I'm not talking about crooks, but for the legitimately earned money of billionaires, the expenses for setting up these companies and the fees paid to the lawyers and accountants must be enormous. Legitimate financial services look to get 5% of the money they transact, and if there are two or three intermediary services each taking a cut it will rapidly mount up. These fees are only worth paying if they save a lot more in tax. So the lower the rate of tax applied above a certain threshold the less is the incentive to attempt to avoid paying tax.
It could be cheaper and less hassle for many billionaires to leave their money in the UK and replace foreign lawyer and accountant fees with taxes, if tax rates were set to optimise tax revenues rather than political posturing (on both sides). Much of the overseas money can't be repatriated to the UK to be spent in the UK so we lose out on both counts.
We seem to get greater pleasure from more money being taken away from the rich in the misguided belief it brings them down nearer everyone else's level, than seeing them keep more money that stays in the UK to generate more economic activity, more taxes and more state funding for essential services and welfare.
Why do we have such a gap between the super rich and the poor? One reason might be because it's now easier to move wealth around electronically and the more countries try and tax the wealthy, the more they seek to avoid paying tax. Also, the more we try and block tax loopholes, and the more complex tax law becomes, then ironically the more are the possibilities of finding technical flaws in the rules.
Most countries, apart from tax havens, tax the wealthy at rates in excess of 50% when a rate nearer 20% would make it not worth the effort to avoid paying tax. A small rate applied to a big number often yields more than a high rate applied to a low number.
Tax relief for ISAs is just one example of where the UK has to give tax relief in order to avoid taxation inhibiting good behaviours of individuals and business, such as saving and investment. Billionaires choosing to move their earnings offshore is an example of taxation causing bad behaviour. Instead of eliminating the cause of the bad behaviour of billionaires we seek to punish them for not exhibiting good behaviours.
Tax havens would not exist if there was not a demand, choking off demand makes more sense to me than a futile chase of billionaires around the world who will always be one step ahead. Banking laws to make it too difficult to use tax havens combined with a reduction in tax rates Worldwide would make more sense to me if it has the effect of more tax being paid, than wailing about the existence of tax havens and wanting to punish rich bastards for making money and legally avoiding tax they have an option not to pay.
Got it! The solution to this is to tax rich people less. It is always the solution to reward those morally in the wrong. Like the MP expenses scandal – that was all about them not being paid enough!! Words fail me that people can put these ‘reasonable’ arguments forward with a straight face sometimes!
What a dumb response to a suggestion how to get the rich to pay more tax. An incentive is not a reward, nor is it a reward when you stop beating your wife.
I think the rich should be incentivised to pay what is fair and equitable. You do this by allowing a tax system that is so complex and impossible to access that in effect you are giving the very wealthy carte blanche to pay feck all. Who sets all this up and makes it possible ? Why the very wealthy of course.
1. As some people have pointed out, a lot of the tax avoidance is by companies, as opposed to rich individuals. They tend to use the excuse of 'duty to shareholders to avoid tax". Any tax. All tax.
2. While I have some sympathy with the argument that a lower level of tax might make some people think "ok why bother avoiding it" unfortunately there is no empirical evidence that this actually works. One reason is that there are different levels between nations on what is generally considered a reasonable rate. Unfortunately the CEE countries are full of people who still think they are keeping their money from the nasty totalitarian State. That's presumably why 300 Czechs are caught in this net, even though the top personal tax rate here is only 24%. Another reason is that many people do it, because they persuade themselves there is some kind of moral argument - they do not trust the State to spend the money wisely. I have heard you make something like that argument. It's an anti-society argument, to my mind, one that Richard Roper would doubtless espouse.
3. On the corporate tax side, it would of course help if there was a union of countries that could agree on common tax rates so that some countries didn't undercut their neighbours in a cheap attempt to attract tax revenue. Now, what is the nearest thing to that union in the current world?
4. Anyway these lower CIT rates are still not enough for the likes of Google and Facebook. You would presumably argue, look at Ireland, it attracts all the companies because of its lower CIT rate. Ah, but it is not enough for those crooks companies. Not only do they fabricate an argument that their business in the UK is "closed" in Ireland, thus allowing them to qualify for lower Irish CIT, but they then build a further complex web of structures that mean the Irish only get a fraction of what they would normally get if these companies were genuinely Irish "based".
The important thing about such disclosures is that it pushes the issue in the face of more ordinary voters and thus makes it more of a political issue. Heaven knows, that needs to happen in the UK. A huge amount of money is leeching out of the UK, yet hardly anyone on here gets really angry about it, compared to the number who claim to be terribly angry about " The EU".
When do we think the first batch of benefit fraud exposes will be run. Single mother of 9 in five bed roomed luxury villa while absent fathers deal crack cocaine on streets of Whereverville. She sits at home watching a 172 " flat screen TV.
It's just a matter of time before we need to be enraged again.
Essentially, these schemes were run by a legal firm so as to provide some form of legal protection - they would've been pretty watertight. However the secrecy and outrage demonstrates that although the actions may have been legal, it's a PR nightmare for the individuals involved more than anything.
1. As some people have pointed out, a lot of the tax avoidance is by companies, as opposed to rich individuals. They tend to use the excuse of 'duty to shareholders to avoid tax". Any tax. All tax.
2. While I have some sympathy with the argument that a lower level of tax might make some people think "ok why bother avoiding it" unfortunately there is no empirical evidence that this actually works. One reason is that there are different levels between nations on what is generally considered a reasonable rate. Unfortunately the CEE countries are full of people who still think they are keeping their money from the nasty totalitarian State. That's presumably why 300 Czechs are caught in this net, even though the top personal tax rate here is only 24%. Another reason is that many people do it, because they persuade themselves there is some kind of moral argument - they do not trust the State to spend the money wisely. I have heard you make something like that argument. It's an anti-society argument, to my mind, one that Richard Roper would doubtless espouse.
3. On the corporate tax side, it would of course help if there was a union of countries that could agree on common tax rates so that some countries didn't undercut their neighbours in a cheap attempt to attract tax revenue. Now, what is the nearest thing to that union in the current world?
4. Anyway these lower CIT rates are still not enough for the likes of Google and Facebook. You would presumably argue, look at Ireland, it attracts all the companies because of its lower CIT rate. Ah, but it is not enough for those crooks companies. Not only do they fabricate an argument that their business in the UK is "closed" in Ireland, thus allowing them to qualify for lower Irish CIT, but they then build a further complex web of structures that mean the Irish only get a fraction of what they would normally get if these companies were genuinely Irish "based".
The important thing about such disclosures is that it pushes the issue in the face of more ordinary voters and thus makes it more of a political issue. Heaven knows, that needs to happen in the UK. A huge amount of money is leeching out of the UK, yet hardly anyone on here gets really angry about it, compared to the number who claim to be terribly angry about " The EU".
Looking forward to Panorama...
I am saying you need to combine low tax with global action that makes tax havens unnecessary. You can't have common tax rates because it can't account for the differences between services provided by the public services as opposed to the private sector, but you could require a single tax rate (not a common tax rate).
The problem companies are those which provide services and finished goods rather than manufacturers. They can choose where the service is provided as opposed to where the benefits of the service end up. Starbucks charge me £2.50 for a coffee but the UK shop has paid £2.00 to the coffee supplier, another Starbucks company in Anygogoland. So the UK shop makes only 50p to pay wages and shop overheads which is why it doesn't declare a profit. How do you force Starbucks in Anygogoland to charge less? Or force Starbucks UK to declare a notional taxable profit without ending up messing up genuine arms length transactions of other UK companies? Apart from making Starbucks grow the coffee in the UK, there's one obvious guaranteed solution. We all stop buying Starbucks coffee anymore. The staff in the UK are laid off and their salaries stop being spent and they stop paying income tax.
You can be angry that UK consumers are contributing to Stabuck's profits that are not taxed in the UK, but Starbucks still contributes more to the economy than it takes out.
Google and Amazon are pure services and employ so few people in the UK they contribute very little to economic activity unless the goods we buy are made or supplied by UK companies. Again, stop shopping on line and shop in the high street if you don't like contributing to the non-taxed profits of an overseas service company. Technology and the internet has allowed companies to create virtual businesses which still have the identity of a separate person in law, it's naive to think that investors will not seek to maximise profits by legally minimising tax by using the capabilities of the digital world to split out virtual and real services.
It's just that it's invisible what is going on. Marks and Spencers could mimic Amazon if you bought your goods and made two separate transactions. You paid an amount equal to the cost of staff and premises at the counter for their services and then made an online transaction to the company that bought and delivered the goods supplied to Marks and Spencers. if that supplier happened to be outside the UK it wouldn't pay any UK tax, nor would Marks and Spencers be making any profit, they would just be employing thousands of staff spending their wages and paying income tax. That's why there is an argument to lose corporation tax revenue if it contributes positively to economic activity. The socialist view typified by @MuttleyCAFC is sod the extra economic activity and tax revenue, we'd rather be worse off than not have any corporation tax paid.
How do you argue Marks and Spencers is an offshore company and should account for the profits of a foreign logistics company that trucks in foreign goods to stock the shelves of Marks and Spencers for free. It's easy showing why it happens, not so easy to come up with ideas how to outlaw it without screwing up normal businesses.
Ultimately it's consumers who decide the path taken by commerce and all you need to do is ask if they want to pay more for goods and services in order to increase UK tax revenue. There's too much emotion clouding judgement as to what is the solution.
How about a revolutionary system of getting the rich to pay a fair amount? It isn't dumb because somebody like you says it is! Mine is not a socialist view - I am a capitalist - I just think people should be made to pay their fair share - if they can't do it of their own accord. My biggest influence isn't Marx but Keynes so please don't label what you don't understand.
I peruse it at times, admittedly - I feel a tad dirty when I reach the comments section.
Sometimes reading things online requires a degree of critical thinking, specifically with regards to cutting through conjecture and opinion and finding the actual accusations and/or facts. In this case those would be: some of the most outraged media outlets are also known to use very similar schemes.
With that in mind, it's very difficult not to see the hypocrisy involved.
I peruse it at times, admittedly - I feel a tad dirty when I reach the comments section.
Sometimes reading things online requires a degree of critical thinking, specifically with regards to cutting through conjecture and opinion and finding the actual accusations and/or facts. In this case those would be: some of the most outraged media outlets are also known to use very similar schemes.
With that in mind, it's very difficult not to see the hypocrisy involved.
If true it is hypocritical. The site is still crap and hard to read though, I just gave up.
No limit to human greed - never ceases to amaze me how corrupt and greedy some of the rich are. Hope the money chokes them.....
You are however looking at things in today's terms and in the light of today's tax regime. Which is relatively benign.
Back in the late 1970s. The investment income surcharge took tax rates up to 90%. Even Thatcher, at first only reduced the top rate of income tax to 60%. So, it is said that the Cameron's father's offshore trust was set up in the 1980s. Why would you not do that to protect your assets from the (entirely possible) madness that would have followed the election of a Labour Government under Michael Foot? The lunatic that was going to reintroduce exchange controls!
It is also reported, shock horror, that this trust hasn't paid any tax in the UK for 30 years. What a terrible thing! Or perhaps no income has been crystallised that would trigger a tax bill?
I might be out of date, but I think, still, there are simple offshore products where the income/capital gain is rolled-up gross. No tax except maybe some withholding becomes due until such time as a UK resident withdraws money. It's an entirely legitimate technique. So why wouldn't anyone use it to avoid the grasping hands of the taxman?
No limit to human greed - never ceases to amaze me how corrupt and greedy some of the rich are. Hope the money chokes them.....
You are however looking at things in today's terms and in the light of today's tax regime. Which is relatively benign.
Back in the late 1970s. The investment income surcharge took tax rates up to 90%. Even Thatcher, at first only reduced the top rate of income tax to 60%. So, it is said that the Cameron's father's offshore trust was set up in the 1980s. Why would you not do that to protect your assets from the (entirely possible) madness that would have followed the election of a Labour Government under Michael Foot? The lunatic that was going to reintroduce exchange controls!
It is also reported, shock horror, that this trust hasn't paid any tax in the UK for 30 years. What a terrible thing! Or perhaps no income has been crystallised that would trigger a tax bill?
I might be out of date, but I think, still, there are simple offshore products where the income/capital gain is rolled-up gross. No tax except maybe some withholding becomes due until such time as a UK resident withdraws money. It's an entirely legitimate technique. So why wouldn't anyone use it to avoid the grasping hands of the taxman?
Why do so many greedy c**ts think it beneath them to pay tax and are quite happy to indulge in money laundering and fraud. If nobody paid any tax then how the f**k would we pay for public services. I'm sick of selfish greedy f**ers who lie and cheat and then try to justify their actions - there are numerous politicians who operate beyond the law but aren't investigated because of their power. I don't buy the argument that all these arrangements are legal - it just happens that the rich and powerful don't want them investigated or the loopholes closed. I'm sick of being told that we should be grateful that the super rich pay any tax at all. It doesn't appear to matter what the tax rate is as some of them wouldn't pay tax anyway. Cameron and Osborne are both incompetent scumbags who seem more concerned with the Chinese economy than events in Britain. Osborne has proved a fairly inept Chancellor who gets an easy ride from Britain's right wing press - our current account deficit reached 7% of GDP in the last quarter of 2015 which is a shocking figure.
I peruse it at times, admittedly - I feel a tad dirty when I reach the comments section.
Sometimes reading things online requires a degree of critical thinking, specifically with regards to cutting through conjecture and opinion and finding the actual accusations and/or facts. In this case those would be: some of the most outraged media outlets are also known to use very similar schemes.
With that in mind, it's very difficult not to see the hypocrisy involved.
If true it is hypocritical. The site is still crap and hard to read though, I just gave up.
The staff in the UK are laid off and their salaries stop being spent and they stop paying income tax.
You can be angry that UK consumers are contributing to Stabuck's profits that are not taxed in the UK, but Starbucks still contributes more to the economy than it takes out.
Is this actually true?
If Starbucks stopped operating in this country for some reason, I suspect that every single one of their outlets would be taken over and potentially operated profitably by a normal tax-paying company.
I do not see any net loss of jobs or income tax.
Don't get me wrong. I value the investment, quality and competition (not to mention nice coffee) that Starbucks have brought to the UK. No way do I want them to go away!
BUT on a daily basis, I believe they do NOT contribute to the economy and their free use of the general infrastructure of the country amounts to a government subsidy.
The same argument about "contribution to the economy" is being used to justify West Ham's free occupation of the Olympic stadium. It works until you realise that all the "new" supporters might actually be spending their money elsewhere at local football clubs if they weren't lured in by cheap subsidised tickets!
The staff in the UK are laid off and their salaries stop being spent and they stop paying income tax.
You can be angry that UK consumers are contributing to Stabuck's profits that are not taxed in the UK, but Starbucks still contributes more to the economy than it takes out.
Is this actually true?
If Starbucks stopped operating in this country for some reason, I suspect that every single one of their outlets would be taken over and potentially operated profitably by a normal tax-paying company.
I do not see any net loss of jobs or income tax.
Don't get me wrong. I value the investment, quality and competition (not to mention nice coffee) that Starbucks have brought to the UK. No way do I want them to go away!
BUT on a daily basis, I believe they do NOT contribute to the economy and their free use of the general infrastructure of the country amounts to a government subsidy.
The same argument about "contribution to the economy" is being used to justify West Ham's free occupation of the Olympic stadium. It works until you realise that all the "new" supporters might actually be spending their money elsewhere at local football clubs if they weren't lured in by cheap subsidised tickets!
What a ridiculously naive and sheltered comment... Starbucks coffee is nice?!
The staff in the UK are laid off and their salaries stop being spent and they stop paying income tax.
You can be angry that UK consumers are contributing to Stabuck's profits that are not taxed in the UK, but Starbucks still contributes more to the economy than it takes out.
Is this actually true?
If Starbucks stopped operating in this country for some reason, I suspect that every single one of their outlets would be taken over and potentially operated profitably by a normal tax-paying company.
I do not see any net loss of jobs or income tax.
Don't get me wrong. I value the investment, quality and competition (not to mention nice coffee) that Starbucks have brought to the UK. No way do I want them to go away!
BUT on a daily basis, I believe they do NOT contribute to the economy and their free use of the general infrastructure of the country amounts to a government subsidy.
The same argument about "contribution to the economy" is being used to justify West Ham's free occupation of the Olympic stadium. It works until you realise that all the "new" supporters might actually be spending their money elsewhere at local football clubs if they weren't lured in by cheap subsidised tickets!
What a ridiculously naive and sheltered comment... Starbucks coffee is nice?!
The most insipid stuff, other then Mellow Birds, I've ever had (it's the official coffee on Delta and so bad that I refuse it on flights).
The staff in the UK are laid off and their salaries stop being spent and they stop paying income tax.
You can be angry that UK consumers are contributing to Stabuck's profits that are not taxed in the UK, but Starbucks still contributes more to the economy than it takes out.
Is this actually true?
If Starbucks stopped operating in this country for some reason, I suspect that every single one of their outlets would be taken over and potentially operated profitably by a normal tax-paying company.
I do not see any net loss of jobs or income tax.
Don't get me wrong. I value the investment, quality and competition (not to mention nice coffee) that Starbucks have brought to the UK. No way do I want them to go away!
BUT on a daily basis, I believe they do NOT contribute to the economy and their free use of the general infrastructure of the country amounts to a government subsidy.
The same argument about "contribution to the economy" is being used to justify West Ham's free occupation of the Olympic stadium. It works until you realise that all the "new" supporters might actually be spending their money elsewhere at local football clubs if they weren't lured in by cheap subsidised tickets!
What a ridiculously naive and sheltered comment... Starbucks coffee is nice?!
The most insipid stuff, other then Mellow Birds, I've ever had (it's the official coffee on Delta and so bad that I refuse it on flights).
Does Mellow Bird's still exist? I'm shocked, it was horrible.
The staff in the UK are laid off and their salaries stop being spent and they stop paying income tax.
You can be angry that UK consumers are contributing to Stabuck's profits that are not taxed in the UK, but Starbucks still contributes more to the economy than it takes out.
Is this actually true?
If Starbucks stopped operating in this country for some reason, I suspect that every single one of their outlets would be taken over and potentially operated profitably by a normal tax-paying company.
I do not see any net loss of jobs or income tax.
Don't get me wrong. I value the investment, quality and competition (not to mention nice coffee) that Starbucks have brought to the UK. No way do I want them to go away!
BUT on a daily basis, I believe they do NOT contribute to the economy and their free use of the general infrastructure of the country amounts to a government subsidy.
The same argument about "contribution to the economy" is being used to justify West Ham's free occupation of the Olympic stadium. It works until you realise that all the "new" supporters might actually be spending their money elsewhere at local football clubs if they weren't lured in by cheap subsidised tickets!
Let's get real here. Starbucks are only in our high streets because they make money. They provide a Service that people want. If they were to close every outlet in a hissy fit at being asked to pay a more realistic tax burden then let them. (As if)
Let those outlets be filled by by independent traders whose prime aim is to provide a service and good product and not stripe every last penny out of the country, customers and staff that work for them. Good riddance.
The staff in the UK are laid off and their salaries stop being spent and they stop paying income tax.
You can be angry that UK consumers are contributing to Stabuck's profits that are not taxed in the UK, but Starbucks still contributes more to the economy than it takes out.
Is this actually true?
If Starbucks stopped operating in this country for some reason, I suspect that every single one of their outlets would be taken over and potentially operated profitably by a normal tax-paying company.
I do not see any net loss of jobs or income tax.
Don't get me wrong. I value the investment, quality and competition (not to mention nice coffee) that Starbucks have brought to the UK. No way do I want them to go away!
BUT on a daily basis, I believe they do NOT contribute to the economy and their free use of the general infrastructure of the country amounts to a government subsidy.
The same argument about "contribution to the economy" is being used to justify West Ham's free occupation of the Olympic stadium. It works until you realise that all the "new" supporters might actually be spending their money elsewhere at local football clubs if they weren't lured in by cheap subsidised tickets!
What a ridiculously naive and sheltered comment... Starbucks coffee is nice?!
The most insipid stuff, other then Mellow Birds, I've ever had (it's the official coffee on Delta and so bad that I refuse it on flights).
Does Mellow Bird's still exist? I'm shocked, it was horrible.
Haha. Was that the cheesy TV ad where the woman pulled a face and said "bitter" about her cup of coffee before tipping it into a plant pot?
No limit to human greed - never ceases to amaze me how corrupt and greedy some of the rich are. Hope the money chokes them.....
You are however looking at things in today's terms and in the light of today's tax regime. Which is relatively benign.
Back in the late 1970s. The investment income surcharge took tax rates up to 90%. Even Thatcher, at first only reduced the top rate of income tax to 60%. So, it is said that the Cameron's father's offshore trust was set up in the 1980s. Why would you not do that to protect your assets from the (entirely possible) madness that would have followed the election of a Labour Government under Michael Foot? The lunatic that was going to reintroduce exchange controls!
It is also reported, shock horror, that this trust hasn't paid any tax in the UK for 30 years. What a terrible thing! Or perhaps no income has been crystallised that would trigger a tax bill?
I might be out of date, but I think, still, there are simple offshore products where the income/capital gain is rolled-up gross. No tax except maybe some withholding becomes due until such time as a UK resident withdraws money. It's an entirely legitimate technique. So why wouldn't anyone use it to avoid the grasping hands of the taxman?
Why do so many greedy c**ts think it beneath them to pay tax and are quite happy to indulge in money laundering and fraud. If nobody paid any tax then how the f**k would we pay for public services. I'm sick of selfish greedy f**ers who lie and cheat and then try to justify their actions - there are numerous politicians who operate beyond the law but aren't investigated because of their power.
Probably because it's ingrained in our society? Apparently around £1 in every £8 is spent in the shadow economy. Estimates suggest a loss to the taxman of around £64bn a year. Perhaps someone who has never "paid cash to avoid the VAT" would like to volunteer to cast the first stone? Meanwhile, as has been pointed out before, the richest 1% still pay around 30% of all income tax. In fact the richest 3000 pay more tax than the poorest 9mn. In the USA the richest 1% pay in excess of 50% of federal taxes.
BTW would you like to name the politicians who are operating beyond the law? Because their "influence" doesn't seem to help them much. On a pro rata basis, behind, football supporters and members of the armed services, MPs are the third most likely individuals to get arrested.
Comments
Few points in response
1. As some people have pointed out, a lot of the tax avoidance is by companies, as opposed to rich individuals. They tend to use the excuse of 'duty to shareholders to avoid tax". Any tax. All tax.
2. While I have some sympathy with the argument that a lower level of tax might make some people think "ok why bother avoiding it" unfortunately there is no empirical evidence that this actually works. One reason is that there are different levels between nations on what is generally considered a reasonable rate. Unfortunately the CEE countries are full of people who still think they are keeping their money from the nasty totalitarian State. That's presumably why 300 Czechs are caught in this net, even though the top personal tax rate here is only 24%. Another reason is that many people do it, because they persuade themselves there is some kind of moral argument - they do not trust the State to spend the money wisely. I have heard you make something like that argument. It's an anti-society argument, to my mind, one that Richard Roper would doubtless espouse.
3. On the corporate tax side, it would of course help if there was a union of countries that could agree on common tax rates so that some countries didn't undercut their neighbours in a cheap attempt to attract tax revenue. Now, what is the nearest thing to that union in the current world?
4. Anyway these lower CIT rates are still not enough for the likes of Google and Facebook. You would presumably argue, look at Ireland, it attracts all the companies because of its lower CIT rate. Ah, but it is not enough for those
crookscompanies. Not only do they fabricate an argument that their business in the UK is "closed" in Ireland, thus allowing them to qualify for lower Irish CIT, but they then build a further complex web of structures that mean the Irish only get a fraction of what they would normally get if these companies were genuinely Irish "based".The important thing about such disclosures is that it pushes the issue in the face of more ordinary voters and thus makes it more of a political issue. Heaven knows, that needs to happen in the UK. A huge amount of money is leeching out of the UK, yet hardly anyone on here gets really angry about it, compared to the number who claim to be terribly angry about " The EU".
Looking forward to Panorama...
Nail 'em up I say!
It's just a matter of time before we need to be enraged again.
Well nobody involved will be happy that it is out. It won't matter though. This will be forgotten soon enough.
Essentially, these schemes were run by a legal firm so as to provide some form of legal protection - they would've been pretty watertight. However the secrecy and outrage demonstrates that although the actions may have been legal, it's a PR nightmare for the individuals involved more than anything.
The problem companies are those which provide services and finished goods rather than manufacturers. They can choose where the service is provided as opposed to where the benefits of the service end up. Starbucks charge me £2.50 for a coffee but the UK shop has paid £2.00 to the coffee supplier, another Starbucks company in Anygogoland. So the UK shop makes only 50p to pay wages and shop overheads which is why it doesn't declare a profit. How do you force Starbucks in Anygogoland to charge less? Or force Starbucks UK to declare a notional taxable profit without ending up messing up genuine arms length transactions of other UK companies? Apart from making Starbucks grow the coffee in the UK, there's one obvious guaranteed solution. We all stop buying Starbucks coffee anymore. The staff in the UK are laid off and their salaries stop being spent and they stop paying income tax.
You can be angry that UK consumers are contributing to Stabuck's profits that are not taxed in the UK, but Starbucks still contributes more to the economy than it takes out.
Google and Amazon are pure services and employ so few people in the UK they contribute very little to economic activity unless the goods we buy are made or supplied by UK companies. Again, stop shopping on line and shop in the high street if you don't like contributing to the non-taxed profits of an overseas service company. Technology and the internet has allowed companies to create virtual businesses which still have the identity of a separate person in law, it's naive to think that investors will not seek to maximise profits by legally minimising tax by using the capabilities of the digital world to split out virtual and real services.
It's just that it's invisible what is going on. Marks and Spencers could mimic Amazon if you bought your goods and made two separate transactions. You paid an amount equal to the cost of staff and premises at the counter for their services and then made an online transaction to the company that bought and delivered the goods supplied to Marks and Spencers. if that supplier happened to be outside the UK it wouldn't pay any UK tax, nor would Marks and Spencers be making any profit, they would just be employing thousands of staff spending their wages and paying income tax. That's why there is an argument to lose corporation tax revenue if it contributes positively to economic activity. The socialist view typified by @MuttleyCAFC is sod the extra economic activity and tax revenue, we'd rather be worse off than not have any corporation tax paid.
How do you argue Marks and Spencers is an offshore company and should account for the profits of a foreign logistics company that trucks in foreign goods to stock the shelves of Marks and Spencers for free. It's easy showing why it happens, not so easy to come up with ideas how to outlaw it without screwing up normal businesses.
Ultimately it's consumers who decide the path taken by commerce and all you need to do is ask if they want to pay more for goods and services in order to increase UK tax revenue. There's too much emotion clouding judgement as to what is the solution.
As for governments spending wisely........
http://order-order.com/2016/04/04/media-organisations-using-offshore-havens/
Sometimes reading things online requires a degree of critical thinking, specifically with regards to cutting through conjecture and opinion and finding the actual accusations and/or facts. In this case those would be: some of the most outraged media outlets are also known to use very similar schemes.
With that in mind, it's very difficult not to see the hypocrisy involved.
Back in the late 1970s. The investment income surcharge took tax rates up to 90%. Even Thatcher, at first only reduced the top rate of income tax to 60%.
So, it is said that the Cameron's father's offshore trust was set up in the 1980s. Why would you not do that to protect your assets from the (entirely possible) madness that would have followed the election of a Labour Government under Michael Foot? The lunatic that was going to reintroduce exchange controls!
It is also reported, shock horror, that this trust hasn't paid any tax in the UK for 30 years. What a terrible thing! Or perhaps no income has been crystallised that would trigger a tax bill?
I might be out of date, but I think, still, there are simple offshore products where the income/capital gain is rolled-up gross. No tax except maybe some withholding becomes due until such time as a UK resident withdraws money.
It's an entirely legitimate technique. So why wouldn't anyone use it to avoid the grasping hands of the taxman?
I'm sick of selfish greedy f**ers who lie and cheat and then try to justify their actions - there are numerous politicians who operate beyond the law but aren't investigated because of their power.
I don't buy the argument that all these arrangements are legal - it just happens that the rich and powerful don't want them investigated or the loopholes closed.
I'm sick of being told that we should be grateful that the super rich pay any tax at all. It doesn't appear to matter what the tax rate is as some of them wouldn't pay tax anyway.
Cameron and Osborne are both incompetent scumbags who seem more concerned with the Chinese economy than events in Britain.
Osborne has proved a fairly inept Chancellor who gets an easy ride from Britain's right wing press - our current account deficit reached 7% of GDP in the last quarter of 2015 which is a shocking figure.
If Starbucks stopped operating in this country for some reason, I suspect that every single one of their outlets would be taken over and potentially operated profitably by a normal tax-paying company.
I do not see any net loss of jobs or income tax.
Don't get me wrong. I value the investment, quality and competition (not to mention nice coffee) that Starbucks have brought to the UK. No way do I want them to go away!
BUT on a daily basis, I believe they do NOT contribute to the economy and their free use of the general infrastructure of the country amounts to a government subsidy.
The same argument about "contribution to the economy" is being used to justify West Ham's free occupation of the Olympic stadium. It works until you realise that all the "new" supporters might actually be spending their money elsewhere at local football clubs if they weren't lured in by cheap subsidised tickets!
Let those outlets be filled by by independent traders whose prime aim is to provide a service and good product and not stripe every last penny out of the country, customers and staff that work for them. Good riddance.
Meanwhile, as has been pointed out before, the richest 1% still pay around 30% of all income tax. In fact the richest 3000 pay more tax than the poorest 9mn.
In the USA the richest 1% pay in excess of 50% of federal taxes.
BTW would you like to name the politicians who are operating beyond the law?
Because their "influence" doesn't seem to help them much. On a pro rata basis, behind, football supporters and members of the armed services, MPs are the third most likely individuals to get arrested.