Fairness

[VectraMan]

Starbuck's problem isn't really with the government. It's with their customers - the government didn't force Starbucks to change their policy - it was their customer base.

They can bang on all they like about tax avoidance being legal. There is no law that forces customers to keep coming into your shop if they disagree with your taxation policy.

The customers will forget about this very quickly. They may however notice if Starbucks suddenly has to put its prices up in order to pay its "fair" tax, whereas the competition can keep prices lower as they don't have the government trying to prevent them from acting as a business.

 

[AtW]

Of course, Cameron's attack on Starbucks wouldn't be anything to do with the fact that Whitbread owned Costa Coffee are big donators to the Tory Party.

Costa Coffee pays corp tax in UK, Whitbread also does so and it's perfectly fine if such companies do whatever it takes to make sure their competitors from abroad compete fairly.

 

[formant]

Anyway Starbucks is right. They did nothing illegal. If the UK does'nt like it then change the law.

I'm with BP.

Starbucks did what multinational corporations do - they pay every penny of tax they need to pay, but they pay it where it works out cheapest. It's called good business sense. Same with Amazon and the likes.

Nothing illegal about it.

 

[socialworker]

I'm with BP.

Starbucks did what multinational corporations do - they pay every penny of tax they need to pay, but they pay it where it works out cheapest. It's called good business sense. Same with Amazon and the likes.

Nothing illegal about it.

I'm sure Starbucks indeed do what multinational corporations do - shut down the bits of their operation that don't make money. They are not in the UK to give us more choice of overpriced coffee. If they weren't making loadsamoney out of their Uk outlets one way or another they would get rid of them, not sure I believe in the long term investment story. However, I agree - tax avoidance is legal - if there is a loophole which gives an unfair advantage - close it down, surely there are enough Oxbridge brains available to find a way of doing it. Otherwise can't complain.

 

[AtW]

Everyone should maximize avoidance with NO evasion.

I disagree - everybody should pay tax in spirit of the law - creating artificial structures to avoid large part of tax that otherwise would be paid should be classed as criminal tax evasion. Specifically when it comes to companies the law should make company directors personally responsible for what the companies are doing.

 

[formant]

I disagree - everybody should pay tax in spirit of the law - creating artificial structures to avoid large part of tax that otherwise would be paid should be classed as criminal tax evasion.

Oh come on. Anyone one on here running their LTD will most likely be paying themselves peanuts in salary and large chunks of dividends to avoid paying a portion of tax and NI otherwise due. In fact, many even pay their partners a salary even though they don't work for their LTD at all. And that's perfectly fine. Why shouldn't larger corporations do the same sort of thing as long as it's perfectly legal? And tax avoidance is perfectly legal - evasion isn't, but Starbucks and the likes aren't evading tax, they're just choosing to pay it where it suits them better. Easy to do when you operate at that scale.

 

[AtW]

In fact, many even pay their partners a salary even though they don't work for their LTD at all. And that's perfectly fine.

It's not fine actually - just because you don't get caught does not mean it's OK thing to do.

For the record - I don't do it.

 

[formant]

It's not fine actually - just because you don't get caught does not mean it's OK thing to do.

For the record - I don't do it.

I don't either (I don't have a LTD due to my current contract's IR35 status), but what I'm saying is that as long as there's a legal way to do something of that sort, people will do it. On a smaller scale many here would argue it's no big deal - well, in that case I don't think it's any more 'unfair' if large multinational corporations do essentially the same thing. If the UK really are losing out massively in this, then it's time to change the law. However, I also believe that companies like Starbucks and Amazon bring a whole lot of other value into the country (even just judged on job creation), that it may not be worth forcing them to pay their taxes here (rather than elsewhere), if they're subsequently just going to downsize their UK operation.

 

[doodab]

I don't either (I don't have a LTD due to my current contract's IR35 status), but what I'm saying is that as long as there's a legal way to do something of that sort, people will do it. On a smaller scale many here would argue it's no big deal - well, in that case I don't think it's any more 'unfair' if large multinational corporations do essentially the same thing. If the UK really are losing out massively in this, then it's time to change the law. However, I also believe that companies like Starbucks and Amazon bring a whole lot of other value into the country (even just judged on job creation), that it may not be worth forcing them to pay their taxes here (rather than elsewhere), if they're subsequently just going to downsize their UK operation.

They are only going to downsize their UK operations if that frees up resources for use elsewhere. While there is a net benefit to operating here they will continue to do so. The sensible course for government to take is to push them as close to that point as possible and maximise tax revenue. I don't particularly agree with the way it's being attempted at the moment though.

 

[centurian]

However, I also believe that companies like Starbucks and Amazon bring a whole lot of other value into the country (even just judged on job creation), that it may not be worth forcing them to pay their taxes here (rather than elsewhere), if they're subsequently just going to downsize their UK operation.

They won't downsize. They're making shed loads.

Call their bluff... if there is demand, then UK based companies will quickly fill in the gap.

And for every job that Amazon "creates", it probably destroys at least another job from companies that can't compete - mostly companies that are paying full UK corporation tax.

Most job "creation" is really just moving a job from one place to another.