Home | Forums | Gallery | Twitter
 
CPFC BBS  

Go Back   CPFC BBS Ľ Off Topic Ľ The Politics Forum

Notices

The Politics Forum Discussions that are wholly or mainly concerned with UK politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #41  
Old 13-02-2020, 11:51 AM
dogstar721 dogstar721 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,844
Rep Power: 21474845
dogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is here
Quote:
Originally Posted by steeleye20 View Post
Not paying taxes is the single most important thing a citizen or concern can do, but only if enough do it.

The 'elective dictatorship' of the UK cannot be changed by voting, but government excesses can be curbed by denial of the means.
Which is why its really tricky to do so if you're an ordinary citizen - PAYE etc means you don't really have the option of paying taxes. Which is why in the UK the generally traditional form of protest against government and corporations, that has been effective, tends to be the removal of work (Striking).
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 13-02-2020, 12:07 PM
cockneyrebel cockneyrebel is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lewisham
Posts: 15,387
Rep Power: 21474852
cockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adlerhorst View Post
Read this. Itís probably the most relevant thing you can read about this subject at the moment. If this wasnít mentioned you can safely assume that the commentators donít have a ******* clue what they were opining on.

To view the link you have to Register or Login
I'll read the link later, but do you think there is any reasonable chance of getting more tax out of companies wthout a huge overhaul of the system?

As at the moment more and more weatlh is going to the super rich, and companies are paying less tax than workers.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 13-02-2020, 12:07 PM
dogstar721 dogstar721 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,844
Rep Power: 21474845
dogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is here
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Aguila View Post
We never ask any shop to hold in to records they canít sell, they wouldnít be able to take risks.
Its fairly common in retail, or it was. Back when I worked and run bookshops most of what we sold was sale or return. With some just being returns of the front cover for paperbacks!

At the time you couldn't discount most books either, they had a set minimal retail price. You could however discount damaged books, which led to an interesting phase where Dillons would damage the covers of their books to discount them.

Where we dealt with distributors usually of smaller publishers - Books that were not sale or return usually had a higher mark up, or were cheaper to purchase - and we were generally far more cautious in purchasing these.

The scrapping of the net book agreement, generally f**ked small bookshops very hard and even the larger chains suffered (Dillons, Blackwells, Ottakers), as it lead to Supermarkets stocking books and mass discounting them as a loss leader.

But I've gone off topic here.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 13-02-2020, 12:10 PM
Adlerhorst's Avatar
Adlerhorst Adlerhorst is offline
Happy Felix Day!
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 42
Posts: 65,974
Rep Power: 21474852
Adlerhorst Sam the man is hereAdlerhorst Sam the man is hereAdlerhorst Sam the man is hereAdlerhorst Sam the man is hereAdlerhorst Sam the man is hereAdlerhorst Sam the man is hereAdlerhorst Sam the man is hereAdlerhorst Sam the man is hereAdlerhorst Sam the man is hereAdlerhorst Sam the man is hereAdlerhorst Sam the man is here
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockneyrebel View Post
I'll read the link later, but do you think there is any reasonable chance of getting more tax out of companies wthout a huge overhaul of the system?

As at the moment more and more weatlh is going to the super rich, and companies are paying less tax than workers.
Not without the overhaul. The link is the overhaul.

