Starbucks cutting pay and benefits for UK workers...

[Pocketmonster]

www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1177583.ece

I suppose this is to cover the cost of their 'offer' to pay Corporation Tax.

I think I'll continue to keep away if this is true.

What do you think?

And, although I wouldn't go as far as "moral rectitude" I kind of agree with Xenia. The fact that they did nothing illegal says more about our taxation than their "morals".

The Government says tax avoidance is fine but it does not like complex very close to the line schemes which it says is aggressive tax avoidance and it feels is morally wrong - the silly schemes footballers and comedians used which the bigger accountancy practices never recommend.

Then we have Margarte Hodge going further and saying if you set expenses against your earnings (which of course everyone does in business - buy a table for £99 and sell for £100 and you're taxed on £1 profit not £99 turnover) that is somehow wrong if your cost is intellectual property. In fact they are keen to give tax breaks for these rights - there is a new 10% tax for money made from patents. If they could just simplify tax, remove all these breaks and reliefts and have one low tax and same for companies and individuals - say 20% tax (and NI together) and corporation and capital gains tax and a smaller state it would be better and people would not be trying to avoid 52% tax they would otherwise pay.

Agreed! I'm a big fan of flat rate taxation.

Xenia

I would agree with you entirely, except I've not read any articles where the government has stated that tax avoidance is fine. unfortunately they have whipped up the uneducated public into thinking that all tax avoidance is immoral. I'm not sure if this has been intentional but from various forums that I've visited there seems to be an extraordinary amount of people that think even normal tax avoidance = tax evasion = immoral.

In this respect I think the first line of your post is spot on but wish the BBC et al would make this clear distinction.

The other error is that a lot is being made (in the news) about turnover and not profits, which are two totally different things.

I don't go to Starbucks often at all but boycotting them is a bit silly IMHO. Boycott them for selling poor coffee or to support local business but not for legal tax avoidance. If anything we should be slamming the government for the £136 million that the public has wasted on phone calls just contacting the HMRC.

I agree Boffin - I'll always use an independent shop where a cake's a cake not a flipping muffin! And the coffee is much better. I had a taste once and it was warm milk - couldn't taste any coffee!

I have read their saying ISAs, pensions, charitable contributions (although even there they messed up) are okay and the public statement was against "morally repugnant" aggressive rather than any other kind of tax avoidance. It is all a bit rich from MPs who do their best to ensure they claim all they can and more under the expenses system.

Bastards

Xenia precisely, they have the nerve to call corporations "morally repugnant" when a year or so ago these people were being investigated for fraud - which IS illegal.

Pah!