Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Starbucks donít pay a buck in tax in UK for 3 years
The Sun, UK ^ | Monday 15 October 2012 | The Sun, UK

Posted on 10/15/2012 11:06:06 PM PDT by granada

STARBUCKS was yesterday slammed for “gaming” Britain — as it emerged the coffee king hasn’t paid a bean to the taxman in THREE years.

Experts claimed that, since 1998, the American coffee firm has paid just £8.6 million in income tax here.

Over the same period it has generated more than £3 billion of sales as customers flock to its cafes for cappuccinos and lattes.

The chain — which prides itself on being “ethical” — has been able to cut income tax by paying fees to other parts of its global empire, such as royalty payments for use of the brand and interest on inter-company loans.

This means Starbucks UK effectively makes a LOSS.

The coffee chain has not broken any law and yesterday insisted HM Revenue & Customs did not have a problem with its activities.

But Labour MP and tax campaigner Michael Meacher hit back: “They are trying to play the taxman, game him. It is disgraceful.”

Matthew Sinclair, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, added: “Taxes are too complicated.

“It means that companies can exploit loopholes to minimise their bills.

“It also means the public is losing trust in a system that is in need of drastic reform.”

The row comes days after social networking site FACEBOOK was blasted for paying just £238,000 in corporation tax in the UK last year.

A four-month investigation by news agency Reuters revealed yesterday that Starbucks has not declared a profit since 1998.

But bosses have told investors the UK is “profitable” — and in 2007 the UK business was doing so well it was funding growth elsewhere in the world.

In 2008, Seattle-based Starbucks recorded a £52 million loss — yet at the same time founder Howard Schultz was saying he would be applying lessons learned in Britain to its domestic market, the US.

In a statement last night, Starbucks said: “We have paid and will continue to pay our fair share of taxes in full compliance with all UK tax laws, as we always have done.

“There has been no suggestion by any authority that we are anything but compliant and good taxpayers.”


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: starbucks; tax; uk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last
It's legal.
1 posted on 10/15/2012 11:06:15 PM PDT by granada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: granada
Opening the sliding door and FAIL.


2 posted on 10/15/2012 11:22:18 PM PDT by Orange1998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: granada

Exactly. I say kudos to Starbucks, and I’m not a big fan.

So Starbucks reduced their tax outlays... cry me a fricken river Lefties.


3 posted on 10/15/2012 11:30:37 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (We should ignore the absurd peripheral, and focus on the absurd Obama. People died. He lied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Orange1998
Vehicle logo FAIL.

CC

4 posted on 10/15/2012 11:34:40 PM PDT by Celtic Conservative (Q: how did you find America? A: turn left at Greenland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Orange1998

Lol


5 posted on 10/15/2012 11:52:21 PM PDT by granada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne; granada
And yet Freepers regularly (and rightly) point out that it's hardly fair that 47% of US citizens pay no income tax.

The problem with Starbucks and similar corporate entities using legal loopholes to reduce their tax burden is that someone else has to pick up the slack. And as that someone else would be me, forgive me if I don't share your appreciation of their creative accountancy.

6 posted on 10/16/2012 12:36:48 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

it’s a smart way to reduce their taxes — and perfectly legal.


7 posted on 10/16/2012 12:45:48 AM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: granada

Good for them.


8 posted on 10/16/2012 12:58:16 AM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

The problem with Starbucks and similar corporate entities using legal loopholes to reduce their tax burden is that someone else has to pick up the slack. And as that someone else would be me, forgive me if I don’t share your appreciation of their creative accountancy.


What slack are you talking about, is it paying for some one elses condoms, housing and food for professional unwed mothers or some other professional live free artist.

Or maybe you are talking about the government grants in the millions of dollars some one who call them self a scientist may get to study why a dissected frog can not croak.

Or maybe the millions of dollars the people in power comes up with all of a sudden after they come into power or why the so called public servants get more just in extra benefits than the people who pay them, the tax payers, get total income.

Any one who believes that all of this government crap in any country is ok should be willing to pay much more than their fair share of the tax.

The u.s. government use taxes and regulations to rob big and small business,s for the purpose of putting them out of business and bring in socialism.

If some of these business,s goes over seas to another socialist country who would do the same thing and beats them i see nothing wrong with that.


