It's socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us
Discussion
XM5ER said:
pteron said:
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged . One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.” ~John Rogers~
Have you read it?At 14 I was a socialist moron, thank God I grew up.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/im-ell...
Have a look through the comments on the page above. The fact that Mad Paul Krugman thinks that's the best quote ever tells me all I need to know.
Edited by XM5ER on Monday 1st September 16:34
It's simplistic, one dimensional twaddle.
Life is far too complex to reduce to 'libertarian or communist'.
"Boos and disbelief as Tony Blair is handed 'jaw-dropping' philanthropist of the year title at GQ awards ceremony"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2741328/Wh...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2741328/Wh...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Dr Jekyll said:
Calculating profit in the manner approved by HMRC is hardly a trick. In any case the primary purpose of an organisation is not to pay tax, merely providing members of that society with what they want is a benefit to society. Society is not the same as the government.
My local library doesn't pay tax, does that mean it is of no benefit to society?
the local library isn't there as a profit making venture.My local library doesn't pay tax, does that mean it is of no benefit to society?
i would call it a trick when you blatantly take a product from one place sell it in another and then declare profits in a third that has no meaningful business activity happening beyond the paper trail you have set-up. You are complying with HMRC rules on profit calculation, but as you magically have no profit because, for example, you pay massive fees to the Luxembourg company for use of your own brand image to make the legitimate profit on the product you sell disappear into leasing your own intellectual property back from yourself, or mark up your raw materials to sell to yourself.
more than anything it is uncompetitive practice that makes expansion easier for the multinational and squeezes the small and medium sized business man who would not be able to take advantage of such schemes. Other companies can and do provide the same service but cannot compete when the rival company has so much more money, (from profits untaxed at origin), at their disposal to bring in to the fight for our custom.
Starbucks as one is an amazing brand that showed at the start it could compete well in a healthy market, and to be fair they have listened to the concerns voiced and taken action in the short/medium term, because they know the power of keeping a good image in the information age.
you need a level playing field to create strong markets, there will always be bigger and better companies, that is a healthy part of it, and those companies will kill smaller weaker ones, again it's part of business. But the tax obfuscating multinationals are like Lions that have been taught to use guns, not just taking out the prey they can catch through natural prowess but taking out the rest of the herd too.
every high street tells the same story, £4 coffees flying out the door and yet no profit. But drawing attention to this is a good thing and shown to work.
but then maybe they just need to charge more for a latte.
Prawnboy said:
every high street tells the same story, £4 coffees flying out the door and yet no profit. But drawing attention to this is a good thing and shown to work.
Shown to work, how? Has the law been changed? Are all multi-nationals now basing operations in the one tax jurisdiction corresponding to their sales profile? When were tax laws harmonised supranationally?Nothing much has changed, a few middle-class hippies chanted in High Streets and chump change donations went into HMRC coffers for the first time since 2009 to score PR points.
A priority for the vast majority of individuals and corporations in tax terms will always be to minimise liability within the law, and rightly so.
turbobloke said:
Shown to work, how? Has the law been changed? Are all multi-nationals now basing operations in the one tax jurisdiction corresponding to their sales profile? When were tax laws harmonised supranationally?
Nothing much has changed, a few middle-class hippies chanted in High Streets and chump change donations went into HMRC coffers for the first time since 2009 to score PR points.
A priority for the vast majority of individuals and corporations in tax terms will always be to minimise liability within the law, and rightly so.
from the starbucks website....Nothing much has changed, a few middle-class hippies chanted in High Streets and chump change donations went into HMRC coffers for the first time since 2009 to score PR points.
A priority for the vast majority of individuals and corporations in tax terms will always be to minimise liability within the law, and rightly so.
In 2013 and 2014 Starbucks will not claim the tax deductions for royalties or payments related to our intercompany charges for interest and mark-up on the coffee we buy.
it's a start, whether it continues? we shall see.
i understand the idea of minimising liability for tax, personal and corporate and have no problem with it.
As for creating paper trails to offload profit into super low tax jurisdictions with no meaningful business operations? couldn't call that rightly so myself.
i know its legal, but so was slavery & child labour in this country once, both practises that benefited profit but were also unacceptable.
chris watton said:
"Boos and disbelief as Tony Blair is handed 'jaw-dropping' philanthropist of the year title at GQ awards ceremony"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2741328/Wh...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
well thats joke of the year sorted.Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2741328/Wh...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
what were they thinking?
Prawnboy said:
turbobloke said:
Shown to work, how? Has the law been changed? Are all multi-nationals now basing operations in the one tax jurisdiction corresponding to their sales profile? When were tax laws harmonised supranationally?
