To be horrified by this article about Starbucks?

[PropertyNightmare]

I love Starbucks. I can't wait for the red cups.
Now I am gutted to learn that the corporation has not paid any UK income tax since 2009. Despite making 1.2 billion in that period in the UK. Apparently there is nothing 'illegal' about the tax arrangements which allow them to do this. AIBU to feel let down and a bit of a mug? The NHS and schools would have found sOme extra cash handy....

Starbucks, I am shocked and feel like you have let me down

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2012/10/15/starbucks-brewing-up-more-than-coffee-when-it-comes-to-tax-avoidance/

garlic, I am not for a moment equating profits with value, read carefully, you will not find it in any of my posts. I am talking about a US corporation, and you are quoting UK law.

Ultimately, we are not really in disagreement, but you are puting onus on a corporation to try and balance moral responsibility/fairness vs value generation (which is its primary purpose as a business).
And I am saying, that the onus is on the legislator to create appropriate incentives for the business to behave in a responsible fashion.

Garlic I don't disagree with you. I do think, however, that the wording of the Act allows directors to conclude that profit maximisation may be the way to achieve that benefit to members that is in the law.

I suppose this comes down to ethics rather than law and the majority of people will rage for a while then forget about it. Without sustained public outrage nothing will change - but perhaps with these stories gathering pace that time will come. I remain cynical though given that all the main parties lack courage to stand up to big business.

garlic - what you said about Victorian corporate morality may be true but what is certainly true is that personal and corporate taxes were far far lower in Victorian times. The size of public spending was tiny compared to today. More to the point it was very easy to legally avoid paying personal taxes for the rich and the poor paid none anyway in Victorian times.

I really like the bit in your OP when you say you feel "a bit of a mug"

But yes the no tax part combined with the eyewatering coffee prices and low staff wages does just not sit right.

Dh got in from work earlier and I asked him if he had read about Starbucks and its tax arrangement. He had and unprompted he proposed that we don't give them our custom again. Good that we are both agreed. He never cared for the red cups anyway

How much have you all paid over and above your minimum tax requirement? If the answer is nothing then you are as guilty as Starbucks.

Read the article Toombs. I have not on the one hand told the taxman I have made no profit/income then on the other hand boasted to investors/ others about how well I am doing and how pleased I am with my performance. The whole thing does not sit well. My family declare our income and pay tax accordingly.

And so do Starbucks, everything they have done is totally legal, they have no tax liability. You seem to want them to pay tax that they are not liable for so I was wondering how much you all had paid that you weren't liable for. My guess is none.

No one is saying that Starbucks have done anything illegal. My OP makes that clear. People are nevertheless upset. See the Boycott Starbucks thread in this section for evidence of this.

Starbucks do nothing wrong and there's an outcry? No crime has been committed and yet people are baying for blood? Boycott Starbucks because they do nothing wrong? Are you all insane?

You obviously aren't bothered Toombs. That's your choice. Most of us would like to see a company taking 1.2 billion from the uk economy over 3 years put something fairly substantial back in.The NHS needs money desperately as do schools and the welfare state. It's nothing to do with Onda key and everything to do with fair play.

Onda key! Insanity.

1.2 mn refers to turnover, not profit, so really not a very relevant number. Shows their scale, but not their profitability.

Yes, agree it is turnover but still it pains that not one penny came back in the way of income tax. The article I linked to describes how no profit was recorded. It might be legal but it does not leave me feeling enamoured with Starbucks.

I'm bothered about arbitrary justice, if a company can adhere to the law and be vilified how long before we randomly target other legal avoidance measures? Do we seek out those with ISA's, those who put large amounts into pensions? The law of this land says that Starbucks have no tax liability, you seem to be advocating that this is not ideal and we should take direct action.

Whether I find it distasteful or not no offence has been committed. For me once you use the word "fair" in an argument you immediately lose, it is a subjective term, what's fair for one is not fair for another.

I can't see what Starbucks have done wrong. They haven't done anything illegal.

Obviously if a company alienates its customer base by not paying taxes, then that is NOT maximising shareholder value, since they will end up with fewer customers.

You might as well say they have a duty to employ child labour to pick their coffee, because it's cheaper.

Clearly not the case.

Part of the image of a poncey overpriced coffee house is to be socially responsible, so you can make people feel less mugged over the £3.80 price tag.

Clearly paying (or not) taxes is part of that image.

And there's no question of arbitrary justice.

If anyone feels that Starbucks are a bunch of tax-dodging cunts, and they will avoid them, that's entirely their right.

Equally, if people feel that Starbucks have done nothing wrong, then again, feel free to shop there.

It's an entirely democratic process.

I won't be giving Starbucks my custom again because I prefer to see money I spend in a UK based shop returning via corporation tax to the UK economy. If you don't feel this way then fine, your call. Don't be too upset when your local police force are struggling for funding though.....

It's the campaign that bothers me, legal remedy by public outrage. No matter that no law was broken. Whatever next? String up sex offenders, castrate rapists, murder politicians, no evidence required, just an outrage campaign.

Um, not buying shit coffee is not really in the same league as murdering and lynching, is it now?

I'm sure that's what the apologists always say at the start.

Ok, let's get straight to the point.

Death penalty for shit coffee.

Job done!

Intriguingly there is another thread on this forum where people are discussing tax avoidance as a virtue, I'll let you find it.