9 posted on 10/16/2012 1:32:42 AM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Orange1998

Good for Starbucks. You tax lovers probably don’t appreciate it but a successful company is being bashed. I say good for Starbucks. As long as it is legal, I say go for it.


10 posted on 10/16/2012 2:22:41 AM PDT by napscoordinator (GOP Candidate 2020 - "Bloomberg 2020 - We vote for whatever crap the GOP puts in front of us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

And yet Freepers regularly (and rightly) point out that it’s hardly fair that 47% of US citizens pay no income tax.

The problem with Starbucks and similar corporate entities using legal loopholes to reduce their tax burden is that someone else has to pick up the slack. And as that someone else would be me, forgive me if I don’t share your appreciation of their creative accountancy.


Kinda like those who whine about individuals getting money from the govt....but support big business and banks when the government bails them out (anyone who votes for a Congress critter who voted for bank bailouts...this is you)

And, Starbucks is quite a leftist company...so I surely will not celebrate a liberal dodging the same taxman that they want everyone else to pay up to.

BTW...Costa Coffee....their Brit competitor...has much better coffee


11 posted on 10/16/2012 3:22:55 AM PDT by SeminoleCounty (Political maturity is realizing that the "R" next to someone's name does not mean "conservative")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: granada
“It means that companies can exploit loopholes to minimise their bills."

At least Mr. Sinclair properly called it "tax minimization" rather than the illegal "tax avoidance."

What is it with libs who think people and companies should pay more to The State than required by law? Then you have people like Romney who paid 59% of his income combined to taxes and charity -- one coerced theft and the other generosity of the heart. Will Obama excoriate Romney tonight for not paying the entire 59% to The State?

12 posted on 10/16/2012 3:25:13 AM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: granada

What??? No wait: they are all about social justice and the poo-er and all sorts of lefty bs! And they are trying to stiff a tax bill?

They should be paying MORE than they should because thats what they claim to believe!

Yep its all good when its thee...not so hot when its me.

Sure take advantage everywhere you can of the breaks you can...but don’t support the hectoring to do otherwise....


13 posted on 10/16/2012 3:26:50 AM PDT by Adder (No Mo BO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: granada

Yeah..but I’m sure they paid a pound or two somewhere....


14 posted on 10/16/2012 3:27:47 AM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeminoleCounty

Exactly. You can’t have it both ways. It doesn’t matter if you are an individual mooching off the government or a major corporate player - the principle is that your success or failure should not be dependent on government largesse (as opposed to your own efforts). Similarly, you can’t condemn the 47% using their political will to avoid paying taxes and yet applaud when a large company does the same.


15 posted on 10/16/2012 4:03:52 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf
Great rant, and totally and utterly irrelevent.

The point at issue here is how taxes are collected, not what government spends its money on. The objects of government spending is a separate issue. If you disagree with some crazy scheme the government subsidises, then you are certainly entitled to campaign against it. If you think that taxes are too high, then you can certainly campaign against that too. But you don't get to refuse to pay on the grounds that you disagree with what it is being spent on.

Think on it. If you allow such a principle to stand, then you will have environuts refusing to pay income tax on the grounds that it will be going towards nuclear power, or even worse, nuclear weapons. Ravening moonbats will refuse to pay sales tax because the money might be buying a new jet fighter, or improved highways instead of carbon reducing public transport systems.

Britain has decided it will need x amount of money to pay for y amount of expenditure. You can quibble about the figures, but that is what the duly elected government of the UK has decided. Now if Starbucks, or any other entity - be it corporation or private citizen, does not pay its bit of that tax bill, that means that everyone else has to pay just that little bit more. That is just logically true. And as I am a UK taxpayer who regularly pays on the nail I'm none too happy about that.

I'm also quite sure, in spite of your bravado, that if some Brit company set up in the US and didnt pay any taxes for three years you wouldnt be too happy either, especially when your own highly inflated tax bill drops onto the porch.

16 posted on 10/16/2012 4:32:50 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

They’ve claimed to be ethical to local farmers, not royalty.
Perhaps the queen didn’t get the memo.


17 posted on 10/16/2012 4:35:27 AM PDT by Morris70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: granada

Don’t they pay VAT tax? Don’t their employees pay income taxes? Geez.


18 posted on 10/16/2012 4:36:28 AM PDT by Larry Lucido (Romney/Ryan 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mo
“Yeah..but I’m sure they paid a pound or two somewhere”

The article mentions them paying only millions on billions in sales. Typical statist position that “all your money belongs to us”.

