Starbucks 'paid just £8.6m UK tax in 14 years'

What about the moral obligation of the people 'entrusted' with our taxes to not **** it up the wall? Surely that's where the moral question comes in, not whether an entity conributing £8m into the magical wishing well is in the wrong for following a legal procedure?
 
[TW]Fox;22973225 said:
So presumably they paid no VAT on sales, no tax on salaries paid to staff, no business rates to councils, etc etc?

Oh you mean they did?
Click to expand...

I should hope they didn't pay VAT on sales of food products, it really is immoral for the government to charge tax on such items.
 
just add to the list of greedy corporations avoiding tax whilst the government do nothing whilst hammering the general population, meh
 
Energize said:
I should hope they didn't pay VAT on sales of food products, it really is immoral for the government to charge tax on such items.
Click to expand...

Ignoring the fact no company pays VAT, they're customers do, I would doubt Starbuck's food is VAT free....

Food and drink, animals, animal feed, plants and seeds
Food and drink for human consumption is, in general, zero-rated but many items are standard-rated, including alcoholic drinks, confectionery, crisps and savoury snacks, supplies of food made in the course of catering including hot takeaways, ice cream, soft drinks and mineral water.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/vat/forms-rates/rates/goods-services.htm
Click to expand...

So pretty much everything Starbucks sell is liable for the standard VAT rate.
 
estebanrey said:
Ignoring the fact no company pays VAT, they're customers do, I would doubt Starbuck's food is VAT free....



So pretty much everything Starbucks sell is liable for the standard VAT rate.
Click to expand...

I know they basically just take the money from the customer to the the treasury but it's VAT being paid that wouldn't otherwise be paid if Starbucks wasn't selling that product.
 
zhx said:
i remember reading a story about vodafone paying squat of what they should have legally paid and the government being happy just by receiving a small percentage. of course that could be absolute BS
Click to expand...

That was another issue misrepresented by the media.

What occurred was HMRC disagreed with Vodafone planning, Vodafone obviously didn't. There wasn't any legal precedent on the issue and so it wasn't clear cut. HMRC could have taken it through tribunals, then the courts but this would have cost a LOT of money, all going to QCs, and probably lasting a decade or more.

HMRC sensibly decided to agree a compromise, got a big settlement, nowhere near the tax at stake though, and Vodafone will have agreed something too. But then those QC costs were saved as well.

Ultimately Vodafone didn't "legally have to pay it", HMRC just thought they were right. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't and these things are drawn out and incredibly costly. If HMRC had lost it would have been a lot of money wasted.
 
[TW]Fox;22974497 said:
Semantics, the customers pay a VAT inclusive price, and the company pays the VAT element to the treasury.
Click to expand...

No it's not 'semantics' at all. We are not debating the meaning of a word, we are discussing how the tax system works, nothing to do with semantics.

The company set the price then add the VAT on after, they don't set a price then take VAT from it. If a British National goes in and orders a coffee they pay £1 for the drink and 20p in VAT because they (the customer) has to pay VAT, if a foreign national however orders a coffee they pay £1 as they are not liable for it. In both cases Starbucks get £1 for their actual product.

Now because of ease, what happens in reality is Starbucks charge everyone £1.20, send the 20ps (which they never own and is never 'theirs' they are merely holding it for HMRC) to the treasury who then pay back anyone who shouldn't have paid via application. But that doesn't mean Starbucks are choosing to pay VAT on behalf of their customers.
 
To pay more tax than the company is legally obliged to would be a breach of the Director's Duties outlined in the Companies Act 2006.

So who is really to blame here?
 
spoffle said:
What do people insist on bringing morals in to the tax system? Why should you pay any more than you are legally obliged to?

If the government takes issue with it it's up to them to make a change. They won't make any changes though because whilst they're telling everyone it's immoral, they're all at it themselves anyway.
Click to expand...

This is what annoys me.

They know these corporations are dodging taxes, yet they leave the doors wide open for them to do so, then call them "immoral" because they don't want to pay millions of pounds in tax to the government that they don't have to.

Hell, if i didn't *have* to pay income tax and the only thing that was going to happen is that they called me "immoral", you better believe the government wouldn't be getting a penny from me.
 
Dj_Jestar said:
it is tax avoidance - they haven't done anything illegal, but by golly is it morally dubious.
Click to expand...

People really do have some funny ideas at times... It's morally dubious to avoid handing your money over to people who try to take it from you through threats of violence, kidnap and imprisonment? Hilarious - Tell me another one.
 
To those complaining of thread title - it's a direct c&p of news header.

The tax system is wholly moral. Its very foundation is the moral and social obligation to help pay for society's needs. To think it is anything but about morals is ignorance or stupidity.

My complaint is about the system. I don't blame Starbucks, but it just so happens they are the latest example (and quite a big one at that) of tax dodging. There's no way they have made losses year on year for as long as even the three years of zero tax paid. It's book and number fiddling in a tax system that has been so drastically overcomplicated that tax avoidance means that it is possible to avoid paying millions to the treasury. Easily. It should not be.
 
Last edited:
Jonny ///M said:
I know they basically just take the money from the customer to the the treasury but it's VAT being paid that wouldn't otherwise be paid if Starbucks wasn't selling that product.
Click to expand...

And as someone said above, you pay duty on the fuel you put in your car but that doesn't mean you are morally in the right to then avoid road tax (or VED for the pedants).
 
Dj_Jestar said:
The tax system is wholly moral. Its very foundation is the moral obligation to help pay for societies needs. To think it is anything but about morals is ignorance or stupidity.
Click to expand...

You've just said that charity is a moral obligation... That has nothing to do with the state that extracts money from people through threats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom