... 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.

Thanks again Cinnabar for the extremely clear explanations.

Some posters are still saying that while they accept Starbucks have not acted illegally they still feel it is 'wrong' that Starbucks pay no/little.

You said that you consider what Starbucks are doing to 'falls squarely within the spirit as well as the letter of the law, and was anticipated by parliament, but which has given the taxpayer a lower tax bill than you might expect'

I know it is probably far to complex to explain in detail and is to do with arm's length transactions etc, but could you offer a brief explanation as to why this is UK tax policy.

Sorry if you did this already and I missed it

errr what was out of order? the fact that he/she is technically working for a loss making operation and if in fact that is true then their job is insecure? It's either that Starbucks are making money and hiding it or they are losing money and their jobs are not secure, which one is it?

Of course people shouldn't abuse anyone but you do realize rates of violence against the disabled is on the rise because of government rhetoric about benefit fraud.

Your sarcasm and apparent amusement at Timothy posting that staff are being abused. Coupled with your dismissal of the worry that workers may have of losing their jobs.

It isn't ok to say to people "oh, you can always get another job". It is out of order, imo, because for many working in Starbucks that might not be an option.

And I'm not entirely sure what your last sentence has to do with anything .

Pretty sure you can tell from the emoticons the tone. Not really sure where I dismissed his fears and please don't attribute quotes to me. We were talking about sieges earlier too but you know make of that what you will.

Thanks MaryZed for stepping in to defend me and my fellow partners.

I have been tempted a couple of times while reading this thread to mention some of the things Starbucks do as a company and that individual stores do of their own accord to put back into their communities, because it is a lot, more than any other company I have worked for previously.
However, I think a lot of people's minds are already made up about us being an evil corporate machine.

Those of you who are regular Starbucks customers and have got to know your baristas in your local store will know already that there is a lot more to the company than tax avoidance.

And to our regulars, for their support and kind words over the last few days, thank you.

For all I know Starbucks are engaged in many fiendish tax schemes. However, on the face of it moving management costs from a high tax to a low tax area, thus increasing reported profits in the high tax area seems a pretty rubbish way to avoid tax.

I haven't looked at their accounts in detail, but it could be they did make a profit but re-invested it into opening 200 new branches, thereby "spending" most of their profit rather than retaining. As it then turned into an expenditure, it's not taxed.

It's a very common thing to do commercially.

Well, the tone I got was sarcasm. Certainly not sympathy.

Does anyone know why Starbucks suddenly ended up in the news over this? Was it on the back of a parliamentary report, or did it originate with a particular news source?

(first I saw was from a comment on FB, so that doesn't count)

Reuters did an investigation, linked above, Absy

I frequent a few coffee shops and one thing strikes me about starbucks - their staff seem happy which means they give me a pleasant service when I do go in and get a coffee.

Tim - hopefully this will soon be last weeks news and people will forget and carry on as normal

Timothy, I posted up thread that I was saddened by Starbuck's decision to stop making date and banana muffins. They also used to sell a really nice Coffee Cake in the late 90's in their Parson's Green branch.

Tax shmax, but would be grateful if you could feed back my disappointment about the withdrawal of these items from the menu.

It was the one that had specks of coffee in the icing.

And I think they used to decorate it with coffee beans.

Maybe Timothy could furnish you with the secret recipe?

I have the secret recipe

Good luck timmy.

What proportion of your customers have "starbucks names", do you think ?

share?

Merrymouse I remember the date and banana muffins well. They were yummy! The other cake I don't recall.

I will feedback your request to the powers that be! Things that have been popular in the past often come back. I am hoping the raspberry and white chocolate muffin will reappear at some point in the future!

They do sound pretty lush I have to say. Mmmm. Want one.

snatch A lot of them do I think. I have a semi-regular called Spartacus! I have no idea what his real name is!

I am not liking the new apple muffin to much bicarb, leave your mouths doing tataat

Do lots of people say their name is Bob?

The coffee cake used to be sold by Seattle Coffee Company before Starbucks bought the chain, and then they continued to sell the cake for a bit. I am completely convinced somebody at Starbucks must remember it (even though this was about 15 years ago) because the branch is/was around the corner from their UK head office.

I have never had a better coffee cake. I think it might have even been 3 layers.

Re: muffins I used to cycle 7 miles to work and have a muffin at the end of my journey - and then one day THEY WERE GONE!!!!!.

The Spartacus guy is living in hope that lots of people will say, "No, I'm Spartacus!" isn't he!