Coffee anyone?

[bridge too far]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19967397

 

I never go to Starbucks anyway, so I've got a clear conscience

[bridge too far]

And the rest

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/oct/16/tax-biggest-us-companies-uk

[trousers]

We should stop companies like this trading in this country. It's not as if they contribute to the economy in other ways, like offering employment to tens of thousands of people or anything...

 

P.s. I never use Starbucks either...not paying that much for a cup of coffee :-)

Edited 16 October, 2012 by trousers

[mack rill]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19967397

 

I never go to Starbucks anyway, so I've got a clear conscience

 

is there head office in Frogmore road?

[bridge too far]

We should stop companies like this trading in this country. It's not as if they contribute to the economy in other ways, like offering employment to tens of thousands of people or anything...

 

P.s. I never use Starbucks either...not paying that much for a cup of coffee :-)

 

That's no excuse - think how many more people would be employed if the taxes they avoid paying were used to create jobs.

 

Or are you saying wrong-doing can be overlooked? A bit like saying Lance Armstrong shouldn't be vilified for drugs cheating because, after all, he did such a lot for cancer charities

[trousers]

That's no excuse - think how many more people would be employed if the taxes they avoid paying were used to create jobs.

 

Or are you saying wrong-doing can be overlooked? A bit like saying Lance Armstrong shouldn't be vilified for drugs cheating because, after all, he did such a lot for cancer charities

 

I'm not against companies operating within the law. Neither am I against changing the law to stop companies operating in the way they do, as long as those changes don't disadvantage the UK in the international market place of course.

[Whitey Grandad]

I never did like Starbucks.

[Saint in Paradise]

If a major supplier of entertainment to millions of people worldwide ( Portsmouth FC ) don't

pay tax why should a much smaller company be expected too?

[Pugwash]

If a major supplier of entertainment to millions of people worldwide ( Portsmouth FC ) don't

pay tax why should a much smaller company be expected too?

 

I loll'd!

 

Seriously though, it's the way these corporations are set up to transfer funds between different companies across international borders that's wrong. Simple way would be tie a proportion of corporation tax to turnover, not profit.

[norwaysaint]

We should stop companies like this trading in this country. It's not as if they contribute to the economy in other ways, like offering employment to tens of thousands of people or anything...

 

P.s. I never use Starbucks either...not paying that much for a cup of coffee :-)

 

A lot of people try to start up small cafes that would compete with Starbucks, but most of them pay their taxes fairly and end up going under because they can't compete with a big company that's avoiding paying tax. They would be creating jobs as well, Starbucks didn't invent cafes and jobs in cafes, cafes and cafe jobs would still exist without them, the gap would be filled by businesses that contributed more to Britain.

[Deano6]

They should tax 'em to the hilt. Frankly it wouldn't bother me if Starbucks were hounded out of Britain altogether. But then I don't drink coffee. Or live in Britain.

[the stain]

A lot of people try to start up small cafes that would compete with Starbucks, but most of them pay their taxes fairly and end up going under because they can't compete with a big company that's avoiding paying tax. They would be creating jobs as well, Starbucks didn't invent cafes and jobs in cafes, cafes and cafe jobs would still exist without them, the gap would be filled by businesses that contributed more to Britain.

 

It's easy to say that when you're sat in Norway.

[trousers]

A lot of people try to start up small cafes that would compete with Starbucks, but most of them pay their taxes fairly and end up going under because they can't compete with a big company that's avoiding paying tax. They would be creating jobs as well, Starbucks didn't invent cafes and jobs in cafes, cafes and cafe jobs would still exist without them, the gap would be filled by businesses that contributed more to Britain.

 

No one forces people to go to Starbucks for a coffee. The great British public are as much to blame for feeding the nasty fat cat companies in the first place....vicious circle I admit...

[Ohio Saint]

I feel like making the trip to the UK just so i could boycott them for a couple of weeks.

[Manuel]

Presumably if they don't make profits then the shareholders aren't very happy?

[CB Saint]

I loll'd!

 

Seriously though, it's the way these corporations are set up to transfer funds between different companies across international borders that's wrong. Simple way would be tie a proportion of corporation tax to turnover, not profit.

 

​Isn't that VAT?

[Jonnyboy]

We should stop companies like this trading in this country. It's not as if they contribute to the economy in other ways, like offering employment to tens of thousands of people or anything...

 

P.s. I never use Starbucks either...not paying that much for a cup of coffee :-)

 

Pompey have created quite a few jobs in recent years...

[scotty]

Apparently when you spend £5 on a coffee in Costa you get a free mug.

 

Just stop by the nearest mirror to see it.

[Cheese on Toast]

What you're clearly all forgetting is that coffee is really really nice

[RonManager]

[Doctoroncall]

So is there an epetition to stop this practice and get the law changed?

[trousers]

So is there an epetition to stop this practice and get the law changed?

 

Nah - the nation having a good old fashioned whinge about it on social media for 48 hours before moving onto the next bandwagon is the best approach...

[bridge too far]

No doubt 38 Degrees will be on the case. They successfully shamed a number of large companies into a) dropping the 'work for nothing' jobs for young unemployed and b) agreeing to pay tax on profits earned by companies benefitting from the Olympics.

 

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/

[trousers]

Can anyone actually forecast what would likely happen if the law was changed to 'force' the likes of Starbucks to pay the full amount of corporation tax on their UK based profits?

 

Here's my guess: the share price would drop as investors look for better value for money elsewhere (nationally or internationally); my private pension fund shrinks because of the dip in share price; Starbucks hold back on opening some new outlets because they have less capital to invest; Starbucks employment rate recedes because of the above.

 

I know next to nothing about how corporate finances work so maybe my 'what would happen?' guess is wide of the mark but it seems to have some merit on the surface.

 

Any better guesses?

 

Edit: I acknowledge the reining in of the likes of Starbucks, and any negative effects of that on the economy, could be offset by more independent coffee shops setting up business. So that just leaves my pension fund being buggered even more than it is already. Great... If only I worked in the public sector with a gold played pension that was immune to market forces...

Edited 17 October, 2012 by trousers

[alpine_saint]

That's no excuse - think how many more people would be employed if the taxes they avoid paying were used to create jobs.

 

Is that right ? Please explain how taxation creates jobs.

[trousers]

Is that right ? Please explain how taxation creates jobs.

 

Maybe BTF is suggesting governments don't poor half the taxes they receive down the drain on unnecessary projects, inefficient services and 'non-job' creation schemes ....you can always rely on politicians and civil servants to spend tax revenues wisely...

Edited 17 October, 2012 by trousers

[bridge too far]

Is that right ? Please explain how taxation creates jobs.

 

It could fund infrastructure projects for a start. That would have a knock-on effect in other industries / services. That would lead to growth and confidence and that may well lead to increased economic activity in general.

[alpine_saint]

It could fund infrastructure projects for a start. That would have a knock-on effect in other industries / services. That would lead to growth and confidence and that may well lead to increased economic activity in general.

 

Uh-huh. OK. Spectacularly unconvinced, sorry. As trousers says, more tax revenue just leads to more waste and cockamamie project ideas that deliver no results.

[Doctoroncall]

Can anyone actually forecast what would likely happen if the law was changed to 'force' the likes of Starbucks to pay the full amount of corporation tax on their UK based profits?

 

Here's my guess: the share price would drop as investors look for better value for money elsewhere (nationally or internationally); my private pension fund shrinks because of the dip in share price; Starbucks hold back on opening some new outlets because they have less capital to invest; Starbucks employment rate recedes because of the above.

 

I know next to nothing about how corporate finances work so maybe my 'what would happen?' guess is wide of the mark but it seems to have some merit on the surface.

 

Any better guesses?

 

Edit: I acknowledge the reining in of the likes of Starbucks, and any negative effects of that on the economy, could be offset by more independent coffee shops setting up business. So that just leaves my pension fund being buggered even more than it is already. Great... If only I worked in the public sector with a gold played pension that was immune to market forces...

 

If Starbucks are relying on only paying 1 of the 22 percent corporation tax for profit making then your pension fund is buggered anyway. As with any business it's the core product that matters and is the focus for the business. If they cannot operate without the saving then someone else will.

[saintbletch]

Can anyone actually forecast what would likely happen if the law was changed to 'force' the likes of Starbucks to pay the full amount of corporation tax on their UK based profits?

 

Here's my guess: the share price would drop as investors look for better value for money elsewhere (nationally or internationally); my private pension fund shrinks because of the dip in share price; Starbucks hold back on opening some new outlets because they have less capital to invest; Starbucks employment rate recedes because of the above.

 

I know next to nothing about how corporate finances work so maybe my 'what would happen?' guess is wide of the mark but it seems to have some merit on the surface.

 

Any better guesses?

 

Edit: I acknowledge the reining in of the likes of Starbucks, and any negative effects of that on the economy, could be offset by more independent coffee shops setting up business. So that just leaves my pension fund being buggered even more than it is already. Great... If only I worked in the public sector with a gold played pension that was immune to market forces...

 

Oh trousers, trousers, trousers.

 

What mischief you make.

 

The only thing that would cause Starbucks' share price to drop in that scenario is if they didn't invest to build more coffee shops in the UK to meet the presumed demand.

 

I think your example has some merit if it were, say, Intel choosing to set up an administrative headquarters here due to perceived tax benefits. They could be anywhere in the world and therefore the jobs they create offset any local tax loophole they might be exploiting.

 

But if the company has to physically be here to pour the caffeine down our throats, and if they didn't do it Costa's or some other independent would, then they would be cutting their own throats not to invest to meet demand for their products. They could be taxed to the hilt and they'd still have to be here. Unless they can do a delivery service from Boston.

 

You'd have to be a pretty rabid free marketeer to not see the damage to the domestic economy caused by a powerful foreign company not paying the UK exchequer its due whilst using its power and market position to dominate a large chuck of a domestic market.

 

When that amount of wealth leaves the UK ecomomy - £3B since 1998 and all that comes back in taxation is £8.6M then your pension suffers. As you said in your edit, if Starbucks wasn't here then a Costa's or a trousers' coffee or a Bletch's coffee would appear to take its place. And that's a lot of entrepreneurs that currently aren't going into business or aren't able to stay in business.

[trousers]

If Starbucks are relying on only paying 1 of the 22 percent corporation tax for profit making then your pension fund is buggered anyway.

 

They're not relying on that. They make a healthy 9 figure profit. They 'simply' declare that profit in another low tax country where they operate.

[trousers]

Oh trousers, trousers, trousers.

 

What mischief you make.

 

The only thing that would cause Starbucks' share price to drop in that scenario is if they didn't invest to build more coffee shops in the UK to meet the presumed demand.

 

I think your example has some merit if it were, say, Intel choosing to set up an administrative headquarters here due to perceived tax benefits. They could be anywhere in the world and therefore the jobs they create offset any local tax loophole they might be exploiting.

 

But if the company has to physically be here to pour the caffeine down our throats, and if they didn't do it Costa's or some other independent would, then they would be cutting their own throats not to invest to meet demand for their products. They could be taxed to the hilt and they'd still have to be here. Unless they can do a delivery service from Boston.

 

You'd have to be a pretty rabid free marketeer to not see the damage to the domestic economy caused by a powerful foreign company not paying the UK exchequer its due whilst using its power and market position to dominate a large chuck of a domestic market.

 

When that amount of wealth leaves the UK ecomomy - £3B since 1998 and all that comes back in taxation is £8.6M then your pension suffers. As you said in your edit, if Starbucks wasn't here then a Costa's or a trousers' coffee or a Bletch's coffee would appear to take its place. And that's a lot of entrepreneurs that currently aren't going into business or aren't able to stay in business.

 

I did declare it was an uneducated guess!

[trousers]

Uh-huh. OK. Spectacularly unconvinced, sorry. As trousers says, more tax revenue just leads to more waste and cockamamie project ideas that deliver no results.

 

I'm constantly amazed by the number of people that think giving more money to politicians to spend is somehow a good idea. Yes, give them just enough to be able to run the country efficiently but no more.

[Doctoroncall]

They're not relying on that. They make a healthy 9 figure profit. They 'simply' declare that profit in another low tax country where they operate.

 

I know. You used it as a bases for the share price to go down which was the wrong assumption hence my statement. Anyway Bletch stated it in a better way.

[trousers]

I know. You used it as a bases for the share price to go down which was the wrong assumption hence my statement. Anyway Bletch stated it in a better way.

 

Ah, yep. Good point. It's always dangerous when I start commenting on something I know very little about!

[badgerx16]

Presumably if they don't make profits then the shareholders aren't very happy?

 

According to Radio 2 this lunchtime they told their investors that they made 15% profit, and filed accounts at Companies House that showed a loss ! Apparently what they do, all perfectly legal, is buy their beans in Switzerland, then sell these on to Holland where they are roasted, and then ship them to the UK to make coffee - the pricing in this internal supply chain ensures all their profit ends up in Switzerland. They also fund their outlets with loans from their own subsidiaries in low tax countries, as the interest they pay is tax deductable. The final part of the equation is that 6% of turnover at each outlet is paid as copyright for the logo, although the rumour is that none of this ever actually reaches the USA accounts.

[trousers]

[video=youtube_share;IF4o6Ps0hkw]

[bridge too far]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20451176

[aintforever]

I'm constantly amazed by the number of people that think giving more money to politicians to spend is somehow a good idea. Yes, give them just enough to be able to run the country efficiently but no more.

 

The politicians will take the money they need regardless, it's just you and me will pay more to make up for companies like Starbucks.

[trousers]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20624857

[Wes Tender]

Received this little snippet from a friend today. I don't know how much truth there is in it, but they are seemingly doing themselves no good at all and if true, they deserve a good kicking.

 

Starbucks paid zero UK corporation or income tax in the last 3 years.

The world's biggest coffee chain recorded UK sales of £3.1 billion over a period of 13 years during which it paid £8.6 million on total UK taxes.

 

Think that's bad? How about this;

 

Recently, British Royal Marines in Afghanistan wrote to Starbucks because they wanted to let them know how much they liked their coffees, and to request that they send some of it to the troops there.

Starbucks replied, telling the Royal Marines thank you for their support of their business, but that Starbucks does not support the war, nor anyone in it, and that they would not send the troops their brand of coffee.

So as not to offend Starbucks, maybe we should support them by NOT buying any of their products!

I feel we should get this out in the open. I know this war might not be very popular with some folks, but that doesn't mean we don't support the boys on the ground, fighting street-to-street and, house-to-house.

If you feel the same as I do then please pass this along.

Thanks very much for your support. I know you'll all be there again to support us when we deploy once more.

Sgt Howard Wright,

1 Platoon, Recon Company, Royal Marines

 

PLEASE BE KIND ENOUGH AND DON'T DELETE THIS... PLEASE PASS TO EVERYONE ON YOUR E- MAIL LIST, IN MEMORY OF ALL THE TROOPS WHO HAVE BEEN WOUNDED, LOST LIMBS AND EVEN DIED, SO THAT WE MAY HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE !

 

Also, please don't forget that when the Twin Trade Towers were hit, the fire fighters and rescue workers went to Starbucks because it was close by, for water for the survivors and workers, and Starbucks CHARGED THEM!!!

 

AN ADDED NOTE TO THIS: STARBUCKS HAD STORES ON SEVERAL MILITARY BASES IN THE UNITED STATES. THEY ARE NOW BEING REMOVED BECAUSE OF THIS.

There are 227 Starbucks stores across the UK, and there's no doubt that our soldiers would get the same response from this company, so let us do our bit and boycott Starbucks to show them how despicable their actions are.

 

When the Underground was bombed in London, the Marks and Spencer's store at Edgware Road gave all the stock away to those in need. Perhaps you might care to get your coffee in there instead!

[stevegrant]

Sounds like a load of made-up nonsense, tbh.

 

Starbucks are operating within the scope of the law of this country. If they were doing something illegal then by all means create a witch-hunt, but until the law changes to prevent (or at least make it harder for) companies transferring their profits to their operations in other countries, they are perfectly entitled to do what they do.

 

I'm going to take a wild guess here, but presumably the amount Starbucks contributes in terms of income tax, national insurance, business rates, VAT, etc dwarves the amount of corporation tax they would be subjected to if this profit-transferring was either limited or outlawed completely?

[Tokyo-Saint]

This foreign company witch hunt is just that, a witch hunt.

 

I didn't notice as much press attention when Philip Green paid himself (Cough) I mean his wife the biggest dividend in British history. It was all tax free of course as she lives in Monaco.

[buctootim]

I'm going to take a wild guess here, but presumably the amount Starbucks contributes in terms of income tax, national insurance, business rates, etc dwarves the amount of corporation tax they would be subjected to if this profit-transferring was either limited or outlawed completely?

 

That argument is always trotted out, but its facile. Oddly enough Costa, Cafe Nero and Pret A Manger also provide employment and contribute income tax, national insurance, business rates, but they pay corporation tax too.

 

Yes of course its legal, simply because its impossible to prove that tax evasion is the motive behind loading on artificial costs such as licensing so that all your subsidiaries make accounting loses and the licensing fees (aka the real profits) are channelled through Ireland

[buctootim]

This foreign company witch hunt is just that, a witch hunt.

 

I didn't notice as much press attention when Philip Green paid himself (Cough) I mean his wife the biggest dividend in British history. It was all tax free of course as she lives in Monaco.

 

Presumably you heard about it exactly because of the media attention. The total tax take from corporation tax has declined by almost two thirds in 20 years by onshoring losses, artifical charges and offshoring profits. The poor dont have the money to pay to make up the difference and the rich already have the dodges - hence why the middle class PAYE burden is going up. .

[Wes Tender]

This foreign company witch hunt is just that, a witch hunt.

 

 

So what? If it means that by avoiding paying their taxes they have a competitive advantage over their British rivals who do pay those taxes, then I'm not going to cry over the witch hunt, which incidentally seems to be bringing then to heel.

 

They bleat about their ethical fair trade ethos on the one hand, while trying to get away with a tax avoidance scheme which is morally reprehensible at the same time. If people wish to call them hypocrites and therefore exercise their right as consumers to boycott their products, then it serves them right.

[Whitey Grandad]

Presumably you heard about it exactly because of the media attention. The total tax take from corporation tax has declined by almost two thirds in 20 years by onshoring losses, artifical charges and offshoring profits. The poor dont have the money to pay to make up the difference and the rich already have the dodges - hence why the middle class PAYE burden is going up. .

 

Nothing to do with government spending money we don't have, then?

 

Don't get me wrong, I am of the view that a company should pay the tax rate on profits appropriate to the county in which by operate and in which they make those profits.

[Tokyo-Saint]

Presumably you heard about it exactly because of the media attention. The total tax take from corporation tax has declined by almost two thirds in 20 years by onshoring losses, artifical charges and offshoring profits. The poor dont have the money to pay to make up the difference and the rich already have the dodges - hence why the middle class PAYE burden is going up. .

 

I mean the amount of press coverage - Mark Thomas style program versus from page of major newspapers day after day.

 

So what? If it means that by avoiding paying their taxes they have a competitive advantage over their British rivals who do pay those taxes, then I'm not going to cry over the witch hunt, which incidentally seems to be bringing then to heel.

 

They bleat about their ethical fair trade ethos on the one hand, while trying to get away with a tax avoidance scheme which is morally reprehensible at the same time. If people wish to call them hypocrites and therefore exercise their right as consumers to boycott their products, then it serves them right.

 

Not saying the tax avoidance is right just it is an easy target for the government to leak some information about to take the heat of themselves. Hate the game, those that set the rules not the players.

[JustMike]

fair play to them (and all the rest) for finding the loophole in the dodgy system. This needed addressing years ago and never was sorted out. Credit also for starbucks for now trying to put this right.

 

ps I do use them - toffee nut latte is amazing!

[JustMike]

Sounds like a load of made-up nonsense, tbh.

 

Starbucks are operating within the scope of the law of this country. If they were doing something illegal then by all means create a witch-hunt, but until the law changes to prevent (or at least make it harder for) companies transferring their profits to their operations in other countries, they are perfectly entitled to do what they do.

 

I'm going to take a wild guess here, but presumably the amount Starbucks contributes in terms of income tax, national insurance, business rates, VAT, etc dwarves the amount of corporation tax they would be subjected to if this profit-transferring was either limited or outlawed completely?

 

this...(only put better than my attempt