(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.

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 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: 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."

Iamon lyme: irrelevant straw man argument.

(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.

"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): "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