Those other elections

Re: Those other elections

Thomas Johnson — Wed, 20 May 2015 15:48:19 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

If the Starbucks guys pay no corporation tax then they pay full tax on their drawings.

[/quote]

Except they can get round this too, the accounts are organised so that large sums of money are paid to the part of their company based in a low tax state, they also draw their income in that state, register themselves as a non-dom in the UK, and therefore pay very little corporation tax or income tax in the UK. It's legal, but only really an option for a large multinational, not for a small UK based veterinary practice.

Re: Those other elections

Francisco Gomez — Wed, 20 May 2015 15:14:09 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

I think you're all nuts.

[/quote]

I agree. I think you're all nuts.

Re: Those other elections

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 20 May 2015 13:58:29 GMT

[quote user="ruths"] It's odd that they seem to do such poor business in the uk compared with costa etc.[/quote]

That could be because their coffee and their service are so poor............

Look, I don't really care that much or even know that much about whether Starbuck's are paying as much corporation tax in the UK as they "ought". I just don't believe there's a conspiracy to protect them.

I see on this thread somebody who's convinced that the country's short of money and taxes are far too high because the money's all wasted on workshy spongers. I see somebody who's convinced that the goverment's hell-bent on hammering poor people so that their rich friends can get even richer. I see somebody who's convinced that large international companies are intrinsically wicked. I think you're all nuts.

I see a government that's brought so far a brilliant recovery so far from the global depression, far better than that of any other "EC" country, possibly better than any country, and needs to get on with it.

What I don't see is the point of making life lovely for the least well off for a few years........ until the country's economy is wrecked and we descend into Greek-style poverty.

If you feel sorry for X, Y or Z......... as many of us do............ get out there and help them, give them money or time or whatever. Don't bang on about how everybody else should be compelled to give them money.

I expect quite a number of you will have spent time mingling with really poor people in a country where there is no State social security to speak of at all. They don't sit around moaning.

Re: Those other elections

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 20 May 2015 13:27:47 GMT

Anthony I don't see any option - otherwise the planet is going to become intolerable for all species, including our own during the next 50 years.

How much of an influence does population pressure have on the current migrant crisis? That is a serious question.

Wynne

Re: Those other elections

Francisco Gomez — Wed, 20 May 2015 13:23:48 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

If the Starbucks guys pay no corporation tax then they pay full tax on their drawings.

It's the bloody same.

[/quote]

Ahh! But you haven't got the accountancy department and lawyers they've got!

If you are insured against taxman investigation (which you can be), you might just get paid for the time while that investigation take place. And if your books are in order, you don't have to worry anymore about it.

But Stabucks guys or other multinational corporations have the power to only declare losses in the countries where tax is more expensive, and the power to influence governments against closing the loopholes that permit these practices.

If legal, it wouldn't be morally right, because it puts your business in a more disadvantaged position.

If illegal, it would be difficult to find out unless you get into their books, which I'm sure that could be almost an impossible task.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20580545

Re: Those other elections

Anthony Dennison — Wed, 20 May 2015 12:56:02 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] I also disapprove strongly of him having a 3rd healthy one - as if everyone was so feckless it would increase the population of an already grossly over-burdened world by 50%.[/quote]

Careful Wynne, you're getting dangerously close to your population control ideas again...

Re: Those other elections

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 20 May 2015 11:20:43 GMT

Actually, I don't approve of Cameron claiming any benefits at all for his children - as he definitely doesn't need to. I also disapprove strongly of him having a 3rd healthy one - as if everyone was so feckless it would increase the population of an already grossly over-burdened world by 50%. Another thing I disapprove about him is that he unnecessarily increases the burden of his children on the taxpayer by sending them to state schools - when again he could remove this burden by educating them privately.

Ruths - point of agreement. We both intensely dislike David Cameron - even if for different reasons.

Wynne

Re: Those other elections

ruths — Wed, 20 May 2015 11:08:18 GMT

ps- this is to all of yoou- not Wynne particualrly -))

Re: Those other elections

ruths — Wed, 20 May 2015 11:07:08 GMT

So where does you word to steal come out of that statement?

And i refute the statement that the money isn't there- it's there but the governemnt is minded not to pusruse it as it's in the pockets of people who they are too scared of or too close to.

There is a pervading atmosphere of blaming the country's financial state on one group. This so happens to be the group that is vulnerabe and has fewer means to object (so the frustration spills inot direct action- and I am in no way conding direct action. That is NOT my belief)discntace

The fact is that there are myariad reasons for our financial state - but the dogged and determined and sensationialist coverage of the poor as being the problem is gobbled up and swallowed whole because it's easy. They dont' think like you, they don't live like you and they have different beliefs so it's easy to distance yourself.

The politicians look and think like us (i'm including myself here too) and so do the big business leaders and the captians of industry and the bankers.

We use anecdotes to make ourselves feel better about the cuts- we stay ignorant because it's comfortable for us to keep out of it. And we are revlused and disgusted by the 'other' people.

And that's it.

I can quibble about the letter of the law and the amount of money moving round and show you where people have asked questions and link to videos of people like David Cameron saying he clamied DLA for his child, and Osbourne saying he claimed child beneift (he's a mutli millionaire too) and give you figures about the destination of money and who is affected. A then you tell me it's not about moralsl, it's about law. and then you say that actually the moral thinig to do is to avoid tax as much as possible for myraid reasons.

And tbh I don't get it. Up thread somebody siad the casualties of the system- the people whose benefits have bene cut because of cirumstances beyond thier control are insignificant- well, to correct myself, the money is insignificant... (corerect me if i've misinterprested this). As much as I try to work it out- I feel that it's horrific to have a dead father to bury and then no money to live on for 1 -3 months (the sanction time has beenextended)- whilst arranging a funeral. That's not inconsequentila for that person. There also seems to be a division between looking at the cuts as a sad necessity and a punitive measure and the latter feels very uncomfortable to me.

I've shown you documents produced by the governemnt, and by (ostensibly) independent groups. I've chosen NOT to link anything to the 'left wing press' or anything that isn't veryfiable. and i hear ancedotes and ideaology in discussion. I'm not arguing in ideological terms- I;m showing you the effects of the the policies.

I'll leave you too it. Not because one of us is 'right' and one of us is 'wrong'. That s a silly game to play and i am not engaging in point scoring. More fool you if that's the way you want to do it. Some of yoou may well have a higher intellect than me and a more one thing or another than me and that makes you feel superior- go you! -))

I was really interested in talking with you and working out what you think and how we can discuss this but the more research I do, the worse I feel about the way we are headed.. The more i look, the more sadness I see and I am off to do more in my community to help. i think the time spent doing something is going to be more productive than trying to show you where the ideology just isn't working.

( if you are intersted- Thjis is an interesting book- http://www.amazon.co.uk/Austerity-Demolition-Welfare-Zombie-Economy-ebook/dp/B00RVXBFWQ)

Re: Those other elections

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 20 May 2015 10:22:44 GMT

Ruths My standpoint is exactly that of Mrs Thatcher, when she said "Governments have no money - only what they take from people." Some taxation is unfortunately inevitable - ours has gone too far.

Our over-lenient and over-generous benefits system has resulted in a cynical and selfish group who blatantly exploit the system with absolutely no intention whatsoever of contributing.

Wynne

Re: Those other elections

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 20 May 2015 10:18:22 GMT

Micheal I couldn't put it better.

Wynne

Re: Those other elections

ruths — Wed, 20 May 2015 09:48:18 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

Corporation Tax - just to be clear

Lets say my business makes £100,000 profit.

I am taxed 20% of that - so pay £20,000 corporation tax.

If I draw out that money and remain below the higher tax rate threshold then their is no further tax to pay.

If I exceed the higher rate tax threshold then I pay the additional 20% tax.

The money is taxed once.

So if I leave the money all in the business in the UK then I still pay the corporation tax. In Jersey I would pay no tax.

Either way the money is taxed before I can spend it. There is no difference. If the Starbucks guys pay no corporation tax then they pay full tax on their drawings.

It's the bloody same.

[/quote] I'd change your accountant -))

Re: Those other elections

ruths — Wed, 20 May 2015 09:46:11 GMT

If a company makes billions and only pays a very small proportion of that into the pot - due to exploiting loopholes it seems to be a moral requirement for some of you- ie it would be rude not to. The link I posted is from the telegraph in 2012 and the cross party group of MPs called these companies morally wrong. The typical type of employment they offer is low pay and minimal hours so 'hard working ' people who work for them then get topped up by the government via tax credits. Can you see the absurdity of this system? We as a country miss out on the corporate taxes we thought they should pay AND we are supporting the companies to employ people at a wage less than the government considers acceptable so the taxpayers then top it up. As I said- 'welcome to santa's grotto, turkeys! Make yourself comfortable' -)))

Re: Those other elections

Michael Woodhouse — Wed, 20 May 2015 09:43:37 GMT

Corporation Tax - just to be clear

Lets say my business makes £100,000 profit.

I am taxed 20% of that - so pay £20,000 corporation tax.

If I draw out that money and remain below the higher tax rate threshold then their is no further tax to pay.

If I exceed the higher rate tax threshold then I pay the additional 20% tax.

The money is taxed once.

So if I leave the money all in the business in the UK then I still pay the corporation tax. In Jersey I would pay no tax.

Either way the money is taxed before I can spend it. There is no difference. If the Starbucks guys pay no corporation tax then they pay full tax on their drawings.

It's the bloody same.

Re: Those other elections

Michael Woodhouse — Wed, 20 May 2015 09:36:59 GMT

Ruths - let me show I simplistically see the tax system and welfare state in this country.

Clearly the country needs money to run. We want national assets like roads, schools, hospitals etc. We need to look after those who are sick or unable to support themselves. Society at large pays into a pot of money. That pot of money is shared out. Higher earners will pay a larger sum into the pot.

The problem comes when you have too many people drawing funds out of that pot who've never contributed to it. Whether that is people who've spent their life on benefits, people coming to the UK to use the NHS etc etc. That is where the disparity lies.

My view of 'big society' is we all pay in what is affordable and draw out what we need. It's the people who are simply drawing from the pot and not contributing that cause a problem.

If the people paying in the most have to pay in too much, then they will leave and pay tax somewhere more fair. That would leave a huge hole in the budget. I said earlier I like the Jersey tax system and that pays no corporation tax. Companies like Starbucks do a great job for the economy, look after their staff, train them and pay them reasonably. The money they put into the economy is huge. Lets not forget all the other taxes they pay, local businesses they support etc. If I could pay no corporation tax, I'd be happy. It wouldn't actually save me that much money though -you do know how it works?

Re: Those other elections

ruths — Wed, 20 May 2015 09:20:34 GMT

I think it's rather odd that you use the word steal. It's the way our society works. If you can't actually lay a road yourself, you need to ay for somebody else to do it. If you can't take out your own appendix then paying for somebody else to do it seems sensible etc etc. And if you can't actually look after some of the more vulnerable members of our society yourself, you pay for somebody else to do it. On the latter point, a refusal to help shows a lack of humanity. This is why we have a tax system and a government. Is your point that this system is wrong? That's a legitimate point- and that's a standpoint that makes (philosophical) sense. Or is your point that you agree with taxation to provide public services but you are arguing that you don't want a particular section of the community to have some of that money? This is another stand point - and the argument here is now how to define the people who aren't allowed that money? You seem to vacillate between the two points and it's hard to discuss it with you.

Re: Those other elections

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 20 May 2015 09:09:47 GMT

Didn't see it, but as long as it's done legally, I have no problem with it. I think the fundamental difference between us is you think the government have a moral right to steal as much money as they like from people. I think that although they unfortunately have a legal right, the moral right is for people to use all lawful means to minimize that theft.

Wynne

Re: Those other elections

ruths — Wed, 20 May 2015 09:09:13 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Currently, the definition of poverty in this country is < certain % of AVERAGE income. The problem with that definition, is that no matter how wealthy the country becomes, about the same % will be officially suffering poverty - even if their life-styles are actually very luxurious. Given that definition, you would probably find millionaires officially classed as povert-stricken in Switzerland!

Wynne

[/quote] Yes, this is an interesting point. Both labour and conservative governments have used this a definition of poverty. Many people are more interested in the nuances of poverty such as social exclusion and lack of access to social care etc. But, as ever, it seems that it is a financial issue, not an access issue. Plus ca change

Re: Those other elections

ruths — Wed, 20 May 2015 09:01:40 GMT

Any comments on the tax avoidance denial by Starbucks, Wynne?

Re: Those other elections

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 20 May 2015 08:51:32 GMT

Wynne

Re: Those other elections

ruths — Wed, 20 May 2015 07:58:59 GMT

And don't tell me that the answer to this is to stop the working family tax credits. That will be like the turkey's who voted for Christmas helping to sharpen the knives -)))

Re: Those other elections

ruths — Wed, 20 May 2015 07:54:34 GMT

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9672558/Amazon-Google-and-Starbucks-face-questions-on-UK-tax-avoidance-as-it-happened.html He's the video, sorry. It's interesting that you guys state that the company is morally bound to avoid tax on behalf of the shareholders yet this guy denies it. Another thing about the type of employment that these outlets usually provide- they are low wage, short hours/ zero hours types of contracts. The taxpayer often has to top up the wages of people doing this type of work with working tax credits. So here's a thing- he company doesn't pay a great deal of corporation tax here so we don't get much money coming in from their profits. They employ people who end up taking money from the taxpayer to survive. Where the be fit to the economy here? ( anyone who supports this type of 'business' seems to me to be one of those turkeys who looks forward to Christmas tbh)

Re: Those other elections

ruths — Wed, 20 May 2015 07:49:02 GMT

Have a look at this video of the Starbucks guy categorically denying any form of tax AVOIDANCE in the UK. Look at his face as he is questioned- looks like he's chewing a wasp! It's odd that they seem to do such poor business in the uk compared with costa etc.

Re: Those other elections

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 19 May 2015 21:17:49 GMT

[quote user="Sarah McGurk"]An obvious difference between us, which can't be resolved, is that you appear to have faith that the current government and the chancellor of the exchequer have the good of the country as their absolute first priority.[/quote]

Actually, yes.

In fact even Gordon Brown's government probably had that as their first priority.......... they just hadn't got a clue how to do it, and being the Labour party they worked on the politics of envy.

[quote user="Sarah McGurk"]

Whether you choose to believe anyone in the UK is currently in a position of genuine poverty is for you to decide.

[/quote]

Thank you. Of course it depends how you define poverty.

Re: Those other elections

Michael Woodhouse — Tue, 19 May 2015 20:57:16 GMT

[quote user="Sarah McGurk"]

It has been proven that increasing equality in society leads to reductions in crime, and it is now also suggested that it leads to improved long-term economic growth. Equality does not have to be achieved through taxation. It can be produced by ensuring that pay is more equally spread. This does however, generally require some checks and measures on the free market that revolves around personal greed. The exact opposite is occurring in the UK, so far as I can see. and as far as I am concerned, this is likely to lead to a less stable society where there is more unhappiness.

Personally I feel the way these companies are behaving is corrupt, but that is a matter of opinion not fact. I think we will have to agree to differ.

[/quote]

Sarah - I'm not quite sure I understand your point. Are you referring to all of society (and something close to communism) or are you meaning it's not fair the CEO earns millions by exploiting workers on zero hours contracts? If it's the latter then you have my support, to a degree.

I believe in a society that rewards hard work and entrepreneurialism. If you work hard you deserve to be rewarded for that. If my business does well then I will give the staff a larger pay rise. Conversely they need to understand if we have a bad year I can't be so generous. I don't have any fundamental problem with people getting wealthy. The people I have a problem with is the 'Jeremy Kyle society'. They need to learn that they need to work hard to achieve anything, not breed uncontrollably at taxpayers expense.