Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
what ever tax you can think of barry.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
But it does not work like that Brian.
A government can only take in taxes what is authorised by parliament and the law of the land alongside international agreements for multi-national companies.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Breaking news:
Company doesn't break the tax laws.
By all means critices the govt, or the one that passed the law, but Starbucks are doing nothing wrong
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
you're right david, i think the best course of action is to go for a coffee in a local small business or alternatively to a national chain that pays tax here.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
That's right Howard, I know for a fact that the cafe owners in town bank every last penny of the cash they take.
The hypocrisy in this case is extraordinary
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
However....this government,finally,are trying to get these companies to pay tax,after G8 made it a priority.......
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Reg, we've been over avoidance and evasion dozens of times, I'm sure you understand the difference.
Starbucks are a franchise company, the franchisees will be obliged to pay PAYE/NI/VAT etc like everyone else, it is the parent company that are minimising their liabilities and who can blame them? By boycotting Starbucks you penalise ordinary working people.
Govt is useless, eventually the penny will drop on here
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I have to agree that it is better to support the smaller local traders, nothing to do with tax though.
It seems to me though that some seem to suggest that new laws are made and applied retrospectively. So people, if you do something perfectly legal and a government comes along a few years later and changes the law to make that illegal you can be prosecuted........... That is what the precedent of retrospective law means. It is as wrong for individuals as it is for large companies.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
We must hope the G8 succeed in their efforts to correct the situation......
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Reg, govt could change it today
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
"
Retrospective Operations Of Criminal Law
The essentiality of a right to protection from retroactive criminal law has generally been accepted without argument. Literature on the justification for the principle is scarce. Yet, it has become well accepted that individuals have such a right. The principle has been enunciated in various declarations of human rights from 1789 until the present. Nevertheless, there are several examples in international, Australian and British law where the principle has been ignored or (at the very least) circumvented.
Three examples of retrospective law-making are mentioned below: the Nuremberg trials of the late 1940s; the decision of the House of Lords in Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions in 1961; and the Commonwealth's "bottom of the harbour" tax legislation of 1982. In each case, the actions of the defendants were considered so morally repugnant that the principle of non-retroactivity was relaxed so as to allow them to be punished. These examples differ in the extent to which the retrospective aspect of each has been accepted: the Nazis tried at Nuremberg are generally said to have been adjudged fairly; the decision in Shaw's case has been criticised widely; and the "bottom of the harbour" tax legislation has attracted both critics and champions.
The fundamental question raised by these three examples is this: is the right to protection from retroactive criminal law an absolute human right, or should its application be qualified by reference to the circumstances in each case? Despite the criticism that these examples provoked, none of them could easily be characterised as a miscarriage of justice. But, in each instance, the defendants were punished for committing acts which were not criminal at the time that they committed those acts: they were found guilty retrospectively. Clearly, then, the right to protection from retroactive criminal law is not an absolute human right but it is a qualified human right..."
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l191-Retrospective-Operations-Of-Criminal-Law.htmlIgnorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 2867.....#2870.........make up your mind
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
My mind is made up Reg, Starbucks are doing nothing illegal, the problem is the govt not companies
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Governments......then we agree.............
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Governments are always the problem. They should not be trusted and we should never let them have too much of our money. Servants not masters. The less tax they take from us the better and all legal methods of reducing our tax bills are quite right and proper.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
Correct
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Not right or proper.....yet.....
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#2675
Is this not, yet again, putting the cart before the horse?
You state first that 'they' should get little or none, with the addition of the proviso that all that is 'legal' be done to ensure that 'they' do get as little as possible.
Starting from the 'horse'.
The actual legality of many of the niceties of tax avoidance are never tested. Much is worked out over lunch and a handshake.
The primary duty is to avoid. The precondition is the utter incompetence and congenital unreasonableness of the very fact of Government. The answer is set and fixed before the question.
Of the 'cart',
Government is a necessity. (Admittedly, only after one assumes there is such a thing as Nation.) But, once one does admit to Nation, and so to Government, it is wholly disingenuous to aver "Servants not masters" without specifying to whom 'they' are to be the servants or masters of.
For you Barry, and those who adhere to the same fallacy, all there is is 'money' and the apparatus of accrual. Your attitude to Government is one that denies Nation. The underwear-moistening notion of 'UK-Plc' was never any more than the legend on the brass plate of what was and is a Nation.
"Trickle-down meets pulled-up sock." Is no substitute for Nation, national laws and common good.
The very idea that somebody behind the till can decide for themselves how much to take from the drawer to augment their wages improves not one jot when that somebody is a Multi-National as opposed to some mere commoner.
It is high time these laws were tested, and if found wanting, improved.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
"
Retrospective Taxation
A discussion paper by the Chartered Institute of Taxation
1. Introduction and summary
1.1.
This paper sets out the views of the Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) on retrospective legislation, a topic that has always been of concern to the CIOT. However, we think it warrants particular consideration in the context of the 'Tax Policy Making:a new approach' paper published with the Emergency Budget in June 2010....
...
1.4. Under the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, the Government in the UK can legislate retrospectively. It is in some respects constrained by its obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights and EU law.
We accept that retrospective legislation is not prohibited by these obligations, provided the balance between the rights of individual taxpayers and the general public interest is maintained. However, the use of retrospective legislation will always damage the key principle of certainty in the UK tax system to some extent.
1.5.
We do not say there is never a case for retrospection - indeed at times we will argue for it to correct an obvious anomaly that is harming taxpayers, such as with the recent changes to capital distributions treatment. However, it is something that should be used with extreme care and justified at length..."
http://www.tax.org.uk/Resources/CIOT/Documents/2010/11/Retrospective%20taxation%20and%20tax%20policy%20making%20CIOT%20Nov10.pdfIgnorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Some interesting views on both sides
on criminal individual/or company bosses, there are some instances when individuals or company directors should have the book thrown at them rather than fighting the courts and trying to cop out.
Although not related to this thread the rail crashes is an example.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS