The UK General Politics Thread Page 60

  • Page

    of 210 First / Last

  • RedSparrows 3 Dec 2012 11:18:18 23,305 posts
    Seen 19 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    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.
    I hasten to point out that cunts with Apple products in coffee shops are most certainly not all Guardian readers. The Times and Torygraph have plenty of conceited mongtards reading their papers.

    Classification on the basis of prejudice is fun!
  • nickthegun 3 Dec 2012 11:18:31 60,479 posts
    Seen 12 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Psychotext wrote:
    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?
    i was wondering this myself. If you take the fight club model, their takings and projected takings must be down a staggering amount to offset an increased tax burden.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • nickthegun 3 Dec 2012 11:18:48 60,479 posts
    Seen 12 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Also the etherial damage to the brand and so on and so forth.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 11:19:01 44,507 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    senso-ji wrote:
    @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.
    Profits attract tax. Say there are two competing legal choices: either you can pay no tax or you can pay 28% tax. Which is going to leave the shareholders in a better off position?

    (Obviously if revenues are down due to reputational ruin them it might make sense to pay 28% tax, I honestly don't know which is going to be the right solution in the long term. And neither did the directors)

    Is it 28% or 30% these days? Can't remember.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 11:21:00 44,507 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    RedSparrows wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:

    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.
    I hasten to point out that cunts with Apple products in coffee shops are most certainly not all Guardian readers. The Times and Torygraph have plenty of conceited mongtards reading their papers.
    Oh Christ yes! But they're not as likely to be complaining about this.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 11:23:03 44,507 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Psychotext: quote from the BBC article:

    UK-based companies pay corporation tax on their taxable profits wherever they are made. Companies based outside the UK must pay tax on profits made in this country.

    This is 100% factually incorrect.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 11:24:56 44,507 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    And Peston's article is characteristically evasive and pointless.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Psychotext 3 Dec 2012 11:25:19 54,398 posts
    Seen 50 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    What's that got to do with my posts?

    I haven't even mentioned corporation tax.
  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 11:26:48 44,507 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Psychotext wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Intriguing. Do you have figures?
    No, was discussed on the BBC this morning. Haven't seen anything online.
    Sorry, you sent me to the BBC website.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • kalel 3 Dec 2012 11:27:16 88,451 posts
    Seen 41 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I've sort of done this before with the whole celebrity tax avoidance thing, but while I agree that the law needs to shift quite quickly every time someone manages to expose a loophole, actively seeking those loopholes isn't acceptable, and when people succeed in doing it, the "blame" doesn't rest with the law-makers.

    It should be a crime to cynically bypass the law through clever manipulation of it. That's just common sense. If we can have law in football that covers the pass-back rule being covered in this way (you're not allowed to bypass the passback rule by trickery such as kicking the ball up to your own head), then we have similar laws for more important things like that. And yes, you would need to judge every case on its own basis in these cases, but isn't that exactly why we have juries and judges?
  • mcmonkeyplc 3 Dec 2012 11:28:45 39,467 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    RedSparrows wrote:
    mcmonkeyplc wrote:
    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.
    I hasten to point out that cunts with Apple products in coffee shops are most certainly not all Guardian readers. The Times and Torygraph have plenty of conceited mongtards reading their papers.

    Classification on the basis of prejudice is fun!
    You are correct. However seeing as the Guardian loves apple more than any other company ever My opinion based on nothing but reading their reviews I have surmised that their readers are all apple loving cunts.

    /reads Guardian

    Edited by mcmonkeyplc at 11:29:02 03-12-2012

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • mcmonkeyplc 3 Dec 2012 11:29:57 39,467 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Sorry that was off topic.

    On topic, If we want these companies to pay their "fair share" of tax we need to change the law.

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • TheSaint 3 Dec 2012 11:31:55 14,618 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I wonder how much tax Apple pay on their UK profits? Not to mention this:

    http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/05/16/has-the-guardian-exploited-tax-loopholes-to-save-millions/
  • RedSparrows 3 Dec 2012 11:34:49 23,305 posts
    Seen 19 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Me and a colleague were discussing how best to boycott various companies: Amazon - easy enough, Starbucks too. Google, however - I block their scripts etc, but really, what decent, tax-friendly alternatives are there?!
  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 11:37:06 44,507 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    actively seeking those loopholes isn't acceptable, and when people succeed in doing it, the "blame" doesn't rest with the law-makers.
    If you stream films or sporting events without paying you deny UK based businesses revenues, which reduces the amount of tax they pay. Are you therefore calling for online piracy, the supposed 'victimless crime', to be clamped down on?

    It's your individual responsibility, right?

    (I know, I know)

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • MetalDog 3 Dec 2012 11:38:26 23,736 posts
    Seen 53 seconds ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    @kalel
    I think discretion is something that's been taken away from law enforcers and law makers bit by bit for at least the last three or four governments. Taken away from all sorts of places, really. The one size fits all approach is a disaster almost everywhere it's applied, but they keep trying.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • kalel 3 Dec 2012 11:40:11 88,451 posts
    Seen 41 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    actively seeking those loopholes isn't acceptable, and when people succeed in doing it, the "blame" doesn't rest with the law-makers.
    If you stream films or sporting events without paying you deny UK based businesses revenues, which reduces the amount of tax they pay. Are you therefore calling for online piracy, the supposed 'victimless crime', to be clamped down on?

    It's your individual responsibility, right?

    (I know, I know)
    I've been pretty outspoken on this in the past (had a bit of a falling out with gray over it). It's a crime I commit but in no way try to excuse. It's wrong and I know it is, and if push came to shove I'd have to accept a punishment for it.
  • disusedgenius 3 Dec 2012 11:41:27 5,431 posts
    Seen 27 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    MetalDog wrote:
    The one size fits all approach is a disaster almost everywhere it's applied, but they keep trying.
    ...and discretion is often the first step to discrimination, so we're fucked either way.
  • RedSparrows 3 Dec 2012 11:42:04 23,305 posts
    Seen 19 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I have actually, without trying, pretty much stopped all illicit file... 'gathering.'

    I don't think I have downloaded anything for months, and even before then it was possibly a few albums here and there. Like I say: no conscious effort made. How odd.
  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 11:43:21 44,507 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    actively seeking those loopholes isn't acceptable, and when people succeed in doing it, the "blame" doesn't rest with the law-makers.
    If you stream films or sporting events without paying you deny UK based businesses revenues, which reduces the amount of tax they pay. Are you therefore calling for online piracy, the supposed 'victimless crime', to be clamped down on?

    It's your individual responsibility, right?

    (I know, I know)
    I've been pretty outspoken on this in the past (had a bit of a falling out with gray over it). It's a crime I commit but in no way try to excuse. It's wrong and I know it is, and if push came to shove I'd have to accept a punishment for it.
    Yeah wasn't aimed at you, it was more a sideswipe at piracy.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • kalel 3 Dec 2012 11:43:36 88,451 posts
    Seen 41 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    MetalDog wrote:
    @kalel
    I think discretion is something that's been taken away from law enforcers and law makers bit by bit for at least the last three or four governments. Taken away from all sorts of places, really. The one size fits all approach is a disaster almost everywhere it's applied, but they keep trying.
    We're our own enemy in this respect. We demand consistency, which leads to blanket laws which don't work.

    Again, (and sorry for sports analogies) exactly the same thing happens in football. We demand consistency with decisions, which leads to ridiculous things like the current offside rule, which are designed to bring complete consistency to every conceivable situation and thus end up being totally retarded.
  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 11:48:53 44,507 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    But he also warned against "pricing Britain out of the world economy", adding that "if we make our taxes less competitive that will just mean more companies stay out of Britain".

    My point in a nutshell.


