... 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.

I don't know how else to say this. Their accounts as agreed with HMRC say that they do not owe any tax in this country, their accounts as agreed with the IRS say that they do and this tax is paid. The statement "they must make a whopping profit" is an assumption that is a poor basis for tax assessment when clearly the accounts show that they don't.

How much over and above your tax liability did you pay this year?

Did anyone see Ian Hislop's take on this on HIGNFY?

yeah, Hislop was on form, but I did like Richard Bacon saying 'next time they ask you for your name to write on the cup, just say "taxpaying British citizen".'

Their tax avoidance is a scam. They buy their coffee beans through a Swiss subsidiary, they offset all sorts of 'charges' from Starbucks in other countries against UK tax - it's clearly all a big game of 'hide the money from the taxman'. Costa has lower sales but still manages to cough up £15m of tax in the UK (probably not as much as they should do but they manage to look like white knights compared to Starbucks).

I wonder whether HMRC would be quite so obliging if ordinary taxpayers decided to offset charges from themselves against their tax liabilities? Or small businesses - maybe Mr Patel down the corner shop could claim he buys the Nescafe on the shelves through a subsidiary in the Republic of Ireland?

Mr Patel probably does Edam.

I wish more people did, as whatever about the British economy, the Irish one is up the creek.

And HMRC might not collect all the tax you might like, the Irish Revenue Commissioners don't even seem to be able to collect the right tax from our TDs (our members of Parliament seem to able to get away with a fair amount VAT and other tax avoidance ).

Oh yeah I know Mary, politicians like Bertie Ahern and Charles Haughey make our corrupt beggars look like beginners.

Costa is based in the UK. Do they have operations abroad?

Costa is headquartered in Dunstable, they have significant overseas operations.

Wonder how much tax they pay abroad? Maybe it's a case of what goes around comes around?

Actually, that would be interesting to know merrymouse. I wonder is Cinnabar still around [interestedbuttoolazytogoogle emoticon}

Oooh! don't say that, imagine the outrage if it turned out that Costa had to pay less tax because it had to send some of the money overseas.

Way to go, Quote!

Yes costa (and whitbread, its parent company) have overseas operations:
www.caterersearch.com/Companies/33934/whitbread-plc.html

Fundamentally I don't think that because the law of the country says it is ok that it means you can abandon your own sense of morality ("Superior Orders" anyone?), so I will remain a Starbucks boycotter.

Having said that, I have to say that, although Cinnabar Red was driving me slightly bonkers with his/her tone early on, the information he/she has given is interesting.

I think that our energy should be directed at HMRC / Government. After all, they are responsible for this being legal.

I would like to add here that Starbucks as a company, and its partners as individuals, do put a lot back into our local communities.
We work hard with the Princes Trust and Youth UK enabling young people to develop their CV writing skills and encouraging youngsters into business.
I have personally witnessed the hours partners give outside of their working time as baristas to build sensory gardens for disabled children, seated garden areas in old people's homes and allotments for underprivileged communities.
This is above and beyond what we do in coffee growing communities like Papua New Guinea and Sumatra where we build schools and water treatment facilities.
To say that Starbucks doesn't give back is a massive underestimation of what we are achieving across the world, in both our coffee growers communities and our own neighbourhoods every day.

I will definitely boycott UK Starbucks from now on as a show of solidarity with MN.

I shall be using Costa and not Starbucks from now on :) I would prefer to support a UK company that pays its fair share of tax.

Well Timothy, if there were a Starbucks near me (all Costa around here), I would be going there right now!

Starbucks put less back than they avoid putting in in the first place. And it's PR stunt and tax avoidance when huge tax avoiding companies do charidee work, I for one am not buying it (in all senses of the word).

When people or companies don't pay their tax they are saying I don't care about people waiting for surgery, I don't care about cancer drugs being rationed, I don't care that schools are crumbling, I don't care if you fall into a pot hole in the road, I don't care about British people.

I only shop local for coffee anyway, it's nicer coffee and I always (where possible) support local trade....I like my individual not identikit high street.

That's good, Timothy. It's important that people get a balanced picture.

What would really impress us, however, would be for Starbucks to lobby the Government to change the tax laws, for them and for all multinationals. How hard can it be to have a law that says anyone who trades in the UK pays tax in the UK - wherever their HQ is?

I admit I don't know what agreements we have signed with the EU, but if we were ever stupid enough to agree not to tax companies who trade here, then we'll just have to campaign in Europe to change the laws.

It can be done - it just needs political will to do it.

I'd be very interested to know exactly how much money people think Starbucks should be paying in tax in the UK, and the figures they have used to reach this conclusion.

And if Starbucks are paying their US head office for use of the brand, I am sure they would be completely up for reducing the charge and paying more tax in the UK instead. Not sure the IRS would be so enthusiastic.

Solo any legal change about how corporation tax gets calculated would (a)need to have international consensus and (b) be likely to have an impact on uk based multinationals such as AstraZeneca and BUPA. So the net effect on The UK economy might actually be negative.

Timothy, the main reason I go to pret rather than starbucks is that the queues are shorter in Pret. I promise if the boycott makes the Starbucks queue shorter I will go there instead just as soon as I think of a good starbucks name

To the poster upthread, cinnabar is a woman (unless she's in really deep cover with other posts about breast feeding and the like). Which I only came across when searching to see what other informative posts she had made about tax.

'So the net effect might be negative.' Or it might not. If it is, something can be done about it.

None of these laws is set in stone. When laws are inadequate, they get changed.

I agree that changing tax laws would have global implications, since these are global companies.

But the way I feel is that we need to act now. Globalisation is nothing new, it's always existed. To me it is as if there is a layer of controlling interests that is over and above national governments, unaccountable to anyone, unelected, secretive and rapacious. I suppose this is not so much us against our government but more us pushing our government to stand up for us against the multinationals who are fleecing us.

For these companies to give to charity is great, but it's not as good as them being accountable and identifiable, paying taxes where due.