@RichardJMurphy is being vilely discriminatory here

markoffairtax

I think we can guess who that is aimed at, can’t we?

Yup, Starbucks.

But wait!

The purpose of the Fair Tax Mark Criteria 2013-14 for Solely UK-based Companies is to provide organisations with a widely accepted and freely available set of criteria to guide them to achieving maximum transparency and fairness in their taxation policies, especially when it comes to the preparation of material for publication.

The solely UK-based version of the assessment tool has been designed for use by (all must apply):

UK limited companies, co-operatives and plcs. It is not suitable for sole traders and partnerships not putting accounts on public record. Nor is it suitable for limited liability partnerships where the owners pay the tax for the business and so no tax declaration is made by the organisation
Companies that are small or medium sized as defined by the Companies Act 2006
Companies that only trade from the UK
Companies that do not use tax havens (including for employee benefit trusts etc.)

Starbucks is a multinational and therefore cannot even be considered for eligibility for this Mark of Fair Tax. The stupid bastards have set the system up so that the specific companies they’re complaining about couldn’t even pay them to get the Mark if they wanted to.

18 thoughts on “@RichardJMurphy is being vilely discriminatory here”

  1. john77

    You bugger, you beat me to it:

    “Nor is it suitable for limited liability partnerships where the owners pay the tax for the business and so no tax declaration is made by the organisation”

    fancy that!

  2. Off topic:

    Tim (Worstall): regarding that thing a week or so ago about world trade not getting back to its 1914 level until 1960. Here’s Dr Stephen Davies’s reply to me on it-

    I’m afraid you haven’t got it quite right. What I say (which is not seriously contested) is that the share of world GDP that came from international trade (defined as the sum of imports and exports) did not get back to its 1914 level until 1960. The share of world GDP accounted for by exports did not reach the level of 1929 until the early 1960s. The two links below have tables that illustrate this and also the related point that if you look at the share of national GDP accounted for by trade several countries are no more globalised than they were in the 1900s. hope this helps.

    http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/misc/globalization/

    http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/Mark_Dean/Other_Paper_1.pdf

    So, I was wrong, but had a sort of ballparky point. Well not really, I was just wrong.

  3. I wouldn’t doubt the point being made here. Wouldn’t even bother to check it, would just accept it as being roughly true.

    The point you did make was of course rather different. Still, at least we know this isn’t the internet now that someone has admitted to error.

  4. I said global production didn’t I? Can we not just pretend they’re the same thing? Then I wouldn’t have been wrong, and my self esteem would be intact rather than in tatters.

  5. There isn’t actually a Starbucks in Downham Market. In fact the nearest one to Mr M is in Wisbech about ten miles away.

    So this boycott of Starbucks won’t have much impact upon him.

    (Though I like to think RM has better taste in coffee than Starbucks’ mildly coffee-flavoured warm milk).

  6. The stupid bastards have set the system up so that the specific companies they’re complaining about couldn’t even pay them to get the Mark if they wanted to.

    I don’t think that’s stupid. I think it’s the entire damn point, because now they can say “If they haven’t got the Faux Tax Mark then they’re evil! EVIL I SAY AND MUST BE BURNT AT THE STAKE!!!” and keep attacking Starbucks et al with yet another weapon.

    I’d love to see the reaction of his supporters if all multinationals did pull out of the UK. I bet they’d be rather upset at losing the Schumpterian profits they’ve become used to.

  7. Peter Risdon:

    It’s ok that a closed company is being used. That means by their own definitions it is not subject to the fair tax mark* and therefore is on the side of the angels.

    *I refuse to dignify it by giving it capital letters

  8. (Though I like to think RM has better taste in coffee than Starbucks’ mildly coffee-flavoured warm milk).

    I wonder if he has adopted the Eoin Clarke coffee mantra?

    Although I suspect that relying on the LHTC being “better” at anything (except self-worship, in its myriad forms) is probably futile and quite possibly exceedingly dangerous.

    With a complete absence of evidence (and if I had any I would disregard it) I have him down as a “warm water*” drinker.

    * Wave a teabag in the direction of the cup and serve. Usually with milk. Quite often with bergamot.

  9. Of course he has to boycott Starbucks, since he can’t boycott Apple (owing an iMac, iPad, iPhone and MacBook air), he can’t boycott Google as their YouTube bandwidth saves him for paying for his own server’s bandwidth. He can’t boycott Twitter, because it gives him a mouthpiece, he can’t boycott Amazon as it sells his books.

  10. So boycotting someplace 10 miles from his house will work?
    Hey, maybe he can also boycott any franchised starbucks when he’s travelling, after all those owners will be the ones qualifying for his fair tax mark.

  11. I was wondering what would happen if two companies with >10m turnover both in the same industry and both with exactly the same accounts which match the FTM criteria .

    Company A decides to stump up £4k per year for the license to use the mark & Company B does not. The FTM publicity then starts promoting Company A, as does Hodge & various cronies, thus causing issues for Company B.

    Will they all not end up in Court being sued by Company B?

    It’s almost a protection racket.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *