Re: Three cheers for the Chancellor : Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:02 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Well, it may we just a matter of detail, but I think the Starbucks spokesman said they were sure paying nothing in the last two or three years was their fair share.

So yes, Starbucks are not saying they shouldn't pay their fair share. Presumably as long as that share is nil.

I think we've also had people on this forum conflating the tax that employees pay with what companies pay, so as to claim that they are actually paying lashings of tax already.

Re: Three cheers for the Chancellor : Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:18 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Well, it may we just a matter of detail, but I think the Starbucks spokesman said they were sure paying nothing in the last two or three years was their fair share.

So yes, Starbucks are not saying they shouldn't pay their fair share. Presumably as long as that share is nil.

So, what should their "fair share" be?

Tax law needs to catch up with the financial implications multinational business. Until it does, relying on what's effectively an honesty box, or barring perfectly fair tax avoidances isn't the answer.

Re: Three cheers for the Chancellor : Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:24 pm  

Richie wrote:

So, what should their "fair share" be?

Tax law needs to catch up with the financial implications multinational business. Until it does, relying on what's effectively an honesty box, or barring perfectly fair tax avoidances isn't the answer.

Tragic that honesty seems to be so out-of-fashion these days.

Re: Three cheers for the Chancellor : Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:25 pm  

Mintball wrote:

I think we've also had people on this forum conflating the tax that employees pay with what companies pay, so as to claim that they are actually paying lashings of tax already.

I feel there is a validity to that. I work for a major multinational, andl, I've never written a cheque to HMRC for either my income tax, my NI contributions or my employers NI contributions. How much I get in my pocket is affected by those three taxes along with the corporation tax the company has to pay. So whilst technically I pay income tax.....do I really? Or is it just a corporate tax on a business paying employees in the same way corporation tax is a corporate tax on a business earning a profit?

Re: Three cheers for the Chancellor : Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:32 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Tragic that honesty seems to be so out-of-fashion these days.

What makes you think the fashionable status of honesty has changed?

Re: Three cheers for the Chancellor : Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:33 pm  

Richie wrote:

I feel there is a validity to that. I work for a major multinational, andl, I've never written a cheque to HMRC for either my income tax, my NI contributions or my employers NI contributions. How much I get in my pocket is affected by those three taxes along with the corporation tax the company has to pay. So whilst technically I pay income tax.....do I really? Or is it just a corporate tax on a business paying employees in the same way corporation tax is a corporate tax on a business earning a profit?

You pay the tax in just the same way that I pay my tax and NI even though, as a freelance, I have to sort it out myself. The fact that yours is done through PAYE doesn't change the fact that it is you paying the tax etc.

I'm not saying it's your argument, but it's a nasty argument from some, as it effectively says that individuals on a payroll do not have the same financial relationship/commitment with the state as a company, when tax is partly about citizenship.

Re: Three cheers for the Chancellor : Tue Nov 06, 2012 4:17 pm  

Richie wrote:

So, what should their "fair share" be?

Corporation tax at standard rate on the profits they actually make, as opposed to no tax based on legal and accounting fictions dreamed up precisely for the purpose of making it falsely if legally appear on paper that Starbucks in the Uk is not making any profit. While at the same time senior Starbucks executives shamelessly tell the world what great business they do in the UK.

Richie wrote:

Tax law needs to catch up with the financial implications multinational business. Until it does, relying on what's effectively an honesty box, or barring perfectly fair tax avoidances isn't the answer.

You and I seemingly have contrasting definitions of "perfectly fair". In my opinion, me personally paying more tax than the whole Starbucks UK operation is not perfectly fair. You are unlikely to persuade me that it is.

Re: Three cheers for the Chancellor : Tue Nov 06, 2012 4:59 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Corporation tax at standard rate on the profits they actually make, as opposed to no tax based on legal and accounting fictions dreamed up precisely for the purpose of making it falsely if legally appear on paper that Starbucks in the Uk is not making any profit. While at the same time senior Starbucks executives shamelessly tell the world what great business they do in the UK.

What about genuine factors?
On "royalties" for example it does seem fair to me that Starbucks UK should pay a royalty to the Starbucks corporation. Do you feel differently?

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

You and I seemingly have contrasting definitions of "perfectly fair". In my opinion, me personally paying more tax than the whole Starbucks UK operation is not perfectly fair. You are unlikely to persuade me that it is.

I haven't tried to claim the amount of avoidance is "perfectly fair" only that the criteria given for avoidance are valid, and how much they can be used is the question, not if they can be used or not. Disagree?
Have I given any indication that I would try to convince you that you paying more tax than Starbucks UK would be fair?

Re: Three cheers for the Chancellor : Tue Nov 06, 2012 5:18 pm  

Richie wrote:

What makes you think the fashionable status of honesty has changed?

I could be entirely wrong, but I don't have the impression that what seems to be a currently rather fashionable approach to corporate tax was the same as recently as a generation or two ago.

In much the same way as the relationship between customer and company has changed from one where the former could fairly expect to be honestly treated by the latter, to one where service has ceased to be something to be valued and the customer is simply there to be milked as much as possible.

As we have seen from several posters relating their own experiences of changing attitudes in companies over the same sort of time span.

Re: Three cheers for the Chancellor : Tue Nov 06, 2012 5:19 pm  

Richie wrote:

What about genuine factors?
On "royalties" for example it does seem fair to me that Starbucks UK should pay a royalty to the Starbucks corporation. Do you feel differently?

Yes, the UK operation is not a franchise or separate company but a wholly owned subsidiary.
All they are doing is moving money around to evade tax.