chem1st Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Does he also suggest that we boycott HMRC by not paying Income Tax, since HMRC sold and leased back their offices to a company based in an offshore tax haven? If their cared for the people they would call for a RENT STRIKE! But many of our Mps are landlords, some are renting out their taxpayer funded 2nd homes for profit and claiming 2nd homes allowance to rent a third property! Our own Clive Betts for example... Another MP to benefit is Clive Betts, who previously came under fire for accepting match tickets and hospitality from McDonald’s at the Euro 2004 and 2006 World Cup football tournaments. Before the Election, the Sheffield Labour MP had no rental income and claimed £992 a month for a second-home mortgage on his £500,000 fifth floor flat in Westminster. It is a five-minute walk from the Commons and includes access to a private swimming pool, sauna, gym and 24-hour porter. In the new Commons register Mr Betts declares ‘one residential property in London from which rental income received.’ MPs are not required to say how much they get from private rental income, but the estimated rental value of Mr Betts’ flat is around £2,000 a month. The flat was well furnished – thanks to taxpayers. Mr Betts claimed £1,268 for carpets, a £570 sofa bed; a £689.99 television; £1,433.50 for decoration; £1,220 furniture; and a £1,135.20 bed. A neighbour there said a new female tenant now lived at the flat, adding: ‘We’ve heard that Mr Betts is now renting somewhere round the corner while renting his own flat to cover the mortgage.’ And the new IPSA records show that, like Mr Crausby, Mr Betts now also claims the maximum £1,450 per month for rent. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335753/MPs-expenses-Politicians-cash-THIRD-HOME-ploy.html#ixzz29VBoeW9Q Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 The other thing that would be done would be to encourage people to legally buy and consume duty free goods, because we the public are taxed to the hilt. Taxation in this currency is very regressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 On News at ten tonight an MP has advised people to boycott Starbucks for non payment of corporation tax. This is a tax on their profits, and they have paid £0. As the MP said there are plenty of other coffee shops on the high street that pay their fair share, so people can show their disapproval by voting with their feet and using those. I know this has been mentioned before, but it's the first time I've heard a member of Parliament suggest it. Maybe this is the start of real people power. You elect idots then. As an MP he should be doing his job as a member of the government in bringing the issue to the attention of the paricular dept of government which oversee the operation of the Inland Revenue Tax Collection Service All that boycotting Starbucks will do is to is to cause people to lose their jobs or have to go part time because of the drop in business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 All that boycotting Starbucks will do is to is to cause people to lose their jobs or have to go part time because of the drop in business. No it won't. It will just displace trade, and therefore jobs, to other businesses. Hopefully one who pays its dues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 You elect idots then. As an MP he should be doing his job as a member of the government in bringing the issue to the attention of the paricular dept of government which oversee the operation of the Inland Revenue Tax Collection Service All that boycotting Starbucks will do is to is to cause people to lose their jobs or have to go part time because of the drop in business. Those people can get jobs in other tax paying coffee-shops. Lower revenue for Starbucks is good for the UK, if they are sucking money out of the country and not paying tax. The job losses that would result in the USA are not the UK's problem. And instead of the money going abroad, the money could be used to create new jobs in the UK instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parvo Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Can't stand Starbucks anyway , but have boycotted the following : Virgin - for trying to profit from the NHS (shame on you ) and killing a few rain forests in order to send me childish "promos"- so you think you can turn me on , eh ??? And the s%@t they send by post can't even be composted ! HSBC - for LIBOR and alleged drug money laundering Big Six power suppliers - I have no choice , but to cancel monthly DD and insist on quarterly bills which I will pay at MY convenience and when I am ready TV licence - again might cancel DD and wait and see what happens People power , love it good for you --am a keen on boycotts-don't see giving my hard earned to companies that make me:gag: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 George Monbiot wrote this article 18 months ago, its very telling now. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/07/tax-city-heist-of-century Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 As an MP he should be doing his job as a member of the government in bringing the issue to the attention of the paricular dept of government which oversee the operation of the Inland Revenue Tax Collection Service.Won't make a blind bit of difference. The way Starbucks gets away with...operates is nothing new, tons more (UK) businesses have been doing exactly the same for years and years: they run the UK operation at break even (no profit to tax) or even at a slight loss (enough to offset any sort of tax liability, through relevant reliefs), and whatever profit they make is paid out as a business liability to a holding company overseas (somewhere with a much lesser rate of corpo tax, most probably Ireland Switzerland, as it happens) under a license to use the trade marks, trade dress, trade secrets (recipes etc.) (which are all owned by the holding co. and licensed to the trading arm co.) Standard stuff. All explained here for Starbucks, scroll to around middle of the page ("A LICENCE TO LOSE MONEY" sub-title). To do away with that, you need to either meddle directly into such businesses' affairs (a most unlikely proposition), or legislate the problem closed. EDIT at Harleyman So your tax collection system is therefore useless at it's job. US companies have been evading the "useless US tax collection system" for donkeys, locating their EU HQs in Ireland for the exact same 'tax trick' as I describe above. You might want to google Microsoft's Round Island One, for instance (or read the above linky, which also refers to it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 No it won't. It will just displace trade, and therefore jobs, to other businesses. Hopefully one who pays its dues. So your tax collection system is therefore useless at it's job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 So your tax collection system is therefore useless at it's job. I'm not sure how your got that... No it won't. It will just displace trade, and therefore jobs, to other businesses. Hopefully one who pays its dues. ... from this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.