... ask MNers to boycott Starbucks?

[legoballoon]

Personally, I won't be spending any money there again.

When I read the 'we pay our fair share of tax' statement, I almost choked on my (home made) hot chocolate. It's one law for the rich, another for us now is it?!

I think we should support small, UK-based independent coffee shops. Let's support businesses that generate wealth that is shared by local people.

Tooms, yes HMRC seem satisfied with them, but there do seem to be some quite legitimate questions being asked e.g. Why is the wholly owned Starbucks UK paying more for the brand than is typical with a franchised business?

And yes, all companies minimise tax to a certain extent, but it is perfectly intellectually respectable to take the view that a particular companany takes it too far, and to choose to withdraw your custom.

i'd be prepared to bet that this little bit of a media kicking has a miraculous effect on Starbuck's UK profits next year.

Let's hope it doesn't cause any of their staff any financial difficulty, that this wave of self-righteousness doesn't cause any shifts to be cancelled or posts lost just because some have decided that their opinion is more important that the law.

I suspect that the only people losing jobs over this will be their financial PR agency.

Matsikula
sorry but the furore being caused is NOT legitimate.
Starbucks are obeying the law.
The law is an ass, not Starbucks.

If you REALLY want to do something about it, start hassling the ICAEW and the ACCA and ICAS to name and discipline their members who promote the tax minimisation schemes in the UK and the USA

(is glad I'm no longer a member of the ACCA)

And write to your MP to demand that Gideon Wallpaper Osborne changes the law to limit artificial transactions and offshore profit allocations.
And stop the heads of HMRC following Dave Hartnett's fine example

Matsikula Starbucks is not a franchise so you can't compare the costs faced by Starbucks compared to a franchise such as McDonalds. I would also say that it is reasonable to assume that Starbucks spends an awful lot more on brand placement, management etc than other companies - this is why they are able to generage similiar sales to Costa with 600 stores compared to Costa's 1300+.

I will also say that Starbucks is a good employer and they should be supported, not boycotted. If you want them to pay corporation tax then expenses will need to be reduced. The first expense to be cut is always wages. I have friends who used to work for Starbucks and they paid more than minimum wage, gave them flexible shifts around their studies and money towards tuition fees (Master program and they paid GBP5000 towards the fees). I don't know of other coffee shops or retailers who treat their employees as well.

How many of you don't claim your child benefit as you have enough money in your monthly salary? Surely it is unethical to take extra money in benefit when you don't actually need it and is the same as stealing money from the government in the same way as people not paying tax as they don't need to legally?

Little bit of a completely fucking different issue ivykate

Morally - no if you earn 39 k and take child benefit then complain about a company not paying tax as they don't legally need to - no not fucking different fromesme

It is totally different ivy. Seeing as the government dish it out maybe you should take it up with them.

seeing as the government have set the tax laws and starbucks don't have to pay the tax - then why not take it up with the government next time you vote?

It's a different and far more complex issue corporation tax. If the government don't want to pay child benefit they can just switch it off. Which they are trying.

Plus it's an individual getting 80 per month not a multi national corporate entity.

Not that you really know my point of view or voting inclinations just pointing out its not the same thing.

Not sure why benefits need to start getting dragged in.

Saying your not entitled to find company's accounting questionable if you get child benefits is bunkum.

The sums are irrelevant, if you want a large company to pay voluntary tax then you surely must be prepared to do so on a small percentage scale yourself.

ivykatyt44, not paying tax when you don't need to is not a crime.

toombs I agree

So do starbucks owe money to in unpaid tax?

they dont, they have used a loophole to get around it. thats the point.

Caveat - I know nothing at all about Starbucks' finances or about whether they pay enough tax.

This, however I do know: If you want to avoid paying corporation tax the first, second and last thing you do is find ways of making profits disappear. There are lots of ways of doing this. (If you're a multinational you might, for example, saddle a subsidiary in a high tax country with a massive loan to pay to a subsidiary in a low tax company). So to say that [x company] have low profits and so aren't engaging in tax avoidance is to get the causation the wrong way round - it's possible that the low profits ARE the tax avoidance strategy.

sinister its more about supporting business, and not putting people out of work.

and are you going to boycot all the other large companies and nay small companies that don't pay tax that they don't legally have to pay, Philip green has enginered his life so his wife is in pole position and he doesn't have such a large tax bill - so will top shop, burtons and the rest of the shops in the acadia group go on the list?

If you don't like how it is set up then vote for a way that you do like but expect your own income tax to go up as well

They haven't used a loophole, they've obeyed the law. The fact that it is the law that is at fault seems to be escaping people. Tax law is over complicated and therefore not simple to understand. Our legislators pass the law that they want, if it's full of holes it's not Starbucks fault. If you found a loophole that said that you didn't need to pay any tax and could keep all your money - would you?

i run my own business so i claim my fair share, this is what most people would class as avoidence but im not breaking any laws.

so yes i would.

So your saying anyone accepting child benefit isn't entitled to an opinion without forgoing it? Really? Really?

It's always going to be the same. Legislation isn't perfect is it and the second legislation comes people more intelligent than I are looking for the most favourable way to exploit it.

starbucks are paying less than 1% tax on their UK operations. That is clearly wrong. It may well be legal but it isn't right.

I bet the people on this thread who are justifying it by saying oh, it's legal, and oh, companies are just being efficient wouldn't be half so permissive if it were benefits claimants exploiting the system to the tune of billions of pounds.