Nothing much has changed, a few middle-class hippies chanted in High Streets and chump change donations went into HMRC coffers for the first time since 2009 to score PR points.
A priority for the vast majority of individuals and corporations in tax terms will always be to minimise liability within the law, and rightly so.
from the starbucks website....Nothing much has changed, a few middle-class hippies chanted in High Streets and chump change donations went into HMRC coffers for the first time since 2009 to score PR points.
A priority for the vast majority of individuals and corporations in tax terms will always be to minimise liability within the law, and rightly so.
In 2013 and 2014 Starbucks will not claim the tax deductions for royalties or payments related to our intercompany charges for interest and mark-up on the coffee we buy.
it's a start, whether it continues? we shall see.
i understand the idea of minimising liability for tax, personal and corporate and have no problem with it.
As for creating paper trails to offload profit into super low tax jurisdictions with no meaningful business operations? couldn't call that rightly so myself.
i know its legal, but so was slavery & child labour in this country once, both practises that benefited profit but were also unacceptable.
You could have gone the full nine yards and mentioned that MPs have not been allowed to wear armour in parliament since 1313 and by jove the poor benefited greatly from that.
Starbucks token payments to appease middle aged hippies and placate Guardiam hacks could have been added to their UK development budget and increased it by 10% creating even more stores and jobs, instead it's gone to HM Treasury to be wasted on costly non-viable IT projects or NHS fraud/waste. Shapps FTW.
turbobloke said:
Prawnboy said:
turbobloke said:
Shown to work, how? Has the law been changed? Are all multi-nationals now basing operations in the one tax jurisdiction corresponding to their sales profile? When were tax laws harmonised supranationally?
Nothing much has changed, a few middle-class hippies chanted in High Streets and chump change donations went into HMRC coffers for the first time since 2009 to score PR points.
A priority for the vast majority of individuals and corporations in tax terms will always be to minimise liability within the law, and rightly so.
from the starbucks website....Nothing much has changed, a few middle-class hippies chanted in High Streets and chump change donations went into HMRC coffers for the first time since 2009 to score PR points.
A priority for the vast majority of individuals and corporations in tax terms will always be to minimise liability within the law, and rightly so.
In 2013 and 2014 Starbucks will not claim the tax deductions for royalties or payments related to our intercompany charges for interest and mark-up on the coffee we buy.
it's a start, whether it continues? we shall see.
i understand the idea of minimising liability for tax, personal and corporate and have no problem with it.
As for creating paper trails to offload profit into super low tax jurisdictions with no meaningful business operations? couldn't call that rightly so myself.
i know its legal, but so was slavery & child labour in this country once, both practises that benefited profit but were also unacceptable.
You could have gone the full nine yards and mentioned that MPs have not been allowed to wear armour in parliament since 1313 and by jove the poor benefited greatly from that.
Starbucks token payments to appease middle aged hippies and placate Guardiam hacks could have been added to their UK development budget and increased it by 10% creating even more stores and jobs, instead it's gone to HM Treasury to be wasted on costly non-viable IT projects or NHS fraud/waste. Shapps FTW.
I think what gets up peoples noses are the inequality in the rules, if individuals and small companies can't do it why are multi nationals and corporates allowed to do it? what people fear is that the reality is that governments and the democratic institutions are dictated to by corporates, the lines between the two are increasingly blurred as the symbiosis develops so will the alienation of power from the base population, no matter of what you've convinced yourself of you'll never get into that ivory tower, even a lottery win won't get you there.
FredClogs said:
turbobloke said:
Prawnboy said:
turbobloke said:
Shown to work, how? Has the law been changed? Are all multi-nationals now basing operations in the one tax jurisdiction corresponding to their sales profile? When were tax laws harmonised supranationally?
Nothing much has changed, a few middle-class hippies chanted in High Streets and chump change donations went into HMRC coffers for the first time since 2009 to score PR points.
A priority for the vast majority of individuals and corporations in tax terms will always be to minimise liability within the law, and rightly so.
from the starbucks website....Nothing much has changed, a few middle-class hippies chanted in High Streets and chump change donations went into HMRC coffers for the first time since 2009 to score PR points.
A priority for the vast majority of individuals and corporations in tax terms will always be to minimise liability within the law, and rightly so.
In 2013 and 2014 Starbucks will not claim the tax deductions for royalties or payments related to our intercompany charges for interest and mark-up on the coffee we buy.
it's a start, whether it continues? we shall see.
i understand the idea of minimising liability for tax, personal and corporate and have no problem with it.
