FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

starbucks and other tax dodging twats

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Am disgusted by fact starbucks have just plucked a figure out of fresh air to donate to tax man 20 million quid not because they have to but because they are kind hearted.

How can they be and others dictate to us how much and when they pay tax the coalition are cuplable on this as previously ministers have said we should be a tax haven. Hello we already clearly are. Tax rules can be changed quickly look at how they quickly increase our taxes yet drag heels on commercial tax.

We have folk through no fault of their own struggling to survive while this happens i am sick to stomach about this and whilst some may think futile i stopped usong starbucks and amazon since their tax dodging became public. Hit the bastards when and how we can.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

I said something similar on a news forum earlier today. A completely arbitrary figure over two years.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittle_brat_evie!!Woman
over a year ago

evesham

But if it's legal for them not to pay tax why are they the bad guys? If I was savvy enough to get away with it I would do it to.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rightonsteveMan
over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

Happily I don't actually like the coffee from Starbucks. If you're not part of the solution.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But if it's legal for them not to pay tax why are they the bad guys? If I was savvy enough to get away with it I would do it to. "

They have chosen to base their profit centre in another country with lower taxes in the EU. Yes its legal and they haven't done anything legally wrong its more of a moral issue. In reality though they are only paying out because they would loose 3 times that amount in profits if customers started flocking to costa or cafe nero instead.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *helmercpleCouple
over a year ago

Chelmsford

They haven't done anything illegal. Do we judge people on the law of the land or what's morally right?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *histler21Man
over a year ago

Ipswich

The question I haven't seen asked (or answered) is this: is the amount of fees Starbucks(UK) pay Starbucks(Luxembourg) to 'use' the 'Starbucks' name (i.e. as a franchisee) a genuine amount or is it vastly over-inflated (to ensure minimal corporation tax etc).

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago

glasgow


"But if it's legal for them not to pay tax why are they the bad guys? If I was savvy enough to get away with it I would do it to. "

the loopholes must be closed.

given the opportunity,few would not take advantage.

my concern is,george seems to think closing loopholes,equates to making them admissible.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There seems to be something rotten within the top echelons of HMRC. When the HMRC chair is an ex KPMG partner is it any surprise they have a light touch on multinational tax avoidance? A report from MPs this last week criticised the Revenue for being “way too lenient” on multinational companies avoiding tax. The Public Accounts Committee said civil servants have “lacked determination” to deal with “outrageous” avoidance from multinational companies such Amazon and Starbucks.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"There seems to be something rotten within the top echelons of HMRC. When the HMRC chair is an ex KPMG partner is it any surprise they have a light touch on multinational tax avoidance? A report from MPs this last week criticised the Revenue for being “way too lenient” on multinational companies avoiding tax. The Public Accounts Committee said civil servants have “lacked determination” to deal with “outrageous” avoidance from multinational companies such Amazon and Starbucks.

"

They don't avoid paying tax altogether they just pay it in other countries. The EU is an arse when it lets one country charge less than another to court companies being based there. The best ploy is to shame these companies letting the public know that they are not pro British financially.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The UK has to compete with other countries in attracting multinational companies to base themselves here. It is done by offering tax incentives that are lower than other countries. The problem arises when those companies who do base themselves here do NOT pay the 21% corporation tax they should be paying, instead they invent complex inter-borrowing schemes between sister companies in other countries to ciphon money abroad to avoid paying the level of tax they agreed to pay in order to benefit from the very lucrative UK market. This is the loophole that needs to be closed. If you are based in the UK you should pay 21% corporation tax on the profits generated from the UK market regardless of how badly CoffeeMaker Germany needs a loan from CoffeeMaker UK.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 06/12/12 23:41:59]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

All I really care about is whether the price of a Macchiato will rise to recover the cost of their 'donation'.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

While what I am about to say is not me agreeing with what is seen as immoral (albeit legal) tax avoidance by large multinationals, we must consider the wealth creation that these companies generate by trading here at all... By that i mean all the vat, income tax, jobs, services, logistics generated as an indirect result of their presence... If we force companies out due to higher tax demands and make them base themselves elsewhere (think manufacturing as case in point) then we loose ALOT more than the money they owe in corporation tax...

Yes, u can argue that large global companies would not leave the uk completely as the market is still lucrative for them due to their economies of scale, But the smaller organisations will suffer, ie their suppliers, drivers, cleaners etc and soon we see disaster areas appear like they did previously with industrial collapse...

Oh, and its not the coalitions fault.. These companies have been getting away with it for years! Blame the coalition but also let previous labour and Tory governments stand accountable too for their mismanagement of hmrc/irs too.

2p

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But if it's legal for them not to pay tax why are they the bad guys? If I was savvy enough to get away with it I would do it to.

the loopholes must be closed.

given the opportunity,few would not take advantage.

my concern is,george seems to think closing loopholes,equates to making them admissible. "

Its the people who made or allowed the loopholes to exist that annoy me and yes you are correct they need closing and soon as its wrong people are having to make personal cuts while corporates make billions and pay so little.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"They haven't done anything illegal. Do we judge people on the law of the land or what's morally right?

"

You are quite correct, they have acted within the letter of the law but outside the spirit of it.

A technicality perhaps and one not enforceable by law in many cases but as these companies are only there to provide us with services, if we, their customer, judge them to be morally bankrupt, we loose faith in their products and move to another brand.

This is why many companies will now be scrambling to ensure they are clean from such scandals as a nationwide boycott could see the organisation fold.

So I suppose in answer to ur question, the courts judge by the law of the land while the population judges on more moral grounds??

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Here's an idea - I'm just throwing it out there.

Sod the tax loopholes - because you're always going to have loopholes. If its legal - so what. Close them if you can, but don't make a song and dance about it.

Rather, lets get people off the god damn dole into full time jobs earning decent wages for decent work and have them contribute in earnings related tax.

Lets lower the retirement age for all to 60. It frees up the job market, allowing the young to enter the jobs market and contributing.

The retired, drawing on pensions, pay a small amount of tax and happily contribute to the economy by buying stuff and paying VAT - earning tax revenue.

So, people retire early enough to enjoy it and don't drop dead at their desks; the young actually have a reason to study and get an education because there are jobs to go into as others retire, the state isn't funding 3 million on unemployment benefit and the coffers are full because everyone's contributing so we have an NHS, Social, Policing and local services which are fully funded.

We need is to start manufacturing again. Time was we made things in this country - now all we do is put our hands in each others pockets - and when there's nothing in the pockets to begin with - we're all fucked.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They are not avoiding paying tax . I don't blame them to be honest . Why would you rather give all your money to government when you can keep it for yourself ??

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Here's an idea - I'm just throwing it out there.

Sod the tax loopholes - because you're always going to have loopholes. If its legal - so what. Close them if you can, but don't make a song and dance about it.

Rather, lets get people off the god damn dole into full time jobs earning decent wages for decent work and have them contribute in earnings related tax.

Lets lower the retirement age for all to 60. It frees up the job market, allowing the young to enter the jobs market and contributing.

The retired, drawing on pensions, pay a small amount of tax and happily contribute to the economy by buying stuff and paying VAT - earning tax revenue.

So, people retire early enough to enjoy it and don't drop dead at their desks; the young actually have a reason to study and get an education because there are jobs to go into as others retire, the state isn't funding 3 million on unemployment benefit and the coffers are full because everyone's contributing so we have an NHS, Social, Policing and local services which are fully funded.

We need is to start manufacturing again. Time was we made things in this country - now all we do is put our hands in each others pockets - and when there's nothing in the pockets to begin with - we're all fucked. "
I wouldn't disagree with a lot of that but retirement ages are a sticking point if people are living to their late 80s its nearly 3 decades on pensions and support.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Boycott them

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *histler21Man
over a year ago

Ipswich


"Boycott them"

I don't like Starbucks coffee anyway.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Here's an idea - I'm just throwing it out there.

Sod the tax loopholes - because you're always going to have loopholes. If its legal - so what. Close them if you can, but don't make a song and dance about it.

Rather, lets get people off the god damn dole into full time jobs earning decent wages for decent work and have them contribute in earnings related tax.

Lets lower the retirement age for all to 60. It frees up the job market, allowing the young to enter the jobs market and contributing.

The retired, drawing on pensions, pay a small amount of tax and happily contribute to the economy by buying stuff and paying VAT - earning tax revenue.

So, people retire early enough to enjoy it and don't drop dead at their desks; the young actually have a reason to study and get an education because there are jobs to go into as others retire, the state isn't funding 3 million on unemployment benefit and the coffers are full because everyone's contributing so we have an NHS, Social, Policing and local services which are fully funded.

We need is to start manufacturing again. Time was we made things in this country - now all we do is put our hands in each others pockets - and when there's nothing in the pockets to begin with - we're all fucked. I wouldn't disagree with a lot of that but retirement ages are a sticking point if people are living to their late 80s its nearly 3 decades on pensions and support. "

Whilst it wouldn't fix it immediately, if we made SERPS a 'top up' system - whereby you could pump extra money into your state pension and receive it as a top-up on top of the statutory when you retire I think alot of people would go for a government backed pension rather than a private one where you could end up with bob-all after paying into it for 40 years simply because some asshat at Leemans threw a grenade into the stock market!

That generates even more state income and could be used to offset the state pensions shortfall - because you get a return based on secure government bonds and the state makes a profit as well.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i ended contracts with companies who dodge paying the correct level of tax.

first was vodafone and many others have followed.

i have even said to businesses. if you would like my custom please provided me with evidence of your tax contributions for the past year.

and some have been happy to and got my business.

others who refuse lose.

im firm but fair!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I admire anyone who wants to take a moral stand and good on you. For me, I look at like this:-

1) All companies will seek ways to increase profits and drive down costs. This includes not having to pay more tax that you need to.

2) If the loopholes are legal; who is to blame? The company who exploits them (for the benefit of shareholders and to keep costs down) or the people who created them and allow them to continue?

3) Chasing after the odd 10 million here or 20 million there is like playing on the scratchcards. Its governed by the law of diminishing returns and is no way to ensure a continued revenue stream. Plugging the loopholes however, does.

4) Some company is going to stand up (soon) and go 'No - we are not paying and screw the 15 minute wonder that is the negative publicity. Everything we did was perfectly legal'. Then other companies will follow suit and your coming up empty on your game of Scratchcard Tax Avoidance.

The pressure should be on the Government to close the loopholes; not to chase after companies for doing something that (in law) is legal. Thing is, that until you really, really need the money (like the economy does) its handy to ignore whats happening as it attracts business into the UK.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Hello all,

all large companies pay a lot of tax, VAT,fuel, N.I. etc, even the so called immoral ones, (A smoke screen by the government).

A large number of small companies or single traders evade tax simply with the cash in hand jobs. Now that is illegal but is it a bad thing?

The tax burden in this country is extremely high so of course it encourages ways of avoiding it, be it booze cruises (which can be legal or not) or imaginative accounting. What high taxation does is remove a lot of money that otherwise would help to boost the GDP. Yes, some government spending does go back into our economy but an awful lot does not so negatively impacting our economy.

What's the answer, I would say it is evident no one has a quick repair. We are now paying for years of wasteful government and it's hard to dig out of such a hole.

Alec

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

With a headline like that OP, have you considered a career in journalism ?

I believe the Daily Mail are always on the look out for new reporters !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

the song goes.

bugger the buggers who make the rules.

and if your one of them bugger you.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Funny how no one is on the rampage about tradesman bring paid cash in hand to get a lower price... and avoid paying tax. I am sure there is more money lost to the treasury this way than through Starbucks.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *kip123Man
over a year ago

Barry

What people forget is, Our goverment is elected by the people of this country, to represent and Do ther best for the British population. They can get away with shody leadership and waisting tax payers money simply because WE the public are too lazy to stand up for OUR rights. WE pay the ministers wages, they work for US, WE are the bosses , Its time people stood up for the people of this country and demanded that the goverment listen to us on issues that affect our well being and financial status.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

for me the big issue isnt companies/people who avoid tax, its legal after all. but the huge waste of taxpayers money, why should we give money for these fools to waste?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago

glasgow


"Funny how no one is on the rampage about tradesman bring paid cash in hand to get a lower price... and avoid paying tax. I am sure there is more money lost to the treasury this way than through Starbucks.

"

starbucks is only the tip of the iceberg.

in 2010 barclays bank,made over 11 billion pounds profit,they paid less than .002% tax.

How many cash in hand people would it take,to diddle the tax man out of that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *xodussxMan
over a year ago

sheffield

Only in UK...I don't see how a company can get away with this in USA

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ctavius StuntMan
over a year ago

london

It seems starbucks views the uk as a charity. We should all feel insulted by that i think.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ctavius StuntMan
over a year ago

london


"Funny how no one is on the rampage about tradesman bring paid cash in hand to get a lower price... and avoid paying tax. I am sure there is more money lost to the treasury this way than through Starbucks.

starbucks is only the tip of the iceberg.

in 2010 barclays bank,made over 11 billion pounds profit,they paid less than .002% tax.

How many cash in hand people would it take,to diddle the tax man out of that."

There is a big difference between global corps avoiding tax and lets say jo bloggs the carpeneter doing the odd cash in hand job. When corps and banks do it the money leaves the country and it is used to buy assets. it does not filter down back into the economy. When jo bloggs does it he spends the money on goods and services which keeps people in jobs and the economy ticking over.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Funny how no one is on the rampage about tradesman bring paid cash in hand to get a lower price... and avoid paying tax. I am sure there is more money lost to the treasury this way than through Starbucks.

"

The 'cash in hand' sub economy is vital for the financial stability of this country!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *acreadCouple
over a year ago

central scotland


"Am disgusted by fact starbucks have just plucked a figure out of fresh air to donate to tax man 20 million quid not because they have to but because they are kind hearted.

How can they be and others dictate to us how much and when they pay tax the coalition are cuplable on this as previously ministers have said we should be a tax haven. Hello we already clearly are. Tax rules can be changed quickly look at how they quickly increase our taxes yet drag heels on commercial tax.

We have folk through no fault of their own struggling to survive while this happens i am sick to stomach about this and whilst some may think futile i stopped usong starbucks and amazon since their tax dodging became public. Hit the bastards when and how we can."

Dont like coffeee myself so dont visit Starbucks.

They are not giving the money through any moral grounds I think it will have more to do with the boycot Starbucks, Amazon and any other tax avoiding company in the UK thing that is diong the rounds.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

People work for cash in hand every day of the week.....thousands if not tens of thousands of people

People happily buy tobacco that has no duty on it from friends and strangers....this costs the treasury around £2 BILLION a year (estimated) in lost revenue....

I would suggest that many people who have highlighted and moaned about Starbucks and Google are bound to be guilty of at least one of the above examples of revenue dodging...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ctavius StuntMan
over a year ago

london


"People work for cash in hand every day of the week.....thousands if not tens of thousands of people

People happily buy tobacco that has no duty on it from friends and strangers....this costs the treasury around £2 BILLION a year (estimated) in lost revenue....

I would suggest that many people who have highlighted and moaned about Starbucks and Google are bound to be guilty of at least one of the above examples of revenue dodging..."

As i pointed out earlier there is a difference when global corps avoid tax and jo bloggs the carpenter does a few jobs cash in hand. Global corps move the money out of the country and it is used to buy more assets which doesnt filter down through the economy. Jo bloggs spends his cash in hand money on goods and services which keeps people in jobs and keeps the economy ticking over.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay


"People work for cash in hand every day of the week.....thousands if not tens of thousands of people

People happily buy tobacco that has no duty on it from friends and strangers....this costs the treasury around £2 BILLION a year (estimated) in lost revenue....

I would suggest that many people who have highlighted and moaned about Starbucks and Google are bound to be guilty of at least one of the above examples of revenue dodging...

As i pointed out earlier there is a difference when global corps avoid tax and jo bloggs the carpenter does a few jobs cash in hand. Global corps move the money out of the country and it is used to buy more assets which doesnt filter down through the economy. Jo bloggs spends his cash in hand money on goods and services which keeps people in jobs and keeps the economy ticking over."

Thieves are thieves.....regardless

Saying that some thieving is acceptable is just hypocritical when criticising multi nationals....

All thieves, just in different clothes

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Money lost through tax avoidance would keep this country afloat for years.

The figures are in the billions every year.

If you dont like the companies that do it, dont buy the goods/services.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ctavius StuntMan
over a year ago

london


"People work for cash in hand every day of the week.....thousands if not tens of thousands of people

People happily buy tobacco that has no duty on it from friends and strangers....this costs the treasury around £2 BILLION a year (estimated) in lost revenue....

I would suggest that many people who have highlighted and moaned about Starbucks and Google are bound to be guilty of at least one of the above examples of revenue dodging...

As i pointed out earlier there is a difference when global corps avoid tax and jo bloggs the carpenter does a few jobs cash in hand. Global corps move the money out of the country and it is used to buy more assets which doesnt filter down through the economy. Jo bloggs spends his cash in hand money on goods and services which keeps people in jobs and keeps the economy ticking over.

Thieves are thieves.....regardless

Saying that some thieving is acceptable is just hypocritical when criticising multi nationals....

All thieves, just in different clothes"
rolmfao dont you understand that somewhere between £60 billion and £120 billion per year is taken out of our economy by global corporations. That money doesnt circulate in our economy anymore, ever. Its gone its lost. jo bloggs pays the hairdresser,takes his/her family to a restraunt and pays them. The hairdresser uses the money for the haircut to by supplies from another business and the restraunt owner goes to the market to buy meat fruit and veg for his restraunt. the butcher takes on an apprentice blah blah. jo bloggs money circulates and keeps people employed and in business. global corps dont. if you cant understand that i cant help you.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"They haven't done anything illegal. Do we judge people on the law of the land or what's morally right?

"

you ask that here ?The moral high ground is chockablock in these parts

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire


"People work for cash in hand every day of the week.....thousands if not tens of thousands of people

People happily buy tobacco that has no duty on it from friends and strangers....this costs the treasury around £2 BILLION a year (estimated) in lost revenue....

I would suggest that many people who have highlighted and moaned about Starbucks and Google are bound to be guilty of at least one of the above examples of revenue dodging...

As i pointed out earlier there is a difference when global corps avoid tax and jo bloggs the carpenter does a few jobs cash in hand. Global corps move the money out of the country and it is used to buy more assets which doesnt filter down through the economy. Jo bloggs spends his cash in hand money on goods and services which keeps people in jobs and keeps the economy ticking over."

there is no difference whatsoever, each is against the law..end of m8

to try and justify one by saying yeh but they spend it in the country and the others dont is a bit naive..

'robin hood' was still a thief however romantic he was portrayed..

the black economy is massive..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"But if it's legal for them not to pay tax why are they the bad guys? If I was savvy enough to get away with it I would do it to.

They have chosen to base their profit centre in another country with lower taxes in the EU. Yes its legal and they haven't done anything legally wrong its more of a moral issue. In reality though they are only paying out because they would loose 3 times that amount in profits if customers started flocking to costa or cafe nero instead. "

You know that's what is so weird. We need to make this illegal or add a tax we can control. Cripes if a company is trading here they should be made to pay tax here or beggar off.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We stopped going to them

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago

glasgow


"But if it's legal for them not to pay tax why are they the bad guys? If I was savvy enough to get away with it I would do it to.

They have chosen to base their profit centre in another country with lower taxes in the EU. Yes its legal and they haven't done anything legally wrong its more of a moral issue. In reality though they are only paying out because they would loose 3 times that amount in profits if customers started flocking to costa or cafe nero instead.

You know that's what is so weird. We need to make this illegal or add a tax we can control. Cripes if a company is trading here they should be made to pay tax here or beggar off. "

common sense,you'll get barred from this thread,you've been warned.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

HMRC has produced a list of "deliberate defaulters".

A link to the list is on http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21536171#

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *xodussxMan
over a year ago

sheffield

Only little fishes.

None of them owe more than 450K

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top