The UK General Politics Thread Page 59

  • Page

    of 190 First / Last

  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 10:50:53 43,641 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    RobTheBuilder wrote:
    @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
    Pretty easy fix to raise minimum wage, you would think.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • RedSparrows 3 Dec 2012 10:51:24 22,218 posts
    Seen 44 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Fuck off, socialist!
  • glaeken 3 Dec 2012 10:52:59 11,133 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    They won't fuck off though will they? They are clearly profitable and contributing their fair share won't change that.

    For Starbucks in particular their business means they cannot actually move. Someone like Amazon who just have distribution centres could move. Starbucks don't have that option so I say letís stiff them.
  • ResidentKnievel 3 Dec 2012 10:54:16 6,172 posts
    Seen 50 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Aye, it's not as if demand for coffee will suddenly disappear if Starbucks suddenly become profitable

    [code]Armoured_Bear wrote:
    Unlike yourself, I don't have a weird obsession with any platform.[/code]

  • kalel 3 Dec 2012 10:55:03 86,798 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    senso-ji wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    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?
    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.
    Thank God for all those bankers earning massive bonuses and contributing 50% in tax then. Philanthropic legends to a man ;)

    Seriously, I take your point, but don't forget Starbucks have given them jobs as well.
    Again though, whoever replaces them (which will happen) will also provide jobs (and pay tax).

    As to your competition point, I don't think there's any shortage of similar brands. There's no danger of a monopoly in that sector.

    I think being critical of Starbucks for tax avoidance is fair, and there's not some "big picture" reality we're all missing.
  • RedSparrows 3 Dec 2012 10:56:51 22,218 posts
    Seen 44 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    When I referred to competition, I meant that, as Kalel said, they'd be replaced - and would watch from afar, going 'shieeeyyeet, that there's a big old untapped market. Gon' get me some of that market.'


    (May have recently watched Tony Law's racist bear contemplating a salmon-shark)
  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 10:59:18 43,641 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Shortage of coffee shops? (This may be horribly London-centric but) I can't move for them round my office.

    The question I would be asking of Starbucks isn't 'Why are Starbucks not paying enough tax?' It's 'Why are Starbucks' competition so financially inefficient?'

    If you think they should be forced to pay more tax, blame the Government (Tories, Lib Dem and Labour too, this isn't new since 2010). Starbucks are acting in the best interest of their shareholders, which is what is legally required of them.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • RedSparrows 3 Dec 2012 11:03:24 22,218 posts
    Seen 44 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    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.
  • Psychotext 3 Dec 2012 11:05:38 53,915 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I imagine damaging (irreparably?) their reputation in the UK probably wont help the shareholders much.
  • RobTheBuilder 3 Dec 2012 11:06:43 6,521 posts
    Seen 9 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @LeoliansBro they never will because the American government is a slave to the corporations that fund (bribe) it.
  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 11:06:44 43,641 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    RedSparrows wrote:
    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.
    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).

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • RedSparrows 3 Dec 2012 11:06:57 22,218 posts
    Seen 44 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Psychotext wrote:
    I imagine damaging (irreparably?) their reputation in the UK.
    Doubtful - a lot of people won't give a fuck, and continue to rant about all politicians being the spawn of Satan.
  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 11:06:58 43,641 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    RobTheBuilder wrote:
    @LeoliansBro they never will because the American government is a slave to the corporations that fund (bribe) it.
    Don't blame Walmart then.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 11:07:20 43,641 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Psychotext wrote:
    I imagine damaging (irreparably?) their reputation in the UK probably wont help the shareholders much.
    Has it done that?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • nickthegun 3 Dec 2012 11:08:07 59,341 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I think the outrage stems from the fact that people cant do this themselves. You have to be rich to avoid tax, if you arenít you cant and it makes you even worse off. Itís a dichotomy that boils peoples piss.

    You can say Ďblame the governmentí which is entirely fair, but ultimately people choose whether to use these loopholes or not. There is an active choice of whether to avoid tax and when you take it, you make an ethical decision which people do not agree with and they get pissed off. Itís the same shitty attitude that got us into this mess in the first place.

    Business ethics, people. Its not all about numbers.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • RobTheBuilder 3 Dec 2012 11:09:16 6,521 posts
    Seen 9 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @LeoliansBro they shouldn't need legislation to pay their employees a wage they can actually live on. It's the fault of both them and the government.
  • Moot_Point 3 Dec 2012 11:09:20 3,960 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    RedSparrows wrote:
    ... all politicians being the spawn of Satan.
    The truth burns the misguided?

    ================================================================================

    mowgli wrote: I thought the 1 married the .2 and founded Islam?

  • mcmonkeyplc 3 Dec 2012 11:09:24 39,411 posts
    Seen 46 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    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.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • RedSparrows 3 Dec 2012 11:09:27 22,218 posts
    Seen 44 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    RedSparrows wrote:
    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.
    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).
    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.

    Sorry, I'm sounding like a socialist worker pamphleteer.
  • disusedgenius 3 Dec 2012 11:10:05 5,271 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    so you can't blame the directors for acting in this way.
    Sure you can, they just have an excuse prepared.
  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 11:10:36 43,641 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    nick: that's adjacent to envying the success of others.

    I've got myself pilloried on this forum enough times for noting that getting the rich to pay their fair share of tax isn't always in the best interests of the country. It seems unfair, it is on an individual basis, but it simply isn't how the world works.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • RedSparrows 3 Dec 2012 11:10:56 22,218 posts
    Seen 44 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    RobTheBuilder wrote:
    @LeoliansBro they never will because the American government is a slave to the corporations that fund (bribe) it.
    Don't blame Walmart then.
    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?

    Mish-mash ahoy.
  • senso-ji 3 Dec 2012 11:11:11 5,840 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    @LeoliansBro

    Paying their full corporation taxes will still satisfy the best interests of the shareholders if they are turning over a profit. Starbucks are not legally required to exploit tax loopholes.
  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 11:13:12 43,641 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    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.
    Yep. Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. But it's their choice.

    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.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • nickthegun 3 Dec 2012 11:13:49 59,341 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    nick: that's adjacent to envying the success of others.
    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.

    Ethically, its the wrong thing to do, legally; back of the net.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Psychotext 3 Dec 2012 11:14:13 53,915 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Has it done that?
    Yes, and then some. Apparently takings are well down too.

    Edit - Ask yourself this. If it wasn't affecting them, would they really be offering to pay more tax?

    Edited by Psychotext at 11:15:32 03-12-2012
  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 11:15:43 43,641 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Psychotext wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Has it done that?
    Yes, and then some. Apparently takings are well down too.
    Intriguing. Do you have figures?

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • RobTheBuilder 3 Dec 2012 11:15:45 6,521 posts
    Seen 9 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @LeoliansBro if businesses actually paid the tax they owed and all the stupid loopholes were closed then we wouldn't need to raise taxes on businesses because we'd actually be getting all we are due.

    I don't think it makes sense to aggressively target anyone, but the current governments attempt to make the poorest pay more is contemptible.

    Like the alcohol unit tax, which will cut binge drinking, but only for the poor. Anyone who has money can still get wasted and cause trouble.
  • mcmonkeyplc 3 Dec 2012 11:16:40 39,411 posts
    Seen 46 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    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.
    Yep. Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. But it's their choice.

    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.
    I agree, it is their choice. Our law allows them to do this.

    However the Coldplay/apple -loving Guardianistas probably account for a lot their market in the UK judging by the amount of cunts with ipads/mac books in your average Starbucks.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • Psychotext 3 Dec 2012 11:16:46 53,915 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Intriguing. Do you have figures?
    No, was discussed on the BBC this morning. Haven't seen anything online.
  • Page

    of 190 First / Last

Log in or register to reply