As for creating paper trails to offload profit into super low tax jurisdictions with no meaningful business operations? couldn't call that rightly so myself.
i know its legal, but so was slavery & child labour in this country once, both practises that benefited profit but were also unacceptable.
You could have gone the full nine yards and mentioned that MPs have not been allowed to wear armour in parliament since 1313 and by jove the poor benefited greatly from that.
Starbucks token payments to appease middle aged hippies and placate Guardiam hacks could have been added to their UK development budget and increased it by 10% creating even more stores and jobs, instead it's gone to HM Treasury to be wasted on costly non-viable IT projects or NHS fraud/waste. Shapps FTW.
FredClogs said:
I think what gets up peoples noses are the inequality in the rules, if individuals and small companies can't do it why are multi nationals and corporates allowed to do it?
The last time I looked, I could have set up my businesses in tax jurisdictions rather than the one I chose. My businesses were and are considerably smaller than Starbucks! If indivifuals want the benefits of corporate tax laws, they can set up a business. It's easy peasy after all. On the other hand if they want a salary, which involves some risk but generally much less, then the package of choice is what it is. The good thing is, we have a choice.FredClogs said:
governments and the democratic institutions are dictated to by corporates
Is it really like that, or are governments doing exactly what they should do, and encourage successful businesses and successful individuals to come to the UK and create jobs and wealth? That's what pays for everything, there's no socialist money tree. FredClogs said:
alienation of power from the base population
What electoral system are you advocating to replace the current one?FredClogs said:
no matter of what you've convinced yourself of you'll never get into that ivory tower, even a lottery win won't get you there.
Who's "you" in the above - and speaking personally, having escaped from an ivory tower years ago, why would I want to go back?!turbobloke said:
Talk about false analogies...as you just did.
You could have gone the full nine yards and mentioned that MPs have not been allowed to wear armour in parliament since 1313 and by jove the poor benefited greatly from that.
Starbucks token payments to appease middle aged hippies and placate Guardiam hacks could have been added to their UK development budget and increased it by 10% creating even more stores and jobs, instead it's gone to HM Treasury to be wasted on costly non-viable IT projects or NHS fraud/waste. Shapps FTW.
i don't think they are false analogies as they are not just historic . Many companies still use the practices abroad today and sell the goods in our country, so again the only weapon is the spending power in your wallet as we have no jurisdiction in the other lands.You could have gone the full nine yards and mentioned that MPs have not been allowed to wear armour in parliament since 1313 and by jove the poor benefited greatly from that.
Starbucks token payments to appease middle aged hippies and placate Guardiam hacks could have been added to their UK development budget and increased it by 10% creating even more stores and jobs, instead it's gone to HM Treasury to be wasted on costly non-viable IT projects or NHS fraud/waste. Shapps FTW.
i have more optimistic approach to the short term tax gain.
i say that any development that may have cancelled by starbucks, will have been done by a rival business such as costa,(the beauty of true capitalism), creating the same stores and jobs who's parent company Whitbread keeps their profits on shore, so win win. Starbucks share price goes down, whitbreads goes up, more movement and trade in the city, more profit generated, win win win. HMRC take more revenue win win win win.
as much as you may hate the middle class hippies if the people with disposable income think even a little about what and where they are buying, it will impact on the companies concerned, other companies will profit out of this as they fill market gaps and business practises will change, and do you know what, everyone will still make money, it is hopefully the way the information age will push things.
Govt waste is a separate issue that i agree with you on.
Prawnboy said:
HMRC take more revenue win win win win.
Govt waste is a separate issue that i agree with you on.
This might be where many folk disagree with you. Govt waste is a separate issue that i agree with you on.
HMRC have very recently been given Draconian powers (taking 'unpaid' tax from people's accounts without having to prove it's 'owed' etc).
IMO this, and giving the Revenue, erm more revenue is not a good thing.
Where do you think the govt. get the money to waste....don't give them even more, make them waste less of the pot they already have...
Prawnboy said:
i don't think they are false analogies as they are not just historic . Many companies still use the practices abroad today and sell the goods in our country, so again the only weapon is the spending power in your wallet as we have no jurisdiction in the other lands.
i have more optimistic approach to the short term tax gain.
i say that any development that may have cancelled by starbucks, will have been done by a rival business such as costa,(the beauty of true capitalism), creating the same stores and jobs who's parent company Whitbread keeps their profits on shore, so win win. Starbucks share price goes down, whitbreads goes up, more movement and trade in the city, more profit generated, win win win. HMRC take more revenue win win win win.
as much as you may hate the middle class hippies if the people with disposable income think even a little about what and where they are buying, it will impact on the companies concerned, other companies will profit out of this as they fill market gaps and business practises will change, and do you know what, everyone will still make money, it is hopefully the way the information age will push things.
Govt waste is a separate issue that i agree with you on.
Good to see we have at least one point of agreement i have more optimistic approach to the short term tax gain.
i say that any development that may have cancelled by starbucks, will have been done by a rival business such as costa,(the beauty of true capitalism), creating the same stores and jobs who's parent company Whitbread keeps their profits on shore, so win win. Starbucks share price goes down, whitbreads goes up, more movement and trade in the city, more profit generated, win win win. HMRC take more revenue win win win win.
as much as you may hate the middle class hippies if the people with disposable income think even a little about what and where they are buying, it will impact on the companies concerned, other companies will profit out of this as they fill market gaps and business practises will change, and do you know what, everyone will still make money, it is hopefully the way the information age will push things.
Govt waste is a separate issue that i agree with you on.
For the record, I don't hate middle class hippies, I have a degree of pity and a degree of tolerance as well.
If Starbucks R&D intel informs their execs that there's room for £100m of development in the UK then that is already in the context of their competition, with which Starbucks managers will be only too familiar.
tomw2000 said:
Prawnboy said:
HMRC take more revenue win win win win.
Govt waste is a separate issue that i agree with you on.
This might be where many folk disagree with you... Govt waste is a separate issue that i agree with you on.
Money in the hands of people starting new jobs in new stores is a far better option, money in the hands of people not politicians id a good thing.
tomw2000 said:
Prawnboy said:
HMRC take more revenue win win win win.
Govt waste is a separate issue that i agree with you on.
This might be where many folk disagree with you. Govt waste is a separate issue that i agree with you on.
HMRC have very recently been given Draconian powers (taking 'unpaid' tax from people's accounts without having to prove it's 'owed' etc).
IMO this, and giving the Revenue, erm more revenue is not a good thing.
Where do you think the govt. get the money to waste....don't give them even more, make them waste less of the pot they already have...
well i say better some money to HMRC to be spent, (even badly), in the UK. Than leaving the shores for good.
i utterly agree that all should and could be done to cut all govt waste
just as the non corporation tax paying corporations love to remind you how much money they invest in the UK, just think how much of that tax revenue is wasted/invested in jobs in the UK, it's not like the Govt does a lot of saving.
i would gladly see everyones tax burden lowered, and see profits made here stay here.
turbobloke said:
If Starbucks R&D intel informs their execs that there's room for £100m of development in the UK then that is already in the context of their competition, with which Starbucks managers will be only too familiar.
and if they have to cut that by £20m, someone will fill the gap. Prawnboy said:
turbobloke said:
If Starbucks R&D intel informs their execs that there's room for £100m of development in the UK then that is already in the context of their competition, with which Starbucks managers will be only too familiar.
and if they have to cut that by £20m, someone will fill the gap. Create jobs at Starbucks and elsewhere (not 'or').
turbobloke said:
Better not to give £20m to incompetent political wastrels.
Create jobs at Starbucks and elsewhere (not 'or').
it's still £20m more that gets spent, 'if' starbucks did cut back (which i doubt they would), others fill that gap. so same jobs and expansion and more money in the country, i really dont see a down side.Create jobs at Starbucks and elsewhere (not 'or').
but as i said, i am a bit of an optomist.
there is always an 'or' the market can only take so much coffee.
Rovinghawk said:
vonuber said:
Compare the billions lost through tax avoidance
How is it possible to 'lose' money to which the government was never legally entitled?A fair opinion, even if I disagree with it in practice.
Prawnboy said:
turbobloke said:
Better not to give £20m to incompetent political wastrels.
Create jobs at Starbucks and elsewhere (not 'or').
it's still £20m more that gets spent, 'if' starbucks did cut back (which i doubt they would), others fill that gap. so same jobs and expansion and more money in the country, i really dont see a down side.Create jobs at Starbucks and elsewhere (not 'or').
It may be the case that Starbucks' competition is not well placed to expand, and demand for non-Starbucks' products may not be sufficient to warrant the same outlay. I'm not saying it is or isbn't, just pointing out that this isn't about the soviet politburo fixing the year's tractor production figures and allocating the output centrally. If you've ovned and run your own businesses outside the former soviet bloc I'm curious as to how you've reached this point unaware that the marketplace decides.
Ptawnboy said:
there is always an 'or' the market can only take so much coffee
It's not just coffee though, and apart from that, to a degree you now seem to be agreeing with the point I just made. The marketplace decides. Paper or pixel exercises carried out by armchair politicians based on personal moral judgements about lawful corporate strategy - that are only valid as far as the next person who disagrees - are (possibly) entertaining but that's all.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff