Starbucks boycott gaining momentum!

[Cyclone]

So basically we would tax revenue but if the tax take on any profits going down the corporation tax route would be bigger will take that chunk of money instead.

 

What about a business that actually makes a loss for the year, would they still be required to pay tax on revenue. For example, let's say a Sheffield based business had revenues of £20 million but its been a tough year and they make a small loss of £150K, would it seem fair that the taxman send them a bill wanting a £400K payment, 2% of £20 million.

 

It could be applied only to international businesses (by law), or to only businesses over a certain size...

[Guest]

i used to go starbucks.... but then went to costa when the queue in starbucks was too long... since then stuck to costa, still expensive for what it is though!

[JFKvsNixon]

A few thousand people in Caliifornia may be out of a job in the near future.

 

The Fresh N' Easy grocery chain which is owned by British supermarket giant Tesco will close it's doors in the new year unless it starts to make a profit or finds a buyer.

 

Unlike other supermarkets it's work force is not unionized so I dont know what Fresh N' Easy pay their employees or what the benefits are in comparison to those paid by their competitors but it's possible that they may pay lower.

 

A few of Fresh N' Easy's employees were interviewed on the news last night.

Some of them seem to be far from well off and living from paycheck to paycheck

 

Tesco have invested close on a billion pounds on their American adventure, with very little return, they lost £74 in the last six months. With their current problems with their UK business, losses of that nature were never going to be sustainable.

[caparo]

Of course if we reduced corporation tax a lot of companies that declare their profits abroad would declare them here instead. So Amazon, Google, McDonalds might pay considerably more tax here and considerably less elsewhere. A bit like Liberia registered ships.

[gnvqsos]

Its very simple really. The home company which can be based anywhere (e.g. a very low tax rate country) can charge the company in the uk 100% of its profits so it is making no uk profits for HMRC tax. The money gets shipped off to the home company where it is taxed at a lower rate. We are in an international agreement which means the money can't be taxed twice. its perfectly legal.

 

Personally I think revenue should be taxed instead of profits. They are using our national services and benefitting from them so they should help pay for them regardless of profits. If they aren't making a profit they can go take a running jump!

 

I think osborne wants to go for the lowest tax rates. Which just makes it a problem for other countries and solves nothing.

 

Can everyone tell I know none of the terms and nothing about economics:hihi:

 

I really really hope starbucks goes bust-minging coffee:gag:

 

If you tax revenue then loss-making firms will forced into liquidation more readily and firms will find ways to conceal their income streams.I think your economics is no worse than that practised by G Osborne.

[Cyclone]

It's practically impossible to conceal revenue, and that would be evasion and not legal avoidance.

[Kernal]

I like their coffee,so what if they don't pay tax? Who cares?

[denlin]

I like their coffee,so what if they don't pay tax? Who cares?

 

The government probably and all those of us who have to pay it for another?

[gnvqsos]

It's practically impossible to conceal revenue, and that would be evasion and not legal avoidance.

 

How do drugs barons build up such large fortunes with little intervention from the tax authorities?It may seem hard to disguise but many imaginative entrepreneurs find ways to achieve this objective.

[Kernal]

The government probably and all those of us who have to pay it for another?

 

It is illegal to evade paying tax, but it is immoral to pay it at the present levels applied. I would sooner behave illegally than immorally.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Kernal