Here we go again. Starbucks is being attacked in the UK for tax avoidance.
No, nothing is "lost" if it was never due to begin with.
No, since companies do pay their fair share of taxes, non-due taxes cannot fund anything. None of these companies are breaking the law.
Cuts in putative services do not force women to face a dilemma, when any such dilemma is a false dilemma anyway. There are more alternatives than that.
And again, no corporation can ever pay taxes.
Yes, VAT is collected at the cash register, but corporate taxes are collected at the cash register too. When you buy a Starbucks coffee, you pay any and all of Starbucks taxes. If Starbucks paid more taxes, then you'd just pay more for Starbucks. Or not. There is a point when people will by an alternative.
If you think a good way to fund women's services is to have Starbucks charge more at the cash register, since they pay more taxes (or not avoid more taxes) then your commitment to women's services cannot be too serious.
Yes, all of these big nontax paying companies get huge benefits by being big. They can pay the millions a year necessary to comply with the legal loopholes. The corner independent coffee shop cannot.
Cost of government is a huge drag on the economy. One cost of government are whimsical programs proved after decades to be risible, such as the pointless centibillion dollar Head Start program in USA.
Now, if you say eliminate the funding for these programs, people will scream that you are against kids getting a chance or women escaping abusive relationships. That may be true, but it does not change the fact that these programs are independently proven worthless. It would be two separate issues.
It also ignores there is a better way to provide a chance for kids and a sanctuary for abused women. It shows that the people who want to tax Starbucks more do not understand how economics work, and are hardly in a position to advocate for a better way. Too bad, since I would like to join them myself, because I agree on the goal. The solution is called freedom, something most people automatically reject.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
Sarah Greene, a UK Uncut activist, said funding for refuges and rape crisis centres faced cuts unless companies paid their fair share of tax. HMRC estimates around £32bn was lost to tax avoidance last year.
Greene said the government could easily bring in billions that could fund vital services by clamping down on tax avoidance, but was instead "making cuts that are forcing women to choose between motherhood and work, and trapping them in abusive relationships".
No, nothing is "lost" if it was never due to begin with.
No, since companies do pay their fair share of taxes, non-due taxes cannot fund anything. None of these companies are breaking the law.
Cuts in putative services do not force women to face a dilemma, when any such dilemma is a false dilemma anyway. There are more alternatives than that.
And again, no corporation can ever pay taxes.
"Over the last three years alone, our company has paid more than £160m in various taxes, including national insurance contributions, VAT and business rates."
However, MPs will no doubt point out that VAT is paid by the customers at point of sale and collected by Starbucks.
Yes, VAT is collected at the cash register, but corporate taxes are collected at the cash register too. When you buy a Starbucks coffee, you pay any and all of Starbucks taxes. If Starbucks paid more taxes, then you'd just pay more for Starbucks. Or not. There is a point when people will by an alternative.
If you think a good way to fund women's services is to have Starbucks charge more at the cash register, since they pay more taxes (or not avoid more taxes) then your commitment to women's services cannot be too serious.
Yes, all of these big nontax paying companies get huge benefits by being big. They can pay the millions a year necessary to comply with the legal loopholes. The corner independent coffee shop cannot.
Cost of government is a huge drag on the economy. One cost of government are whimsical programs proved after decades to be risible, such as the pointless centibillion dollar Head Start program in USA.
Now, if you say eliminate the funding for these programs, people will scream that you are against kids getting a chance or women escaping abusive relationships. That may be true, but it does not change the fact that these programs are independently proven worthless. It would be two separate issues.
It also ignores there is a better way to provide a chance for kids and a sanctuary for abused women. It shows that the people who want to tax Starbucks more do not understand how economics work, and are hardly in a position to advocate for a better way. Too bad, since I would like to join them myself, because I agree on the goal. The solution is called freedom, something most people automatically reject.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment