Google proud of tax evasion !

18 Dec 2012

Quote by GnV
I think this is where the confusion arises.
Tax avoidance isn't necessarily legitimate.
See HMRC website for details.

Nor is it necessarily illegitimate.
Quite right Gnv
We all know HMRC don't like it, of coarse they don't, they feel they are loosing money,but they don't make the tax laws
Those who can lessen there bill through loopholes will, and rightly should
I think Gnv analogy of those who shop for a bargain is a good one, those who shop for a bargain are also robbing the government of VAT, and should be ashamed of them selves, denying school's, hospital's and such like of vital funds wink

18 Dec 2012

I'm glad you understood the analogy Blue.
For a moment, I thought I was losing my touch :undecided:

18 Dec 2012

Actually Blue, GnV the analogy is a poor one. It's not the same thing at all in the case of companies like Google and Starbucks.
If I save money on one item I have money left over I might not have had as change that I can then spend on another item. Exchequer gets two bites at the cherry, the total VAT take from the £100 in my pocket remains the same so long as I spend that £100 on VATable items here whether I spend on one item or many, agreed? And the net goes towards goods and services in this country supporting local economies.
What happens when companies are moving their profits offshore? The exchequer is denied his cut, and the cash isn't even being reinvested in the local / national economy. It's a loss every which way. They are avoiding any and all obligation to pay back into this country some measure of what they take out of it in funds, their business being supported by tax-payer funded infrastructure, services and benefits. It's immoral, simple as.

18 Dec 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
Actually Blue, GnV the analogy is a poor one. It's not the same thing at all in the case of companies like Google and Starbucks.
If I save money on one item I have money left over I might not have had as change that I can then spend on another item. Exchequer gets two bites at the cherry, the total VAT take from the £100 in my pocket remains the same so long as I spend that £100 on VATable items here whether I spend on one item or many, agreed? And the net goes towards goods and services in this country supporting local economies.
What happens when companies are moving their profits offshore? The exchequer is denied his cut, and the cash isn't even being reinvested in the local / national economy. It's a loss every which way. They are avoiding any and all obligation to pay back into this country some measure of what they take out of it in funds, their business being supported by tax-payer funded infrastructure, services and benefits. It's immoral, simple as.

Neil I think you are seriously missing the most valid of points. It may well be ' immoral ' as you have pointed out above, but NOT illegal. When did people give a feck about morals? Only when it suits is when. Hypocrisy is alive and well, and people seem to like picking at the things they find immoral, and yet disregard those others when it suits.
Why have you got such an issue with morality Neil? Has everything you ever done been based on your own morals?

18 Dec 2012

I suppose neil it depends on whether you spend the saved money on a cup of coffee at Starbucks......
But, that aside, there was no intention to compare individual spending with the tax take (or lack of it) from Starbucks.
The comparison was about choice.
I think the parallel was a tad too subtle and lost on most observers.

18 Dec 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
When did people give a feck about morals?

Everything that is wrong in the world today in a nutshell Star. I may not have lived up to my own high standards at times Star, no. Having high standards does sometimes make them difficult to achieve I guess. Difference is, I do at least have standards, and aspire to them.

18 Dec 2012

Quote by flower411
When did people give a feck about morals?

Everything that is wrong in the world today in a nutshell Star. I may not have lived up to my own high standards at times Star, no. Having high standards does sometimes make them difficult to achieve I guess. Difference is, I do at least have standards, and aspire to them.
And this is the point being missed the most here !
Having morals, aspiring to them and maybe not quite making the grade is totally different to going out of your way to be immoral !
Interesting viewpoint about immorality from a member of a swinging site who enjoys unbridled sex with strangers....

18 Dec 2012

Quote by flower411
I don`t find sex with strangers immoral. You must be referring to somebody elses morals !

Nor me.

18 Dec 2012

Quote by GnV
When did people give a feck about morals?

Everything that is wrong in the world today in a nutshell Star. I may not have lived up to my own high standards at times Star, no. Having high standards does sometimes make them difficult to achieve I guess. Difference is, I do at least have standards, and aspire to them.
And this is the point being missed the most here !
Having morals, aspiring to them and maybe not quite making the grade is totally different to going out of your way to be immoral !
Interesting viewpoint about immorality from a member of a swinging site who enjoys unbridled sex with strangers....
Exactly right yet again, morals are not set in stone, they are fluid. What one person feels is immoral, another person may not. What I feel is immoral today, I may not tomorrow. Who is to judge which set of morals are correct?

18 Dec 2012

Of course social mores change with time, of course we quite often ignore social mores and define our own moral code for ourselves independently of what wider society says, our membership here being a case in point. It is however possible to say whether something is morally right or morally wrong objectively. You look at the impact, who wins, who loses, and how great the disparity between the win and the loss.
If it could be shown that companies like Starbucks, Google, whoever who use tax avoidance schemes of this kind damage a greater number of people, or damage nations / national economies as a whole so that a relatively small number of owners / investors / shareholders / whatever can maximise their profits at the absolute expense of the losers in this scenario it should be quite easy to determine whether that is morally right, or morally wrong. It's really not that difficult.

18 Dec 2012

Quote by GnV
When did people give a feck about morals?

Everything that is wrong in the world today in a nutshell Star. I may not have lived up to my own high standards at times Star, no. Having high standards does sometimes make them difficult to achieve I guess. Difference is, I do at least have standards, and aspire to them.
And this is the point being missed the most here !
Having morals, aspiring to them and maybe not quite making the grade is totally different to going out of your way to be immoral !
Interesting viewpoint about immorality from a member of a swinging site who enjoys unbridled sex with strangers....
Or for some members to have sex whilst others watch on a cam. Ones persons morals are not another persons. Of course people on here would think it totally moral to have sex with strangers, and yet plenty of other places and people would find it completely immoral.
It seems that there are plenty of people who would find what the likes of Starbucks has done completely immoral, yet those same people given the chance of getting away with not paying their taxes would jump at it. Of course they could and would bleat about they would not as they have morals........yeah very easy to say that on a swingers forum, but in reality I know what they would do given the chance, and that it the thing about tax. If you are PAYE you have no choice in the matter.
Morals eh? Some have them and some would love others to have them. Oh the hypocrisy and double standards on this site is unbelievable at times.

18 Dec 2012

Quote by neilinleeds
Of course social mores change with time, of course we quite often ignore social mores and define our own moral code for ourselves independently of what wider society says, our membership here being a case in point. It is however possible to say whether something is morally right or morally wrong objectively. You look at the impact, who wins, who loses, and how great the disparity between the win and the loss.
If it could be shown that companies like Starbucks, Google, whoever who use tax avoidance schemes of this kind damage a greater number of people, or damage nations / national economies as a whole so that a relatively small number of owners / investors / shareholders / whatever can maximise their profits at the absolute expense of the losers in this scenario it should be quite easy to determine whether that is morally right, or morally wrong. It's really not that difficult.

Neil is that your way of saying that because you are a swinger, that is moralistically right?
Ok then Neil a scenario. We all know there are plenty of guys on this site who openly cheat on their wives, and yet is that moralistically right or is that a judgement we should not make? Is that not up to us to judge others behavior? But if we do as what you are saying above, do we then sit down and think about the guys Wife being led a merry dance? We are not here to judge others people morals but you want to judge others behavior because that does not sit well with you?
The very bones of peoples morals could be dissected regarding people on a swingers site, and the damage it could do to their other halves who have no idea. Would that be a fair and honest assessment Neil?
Why is it worse to avoid tax as a moral issue, and yet not have the same morals on this site with what people do or get up to?

18 Dec 2012

Quote by Too Hot

The Facebook pages and social efforts to boycott Starbucks will affect only British franchisees and British employees but it satisfies the tiny minds of envious Socialists who can't bear wealth and success to be so public.

I was going to leave this thread as it is going nowhere, but this !!! really? tiny minded socialists ?? what absolute utter short sighted closed tiny minded bollocks ... I cannot think of any socialist who's beliefs are based on idea of a politics of envy is nothing more than poorly considered propaganda from those greedy capitalists who cannot see beyond their own envy of the wealth of others and their desire to claim that wealth for themselves
So the boycott is having an effect on the Capitalist ownerrs of Starbucks is it? Or is more likely affecting UK based franchisees and employees?
Pointless exercise that causes more damage locally than good.
Don't think I made any comment whatsoever about the boycott (looks up , reads, rereads) no ....nothing relating to the boycott in my post