back to article Google's teeny UK tax bill 'just not right', thunders senior MP

Top Labour MP Margaret Hodge has told The Register that it's "just not right" for Google to get away with paying so little corporation tax in the UK. Hodge, who heads up Parliament's influential Public Accounts Select Committee, rejected the advertising giant's executive chairman Eric Schmidt's defence of his company's tax …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. SirDigalot
    Coat

    They pay bugger all percentage of taxes (vs income) in the UK and bugger all percentage of taxes (vs income) in the US. This has been setup by lobbyists and governments and others who like to see that these companies are employing people (who pay their taxes... supposedly) so it is all meant to balance out, at least that's what we have been told.

    At least google DOES employ people, I am very tired of hearing how all the rich are "job creators" and need these tax breaks, because otherwise they will take their money somewhere else, and we will have large layoffs and high unemployment and the economy will be in recession and ...oh I guess they don't need their tax breaks anymore...

    <<<<< it has a fold-away pitchfork and an (unlit) flaming torch in it

    1. g e

      Yep

      And those people at least put some Google money back into HMRC via their PAYE each month.

      Well, unless they're directors I suppose ;o)

  2. Tim Worstal

    Well love

    "Hodge stood by that stance today.

    "All we are saying is that multinational companies should pay an appropriate amount of tax relative to the profits they make from their economic activity in this country," she insisted."

    Given that you're in Parliament why don't you try and do something about the law then?

    Or would it mean that you'd have to recognise that it's EU law that allows Google to do what it does? Indeed, encourages it?

    I was on Sky News with her once and pointed this out to her. It's all EU law. She just said "well, I don't agree",

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oh spare us from another New Labour hypocrite...

    ... she's the poster child of UK politicians - venal, self-serving scum without exception.

    When she pays her fair share of tax then I might listen to her pontificate about Google - until then she can fuck off back to her tax-avoiding family.

  4. Tim Almond
    Go

    Change the law then...

    If she thinks they don't pay enough, change the tax law or shut up.

    Personally, I avoid as much as possible. If you've got £11bn to spend on a 3 week hop, skip and jump competition, you don't need any more of mine.

  5. TrishaD

    The Difference?

    It seems to me that people dont appreciate the difference between Google and Margaret Hodge.

    If sufficient people dont approve of Ms Hodge's activities or attitudes, they have the option of not voting for her. Its called Accountability.

    As regards all the cries of 'Well, change the Law then' ... erm, she's an Opposition MP. And the Opposition doesnt get to change the law. That's the whole point.

    1. Magister

      Re: The Difference?

      >>And the Opposition doesnt get to change the law.<<

      True. But much of the legislation that Google et al are using was set-up in the last decade when she was part of the government. Didn't hear anything from her then.

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: The Difference?

      "..... And the Opposition doesnt get to change the law. That's the whole point." Actually, she could present a bill to Parliament even in opposition, and if she was actually more interested in the good of the public rather than making self-serving soundbites, she could form a cross-party alliance on the matter. Many UK laws have been passed with support from more than just the governing party. This carefully manufactured idea that Labour in Opposition can "do nothing" is a fraud - they could do plenty by working with the other parties, but it would mean overcoming their Labourite tendency to scoring political points over actually serving the people that elected them.

      1. TrishaD

        Re: The Difference?

        " Actually, she could present a bill to Parliament even in opposition, and if she was actually more interested in the good of the public rather than making self-serving soundbites, she could form a cross-party alliance on the matter. Many UK laws have been passed with support from more than just the governing party. This carefully manufactured idea that Labour in Opposition can "do nothing" is a fraud - they could do plenty by working with the other parties, but it would mean overcoming their Labourite tendency to scoring political points over actually serving the people that elected them."

        I'm going to stick by what I said. The fact that she's Labour is irrelevant. Our Parliamentary system tend (rightly or wrongly) to be adversarial and it's rare for parties of any stripe to work with other parties. Yes, laws have been passed with support from just the governing party, but they tend to be laws that arent associated with major policy issues.

        Regarding the 'self-serving' bit - she chairs a major Select Committee, for goodness' sake. She's obliged in that role to speak up.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: TrishaDminus Re: The Difference?

          "....but they tend to be laws that arent associated with major policy issues....." Complete cobblers. Just for example, both the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965, and the Abortion Act 1967 were actually private member bills passed with cross-party support and both were very major policy issues.

          "....she chairs a major Select Committee, for goodness' sake. She's obliged in that role to speak up." No, she is EXPECTED to do something useful. The fact is she knows Google have done nothing illegal and it is nothing more then the shallowest of political grandstanding. It is doubly hypocritical given her own legal manipulation of tax law to avoid paying taxes.

          1. TrishaD
            Facepalm

            Re: TrishaDminus The Difference?

            "....but they tend to be laws that arent associated with major policy issues....." Complete cobblers. Just for example, both the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965, and the Abortion Act 1967 were actually private member bills passed with cross-party support and both were very major policy issues."

            Spendid. You've just given two examples that exactly prove my point. Both of these related to moral issues that transcend party boundaries, rather than tax issues which definitely do.

            Go stand in the corner or something...

            1. TrishaD

              Re: TrishaDminus The Difference?

              "Tax issues which definitely do not"

              Apologies

            2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: TrishaDminus The Difference?

              "....You've just given two examples that exactly prove my point....." What, by showing that private member bills, even on matters of very great import, can suceed with cross-party support? That's the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you said - that Hodges couldn't actually do anything other than bleat because she was in opposition! I said she could raise a bill and try to get cross-party support, you said she couldn't and yet now you say I proved your point!?!?!? WTF? Seriously, stop watching Trish and/or Oprah and get a clue.

              1. TrishaD

                Re: TrishaDminus The Difference?

                Once more for the hard of understanding.....

                'Major Policy Issues' = Matters of government policy upon which a reasonable person might expect MPs to be divided on party lines. Examples - the Economy, Law & Order, Industrial Relations etc.

                Likelihood of consensus politics - next to zero

                '"Moral Issues" = Matters of policy where MPs might be expected to divide, not on party lines, but on grounds of personal belief, sense of ethics etc. Examples - Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Age of Consent etc.

                Likelihood of consensus politics - quite high.

                Private members bills are likely to succeed in the latter case.

                Now... was that too difficult to comprehend?

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  FAIL

                  Re: TrishaDminus The Difference?

                  FFS, read your own posts!

                  ".....Law & Order...." So the death penalty, nothing to do with law and order? How about abortion law? The clue is in the "law" bit.... DUH!

                  ".....government policy upon which a reasonable person might expect MPs to be divided on party lines....." Caroline Lucas (Green Party), Kate Green and Jeremy Corbyn (both Labour) presented the private bill on Tax and Financial Transparency Bill 2010 which was read in Parliament in March 2011. Taxation is usually the domain of the governing party and is exactly what Hodges is bleating on about. At the time the bill was presented neither the Greens or Labour were in the Government. So there is absolutlely NOTHING stopping Hodges creating her own bill other than the deluge of ridicule her hypocritical presentation would be greeted with. You fail again. Oh, you want another example?

                  Antarctic Act 2013, just received Royal Assent, i.e., passed into law, presented by Neil Carmichael (Con) as a private members bill, supported by (amongst others) Martin Caton (Lab) and Dr Julian Huppert (Lib Dem). I'd say an international treaty on the Antartic was a pretty serious policy affair. You might have heard of the Antartic, if you've reached that stage of schooling where Geography starts yet.

  6. David Neil

    Hodge

    From November last year

    Hodge claimed in a grilling by Michael Crick earlier this month that “I am a tiny, tiny, tiny shareholder”. Her direct shareholding is 1.26% which, given that Stemcor paid out £4,519,000 in dividends last year, means she received some £56,939. That shareholding alone is worth £1.8 million. Hardly a tiny amount.

    What’s more Stemcor confirmed yesterday that this figure “excludes shares held in trust or in her children’s names”. The company share register shows that Hodge holds several million pounds worth of shareholdings in trusts, including for members of her family. As Polly Toynbee helpfully explains, this is a clever way of minimising future inheritance tax liability:

    “The big sell is trusts, special ones devised for this company’s clients, guaranteed to protect almost all your wealth from inheritance tax. They are right, it can be done easily. Put all moveables and all cash and investments into a discretionary trust, and it passes to your heirs without tax as soon as you die, not even waiting for probate. It counts as a gift so the beneficiaries need pay no tax either.”

  7. Gob Smacked
    Headmaster

    Shouldn't they have a look at .e.g. BP too ?

    Maybe they're not quite the tax spenders either....

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Shouldn't they have a look at .e.g. BP too ?

      BP are owned by the americans now.

  8. Fogcat

    Sorry - can some one point me to The Register? I seem to have stumbled into the Daily Mail pages.

    1. All names Taken
      Paris Hilton

      Daily Mail?

      Morning Star?

      Grnadian?

      How about: biting the hand that feeds IT

      ?

  9. G R Goslin

    A minor point

    A minotr point I feel that I should point out. ALL tax paid by a company, and that includes Corporation Tax, is derived from the charge made by that company, on it's customers. So, if Google did not pay the tax, then it's goods and services are therefore cheaper to the customer, all thing being equal.. Thje Governmeat would love Google to pay higher taxes, but that does not mean that the customer would be paying lower personal taxes as a consequence of the government gaining a new revenue stream. It seems to me, of late that the government has given up it's real purpose of governing the country, but has become, like any other company, it's there to maximise it's profits.

  10. 100113.1537

    Oranges are not the only fruit....

    I am at a loss here as to why people are only focussing on Corporation Tax - as though this is the only tax on the whatever number of billion pounds Google has in turnover in the UK. Google employ a lot of people in the UK and all of these people pay income tax, plus the employers NI contributions, plus the VAT on everything Google sells in the UK, thus there is a great deal of UK govt revenue already coming from Google.

    In a globalised world economy, national taxes on profits are pretty much negligible as if you make your corporation taxes too high, companies move away and if you force them to pay tax where they employ people, they will move where they employ those people. The EU recognised this and - basically - put employment first by making it easier for a company to register in one EU country and then operate in them all. Individual EU countries then competed to get the company registrations by setting corporate taxes low and other countries competed for jobs by setting other taxes low (I think income tax in Luxembourg is pretty high isn't it?). So what if the UK doesn't get a lot of corporation tax from Google - by the sound of things, the UK is getting a lot of other "goods" from them and UK gov is till getting a lovely big wodge of tax.

  11. DrXym

    Instead of moralising

    Close the tax loopholes. Companies will save every penny they can if the law is imprecise or can be worked around. Same for individuals. Instead of moaning about it, make it so onerous to evade tax that companies comply and pay up or gtfo.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why not introduce yearly "one off" windfall taxes on these tax avoiding corporations?

    A windfall tax should be introduced based on the difference of the tax that should have been paid had the corporation acted ethically and the actual amount it paid. The windfall could be charged at 200% of the difference thus meaning that companies that "avoid" tax through unethical means get hammered. Such a tax would be a legal and fair way to deal with an unethical corporation that had abused the local tax system. If such a tax were introduced it would quickly no longer be worthwhile trying to operate complex tax avoidance schemes as these would end up being punished not through fines but through a windfall tax.

    1. peter_dtm
      Devil

      Re: Why not introduce yearly "one off" windfall taxes on these tax avoiding corporations?

      since we know live in a secular society - ethics are relative & personal.

      Whose ethics are you going to use ? Stalin's ? MaozseTung ? Kinnock ? Thatcher ? the Pope's ? Mugabe ? Mandella ? Al Gore ? yeh right.

      ALl that needs doing is adopting a fair tax system - my fair tax system is a single band of 10% on all earnings over minimum pay and a 0.5% tax on every bank transaction (building society etc etc included).

      No exceptions. Applicable to all those legal 'people' (corporations companies etc) as well

  13. All names Taken
    Paris Hilton

    Read all 'baht it!

    Brit MP cobbled by Whitehall and Whitehall's lust for your cash.

    With the economy the way it is senior UK civil servants are worried that there mitt not be enough cash in the Treasury's kitty to reward senior staff with the pension and pension package that they deserve.

    It's okay for those former colleagues now seconded into "private" business (know wot I mean 'arry? TUPE n'all that) but the remaining staff still in place as senior civil servants might not be able to get comparable pension packages.

    With a bit of influence exerted upon a vulnerable MP the Whitehall mandarin march to greater self-indulgence and jigger you mate continues unabated but slightly less well disguised no?

  14. FozzyBear
    Happy

    I am reminded of Kerry Packers senate hearing and the quote he made regarding the amount he paid in personal tax.

    "I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now of course I am minimizing my tax and if anybody in this country doesn't minimize their tax they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra."

    Not exactly company tax but the principle applies why would you pay any more tax than you are required to by law

  15. andro
    Megaphone

    Its legal, clearly the law needs changing to prevent this.

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not forgetting

    It is us who benefit from googles tax avoidance.I think its amazing how these companies are being hung out for the unthinking to attack when it is that same unthinking population who enjoyed the low prices from these retailers. Why did you buy the item online or buy that google advertising? And I assume yoiu dont use googles free services and apps?

    Added tax is added cost. That extra money isnt for more police, nurses or hospital beds it is used to pay for another privacy invading scheme. It isnt used to supply equipment to our troops its spent on porn, duck houses and second houses.

    Yet the unthinking mob is told how wrong and immoral it is to follow the law. At the same time you have your ISA's. Had google broken the law I may have judged them differently. There are reasons to complain against google but following the letter and spirit of the law isnt one of them.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    tax avoidance

    Im fed up with MPs bleating about the ineffectual laws they have created which enable large companies to avoid paying tax.

    Its the Government's responsibility to us,the voting taxpayers to get it right and they have failed.

    They call for bankers and corporations to be held to account but conveniently forget that they are 100% responsible for any failure in the system.

    Numpties

  18. Sirius Lee

    Do you think show knows...

    just how stupid she sound? She's a 'senior politician' complaining that a company, applying the law, is paying too little tax while she, a politician, someone who is able to change the law, fails even to advocate doing so. Hippocracy only hints at the absurdity of Hodge's position.

    Of course she's hamstrung because the Labour party has no economic strategy beyond spending more money, money they seem to be planning to shake from some money tree they must have found. If Hodges proposed, say, increasing corporation tax or taxing foreign entities that would be policy which would stand out in the barren waste of Labour economics.

  19. James 36
    Facepalm

    blah

    Politicians moaning about corporations tax behaviour winds me up. Comments like this

    "Instead companies like Google are creating artificial structures and abusing current tax legislation to move profits offshore in order to avoid tax. That is just not right, and people like Eric Schmidt need to understand the legitimate public outrage that behaviour generates.”

    piss me off as the only people who can change this are the politicians. So Ms Hodge is you don't want corporations behaving this way change the tax code and stop whinging about ethical behaviour which is just a crap way of trying to guilt a corporation into changing and trying to swap responsibility from the politican to the corporation.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like