I'm not an expert in British tax laws, but do they not pay property tax on each location? Do they have employees that they pay wages to that subsequently pay taxes?
If you tally up all the tax revenue associated with the business, it's suppliers and investors, I doubt it's a minuscule amount.

19 posted on 10/16/2012 4:49:04 AM PDT by bitterohiogunclinger (Proudly casting a heavy carbon footprint as I clean my guns ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

Corporations don’t pay taxes.
Corporations COLLECT taxes from their customers.


20 posted on 10/16/2012 5:31:51 AM PDT by Little Ray (AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: granada
The coffee chain has not broken any law and yesterday insisted HM Revenue & Customs did not have a problem with its activities.

Buried about half way into the article. So basically this is rabble rousing and there is no story.

21 posted on 10/16/2012 6:10:09 AM PDT by pepsi_junkie (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

The trouble is Vanders, that many people here on FR are crypto-anarchists see government as an evil to be thwarted at any opportunity, rather than a neccessary civic institution that needs to be maintained with taxes payable by every citizen.
Frankly, it annoys me to see large corporations avoiding tax with creative accounting, whilst ordinary plebs such as myself end up having to cough up the full amount and probably more thanks to their tax dodging. I find it hilarious that they view these people as heroes for cheating the government when they themselves are probably just ordinary guys like the rest of us who end up getting stiffed for more taxes to make up the shortfall caused by these tax-dodging corporations...


22 posted on 10/16/2012 6:41:11 AM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: granada

It’s always the most leftist companies that avoid paying taxes it seems


23 posted on 10/16/2012 6:43:02 AM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

I understand your viewpoint. I would remind you that we don’t have an under-taxation problem. We have an over-spending problem.

Government destroys money. The private sector grows it.

Government spending is not self-sustaining.

Private enterprise is.

Anyone who can avoid taxes legally, is doing the Lord’s work as far as I am concerned.

One thing to take into consideration here, is this was taking place in Britain


24 posted on 10/16/2012 9:26:10 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (We should ignore the absurd peripheral, and focus on the absurd Obama. People died. He lied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sinsofsolarempirefan; Vanders9

I would like to know if you two refuse to take your personal deductions on your tax return. Have you refused to take your mortage deduction? Please fess up.

All Starbucks was doing, was taking measures that are fully compliant with tax law.

This is anarchistic? Whew!

In our nation, the federal government is tasked with doing perhaps 5% of what it does today legally, by the U. S. Constitution. Is there a reason why sound Conservatives shouldn’t take it to task for gobbling up so much of this nation’s wealthy year after year?

You guys need to rethink you opinions if you wish to be considered Conservatives.

Guys, I just sent this by private FReepmail by accident. Sorry about that.


25 posted on 10/16/2012 9:34:36 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (We should ignore the absurd peripheral, and focus on the absurd Obama. People died. He lied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Thanks Cronos. Sure seems that way to me.


26 posted on 10/16/2012 9:37:35 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (We should ignore the absurd peripheral, and focus on the absurd Obama. People died. He lied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

I have never intentionally contrived to search for loopholes in order to pay less tax. And if they have exploited what amounts to a legal loophole that goes against the spirit of the relevant legislation, then it should be closed.

Whether the government imposes too many taxes is a separate issue, and it doesn’t give someone, least of all a big corporation, the right to dodge taxes that mean that more of the burden of taxation falls on the shoulders of ordinary people like ourselves. I don’t see these people as Robin Hood style heroes at all. They are more like insurance fraudsters whose selfish antics mean higher premiums for honest customers.


27 posted on 10/16/2012 4:56:36 PM PDT by sinsofsolarempirefan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

On that logic I dont pay taxes either. I collect taxes from the company I work for.


28 posted on 10/17/2012 12:19:06 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

That is very true.


29 posted on 10/17/2012 12:22:12 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Of course we primarily have an over-spending problem, but the solution to that, surely, is to reduce spending, which is a separate issue to this.

The issue here is that a very large, very powerful corporation is using its ability to afford very good tax lawyers to squirrel its substantial profits overseas away from the tax man. I don't doubt it's all legal and I'm quite sure that a good chunk of the motivation of the authors of the article is envy, but that doesn't make what Starbucks has done ethical. After all, as a private citizen, I dont have access to the legal loopholes they do.

I am taking the fact that this is in Britain into consideration. I'm a UK freeper.

30 posted on 10/17/2012 12:34:19 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Personal allowances are deducted at source in the UK, so I dont have much choice in the matter. There is no mortgage deduction any more. As a good conservative I paid off my mortgage years ago anyway.

There is no reason at all why sound conservatives shouldn't take the US government to task for over spending, wasting money and exceeding its alloted powers. I regularly do the same with the UK government. That however has nothing to do with this issue, which is about government income, not expenditure.

31 posted on 10/17/2012 12:44:16 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

Presumably you also collect a little revenue for dividends for the stockholders, and to cover expenses, like yourself.


32 posted on 10/17/2012 3:46:45 AM PDT by Little Ray (AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
I work for a privately owned company, so there are no stockholders.

I prefer to think of myself as a revenue generator, not an "expense". Certainly I generate more revenue than is expended on me.

Irrespective, the point I was trying to get over is that all economic activity is interelated - individuals and corporations alike get their income from each other. Each entity retains its own rights and obligations though.

33 posted on 10/17/2012 4:13:52 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

But you don’t get to refuse to pay on the grounds that you disagree with what it is being spent on.


Yeah, we have people in this country who thinks along that same line and that is why this country is following right along in the steps of socialism.

If you believe the Government should be able to spend the tax money any way they choose i sure am glad you are still over there.

We already have too many people in this country who can not think of only one aspect of a particular issue.

For instance it is kind of ridicules to try to determine how to collect tax that should not be collected in the first place.

It is no different than figuring how to kill some one when you are not supposed to kill.

Use tax is what our Government is supposed to run on and if they can not do that then the people in Government needs to be replaced.

I don,t know if you are familiar with history or not but extortion money collected in the form of a tax is what got the tea from your country of socialists dumped into the harbor, that is also what should happen to the income tax.


Ravening moonbats will refuse to pay sales tax because the money might

So what has sales tax got to do with it? in you own words it is utterly irrelevent.

Besides you can refuse to pay sales tax just by not buying anything, a different issue.


I’m also quite sure, in spite of your bravado, that if some Brit company set up in the US and didnt pay any taxes for three years you wouldnt be too happy either, especially when your own highly inflated tax bill drops onto the porch.

You might think you are sure, but you don,t know how wrong you are, i am among the people who still believe that socialism is evil and income tax is a socialist program.

Big difference between income tax and use tax.

Use tax = if some one uses something they pay for it, income tax = extortion= socialism.


34 posted on 10/17/2012 6:29:27 AM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf
Yeah, we have people in this country who thinks along that same line and that is why this country is following right along in the steps of socialism.

What, just because of that?

If you believe the Government should be able to spend the tax money any way they choose i sure am glad you are still over there.

No, I believe I as a citizen should be telling the Government how to spend the tax money they raise.

For instance it is kind of ridicules to try to determine how to collect tax that should not be collected in the first place. It is no different than figuring how to kill some one when you are not supposed to kill.

Erm...I kind of think it is very different. Government has become too powerful and too intrusive and should be pegged back. But I do believe there actually should BE a government. And such a government is always going to need to be funded. Therefore discussions on how it should be done are perfectly legitimate. Killing people however very rarely is.

I don,t know if you are familiar with history or not but extortion money collected in the form of a tax is what got the tea from your country of socialists dumped into the harbor, that is also what should happen to the income tax.

I know enough about history to know that this comfortable meme that some Americans cosset themselves with is nothing more than a big fat juicy LIE. In the first place, the tax involved was an inport duty, which every nation in the world used. In the second place, it was chucked into the harbor AFTER the tax was REDUCED, by people were incensed they wouldnt make as much money via smuggling the stuff any more, and in the third place, Britain was in no way a socialist country then, on the grounds that socialism hadnt been invented yet.

So what has sales tax got to do with it? in you own words it is utterly irrelevent.

You've pounced on the words "sales tax", but in the context it is perfectly relevant. The point is that if you have a system whereby people decide they are not going to contribute to a public purse because they disagree with some aspect of Government spending, then pretty soon the whole system will collapse because no part of public spending does not meet with someone's disapproval. The issues are separate. If you believe that the government should not spend money on something, then the correct response is to campaign to have that something stopped. If you don't believe there should be an income tax at all, then campaign to have that changed.

