The cynic in me says....
This is a tax avoidance scheme dreamt up by Vodafone.
eh sorry I don't have to pay tax as I am only borrowing this money/infrastructure/whatever.
Shame on Vodafone!
546 posts • joined 28 Oct 2009
Jimmy Carr, U2, Bob Geldolf, and Gary Barlow who are costing the UK jobs by avoiding tax on the money they are earning in the UK.
I would love to see the amounts of money hidden from the UK tax man by these bastions of UK Industry that are asking for our sympathy and protection from the scourge on internet piracy.
What we need is a global law to protect us from the 'Globally Tax' compliant.
I believe Vodafone didn't make any profit in the UK which is why they didn't pay any tax. All those profits went through an empty office in Switzerland and as such are not liable for tax in any country.
phew that's lucky another year with no tax liability.
Global tax compliance will cost us all our jobs.
while I go and bone your Mum.
Really dumb think to do with gambling sites having 'keep me logged in' automatically ticked.
But without any way to really disable that then these things are gonna happen. Call of nature and the need to distract the little ones.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Didn't Microsoft get taken to the cleaners for not shipping with an alternative browsers?
Why is this any different? They are barring a supplier from their product... or refusing to support a legacy TV's.
Why is a TV older that this year being classed as a legacy? Can they not be made to implement the change under anti-competition rules?
They also have a legal obligation to pay tax just the same as I do. Which come's first.... I believe the law of this land says Tax first profits later.
Of course when all your profits are funnelled through a empty office in Switzerland that may change but it still doesn't make it right.
funny how my obligation seems to be unaffected by my offers of free lunch.
this seems to me to be another example of the RIAA bulling the ISP. The ISP won which means they were right and the RIAA were wrong. But the lawyers appear to be arguing that the judgement is wrong and the law in Australia is wrong based on the successes or perceived successes of the rest of the world.
So America to invade Australia next?
This article and the comments from the lawyer sound more like trying to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
Ohhh things are gonna change.... doom and gloom. It could be worse. Could it?
Well in case people hadn't noticed tax evasion/fraud/avoidance is doing serious damage to all the economies around the world.
A lot of people in this country are losing their jobs and livelihoods and if MegaCorp's like Vodafone and others paid their taxes their maybe a few less people would be losing their jobs.
So 'Go India' get your tax!
He will rein fire and brimstone down on you for such blasphemous words.
dissent will be crushed. Nothing must stand in the way of progress... opps sorry progress must be stopped if it affects our bottom line.
No nothing must change…… our profits must go up or else we will legislate, sue punish and imprison
I often find many of Andrew's articles inflammatory and certainly divisive. Some of his articles about Piracy are just shocking and are designed for nothing else than to create conflict.
I offered him this article on the BBC as a way to appear to provide a balanced argument on eBook copyright:
Interesting to see if will he go for it. But I think we already know the answer to that.
Good point but if eBooks are going to cost the same as Paper Books. Why spend all the money on eBook readers and infrastructure to support their use. Sounds more like another Gubbermint IT Elephant
Using eBooks should be cheaper and easier because I for one enjoy a good paper book.
And what would Christmas be like. Here I bought you a eBook. I'll email it to you. Its hardly the same
Just keep Library's open and then every child in the country can enjoy a real book.
No but is it reasonable that eBooks cost the Public Sector more than the current paper based versions?
So any saving made by the Government in closing Library's and detrimentally affecting our children's future is fed to MegaCorp.
I'm supporting Library's and our children's future as well as the public purse.
I believe this debate is around how many reuses a electronic book should be allowed within a school and are eBooks as worthwhile for authors as traditional books.
Currently when a school receives a paper book they are allowed to wrap it in stiff plastic wrapper to extend the books life through many sets of grubby little hands. This usually gives a book an average life of 10 uses. Some are longer some are shorter. Depends how well the book is made and how popular it is with the kids .
Book houses are proposing that when electronic books are issued to schools the digital books are restricted to 6 uses as well as a time frame before a book has to be repurchased with no regard for how many times it is issued.
I believe Julia is more concerned with the closing of traditional library's as she will sell much less traditional books. Moving schools to electronic books holds nothing for authors as they won't be repaid for reissues as the electronic licenses will remain with eBook house which are different organisations from the traditional book houses.
The current moves of the ConDem government is to get better value from schools is driving the move to eBooks as they are cheaper. No Library, No Librarian's, no storage, no transport cost. Fixed costs every year. Perfect for the ConDem world.
So i think this is less about copyright but more around this governments efforts to rid this fine country of our Library's and free access to education.
Quote from gizmag: 'A claim dating back to November 2009 had it that in the five months since its launch in Sweden, Spotify racked up one million plays of Lady Gaga's 'Poker Face', and paid the artist just US$167 (GBP100) in royalties'
The argument is less about the poor creatives but more about the middlemen taking the lions share. Steam/Spoitify proves that give people a decent price and they will pay. What most people object to (hardcore pirates excluded) is the middle men to keep the price artifically high and thus swelling their profits which they do not share with the poor creatives.
Than a letter from ACS:Law or their like.
Not that I do download. (Steam is way good enough for me). The only thing that worries me is what if they get it wrong. My understanding is that if a Rights Holder see's my IP in a torrent swam or such like then they can write to my ISP who will send me a warning letter.
I am then notified that 'something' is amiss as I don't download. I can then query the letter.
And say not me 'Yer Honour'. Or will they just look at my spending habits and say this dude isn't spending enough money with us. Better send him a warning letter?
Clarification required here.
money is paid to their shell company based in the Holland which incurs only a 10% tax dividend (if that)
Bono et al. Of course don't get paid themselves they just do it for the love. So they have zero tax liability.
of course I could be completely wrong and St Bono pays billions in tax while helping the starving millions. But interestingly U2 MegaCorp moved their Business to Holland when Ireland hit the rocks and had to ask/beg/plead with U2 MegaCorp to help us out.
Vodafone, Burton, Barclay's and pretty much any other company that pay's their wages and bonus's through off shore shell companies would be a good place to start looking for a few billion.
There you go... a few billion saved and I gave you that for free.
Another idea... a few less expensive lunches is sure to make the tax receipts go up.
No mention of where this business is based so that somebody can work out the tax liability.
Oh well I guess it will be business as usual for VodaFone.
Tax.... what's tax?
Ahhh I see Tax is the stuff which we take from our employees wages and filter through numerous off shore shell companies until it gets lost down the back of the sofa.
Yoda's journey to the dark side is complete.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020