The software group Palantir paid just £2M in corporation tax in the UK in 2024 • Hacker News Board

Re: The software group Palantir paid just £2M in corporation tax in the UK in 2024

#71

Post by bluecalm » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 1:02 PM UTC

BrandoElFollito wrote: post #20

I seriously do not understand why companies pay taxes on the income and not the revenue. (EDIT: I mixed them up) I pay on the revenue. I also buy things. I also consume. And somehow I can manage with taxes on the revenue. This would also solve the problem of companies that get 10 M€ in revenue, but somehow only 10€ is taxed because expenditure, capex etc

Revenue based taxes are a an idea to consider as they have many advantages - a big one is that they are harder to evade. One disadvantage of them is that they give advantage to big players that own the whole supply chain. Imagine you are a small player and need a supplier who needs a supplier who needs a supplier. Suddenly the tax is paid 4 times while your competitor who owns the whole supply chain pays once.

Imo when you start thinking about it the most reasonable position is that corporate income tax should be 0. Instead we should focus on consumption taxes, land taxes and taxing other resources and especially pollution.

Re: The software group Palantir paid just £2M in corporation tax in the UK in 2024

#72

Post by sevenzero » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 1:50 PM UTC

bluecalm wrote: post #69

sevenzero wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you named should be included in the price you charge for a cup of coffee. So the money you extract from it, minus the cost you named is your profit. If you dont make profit on that sale, I have bad news for your business idea. >Yep, you could do this. Only problem is, uh, you never make any money. If you're running a hobby or something, that's fine, but most people owning business want to realize some prof…

>>Everything you named should be included in the price you charge for a cup of coffee. So the money you extract from it, minus the cost you named is your profit. When you first invest 100k and then sell something for 2$ you don't make a profit for a while. You may be arguing for some other tax but it's ridiculous to argue income tax should be paid until revenue > costs. >>If you dont make profit on that sale, I have…

My whole line of reasoning makes perfect sense given I worked in trades doing exactly what I talk about in a country with one of the most complicated tax systems there is. Prices are calculated by adding your costs into the base price which is common sense. If you do that you can actually calculate the amount of coffees you need to sell to turn a profit and if the business even makes sense in the first place.

Every unit of coffee you sell should turn a profit. Which in turn should be taxed. Even cigarettes that probably only turn micro cents profit should be taxed by per unit sold. They even are, given their sales are heavily regulated.

No company is giving out "free" products without making a profit just to go even on their initial investment.

Re: The software group Palantir paid just £2M in corporation tax in the UK in 2024

#73

Post by Nursie » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 1:54 PM UTC

perpetuallunch wrote: post #59

Nursie wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there's no future prospects, it will cease operations. That's the point, there are plenty of future prospects, but the company is playing accounting games to hide the profits. > I like how discussion of taxes turned everyone into a fierce defender of profit maximization. No, we're just calling bullshit on the whole thing because we're tired of wealthy multinationals dodging taxes in our countries. That's how the…

There are counties that have zero percent corporate profits tax. Be like them and the corporations won’t have a need to offshore their profit. The alternative is One World Government, which, in its lesser form, empire, has a nasty habit rapidly turning quite sour.

This has to be one of the most ludicrous, cartoonishly libertarian things I've ever read.

No thanks! I'd rather have a functioning society!

Re: The software group Palantir paid just £2M in corporation tax in the UK in 2024

#74

Post by Nursie » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 1:55 PM UTC

perpetuallunch wrote: post #49

Nursie wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a coal mine here in Australia (NT I think) run by a company called Adani. When it was being proposed they did the usual "but think of all the taxes!" song and dance to get it approved. It's never posted a profit despite about a billion in annual revenue, and so never paid a penny of corp tax. Personally I think the tax authorities ought to take the line that a company posting losses like this is clearly not a…

Carmichael coal mine in Queensland. Queensland has a payroll tax, I don’t believe this is can be offset against losses, see here for more info https://qro.qld.gov.au/payroll-tax/ GST is payable on goods they use and services they consume. Mineral royalties are in Queensland https://qro.qld.gov.au/royalty/calculate-mineral/rates/ Employees of said company are required to pay income tax on their earnings. So while it m…

I think it's very easy to make a value judgement here.

In this case, at the time they were proposing the project, Adani promised around $22 billion in taxes and royalties, and the industry body talked about enough money to fund schools, hospitals and other infrastructure for near to a century.

The royalties they pay are in the order of a few tens of million per annum, and they pay no corporation tax because of the accounting games they play. The company outright lied about the benefits it would deliver when it was trying to win permission for the project and is actively trying not to fulfil those promises.

Now, does this all point to a need for better legislation?

100%, but good luck with that when so many politicians walk into 'consultancy' jobs in the sector when they leave office.

(Also the whole "Oh but they pay income tax for their employees" is such weasel-worded nonsense. Sure they do, it's a cost of doing business. So does everyone else. They should also be paying significant royalties and corporation tax, and be slapped with hefty fines for the games they're playing with profit hiding)

Re: The software group Palantir paid just £2M in corporation tax in the UK in 2024

#75

Post by jacobjjacob » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 2:39 PM UTC

sevenzero wrote: post #72

bluecalm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Everything you named should be included in the price you charge for a cup of coffee. So the money you extract from it, minus the cost you named is your profit. When you first invest 100k and then sell something for 2$ you don't make a profit for a while. You may be arguing for some other tax but it's ridiculous to argue income tax should be paid until revenue > costs. >>If you dont make profit on that sale, I have…

My whole line of reasoning makes perfect sense given I worked in trades doing exactly what I talk about in a country with one of the most complicated tax systems there is. Prices are calculated by adding your costs into the base price which is common sense. If you do that you can actually calculate the amount of coffees you need to sell to turn a profit and if the business even makes sense in the first place. Every u…

Over what timescale do you amortize your investment by pricing it in? Do you earn back your $100k by selling $20 coffee? That wouldn’t be sustainable. So, this is where the loss comes in. You can’t realistically sell at a profit considering your capital investment if you aren’t carrying it over longer periods of time.

