Introducing the secret seekers and their eight-year quest
"If there's anything in reality that's not fun, we will change it."
Loading...hold tight!
Page
of 107 First / Last
RobTheBuilder wrote:Pretty easy fix to raise minimum wage, you would think.
@senso-ji well put.
Though not as bad as Walmart in the Us that costs the country billions in care that has to be provided because their wages are so low
LB, you really are a massive geek.
morriss wrote:
My actual real opinion is very insulting and unhelpful.
LeoliansBro wrote:Again though, whoever replaces them (which will happen) will also provide jobs (and pay tax).senso-ji wrote:Thank God for all those bankers earning massive bonuses and contributing 50% in tax then. Philanthropic legends to a manLeoliansBro wrote:It's not that straight forward; a lot of Starbucks' employees are on low wages, and some need Child Tax credits and Council Tax benefits to help them make ends meet. Schemes that need to be paid for with taxation that Starbucks don't contribute to.
The problem with this is that paying tax isn't the only benefit Starbucks brings to the UK economy. Say they fuck off as you suggest? How many people would lose their job?
Seriously, I take your point, but don't forget Starbucks have given them jobs as well.
LB, you really are a massive geek.
This post is sponsored by Apple and the iPhone 4S. Think different.
RedSparrows wrote:Well, there is a lot of truth to that, but it isn't what you think. The shareholders want the best return on their investment (reputation is broadly unimportant as they are pretty much anonymous). Where it gets a little more subtle is there are different ways to maximise this return. Is it better to avoid paying as much tax as legally possible, or is it better to be seem to be upstanding in the hope of attracting more customers. Seems the former is winning out, so you can't blame the directors for acting in this way (and in fact there's a case for dismissal were they aware of this opportunity and not pursuing it, in other words prioritising other stakeholders over the shareholders).
But I think most people want 'best interest of their shareholders' to mean something more than just 'making enough money'. It's an emotional/philosophical thing as much as a financial one.
Whether they are stupid or not for thinking that depends on their argument and all that stuff: a far broader topic than just the one about paying tax in the UK in 2012.
LB, you really are a massive geek.
Psychotext wrote:Doubtful - a lot of people won't give a fuck, and continue to rant about all politicians being the spawn of Satan.
I imagine damaging (irreparably?) their reputation in the UK.
RobTheBuilder wrote:Don't blame Walmart then.
@LeoliansBro they never will because the American government is a slave to the corporations that fund (bribe) it.
LB, you really are a massive geek.
Psychotext wrote:Has it done that?
I imagine damaging (irreparably?) their reputation in the UK probably wont help the shareholders much.
LB, you really are a massive geek.
---------------------------------------------------------
AGP.SRPT
RedSparrows wrote:The truth burns the misguided?
... all politicians being the spawn of Satan.
mowgli wrote: I fucking love willies.
Come and get it cumslingers!
LeoliansBro wrote:So, the essence is this: in principle, there is more to it than 'making enough money', or at least the ways to do this. But the principle is going to be applied in the most efficient way, and that is to avoid tax to 'maximise return'. There is no other (powerful) consideration.RedSparrows wrote:Well, there is a lot of truth to that, but it isn't what you think. The shareholders want the best return on their investment (reputation is broadly unimportant as they are pretty much anonymous). Where it gets a little more subtle is there are different ways to maximise this return. Is it better to avoid paying as much tax as legally possible, or is it better to be seem to be upstanding in the hope of attracting more customers. Seems the former is winning out, so you can't blame the directors for acting in this way (and in fact there's a case for dismissal were they aware of this opportunity and not pursuing it, in other words prioritising other stakeholders over the shareholders).
But I think most people want 'best interest of their shareholders' to mean something more than just 'making enough money'. It's an emotional/philosophical thing as much as a financial one.
Whether they are stupid or not for thinking that depends on their argument and all that stuff: a far broader topic than just the one about paying tax in the UK in 2012.
LeoliansBro wrote:Sure you can, they just have an excuse prepared.
so you can't blame the directors for acting in this way.
LB, you really are a massive geek.
LeoliansBro wrote:I take your point, but philosophically speaking, do you blame a man for committing a crime, with full knowledge, if some of the police are corrupt?RobTheBuilder wrote:Don't blame Walmart then.
@LeoliansBro they never will because the American government is a slave to the corporations that fund (bribe) it.
mcmonkeyplc wrote:Yep. Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. But it's their choice.
The best interests of their share holders can mean more than profits.
If the lack of tax paid impacts on their public relations then it's in their share holders best interests to adjust their tax dealings to amend the PR fiasco.
LB, you really are a massive geek.
LeoliansBro wrote:It is and it isnt. I would do it if I were able to but im aware that it would make me a cunt and people would hate me for it.
nick: that's adjacent to envying the success of others.
---------------------------------------------------------
AGP.SRPT
LeoliansBro wrote:Yes, and then some. Apparently takings are well down too.
Has it done that?
This post is sponsored by Apple and the iPhone 4S. Think different.
Psychotext wrote:Intriguing. Do you have figures?LeoliansBro wrote:Yes, and then some. Apparently takings are well down too.
Has it done that?
LB, you really are a massive geek.
LeoliansBro wrote:I agree, it is their choice. Our law allows them to do this.mcmonkeyplc wrote:Yep. Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. But it's their choice.
The best interests of their share holders can mean more than profits.
If the lack of tax paid impacts on their public relations then it's in their share holders best interests to adjust their tax dealings to amend the PR fiasco.
And I'm sorry but I can't help thinking this 'PR fiasco' is heavily concentrated around the dinner tables of Coldplay-loving Guardianistas who were buying faritrade ethic aspiration coffee already and matter not one jot to Starbucks' bottom line.
Come and get it cumslingers!
LeoliansBro wrote:No, was discussed on the BBC this morning. Haven't seen anything online.
Intriguing. Do you have figures?
This post is sponsored by Apple and the iPhone 4S. Think different.
Page
of 107 First / Last
