A Taxing debate

[dwayne110]

Starbucks also create circa 8,500 jobs in the UK, whose wages then get pumped back into the economy. Wonder how many UK employees pokerstars have? I'll go for the under.

[arbboy]

Starbucks also create circa 8,500 jobs in the UK, whose wages then get pumped back into the economy. Wonder how many UK employees pokerstars have? I'll go for the under.

poker stars probably have 10000 'employees - poker pros' who pump way more into the 20% vat economy than starbucks zero hour contract min wage guys do.  Does that make it ok for Starbucks to pay fuck all uk corporation tax?

[david3103]

Starbucks also create circa 8,500 jobs in the UK, whose wages then get pumped back into the economy. Wonder how many UK employees pokerstars have? I'll go for the under.

Lots of companies employ 8,500 people, or more and Starbucks can't avoid having that many if they pursue their tactic of a coffee shop on every corner. I'd guess most of them get minimum wage and with a standard tax code that doesn't generate much in the way of tax, and not a huge amount in the way of priming the economic pumps.
They use clever/devious/dirty (delete according to view) manoeuvring of their internal costs to reduce their tax bill in this country. It's currently legal for them to do this, but adjusting the laws to revise this situation seems to me to be more important, and money generating, than adjusting the laws on taxation in respect of gambling winnings.

[redarmi]

Nhs is in a lot of trouble, should be privatised IMO.

Schools are the big thing that public spending should focus on, in an ideal world.

I don't want to get into this argument but privatising healthcare really wouldnt be a good thing for most people financially.  My wifes salary in the States is about $2.5k a month and the healthcare costs for her and my daughter that come out of that are $600 a month and that is with her company contributing a decent amount on top of that for her.  Despite paying this when she was pregnant I still ended up paying about $8k in deductibles (with almost all healthcare plans you have to pay the first 10% up to a certain amount).  The overall bill just for the three days she was in hospital when she had Liv was nearly $35k and that is without certain special care she had to have during her pregnancy etc.  So many people live in constant dread that any kind of illness could wipe them out for years even if they have healthcare and it doesnt even bear thinking about for those that don't.

[dwayne110]

Arbboy, you're so full of shit it's unreal.

[arbboy]

Arbboy, you're so full of shit it's unreal.

Please expand why i am full of shit so i can correct you. ty in advance.  Would be nice if you answered my question first though as to why it's perfectly acceptable for a company the size of Starbuck's to pay hardly any uk corporation tax even though their profits in this country are huge  before telling me i am full of shit!

[dwayne110]

'The main reason I chose to be a professional gambler was the tax advantage of being allowed to do it' - Arbboy, page 10 of thread

Followed by something along the lines of  'Starbucks should be kicked out of Uk cos they don't pay enough corporation tax'

To be clear, I don't like Starbucks practises in paying less tax than they should, they do it because they can get away with it. But for you to have a dig when you freely admit you do what you do to avoid tax is ridiculously hypocritical at best.

And I agree, yes you should start paying N.I.

[arbboy]

'The main reason I chose to be a professional gambler was the tax advantage of being allowed to do it' - Arbboy, page 10 of thread

Followed by something along the lines of  'Starbucks should be kicked out of Uk cos they don't pay enough corporation tax'

To be clear, I don't like Starbucks practises in paying less tax than they should, they do it because they can get away with it. But for you to have a dig when you freely admit you do what you do to avoid tax is ridiculously hypocritical at best.

And I agree, yes you should start paying N.I.

I don't avoid any tax.  I make an honest living doing what i do and choose to do it over being a trader in paid employment for a living because i was financially better off doing it.  My income is exempt from income tax period.  Always has been always will be.  Starbucks income isn't exempt from uk corporation tax barring some tiny legal loophole.  Costa run thousands of identical shops to them s long the same products and pay corporation tax. There is no doubt about this in the slightest.  I don't have to fiddle figures between my other operations in other EU countries to lower my tax bill in the uk (tiny legal loopholes which should not even exist but high class tax accountants find them for these firms - they will disappear in a number of years unlike the laws on my income which will not change in the slightest and haven't changed in the slightest in decades) because i legally have no tax bill in the uk.  Your argument is stupid and pointless.  I do what i do because i am 1000% legally better off doing it than working a job in the same industry.  If i was offered a £250k a year job at lolbrokes tomorrow paying 50% income tax i would be on the same gravy train as you are.  It's just a pure business decision for me nothing about avoiding tax.  I have never avoided paying any tax i am due to pay at any stage of my life.

How do you know if i pay NI or not?  Do you work for the tax man?  Do you have access to my personal records?

