Starbucks pay no UK tax for 3 years

I prefer money to be in private hands than government. Less money in the budget the better.
 
I prefer money to be in private hands than government. Less money in the budget the better.

Mmmmm, ok, but who's going to pay for schools, the NHS, The Military etc - are you gona get your own cheque book out. And the money isn't in UK hands it's in USA hands !
 
Mmmmm, ok, but who's going to pay for schools, the NHS, The Military etc - are you gona get your own cheque book out. And the money isn't in UK hands it's in USA hands !

Tax is paid in the UK - PAYE via the payroll, NI contributions, business rates, VAT, all the Starbucks staff on the payroll use their money in the UK economy. OK, so they don't pay corporation tax, but as an accountant once said to me when doing our accounts 'how much profit would you like to make this year?' - profit can be a matter of opinion.
 
We do pay for it anyway but 40% gets "lost somewhere" on the way between your pocket and teacher, doctor, etc. You dont need NHS to be healthy. Have you seen a man laying on the street screaming "I need NHS!" ? No, people need doctor, nurse, injection, surgery, they dont need NHS. It's the same with schools, etc. I am happy to pay that all myself as long as I dont have to pay VAT and worst of all income tax.
 
We do pay for it anyway but 40% gets "lost somewhere" on the way between your pocket and teacher, doctor, etc. You dont need NHS to be healthy. Have you seen a man laying on the street screaming "I need NHS!" ? No, people need doctor, nurse, injection, surgery, they dont need NHS. It's the same with schools, etc. I am happy to pay that all myself as long as I dont have to pay VAT and worst of all income tax.

The simple fact is that, unless you are *considerably* richer than the average, you simply cannot afford to pay for services (health, education, transport or otherwise) of the quality you currently receive via the public sector. Things like coporation tax etc essentially subsidsie the cost of first world standard services for the majority who would not otherwise be able to afford them. In the absence of such taxation and subsidy, you end up with a small minority able to afford outstanding services, and a very large majority with very poor or absent services.

That is not so say the current institutions are perfect - they very clearly aren't, and inefficiency is rampant. But to use this as an argument for abolishing taxation and public services is like saying 'my car has low mileage - clearly cars are useless'.
 
I dont say abolish all taxation, as there are things such as police and military all people benefit from, but any "wealth redistribution" is pure evil. It just violates the eight commandment - do not steal.
 
I dont say abolish all taxation, as there are things such as police and military all people benefit from, but any "wealth redistribution" is pure evil. It just violates the eight commandment - do not steal.

Many would argue that much of what generates wealth is also a form of theft - especially that wealth that is generated via speculation and related mechanisms which do not rely on tangible products.

And again, many of the services that all benefit from require heavy taxation - of the sort that often gets labelled 'wealth redistribution'. There's absolutely no way we'd be able to afford anything beyond a quaint home defence force armed and some part-time constables without things like corporation tax.
 
The entire public sector have an impression that there is a bottomless pit of money to subsidise it, they don't live in the real world.

I work in the public sector, and, at least in my bit of it (higher education and science), that is very much not the case. There are inefficiencies - many - but that has a lot more to do with incompetence than with a perception that we can cheerfully keep expecting more. And a lot of the incompetence is due to the fact that many of the people in senior admin positions are there because they aren't good enough to work in the private sector.
 
Of course wealth comes from work, nothing else. It does not come from government. We already pay for all that + at least 40% that any public institution wastes, you have to have at least 2 peaople, one who collects tax and one who spends it. People were not massively dying of hunger 100 years ago when there was no income tax. Income tax makes no sense, why punish someone who works twice as hard with double fine (four times when you have progressive taxation).
 
Of course wealth comes from work, nothing else.

Really? So the billions made (and subsequently lost) by the financial services sector came from work? How?

It does not come from government.

No - agreed. But government can (and should) facilitate its creation, by providing a transparent legal system and effective enforcment, by creating and maintaining infrastructure, by teaching and training people, by investing in currently unprofitable research, by providing security etc etc. IN the absence of effective goverment, and all its trappings, wealth creation becomes considerably more difficult. Now obviously government can become *too* intrusive, and can also start to impede wealth creation - and the trick is to find the right balance.

People were not massively dying of hunger 100 years ago when there was no income tax.

They may not have been dying in huge numbers (though they were certainly dying at much higher rates than today), but their lives were certainly pretty bleak, unhealthy and considerably shorter.
 
a lot of the incompetence is due to the fact that many of the people in senior admin positions are there because they aren't good enough to work in the private sector.

Mine was a sweeping statement with an element of tongue-in-cheek, although true in many cases.

You have hit the nail on the head with the statement on incompetence Mungo.
 
I may have this opinion if you read too much of Dickens :eek:

Financial crisis would have been impossible without governments co-operation with banks and fleecing taxpayers twice. It was government that bailed out banks.
 
If you do not work with your hands, do you not work?

Of course you do.

But it's hard to see how betting on poorly understood and arcane financial instruments that themselves do not hold any intrinsic value can be classified as work. Especially when much of it is done automatically by computer algorithms.
 
I may have this opinion if you read too much of Dickens :eek:

Financial crisis would have been impossible without governments co-operation with banks and fleecing taxpayers twice. It was government that bailed out banks.

Sure - but that is a fialing of the individuals and the legislation involved, not a failing of the entire philosophy of public services maintained by taxation. Once again - that's like saying 'my car uses too much fuel and corners badly, and I keep running into trees when I drive it drunk. Therefore cars are a waste of time'.
 
The whole system will fail sooner or later as you cannot endlessly take from hard working and give to lazy (either directly via benefits or indirectly giving them "free" education and health service). I hope to see that in my lifetime. Hope my children and grandchildren will live in better/normal world.
 
The whole system will fail sooner or later as you cannot endlessly take from hard working and give to lazy (either directly via benefits or indirectly giving them "free" education and health service). I hope to see that in my lifetime. Hope my children and grandchildren will live in better/normal world.

+1
 
Back
Top