Starbucks

[Scoobos]

It's easier to exploit is the simpler answer, but its also quite easy in the USA too, who's model we seem to follow.

I don't understand how HMRC get the right to pick and choose who pays what, when it comes to corporations.

I thought it was simple, to do business in the UK you must be a UK listed company at companies house, that in itself says you are liable to the taxes that the arm makes.

The UK LTD has to make this money, where-ever it ends up.

E.G Google, Microsoft, HSBC etc are all multinational corporations with individually listed sub businesses in the UK (aka UK arms) - WebCHeck - Select and Access Company Information for example.

In my limited experience of this, I really don't understand the complication here; maybe someone can explain.

I reckon that there's no way that HSBC or Barclays would even dare close down all UK operations, if it was known they were doing that to avoid paying tax, it would be a PR nightmare. I just don't buy it, I smell corruption.

[DodgyAgent]

It's got nothing to do with red vs blue. It's about private ownership and at least keeping some of the profits here to benefit the consumer indirectly.

Your proposals are about implementing controls and restrictions. Why not turn it round and reduce corporation tax rates in order to incentivise businesses to come to the UK? Whilst we are at it why don't those who so carelessly spend the taxes make more effort to show that taxation is a hugely cost effective way of making this country function and thus attract companies to want to come and work here. Instead the dogma dictates that tax is an entitlement.

[DodgyAgent]

It's easier to exploit is the simpler answer, but its also quite easy in the USA too, who's model we seem to follow.

I don't understand how HMRC get the right to pick and choose who pays what, when it comes to corporations.

I thought it was simple, to do business in the UK you must be a UK listed company at companies house, that in itself says you are liable to the taxes that the arm makes.

The UK LTD has to make this money, where-ever it ends up.

E.G Google, Microsoft, HSBC etc are all multinational corporations with individually listed sub businesses in the UK (aka UK arms) - WebCHeck - Select and Access Company Information for example.

In my limited experience of this, I really don't understand the complication here; maybe someone can explain.

I reckon that there's no way that HSBC or Barclays would even dare close down all UK operations, if it was known they were doing that to avoid paying tax, it would be a PR nightmare. I just don't buy it, I smell corruption.

You can have a ltd company in the UK and you can offset taxable allowances (losses) to any part of the world, so I am afraid it is not as simple as you think. I thought you were an economist?

[vetran]

I suspect the following may be a good approximation of the situation:

They buy the coffee and consulting services off a single room office in a tax haven. Although neither are shipped from there. The cost of the coffee & consultancy is just equal to the profit that would be made here. The bill for these items comes in on the 4th of April.

taxjustice network


Its an artificial construct to avoid tax, it also disadvantages local business as they are unable to use the advantages off offshored profit.

[tractor]

Your proposals are about implementing controls and restrictions. Why not turn it round and reduce corporation tax rates in order to incentivise businesses to come to the UK? Whilst we are at it why don't those who so carelessly spend the taxes make more effort to show that taxation is a hugely cost effective way of making this country function and thus attract companies to want to come and work here. Instead the dogma dictates that tax is an entitlement.

They have been doing that for years, for that reason. It still doesn't work because people/corporations do not want to pay or want to pay as little as possible. If you reduced corp tax to 10% people would still be asking in these fora if they could claim for their lottery tickets and fags on the company.

They are all quite happy to make their profits here, they should man up and pay their taxes so that I don't have to.

[DodgyAgent]

They have been doing that for years, for that reason. It still doesn't work because people/corporations do not want to pay or want to pay as little as possible. If you reduced corp tax to 10% people would still be asking in these fora if they could claim for their lottery tickets and fags on the company.

They are all quite happy to make their profits here, they should man up and pay their taxes so that I don't have to.

Why should they? What basis of tax or any law is there for saying that people/organisations "should" pay tax? It is up the government then to incentivise companies who do pay their tax in the UK rather than regard tax as an entitlement. Apart from anything else I would wager that whatever Starbucks do with their profits will be a darn site morally and practically more effective than whatever the UK government do with it.

[vetran]

Why should they? What basis of tax or any law is there for saying that people/organisations "should" pay tax? It is up the government then to incentivise companies who do pay their tax in the UK rather than regard tax as an entitlement. Apart from anything else I would wager that whatever Starbucks do with their profits will be a darn site morally and practically more effective than whatever the UK government do with it.

Hey If I could legally pay 1% tax I would seriously consider it, however we would have to give up the NHS and subsidising the northerners.

Starbucks etc have to be here to make profit using our market & infrastructure they need to contribute a reasonable amount of tax toward that.

[tractor]

..

Why should they? What basis of tax or any law is there for saying that people/organisations "should" pay tax? It is up the government then to incentivise companies who do pay their tax in the UK rather than regard tax as an entitlement. Apart from anything else I would wager that whatever Starbucks do with their profits will be a darn site morally and practically more effective than whatever the UK government do with it.

The first is covered by the Finance Act and the second although undoubtedly true, is quite irrelevant.

Either we should all pay it or none of us. It should not be optional whereas currently, if you have enough money it is.

[tractor]

Hey If I could legally pay 1% tax I would seriously consider it, however we would have to give up the NHS and subsidising the northerners.

Starbucks etc have to be here to make profit using our market & infrastructure they need to contribute a reasonable amount of tax toward that.

Which should certainly be no less than anyone else.

[Gibbon]

Why should they? What basis of tax or any law is there for saying that people/organisations "should" pay tax? It is up the government then to incentivise companies who do pay their tax in the UK rather than regard tax as an entitlement. Apart from anything else I would wager that whatever Starbucks do with their profits will be a darn site morally and practically more effective than whatever the UK government do with it.

It would be close.

Starbucks Most Unethical Coffee Chain in the UK | Ethical Consumption