or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by asdasd

Ha! That's a good point. That graph has to be from the future.
Theres a graph with this piece which disproves all that.
It's charged to the people who pay. The value added is the IP.The cost to the advertiser is based on the number of people who view. Or click. The value -- the word I use rather than cost - is added when people view or click the advertisement. Where the viewers are doesnt matter because what's driving viewers is the Website, what's on it, and the intellectual property which drives them there. Top Gear or search results, don't matter.Corporation tax is taxed where value is...
The Eye-Watch will save us.
So to be clear.   BBC America produces content.  The content and the IP is generated in the UK. The parent company is BBC UK. A sales team will, however,  be where the customers are. ( see: http://advertising.bbcworldwide.com/home/advertisewithus/bbc-platforms/bbc-america)   Who pays the corporation tax? Answer: BBC UK.   There is no other way, and to me it isn't that confusing. Governments in the consumer countries can get the sales tax or VAT. 
Again you are missing where the revenue is really created and when. The sales team isn't generating revenue, the pay per view or pay per click is. 
I doubt if they lied. The presence of the sales teams is largely meaningless, most paying users of google just find it online and fill in a form specifying what they want for keywords, or what add they want to appear and where. And nothing is stopping that team moving to Ireland, and bringing their phones, getting familiar with RyanAir or both.  When is revenue really generated by Google? It is when a user clicks on a pay per click, or eyeballs a pay per view. That's based...
If Apple seriously thinks this is flawed, it should sue.
Like Windows, Apple is an agent. You pay them as the distribution agent their 30%. the presence of Google salesmen doesn't prove much, presumably British web services have sales teams abroad. The UK drives a lot of content on the Web.
 The way to tax companies doing business in your market is ( from 2015) to use VAT. Which is probably a lot more than the profit for many retailers, since very few are making net profit per sale of 20%. What makes no sense is taxing corporation tax for a non-resident company. Starbucks is taking the piss a bit, as it is clearly transfer pricing, since it is clearly brewing coffee in the UK. However most companies mentioned by the economically illiterate British Press are...
New Posts  All Forums: