These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

The Starbucks Taxation issue

Author
Jago Kain
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#41 - 2012-12-09 19:55:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Jago Kain
Elias Greyhand wrote:
Why does this nonsense about "moral grounds" keep cropping up in regards to tax? It's complete and utter BS.


Well; I can't speak for anyone else, but when businesses that routinely generate incomes in the hundreds of millions and billions pay less tax (percentage wise) on their profits than the average guy in the street then I get morally offended.

If you want to go back to basics, then tax is essentially a sophisticated way of demanding money with menaces, but it's the price you pay for living in a "civilised" society. If we have to have it, then it needs to be fair.

We tried (and are still trying) various models of letting the rich have it all so they could bestow largesse upon lesser men, but this invariably leads to them spending it on shiny palaces, nice big yatchs, ferraris, limited edition relic'd guitars (fuckwits), large blocks of paint on canvas masquerading as art, feng shui consultants' fees etc., and statues of themselves rather than feeding the poor.

Using a loophole to avoid you civic responsibility is immoral.

If you commit a murder, but escape prosecution because the rozzers screw up the investigation and taint a vital piece of evidence causing the case to fail, your walking around the street free of the consequences of your actions is legal, but hardly moral.

Those who have more then they need are often unwilling to share it with those who have not enough, despite the fact is is often the labour of the latter that provided the former with the surplus. I don't want to go too far down this path as we are veering dangerously close to political waters and everyone knows how frothy EVE gets if you mention Marx.... dammit.

Also, moral is relative and varies from society to society, but is determined by the majority. If most folk think it's immoral then it, by definition, is.



tl;dr version for special kids

I disagree.

One original thought is worth a thousand mindless quotings - Diogenes.

Webvan
All Kill No Skill
#42 - 2012-12-09 22:42:06 UTC
Elias Greyhand wrote:
Why does this nonsense about "moral grounds" keep cropping up in regards to tax? It's complete and utter BS.
Because all they do is fight over the socialized healthcare system, the many government jobs it supports, how to fund it and what they can get out of it. It's become a major issue in Europe, dwarfing all other issues for the most part. So if someone or something is not contributing their 'fair share' it becomes an issue of 'moral grounds' effecting everyone. So like in France, it becomes moral grounds to tax the producers 75% to save the failing system for the meager classes. It's really a lesson we should have learnt in the US by their example, so to not try to adopt the system here, but unfortunately we are not so knowledgeable about issues beyond our borders. Once it starts, there is no going back (seemingly) and you can only go deeper and deeper. Quite interesting...

I'm in it for the money

Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12

Noriko Satomi
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2012-12-10 20:00:25 UTC
Jago Kain wrote:
{{snip}}
Using a loophole to avoid you civic responsibility is immoral.

If you commit a murder, but escape prosecution because the rozzers screw up the investigation and taint a vital piece of evidence causing the case to fail, your walking around the street free of the consequences of your actions is legal, but hardly moral.

Those who have more then they need are often unwilling to share it with those who have not enough, despite the fact is is often the labour of the latter that provided the former with the surplus. I don't want to go too far down this path as we are veering dangerously close to political waters and everyone knows how frothy EVE gets if you mention Marx.... dammit.

Also, moral is relative and varies from society to society, but is determined by the majority. If most folk think it's immoral then it, by definition, is.
{{snip}}

Earning wealth is not immoral, and is certainly not analogous to murder. Even if you really meant that following the rules to avoid paying unnecessary taxes is like getting away with murder, that comparison is still ridiculous.

Charity, where morality does come into play, cannot be forced. If money is taken, no matter the reason, then it is not charity.

I would agree that morality is situational, but I cannot agree that morality is whatever set of beliefs is currently fashionable, which you seem to imply. If that is so, then the world cannot be elevated beyond despotism, it can only rotate despots.

Economic freedom tends to stimulate economic activity, which tends to result in fewer people overall having not enough. High taxes, and transfer payments with the incredible friction and corruption of government bureaucracy in the middle, tend to dampen economic activity overall. This increases poverty. It also decreases tax revenues meaning that it also weakens the safety net. Morally, it is wrong to favor a system of government that creates economic conditions that keep more people in poverty and dependency.

Class envy may be useful politically but it is economically harmful.
Jago Kain
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#44 - 2012-12-10 21:14:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Jago Kain
Noriko Satomi wrote:

Earning wealth is not immoral, and is certainly not analogous to murder. Even if you really meant that following the rules to avoid paying unnecessary taxes is like getting away with murder, that comparison is still ridiculous.

Charity, where morality does come into play, cannot be forced. If money is taken, no matter the reason, then it is not charity.

I would agree that morality is situational, but I cannot agree that morality is whatever set of beliefs is currently fashionable, which you seem to imply. If that is so, then the world cannot be elevated beyond despotism, it can only rotate despots.

Economic freedom tends to stimulate economic activity, which tends to result in fewer people overall having not enough. High taxes, and transfer payments with the incredible friction and corruption of government bureaucracy in the middle, tend to dampen economic activity overall. This increases poverty. It also decreases tax revenues meaning that it also weakens the safety net. Morally, it is wrong to favor a system of government that creates economic conditions that keep more people in poverty and dependency.

Class envy may be useful politically but it is economically harmful.


Deliberate misinterpretation of what I have said is a cheap and unworthy tactic.

There is nothing wrong with earning wealth and I never compared this to murder. There is also nothing wrong with working within the rules of a fair and equitable system to better your own situation. Everyone likes nice things, and we should all be able to go out and work towards acquiring some.

What is wrong is abusing your wealth and power to change the entire tax system so you can accumulate more wealth and power (rinse and repeat) at the expense of those unable to exert undue economic influence on the economy.

Something also is wrong when every technological advance that increases productivity results not in shorter working hours and better working conditions for all, but in a larger percentage of profit for our owners and another round of lay offs followed by the demonisation of those out of work and lower wages for those lucky enough to still be working under threat of demotion to the jobless underclass.

When folk who paid what were deemed "necessary taxes" their entire lives, are left destitute in their old age and face death through starvation, ill health and hypothermia in a supposedly civilised society (UK I'm talking about here, but I'm aware we aren't alone) whilst already obscenely rich folk benefit from a continually increasing share of the wealth, then I'm afraid that is indeed getting away with murder.

I never said that morality is whatever set of beliefs that is currently fashionable. As fickle as the UK public is, even it doesn't change it's mind that quickly. However, there is some evidence to suggest that your suggestion that this would mean "the world cannot be elevated beyond despotism, it can only rotate despots" might actually hold some water. There is an expression in common useage here, same team - different jerseys, that would seem to apply.

Shall we wait and see how much economic activity is generated by the recent cut in corporation tax in the UK? The increased economic freedom ought to generate some shouldn't it, after all, if we throttle back on dampening economic activity we'll all be better off won't we?

I agree that with you that "...Morally, it is wrong to favor a system of government that creates economic conditions that keep more people in poverty and dependency..." it's just that I think we have an entirely different idea of what is keeping folk in poverty and dependancy and just who is to blame.

One original thought is worth a thousand mindless quotings - Diogenes.

Webvan
All Kill No Skill
#45 - 2012-12-10 22:12:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Webvan
Noriko Satomi wrote:
Economic freedom tends to stimulate economic activity, which tends to result in fewer people overall having not enough.

Then you would agree with what this guy is saying I would take it Smile
Wow, how much has changed in just 50 years. Makes me scratch my head and wonder just who is really in the game these days(not speaking of EVE), the players seem different. Stark contrast in any case.

I'm in it for the money

Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12

Jago Kain
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#46 - 2012-12-11 01:19:54 UTC
never mind

One original thought is worth a thousand mindless quotings - Diogenes.

Max Godsnottlingson
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#47 - 2012-12-11 07:59:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Max Godsnottlingson
The point that everybody is missing is as follows.

Small businessman in the UK messes up his tax returns and underpays the inland revenue £5,000. Once the error is detected, they demand the money back, in full, now. Due to the current economic climate, he's struggling, get threatened with jail if he doesn't pay, ends up having to sell his house and downsize.

Starbuck and countless other multinational avoid paying millions of pounds worth of tax and what does the inland revenue say

"Oh you little tinker, tell you what you volunteer to pay a tad and we'll look the other way".

Governments, business and the banks see us, the hard working masses as nothing more then cash cows to be milked for everything while they continue to live it up. I am no exponent of communism, but you know what, at times it would feel OK, if it gave me a chance of getting some payback from the fat cat money grubbers!

While it is slightly separate from the OP, one thing has always stuck with me.

My brother is an accountant. I will never forget something he said when he was studying. "Forget your burglars, robbers, even mafia types.

"There is more money stolen at the stroke of a pen then everything else put together."
Borascus
#48 - 2012-12-11 08:16:12 UTC
The investigators are being paid and have work.
The Tax office workers are being paid and have work.
Starbucks clearly had work.

Starbucks are being the scapegoat because, unlike cash in hand remedials anywhere in the country, they record all the work they've done - then clean the money away. Cash-in-hand repair work doesn't appear anywhere to be taxed. Likewise people expect civil servants to exist, hence/coincidentally there is always a scandal they are justifiably working on.


The UK is actually great.
Elias Greyhand
#49 - 2012-12-11 20:18:56 UTC
Morality and tax doesn't mix.

I fully support any person or organisation paying as little in tax as they can legally achieve; if it isn't illegal there is no wrongdoing and if it was really wrong why the hell is there a loophole that allows it?

If Starbucks LEGALLY paying a, realtive, pittance in tax is immoral then what's it called when the tax that I've paid for over a decade is being used to support people who won't work or who weren't even born in this country?

And what does this stem from really? Political point-scoring from a guy who can't remember where he keeps his children. I doubt sincerely this would have come to the attention of the general public if it hadnt been raised in the political arena by an inept Eton bum-boy.

"That which is done cannot be undone. But it can be avenged."

Jago Kain
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#50 - 2012-12-11 22:12:03 UTC
Elias Greyhand wrote:
Morality and tax doesn't mix.

I fully support any person or organisation paying as little in tax as they can legally achieve; if it isn't illegal there is no wrongdoing and if it was really wrong why the hell is there a loophole that allows it?

If Starbucks LEGALLY paying a, realtive, pittance in tax is immoral then what's it called when the tax that I've paid for over a decade is being used to support people who won't work or who weren't even born in this country?

And what does this stem from really? Political point-scoring from a guy who can't remember where he keeps his children. I doubt sincerely this would have come to the attention of the general public if it hadnt been raised in the political arena by an inept Eton bum-boy.


erm... where to start?

OK.

If there's a loophole to be taken advantage of it's generally there because those using it have used their undue influence to make it so. If it remains open after being discovered this is for the same reason.

Never met anyone who flat won't work. Met a few that couldn't. Met quite a few that shouldn't. Met a few from overseas who aren't allowed to because the rules say they can't whilst claiming asylum. Met even more who were working but now aren't and are in the position of soon being forced to go and do their old job for benefits + travel expenses because slavery is now fashionable again and big business has discovered it can sack grunt level employees and have them replaced by the state for free.

Eton bum-boy wouldn't be saying anything at all if attention hadn't first been drawn to it by those at the sharp end. Now it's out in the open he has to say something or he'd look complicit. Not pushing many laws to stop it though is he?

It's OK though because there are enough jobs in the UK for everyone so those that aren't working are doing so just for the luxurious lifestyle afforded those on benefits and once we've had the pogrom things will be back to normal and the money will all miraculously trickle down from the havens offshore to the betterment of all.

BNP is that way btw ------>

One original thought is worth a thousand mindless quotings - Diogenes.

Kirjava
Lothian Enterprises
#51 - 2012-12-11 22:38:36 UTC
Elias Greyhand wrote:
Morality and tax doesn't mix.


Why not?
Why shouldn't we use a Judge and Jury to maintain the intent of the law so stop the corporations taking the absolute **** like this? Starbucks main competitor globally has its base of operations in the UK (Costa Coffee) and pays its full taxes. It is in profit, where Starbucks tells the taxman if makes next to nothing in the UK.

If a foreign corporation can compete in the same market as a domestic and pay a fraction of the taxes, the law must be changed, and perhaps trade barriers erected. The EU is the largest economy on Earth, and London is the worlds financial hub. We aren't exactly in a weak position to rebuild our internal economy to take such morality into consideration.

If the thought that Costa should relocate themselves to Bermuda crossed your mind while reading this, then I think you may need to reconsider what we are trying to discuss.

[center]Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. /人◕‿‿◕人\ Unban Saede![/center]

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#52 - 2012-12-12 10:22:41 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Webvan wrote:
Elias Greyhand wrote:
Why does this nonsense about "moral grounds" keep cropping up in regards to tax? It's complete and utter BS.
Because all they do is fight over the socialized healthcare system, the many government jobs it supports, how to fund it and what they can get out of it. It's become a major issue in Europe, dwarfing all other issues for the most part. So if someone or something is not contributing their 'fair share' it becomes an issue of 'moral grounds' effecting everyone. So like in France, it becomes moral grounds to tax the producers 75% to save the failing system for the meager classes. It's really a lesson we should have learnt in the US by their example, so to not try to adopt the system here, but unfortunately we are not so knowledgeable about issues beyond our borders. Once it starts, there is no going back (seemingly) and you can only go deeper and deeper. Quite interesting...



Yep its the NHS that has bancrupt the country and not the massive deregulation of the banking sector and mismanagement and intoduction of ever more tax loopholes from a party that has a history of making a mess of the countries finances every time they get into powerRoll
Uudoo Graeth
Darkstar Squadron
#53 - 2012-12-12 13:43:19 UTC
Quote:
coffee swilling Apple Mac utilising...



I use a Mac, I swill Starbucks, but I'm not a liberal, nor do I read the Guardian..... Not all Mac users are evil... just the hipsters....of which I am way to old to be hip. And if you really look beyond Apple's "control" over their consumers, a Mac is really a somewhat stripped down version of BSD running on really efficient hardware that is difficult to get to (at least in the newer Macs). So be mindful that not all Mac users are liberal, swillers of delicious coffee. And I don't know where you've been the last decade or so but large companies trying to reduce their tax footprint is nothing new really.

There, that wasn't so bad. Carry on.
Borascus
#54 - 2012-12-12 14:07:17 UTC
Below all of this is the underlying process.

There are rules, the rules are accessible with the right level of effort.

Once you know all the rules, juxtapose.


As for the ignorance? I'm still 100% certain that all the loopholes, in all of the finances, in all the companies in the world, are not someone pulling a fast one, it must have been lots of people pulling a somewhat slow one, and now its undesirable.

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#55 - 2012-12-12 19:27:43 UTC
Dalmont Delantee wrote:
How is it costing the UK 24 billion a year? Thats not even Starbucks turn over in the UK

Starbucks isnt the only one avoiding taxes.
Webvan
All Kill No Skill
#56 - 2012-12-12 21:52:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Webvan
baltec1 wrote:


Yep its the NHS that has bancrupt the country and not the massive deregulation of the banking sector and mismanagement and intoduction of ever more tax loopholes from a party that has a history of making a mess of the countries finances every time they get into powerRoll
See case in point. Tax loopholes are destroying the country? That's acquisition and not distribution. Yes you must take money to spend it. If it wasn't spent, it wouldn't need to be taken, or spent less. And when there are programs that can take everything and still fall short of perfection, especially where human lives are concerned, the taking is never enough and it seems to become a moral issue.

But tax loopholes are there for favored companies, it becomes an issue when unfavored companies take advantage of the same tax loopholes. So what might be there for the kings fox breeding kennel company (to the HUNT!), well gets discovered and utilized by everyone else.

I'm in it for the money

Ctrl+Alt+Shift+F12

Previous page123