A Taxing debate

[SuuPRlim]

Saving grace is they at least try to hide it, not like the bloody yanks,


2 hours at $400 an hour should = $800 shouldn't it. Does it fuck.

[DungBeetle]

Nonetheless Starbucks have actively avoided paying tax in this country. As far as I can see arbboy isn't liable to pay tax. Is this right or am I missing something?
Do you work for Starbucks Dwayne? Or just really love their coffee?

To be fair Starbucks also aren't liable to pay corporation tax.  Their profits chargeable to corporation tax are tiny, and agreed by the Revenue. 

We can argue about what parliament intended by its tax laws, but that is a murky road to go down.  The fact is the law should be considered black and white.  If Starbucks are doing something wrong then HMRC should pick them up on it.  They clearly aren't, so if we are not happy with Starbucks' behaviour then Parliament should change the law.  Moaning at Starbucks won't get us anywhere - they are only doing what is best for their shareholders.

[horseplayer]

Click to see full-size image.

[SuuPRlim]

maybe that's what the government WANTS you to think the media is trying to make you think?

I'm moving to Russia.

[AlunB]

The 3% number is tad disingenuous as I believe it only refers to jobseekers allowance. There is also a huge chunk of money going towards housing benefit and other types of income support.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending

[samurai]

Pretty sure the government didn't intend to let Starbucks avoid declaring taxable profit by borrowing money from other parts of their business at high interest rates or by paying royalties to sister companies with more favourable tax regimes when they framed the laws. Murky road or not.

The point I was trying to make was that it seemed a touch harsh to take umbrage with an individual not paying tax they're not liable for, for criticizing a global corporation who have at best been creative with their accounting in the past.

That said if the chancellor who abolished boom and bust let them get away with it for that long good luck to them!

[DungBeetle]

The inter company loans and inter company royalties were foreseen as they are covered by transfer pricing laws.  Now, these laws may not be stringent enough, but the solutions seems to change these laws/rules as opposed to us all getting angry at Starbucks.  It's possible that away from the general outrage, the government looks at the VAT, PAYE, NIC and business rates that Starbucks generate and figure it's not in their interests to make things difficult.  Taxation of corporations is a balancing act for Governments. 

Point taken though that it's a different scenario than an activity being completely tax exempt.

[samurai]

Yep. Definitely agree about the laws needing to be changed/applied more rigorously. To be fair to the UK governments past and present without global cooperation it's nigh on impossible to maximize revenues.
That said it's interesting to note that Starbucks did pay 5 million last year so perhaps a bit of negative publicity/ public outrage isn't such a bad thing.

[DungBeetle]

Very true - I couldn't believe it when Starbucks did that.  I thought it weakened their posiiton considerably.

[DaveShoelace]

Could be worse guys http://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/09/poker-and-taxes-belgium-increases-taxes-19389.htm

[arbboy]

20 more high earning big spending punters moving to London then.   Why would you ever want to tax people at 75% who are successful at their profession as a country?  Like having a restaurant and charging £500 a head for a starter and wondering why your restaurant is empty every night.

[DungBeetle]

Yep - the concept some governments don't seem to realise is that when they set their tax rates and regulations, they are effectively pitching to a rich individual or company for that person/entity to set up there and make it their base.  Obviously there is a balancing act and people/companies should be willing to pay for the services/infrastructure of that country, but set it too high and they'll simply go somewhere else or look at ways to avoid the burden.

The counter argument people make is "good riddance" but of course if all the contributors leave them your country is bankrupt.

[redarmi]

20 more high earning big spending punters moving to London then.   Why would you ever want to tax people at 75% who are successful at their profession as a country?  Like having a restaurant and charging £500 a head for a starter and wondering why your restaurant is empty every night.

Probably to discourage people from doing it as a profession in the same way as the UK governmant taxes cigarettes and alcohol heavily to discourage use.

[AlunB]

A quick google seems to suggest top rate of tax is 50% in Belgium. Assume the 75% figure means poker winnings would be subject to some form of additional capital gains style tax.

Also seems like a pretty hefty tax rate whoever you are. Lowest earners paying 25% tax.

[simonnatur]

Just like you can buy shampoo with the promise that it will leave your hair up to 100% flake free, Politicians can "look to" tax poker players up to 75%.

Seems that some pro poker players in Belgium form limited companies and pay tax on that basis on their activities. My guess, since the article mentions that only 20 players are likely to be affected, is that they are threatening those who won't go down this route with a big stick.