Thanks god!

@@terryz.9918 thanks for the tip I was about to leave this video the presenter needs to get a grip and learn about effective presentations, I'm sure they must be that shit on YT somewhere...

Took 6 minutes providing explanation to 6 year olds.

God sake... should of come straight to comments

Thanks

Modeled on that, I ought to be able to write off every material bit of my existence and be tax-exempt, as a wage earner of meager means. Almost every dollar goes to 'maintenance' of some sort, and rarely to profit or outright enjoyment. ; ]

Dude we're talking about Starbucks. They're a liquid cake store.

Not a claim, a fact.

@@RichardG774 No, it is a claim. Reinvesting profits are still profits. We don't have that luxury. It doesn't matter how much of our income we spend, we still get taxed on all of it, so why shouldn't they?

@@RichardG774 individuals get income taxed before expenses. With the exception of the things you just mentioned like charity, moving. Certain Medical. But how many people I'm moving every year? How many people had those same medical expenses every year? The write-offs that the working stiff gets are not of things that stay in that household such as meals, phone bills, Etc. But everything else I have to agree with you on. This country's economy is designed to benefit businesses. And they are creating jobs so they should have incentives

@@RichardG774 yes you are correct I didn't think of that. But I guess because that is only temporarily. 2025 all of that goes away. I don't know what will replace it though but it's not etched in stone

@@RichardG774 yes true

Still immoral. No excuses!

John Benton You are an idiot. Tax is theft when it's not voluntary. Governments are not GOD. You can't steal a lot of someone's money simply because they optimised their opportunities and became wealthy whilst you stuck to your 9 to 5.

One job making money another job keeping it, no point just putting hard work into making it, in business you need to automatically put hard work into keeping it if just to keep a level playing field with the competition, but at the end of the day individuals seem to be paying most of the taxes not international corporations, so individuals need to start using the same tricks.

if everyone had your mentality there would be no national economy. regardless of either you like it or not, there are things (such as roads) that is much easier and time efficient in the long run for the government to control it. if no one paid taxes their would be no roads, or roads with too many tolls that will increase time traveled, gas spent etc etc.

@@saberur66 Tax planning is vital to compete with your tax planning competitors whether you like it or not, you simply don't have a choice, Govts compete to reduce corporation tax to attract investors so virtually how small you are, plumber, builder form a company to reduce taxes if you can't beat them join them.

Yes... In India it us called Tax Accounting and Book Accounting. Govt has wised up and there is taxation linked to Book Accounting.

Any idea why Starbucks can't just up the salaries of the all the people in charge there (such that their costs are v large and they basically have no profits)? Is this not in interest because actually the personal income taxes are generally higher than the corporation taxes?

If taxation was less than it is in the UK, then the first method does work. They will never get away paying nil tax, but they will minimise it however possible.

@@joshuacolombi4538 The issue with this is that shareholders would be very upset.

In the third method think about new Starbucks restaurant being opened. There is only loss of money at the beginning of a shop. Furthermore this is the main reason why they are still more Starbucks restaurants. New shops = higher losses = higher revenue.

Bangladesh govt does tax on revenue, but at very low rates.

You can start by getting a Good accountant and start by paying yourself minimum wage and stick your whole family on minimum wage.

And also May be change the legal structure of your company, and instead of paying yourself salary, pay yourself dividend while keeping salary at minimum wage

Surely you have to make a profit to pay yourself with dividends? But then again, I suppose its better in the uk to pay 19% corp tax than 25% income tax, and then you only pay 7.5% on dividends...

@@jaywarriuk No technically minimum wage cannot be taxed everyone has an allowance, so you pay yourself the bare minimum which is tax free less any NI contribution. Then you make smart investments back into the company until you get to the amount you want to take out as a dividend. And then based on the assumption you are in your second year you can waiver the tax bill with any previous losses that will be accounted for :)

Here is how McDonalds and Coca Cola avoid taxes in Europe: You are not allowed to use a trademark or "brand" which is registered and paid for at the national patent- and trademark offices by somebody else. Unless you ask the trademark owner ( McDonalds parent-company wherever it is ) for permission and agree on a yearly payment called royalty or franchise which VARIES from year to year. McDonalds-parent has given a small ( merely 12 employees ) subsidiary-company MCD in Luxemburg the right to make franchise-agreements with restaurants in all European countries. Thus if McDonalds-France one year makes , say 200 million Euro profits ( sales minus expenses including salaries ) then MCD will decide that royalty for France should be 200m. When this inflatable expense is added to the real expenses then profits ( and thereby taxes ) become zero. Or royalty can be used in combination with write-offs on equipment such as stoves , ovens and trucks. Normally small MCD rakes in about 10 billion Euro each year from restaurants all over Europe. But what about taxes in Luxemburg ? If you are big , you can obtain a sweetheart deal with the tax-department ( Bureau d'Imposition ) see also Google "Luxembourg Leaks Wikipedia". Average citizens in Luxemburg pay much higher taxes. S t r a n g e principle: the more you earn , the less tax you pay. Here is how Coca Cola gets zero tax in Denmark ( and most other countries ) : Coca Cola consists of soda-water and a powder. The water is sold from Danish brewery Carlsberg to Coca Cola-Denmark. The powder ( ingredients are listed on the bottle , manufacturing price is about the same as for coffee ) is IMPORTED to Denmark from USA. If Coca Cola-Denmark one year has profits of 50m Kroner then this powder will cost 50m DKK. But then Coca Cola-USA will have to pay taxes of these 50m ? Yes theoretically , but Coca Cola-parent's office is in tax-free Delaware and it is from here the powder-invoice is mailed to Denmark. It is called "price-transfer". The powder itself arrives from some Coca Cola brewery in USA. I do not blame these companies for running their business efficiently , merely the POLITICIANS are to blame for not taking action. How ? By forbidding to deduct any amount on the tax return which has merely been paid to another company within the same group.

Education, healthcare, security, housing, etc... these are actual human rights and people have access to such things thanks to taxes. Good luck getting those in societies where people don't pay taxes.

@@Goreuncle I'm from Argentina. Good luck trusting the government to manage your money.

Yes they are, but the rates in the US and Holland are much lower than UK I believe

+GamingDeluxe i stand corrected, but my understanding is that while the interest does constitute income, in some jurisdictions(not sure if this applies to the US), because it is foreign interest, it is exempt from taxation. In this way, the interest escapes taxation. So the idea in these companies is to shift income around between different jurisdictions so that they are either exempt from paying taxes on their income or they pay lower taxes. Hope this answers your question

would still make financial sense for them if us income tax is smaller than uk corporation taxes - cost benefit analysis.

Rui Santos No they wouldn't they'd still find ways to reduce tax they pay for the exact reason you suggested; they're human. Humans are greedy by nature to maximise chances of survival. Their greatest desires are to maximise profit and minimise losses and as far as they're concerned, tax is a loss that needs to be minimised.

I would place a 99% certainty that the majority shareholders of SB earn more in a month than you will in a lifetime. Tax is the only vehicle we have to slow the rate of capitalism, I.e the rich getting richer. If anything the people at the top of society should pay a hell of a lot more than at the bottom in percentage terms. The equivalent of Spain’s GDP is underpaid every year in tax globally.... Next time before defending these companies and directors, consider who has to pay for the school your children go to, the hospital your grandparents go to, how on Earth you will afford houses after the rich have used them as investment portfolios and driven up the prices. These people take so much out and try their damned hardest to put nothing back. Tax avoidance is as bad for society as tax evasion, legal or not.

It seems the more a company makes the lower the percentage of tax paid

It's only "too high" if you're a greedy sociopath. The United States only taxes profits.

They're not human, Starbucks isn't owned by a person, it's owned by other private equity funds like pension funds. These people largely don't give a damn about the business, as long as share prices grow. And whatever proves you have more money at the end of the year works for them. It's distributed responsibility: CEO's feel pressure from shareholders, who feel pressure from investors, who don't even know where the money is going. This system is built to encourage very weird "on paper" behavior and shady tax practices, because no single person can really be blamed for it. That is the reason why companies like Microsoft, which make billions of dollars of profit keep restructuring every year, firing people are getting new ones with no real logic: they need to prove they're making better profit, so they send orders to HR and HR demands cuts in teams, despite the fact that business is actually going fine. Corporations are actually really inefficient, cause it's really hard to run organisations that are too big. But they make up with marketing tax cuts and many other practices that only work when you're sufficiently large.

then* Also, you might want to watch the video again. A chunk of the profit is converted to royalties and interest, which Starbucks ends up cashing. Basically, Starbucks pretends to make less money, by concocting fake costs.