Starbucks have been a might greedy

#1
£8 million pound taxes over 14 years on £1.4billion profit a tad doing a carr :(
 
#2
As I said to a mate earlier tonight, perhaps the Lib Dems should squeal louder about corporations rather than taxing the rich, then. A corporation would rather (in profit terms, and in the face of having to) pay tax and have a proportion of something rather than the square root of bugger-all, whilst the rich (amongst whose ranks some of our biggest innovators and wealth generators reside) are more likely to just up sticks and bugger off to live somewhere else... thus ensuring a lose/lose.
 
#3
A great deal of tax avoidance law was foisted upon us by the EU, and the Osbournes, Browns and Darlings of this world did the rest.
 
#4
Perhaps a lot of the money was written off against the free coffee given to "The Troops"?
 
#5
Vertical Integration : the Oil industry has used that model for a century to spectacular effect to ensure it always seems to have high 'operating costs' that can be offset against tax.
 
#7
£8 million pound taxes over 14 years on £1.4billion profit a tad doing a carr :(
14 years. Seems to take the start of it back to just after New Labour took power. Any link to their Chancellor, I wonder?
 
#8
Damn Starbucks. What they should have done is paid a ****-load of tax they had no legal obligation to. After all, as an American company, it's their patriotic duty to the UK.
 
#10
Why?

If the UK wants to stop people / firms legally avoiding tax, change the bloody law. The ONLY duty of a company is to maximise returns to shareholders.
 
#11
So Starbucks have paid no tax in the UK ? Other than the VAT, 10% tax on it's employees, business rates and of course employing tens of thousands of people who also pay tax,NI,council tax,fuel duties and VAT. How very dare they not make enough profit to pay corporation tax !
 
#12
So Starbucks have paid no tax in the UK ? Other than the VAT, 10% tax on it's employees, business rates and of course employing tens of thousands of people who also pay tax,NI,council tax,fuel duties and VAT. How very dare they not make enough profit to pay corporation tax !
You're a ****ing idiot.

Consumers pay VAT. Employees pay income and NI contributions and everything else you list. Starbucks pay the employees as little as they can get away with in order to maximise their profits.
 
#13
So, change the law.

And you need to Google Employers' NICs. Guess who pays that. Oh, and look into Dividend Tax Credits.
 
#14
Personally I thing “no taxation without representation” and since corporations do not vote they should not pay tax.

At the moment a complete elimination of the taxes paid by corporations is not practical, however, a considerable reduction would stimulate the economy and might actually bring in more money.

Also idiots like Pyianno also needs to Google “business rates.”
 
#15
Simplifying the tax laws would be a start.

On Radio 4 last night was some talk programme, GE has paid bugger all tax in the US, their tax laws currently run to 75,000 pages, in Nixon's day it was 1000. As ours can't be far behind its no wonder the big companies find it worthwhile employing a tax dept to minimise their tax bill. I can't imagine there are many here who would quite happily pay less tax, legally, if they could.

The ones who say they wouldn't mind paying more are lying.
 
#18
You're a ****ing idiot.

Consumers pay VAT. Employees pay income and NI contributions and everything else you list. Starbucks pay the employees as little as they can get away with in order to maximise their profits.
Thank you.
Markets set the price of goods. Starbucks do not charge market price plus 20%. they effectively pay the VAT themselves, VAT is a tax on turnover minus raw goods. I am sure you have now spotted your mistake on employers NIC. As for your point about paying employers as little as possible, whilst that may or may not be true for Starbucks, it is very unfair to assume it for other companies !
 
#19
The tax system is made to be bent,twisted and abused. Surely it could be simplified.
 
#20
Here's my thing. Do we want tax from a company, or the 2nd and 3rd order benefits from attracting large scale investment and multinationals in UK?

You see those multinationals will employ people, those people will pay taxes, NIC etc. They will then spend that money in UK (mostly) which in turn will net VAT. Then as more people have employment more money is spent, which means a larger market for other businesses to develop and employ people to service, which then increases the overall % in employment and the circle or salary, tax, NI and spend increases.

So while a corporation may not pay large direct taxation, it does inject through its function money into the economy of a given country.

In a country with high employment then crime goes down, health goes up, and the general well being through morale and education increases, which in turn flows through to innovation and social development.

It might turn out that the burden on government for the feckless slowly reduces and the tax take slowly increases. the delta being more money to either improve services or reduce the taxation burden.

All of which doesn't take place in time for a 10 O'clock news sound bite, not even a term of office, which is why no one even discusses such things in any meaningful way in western democratic countries, the politics of now are all that the average person can absorb. The right thing may be unpopular in the short to medium term, and the yield may be for the next generation.

There are countries in the world who are betting on this for long term development, while others are screaming out for someone to blame for the shite state they are in.

If you are placing long term bets with money or your familys future i'd at least think it through a bit to find where you feel most comfortable.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top