(V): I completely disagree. Thankfully you don't have a vote here.

rod03801: They were voted in to mess your country up. Well, in that case they are doing a fine job. Is your government really growing.. or the costs the likes of DoD got out of control.

...How long is it going to be until the cost of the bogus war in Iraq gonna be paid off?

I don't expect you to like this... that ain't unusual either. But it is a fact.

(V): It's a fundamental difference. I repeat, these "pouting republican members" were VOTED in with the expectation that they would do this. If mine gives in, she won't be getting my vote next time.

This "controlled change" as you call it, WILL not DO ANY good. There has to be a SEVERE cut in the way our government keeps growing.

I don't expect you to agree. It's not unusual.

rod03801: You've not got the point that if they don't work out a compromise that tax rises and spending cuts will happen that could push the USA back into recession.

You don't understand the difference between a controlled change that won't hurt the majority of Americans and also effect global markets, and an uncontrolled change that will! The whole idea it seems was to cut spending and to have a small increase in taxes that will only affect the top 2-3% of earners.

Are YOU WILLING to pay the extra tax that will come if no deal can be reached? An extra $2,000 - $3,500 per year.. you are happy to pay that?

Such incompetence even is recognised by retiring Republicans....."send a message worldwide that we don't have the capacity to work across political aisles on critical issues"....

If no compromise is reached, it just shows your whole political system is just one big joke. It would be an absolute laughable matter, is were not for the harm that Joe Public will suffer because of some pouting republican members tied to the Tea Party.. and paid by the party's masters to be complete idiots.

(V): I hope the people who should, continue to stand their ground. I doubt they will though. I hope they don't allow themselves to be held hostage and give in. They were NOT voted in there to give in.

Giving this government more money is like giving a drug addict more drugs. They will just spend EVEN MORE. Nothing has proven that to be different, EVER. and then require even more tax increases.

Even the tax increases this incompetent president wants, would run the government for less than 2 weeks. The TRUE answers are reducing spending by huge amounts. It's the only logical answer

Tea Party logic...

"we won't vote for any tax rises on 2-3% of the population"

"but if you don't vote for them, everyone gets hit by a tax rise on everyone, our economy could collapse, the stock markets are going to lose confidence."

"We don't care, we won't vote for any tax rises".

A Common Law Christmas to all and a Happy New Year.

May no harm, fraud or loss come to you now or in the New Year.

Everything else ... in the UK anyway, is by consent ie, by contract. Legal... but not law. And that to the legal entity that is your birth certificate, copyrighted by the crown yet not to be used for identification.

Which leads to .... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHiAZGlImMs


"I am not a number, I am a Free man."

RIP Patrick Mcgoohan

Sorry... posted twice somehow.

The Col: Mr Blobby could be said to have a very destructive persona. He would be very bad as any kind of minister.

At least the police wouldn't be able to put words in his mouth as they've been caught doing recently.... It's hard when all he says is "blobby", they won't be able to lie and invent evidence that he's called them "plebs".

I don't those caught in the act recently will be on Santa's list next year!!

The Col: Mr Blobby could be said to have a very destructive persona. He would be very bad as any kind of minister.

At least the police wouldn't be able to put words in his mouth as they've been caught doing recently.... It's hard when all he says is "blobby", they won't be able to lie and invent evidence that he's called them "plebs".

I don't those caught in the act recently will be on Santa's list next year!!

(V): Mr Blobby sounds like Darth Vader
politically speaking of course

The Col: ... what again!!

I wondered why I found a gold nugget the size and shape of Mr Blobby this morning. It just was soooo strange. lol

(V): Oh it ended alright, you're just dreaming

... Well, the world didn't end. Another 'hope and joy' that the world will end and a selected few will survive has yet again proven false.

... Someone will no doubt try again and predict an '''end date''', that some being or beings intends to kill almost all of us.

But that then begs the question.... These people must hate life, yet God said it was good! Sometimes it seems some people can't see the wood because of the trees.

