... 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.

^My uncle got pissed up and drove his car.
The solicitor got him off on a small error made when booking him in.
He was pissed. He drove his car. He got off. It's technically illegal.
That's getting off toombs.^

Sure is, the essential difference is that your uncle had driven pissed which is an offence, he was successfully defended in court. Starbucks have not committed any offence, we are not in court.

Errmm. Toombs you compare performing Female Genital Mutilation on your daughters to not having coffee at Starbucks? It seems sick to even think of that analogy.

And as far as the Law goes, yes, there will be a moral sway in public opinion and a law is passed to reflect that. A Law doesn't pop out of the ether and then people say 'yes, that was a good idea in hindsight'.

No, I'm saying that my morality however mad (or not) should have no bearing on the law, I could regard FGM or walking on the cracks in the pavement as highly desirable. In this country we look to the law, not personal beliefs.

Toombs, you don't seem to grasp the point that people are actually allowed to debate the rights and wrongs of corporate tax avoidance. The discussion isn't brought to a shuddering halt as soon as anyone says 'ooh, you do know this is legal'.

It's perfectly legal, as it happens, for drugs companies to hide information about serious - even fatal - side effects from the regulators and from doctors. It's not right. It's extremely dangerous. People have died as a result - but because the legal system in this country is flawed, the families of victims in the UK have been unable to hold the companies concerned to account. (Unlike families in the US who are at least able to bring legal actions.)

The more people become aware of that, or become aware of corporate tax avoidance, the better. Perhaps it will create some change, so we can all have safer medicines, or a more efficient and fairer distribution of taxes.

Toombs I suspect you are drunk. I'm not wasting any more time.

I can take no more. I can not.

edam, you have hit the nub of the matter. It is the law that is flawed. It is not Starbucks fault that we have hugely complicated tax law, nor that they found a way to minimised their liability. It is Parliaments fault for passing bad legislation.

I boycotted them today!

I would like to invoke market forces in that case.

If enough people don't fancy spending their money on something, it'll just disappear.

I am with Toombs on this. Starbucks have not broken the law. Many companies are doing things far more dodgy and it is a thin line between their practices and tax evasion.

The transfer pricing used by DH's employer is calculated based on the prior year numbers and is approved by both Danish and US tax authorities. While they operate in the US all profits are repatriated back to Denmark in the form of a dividend so they don't pay corporate taxes here in the US. This is legal because his employer is a cooperative and such payment is permitted in the US. Moral obligations don't come into it. The law has to be followed and no company should be punished for this.

Those who are saying that someone has a moral obligation are off base. They have paid their fair share according to the current rules and regulations. If you don't like the current rules and regulations protest to your MP. Boycotting Starbucks isn't going to change anything apart from drive away a successful company from the UK, taking jobs, VAT and revenue from business rates with them.

Boycotting Starbucks will not change international law, unless you make a HUGE noise about why it's being boycotted AND boycot lots of other large companies who operate in the same way.

It is unfair and ridiculous to single out one company like this.

People need to be more aware of how the law/taxation works before they start asking people to boycot things.

But if they're not making a profit in the UK then it won't matter if people take their business elsewhere. Will it?

My Boycott of Starbucks went very well today. I hope that they missed me and my UK money this lunchtime. Costa was lovely and the nice woman behind the till told me that they had been delighted to welcome a noticeable amount of new customers today (when I mentioned how I had defected from StarFucks)

If people take their business elsewhere, isn't that just choice and market forces?

Oh look, we are not alone:

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cd14dcc-187f-11e2-8705-00144feabdc0.html#axzz29bRVt6Nv

Arf at 'Think Before You Drink'. My sentiments exactly

And for once I am glad to see the Daily Mail wailing.......

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cd14dcc-187f-11e2-8705-00144feabdc0.html#axzz29bRVt6Nv

Try again!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2218819/Starbucks-facing-boycott-tax.html

Well done, I'm sure that all those who depend upon Starbucks for their jobs will relish the prospect of unemployment.

Power to the people!

Ordinary working women & men risk in OUR COMMUNITIES risk losing their jobs if we boycott Starbucks.
I HATE tax evasion but I've been in the local JobCentre recently & there are long queues... EMPLOYEES CAN'T JUST GET ANOTHER JOB EASILY!!!

How does that ease your conscience?

I will not boycott because i don't want to see my friends who work in our local branch lose their jobs.

Bottom line is that no company or individual in the UK knowingly pays a penny more in any type of tax than they are legally obliged to. Therefore, we should boycott every company in the country (and every person as well).

If you are going to talk about this let's talk about the worst offender - Philip Green and his Arcadia group with his overpriced Topshop tat. That man is reprehensible. It's disgusting how much tax he avoids paying!

What is it that you think Philip Green is doing wrong? I'd be really grateful if you would explain what you think is so egregious about him, Top Shop and Arcadia.

Another question that fascinates me - why are you all up in arms at Starbucks, but not at Greene King?

Morally, what Greene King has done is far, far worse. They have tried to save UK tax using a scheme that was completely contrary to the policy set out by parliament and the spirit of the legislation. To me, that's deeply immoral, but not one single person on this thread has commented on Greene King.

Starbucks, in contrast, have abided by the letter of the law, the spirit of the law and the policy intent set our by parliament. To me, that's moral. I really don't see what more they can do. Honestly.

So why are so many people hating Starbucks but ignoring Greene King?

I never go anyway. the coffee is Shit and overpriced.