Quote Ajw71="Ajw71" Erm.... www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUY9ewD1Jls 'No return to boom and bust' - Where is the word Tory? .'" OK, I'll give you that, I was going from memory, but the fact remains that you can't blame any government for the state of the economic collapse is 2008, can you? The truth remains that it was an external and almost unforeseen issue that brought the country to it's knees. (I seem to remember one economist going 'this can't last' and getting laughed at for it...) If you want to try and conflte the two, go ahead, but it'll be meaningless.

Quote Ajw71="Ajw71" Erm.... www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUY9ewD1Jls 'No return to boom and bust' - Where is the word Tory? .'" OK, I'll give you that, I was going from memory, but the fact remains that you can't blame any government for the state of the economic collapse is 2008, can you? The truth remains that it was an external and almost unforeseen issue that brought the country to it's knees. (I seem to remember one economist going 'this can't last' and getting laughed at for it...) If you want to try and conflte the two, go ahead, but it'll be meaningless.

I was merely challenging your statement that Starbucks pay nothing to HMRC - that you have admitted was incorrect.

The point about lower taxes is simple - these companies will be tax somewhere, perhaps if our tax rates were more attractive they might consider paying more here?

Our big multi-nationals will be doing exactly the same in other countries where taxes are even higher than the UK which means HMRC will receive a bigger chunk. Maybe it is just a case of swings and roundabouts. So if you means tested Starbucks for corporation tax in the UK you would potentially be opening up the opportunity for BP for example to be means tested in another country.

I was merely challenging your statement that Starbucks pay nothing to HMRC - that you have admitted was incorrect.

The point about lower taxes is simple - these companies will be tax somewhere, perhaps if our tax rates were more attractive they might consider paying more here?

Our big multi-nationals will be doing exactly the same in other countries where taxes are even higher than the UK which means HMRC will receive a bigger chunk. Maybe it is just a case of swings and roundabouts. So if you means tested Starbucks for corporation tax in the UK you would potentially be opening up the opportunity for BP for example to be means tested in another country.

Starbucks transfers its tax liabilities to a subsidiary in Ireland, where surprise surprise, [url=http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/starbucks-pays-57m-in-royalties-but--211055.htmlStarbucks manages to pay next to buggerall in corporation tax[/url

Nope, you were simply trying to be clever by introducing side-issues that are irrrelevant to the main point being discussed and which was and is perfectly clear. I am absolutely appalled that Starbucks pays no corporation tax and I am appalled at their avoidance and that they get away with it. The rather obvious facts that they do comply with laws they have no choice but to comply with eg PAYE/NI is neither in question, nor is it in any way some sort of "offset" against unpaid corporation tax.

You even proposed that PAYE deductions in some way are Starbucks' money that they pay HMRC when plainly they are not, they are the money of the individual taxpaying employees.


The point is no such thing. It should not be a matter for them to "consider" paying more tax here, they should be assessed to a fair corporation tax payment based on what business they actually do, which they would then be compelled to pay or appeal.

Your conviction that they "will be taxed somewhere" is touching. You could put it another way: you have no clue what tax they pay or where they pay it.

My point is that I don't care what tax they pay elsewhere or how much it is or at what rates. I am only interested in their UK operation paying a fair whack of tax on their UK business. Which plainly they do not.



Now you really are missing my point. I neither know nor care what other jurisdictions do. But if it ended up that every multinational paid a fair chunk of tax on its UK operations to the UK taxman then I'd be very happy with that.

Starbucks should either pay up on the vast business they do, or if they don't like it, then shut the operation down. Of course, that won't happen, as plainly it makes them millions, however the accountants calculate the taxable bottom line.

That was the thinking in Ireland, George Osborn's favourite economy.

on an internet forum my literacy levels are irrelevant, hence, my constant lack of use of capital letters. however, out in the real world, being unable to multiply 34*47 without a calculator is a problem if you're currently trying to do a pharmaceutical chemistry degree, which will probably require a basic level of maths.

still, keep trying sweetheart.

paying people not to rob us. priceless. how much cash will we have to hand out to eradicate all crime do you think.

oops, sorry, forgot to ask, have you worked out how all these new insulating whizz kids will make any money after we've trained 'em up yet?

Seriously, do you have issues comprehending a debate? All you are doing is trotting out things that have been debunked ages ago like an aged tourette's sufferer.

debunked? hardly.

Are you seriously suggesting we should have a "Little England" for corporation tax purposes? This would potentially have a negative impact on corporation tax revenues as whole. Are you also suggesting British companies trading abroad pay their fair share in the countries they operate as well rather than pay into the UK HMRC - just plain barmy.

Starbucks employs thousands of people, pays millions in tax/rent/rates and you are suggesting they should pack up - do you not think the country would lose more if they packed up? - yet another barmy proposition.

Where did I mention PAYE, I mention employers NI - a tax on the company not the individual - I would have thought you would have grasped that.

A glance at Starbucks financials for the whole business showed they paid $488m on taxable profits of $1.2bn an effective rate of 34% - quite a bit for a company that pays no tax. We need to make it attractive for it to pay some of this in the UK.