I just think we should be eternally grateful, as a nation, to these selfless companies for continuing to offer their services to a thankful nation, despite them doing so at a loss, year after year. Could they not apply for charitable status?
Actually... they've probably already tried it
Starbucks should be taxed on revenues not profits (as per my post earlier) the rate would only need to be 2% or 3%, if they don't like it they can leave and we can go back to small independently run shops.
That doesn't work though, because there is only an incentive for high margin sales. If CT was 3% on revenue then a profitable business producing high volumes, but selling at low margins would be screwed.
Jamabalaya, re the Starbucks stuff. When this was last debated, I looked through Starbucks investor presentations and never saw any comments on "profitability". Not sure how apocryphal that story has become or otherwise? But like edlong, I an not convinced that revenue taxes are the correct (if any) solution.
That doesn't work though, because there is only an incentive for high margin sales. If CT was 3% on revenue then a profitable business producing high volumes, but selling at low margins would be screwed.
Pretty sure we can legislate* so we just make Starbucks do this if they dont like it they can leave
We need to be as target them tbh
* if we cannot it is Europes fault right:wink:
Pretty sure we can legislate* so we just make Starbucks do this if they dont like it they can leave
We need to be as target them tbh* if we cannot it is Europes fault right:wink:
I'm not convinced that having laws to target specific, individual companies is the way forward. Who is going to decide which companies are targetted, and with what? The "Comment is Free" crowd on the Guardian website? Richard Littlejohn? Mark Thomas? hora?
As I've said before on one of these "corporate tax avoiding bastards" threads, there's plenty of tax avoided by people that don't hit the front pages of the press, such as your friendly local plumber / builder / motor mechanic doing jobs for cash (avoiding VAT, and tax on profits) and also paying their workers cash-in-hand (avoiding employers' NI and allowing the workers to avoid NI and income tax). It's no different. No, hang on, actually it is different. The Vodafones, Starbucks, Googles etc. are aggressively using the available legal framework to their best advantage. The local builder working for cash / paying in cash is absolutely, indisputably breaking the law and acting utterly dishonestly.
Who's the villain?
