Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Governements allowing rules and regulations that legally allow companies to reduce their tax burden have no bearing on why many feel a sense of entitlement and reliance towards our benefit system.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
My understanding was the Starbucks paid something but didn't fulfil the entire amount. Perhaps they are selling it as otherwise in the US.

That's closer to the truth.

Basically Starbucks, Google etc have structured their European operation so that their profit is actually made in the Rep Ireland, or Luxembourg in the case of Amazon.

Consequently they pay the rate of corporation tax in those countries, which 'coincidentally' charge a lower rate.

Starbucks chose to pay a certain amount to try and diffuse the situation, but, as a HMRC employed friend of mine so succinctly put it, we are supposed to tell them what to pay, not the other way round.

The estimated cost of this tax avoidance is so high that it makes benefit fraud look like pocket change, and I don't think it's overstating the case to say that if these companies paid what they should be paying, the quality of life, budget deficit and many other factors would be much smaller issues than they are now.

Still, at least these companies are being outed, allowing consumers to put pressure on them to do the right thing until the international community gets off its backside and sorts things properly.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Governements allowing rules and regulations that legally allow companies to reduce their tax burden have no bearing on why many feel a sense of entitlement and reliance towards our benefit system.

Why not?

Isn't that just another sense of entitlement?

We talking loopholes now?.....wait...is this the thread with the Walmart Cashier?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Yes, the costs of working do eat away at the additional money you get from a job as compared to benefits. I forgot to mention this but I'm in full agreement. The government and right wing press attack the benefits system for being at fault for paying too much compared to low wage jobs, and their solution is to reduce benefits further. The real problem is that wages are too low, we've had widespread pay increases barely keeping up with inflation, and often less, for a number of years. The minimum wage just isn't a living wage, and people are unable to get on the housing ladder and are left trapped by high rental prices taking most of their wages.

Exalted!