Merry Christmas All.

Swiss banking giant UBS has agreed to pay $1.5bn (£940m) to US, UK and Swiss regulators for attempting to manipulate the Libor inter-bank lending rate.

It becomes the second major bank to be fined over Libor after Barclays was ordered to pay $450m to UK and US authorities in the summer.

Regulators worldwide are investigating a number of banks for rigging Libor.

Libor tracks the average rate at which the major international banks based in London lend money to each other.

The bank also admitted to manipulating Euribor and Tibor - the equivalent interest rates set by lenders in the eurozone and in Tokyo.

UBS said it had agreed to pay fines to regulators in three different countries:

$1.2bn (£740m) in combined fines to the US Department of Justice (DoJ) and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission
£160m to the UK's Financial Services Authority (FSA)
59m Swiss francs (£40m) to the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority

.... where we didn't have to regulate them.

And yet another branding of socialism as has been passed on thanks to the cold war. It seems the type of socialism that is practised that is called a commune is forgotten.

Repeating... repeating.. repeating.

I try to avoid calling anyone ignorant, and for good reason. It's because whenever I see that word tossed out it's usually done by people who don't know what they are talking about. So even if I know for a fact I'm not being a hypocrite, I usually try to avoid looking like one. But in some cases I believe the moniker fits, and might explain why anyone would try experimenting with socialism.

There are people who do not know and are unable to guess what the result can be, because they lack knowledge and/or experience. That fits the definition of ignorance, but it's only one explanation for the appeal of socialism and probably the not the main one. The main reason I believe socialism is still a popular idea is our old friend 'greed'. Greed is nastly little critter that ends up biting itself on it's own ass when no else is around, so it's not just a question of morality for the sake of morality... it's an immoral attitude because frankly it just doesn't work out in the long run. It looks appealing, and it appeals to our sense of greed, but beyond that it's useless.

Another possibility is if people are aware of the consequences and still want to give it a go, then they are clearly expecting a different result. One of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result... like me posting this message, but expecting to see a different kind of response...
*sigh*

Iamon lyme: yes, they are..

"will offer to pay every and all expense incured in moving that business into their area, that would be nuts..."

Not all, but enough to make it a point.

"Incentives are usually in the form of tax breaks and elimination of needless regulations."

It's usually a mix. It's those on the low end who usually suffer as a result. Eg Texas has cut it's education budget.

"seriously, you really don't know what I mean by over regulation?"

No I don't. it's a relative term. I accept the need for regulation when it has been proven by cases of businesses cutting corners that are for the most part common sense.

eg ... a 454g pack of sugar must contain at least 454g, maintain good kitchen hygiene.

(V): "It has been often the case that businesses are given 'costs' by governments. So no... it doesn't really cost them. It costs the tax payers of that area."


Are suggesting local tax payers end up covering most or all of the cost of a business moving into their area? That does seem to be what you are suggesting. If an area can benefit from a business relocating to their area, then they might be offered incentives to do so. But when you say "often the case", are you expecting me to interpreted that as meaning "most of the time" or "always"?

I'm sure you can come up with examples of local governing bodies providing tailored made perks and special tax incentives, but that is to be expected. What I said was businesses were being "courted"... not offered a completely free ride with all expenses paid.

No one when courting a business will offer to pay every and all expense incured in moving that business into their area, that would be nuts... the fact is they don't need to pay for anything. Incentives are usually in the form of tax breaks and elimination of needless regulations. And come on, seriously, you really don't know what I mean by over regulation?


There are rules that cannot be ignored because they are a part of state or federal law, but everyone knows local governments can pass measures and enact rules that only affect their area. In the case of the area I live in, it has been the extra rules regulations fees and taxes that have been driving businesses away... but the lions share of what businesses are required to do and pay for are completely unnecessary, and only exist to keep money coming into (local) governement coffers, and to insure people can continue to be employed in their government (tax funded) jobs.

It's necessary for local governments to have that ability, to enact rules and charge fees if needed, because the US is not a one size fits all economy. But surprise surprise, even a small local governing entity can become greedy, and always looking for new ways to bring in more money to spend... whether it's needed or not. So anyway, yeah... you are correct, greed does a play a big part in all of this. If you are hungry and can't wait for the goose to lay a golden egg, then cook the goose and eat it... and then you can wait until tomorrow to worry over where your next meal will come from.

Iamon lyme: It has been often the case that businesses are given 'costs' by governments. So no... it doesn't really cost them. It costs the tax payers of that area.

"and bled by too big a tax burden."

Profits seem ok for many big companies... 'bled' is an exaggeration.

"needless regulations"

What regulations would you call needless? An example.

(V): "Some.. but that depends on what you call lunacy."

Oh good grief, it was a trick question. "How many people can you find on a list of 6,000 people?"


As far as the numbers go, between France and the UK, I might have goofed and transposed what I read about France with what I was reading about the UK. It happens... I'm gettin' old and somewhat confused, but not so confused that anyone can convince me passing tax laws that work as disincentives won't cause migrations from one country (or state) to another.

Without even looking I can guess that Europe has similar migration patterns as in the US, with businesses moving their headquarters from one state to another. If a business has no economic reason to move they won't do it. It costs big bucks to do that, so it would take a significant disincentive for causing any big (or even medium size) company to pull up roots and settle in somewhere else.

It's been happening in California, and it's happening here in Oregon. Companys that started here and have been here for many years either went out of business or relocated to other (work friendly) states.

A few years ago a couple of tax measures were passed locally, on top of an already untenable tax burdon, and word on the street here was those two relatively small tax measures would be the proverbial straw that breaks the camels back. Almost immediately after those measures had passed commerce departments in other states began calling and courting some of those businesses. Apparently they knew something our mayor and other city officials didn't know or understand (not to mention the general population, because they voted those messures in). So after the dust starts to settle and businesses started moving out of state, or simply giving up and closing their doors, the mayor called a special meeting of business leaders and asked them what the city of Portland could do to help them... ???

He thought they were bluffing when those same business leaders had told him (before the vote) that they could not stay in business if hit with extra taxes. Apparently they weren't bluffing... they were telling him the way it is.

I am literally mystified by this... why can't politicians get this one simple idea into their heads... the money they want for themselves will not be there if the economy is tied up in needless regulations and bled by too big a tax burdon.

Iamon lyme: So in other words.. taxable income.

I covered that in my last post to you.

I know the difference having worked in several accounting posts, studied economics at school, business studies.

"No, but I could agree that...."

The Daily Mail is unreliable..

"seeing as how you've brought up the issue of lunancy, how many people in a list of the top 6,000 earners in the UK do you believe can be found on that list?"

Some.. but that depends on what you call lunacy.

(V): "I mean... would you agree with the daily Mails view Sarah Palin and all those who believe the same way she does are lunatics?"

No, but I could agree that some people that other people have characterized as being lunitics might have forgotten to take their medication(s) or non-traditional medicinal herbs. Or maybe an acupunture needle was accidentally pushed all the way in? Who knows?

By the way... seeing as how you've brought up the issue of lunancy, how many people in a list of the top 6,000 earners in the UK do you believe can be found on that list?

(V): I'll make this simple. When I talk about a "millionaires tax" I'm referring to your top earners ... ((( EARNERS )))

The key word here is 'earners'.

Not havers or holders... ' earners '

Not all of your top money owners are top money earners. Money you own that has already been taxed is not again taxed year after year... unless you've put it all into real estate, then you do need to pay a regular property tax for as long as you own your home(s) or other properties.


But just for the fun of it, imagine you had 8 million dollars just sitting in the bank year after year, and it's earning you a secure 2% interest which you've decided is enough for you to live on. I don't know about you, but I would be VERY happy with that kind of arraignement. Anyway, technically speaking you COULD be called a millionaire, and thus be included in that 200,000 to 400,000 list of millionaires living in the UK. However, you would NOT fall into the same catagory and listed as someone earning 2 or 3 million dollars or more per year. It's those EARNED dollars (for each year) that would be subject to taxation, and NOT the 8 million dollar (dollars, pounds, whatever) nest egg sitting securely in your bank... only the interest on that 8 million would be subject to taxation. Assuming of course you've already payed taxes on a larger sum of money, thus leaving you with 8 million for you to set down into a bank and never spend.

It's only a 'what if' scenario (darn it!) but you could call me a millonaire if I had 8 mil sitting in the bank year after year... even so, I could not afford to live the sterotypical life of a one or two percenter "millionaire" without eventually depleting most or all of that money.

Iamon lyme: Awwwww I thought I'd return the favour. ... All things being equal.

... again, the figures are ... taken out of context. I've tried to give you the opportunity to recheck your stated figures and the validity of such......

But no.... you have to believe your "power of narrow minded nick pickery."

READ>>>>>>>

"A gaping hole in this argument is that by the HMRC’s own admission, a great deal of this drop was accounted for by (the non-PAYE paying) super-rich bringing forward their income (‘forestalling’) and declaring it in 2009/2010 tax year instead, ahead of the pre-announced 50p tax rise. The key point is, by its nature forestalling can only happen once – those who did so could not have kept doing it in the years after; they would have had to have paid up. The 2010/2011 yield was thus artificially deflated; totally anomalous, and unreliable as a baseline. There may have been other more permanent forms of evasion in the mix, but the only way of knowing this – and the true effectiveness of the 50p tax – for sure would have been to wait for 2011/2012 returns. Which is presumably by Osborne avoided doing just that (given there was good evidence it raised a significant sum of money).

And so to last week’s numbers. They too take 2010 figures, on the number of people declaring an income above £ 1 million, compare it to 2009 and note a drop – leaving the Telegraph and Mail to argue without evidence that they have all moved abroad. But just as with the tax yield, these figures are highly distorted and unreliable, given we know many top rate payers moved their income for 2010 forward to 2009 (this is especially likely to be the case with millionaires, as few would be on PAYE)."

Live by the Daily Mail.. DiE by the Daily Mail.

I mean... would you agree with the daily Mails view Sarah Palin and all those who believe the same way she does are lunatics?

(V): I think you may be taking the term "millionaires tax" a bit too literally. I seriously doubt the figures you are showing represent only the millionaires who generate enough income to be affected by the tax.

I suspect anyone could be included in those stats by simply being worth one million dollars, if they were to sell off all of their land and equipment and anything else they own... so technically speaking, those stats could include farmers who earn less in yearly income than an accountant earning, say, a paltry 200,000 a year.

I was not talking about everyone and anyone who might be worth one million dollars... I was obviously talking about those who generate income high enough to be affected by the so called "millionaires tax"... obviously I was wrong about that being obvious.

I'm also not talking about the fabulously wealthy who are simply living on their wealth and are not actively ingaged in business(s) that generate enough (yearly) income to be affected by the new tax. That too I thought was obvious, but once again you have proven me wrong.

So anyway, congratulations on once again proving me wrong through the inimitable power of narrow minded nick pickery.

Bwild: lol I'll aim to be less of a head screwer next time

(V): theres no real dates there...you might have mentioned it.

Timeline...

2003 -- 242,000
2007 -- 489,000 ((economic boom peak))
2009 -- 242,000 ((slump in property and share prices))
2010 -- 454,000
2011 -- 431,000 ((Global slump of 1.7%))

So our slump in millionaires was 1.2% higher than the Global average.
Asia has overtaken the USA in biggest number of millionaires.
Total world wealth levels have fallen for the first time since the big fall in 2008.
If property prices rise in the UK, the millionaires club will increase.

Bwild: yes..... it's because of dates the articles were written. One is written in June 2012, the other in May 2009.

The clue is in the dates man!!

