[tomelders]

I utterly reject this argument

> 362 Facebook staff on an average salary of say £65,000 will contribute at least £7,230,696.60 in taxes and NI to HMRC. Let's also not pretend that £65,000 is the average salary at Facebook UK, it's likely much higher.

First of all, that's Facebook employees paying tax. Not Facebook. That's their money that they are taxed on and they pay it.

Secondly, no one is asking for Facebook to pay tax on nothing. They should pay it on profits. It was tax payers money that built the Great British Telecommunications Infrastructure that Facebook 100% depends on for it's operations here.

> If I had a choice between Facebook paying £4,327 in corporation tax but employing over 350 highly skilled individuals in the UK, or relocating to somewhere like Dublin due to aggressive taxation policies. I know what I would pick.

No one is going to give up all the money they can earn in a country that has one of the lowest corporation tax rates in the world. Facebook is not going to convince it's key employees to leave Britain, uproot their families and go live in the desert or china. Any threat by a company to leave one of the strongest economies in the world is a pathetic bluff.

[marknutter]

> First of all, that's Facebook employees paying tax. Not Facebook. That's their money that they are taxed on and they pay it.

Why is this distinction even relevant? Facebook then needs to pay its employees more to make up for the difference. No matter who the government taxes, everyone involved will shift their habits to compensate for it.

[netfire]

It's relevant because companies that are not multi-national can't afford to engage in these sort of tax reducing practices. If you want to get rid of corporate taxes altogether, that would be different, but suggesting that it's okay for Facebook to pay less than other companies because their employees pay income tax doesn't make sense. The tax code should provide a level playing field for all companies. You shouldn't get a break just because you can afford to move money around the globe.

[marknutter]

If we got rid of corporate taxes altogether it would be different, and it would likely "provide a level playing field for all companies". And I'm not sure why companies that are not multi-national can't afford to do this too.. if their corporate taxes are absurdly high like they are here in the U.S., they are free to offshore their operations just like U.S. companies do, or lobby their government to reduce or eliminate corporate taxes altogether. In that respect, the playing field is level because the global economy is now the playing field.

[netfire]

This just isn't true. Small businesses can't afford to hire accountants and set up and manage global offices and tax codes. That means small companies are disproportionately taxed for their profits.

In addition, isn't the whole point of corporate taxes to provide money to the country in which that business is making a profit? We may live in a global economy, but we don't all live in a single country. Businesses should be taxed appropriately for their revenues in a country or not be taxed at all. Saying that it's okay to avoid paying taxes because you can afford to move money offshore is hardly a level playing field and gives money to countries based on their advantageous tax codes, not to the profits achieved in that country.

[collyw]

Lets face it, if they haven't found a way to avoid that one.

[scanr]

> First of all, that's Facebook employees paying tax. Not Facebook. That's their money that they are taxed on and they pay it.

I'm reasonably confident that HMRC is entirely happy with corporations choosing to pay their staff more (and have those salaries taxed appropriately) rather than paying their employees less and paying corporation tax on the profits.

[forgotpwtomain]

But their employees get more isn't in the picture here - they just need to pay competitively with other British companies, whereas all the British companies that want similar talent but are not multi-national are at a distinct disadvantage, since they cannot recoup from avoiding the corporate taxes.

[bagacrap]

> That's their money that they are taxed on and they pay it.

The only reason Facebook doesn't have to pay taxes on that money is because they gave it to their employees (so it counts against profit). The money comes from FB profits, briefly goes to the employees, then to the government. Hence, the government is getting a cut of the money FB is making. What's the problem?

[tomelders]

The reason they paid such low corporation tax is because they funnelled that money into a country where they dont pay tax as a business expense. Im not sure what Facebooks specific set up is, but it will be something like this.

Facebook luxembourg provides a license for Facebook UK to use the facebook logo. The fee for that license just happens to coincide with all the profits Facebook UK made this year.

It's a fictional cost, and totally legal. But its still dirt bag behaviour.