Re: The software group Palantir paid just £2M in corporation tax in the UK in 2024

#76

Post by Swenrekcah » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 2:56 PM UTC

perpetuallunch wrote: post #56

Swenrekcah wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I like how discussion of taxes turned everyone into a fierce defender of profit maximization. Nothing about adding back to the community, paying decent wages, etc. You are fundamentally missing the issue. What most of these multinationals do is to extract value from the places they operate but then move all the profit (in the books) to another tax jurisdiction, thereby not contributing to the community where they o…

The only sane argument to be made against this practice is that governments should make their tax systems more favourable to companies operating in their jurisdiction so they have no reason to move their profits to a more favourable jurisdiction. Australia has, if I understand correctly, the highest corporate profit tax rate in the OECD. Higher than New Zealand, the US, Canada, the UK, Ireland, Japan, Turkey, China,…

Pandering to the corporations is just a race to the bottom. There was recently a real and respectable attempt to address this with a global minimum tax of 15% but that has been stalled, at least the last I heard of it.

Re: The software group Palantir paid just £2M in corporation tax in the UK in 2024

#77

Post by Swenrekcah » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 3:01 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #55

Swenrekcah wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I like how discussion of taxes turned everyone into a fierce defender of profit maximization. Nothing about adding back to the community, paying decent wages, etc. You are fundamentally missing the issue. What most of these multinationals do is to extract value from the places they operate but then move all the profit (in the books) to another tax jurisdiction, thereby not contributing to the community where they o…

What value do they extract? They provide a good or service to denizens. Unless of course you believe in a serf model of government in which people are an asset of the state and everything should serve the states goals.

I honestly don’t understand how you believe this to be a reasonable response. It does sound like a bad faith argument, an attempt at ad hominem.

When an entity operates in an area but optimises the financial structures in such a way as to siphon all the profits out to another area, that is extracting value that used to remain in the area.

That service or goods are provided has no bearing on the matter.

Re: The software group Palantir paid just £2M in corporation tax in the UK in 2024

#78

Post by Swenrekcah » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 3:08 PM UTC

perpetuallunch wrote: post #58

bko wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What value do they extract? They provide a good or service to denizens. Unless of course you believe in a serf model of government in which people are an asset of the state and everything should serve the states goals.

This is increasingly, and worryingly, becoming an ideology people are being swept up by. It doesn’t help that there are Card Carrying Socialist activists in our public school system in Australia, indoctrinating kids in to a politically and economically bent out of shape ideology. I don’t believe many Australians are aware of just how dangerously few steps away from the mouldy bread and rotting fish head soup lines ve…

The dangerous ideology is that giving money and power to corporations is any better than the government.

The government in a free democracy is ultimately controlled by the people, is supposed to (and usually does) work for the people, to protect the environment where that is necessary, protect people from being exploited by too powerful corporations, etc.

None of this is socialism, this is in fact the system that made the US great in the years after WW2.

Also I am neither Australian nor socialist.

Re: The software group Palantir paid just £2M in corporation tax in the UK in 2024

#79

Post by bko » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 3:42 PM UTC

Swenrekcah wrote: post #77

bko wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What value do they extract? They provide a good or service to denizens. Unless of course you believe in a serf model of government in which people are an asset of the state and everything should serve the states goals.

I honestly don’t understand how you believe this to be a reasonable response. It does sound like a bad faith argument, an attempt at ad hominem. When an entity operates in an area but optimises the financial structures in such a way as to siphon all the profits out to another area, that is extracting value that used to remain in the area. That service or goods are provided has no bearing on the matter.

An entity provides a service to people that necessarily produces a consumer surplus. Say you pay $2 for a cup of coffee, you obviously value it at least $2 otherwise you wouldn't buy it, but likely more. Suppose you value it at $3 (i.e. the company could charge up to $3 and you would pay), by allowing the entity to sell it to you at the market rate of $2, they created $1 surplus value to you.

The same works on the producer side. It typically costs them less than the market price to produce the product.

This is basic economics and kind of wild I have to explain.

Re: The software group Palantir paid just £2M in corporation tax in the UK in 2024

#80

Post by Swenrekcah » Wed, Aug 05, 2026, 4:45 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #79

Swenrekcah wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don’t understand how you believe this to be a reasonable response. It does sound like a bad faith argument, an attempt at ad hominem. When an entity operates in an area but optimises the financial structures in such a way as to siphon all the profits out to another area, that is extracting value that used to remain in the area. That service or goods are provided has no bearing on the matter.

An entity provides a service to people that necessarily produces a consumer surplus. Say you pay $2 for a cup of coffee, you obviously value it at least $2 otherwise you wouldn't buy it, but likely more. Suppose you value it at $3 (i.e. the company could charge up to $3 and you would pay), by allowing the entity to sell it to you at the market rate of $2, they created $1 surplus value to you. The same works on the pr…

This is firstly not a response to the value extraction issue.

Secondly, you don’t need to explain this here. Rather read up better, because this theory requires a fair market which fails when some participants can avoid taxes.