J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Just buy off companies that pay their whack, John Lewis for example pay their Corp tax.

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

do the maths ,
phillip green avoided paying £280million in tax i was told (because its in his wifes name) devide 280million by how much tax per year you pay its
166666.6666 of me , thats why we are all paying so much, people and companies like him paying SOD ALL , who allowed them to do this our leaders who no doubt have shares in said companies

warrenm2

ARRRRRGGGG!!! The point I'm making here is not about the level of tax being paid and how much is the "right" amount, its that if you think its wrong, ITS THE POLITICIANS FAULT!!!!! Companies just do what they have to do to maximise return to shareholders. If you still fail to get that point then there is no hope. If you want to vote with your feet, fine. Thats what choice is about, no more or less moral than companies tax affairs

ScoobyWon't

Quite an interesting report on how the Public Affairs Committee with Starbucks, Google and Amazon transpired earlier today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...-happened.html

I llike:

In that case, pull out of the UK and let Costa and Cafe Nero take on those units and the staff.

corradoboy

Any company that decides to cease trading in the UK will quickly be replaced and so will the jobs lost. If Starbucks were to pull out or be kicked out of the UK, Costa, Nero and a host of smaller cafes would take up the slack instantly.

I say that HMRC should be able to impose a penalty tax on companies thought to be evading tax. If turnover is over £10m, but tax is way outside of acceptable margins on such earnings, they could be forced to pay a lower rate but on the turnover instead of profits. Failure to oblige sees them booted out. This method set at maybe 15% of earnings would have raised £60m or so from Starbucks alone just this year, let alone for all the other years they have robbed our economy.

I won't be using Starbucks, eBay, Amazon or Vodaphone anytime soon, but as I don't actually pay money directly to use Google or Facebook it is hard to boycott them.

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

And the point that WE are making is that companies have a social responisbility, and they are not living up to it. Just because it is legal does not make it morally acceptable. Of course you are right in that corporations and shareholders only truly care about the bottom line, or lots and lots of negative publicity, exactly why a boycott is the only thing these companies will really listen to.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Looks like the energy companies are at it as well, probably doing the tax dodges whilst fixing prices at the other end, a double whammy for consumers by the looks of it.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/ar...as-prices.html

I appareciate conmpanies have to make money, to be competetive but they were doing that but there seems to be a newer, greedier, more cynical entity, I can get it that perhaps the gas producers raise prices but 15 percent last year and another 10.8 now, that is over 25 percent added to the cost of heating and lighting a house, I am with EDF and their profits rose 21 percent last year and they made over a billion,

http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/city-n...s-surge-144681

Profit is good, it keeps the wheels turning, communism doesnt work but these companies need the ground rules reset.


I get the feeling they sit round in boardrooms wondering what the **** they can get away with next, how they can screw the consumer, please their bosses and shareholders, the money gets spirited away and largely dispersed to the shareholders who, as a rule will be welathier individuals and investments funds, sure we all have pensions but how come the pension ones always do so badly nowadays, ever feel like we are geting the wool pulled over our eyes ?

warrenm2

Really? Says who? Where is this responsibility laid out? Who gets to judge it? That statement is just another way of saying I don't like it and I think it should stop and stamping your foot. Well tough cheese. The whole point of freedom is that sometime things happen you don't like. You're correct to say if you don't like it, don't use them. Fine, in complete agreement there. But this invented notion is claptrap. They are behaving legally. Speak to your MP if you think the law should change, but otherwise leave them alone to create jobs and provide services to people who clearly ARE happy to pay for them and worry about the things where people ARE breaking the law

madscoob

iTrader: (3)

in real simple terms , if the company that sells the product pays no tax and all thier workers are taxed to **** , the workers have less money to spend on the product made by said company, the old forklift addage applies here , a forklift can do the work of 10men but pays no tax and spends no money. however it make the company more money, which they pay no tax on , and even ffset the cost of said forklift off thier tax bill, you couldn't make it up could you, commercial greed is the true cause of all this

andy97

iTrader: (1)

Tax Avoidance= legal mitigation of ones tax liabilities, from putting money in an ISA to complex tax arrangements is tax avoidance.

Tax Evasion= illegal dodging tax of any kind

We live in a capitalist society where some have more than others. The majority of companies and individuals do use avoidance of some kind to reduce their liabilities, it is common sense and good business practice. There is no moral aspect to tax law and shouldn't be. Besides whose moral principles are you to follow, your own or a politicians or the media's?

If you are whiter than white and never ever done any form of tax mitigation then good for you, if not, stop whining about the more fortunate

jonc

And that's why we have scores of companies and entrepreneurs lining up to start up and open shops in premises that have been left empty for months and in some cases years on our high street.

HMRC are already imposing penalties on businesses found to be evading tax. But if businesses employing accountants who legally implement strategies to limit exposure to taxation, there is nothing HMRC can do.

A good business never lets emotive responses cloud sound business judgement. But a good business will also address these issues through other means, for example in Starbucks case, they work with the Fairtrade Foundation and actively participate in Prince's Trust and UK Youth and also supports local community events and make charitable donations. So don't just look at what they take but also look at what they give too.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Expecting these companies to not avoid tax is like putting your dinner down on the floor and expecting the dog to not Wolf it down, though some companies do manage to still operate whilst paying tax.

I dont know why people are prepared to let it slip for some companies, there isnt much as a consumer we can do apart from make informed decisions, most of the public isnt aware or bothered but it annoys me, the law needs to change as whinging at them wont change a thing, they then need to be scruitinized very closely for their next tax avoidance move and then that blocked off until they run out of dodges and pay tax to the goverment of this country as the payment to operate and flourish here.

I wonder where we would be if everybody managed to contrive their tax affairs like these organisations ?

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

Greece thought in a similar way to you andy, that hasn't turned out too great.

If we don't stamp down on it soon, there'll be no UK companies left due to the uneven playing field, then where will we be? The great void will have to be filled by everyone else, what a great system, and completely legal, I don't know why we are complaining really!

Miniman

iTrader: (2)

Wasn't the whole point of coming before the select committee to see how it works and why it's being done?

It's not about whether it is illegal as such. As a moral issue then surely we can decide on our own conscience if we agree or not. So there is no point some in this thread saying "tough titty live with it/it ain't illegal".

We are allowed to say this is wrong/change the law regardless of currently legality - especially given some of the answers the companies gave before the select committee. Particularly the response from Starbucks, that it's employees pay UK taxes (aren't we kind).

And I've seen it reported that 17 other countries are also having similar investigations. France has just given Google a huge tax bill for what is described as tax dodging. So it seems that this is something a large number of people disagree with.

andy97

iTrader: (1)

It happens virtually all the time, you have confused tax evasion which is illegal. This is the problem with Greece as your example

Tax avoidance is legal and perfectly acceptable end of

andy97

iTrader: (1)

But whose moral opinion are you going to impose on these companies. Virtually all companies are avoiding tax so you can't pick and choose just because some have been brought to the publics notice. If you decide to not use google and use Microsoft then I can assure you that Microsoft avoid tax aswell as all the other search engine companies.

Miniman

iTrader: (2)

Yes I agree, just because we can never hope to close every loop hole we should choose not to even bother looking at making the system better.

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

Given its prevalence in Greece it was almost accepted as the norm. Either way, avoidance/evasion results in the same thing - not enough tax being paid, an unfair playing field, and the rest of the populace being screwed.

As for tax avoidance being acceptable 'end of', well, depends on your definition of acceptable, and the extend of the avoidance - legal, yes; ethical, not from where I am sitting. I should not have paid more tax last year than Starbucks.

ScoobyWon't

In the case of Starbucks, it's been reported that they would offer a much higher rental to stop the smaller chains and independents getting in to those premises. If Starbucks weren't
in them, the others could be.

I'm not sure if a bunch of MPs are the right people to decide what is illegal or immoral, considering how many of them fiddled their expenses.

andy97

iTrader: (1)

eThe common mis-understanding is that a few companies or individuals are doing tax avoidance. Most if not all the population is engaged in avoidance on some level. It has to be the government to pass laws to change the tax system. No one person or company has done anything wrong. It can't be morally, even if the moral argument had any place in tax avoidance when the majority engages in avoidance, it's only jealously that someone or company is doing better than another by mitigating their tax to the minimum legally required

andy97

iTrader: (1)

Avoidance and evasion are completely opposite. You should be asking why our governments are so wasteful with our tax revenue. The governments are by far the worst for mismanagement of our tax revenue running into billions.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Isn't the downfall of Greece mainly down to too main people avoiding tax?

I think its only right that everyone should pay a fair share....managing funds through overseas operations located in tax havens is not what I would call fair.

andy97

iTrader: (1)

Look up tax avoidance and tax evasion then correct your post

andy97

iTrader: (1)

Each company is using the current tax legislation set by this and the previous governments. Fair or not its the law. Speak to the government who created the legislation

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

I don't understand all the indignation in this thread. How many of the posters would avoid tax if they could do so legally? "Moral compass" my ****, more like jealousy that you can't get away with it yourself. Keep trying to scare international trade away and see where it gets you in 10-15 years.

This is such a non-issue compared to much bigger issues with e.g unfunded pension liabilities, stealth tax through hidden inflation, the profligacy of the state leading to massive trade deficits etc etc that I don't even know where to begin.

Youve been sold down the river by the politicians for years and years, and you all fail to see the wood for the trees and instead you focus on these stupidities.

andy97

iTrader: (1)

Smoke and mirrors by the government to deflect from the huge problems

Henrik +1

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Do you think they should be allowed to do this forever, should Starbucks and co just be exempted from paying tax on their profit ?

I wonder if a scheme like that could be reclassified as tax evasion ?

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

I understand the difference thankyou (not sure exactly what you mean by 'opposite'), and they both result in reduced tax rake to the government they are due to, which was my point, and was a diversion you created. As for how the government are spending said taxes, that is a separate issue surely, and encompasses far more than the issue at hand here.

And as for it all being smoke and mirrors from the government, if memory serves it was an investigation by the Telegraph that revealed Starbucks' tax affairs.

andy97

iTrader: (1)

Well if you are equating one action which is illegal and one that is legal, then I can't explain to you the difference. The tax avoidance is insignificant compared to the amount the government waste, surely that is important more so. Just because these publicised companies pay little corporation tax, you realise they generate hundreds of millions in tax of vat and employers NI, aswell giving employment to thousands of people.

andy97

iTrader: (1)

Let's bring it to a more personal level. Let's say for example you and neighbour work at the same firm and receive the same pay, your neighbour structures his tax affairs by avoidance to lower his liability, you on the other hand just pay what you are told (but have the same opportunity to do the same as your neighbour )and end up with less.

Do you wish your neighbour well or complain?