... 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.

There isn't one locally, so it's pretty easy...

I went to Starbucks this morning. I had an extra hot hot chocolate and an apple crumble muffin. It's the only place locally with clean baby changing and enough space for a buggy. No one has shown me any evidence that they break the law (I'd be happy to see it, seriously) so if you're unhappy with the way corporation tax works- for Starbucks and the host of other companies named on this thread- lobby your MP through "they work for you" or similar. Maybe someone could link to such a petition, that would be more useful than a boycott methinks.
BTW I'd cheerily go to Fleet River Bakery if that was local, though last time I was there I had to change baby on the floor of the toilets- nice.

I think it's simple.

If Starbucks UK was not profitable they would be closing stores to rationalize the business. Something we have seen with companies like Clintons.

In fact they have been opening new stores, and only closed 10 stores last year.

Plainly the business is a profitable one.

And no, it's not illegal, but that doesn't mean we should spend our money there.

DH and I hate Starbucks and their over-priced 'coffee' so count us in. We use local independent cafes.

Thank you Cinnabar, I was beginning to despair at the sheep-like mentality - "ooohher, I'm in, EVIL tax dodgers!!" You are one of the few talking typing sense here. Everyone else just sticking their fingers in their ears and going "lalalalalalalala". People banging on and on about how much companies like Starbucks have taken out of the UK economy - are you for real? Do thousands of high street jobs mean nothing?

Avoid the company because you don't like the coffee (like me), or the (admittedly irritating) faux-familiarity behind the counter grates on you, or you think it's too crowded, or too expensive. Those are the grounds on which Starbucks came here to compete, and those are the things it can change. But to boycott it because the media (including the "tax dodging BBC"!) have reported that they have conducted their tax affairs completely within the law makes absolutely no sense at all. Do you think Costa writes a cheque to HMRC every year for the tax it feels "morally obliged" to pay, rather than what it is "legally obliged" to pay? My DH used to be very senior within the Costa organisation and believe me, the idea would be laughed out of the boardroom.

If you boycott every single company in the UK that has arranged its tax affairs legally and efficiently you won't have anything left to buy or consume. And the economy will be in even deeper sh-t than it's in right now. But you boycotters will all feel better then, won't you?

Cinnabar - yes, if you could debunk the BBC thing that would be great! I am self-employed and fed up with the fact that everyone now thinks that everyone who freelances is fiddling their tax!

Bar one Gingerbread latte on a very cold day in December (TBC) I already do!

CinnabarRed has explained perfectly what I meant upthread. Starbucks aren't doing anything wrong, in fact they are conscientiously doing what the law requires.

This would mean that I can quite happily drink my gingerbread latte in its festive red cup without a qualm except... I really don't like their coffee.

There's a reason I used the term avoidance, as the BBC has been complicit in avoidance, which is legal. So if you're going to boycott Starbucks for legal tax avoidance why not do the same for the BBC? And boycott anyone who has an ISA

Have you got a first class honours in patronising momma? That post is a pure masterpiece!

I think the point is, we should be supporting local businesses and UK businesses instead of giving our money to these huge corporations.

Maybe our economy would look better if we all supported our high street instead of going to identikit out of town shopping centres to give tesco and the like our money instead.

If people dislike the way their tax affairs are handled even of it is still technically within the remit of uk law why shouldn't they drink elsewhere?

Starbucks is one of many companies perhaps but they have been publicised and therefore may bear the brunt of people's annoyance with this issue.

You can't boycott the BBC, it's illegal, if you own a TV.

And ISAs are a savings scheme. To encourage people to have savings so they don't end up on benefits, which have to be funded out of taxes.

Which Starbucks aren't paying.

The idea that all tax avoidance is equivalent is just bollocks. For instance Jimmy Carr's income was structured as a loan. A loan that would never be repaid. Which is not comparable, to my mind, with say venture capital schemes where a tax break is provided to encourage new businesses to be set up (which might then make the owner money), the supposed 'loan' (of Carr's own money to Carr) had no other purpose.

Every scheme should be considered on its merits. When it comes to HMRC, whether it is legal. And when it comes to consumers we can consider whether it is reasonable. And if we don't like it, vote with our feet.

Simple.

But the frapacinos (however it's spelled) are so good, and they have lovely big seating areas...

Plus you pay 10% tax on dividends in an isa, so lots of people are paying some tax.

Every little helps.

No one pays more tax than they absolutely have to. No one thinks, ooh HMRC have left a loophole which will save me money but morally I should pay more so here it is.

I own my own business. I pay myself a very small salary and put expenses through the business where appropriate, then pay anything additional in dividends. I do all this because it saves me tax, which paying myself a higher salary would not. Perhaps some would think that because I earn x amount during a year, I ought to pay it all through PAYE and pay more tax on it?

There are loads of companies operating in this country who do genuinely illegal or immoral things in terms of supply chains, child labour, all sorts of really nasty stuff. Being tax efficient and acting within the law as it is is not one of those situations.

Having said that, boycotting large corporates in support of local smaller businesses is a different question and much more 'worthy' than doing it because they are tax efficient.

"You can't boycott the BBC, it's illegal, if you own a TV"

That's incorrect. It's illegal if you have a TV and watch live broadcasts. If you don't, and you don't have the ability to watch live broadcasts, you don't have to have a licence BBC tv licence website

Or choosing to drink coffee supplied by a company that pay more uk tax for whatever reason.

It's like saying to me ooo there's no point in recycling unless your going to use candles wash in a stream and install solar panels.

Starbucks employees will be paying income tax and national insurance so why penalise them? With youth unemployment so high wouldn't you feel guilty contributing to that?

Starbucks is taking advantage of tax laws made by politicians and organisations like HMRC. When I go to places like SB I feel much more guilty about the developing country farmer who made the coffee getting such a small percentage of the price I paid- even if it's Fairtrade.

How do I find my local independent coffee shop? Are they listed on yell as coffee shops?

Pickled, if you're talking to me, it wasn't meant to be patronising, and I apologise if it came out that way. It was sheer frustration.

I am just getting sick of the media whipping people into a frenzy of fury and finger-pointing over tax dodging when they're not telling the full story. Then legitimate enterprises who are trying to create jobs and pay people who will then pay tax find themselves in the middle of a media sh-tstorm and boycotts and ultimately they will say "you know what, f-ck this, I'm not operating in this market anymore". Starbucks itself may not do that, but plenty of other businesses will look at the Starbucks example and get the hell out of the UK. It is just so counter-productive.

As I said above, there are plenty of reasons not to patronise (that word again) Starbucks, all of which are perfectly legitimate and, most importantly, based on actual knowledge - you don't like the coffee or the servers or the prices or the atmosphere. Starbucks can change those things if they're annoying to enough people and it's a fair basis on which to compete with the likes of Costa/Caffe Nero/independents. But to boycott because of a single line in their accounts, without having any understanding of the context behind that single line number, is not rational and no sane CEO would stay in a market where that was rife.

I very much doubt the CFOs of Costa and Caffe Nero are crowing today - they are just silently thanking some supreme being that they dodged a bullet now, in the knowledge that in this environment the bullet may be coming for them next.

Thank you Cinnabar. I would love your view on the BBC thing too.

Somewhere upthread Peachy asked about income tax. It will be corporation tax that is affected by transfer pricing etc, income tax on salaries as well as employer and employee national insurance contributions will still be due.

I find it bonkers that people genuinely seem to expect any big company (or in fact anyone at all) to voluntarily hand over more money to the taxman than necessary.

"No one pays more tax than they absolutely have to. No one thinks, ooh HMRC have left a loophole which will save me money but morally I should pay more so here it is. "

Bollocks.

Absolute bollocks.

www.newstatesman.com/blogs/voices/2012/06/tax-avoidance-isnt-left-or-right-issue-its-cancer-eating-our-democracy

"I own my own business. I pay myself a very small salary and put expenses through the business where appropriate, then pay anything additional in dividends. I do all this because it saves me tax, which paying myself a higher salary would not. Perhaps some would think that because I earn x amount during a year, I ought to pay it all through PAYE and pay more tax on it?"

I suggest you don't project your way of thinking onto others.

You do X. Good for you.

But that doesn't mean everybody else thinks or behaves the same way.