# Tax avoidance



## andy williams (Apr 15, 2016)

High st coffee chains avoiding paying tax to HMRC:

Starbucks

Cafe Nero

Costa

Any others ?


----------



## Missy (Mar 9, 2016)

Anyone here not try their best to minimise the tax they pay? (If you say to your accountant "please ensure I pay the most tax possible" I applaud you and suggest you get your head checked)


----------



## jimbojohn55 (Jan 15, 2016)

Tax avoiders should be made to drink McDonald's coffee, dressed as Ronald McDonald and then sent to the pedo wing at Strangeways - I know the drinking the coffee bit is harsh but they are evil people.

~


----------



## AMCD300 (Feb 11, 2016)

Most people use their first forum post to introduce themselves, declare their love of coffee and look for advice not make a weak politically-motivated statement.


----------



## Missy (Mar 9, 2016)

AMCD300 said:


> Most people use their first forum post to introduce themselves, declare their love of coffee and look for advice not make a weak politically-motivated statement.


Yes but where's the fun in being a nice normal person when you can troll the internet annoying people with sweeping statements?!

Personally I think we should outlaw all liquid without a caffeine or alcohol content. Who's with me?


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Missy said:


> Yes but where's the fun in being a nice normal person when you can troll the internet annoying people with sweeping statements?!
> 
> Personally I think we should outlaw all liquid without a caffeine or alcohol content. Who's with me?


But i like milkshakes ...

How about if doesn't include caffeine - alcohol or ice cream


----------



## Toby-IOM (Aug 8, 2012)

Although I'm a Mancunian through and through, I've lived on the Isle of Man for 15 years.. There's a shit ton of companies registered offices here that pay little to no tax.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Missy (Mar 9, 2016)

Mrboots2u said:


> But i like milkshakes ...
> 
> How about if doesn't include caffeine - alcohol or ice cream


Dairy intolerant here. Original edict stands.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Missy said:


> Dairy intolerant here. Original edict stands.


----------



## jlarkin (Apr 26, 2015)

Missy said:


> Dairy intolerant here. Original edict stands.


I'm sorry for your condition but I'm worried you're isolating yourself too much. Maybe include ice cream and then quietly drop it later once you're in power?


----------



## Missy (Mar 9, 2016)

jlarkin said:


> I'm sorry for your condition but I'm worried you're isolating yourself too much. Maybe include ice cream and then quietly drop it later once you're in power?


You are all under the sad misconception that this is some kind of democracy. I'm afraid that is incorrect.

The only possible recourse is for you to buy me a duck house in which to keep an Italian gelataria that makes those amazing "Sorbet" that are soft and gooey and creamy and not at all like British hard crunchy stuff.

Then I may allow icecream based drinks on Tuesdays and after 8pm on weekends.

(Of course you *could* put coffee or booze in your milkshake... Midori milkshake anyone?!)


----------



## jonbutler88 (Dec 31, 2015)

I went to GBK in Milton Keynes recently, and they do Jaegershakes now! Had to try one as I classify it as a cultural delicacy. Turns out - absolutely delicious!

Who'd of thunk it?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

Everyone has the right to avoid paying tax. No one has the right to evade paying tax


----------



## scottgough (Feb 9, 2016)

Might be in the minority here, probably get a flaming, but..... for me if its legal, it's not tax avoidance, it's being savvy. Should these companies pay more tax, yes without doubt, should we pressurise them to do it on a moral basis, no we shouldn't. No one should be forced to do anything on the basis of morals, they're subjective and different for everyone, that's why we have laws. The government need to tighten up the loopholes, and bring in new tax legislation. No more subjective decisions on what companies should morally pay, but clear legal tax legislation. Break the law, and the penalties should be harsh.


----------



## NickdeBug (Jan 18, 2015)

There is a big picture here.

Tax breaks for companies are routinely offered by all governments as incentives to bring their business to their country. If large multi-nationals choose to base themselves in the UK rather than France or any other MS, then we benefit from that investment through increased employment, all of whom are then contributing to the Exchequer rather than drawing on it.

Is this open to abuse? Yes.

Should we make draconian changes to the law and watch these companies disappear offto more accommodating nations? Debatable


----------



## malling (Dec 8, 2014)

You can't make a law that is without loopholes and at the same time not hurting the common man.

Loophole will always be present in legislations no matter how good these are put together.

Tax avoidance isn't really a crime, but it shows that a person or company lack moral and high ethics standards. It is also harmful for those countries that should have collected that individual or companies tax. Tax we all could have benefited from (in theory) now it only benefit those who successfully have avoided paying tax.