(V): your numbers seem a bit varied for both posts on millionaires.
1- In the UK, which has the fifth highest number of millionaires, membership of the elite club dropped 2.9% from 454,300 to 441,300,

2-The number of millionaires in the UK has fallen from 489,000 at the peak of the economic boom in 2007 to 242,000, reducing the elite club to 2003 levels.


I'd say 200,000 millionaire spread there.

Oh... I get it... someone used the Daily Mail as a source of reliable information.

Baaaaddd idea.

Especially if you don't read the story properly

Britain's millionaires' row has nearly halved in size due to the slump in property and share prices.

The number of millionaires in the UK has fallen from 489,000 at the peak of the economic boom in 2007 to 242,000, reducing the elite club to 2003 levels. Soaring property prices stoked a boom in the British rich list but the collapse in the housing market has suddenly reduced the net worth of thousands of former property millionaires.

The Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) said a very large number of people had entered the lower echelons of the rich list due to the runaway property market and had dropped straight out again once prices faltered, falling 17.7% in the last year.

"Having just crept over the threshold, most of these people have crept back under it again - many, perhaps, without ever knowing that they had become millionaires for a temporary period," said Douglas McWilliams, the chief executive of CEBR.

Owners of buoyant share portfolios have also seen their asset base deteriorate, with a 70% drop in City bonuses also playing a part in the decline.

The CEBR has scrapped its forecast that the UK would have 760,000 people whose wealth runs into seven figures by 2010. With property prices on the retreat, the CEBR admitted the figure would now be far lower. However, McWilliams said the number of millionaires should rise from 2011 onwards once property prices stage a recovery. "With property prices near to bottoming out, we would expect the number of millionaires to start to rise again in 2011," he said.

Those with robust enough fortunes to remain in the millionaires' club have seen their wealth decline by about a quarter.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/may/27/uk-millionaires-number-falls

The number of millionaires in Asia has overtaken North America for the first time in a sign of wealth shifting across the globe due to the economic downturn, according to a new report.

In the Asia-Pacific region there are now 3.37 million men and women with more than $1m (£635,000) in the bank, compared with 3.35 million in North America, Capgemini and RBC Wealth Management's latest world wealth report revealed.

But the overall level of wealth in North America is still the highest in the world, with its millionaires, such as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, controlling $11.4tn, while Asian businessmen control $10.7tn – although wealth levels declined twice as fast in North America as in Asia in 2011.

Millionaires in the US, Japan and Germany still make up more than half the world's richest, but total world wealth levels fell for the first time since the worst of the economic downturn in 2008.

In the UK, which has the fifth highest number of millionaires, membership of the elite club dropped 2.9% from 454,300 to 441,300, while both Germany and France saw increases.

The world's wealthiest have $42tn at their disposal, down 1.7% on 2010, with all regions seeing a fall, except the oil-rich Middle East.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jun/19/world-wealth-report-asia-america-millionaires

(V): "You do agree greed is wrong?"

Yes, I agree greed is wrong, but I'm probably saying it's wrong for a different reason than you are. The reason I think greed is wrong is because in the long run it ends up losing what it hopes to gain, plus some.

Last year your country passed what has been described as a "millionaires tax". It's essentially the same kind of tax that Obama is pushing for in my country. But in only one year your new tax has backfired, and now your government will be taking in less money from your millionaire class than it did a year ago. On top of that there will be less money invested in your economy and fewer jobs will be created... whenever the wealthy are actively ingaged in business the result is always new jobs and more people who will be paying taxes.

Governmental greed has resulted in taking in less of a percentage from millionaires than they were getting a year ago. Greed hasn't gotten your governement more in revenue, it has created an environment where it will be getting less than it did before raising taxes on your wealthiest citizens.

Draconian measures can only work if you go all the way with it... make it illegal for millionaires and billionaires to retire or move away. Under the threat of fines and imprisonment your government should make it illegal for your millionaires to do anything differently. Hold a gun to the head of the goose that lays your golden eggs, that's what any despot who has absolute power would do. Half way measures simply do not work, and I gaurentee those millionaires won't cough up the extra dough if you don't make them do it by force and by threats.

Governmental greed (along with an amazingly stupid short sightedness) has caused your millionaire class to go from 16,000 millionaires down to 6 thousand in only one year. I'm talking about millionaires who have either left your country or have retired, and you can't tax someone who either no longer lives there or who is no longer generating new (taxable) income. The same thing happened in France (70% tax rate on millionaires) and many of their millionaires moved to a neighboring country... I learned this morning that many of them have taken up residence only 800 yards from the French border. That is truly hilarious... they wanted to move away, but not too far away. They still like France, and want to be near to it, but not actually be beholden to it in any significant way. It's like they are saying 'I love you my darling, but don't get too close'... LOL

HSBC has confirmed it is to pay US authorities $1.9bn (£1.2bn) in a settlement over money laundering, the largest paid in such a case.

A US Senate investigation said the UK-based bank had been a conduit for "drug kingpins and rogue nations". Money laundering is the process of disguising the proceeds of crime so that the money cannot be linked to the wrongdoing. HSBC admitted having poor money laundering controls and apologised.

"We accept responsibility for our past mistakes," said HSBC group chief executive Stuart Gulliver in a statement. "We have said we are profoundly sorry for them, and we do so again." The bank said it had spent $290m on improving its systems to prevent money laundering and clawed back some bonuses paid to senior executives in the past.

It also said it expected to reach an agreement with the UK's Financial Services Authority shortly. Last month it announced it had set aside $1.5bn to cover the costs of any settlement or fines.

The news followed the announcement of a similar but much smaller settlement with UK-based Standard Chartered bank, which will pay $300m in fines for violating US sanctions.

Iamon lyme: irrelevant.

"I think it's funny how you can support the legality of something you approve of, and ignore any question of morality, unless it suits you to do the exact opposite."

Assumption.. like most of your post.

Most people expect some form of tax avoidance, as long as firms don't get too greedy.

You do agree greed is wrong?

(V): I'm assuming you mean it is immoral for big businesses to take advantage of legal deductions, or other legal means by which someone may pay less or even nothing in taxes... okay, you didn't say legal deductions, but that is what some people today are calling loopholes. They are not the same things.

I think we both know that when you say the word "immoral", it's the same as acknowledging the 'legality' of legitimate deductions. Legal deductions are... (drum roll please)... tum ta da da tum ta daaa... LEGAL, and are purposefully placed in tax codes to be used... legally. As in, not against the law. Was Starbucks breaking any of your tax laws? I don't think so, which is why I believe you are saying taking advantage of your tax code is 'immoral'... because you can't say it's 'illegal'.

I think it's funny how you can support the legality of something you approve of, and ignore any question of morality, unless it suits you to do the exact opposite.

Anyway. loopholes are unintended "holes" found in the language of tax laws that allow some folks to be able to avoid paying taxes on money intended to be taxed. That's the difference. If you are calling legal deductions or any other legal means a company uses to avoid paying taxes "loopholes", then you are clearly mistaken. By the way, if you are so indignant over big business avoiding taxation, maybe you should think about boycotting Google. Are you aware of how much money they are currently sheltering in offshore island accounts? I could tell you, but why not do a google search and see for yourself?

... or maybe try using some other search engine, just to be sure you are able find that information.

*<(:op

Iamon lyme: irrelevant straw man argument.

Iamon lyme: Sorry, but I 'feel' the need to clean part of that up...

"Goverments free to do as they will are not traditionally known for the same kind of prudent money management forced on businesses by competition and willing customers."

(V): How does morality play a part in demanding businesses pay more in taxes? Especially when the so called "need" for money is originally created by a governing elite intent on practicing poor money management.


If there has been any immorality here it's in how the governing elite have foolishly spent the money coming from people they are supposed to be doing right by. If you don't live under a totalitarian dictatorship then why can't you hold your goverment accountable for how it maganges your (the taxpayers) money?

Goverments free to do as they will are not traditionally known for prudent money management forced on businesses by competion and willing customers. If Obama and the Democrats here are successful in getting the wealthiest to pay more than they already are, the increase in revenue will be enough to fund the US government for a whopping 8.5 days. Can you seriously argue that eight and half days out of every year is enough to offset cutbacks, loss of jobs and even loss of taxable revenue from a company that might choose to leave for a friendlier working environment? There is no law, moral or otherwise, that can prevent a business to relocate to another country if the tax burdon becomes rediculously high.

If your business is located in North Korea, then there probably are "incentives" for you to remain where you are.

Iamon lyme: Those that are British.. mainly embarrassed at their employers action. Probably hoping they can find an honest employer who has moral standards who pays their way rather than one that has no morals.

After all, there are other firms who will pay their taxes, like small mom and pop operations who with other coffee/restaurant chains who do pay their fair share.. and that of Starbucks. As tax rates have to be higher in order to offset immoral tax avoidance.

(V): How do employees at UK Starbucks feel about this? I'm assuming most of them are UK citizens, and employment at Starbucks either supplements or is their main income. I wonder if any of those protesters have considered what the law of unintended consequences may reveal if they get what they want... or are consequences that do not affect them too far removed from own their lives to be worth worrying over? If they've never worked there (or know anyone who does) or purchase anything there, or ever intend to, then they obviously have nothing to lose. It makes sense... if your actions do not impact your own life, then why should you care if it impacts anyone else? Liberalism is all about saying you care about your fellow human being... it doesn't actually mean you do, or need to, or must.

At midday dozens of protesters who'd been waiting quietly inside the store stood up, unfurled their banners and leaflets and began chanting: "Starbucks - pay your taxes! Starbucks sucks money from the UK! Boycott Starbucks - tell your friends!"

The cafe's manager appeared unsure how to react. At one point it looked as though he was going to lock everyone inside. A small group of police officers went in and after half an hour the protesters left - peacefully but noisily - to join another group at a second Starbucks nearby.

As far as UK Uncut are concerned, Starbucks' offer to pay £20m is a marketing stunt. Many passing Christmas shoppers we've spoken to seem to agree that the law needs to be changed to force multinationals to pay more tax in the UK.

Starbucks has paid £8.6m in corporation tax in its 14 years of trading in the UK, and nothing in the last three years. The company had UK sales of nearly £400m in 2011 but has reported a taxable profit only once in its 15 years of operating in the UK.

Starbucks now says it expects to pay around £10m in corporation tax for each of the next two years, a move described by tax experts as unprecedented.

Actually.. maybe that should be White Castles.... Harold and Kumar style..

Bwild: .... maybe a McD's chain would be better... suit the apparent system of smoking and fighting better.

(V): maybe they'll get a Starbucks!! lol

I'm seeing a number of posts and blogs on the net talking about Afghanistan being a big untapped mine.

As in.... there are about a trillion dollars of untapped (as the Afghans have never had any real mining industry) resources. Including lithium, the big must have metal of the mobile age.

The Russians knew it, hence their efforts to make Afghanistan a satellite state..... The arming of the Taliban in the 80's being sour grapes by US interests who did not want Russia getting hold of that wealth.

New surveys have confirmed the Russian records.

The Col: ... How are they doing it now.....It transferred some money to a Dutch sister company in royalty payments, bought coffee beans from Switzerland and paid high interest rates to borrow from other parts of the business.

It's decided not to use some of these as a method to reduce it tax liability, so far on it's royalty payments to the Dutch company.

HMRC (revenue and customs) is to get £77 million extra, which it thinks can help recoup £2 billion a year in tax lost through avoidance......

... imo, cut through the bull and give the HMRC twice that. The return would probably be in the £3.5 billion plus zone.

(V): Maybe a stupid question , but how did they avoid it in the past?