green Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Note how many of the defenders here have accounts opened this month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Note how many of the defenders here have accounts opened this month. Interesting but it could also be that they used to be on this forum under a previous name and for whatever reason had to choose a new name. I've been on here a while and although I'm not defending Starbucks I think the buck (pardon the expression) stops with Inland Revenue. I cant boycott starbucks as I never use the place I much prefer some of the smaller coffee houses when I want a coffee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 It’s got nothing to do with loyalty, and everything to do with selling what I enjoy at the price that I'm happy to pay. you actually enjoy StarMuck!!!! eww:gag: clearly not a coffee drinker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 If the government wants Starbucks to pay more tax on their reported overseas profits, or wants to change the rules to stop a company reporting a loss in one country due to it lending money to a foreign branch of the same company etc etc then all it has to do is change the law. Successive governments have shied away from this on the basis that they see a low tax burden as an advantage when trying to get foreign companies to do business in the UK. Their argument is that if the tax burden is too high then companies won't set up in the UK and therefore won't employ anyone and so won't be in a position to pay over PAYE and National Insurance. Starbucks may well be engaged in sharp practice but it is a practice allowed by Government. Whether or not it should be stopped is both a political and an economic question. "The best way to tackle tax avoidance is to prevent it arising in the first place, by designing tax law effectively, underpinned by clearly-stated policy objectives." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLADE8T1 Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Why should customers punish Starbucks?.If there not abiding by the law of the land,then the law should deal with it!. I wouldn't/havn't shopped there anyway due to the silly prices for a jumped up cup of coffee.I would prefer a Mc'donalds latte any day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Thats fair enough. Its your money after all. It was this bit that caught my attention. Would you really give up drinking coffee away from home if Starbucks weren't there? I don't drink coffee, but Starbucks sell a drink the others don't sell, and if Starbucks stopped selling it I wouldn't use Starbucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 you actually enjoy StarMuck!!!! eww:gag: clearly not a coffee drinker? Clearly You win a prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 If the government wants Starbucks to pay more tax on their reported overseas profits, or wants to change the rules to stop a company reporting a loss in one country due to it lending money to a foreign branch of the same company etc etc then all it has to do is change the law. Successive governments have shied away from this on the basis that they see a low tax burden as an advantage when trying to get foreign companies to do business in the UK. Their argument is that if the tax burden is too high then companies won't set up in the UK and therefore won't employ anyone and so won't be in a position to pay over PAYE and National Insurance. Starbucks may well be engaged in sharp practice but it is a practice allowed by Government. Whether or not it should be stopped is both a political and an economic question. "The best way to tackle tax avoidance is to prevent it arising in the first place, by designing tax law effectively, underpinned by clearly-stated policy objectives." Top post. is the tax system as complex as it appears ? Does it need to be that complex ? Comparatively speaking I paid wayyyyyyyy more than Starbucks in the same period, but then again I don't employ thousands of staff. Should this be the case or should you get an easier ride by providing lots of jobs ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muddywolf Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Another tabloid lie to get people enraged. Headline: Good bean counters? Starbucks has paid no tax in UK since 2009 No tax. Nothing? Article: Starbucks has exploited accounting tricks to pay almost no UK tax Ah, so now it's "almost". Read on. Article: An investigation showed that the coffee company has paid only £8m in corporation tax So it's gone from "none" to "almost none" to "£8 million". I wonder how much it will be by the end of the article and will it still be an outrage. The company is reported to have paid £8.6m in 14 years, none of that was since 2009. 8.6m over 14 years is almost none isnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F. Sidebottom Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 The company is reported to have paid £8.6m in 14 years, none of that was since 2009. 8.6m over 14 years is almost none isnt it? But how much did they pay in employers NI? How much did they contribute in deductions from staff for PAYE? How much did they pay in business rates? How much VAT did they generate? None of the above are avoidable, and will have amounted to a huge slice of their turnover, paid to the taxman. The tax questions here are on profit. It doesn't matter how big your business is, if you are spending as much as you are earning (and therefore not paying shareholder dividends) then you aren't making a profit. So their is no corporation tax due. You are however reinvesting your sales back into the economy - surely much better than a dividend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.