And we all know what that means, cut in welfare and other things funded by the state.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mister_Tad (Feb 9, 2015)

Mrboots2u said:


> But i like milkshakes ...
> 
> How about if doesn't include caffeine - alcohol or ice cream


Easy: Milkshake, meet Rum

That's what you call a loophole.


----------



## DavecUK (Aug 6, 2013)

scottgough said:


> Might be in the minority here, probably get a flaming, but..... for me if its legal, it's not tax avoidance, it's being savvy. Should these companies pay more tax, yes without doubt, should we pressurise them to do it on a moral basis, no we shouldn't. No one should be forced to do anything on the basis of morals, they're subjective and different for everyone, that's why we have laws. The government need to tighten up the loopholes, and bring in new tax legislation. No more subjective decisions on what companies should morally pay, but clear legal tax legislation. Break the law, and the penalties should be harsh.


I think you are quite correct, not matter how it may sit morally, it's not illegal. Any government of the day is quick to point this out and they love it when we all get behind them making a "moral" decision to pay. They love it even more when they blowhard about making approaches to these companies and they will remind them of their moral obligation and how they have "won" when they get a few small dribs of tax from a company when it decides it's going to pay us an amount of tax (because they think it's "the right thing to do").

With an ISA when a working class man is "savvy", he might save the interest on his investment, and ISAs don't get much interest anyway...but lets say he saves £300 per annum, when the very wealthy save tax, they save many millions. *When a large corporate can pay less tax than a nurse,* that's when we need to ask a question. The question we should be asking is why after so many decades and government after government, do these loopholes still exist?



NickdeBug said:


> There is a big picture here.
> 
> Tax breaks for companies are routinely offered by all governments as incentives to bring their business to their country. If large multi-nationals choose to base themselves in the UK rather than France or any other MS, then we benefit from that investment through increased employment, all of whom are then contributing to the Exchequer rather than drawing on it.
> 
> ...


Again a good point, but it's not really the right question and it's based on the premise that they will move if any other tax arrangement exist...successive governments also love this statement. They also love the employment angle, although in many cases, it's simply not true. facebook don't really employ anyone in the UK, Amazon do employ a few people on low wages and zero hours contracts, but our taxes, supplement the employment of those people with in work benefits, otherwise most of them would not be able to afford to live on the pay they get. There are many many other examples of this. In addition the lowest paid in society contribute very little to the exchequer. Where of course all the low paid end up spending a significant % of tax from their wages is in VAT. Governments love VAT, because it appears to be an equal tax on everyone, but is one of the biggest inequalities that exist, because it's a tax that is a massive % of a low paid persons wages and a very small % of the wages of the very wealthy.

So the question is not should we make draconian changes to the law, it's about how we need to change the way we tax earnings and the threshold at which that tax starts? Governments love complicated taxes (so do tax accountants), but the system doesn't need to be that complicated, it doesn't need VAT, NI, PAYE, SUPER TAX, Coporation tax etc.. etc.. etc.., nor all the laws that go with it. It's really quite simple. 2 Taxes, personal and business that has a starting threshold £x, everyone pays on all earnings (with all business taxed on turnover in the country of origin), no exemptions, no relief's and earnings are not taxed multiple times. e.g. no capital gains, no VAT, no tax on fuel etc.. etc..

I think once the numbers were done, we would all be surprised how low such a tax really needs to be.

Sure I present a slight oversimplification, but then I don't have all the numbers (or time to design a tax system), then again neither do the governments as Panama has shown. You might say, but the wealthy will make loads of money from property, paintings investments etc.. and not pay any tax...but remember, they mostly don't pay those taxes at the moment. The Inland revenue has thousands of people working for it, I simply can't believe the current tax system is the best they can come up with?


----------



## scottgough (Feb 9, 2016)

changes to tax rules don't have to be draconian, and the closing of all loopholes is unlikely to affect any of us earning 'normal' salaries.

I just think trying to penalize someone for doing something that isn't illegal is wrong. The thin end of the wedge? Law is non subjective for a reason.


----------



## Phil104 (Apr 15, 2014)

What sticks in my mind about this topic is the essential Italian belief: why would you trust a government with your money? One of the most depressing books that I have read is 'The Blunders of our Governments' by Anthony King and Ivor Crewe, which chronicles the shocking waste of tax payers' money by governments of any stripe - the £20 billion that was wasted in a failed scheme to update the London tube; at least £300 million in the failed attempt to introduce national ID cards; and a least £20 billion on the failed attempt to create a national NHS IT network. And of course £20 billion would go a long way to strengthening NHS provision.


----------



## andy williams (Apr 15, 2016)

Not a statement,weak, political or otherwise merely a question ?


----------