    Campaign group UK Uncut said Starbucks' announcement was "a blatant admission of guilt" that it had intentionally avoided tax.

    Spokeswoman Jane Harvey said: "The government's next step must be to close the loopholes that Starbucks and other companies use to avoid paying billions in tax to the UK, instead of targeting single mums and disabled people through slashing public services, the welfare state and privatising the NHS."

    Ugh.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • chopsen 3 Dec 2012 11:49:48 16,126 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    It should be a crime to cynically bypass the law through clever manipulation of it.
    You are making the law subjective by doing this. Like you say, this would need to be decided on a case by case basis. Kind of the whole point in having the law written down (and the legalease it's done is) is so that it is as clear as possible, and covers as many different cases as possible. It would be difficult to go about your daily business without fear that you may accidentally make a criminal of yourself because the matter of what constitutes "cynical" is a subjective judgement.

    Yeah, you'd have judges and juries, but at the moment juries are guided by the judge to make very specific, clear decisions as dictated by law. This does means that some get away on technicalities, but it means the system is fair because it is applied equally to all. Bringing subjective value judgements in to it is just the same as getting 12 random people with all their prejudices and biases and asking them "do you reckon this one is a bit of a wrong-un?"

    I think juries are a stupid way of deciding guilt anyway, particularly in more complicated cases, but there you go.
  • kalel 3 Dec 2012 11:52:09 88,451 posts
    Seen 41 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    No, I'm not saying the entire law should be subjective. Just things that are currently "off map" aren't by default "legal".
  • oceanmotion 3 Dec 2012 11:52:55 16,005 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Isn't it up to the Government to close the tax loopholes?

    If anything, they should come out and give their reasoning for the loopholes existing. Brings in more jobs or however obvious then we can get the discussion rolling to why that is wrong or right and what should be done.

    If you leave the companies no option then surely they will just suck it up and if they resort to importing, get them there instead. Might hurt but millions of customers are just that.
  • nickthegun 3 Dec 2012 11:54:57 60,479 posts
    Seen 12 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Long story short, if they are rich enough to avoid tax, they are rich enough to squeeze through any legal loopholes with their vast legions of lawyers.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • nickthegun 3 Dec 2012 11:57:33 60,479 posts
    Seen 12 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    oceanmotion wrote:
    Isn't it up to the Government to close the tax loopholes?
    The problem is, loopholes are quite good in some instances. It encourages manufacturing, export and all that jazz, stuff that our economy needs.

    Where it falls down is when people who do nothing but offer us things to consume start doing it, thats when people get eggy.

    In short:

    loopholes that contribute to the economy = good
    loopholes that just enable to push overprice imported coffee and jokes about blowjobs onto us = bad

    Edited by nickthegun at 11:58:19 03-12-2012

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • chopsen 3 Dec 2012 11:57:54 16,126 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    No, I'm not saying the entire law should be subjective. Just things that are currently "off map" aren't by default "legal".
    You didn't explicitly say that, but that would be the consequence of what you're talking about.

    Either that, or you'd be in the position of having to make everything by default illegal unless it is explicitly allowed by law (the "off map" bit). This then has implications for innocent till proven guilty.

    Edited by Chopsen at 11:58:13 03-12-2012
  • RedSparrows 3 Dec 2012 11:58:32 23,305 posts
    Seen 19 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Positive liberty is a legal nightmare.

    Edited by RedSparrows at 11:58:40 03-12-2012
  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 11:58:47 44,507 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Close the loopholes and they'll be forced to pay more tax.

    Problem is, close the loopholes and they may move elsewhere and we'll get no tax at all.

    (As an interesting sidenote, we could potentially ambush Starbucks now they have so much invested in the UK, trapping them between two alternatives either of which means huge cash outflow - either they move or they pay full tax. Problem with that is that businesses looking to come to the UK for the first time will take note, and that it is rather underhand, so we're replacing one form of 'cheating' with another)

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • Page

    of 210 First / Last

Log in or register to reply