Protests - Why Topshop?

Topshop always seems to be mentioned when protests occur, the london store was targeted, as was the brighton store, and it was closed in sheffield at another protest.

Any reason why it always seems to feature?

82 Comments

Original Poster

Also, watching the videos, the paparazzi seem to be causing a lot of hassle for the police. Should there be stricter rules for them?

It's owned by billionaire tax evader Philip Green. I think he gave his wife hundreds of millions in a gift to avoid tax. Something like that anyway.

sure topshop dont overly mind..makes their store more iconic

mittu1

It's owned by billionaire tax evader Philip Green. I think he gave his … It's owned by billionaire tax evader Philip Green. I think he gave his wife hundreds of millions in a gift to avoid tax. Something like that anyway.


or this.....makes more sense than what i said!

Banned

mittu1

It's owned by billionaire tax evader Philip Green. I think he gave his … It's owned by billionaire tax evader Philip Green. I think he gave his wife hundreds of millions in a gift to avoid tax. Something like that anyway.



But tax evasion is a crime - sure you don't mean tax avoidance?

Perhaps the looters like their clothes?

I vote for more cuts to pay for the damage by the moron element.

Original Poster

mittu1

It's owned by billionaire tax evader Philip Green. I think he gave his … It's owned by billionaire tax evader Philip Green. I think he gave his wife hundreds of millions in a gift to avoid tax. Something like that anyway.



Ah yes, I've heard that before actually. Just couldn't remember the reason, cheers!!

Yes you're right, the billionaire scumbags a tax avoider.

FilthAndFurry

But tax evasion is a crime - sure you don't mean tax avoidance?


mittu1

Yes you're right, the billionaire scumbags a tax avoider.



No he's not...........he operates within accordance to the law.

Banned

mittu1

Yes you're right, the billionaire scumbags a tax avoider.



Nothing wrong with that - plenty of people employ accountants to avoid paying as much tax as possible. It keeps a lot of accountants' kids in clothes (from Topshop).

Plus Philip Green is able to employ plenty of people in this country, whilst smashing up his shops means overtime for city workers to clean it up.

Everyone wins.

Syzable

No he's not...........he operates within accordance to the law.



it is still tax avoidance

The Tories don't care about tax avoidance anyway, they hired Green to conduct a review of public authority spending!

Banned

roryk83

it is still tax avoidanceThe Tories don't care about tax avoidance … it is still tax avoidanceThe Tories don't care about tax avoidance anyway, they hired Green to conduct a review of public authority spending!



Take Green out of the picture and this country will have higher unemployment and a lot less tax being paid by the retail ventures he runs.

Whenever I read comments slating those who have worked hard to be successful, I THINK OF THIS

Banned

JonnyTwoToes

Take Green out of the picture and this country will have higher … Take Green out of the picture and this country will have higher unemployment and a lot less tax being paid by the retail ventures he runs.Whenever I read comments slating those who have worked hard to be successful, I THINK OF THIS



Don't be daft...the very nature of retail means that someone else will step in a fill the gap.

JonnyTwoToes

Take Green out of the picture and this country will have higher … Take Green out of the picture and this country will have higher unemployment and a lot less tax being paid by the retail ventures he runs.Whenever I read comments slating those who have worked hard to be successful, I THINK OF THIS



For a start I didn't slate Green in my post, rather I was commenting on the Tories approach. Secondly, he should pay the tax he owes rather than paying accountants to find ways to avoid it - its a moral issue - at what point is enough enough? He is a multi millionaire!

Banned

A new report by the consultancy Tax Research UK estimates that only a third of UK companies paid tax in 2009, and that the Treasury could be missing out on £16bn in unpaid taxes. This follows calls by the Association of Revenue and Customs (ARC), a union representing HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) staff, for £260m in pump-priming funding for HMRC to raise £6bn in taxes, much of it from large corporations, to provide "an alternative to spending cuts". UK Uncut, a protest movement criticising corporate tax avoidance, has a similar message.

Not everyone agrees. David Gauke, exchequer secretary to the Treasury, sneered at UK Uncut in a speech this month to the Hundred Group of finance directors. Corporation tax is not a victimless tax, he argued: "The consensus, among economists at least, is that it's predominantly the employee who foots the bill." Corporation taxes harm workers, this argument goes. Some also argue that corporate taxation involves unfair double taxation, because we tax corporations once, then tax their dividends. Followers of the US economist Arthur Laffer even believe that corporation tax cuts pay for themselves, by creating extra economic activity which can then be taxed.

The subtext in all these arguments is that we should cut or even eliminate corporation taxes, and go soft on tax avoidance. This message underpins current Treasury proposals to let large companies write UK tax laws and slash their effective tax rates by using special exemptions when they use tax havens. George Monbiot rightly described these proposals in the Guardian last month as "the biggest and crudest corporate tax cut in living memory".

Yet the arguments that underpin these moves are bogus. Here are 10 solid reasons why we should tax corporations:

1) Corporate profits depend on tax-financed public goods: healthy and educated workforces; good infrastructure; publicly enforced respect for contracts and property rights, and so on. When corporations avoid or evade tax, legally or illegally, they free ride on the backs of the rest of us. Stop taxing them, and you savagely undermine political community.

2) Corporation taxes are an essential backstop to personal income tax. Cut them to zero, and wealthy individuals will increasingly reclassify their earnings as corporate income, typically using offshore corporate structures, and escape tax. Gauke's arguments about employees footing the corporate tax bill are irrelevant.

3) Gauke's claim of a "consensus among economists" that the burden of corporation taxes falls on employees and not on capital owners, is false. The US Congressional Budget Office said last week that it was "unclear" how much of the corporation tax burden fell on employees; earlier, it said that capital bore most or all of the corporate tax burden. The Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) in Washington said this month that the incidence of corporate tax fell mostly on capital owners, not employees. It added that corporate income tax was among the most progressive taxes, because stock ownership was heavily concentrated among the wealthiest taxpayers. This is an especially precious tax.

4) When Gauke talks about "employees", who does he mean? Goldman Sachs employees earned $430,700 on average last year. To the extent that the burden falls on them, taxing such firms makes the tax system more progressive. It would also cut into excessive bank remuneration, which has been a big factor in the recent financial crisis. Taxing financial corporations also curbs the "too big to fail" problem where large banks can hold governments hostage and shift losses on to taxpayers.

5) If corporation taxes didn't fall on the owners of capital, as Gauke claims, then corporations, responding to shareholders' wishes, shouldn't mind being taxed. So why do they spend so much time and money designing tax avoidance strategies?

6) Limited liability companies are separate legal persons, greater than the sum of their parts. So they should be taxed separately: this is not "double taxation". Limited liability lets shareholders dump costs on to society when things go wrong. Corporations must pay for this privilege.

7) Many corporations earn what economists call rents. These – like oil money that flows effortlessly into Saudi or Kuwaiti coffers – are earnings that arise not from hard work and real innovation but from accidents of nature or good fortune. Adair Turner recently explained how banks in the City of London are particularly adept at earning rents, such as from exploiting insider knowledge and expertise; from natural oligopolies in market-making and other activities; and from "valueless" trading activity. Economists since Adam Smith – including Turner – have advocated taxing rents especially hard.

8 ) Corporate tax avoidance, despite hiding behind weasel words such as "tax efficiency", is unproductive and inefficient. When corporate managers pursue tax avoidance they take their eye off what they do best – producing better or cheaper goods or services – and focus instead on engineering transfers of wealth from taxpayers to corporations. Clamp down on it, hard, to make markets more efficient.

9) It matters where company owners and business activities are. Take a US mining company digging gold in Zambia. If Zambia raises corporation taxes, wealth will flow from wealthy US stockholders to ordinary African taxpayers. The investor will stay, because that's where the gold is – and even if it goes, another will take its place. That basic formula works for profitable opportunities in general. Tax corporations, within reason, and they may bluff and bluster – but they will stay.

10) The "Laffer argument" that corporation tax cuts pay for themselves has been thoroughly debunked. Even Greg Mankiw, formerly chairman of George W Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, calls Laffer's adherents "charlatans and cranks".


Edited by: "slamdunkin" 28th Mar 2011

Here are 10 solid reasons why we should tax corporations:



10 Solid reasons...........based on the USA. Could have at least done their own research. lol

Banned

http://tcpm.mrlazyinc.com/files/images/Funny%2022/haters_gonna_hate_pink_suit.jpg

JonnyTwoToes

Take Green out of the picture and this country will have higher … Take Green out of the picture and this country will have higher unemployment and a lot less tax being paid by the retail ventures he runs.


Yeah, a lot of accountants will be unemployed. Boo hoo.

Banned

nick1austin

Yeah, a lot of accountants will be unemployed. Boo hoo.



You have a problem with accountants? So long as they aren't breaking the law I don't see what the problem is. Do you go out of your way to pay more tax then you could?

Banned

JonnyTwoToes

Take Green out of the picture and this country will have higher … Take Green out of the picture and this country will have higher unemployment and a lot less tax being paid by the retail ventures he runs.Whenever I read comments slating those who have worked hard to be successful, I THINK OF THIS



Yeah because nobody would fill in the gap left by Green's departure from retail in this country...

FilthAndFurry

You have a problem with accountants?


To be honest yes, along with all middle-management types who add virtually nothing to productivity and are just a drain on society. I'm with the Golgafrinchams who managed to rid their society of the useless third of the population including insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, management consultants, telephone sanitizers etc.

Banned

master_chief

Yeah because nobody would fill in the gap left by Green's departure from … Yeah because nobody would fill in the gap left by Green's departure from retail in this country...



But then you guys will have a go at whoever fills his shoes - you don't like success, it's obvious.

Banned

nick1austin

To be honest yes, along with all middle-management types who add … To be honest yes, along with all middle-management types who add virtually nothing to productivity and are just a drain on society. I'm with the Golgafrinchams who managed to rid their society of the useless third of the population including insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, management consultants, telephone sanitizers etc.



Much like what the Conservatives are doing then - glad to see you're on board.

Banned

nick1austin

To be honest yes, along with all middle-management types who add … To be honest yes, along with all middle-management types who add virtually nothing to productivity and are just a drain on society. I'm with the Golgafrinchams who managed to rid their society of the useless third of the population including insurance salesmen, personnel officers, security guards, management consultants, telephone sanitizers etc.



Have you told your accountant how you feel about him?

JonnyTwoToes

But then you guys will have a go at whoever fills his shoes - you don't … But then you guys will have a go at whoever fills his shoes - you don't like success, it's obvious.



yeah that's it - how insightful

Banned

roryk83

yeah that's it - how insightful



Thought so.

Maybe people "don't like", corruption, vulgar excess, injustice, poverty, War, ignorance, greed, etc rather than "success".

I am proud to say i do not discriminate ...... I Don't Like ANYBODY

Banned

So its not because they sell crap gear then?

Banned

Plum

Maybe people "don't like", corruption, vulgar excess, injustice, poverty, … Maybe people "don't like", corruption, vulgar excess, injustice, poverty, War, ignorance, greed, etc rather than "success".



And now your going to tell us where Mr Green has been corrupt, been 'vulgarly excessive' (whatever than means), broken the law, caused poverty, started a war and been greedy?

Or are you just being a silly socialist again?

JonnyTwoToes

And now your going to tell us where Mr Green has been corrupt, been … And now your going to tell us where Mr Green has been corrupt, been 'vulgarly excessive' (whatever than means), broken the law, caused poverty, started a war and been greedy?Or are you just being a silly socialist again?



I would say he certainly would hit a couple on the list and maybe more with some more digging.

BTW As long as you continue to be a crazy capitalist I reserve the right to be a silly socialist.

Banned

Plum

I would say he certainly would hit a couple on the list and maybe more … I would say he certainly would hit a couple on the list and maybe more with some more digging.BTW As long as you continue to be a crazy capitalist I reserve the right to be a silly socialist.



Which ones? Come on Plum, your not going to cast aspersions at someone with no way of backing them up are you? That's not like you.

Banned

Haven't you got some dusting to do johnny...while the wife is at work bring home the bacon.

Banned

slamdunkin

Haven't you got some dusting to do johnny...while the wife is at work … Haven't you got some dusting to do johnny...while the wife is at work bring home the bacon.



Since I started at 6:30 this morning, I thought I'd give myself a break. That OK?

JonnyTwoToes

Which ones? Come on Plum, your not going to cast aspersions at someone … Which ones? Come on Plum, your not going to cast aspersions at someone with no way of backing them up are you? That's not like you.




Greedy and unjust are the ones that jump to mind immediately. Anyone with his amount of money that does not maximise the tax they pay rather than minimise it is greedy and has no sense of justice.

Banned

Plum

Greedy and unjust are the ones that jump to mind immediately. Anyone with … Greedy and unjust are the ones that jump to mind immediately. Anyone with his amount of money that does not maximise the tax they pay rather than minimise it is greedy and has no sense of justice.



I minimise the amount of tax I pay - don't you? Or do you ask to pay more?

Let's also be fair and point out that he has given to charity.

thisislondon.co.uk/sta….do

In fact I'd say that with the people he employs and the money he has given to charity, he has probably done more than you or anyone in your family has done to help people.

Banned

And maybe you'd like to have a pop at the Barclay brothers (Ritz owners) for giving over £40m to medical science?

FilthAndFurry

I minimise the amount of tax I pay - don't you? Or do you ask to pay … I minimise the amount of tax I pay - don't you? Or do you ask to pay more?Let's also be fair and point out that he has given to charity.http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23861280-topshop-boss-sir-philip-green-gives-pound-100000-to-the-dispossessed-to-help-londons-poor.doIn fact I'd say that with the people he employs and the money he has given to charity, he has probably done more than you or anyone in your family has done to help people.



I have no doubt that donation was used by his accountants to avoid even more tax.

I pay what tax is due and do not re-arrange my life to avoid paying what tax as I believe it is a just way of running a society.

This man has more money than he could reasonably spend in a lifetime and the fact that he pays people to lower the amount he pays to the state in taxes, therefore reducing the amount we have to spend of public services and infrastructure is a disgrace and shameful.

JonnyTwoToes

And maybe you'd like to have a pop at the Barclay brothers (Ritz owners) … And maybe you'd like to have a pop at the Barclay brothers (Ritz owners) for giving over £40m to medical science?




If these people paid the amount of tax they should there would be no need for donations of any sort. This is just a scam to distract fromt he billions they make virtually tax free.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text
    Top Discussions
    1. I want to talk about the WEATHER no politics no religion19047070
    2. Forza Motorsport 7 Demo goes live on Xbox One and PC (6pm - 19/09)56
    3. miikeyblue and shabbird's (but mostly shabbird's) Tuesday night pub quiz!543734
    4. Apples new update47

    See more discussions