[dwayne110]

Your defensive barrage of questions was sufficient to answer my one, lol.

Ok, so why did you write the main reason for your current choice of work is the 'tax advantage' if you do not 'avoid' tax? Either retract your original comment, or continue your random tangent of arguments until they trip over themselves, again. Maybe it's a 'pure business decision' for Starbucks to maximise their position to minimise their tax too?

[pleno1]

L it's not tax surely.

If you can earn 100k and pay 30k in tax obviously you'd do that over earning 50k and paying zero.

Nobody chooses a job on how much tax they pay, it's just about net amount At
End of the year.

[dwayne110]

Arbboy does, apparently

[arbboy]

Your defensive barrage of questions was sufficient to answer my one, lol.

Ok, so why did you write the main reason for your current choice of work is the 'tax advantage' if you do not 'avoid' tax? Either retract your original comment, or continue your random tangent of arguments until they trip over themselves, again. Maybe it's a 'pure business decision' for Starbucks to maximise their position to minimise their tax too?

Why isn't it a pure business decision of Costa  to fiddle their figures and pay no uk corporatiom tax and every other coffee shop in the uk then who sell identical products to identical customers in identical areas? Every rival of mine ( fellow professional gamblers all pay the same legal amount of tax due on their earnings - zero. This is set by the government and out of our hands.

The main reason for my current line of work is purely financial like most people's work decisions. They tend to take the jobs which pay them the most money 100% legally.  That is what I have done most of my life.

[arbboy]

Arbboy does, apparently

If you actually read my replies you would see what you said it wrong as usual.  I said if I was offered a 250k year a job at lol brokes paying 50% tax I would probably be back paying tax. Like Pleno correctly stated i have no problem paying income tax I have paid lumps of it for half my working life and if the best opportunity in the future involved it again I woukdnt think twice as long as It was 100% legal. Not sure where you are getting confused here?

[redarmi]

Your defensive barrage of questions was sufficient to answer my one, lol.

Ok, so why did you write the main reason for your current choice of work is the 'tax advantage' if you do not 'avoid' tax? Either retract your original comment, or continue your random tangent of arguments until they trip over themselves, again. Maybe it's a 'pure business decision' for Starbucks to maximise their position to minimise their tax too?

Why isn't it a pure business decision of Costa  to fiddle their figures and pay no uk corporatiom tax and every other coffee shop in the uk then who sell identical products to identical customers in identical areas? Every rival of mine ( fellow professional gamblers all pay the same legal amount of tax due on their earnings - zero. This is set by the government and out of our hands.

The main reason for my current line of work is purely financial like most people's work decisions. They tend to take the jobs which pay them the most money 100% legally.  That is what I have done most of my life.

Pretty sure most people don't do this actually.  I would say 90% of the arguments you have on here come from your worldview that everyone makes decisions based 100% on their financial impact (certainly this one and to a large degree the ones on scottish independence) and actually for most people that isn't the case.  They make decisions for a whole host of reasons but maximising the amount of money they make is actually not why people get a lot of jobs.  If that was the case nobody would become nurses, teachers, social workers and loads of other professions that don't pay that well but have a social good.

[arbboy]

Your defensive barrage of questions was sufficient to answer my one, lol.

Ok, so why did you write the main reason for your current choice of work is the 'tax advantage' if you do not 'avoid' tax? Either retract your original comment, or continue your random tangent of arguments until they trip over themselves, again. Maybe it's a 'pure business decision' for Starbucks to maximise their position to minimise their tax too?

Why isn't it a pure business decision of Costa  to fiddle their figures and pay no uk corporatiom tax and every other coffee shop in the uk then who sell identical products to identical customers in identical areas? Every rival of mine ( fellow professional gamblers all pay the same legal amount of tax due on their earnings - zero. This is set by the government and out of our hands.

The main reason for my current line of work is purely financial like most people's work decisions. They tend to take the jobs which pay them the most money 100% legally.  That is what I have done most of my life.

Pretty sure most people don't do this actually.  I would say 90% of the arguments you have on here come from your worldview that everyone makes decisions based 100% on their financial impact (certainly this one and to a large degree the ones on scottish independence) and actually for most people that isn't the case.  They make decisions for a whole host of reasons but maximising the amount of money they make is actually not why people get a lot of jobs.  If that was the case nobody would become nurses, teachers, social workers and loads of other professions that don't pay that well but have a social good.

This is true but the vast majority of people decide what career they want to enter for enjoyment etc then choose the best paid role within the industry they can find which suits their personak situation.