A football player beats Amazon and Starbucks!

When I read the news, I did not believe it for a moment and I went looking for other sources, and I thought I would discover that history is a story made full of the Internet and social media. How is it possible that an English Premier League football player pays more taxes than the Amazon and Starbucks giant corporations in Britain?
After Chelsea midfielder Ngolo Kanti, 27, was named on Google, questions arose about his new deal with his club, which he said would pay more taxes than businesses for their activities. Great company in Great Britain. The news was published in a number of English newspapers and websites, and it was useful to address them. Amazon and Starbucks have faced a storm of criticism in newspapers and the British Parliament in recent years because of the low taxes they pay for their activities in the country. He is about to ask the government, in front of the parliament, what some considered a "scandal" and others described it as a moral crisis. A British parliamentary committee also subjected the leaders of the three companies to surveillance for tax evasion.
After extending his five-year contract with Chelsea, Kanti, a French immigrant from Mali, will receive a weekly salary of £ 290,000, or more than £ 15 million a year. Because the player had rejected the proposed transfer of wages to offshore companies located in tax havens and insisted on fully paying his British tax liabilities, he had to pay six million seven hundred thousand pounds of taxes. per year.
British newspapers opened the debate by comparing Chelsea's and France's mid-market taxes, with Amazon and Starbucks paying attention to the paradox and highlighting the issue of preventing large companies from paying "fair taxes" through methods reducing their net income. Britain therefore has the volume of its tax implications. Amazon, for example, paid £ 1.7 million to the UK Treasury for its profits, which reached £ 79 million last year. Starbucks, in a number of reports published with the story of Kanti, said last year have paid 6 million and 200,000 pounds of taxes.
But the British newspaper The Mirror issued a letter from Martin Brooke, director of Starbucks Europe, Middle East and Africa, saying the company had taken several steps to adjust its tax status, taking into account comments made in recent years and gaps in its tax obligations in the past. , Thus increasing their tax contribution. Brock pointed out that the company's accounts clearly showed that she had paid 13,700,000 pounds of tax last year, pointing out that the Financial Times had already released a similar clarification on taxes paid by Starbucks in Britain. Following Brock's speech, some newspapers revised their story to make a comparison between Kanty's and Amazon's taxes. Starbucks does not pay any taxes in Britain or pays very little tax.
The controversy over Kanti's story has revived the fury that has prevailed for years about the few taxes that big corporations pay for their activities in Britain, a debate that has pbaded from the media to parliament. At that time, Amazon, Google and Starbucks were put forward as part of an in-depth investigation campaign on the tax problem and pressures on the government and the companies for which they are developing a formula that would increase the tax contribution by removing some loopholes allowing large companies to reduce their taxes.
By way of illustration, the companies were not accused of tax manipulation, they used loopholes and legal methods to reduce their tax bill as much as possible, but the criticisms focused on the issue of fair taxation, social responsibility through the tax contribution, the fair distribution, not to say fair, to wealth.
In the era of globalization, the controversy is not limited to Britain, but in other countries, it also revolves around the profits and taxes of many giants operating in many parts of the world. . Some companies exceed the market value of the countries' domestic production. Take, for example, Apple, which became this year the first company with a market capitalization of $ 1 trillion and bought a few weeks later by Amazon. Other companies are on track to join the club, according to the expectations of major financial markets such as Microsoft. Owned by Google. This of course does not include the large number of other giants worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
The growth of large corporations implies more responsibility than the mere accumulation of profits, especially at a time when the debate on poverty, environmental pollution and climate change is growing and on which health budgets are weighing, education and other basic services. Until the late 1970s, companies paid high taxes while increasing their profits while supporting educational or health institutions and philanthropic areas in respect of the principle of social and moral responsibility vis-à-vis communities in which they operated. Since the 1980s, especially in the days of Ronald Reagan in America and Margaret Thatcher in Britain, a reduction in corporate and wealth taxes has begun, in parallel with the growing debate over the fairness of the economy. fiscal system and issues such as moral and societal responsibility to bridge the growing gap between the rich and the poor.
It is enough to recall the shocking report of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), published in September in collaboration with the Oxford Initiative on Poverty and Human Development, that 1.3 billion people were living below of poverty in 104 countries. It is true that the vast majority of these people live in poor countries, especially in Africa and South Asia, but poverty is also present in rich countries where the figures are not very easy (41 million people live in poor countries). poverty in America and 24 million in Britain, according to published figures). In addition, the gap between rich and poor countries is widening, with the emergence of migration and human movement problems, complicated by the development of industrial intelligence and the increasingly complex solution of the problem. robotics in many sectors and businesses.
All this poses a security, economic and moral challenge to the world and illustrates some of the difficult issues facing governments … as well as businesses in an increasingly complex and complex world.