Also, companies do not bear the cost of tax even if they pay it. Employees, shareholders and investment bears the actual cost.
__________________
The Defector looks like no other breaking pitch in the game. It is well-supinated, leaving the right hand of Fernandez at a fastball trajectory before the laws of physics cease to apply and the laws of awesome take over.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 13-02-2020, 12:19 PM
cockneyrebel cockneyrebel is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lewisham
Posts: 15,387
Rep Power: 21474852
cockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is herecockneyrebel Sam the man is here
I think capitalism will continue to serve the super rich in bigger and bigger numbers. It's the problem for social democracy. And why I think we need to get rid of capitlaism for socialism.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 13-02-2020, 12:21 PM
El Aguila's Avatar
El Aguila El Aguila is offline
Middle class left.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: On Green Dolphin Street.
Age: 55
Posts: 48,481
Rep Power: 21474856
El Aguila Sam the man is hereEl Aguila Sam the man is hereEl Aguila Sam the man is hereEl Aguila Sam the man is hereEl Aguila Sam the man is hereEl Aguila Sam the man is hereEl Aguila Sam the man is hereEl Aguila Sam the man is hereEl Aguila Sam the man is hereEl Aguila Sam the man is hereEl Aguila Sam the man is here
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogstar721 View Post
The scrapping of the net book agreement, generally f**ked small bookshops very hard and even the larger chains suffered (Dillons, Blackwells, Ottakers), as it lead to Supermarkets stocking books and mass discounting them as a loss leader.
Indeed - it was a very bad battle to lose, imo. My then girlfriend was working at a small bookshop at the time, in Holborn.
__________________
Salt Peanuts! Salt Peanuts!
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 13-02-2020, 12:22 PM
dogstar721 dogstar721 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,844
Rep Power: 21474845
dogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adlerhorst View Post
They certainly can be, but not always. Brand clearly has value, how you value it is quite complicated though and is hugely different depending on the market. The brand value on something like a Latte is waaaaaay more important than on something that is, well not as homogeneous as a coffee flavoured hot milkshake.
Well it is, in terms of creating the illusion that allows you to make the big mark ups. In truth, most brand marketing is really based around psychological manipulation of the customer basis to sell them something as being more than the thing itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adlerhorst View Post
Leaving aside the value for time being, because there are decent comparables for that (like franchise fees - what a third party is prepared to pay to use a brand), and picking up the low tax jurisdiction point. Here the thing is to establish what that company in the low tax jurisdiction does to that Brand. Brand is IP. How was that IP created, how is it developed, how is it managed. Where is all that activity done? Now if thatís done in a low tax jurisdiction then thatís where the profits should be taxed.
That depends I think on whether a brand actually adds real value to the end experience. I find it interesting that a lot of 'protections' like the net book agreement were scrapped on the basis that it 'didn't serve consumers interests' even though the consequence was a LOT less bookshops - But brand marketing is in theory the exact opposite, its leveraging additional costs onto the consumer for a generally generic product - because of a presumed 'quality associated to the brand' that isn't qualitatively or quantitavily established.

A latte is a latte regardless of where you buy it. The actual difference in 'the experience' is for the most part a psychological phenomena. The difference between branded products and non-branded products is rarely significant or noticable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adlerhorst View Post
If you, as a country, really have the arsehole with that you can apply whatís known as a withholding tax to the royalty stream (the payment for the right to use the IP) and thatís a tax on revenue for the recipient. Under U.K. domestic tax law we withhold 20% on royalty payments to non-residents (unless there is another overriding law, like a tax treaty or EU directive).
Please note I'm talking in general here about brand marketing. Clearly it can be established that in some cases specific brands do represent higher quality - but for the most part, high street branding is about using advertising and marketing as a means of market competition, and consequently results in higher pricing on items that far exceeds the quality of the goods or the production. In many if not most cases, what you're paying extra for, absurdly, is the money spent selling the item to you in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adlerhorst View Post
If there is no or Insufficient substance in the other jurisdiction in respect of the IP then there are all manner of routes we can use to get them.
I think there is definately a good arguement for recovering the costs spent on IP branding and marketing as a means of off writing tax. However, say, in the case of Amazon, its not about a brand - Amazon is mearly the means by which a product is delivered to you. Its a faciliator of a service. It, like many brands, doesn't actually manufacture or produce the product it sells, it simply purchases it from contracted sellers, and re-sells it.

Brands like lacost etc have been running a con on the public for decades in which cheap third world produced goods are sold at vastly inflated prices to justify massive marketing and advertising costs in 'market positioning' (Even the origins of Branding and Marketing, are based in the psychological manipulation of punters).
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 13-02-2020, 01:03 PM
Spindle's Avatar
Spindle Spindle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 10,931
Rep Power: 21474839
Spindle Sam the man is hereSpindle Sam the man is hereSpindle Sam the man is hereSpindle Sam the man is hereSpindle Sam the man is hereSpindle Sam the man is hereSpindle Sam the man is hereSpindle Sam the man is hereSpindle Sam the man is hereSpindle Sam the man is hereSpindle Sam the man is here
Quote:
Originally Posted by steeleye20 View Post
And now, Karl Marx for that new 3-piece suite.......

'Fulfilled by Amazon'.

More references to Marxism without knowing what Marxism is.
__________________
"You lot [BHA Supporters club] actively tried to get your ground turned into a retail park" - Adlerhorst
https://www.northstandchat.com/showt...secret-history
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 13-02-2020, 01:05 PM
Spindle's Avatar
Spindle Spindle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 10,931
Rep Power: 21474839
Spindle Sam the man is hereSpindle Sam the man is hereSpindle Sam the man is hereSpindle Sam the man is hereSpindle Sam the man is hereSpindle Sam the man is hereSpindle Sam the man is hereSpindle Sam the man is hereSpindle Sam the man is hereSpindle Sam the man is hereSpindle Sam the man is here
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockneyrebel View Post
I think capitalism will continue to serve the super rich in bigger and bigger numbers. It's the problem for social democracy. And why I think we need to get rid of capitlaism for socialism.

At last the best explanation of Marxism I have heard so far.
__________________
"You lot [BHA Supporters club] actively tried to get your ground turned into a retail park" - Adlerhorst
https://www.northstandchat.com/showt...secret-history
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 13-02-2020, 01:10 PM
dogstar721 dogstar721 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,844
Rep Power: 21474845
dogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adlerhorst View Post
Not without the overhaul. The link is the overhaul.

Also, companies do not bear the cost of tax even if they pay it. Employees, shareholders and investment bears the actual cost.
Only if your a company not paying tax - which gives you a massive financial advantage in the market place to increase your market share, as you've effectively 'saved 20%' on operational costs.

Employers and Shareholders generally experience the benefits of taxation as well, for example when they're sick and need a doctor, their house is on fire etc. Similarly, companys benefit from paying tax directly by being allowed to sell their goods in the country in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 13-02-2020, 01:20 PM
dogstar721 dogstar721 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,844
Rep Power: 21474845
dogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is here
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockneyrebel View Post
I think capitalism will continue to serve the super rich in bigger and bigger numbers. It's the problem for social democracy. And why I think we need to get rid of capitlaism for socialism.
Problem really isn't with the concepts of capitalism or socialism, its with people. They've always been the problem with any system of organisation - notably the concept of balancing of power is missing. Neither system seems to want to understand that the problem lies with power and status, not actually with wealth, shared or otherwise.

The more you reduce and regulate power and status, and the sources by which it can be obtained, and utilised, the further you get away from the capacity to justify immoral or unethic decisions, on the basis of having status or power.

Both capitalism and socialism really are simply means for identifying the value of limited resources and the best means for distributing that value back into society. Neither are inherently evil, and nor is money. Evil is a thing in people, typically related to power and status. And wealth is one of the primary faciliators of power and status - and arguably the easest to utilise.

Its kind of important to remember that prior to the Protestant Reformation, as an example, the best use of wealth was generally considered to be charity or alms - The notion, even among the wealthy, of using wealth to generate more wealth wasn't really until the emergence of the merchant middle classes.

Land was the source to status and power (land and proximity to the king).
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 13-02-2020, 01:34 PM
Adlerhorst's Avatar
Adlerhorst Adlerhorst is offline
Happy Felix Day!
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 42
Posts: 65,974
Rep Power: 21474852
Adlerhorst Sam the man is hereAdlerhorst Sam the man is hereAdlerhorst Sam the man is hereAdlerhorst Sam the man is hereAdlerhorst Sam the man is hereAdlerhorst Sam the man is hereAdlerhorst Sam the man is hereAdlerhorst Sam the man is hereAdlerhorst Sam the man is hereAdlerhorst Sam the man is hereAdlerhorst Sam the man is here
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogstar721 View Post
Only if your a company not paying tax - which gives you a massive financial advantage in the market place to increase your market share, as you've effectively 'saved 20%' on operational costs.

Employers and Shareholders generally experience the benefits of taxation as well, for example when they're sick and need a doctor, their house is on fire etc. Similarly, companys benefit from paying tax directly by being allowed to sell their goods in the country in the first place.
Youíve missed the point.
__________________
The Defector looks like no other breaking pitch in the game. It is well-supinated, leaving the right hand of Fernandez at a fastball trajectory before the laws of physics cease to apply and the laws of awesome take over.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 13-02-2020, 01:44 PM
Skintagain's Avatar
Skintagain Skintagain is offline
Policy advisor to God
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Just outside the EU
Posts: 14,389
Rep Power: 21474846
Skintagain Sam the man is hereSkintagain Sam the man is hereSkintagain Sam the man is hereSkintagain Sam the man is hereSkintagain Sam the man is hereSkintagain Sam the man is hereSkintagain Sam the man is hereSkintagain Sam the man is hereSkintagain Sam the man is hereSkintagain Sam the man is hereSkintagain Sam the man is here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adlerhorst View Post
Read this. Itís probably the most relevant thing you can read about this subject at the moment. If this wasnít mentioned you can safely assume that the commentators donít have a ******* clue what they were opining on.

To view the link you have to Register or Login
Can you get it down to half a dozen bullet points for us.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 13-02-2020, 03:03 PM
Skintagain's Avatar
Skintagain Skintagain is offline
Policy advisor to God
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Just outside the EU
Posts: 14,389
Rep Power: 21474846
Skintagain Sam the man is hereSkintagain Sam the man is hereSkintagain Sam the man is hereSkintagain Sam the man is hereSkintagain Sam the man is hereSkintagain Sam the man is hereSkintagain Sam the man is hereSkintagain Sam the man is hereSkintagain Sam the man is hereSkintagain Sam the man is hereSkintagain Sam the man is here
Quote:
Originally Posted by cockneyrebel View Post
I think capitalism will continue to serve the super rich in bigger and bigger numbers. It's the problem for social democracy. And why I think we need to get rid of capitlaism for socialism.
It does serve the rich but it also serves the people, just look at China, from a country with regular famine and atrocious living conditions under socialism to a world leading economy. Its capitalism that did that.

I can't think of anywhere doing great under socialism, I can think of countries that have great equality but its the equality of having nothing. Even then some are more equal than others.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 13-02-2020, 03:30 PM
dogstar721 dogstar721 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,844
Rep Power: 21474845
dogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adlerhorst View Post
Youíve missed the point.
Probably - its something of a forte along with digression, but I'd generally disagree that a brand is generally IP, in many cases. A latte is a latte, putting Starbucks on it, isn't intellectual property. Its putting it into a cup. Intellectual property really should be limited to where specific ownership of ideas and concepts is the property being traded or produced.

Which isn't coffee, shirts etc because there is not intellectual investment in the product, not in the way there is with a work of art, a novel or music (ie where the intellectual content is the product, and the product is simply the means of delivering that content.

Amazon / Starbucks / Costa etc aren't intellectual property (in fact I'd argue only one of them has any real intellectual property - the others take advantage of the concept of intellectual property).
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 13-02-2020, 03:45 PM
dogstar721 dogstar721 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,844
Rep Power: 21474845
dogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is heredogstar721 Sam the man is here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skintagain View Post
It does serve the rich but it also serves the people, just look at China, from a country with regular famine and atrocious living conditions under socialism to a world leading economy. Its capitalism that did that.
I'm not sure it is. China is an capitalist power house definately, but largely on the basis of it being a communist country in which the state holds massive monopolies and control over captialist industry and endevour. Trade and wealth production of themselves aren't capitalism necessarily. Concepts relating to free trade, market freedoms are more central to the philosophical nature of modern capitalism.

I think this is arguably that wealth is not the primary motivator of power and status in China, the Party is. Whilst the two are associated, being rich in China doesn't buy you power in the same way it does here, your status and power is still 'the states to take'. An arguement could probably be made that its one of the few countries to make Capitalism deliver socially without creating massive divides and problems (that said, it may be a side product of the fact they're an oppressive regime).

Of course communism and socialism are dialectical responses to capitalism. A socialist, who is so inclined, would in theory be in a must better position to understand capitalism than most ardent capitalists - because they've viewed it through critical analysis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skintagain View Post
I can't think of anywhere doing great under socialism, I can think of countries that have great equality but its the equality of having nothing. Even then some are more equal than others.
Some countries are doing alright, but you generally have to compare them to countries around them. When you compare Vietnam to the UK, then no its not, compare it to other third world countries, and its doing pretty well. Similarly Cuba, its not great, but compared to other countries around them its a very different kind of poverty (ie one without the starvation, slum shacks and lack of education and opportunity).

Its generally been a better life to be poor in Cuba, than poor in nearby Honduras. An arguement could generally have been made that during the cold war and into the 2000s, being poor in Cuba was less of a hardship than being poor in the US - given the level of education, healthcare provision and nuturional provision from the state.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 13-02-2020, 04:37 PM
Reps AJ's Avatar
Reps AJ Reps AJ is offline
Climbing for dollars
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Somewhere you're not
Posts: 14,433
Rep Power: 21474855
Reps AJ Sam the man is hereReps AJ Sam the man is hereReps AJ Sam the man is hereReps AJ Sam the man is hereReps AJ Sam the man is hereReps AJ Sam the man is hereReps AJ Sam the man is hereReps AJ Sam the man is hereReps AJ Sam the man is hereReps AJ Sam the man is hereReps AJ Sam the man is here
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogstar721 View Post
Probably - its something of a forte along with digression, but I'd generally disagree that a brand is generally IP, in many cases. A latte is a latte, putting Starbucks on it, isn't intellectual property.
My issue with it is that its Starbucks licensing the IP to... Starbucks.

I'm sure someone can justify it from an accounting or legal perspective, but morally it's one company charging itself money to avoid tax.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 13-02-2020, 04:43 PM
rhino_mik's Avatar
rhino_mik rhino_mik is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Larndan
Posts: 9,374
Rep Power: 21474851
rhino_mik Sam the man is hererhino_mik Sam the man is hererhino_mik Sam the man is hererhino_mik Sam the man is hererhino_mik Sam the man is hererhino_mik Sam the man is hererhino_mik Sam the man is hererhino_mik Sam the man is hererhino_mik Sam the man is hererhino_mik Sam the man is hererhino_mik Sam the man is here
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogstar721 View Post
I'm not sure it is. China is an capitalist power house definately, but largely on the basis of it being a communist country in which the state holds massive monopolies and control over captialist industry and endevour. Trade and wealth production of themselves aren't capitalism necessarily. Concepts relating to free trade, market freedoms are more central to the philosophical nature of modern capitalism.

I think this is arguably that wealth is not the primary motivator of power and status in China, the Party is. Whilst the two are associated, being rich in China doesn't buy you power in the same way it does here, your status and power is still 'the states to take'. An arguement could probably be made that its one of the few countries to make Capitalism deliver socially without creating massive divides and problems (that said, it may be a side product of the fact they're an oppressive regime).

Of course communism and socialism are dialectical responses to capitalism. A socialist, who is so inclined, would in theory be in a must better position to understand capitalism than most ardent capitalists - because they've viewed it through critical analysis.



Some countries are doing alright, but you generally have to compare them to countries around them. When you compare Vietnam to the UK, then no its not, compare it to other third world countries, and its doing pretty well. Similarly Cuba, its not great, but compared to other countries around them its a very different kind of poverty (ie one without the starvation, slum shacks and lack of education and opportunity).

Its generally been a better life to be poor in Cuba, than poor in nearby Honduras. An arguement could generally have been made that during the cold war and into the 2000s, being poor in Cuba was less of a hardship than being poor in the US - given the level of education, healthcare provision and nuturional provision from the state.
Also socialist states generally have a false representation of failure, as capitalist states will impose sanctions and embargoes which strangle their capacity for growth.
__________________
,
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 13-02-2020, 04:44 PM
rhino_mik's Avatar
rhino_mik rhino_mik is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Larndan
Posts: 9,374
Rep Power: 21474851
rhino_mik Sam the man is hererhino_mik Sam the man is hererhino_mik Sam the man is hererhino_mik Sam the man is hererhino_mik Sam the man is hererhino_mik Sam the man is hererhino_mik Sam the man is hererhino_mik Sam the man is hererhino_mik Sam the man is hererhino_mik Sam the man is hererhino_mik Sam the man is here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reps AJ View Post
My issue with it is that its Starbucks licensing the IP to... Starbucks.

I'm sure someone can justify it from an accounting or legal perspective, but morally it's one company charging itself money to avoid tax.
Yes. Lowering your profits in one tax jurisdiction so that they are transferring that money to where the tax rate is lower.
__________________
,
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 13-02-2020, 05:14 PM
Maz's Avatar
Maz Maz is offline
Semper Idem
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: A place where nothing ever happens.
Posts: 157,564
Rep Power: 21474854
Maz has disabled reputation
Oh bugger . Firefox won't let me edit
__________________
..
..G
abba Gabba Hey

.פɐppɐ פɐppɐ Hǝʎ


Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.