You might think you are sure, but you don,t know how wrong you are, i am among the people who still believe that socialism is evil and income tax is a socialist program.

Ok, then I apologise for my presumption. However, do you really believe that it is possible to run a country the size and complexity of the US without income tax?

35 posted on 10/17/2012 8:15:46 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

Okay, you’re a Britain Freeper, and I apologize if I included a subtle insult in there by mistake. It wasn’t intended.

You raise some valid issues to discuss. I think you make some decent points.

One thing I think is interesting, is that Starbucks is generally thought of as a Leftist leaning organization. (at least that’s my perception) As such, you would think they would be more than happy to pay more than their fair share of taxes. That’s what U. S. Democrats espouse as a belief. Strangely, when it comes to them, they don’t follow through. It’s just for peons like me that they hold this theory.

I will say that Starbucks has fiduciary responsibility to it’s shareholders to turn the most profit it can.

I just look at taxes as destroyed wealth. I look at money an individual or corporation gets to keep, as money that will be put to good use hiring people, purchasing things, or parceling out to shareholders.

You do make valid points in objection. I appreciate the response.


36 posted on 10/17/2012 9:44:20 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (We should ignore the absurd peripheral, and focus on the absurd Obama. People died. He lied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

To me, the mortgage deduction is bedrock. I don’t have a mortgage, but I believe support for the family home translates as support to families and communities.

I understand where you are coming from. I don’t deny you have a valid point to support. I admit to having an aversion to governments taking money from their working citizens.

Fundamentally, I do agree that some funds should be siphoned off for government, but that level of funding is so much less than what is taken today, that I can’t find it in myself to really care when an entity finds a way to avoid paying taxes legally.

If Britain has eliminated the mortgage write-off, you can be certain this loophole will be plugged in short order.

Take care.


37 posted on 10/17/2012 9:51:53 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (We should ignore the absurd peripheral, and focus on the absurd Obama. People died. He lied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

Ok, then I apologise for my presumption. However, do you really believe that it is possible to run a country the size and complexity of the US without income tax?


To make a long story short, yes i do believe they can run the government on all of the other taxes they collect, there are nine states that do not have an income tax.

If the states can do it so could the federal Government if they wanted to, that is why our federal Government was to have limited power,to keep it small, but people found that they could vote for free hand outs by voting for the socialists and the socialist programs which in turn called for bigger Government.

And you are right the Government could not possibly support over 40 percent of the people with out robing the rich ( income tax ).

The problem is that congress according to the constitution can only collect taxes to pay their debts, millions of dollars in grants to every tom, dick, and harry are not debts and neither is welfare programs.

One issue leads to another so the fact that some one may say that starbucks are not paying their fair share may only be a single issue to you but to me in the U.S.it involves all of the issues involving income tax.

It changed us from what we at least thought was a free country to a police state.

I am about as poor as a church mouse, but when i hear some one say that the rich do not pay taxes it always turns out to be nothing but a lie, so i automatically get riled because i don,t like the poor me sobs to begin with.

The poor people do not pay taxes so where the hell does the Government get the billions of dollars every year to take care of all of the freeloaders who will not take care of them selves?

And that is the only apology i am giving.


38 posted on 10/17/2012 8:34:28 PM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9
However, do you really believe that it is possible to run a country the size and complexity of the US without income tax?

Run the country?

Or run the government?

Quite telling that you conflate the two.

The American people are quite capable of running the country with a fraction of the "help" we are getting from the Federal government.

39 posted on 10/17/2012 8:50:21 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (So?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass; Vanders9

And I think tax evaders are heroes.


40 posted on 10/17/2012 8:51:22 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (So?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

I don’t know the tax system in the UK. None of us does, I venture to say. perhaps you can enlighten us.

In this country it is absurd, it is unjust, it is corrupt, and for that last reason it is impossible to reform - political careers depend on it remaining what it is - absurd, unjust, corrupt. We’ve been talking about the reform for at least 30 years - no can do.

That is why tax evasion (by those who owe taxes, not by the moochers who collect from the gummint!) is considered by many a noble occupation in this country.


41 posted on 10/17/2012 8:58:28 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Thank you for your consideration. Civilised conversation is muuch appreciated!

