Starbucks boycott gaining momentum!

[Guest sibon]

Someone or some group somewhere with a bee in their bonnet about big corporations, especially foreign ones more than likely started all this rubbish.

 

In the same way that Starbucks are legally entitled to do what they have done, a pressure group is entitled to exert pressure upon their target.

 

If Starbucks don't want to be labelled as tax dodging freeloaders in the UK, they can arrange their tax affairs differently.

[mikem8634]

If it is rubbish or a bandwagon then why not ignore it and just leave those of us who are concerned enough to exercise our consciences?

[Harleyman]

In the same way that Starbucks are legally entitled to do what they have done, a pressure group is entitled to exert pressure upon their target.

 

If Starbucks don't want to be labelled as tax dodging freeloaders in the UK, they can arrange their tax affairs differently.

 

Why should they? Obviously the government have no problem with the way they arrange to pay UK taxes.

 

If there was any question of tax dodging wouldnt government auditors step in or is the Inland Revenue Service so sloppy they overlook such things?

 

I dont remember how the tax collection system works in the UK but here even at my humble level I could get called in for an audit by the Internal Revenue Service if they spotted what they thought were any irregilarities when I file my annual tax return with them

[mikem8634]

In the same way that Starbucks are legally entitled to do what they have done, a pressure group is entitled to exert pressure upon their target.

 

If Starbucks don't want to be labelled as tax dodging freeloaders in the UK, they can arrange their tax affairs differently.

 

Why should they? Obviously the government have no problem with the way they arrange to pay UK taxes.

 

If there was any question of tax dodging wouldnt government auditors step in or is the Inland Revenue Service so sloppy they overlook such things?

 

I dont remember how the tax collection system works in the UK but here even at my humble level I could get called in for an audit by the Internal Revenue Service if they spotted what they thought were any irregilarities when I file my annual tax return with them

 

Well, if they don't mind being labelled as tax dodging freeloaders then they shouldn't. That was implicit in the post you quoted.

[andygardener]

Why should they? Obviously the government have no problem with the way they arrange to pay UK taxes.

 

If there was any question of tax dodging wouldnt government auditors step in or is the Inland Revenue Service so sloppy they overlook such things?

 

I dont remember how the tax collection system works in the UK but here even at my humble level I could get called in for an audit by the Internal Revenue Service if they spotted what they thought were any irregilarities when I file my annual tax return with them

 

HMRC have been investigating them over a number of years. As a result some of their internal pricing inflation has been slightly reduced. Clearly not by enough as they were hauled before the relevant select committee of parliament a few days ago. It's not something a foreigner is expected to be aware of, but if they do choose to take an interest it would be reasonable that they get at least a vague understanding of the facts before sticking their oar in stating black is white.

[Obelix]

In the same way that Starbucks are legally entitled to do what they have done, a pressure group is entitled to exert pressure upon their target.

 

If Starbucks don't want to be labelled as tax dodging freeloaders in the UK, they can arrange their tax affairs differently.

 

Because of course calling companies names and besmirching their reputation with lies is perfectly acceptable yes? That's the essence of what you are saying.

[Guest sibon]

Why should they?

 

I didn't say they should.

 

They are free to destroy their reputation if they wish to do so.

[Guest sibon]

Because of course calling companies names and besmirching their reputation with lies is perfectly acceptable yes? That's the essence of what you are saying.

 

No it isn't. I see no lies either.

 

They are tax dodging. That much is obvious. They are doing nothing illegal, but their actions are morally questionable, at best.

 

So, if they wish to act in such a way, they can hardly complain when they are criticised for doing so. I don't know whether you caught QT last night, but Moray MacLennan was suggesting that their tax position would damage the business.

[Obelix]

No it isn't. I see no lies either.

 

They are tax dodging. That much is obvious. They are doing nothing illegal, but their actions are morally questionable, at best.

 

So, if they wish to act in such a way, they can hardly complain when they are criticised for doing so. I don't know whether you caught QT last night, but Moray MacLennan was suggesting that their tax position would damage the business.

 

If they are doing nothing illegal then they cannot be tax dodging. It's not a difficult concept, which is why I'm led to beleive people taking this position are quite happy to libel in the pursuit of a political agenda.

[Guest sibon]

If they are doing nothing illegal then they cannot be tax dodging. It's not a difficult concept, which is why I'm led to beleive people taking this position are quite happy to libel in the pursuit of a political agenda.

 

No. They are dodging UK tax.

 

It is an elaborate way to do it. Quite elegant too. I confess to a sneaking admiration for their ingenuity.

 

The fact remains that they make plenty of money in the UK and dont pay UK tax on it. Meanwhile, they use UK facilities, paid for by the UK taxpayers.

 

These are the reasons why they were called to the Public Accounts Committee this week.