A superb Speech and Vow by Cameron well above expectations

[edh]

sidicks said:

edh said:

Don't forget

3. Starbucks UK buys its coffee beans (via the Netherlands) from Starbucks Switzerland. This has the effect of transferring profits to Switzerland by paying a high price for beans & allows them to reduce their overall tax rate. Tax on commodity trading profits @ 5% in Switzerland

Don't forget, that would be illegal under UK transfer pricing rules (indeed, it would be be illegal to charge less than the fair market price) - and in any case the cost of coffee is a miniscule fraction of the cost of coffee, so would have minimal impact on the profit achieved in the UK though.

Nice try though....

Well when they publish the numbers we can see.

"(Reuters) - Starbucks' coffee menu famously baffles some people. In Britain, it's their accounts that are confusing. Starbucks has been telling investors the business was profitable, even as it consistently reported losses"

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-britai...

Edited by edh on Thursday 2nd October 14:18

[sidicks]

CamMoreRon said:

Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone: YOU ARE RUNNING YOUR BUSINESSES IN A WAY THAT IS HIGHLY IMMORAL. YOU ARE FALSIFYING YOUR ACCOUNTS USING COMPLEX PRACTISES TO CREATE IMAGINARY LOSSES IN THIS COUNTRY IN ORDER TO REDUCE YOUR TAX BURDEN TOWARDS ZERO. YOU ARE ROBBING THE TAXPAYERS OF THIS COUNTRY AND YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED.

You are making claims you can't back up

Legality is clear. Morality is highly ambiguous - are all those people buying goods from Amazon immoral?

Seriously, you should be ashamed of your knowledge-free ranting!

You have repeatedly demonstrated you don't even understand the basis tax issues affecting Amazon, Starbucks or Vodafone. I suggest you duck out now before you get yourself in real trouble.

[0000]

CamMoreRon said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

To turn this round for our crusader for fairness, your brother, as a small businessman, will be/should be accessing all kinds of reliefs/allowances/grants/concessions.

Good post. My brother doesn't receive (and hasn't) any grants from the government, he built the business with his friend through hard graft alone.

How do you know he hasn't used, for instance, the Flat Rate Scheme for VAT or claimed the £2k NI Employment Allowance? Are you his accountant?

[oyster]

ClaphamGT3 said:

celicawrc said:

Still no mention of an EU referendum, cutting immigration, welfare cuts, foreign aid etc etc. Just pathetic little jibes from him and Boris towards UKIP.

Well sorry Dave, your blind arrogance and accute deafness regarding the EU issue is going to cost you the next election imo.

I have to assume that you're either being ironic or that you haven't listened to the speech; there was a clear commitment to an in/out referendum on Europe, a clear commitment to repeal the HRA, a clear commitment to cut immigration from within the EU and significant welfare cuts. These weren't just said once; they were recurring commitments throughout the conference.

It's funny isn't it that the person who didn't watch or listen to the whole speech was the one who accused others of being blind and deaf?

[Bluebarge]

ClaphamGT3 said:

I have to assume that you're either being ironic or that you haven't listened to the speech; there was a clear commitment to an in/out referendum on Europe, a clear commitment to repeal the HRA, a clear commitment to cut immigration from within the EU and significant welfare cuts. These weren't just said once; they were recurring commitments throughout the conference.

He can't deliver 2 of those (HRA and EU immigration) & the business vote will make the in/out referendum an "in" vote. If there is an "out" vote in the EU referendum then the withdrawal of overseas investment will make tax cuts and economic prosperity a distant bloody memory.

By opting for an EU referendum to save the Tory party from a divisive split, CMD has ironically made Labour look the best bet for the economy. No investor likes uncertainty, and the arguments for the "out" camp are exactly the same as the SNP's for leaving the Union - "it'll be fine and everyone will do what we want them to do" - that doesn't quite cut it for the big boys.

[dandarez]

edh said:

NormalWisdom said:

If this country did not have these tax rules, the likes of Amazon, Vodafone, Starbucks and a lot of other foreign mulitnationals would leave the UK. Unemployment would spiral out of control, Income tax receipts would plummet and the country's economy would be in tatters. But that's fine for you I guess........

Why are Starbucks here when they don't make any profits from their UK business? seems odd. What a waste of resources that could be better employed in other parts of the world and generate better returns for their shareholders.

Starbucks are here to make bucks. That's why they are in business, it's why I'm in business. To make bucks - another day, another dollar - 'if' there are customers (or in the case of 'coffee', mugs) for your product.

Here in Cameron Town we have a Starbucks about to open unbelievably just five 'yards' from a Costa. A medium size coffee in Costa months back cost me £2.60 - S/bucks must be similar. Now, personally, almost daily, as I'm in the area, I walk a further 30 yards into Waitrose and get my medium size black coffee for free, effectively saving me heading on for £1,000 a year - a real wad saving of cash a year, far more than CMD is offering in his 'promised' tax cuts.

No, don't blame the likes of Starbucks, blame the coffee mugs who go in there!

[CamMoreRon]

0000 said:

How do you know he hasn't used, for instance, the Flat Rate Scheme for VAT or claimed the £2k NI Employment Allowance? Are you his accountant?

Because I know him very well. He didn't start off a businessman, he was just doing this as a passion so his attention to detail was focused on the product rather than the finances. He has an accountant nowadays, but is still very open with us (his family) about how the business is run.

Rovinghawk said:

So companies don't want to come into the jurisdiction of unfriendly tax regimes, preferring to use low-tax environments. Surprising, isn't it?

I'm not sure how your point contradicts mine.

[ClaphamGT3]

Bluebarge said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

I have to assume that you're either being ironic or that you haven't listened to the speech; there was a clear commitment to an in/out referendum on Europe, a clear commitment to repeal the HRA, a clear commitment to cut immigration from within the EU and significant welfare cuts. These weren't just said once; they were recurring commitments throughout the conference.

He can't deliver 2 of those (HRA and EU immigration) & the business vote will make the in/out referendum an "in" vote. If there is an "out" vote in the EU referendum then the withdrawal of overseas investment will make tax cuts and economic prosperity a distant bloody memory.

By opting for an EU referendum to save the Tory party from a divisive split, CMD has ironically made Labour look the best bet for the economy. No investor likes uncertainty, and the arguments for the "out" camp are exactly the same as the SNP's for leaving the Union - "it'll be fine and everyone will do what we want them to do" - that doesn't quite cut it for the big boys.

He could - if he wanted - repeal the HRA; there would be a consequence for sure but it could be done.

You're right of course about immigration and the referendum. On the former, he's asking the public to trust him to renegotiate the terms of our EU membership and, on the latter, its fairly patently obvious that he'll offer a referendum then campaign vigorously for an in vote. Its a high risk strategy and far from ideal but, in the circumstances, its probably the best hand he's got to play

[sidicks]

CamMoreRon said:

Because I know him very well. He didn't start off a businessman, he was just doing this as a passion so his attention to detail was focused on the product rather than the finances. He has an accountant nowadays, but is still very open with us (his family) about how the business is run.

You must have some fascinating tea-time conversations about accounting rules and regulations!

CamMoreRon said:

I'm not sure how your point contradicts mine.

Have you ever bought goods from Amazon. If so, why?

[Rovinghawk]

CamMoreRon said:

I'm not sure how your point contradicts mine.

You want them to pay more tax but seem amazed that they shy away from this.

[Rovinghawk]

sidicks said:

You must have some fascinating tea-time conversations about accounting rules and regulations!

When I see the girlfriend we speak of little else.

[bennyboydurham]

Convert said:

As the son of a miner, born and bred in the People's Republic of South Yorkshire, I have to agree that it was a fine speech.

I've never voted Tory in my life, historically Labour, recently UKIP.

I had planned to vote UKIP at the next GE, but in my area you could put a red tie on a chimp and it would get elected.

However I like the cut of Dave's Jib.

Since I don't fancy waking up next to Red Ed, I guess I'll be getting my blue tie out.

Which is exactly what Dave is counting on and I hope it works. I might live in a lovely historic city but the areas around it are as red as they come, father's father's father Labour voter etc etc. From the point of view of my own family, in 2010 we were wrangling with the leftist council over its bonkers 'go buy a house on housing estate' planning policy and my wife's family business was surviving rather than flourishing. We rented - dead money which did nothing to help us other than put a roof over our heads.

In the five years since thanks to the coalition planning reforms we've been able to build our own house which has totally changed our financial position and has enabled me to start my own business. We've put £200,000 into the local economy to employ local builders and tradesmen and confidence in the wider property market means my wife's business (bathrooms and kitchens) is really starting to motor in recent months particularly. Througout the business sector there seems to a lot of confidence.

I think Dave has proved that he has what it takes. Ed has done nothing to deserve the big chair, other than somehow end up as the leader of a party with a large client voter base and an unfair advantage due to the electoral system. 5 years of Dave pushing through a sensible agenda of the type he outlined in his speech would be a very good thing, IMHO.

Edited by bennyboydurham on Thursday 2nd October 14:52

[Camoradi]

Adrian W said:

It was a speech for the stupid and gullible, where will he take the cash from to finance the tax cuts? ......

All this talk of tax cuts being "financed" by cuts in services. It's the taxes levied and collected which pay for the public services, not the other way round.

[blade runner]

bennyboydurham said:

I think Dave has proved that he has what it takes. Ed has done nothing to deserve the big chair, other than somehow end up as the leader of a party with a large client voter base and an unfair advantage due to the electoral system. 5 years of Dave pushing through a sensible agenda of the type he outlined in his speech would be a very good thing, IMHO.

I agree. I'm not a huge fan of Dave, but in reality he's only the figure head and main spokesman of the party, not the sole person who makes all the decisions and sets all the policies. I think the Conservatives have shown they have a steadier hand when it comes to the economy and therefore deserve the chance to serve another term without being hamstrung by a coalition with the LibDems.

[CamMoreRon]

Rovinghawk said:

You want them to pay more tax but seem amazed that they shy away from this.

Then you've missed the point entirely. I said that them "shying away" was a threat, and one that will not be upheld for reasons detailed in my post. I didn't say that they wouldn't make the threat, just that they wouldn't follow through with it. Again, for reasons detailed in my post.

This discussion seems to have been railroaded away from the original point.

The Tory economic policy is of austerity, budget cut-backs, and a race to the bottom on tax in the hope that it will encourage more business. The point is that this is an incredibly short-sighted approach to the economy, and that luring in business with low taxes and financial loopholes is a way of increasing the deficit, not decreasing it.

Ultimately it will be something that we only realise in hindsight, because so many people (evident in this thread) are very closed off to any kind of alternative. Partly this is due to the way debate is controlled so that important points are not answered and attention is diverted elsewhere - e.g. the response to my saying enforcing corporation tax would be a higher net earner for the UK economy than slashing spending was responded to with accusations of libel / slander. I haven't seen a single post aimed at convincing me tax enforcement would be a detriment to the economy.

[crankedup]

Good speech very well delivered, expect nothing less from our P.M. Can the Tories really deliver those tax cuts though, I thought the magic money tree was for the exclusive use of Milliband. Should be interesting announcements to follow as to exactly how, where and depth the next round of public spending will be cut. NHS safe, pensions safe, foreign aid safe, the 'Big Society' may find useful time to empty household bins or road repairs!

[Rovinghawk]

CamMoreRon said:

luring in business with low taxes and financial loopholes is a way of increasing the deficit, not decreasing it.

So we raise taxes & all the corporations say "OK" and meekly pay more? I don't think so.

CamMoreRon said:

e.g. the response to my saying enforcing corporation tax would be a higher net earner for the UK economy than slashing spending was responded to with accusations of libel / slander.

You didn't say enforcing tax law, you said change the law. Libel comments were regarding your claim that large corporations were cooking the books.

CamMoreRon said:

I haven't seen a single post aimed at convincing me tax enforcement would be a detriment to the economy.

Enforcement of tax law is fine. Enforcing laws that don't exist (in the name of 'fairness', presumably) could be very detrimental.

[Mrr T]

edh said:

Well when they publish the numbers we can see.

"(Reuters) - Starbucks' coffee menu famously baffles some people. In Britain, it's their accounts that are confusing. Starbucks has been telling investors the business was profitable, even as it consistently reported losses"

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-britai...

Edited by edh on Thursday 2nd October 14:18

It was profitable before the royalty payment is makes for the use of the brand name. Afterwards its only just breaks even. So profitable from a group perceptive but not in the UK.

Finance is not hard after you pass the exams.

[0000]

CamMoreRon said:

0000 said:

How do you know he hasn't used, for instance, the Flat Rate Scheme for VAT or claimed the £2k NI Employment Allowance? Are you his accountant?

Because I know him very well. He didn't start off a businessman, he was just doing this as a passion so his attention to detail was focused on the product rather than the finances. He has an accountant nowadays, but is still very open with us (his family) about how the business is run.

Bloody hell, I haven't even told my wife about NI Employment Allowance. Why is he turning down free money then?

[sidicks]

CamMoreRon said:

Then you've missed the point entirely. I said that them "shying away" was a threat, and one that will not be upheld for reasons detailed in my post. I didn't say that they wouldn't make the threat, just that they wouldn't follow through with it. Again, for reasons detailed in my post.

IF that occurs, then prices will increase dramatically to compensate. Remind me why all those people use Amazon...

CamMoreRon said:

The Tory economic policy is of austerity, budget cut-backs, and a race to the bottom on tax in the hope that it will encourage more business. The point is that this is an incredibly short-sighted approach to the economy, and that luring in business with low taxes and financial loopholes is a way of increasing the deficit, not decreasing it.

By 'austerity' you mean the sutuation where have spent more each and every years since 2010 and where plan to continue increasing expenditure into the future?

CamMoreRon said:

Ultimately it will be something that we only realise in hindsight, because so many people (evident in this thread) are very closed off to any kind of alternative. Partly this is due to the way debate is controlled so that important points are not answered and attention is diverted elsewhere - e.g. the response to my saying enforcing corporation tax would be a higher net earner for the UK economy than slashing spending was responded to with accusations of libel / slander. I haven't seen a single post aimed at convincing me tax enforcement would be a detriment to the economy.

How much tax do you pay currently?
How much extra tax do you think you should pay?

The accusations of slander involved your baseless claims about Starbucks, Amazon and Vodafone.