Starbucks boycott gaining momentum!

[bagger]

Much better coffee at Neros opposite Starbucks on Fargate.

 

Starbucks lost my money ages ago. Crap service and mediocre food and coffee at over inflated prices.

[andygardener]

Then much of the blame must be given the Inland Revenue Service for not spotting that.... right?. I'm not particularly defending Starbucks or the way they pay UK taxes I just want answers to a logical question

 

Why werent Starbucks taken to account by the UK Inland Revenue Service for unpaid taxes on profits?

 

Will HM Revenue Service now make Starbucks pay these delinquent taxes plus penalties for not paying them when they were originally due?

 

That to me seems a logical course of action. However, the fact that Starbucks did transfer profits out of the country untaxed a few years back points to the fact that what they did was perfectly legal since the UK government have apparently taken no action againt them

 

Those people who crusade against big corporations and what they do with their profits should better acqaint themselves with the laws and the legalities on this kind of stuff. It may be distasteful but that's the way the system works and we live with it. A few latte lovers sacrificing their daily caffeine fixes to make a point is about as effective as the monkey pizzing in a lake to raise the water level

 

HMRC's management absolutely have to take their share of the blame. Their recently departed head Dave Hartnett was either useless or worse, depending who you believe. He was certainly being wined and dined by big business more than any other civil servant and signed off some of the biggest capitulations to the worst offenders in return for little or no tax being paid.

 

Bear in mind the big corporations can afford to hire very clever very well paid people to come up with all these convoluted schemes. HMRC as a public body can't afford to pay megabucks so the people trying to unravel them are always going to be on a lot less than the people creating them. Get to the bottom of one scheme and they come up with another.

 

So while ever there are loopholes there will be avoidance...unless enough people stop using the companies that enthusiastically embrace avoidance that it stops making financial sense because they lose more in custom than they make in avoidance.

[tinfoilhat]

How do you know that company A pays less than company B? Do you have an encyclopedic knowledege on who pays what and how much? I certainly dont. They may all be conducting their tax affairs just the same as Starbucks for all I know.

 

What about McDonalds and the Ford Motor Company?

 

If they're doing it legally there's no cause to say that they're doing anything wrong. Reality check !

 

Actually I don't know. I tried to find out and frankly gave up after a while. I do know corporation tax accounts for 7% of government revenue and 2.8% of GDP (interestingly its 2.1% of GDP in the states, despite combined rate 11% higher than ours. And I thought we had loopholes !;)). But finding who paid what is tough, but the fact it all added up to £38.5bn last year suggests to me it isn't made up of small companies playing with a straight bat, rather multinationals paying their way.

 

I got all those figures from an article in the guardian that won't link. This one might and go some way to show who pays what http://m.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/oct/16/tax-biggest-us-companies-uk?cat=news&type=article

[mikem8634]

I am well aware that Starbucks have not broken the law - thank you for stating the obvious.

 

 

Tax evasion - illegal

Tax avoidance - legal

 

It's not a difficult concept http://www.channel4.com/news/tax-avoidance-or-tax-evasion

 

Do you really want to have a semantic argument over the difference between dodging and avoiding?

 

I was going to avoid rubbing your nose in it but since you insist.

 

From your article

 

"There is a very critical difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. For example, not declaring earnings you know would be liable for tax is tax evasion and illegal, however declaring those earnings but using legal instruments to ensure you pay the lowest tax possible on them is tax avoidance and perfectly legal."

 

So please show me what Starbucks has done that is illegal, and is evasion, not avoidance.

 

Please note that stuff you don't like isn't illegal. I don't like John Prescott, or Michael Gove, or the colour purple, or cranberry sauce, but they are not illegal, although I'm working on the cranberry sauce.

 

Would you care to show me where I have said Starbucks have acted illegally? Please bear in mind the above quote of mine where I say the exact opposite.

 

Whose nose rubbed in it?

[mikem8634]

Political agendas is what it's all about. Old Trotskyites pursuing their never ending crusade against the "evils" of big corporations who in a post industrial age at least generate jobs for many who dont have the brains or educational qualifications to pursue a more lucrative career

 

You mean about the die hard Trotskys? It's a no brainer

 

I am sure they exist somewhere.

 

No, do you have any evidence that

 

a) the Starbucks boycott is part of a never-ending Old Trotskyite crusade against the "evils" of big corporations

 

and

 

b) Starbucks generate jobs for many who don't have the brains or educational qualifications to pursue a more lucrative career

 

I await your evidence.

[mikem8634]

Oh sure go ahead if you think it will do any good. Reality is that Starbucks dont give a tuppennny damn if you choose not to spend your daily five quid or so on their products.

 

Tilting at windmills is a waste of time. Lobby your elected member of parliament to raise the question of why big corporations are not putting anything back into the coumtry they make so much profit from. That's what he or she was elected to do in the first place.... address the concerns of his/her constituents to Parliament

 

Thank you for your permission. I don't give a damn whether Starbucks care or not. I care.

 

Thank you again for your brief masterclass on effective protest. I am, however, perfectly capable of deciding how to act upon my conscience all on my own.

[ricgem2002]

Well I for one will continue to support local businesses and our local Starbucks is just that, it is run as a franchise in which it employs local people and pays tax and VAT to HMRC.

dont you mean it pays less tax and vat to hmrc:hihi:

[maxmaximus]

dont you mean it pays less tax and vat to hmrc:hihi:

 

Nope as a self employed business owners they pay the same proportion of their profits to HMRC as everyone else.

[Harleyman]

I am sure they exist somewhere.

 

No, do you have any evidence that

 

a) the Starbucks boycott is part of a never-ending Old Trotskyite crusade against the "evils" of big corporations

 

and

 

b) Starbucks generate jobs for many who don't have the brains or educational qualifications to pursue a more lucrative career

 

I await your evidence.

 

a) I base my assumptions on the anti-corporate, "all capitalism is evil" mob who still believe some of the long irrelevent theories put forward in Das Kapital

 

b) Starbucks actually recruits job seekers. I dont imagine an Oxford or Cambridge or any other university graduate would bother learning the skills of a barista however.

 

It probably hires part timers who are currently at university and need the extra money or full timers who are not qualifed to work in jobs requiring much higher skills

Edited November 16, 2012 by Harleyman

[Harleyman]

Thank you for your permission. I don't give a damn whether Starbucks care or not. I care.

 

Thank you again for your brief masterclass on effective protest. I am, however, perfectly capable of deciding how to act upon my conscience all on my own.

 

And you sacrificing your daily latte treat doesn't much matter to me either mate