It says he made $37 million.
  - Reason077 8y ago
    It’s easy to keep profits small when you pay a large “license fee” to your offshore parent company.
    - _trampeltier 8y ago
      For so many years this was no problem for the western countrys, when this way came much money to us from africa and other poor places. The "license fee" thing is super old, it's propably the oldest way to "optimise" tax.
- oliwarner 8y ago
  So does the policy. Deliberately. This is 2% off the top. You aren't buying from a UK company when you visit Amazon.co.uk, rather Amazon EU S.a.r.L (based in Luxembourg). This would take back 2% that is coming out of the pockets of UK consumers and being taxed (at a much lower rate) in Luxembourg. The Amazon UK tax liability is barely anything. They put a handful of professional services through their books here, and most of that is wiped out by warehousing costs. As somebody else pointed out, Ed Sheeran pays more tax in the UK. It's madness. Most multinationals do stuff like this... Because why wouldn't you? Some have argued it's their fiduciary duty to their shareholders to optimise their tax liabilities like this... But that doesn't mean we have to put up with it.
  - philjohn 8y ago
    This. And then you have ethically dubious practices like Starbucks getting a super sweetheart deal in the Netherlands, and then "charging" the UK arm a "licensing fee" for the brand name. Despite being the same bloody company, just to exfiltrate the tax from where it should have been paid, to where they will have to pay less. Legal? Yes. Ethical? No. Should it be stamped out? Yes. Will that require all countries to act? Sadly, yes.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

by biggio 8y ago

IanCal 8y ago

Highly unlikely. People like to look only at corporation tax, and ignore everything else.

samspenc 8y ago

That article seems to be confusing revenue with profit. The $2 billion Amazon made in the UK is revenue; I suspect its profit is actually smaller.

cortesoft 8y ago
Yeah, that confusion is made clear by the earlier statement that he made `1/5` the profit.... he did not make $400 million, which is 1/5th of 2 billion. It says he made $37 million.
- Reason077 8y ago
  It’s easy to keep profits small when you pay a large “license fee” to your offshore parent company.
  - _trampeltier 8y ago
    For so many years this was no problem for the western countrys, when this way came much money to us from africa and other poor places. The "license fee" thing is super old, it's propably the oldest way to "optimise" tax.
oliwarner 8y ago
So does the policy. Deliberately. This is 2% off the top. You aren't buying from a UK company when you visit Amazon.co.uk, rather Amazon EU S.a.r.L (based in Luxembourg). This would take back 2% that is coming out of the pockets of UK consumers and being taxed (at a much lower rate) in Luxembourg. The Amazon UK tax liability is barely anything. They put a handful of professional services through their books here, and most of that is wiped out by warehousing costs. As somebody else pointed out, Ed Sheeran pays more tax in the UK. It's madness. Most multinationals do stuff like this... Because why wouldn't you? Some have argued it's their fiduciary duty to their shareholders to optimise their tax liabilities like this... But that doesn't mean we have to put up with it.
- philjohn 8y ago
  This. And then you have ethically dubious practices like Starbucks getting a super sweetheart deal in the Netherlands, and then "charging" the UK arm a "licensing fee" for the brand name. Despite being the same bloody company, just to exfiltrate the tax from where it should have been paid, to where they will have to pay less. Legal? Yes. Ethical? No. Should it be stamped out? Yes. Will that require all countries to act? Sadly, yes.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]