Taxing the super rich

[aguero93:20]

Well, i am not angry. Disappointed with what i see and what could be, yes, but not angry at you or your mum. (you seem to take my comments personally).
And well, you again, are proving my comments. You both work in the Public sector, you because of your mum. And you working for the public sector gives you a great salary (again proving my points as per the article).

I don't feel sorry for myself and i never suggested i do. i also will not stoop to insults or deflection to win internet point or arguments. I am just saying it as i see it.

I work in the private sector.

 

[aguero93:20]

Well Costa Coffee was founded in the same year. I don't see how it's relevant to the argument though.

It's not, but increased spending always boosts the tax take.

 

[Henkeman]

I just pointed out that the current state of European Vs UK growth provides more weight to the view that having a lower tax economy doesn't grow GDP anymore than having a medium or high tax economy as do thousands of other studies. I'd say my opinion is based more on the totality of all that alongside the obvious fact that state spending drives the economy hugely, and much more than the private sector when it spends that money on huge infrastructure projects. If anyone's drawing conclusions, it's you.

No it doesn't. And nor would it if the opposite was shown. Snapshots are not meaningful, and using snapshots to support an entire worldview as you have is even sillier. I posed a challenge to you earlier on this, you ignored it, because it won't suit your argument. As usual.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

And you think the amount of coffee sold would not decline if the price goes up? Hmmmm, interesting theory which seems to have evaded the capitalist world for the past 100 years.

Well that's a great argument for abolishing taxes on retail profits completely. It fails as an argument as to why one American multinational should be allowed to avoid taxes while local businesses are expected to pay in full though.

But just out of interest, if Starbucks' tax avoidance is to bring lower prices to us all rather than higher profits to them, why aren't they the cheapest coffee on the high street?

 

[Armchair Supporter]

I work in the private sector.

Those public servants you're angry at? Between us we pay one of them every year

Well word your posts more carefully then.

 

[aguero93:20]

Well word your posts more carefully then.

Work in the private sector.
Pay tax that (indirectly) pays for public servants.

Don't see why those two can't coexist tbh.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Well that's a great argument for abolishing taxes on retail profits completely. It fails as an argument as to why one American multinational should be allowed to avoid taxes while local businesses are expected to pay in full though.

But just out of interest, if Starbucks' tax avoidance is to bring lower prices to us all rather than higher profits to them, why aren't they the cheapest coffee on the high street?

I'm not advocating Starbucks avoiding paying taxes. I haven't been following your debate to be honest.

Businesses price their product at the highest price the market will bear, not the lowest price they can make and sell it for. How much tax they pay is never going to influence the retail price, merely the post-tax profits.

 

[Fame Monster]

No it doesn't. And nor would it if the opposite was shown. Snapshots are not meaningful, and using snapshots to support an entire worldview as you have is even sillier. I posed a challenge to you earlier on this, you ignored it, because it won't suit your argument. As usual.

You didn't pose any challenge, you just said I'm forming a view on the basis of a 'snapshot' after your point about the UK Vs EU27 deficit was proven to be wrong. I've just explained why I'm not forming my view on the basis of a snapshot and that all the snapshot does is corroborate a wider trend and that, ironically, by trying to misrepresent my argument on the basis of a single post, it's you who has actually formed an erroneous opinion from a 'snapshot'.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

It's not, but increased spending always boosts the tax take.

You have to demonstrate that having one coffee chain rather than another would lead to an increase in spending though. People have a certain amount of money that they're willing to spend. If somebody gets a drink on the way to work, economically, it makes absolutely no difference whether they buy it from Starbucks, Costa or a little independent place. It makes no difference whether they buy coffee, tea or a tropical fruit smoothie with chia seeds and almond milk. It still requires someone to serve it, creating a job. People don't spend more because Starbucks is there. Every penny they spend in Starbucks is a penny they don't spend somewhere else.

 

[aguero93:20]

You have to demonstrate that having one coffee chain rather than another would lead to an increase in spending though

That's why we don't, it's impossible to prove. We just look at overall spending.