Starbucks boycott gaining momentum!

[Guest sibon]

That's the long and short of it.

 

You and I have quite different outlooks on the world and society in general. We agree at times, but we do come at things from very different angles.

 

It seems that we are in almost total agreement on this issue. In addition, most people that I know share my distaste for this freeloading by huge, highly profitable firms.

 

Maybe the worm is turning. I certainly hope so.

[mikem8634]

You were the one that wanted the semantic argument between avoiding and dodging tax.

 

You still haven't shown that Starbucks has done anything other than legally avoid tax. You haven't even managed to explain a working definition of dodging.

 

Come back when you can.

 

First of all, if you care to read back through the thread, "dodging" was not my phrase I simply suggested it was similar to avoiding.

 

You will also see that I thought such a semantic argument would be ridiculous.

 

You will also see I have never claimed Starbucks have done anything other than legally avoid tax. Morally? That's a different point.

 

Your credibility is disappearing at an alarming rate.

 

You clearly assumed that I thought Starbucks had acted illegally and will not admit your mistake.

[Obelix]

Cobblers. Post #62 you said "Do you really want to have a semantic argument over the difference between dodging and avoiding? "

 

You then accused me of accusing you of accusing Starbucks of acting illegally (is that the semantic argument you wanted btw?)

 

Care to show me where?

 

I thought not. Now please go away and stop making a fool of yourself it's embarrassing for you.

[Harleyman]

There's more involved than Harriet Harman just romping off to enjoy her latte some place else.

 

Has she thought about the small buiness owners who run Starbucks oulets on franchises and pay taxes. The owners and their employees all pay income taxes to the government

 

The tax avoidance schemes only apply to the royalties they pay to Starbucks.

 

What will it cost them as a result of this boycott or does Harman even give a damn?

 

Typical Labour politician. Always going off half cocked

[Guest sibon]

There's more involved than Harriet Harman just romping off to enjoy her latte some place else.

 

Has she thought about the small buiness owners who run Starbucks oulets on franchises and pay taxes. The owners and their employees all pay income taxes to the government

 

The tax avoidance schemes only apply to the royalties they pay to Starbucks.

 

What will it cost them as a result of this boycott or does Harman even give a damn?

 

Typical Labour politician. Always going off half cocked

 

What about the independent guy just down the road from the Starbucks franchise, who can't pay his tax in Switzerland, via a circuitous route?

 

Why should he pay for the roads, the education and the health of Starbucks workers?

 

Because that is what is happening at the moment.

[mikem8634]

Cobblers. Post #62 you said "Do you really want to have a semantic argument over the difference between dodging and avoiding? "

 

You then accused me of accusing you of accusing Starbucks of acting illegally (is that the semantic argument you wanted btw?)

 

Care to show me where?

 

I thought not. Now please go away and stop making a fool of yourself it's embarrassing for you.

 

Exactly, implying that such a semantic argument would be ridiculous.

 

Sigh... Okay but managing your lack of understanding is getting tiresome.

How about here -

 

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.

 

Here you assume that I think Starbucks have acted illegally. But I'm sure you will post something to follow this up that will be the equivalent of pretending to be deaf and not really understanding the question. I know the bit about rubbing my nose in it is particularly embarrassing for you as you were so mistaken but admitting you are wrong is the first step to enlightenment. Please consider it.

[tinfoilhat]

There's more involved than Harriet Harman just romping off to enjoy her latte some place else.

 

Has she thought about the small buiness owners who run Starbucks oulets on franchises and pay taxes. The owners and their employees all pay income taxes to the government

 

The tax avoidance schemes only apply to the royalties they pay to Starbucks.

 

What will it cost them as a result of this boycott or does Harman even give a damn?

 

Typical Labour politician. Always going off half cocked

 

Starbucks have 750 outlets in the uk. In the unlikely event they all close down do you think their customers will give up coffee for life ? Or do you think, just possibly, they'd go to costa, Nero or an independent ? Do you think they might open up branches to cater for these starbuckless caffine junkies or do you think they'll just hope the existing infrastructure will cope ?

[Obelix]

Exactly, implying that such a semantic argument would be ridiculous.

 

Sigh... Okay but managing your lack of understanding is getting tiresome.

How about here -

 

 

 

Here you assume that I think Starbucks have acted illegally. But I'm sure you will post something to follow this up that will be the equivalent of pretending to be deaf and not really understanding the question. I know the bit about rubbing my nose in it is particularly embarrassing for you as you were so mistaken but admitting you are wrong is the first step to enlightenment. Please consider it.

 

Not in the slightest. Never assume anything it only makes an ass of U and me ends up laughing..

 

In your haste to scarify me you have missed the obvious context where I am say that your source shows that what Starbucks has done is legal. As such you cannot merely say you should then be able to vilify them.

 

No more, no less than that. You are making a garment out of it with a far more generous cut than the cloth permits.

 

Now, it's late here and my nightcap is waiting. I'll leave you to it. Adieu.

[mikem8634]

There's more involved than Harriet Harman just romping off to enjoy her latte some place else.

 

Has she thought about the small buiness owners who run Starbucks oulets on franchises and pay taxes. The owners and their employees all pay income taxes to the government

 

The tax avoidance schemes only apply to the royalties they pay to Starbucks.

 

What will it cost them as a result of this boycott or does Harman even give a damn?

 

Typical Labour politician. Always going off half cocked

 

Sorry, but doesn't it come down to market forces? If a company, any company are not providing the public with a service they find acceptable, for whatever reason, then the company changes or faces the consequences. If the parent company is unmoveable and willing to allow its franchises to be adversely affected then so be it.

[mikem8634]

Not in the slightest. Never assume anything it only makes an ass of U and me ends up laughing..

 

In your haste to scarify me you have missed the obvious context where I am say that your source shows that what Starbucks has done is legal. As such you cannot merely say you should then be able to vilify them.

 

No more, no less than that. You are making a garment out of it with a far more generous cut than the cloth permits.

 

Now, it's late here and my nightcap is waiting. I'll leave you to it. Adieu.

 

Sigh. Dear oh dear. Your credibility has gone. Why am I not surprised that morality and principles are alien to you?

 

Starbucks actions, whilst legal, are immoral.

 

Your posts are increasingly nonsensical.

 

Adieu indeed.

Edited November 17, 2012 by mikem8634