Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

... ask MNers to boycott Starbucks?

805 replies

legoballoon · 16/10/2012 22:44

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.

OP posts:
alreadytaken · 22/10/2012 17:37

Absy it's not that simple. The rich hold more of the pension companies and insurance funds for a start. But you need to add to that those who manage the pension funds and insurance companies. In this case many of them are probably in the US.

Cinnabar I've no idea who Starbucks landlords are either but are you sure it's not a holding company with some complicated arrangement to send most of its funds offshore? Could even be a company owned by Starbucks.

If Starbucks went out of business people would still want somewhere to go for a coffee, whether that was a large chain, who may be paying more or less tax, or a collection of small businesses.

The OP said "I think we should support small, UK-based independent coffee shops. Let's support businesses that generate wealth that is shared by local people." Could do worse.

Absy · 22/10/2012 17:44

But then, unless they're investing on their own behalf, the pension funds and hedge funds etc. are managed by a third party (so not the "rich" person directly). You might have the occassional person placing direct orders through their broker, but pension funds themselves are largely collective investment schemes, and managed by an investment manager/asset manager, and are often set up by employers, or bought into on a retail basis. If the AM/IM see that they've invested in the stock of a company who is deliberately underpaying tax, and thereby might be liable for more tax/be fined/be subject of a public investigation and thereby be subject to expensive fines or lose value, they're less likely to invest in it.

BornToShopForcedToWork · 22/10/2012 17:48

I stopped going to Starbucks ever since I Heard that they used to leave the water tab running the whole day.

merrymouse · 22/10/2012 18:04

Already taken, rental income on uk property is taxed in the uk where ever the landlord is.

Of course there could be all sorts of skulduggery going on, but you could say that of any company.

(and thanks for all the v. Interesting, not patronising info cinnabar!)

CinnabarRed · 23/10/2012 06:11

BornToShop - Starbucks were specifically told that running water (no detergent) is the most environmentally friendly way to wash their crockery. They spent a fortune on that advice and then converting all of their shops. They don't leave the tap on because they're lazy, but because respected environmental consultants told them it was the greenest thing to do.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page