What do you think

[Sithvid]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20560359

[Snokio]

I dont know the full ins and outs, but on the face of it, they should pay, starbucks reckon that if the do, the will cut benefits to their own employees (sick pay etc)

[Penfold]

It's a joke to be honest.

If you're a Starbucks Franchisee  you pay your business rates, PAYE, NI and income tax as well as  utilities etc.  You've paid a fortune for your licence and then you're  being boycotted for something you can't control and can do nothing  about. Yes, I know the other side to it and instead of laying out the arguments you can read them HERE but it's a dodgy call.

Google is harder to pin down given its nature and I have less of an issue with them and Amazon I'm in two minds about.

I really think part of the problem is stores not applying the same rules as those under DSR. It make far more sense to buy anything covered by DSR than by going to the shop. You can open the goods to inspect or try and you have seven days to return. Most shed retailers will refuse to accept something back which has been opened..... it's a no brainer.

I bought something from PC World (Yes, I know but it was price matched). I opened it and didn't like it so I tried to return it. They refused citing it had been opened. That really hacked me off. So I bought another one online from them DSR'ed the opened one and returned the unopened one to the store. HAH that showed them and I'm sure it cost them ..... why not just make the experience more pleasant for the customer in the first place!?

If nothing else Amazon has superb returns and customer service. Like it or not it works and it's competitive and good ol' dMw get a kickback from the money I spend. It's my first port of call for stuff which I can't buy from John Lewis.

[DrunkenZombiee]

I do feel that consumers need to know that companies dodge the tax as for some people that does play an important part in their buying decisions.

If something is the same price from a tangible, physical shop or even a little bit more expensive then I will buy it from there. Pen has a good point about different return policies but a high-ish end retailer normally be pretty good. John Lewis have always done right by me, they have very good customer returns and will price match so the best of all worlds there.

Personally I feel pretty peeved by the tax dodgers. It seems to be the super rich that get away with it (businesses and individuals) leaving those who earn less but honest bucks to pick up the slack. I know that these companies employ thousands and that puts food on the table for people but companies rarely will let their profits go south as they will blood let to ensure share holders are happy.

We are not in America and capitalism is beginning to go a bit wild with the middle class disappearing.

Name them and shame them and let the consumer decide.

DZ

[TheDvEight]

I pay tax why should a big  company(or anyone) who make loads of £££'s in profit not have too?

[RizZy]

If the loop-holes are there for companies to exploit then they will, if somebody gave you a legal way that you could avoid paying most the tax you should, wouldn't you think about it?

[Sithvid]

The point is this has been going on for years even back to the 70's but public opinion has never seemed so strong on this. Maybe it's a classic govt diversion? Not saying hitler did it but....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TeaLeaf]

It's real easy to make a one line reply here, but it's damn difficult to actually define a resolution.   The problem relates to transfer pricing (which is the charging of goods/services between different parts of the same organization, in particular when it is cross-border) and defining what is reasonable in such a way that it has a cat in hell's chance of standing up in a court of law.

Public opinion on this topic is driven by a complete lack of understanding of how the problem arises.   It's not just UK tax law, it's International tax law that enables this movement of profits to more favourable jurisdictions.   So, it's clearly easy to solve, you just get the whole world to agree on a new transfer pricing set of double-tax agreements, or you stop global trade.  

There, a solution for the masses, if everyone is banned from buying coffee, amazon books and using search engines then the problem disappears......except that you'd also need to stop buying or using *ANYTHING* that comes from or involves work or services outside the UK.

That's the problem, it's a global one.   Easy to headline, even easier to be misled by the press and damn-near almost impossible to legislate against under their own tax rules.  

I have some sympathy with those named and shamed, they're doing what any prudent person would do with their own affairs.

[DrunkenZombiee]

I have some sympathy with those named and shamed, they're doing what any prudent person would do with their own affairs.

I agree with what you say that its a global problem but the last statement I hope doesn't stand true for most people in the UK. People can still make a difference, hence the recent commitment from starbucks for pay 10 million per year for the next 2 years.

I have spent more than half of this year in a country outside of the UK and I have become very proud of certain aspects of our country and heritage. While corporation tax doesn't go towards schooling and the NHS it effects spending on a whole and less money does lead to a lower standard of living for our children.

I hope that most people in this country who have a standard of living would want to help those who do not meet that standard by paying tax. Those very well off seem to not agree with this. Capitalism is getting a bit out of control IMO we are going to be a US state soon if we keep this up. Yes there are people that abuse the situation and they are worse than those avoiding tax as they are directly depriving those more worthy.

Lets hope things change.

DZ

[Blunt]

So Starbucks decide to pay their tax at last (wish I had that option)

Now they've taken paid meal-break from the staff and stopped paying 1 days sick leave.

The Man usually wins.

[TeaLeaf]

So one insignificant company pays a minor amount of tax.  Does that make all the other multinationals innocent?

I feel sorry for the well known names being pulled through the trial by media when the vast bulk of the revenue lost in transfer pricing is with companies not mentioned.

Are you self-employed DZ?  How many people on this forum are running their own companies?  Do they organise their affairs to minimise tax?  A Board has a fiscal duty to do this, as individuals we chose to minimise our tax.  I suspect very few are guilt-free here and I strongly dislike the pious way some media or others are taking the so-called moral high ground when they are themselves as guilty of avoidance.

That's the other problem. It's avoidance not evasion yet we're all hysterically wailing as if they broke the law.

If companies legitimately limit their tax liabilities just like the law allows then complain to the politicians not the companies as the law need changing.

If companies are actually moving deliberately incorrect profits out of UK jurisdiction then they are committing a criminal offence, evading tax and HMRC will prosecute them.

As nobody has been tried in anything other than the media, then I would suggest that the public stoning of the three companies unlucky enough to have been asked to speak to the Select Committee is not our finest hour.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

[Tutonic]

The gutter press strike again....

HRMC should be copping the flack for not making any attempts at closing these 'loopholes' in the first place.

[TeaLeaf]

Just found this one.  Might help explain transfer pricing a bit better than I did.

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

[Sithvid]

HMRC having had massive staff cuts under both the current and previous administrations can only follow tax law. Unfortunately tax laws can only be amended by politicians some of which are probably share holders in the companies that  legally avoid tax so public opinion and momentum are needed nice debate so far




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DrunkenZombiee]

Are you self-employed DZ?  How many people on this forum are running their own companies?  Do they organise their affairs to minimise tax?  A Board has a fiscal duty to do this, as individuals we chose to minimise our tax.  I suspect very few are guilt-free here and I strongly dislike the pious way some media or others are taking the so-called moral high ground when they are themselves as guilty of avoidance.

That's the other problem. It's avoidance not evasion yet we're all hysterically wailing as if they broke the law.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

I am not self employed, have been for a bit in the past but I still payed my way.

You are very right that they have not broken the law but people everyday do thing which are not illegal but are still questionable in terms of morals. The loopholes need to be closed.

Its only recently that I feel the way I do. Travelling to countries without social healthcare, schooling and welfare has really changed my opinion on this. We are lucky to be born in a country where if you are down on your luck you can still live in relative comfort with a basic fundamentals compared to other countries where you are on your own. Those services are not free and everyone needs to pay their way as everyone at some stage in life will use these services in one form or another.

Do some of us pay too much tax... the answer is probably yes... Why? Because other normally more fortunate who can afford to give more decide to give nothing.

That is wrong IMO.