I must admit I am unaware if Starbucks has any political inclinations one way or another, but finding out any leftist leaning organisation does not "put its money where its mouth is" is hardly surprising. If you can bear to listen to their propoganda for any length of time, you hear constant references to greedy rich people hoarding wealth, but of course what constitutes "rich" is never defined. "Greedy rich" basically means "other people", which of course accounts for its success with the electorate. Its a variation of the blame game. Its always someone else's fault, and therefore its someone elses responsibility to fix it.

It seems to me that Leftist companies, even very large and obviously wealthy ones, buy into this line of reasoning too, illogical though it is. They support helping "the poor" (another very nebulous term) with government aid, which is financed through higher taxes that someone else will pay! Great isn't it?

42 posted on 10/18/2012 12:05:35 PM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

Which brings us back to Margaret Thatcher’s salient point. “Socialism works fine until it runs out of other people’s money.” Paraphrased from Memory


43 posted on 10/18/2012 12:30:32 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (We should ignore the absurd peripheral, and focus on the absurd Obama. People died. He lied!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I understand your aversion to paying taxes. It's not the kind of thing many people enjoy doing after all. One part of me says "good luck" to starbucks for reducing their tax bill, but then again, I know that them doing that means that my own tax bill will be increased.

I understand where you are coming from with mortgage deduction, but there are some very serious problems with it, as the UK government found out to its cost.

Firstly, it is a form of benefit. By having a mortgage deduction the Government is effectively subsidising people's houses, not directly by giving them money, but indirectly by not taking as much from them. Therefore, the government is making up the shortfall (and it will be a considerable sum) by other means. Probably a higher overall tax rate than it would otherwise charge. In other words, (and these are demonstrative figures - I dont know what the actual rates are) instead of a tax rate of 20% with no mortgage deduction, they are charging you 22% but giving you 4% off for your mortgage. You might think you are "up" by that, but those people who don't have mortgages might not agree with you. They are effectively subsidising your house. Does that seem fair?

But the real problem with mortgage deduction is that it pushes up the price of housing. It pushes up the cost of all housing all the time, but it does it particularly in times or in areas where housing is in short supply. If you go to buy a house you will have a budget for it, based on your savings and your income. But the first thing any realtor will point out (because they are on commission based on the value of the properties they sell) is that because of mortgage deduction you can actually afford a bigger and more expensive house, because taking out a mortgage will mean a reduction in the amount of tax you pay. But of course everybody gets mortgage deduction, so in effect you have more money chasing the same number of houses. And what, basic economics 101, happens to the cost of commodities when there is a surplus of money sloshing around chasing them?

Maggie Thatcher's government in the UK instituted a mortgage deduction scheme for the usual reason - to encourage people to buy their own homes. It worked too. Many people took advantage of the scheme. It was very popular and helped the Conservatives greatly in several elections. However, the cost of housing in the UK sky rocketed as a result. Property where I lived quadrupled in value in five years.. Succeeding Conservative governments realised the error and scaled the deduction down slowly until it was finally abolished, but the damage had been done. It is now impossible for ordinary working people to afford property in certain parts of the country. Like all of London for example.

44 posted on 10/18/2012 12:46:53 PM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf

OK fair enough, but the solution to that is to reduce the spending of the Federal government to its proper proportions, not to flag wave for a large corporation that is wriggling out of paying. Ultimately, it would be better if the overall tax bill was reduced, and that way corporations would lose incentives to dodge tax bills because it simply wouldnt be worth their while. In the meantime, they should pay up the same way everyone else does, not so? Do you think for one moment that Starbucks is doing this because they share your disgust at the abuse of Federal power?


45 posted on 10/18/2012 12:58:19 PM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Your memory does not deceive you. It’s quite true as well.


46 posted on 10/18/2012 1:07:33 PM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass

Even though they are effectively taking the money from you?


47 posted on 10/18/2012 1:25:41 PM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

No, they’re not.


48 posted on 10/18/2012 3:48:05 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (So?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Vanders9

Ok, i can see your point, however starbucks do not make the laws, they just get by with what they can get by with just like any one else, if people in the government are getting money under the table from starbucks we can blame no one but them as they are the ones who are supposed to be working for us, not starbucks.


49 posted on 10/18/2012 4:39:28 PM PDT by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass

OK they’re effectively taking it from me then.


50 posted on 10/19/2012 12:37:41 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson