Starbucks

[beech1948]

Well I suppose all companies and individuals can do that (like Louis Hamilton?).

Simple solution change the law for some of this trade if they want to operate or collect money in this country in addition to those indirect taxes.

I agree except it should be law that all revenues/income must be booked and accounted for in the UK and thus subject to tax.

One can easily see how all tax payers will feel ripped off if these laws are not changed. Especially so now that this is openly discussed. I would think every business owner in the UK will be thinking about similar set ups. What's good for a few should be good for all.

After all if the big companies paid a fair share of tax then Corporation Tax could be reduced by 1 or 2 % with other tax rates steady or reduced. If taxes are lower than competing countries then we will get steady growth for the next 10 yrs or so.

Al

 

[Mike.S]

I am not a Starbucks fan but they have made a massive contribution to our economy. They have collected and handed over millions in VAT, employed thousands who, in their turn, have paid tax and NI (though as minimum wage employees probably not much), paid millions in Business Rates and spent millions here setting up the shops. In addition, many of our investment and pension funds hold shares in Starbucks so that our savers and pensioners benefit from the dividends.

Richard

I disagree. What massive contribution have they made? If we set aside the minority of foreign tourists, all payments are funded by UK citizens from UK earnings i.e. it's circular. Money expended on rates, VAT, NI and income tax deductions to employees, new shops etc has come from earnings in the UK. If Starbucks didn't exist then the money would be spent elsewhere (other coffee shops or wherever) and/or business rates and rents would be lower (less competition for shops) - reducing costs for consumers and employers.

The real trick that Starbucks and many others (including an international bank I used to work for) undertake is to artificially depress their UK earnings by setting up financial subsidiary companies in low tax environments like Switzerland, Ireland, and The Netherlands which 'cream-off' sufficient money to minimise/eradicate profits which would otherwise be taxable at higher corp tax rates in the UK. The profits are then concentrated in low tax environments and are free to be remitted to the parent (in the USA here) or invested in opening new outlets.

As others have suggested, the laws/rules are open to interpretation. When HMRC was sniffing around my old employer it was decided to transfer several employees to the Dutch company we used (even though we still sat at our London desks) and increase the 'appearance' of the Dutch company acting as a proper business. Reality was that with the Dutch Govt's blessing the Dutch company housed lots of profitable business on the understanding that none of the business was Dutch - as this would compete with Dutch banks or shelter Dutch companies from paying the proper amount of tax. The result? Dutch revenue earned 10% tax on business which, but for this 'artificial' subsidiary, it would not have done; instead it would have been earned in the UK (where the work was really done) and subject to 20-30% tax rates. Legal, probably. Fair, not - in my opinion.

By the way, the Dutch company office space was shared by a well known international clothing chain (Southern European) - their 'office' consisted of a nameplate, one man and a typewriter but somehow supplied all of Europe with the clothing being sold. Hhmmm

Sorry, bit of a rant but it get's my goat when the company/media spin appears to be believed.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

You can bet if our govt. comes close to sorting it out, the e.u. will tell it it's not allowed to.

 

[devonwoody]

You can bet if our govt. comes close to sorting it out, the e.u. will tell it it's not allowed to.

Philip, you are so right, right. :wink:

 

[nev]

Starbucks, Amazon and Google etc. have done nothing wrong, they have merely employed an accountant to save the company money, the same as anyone and everyone running their own business would including the UK govt.

They provide employment. The employees pay tax. the employees spend money. UK gets tax.

If the govt dont like it , they can change the rules.
But they wont because there are probably 100's if not 1000's of other less high profile employers in the UK doing the same thing, which would up and go elsewhere in the world rather than pay millions more in tax!

If you dont agree with someones business practices you take your business elsewhere. Simples!!

 

[Benchwayze]

I think Starbucks coffee tastes awful. I don't know about paying more tax - they can't even make a decent cup of coffee.......

Cheers :wink:

Paul

I agree Paul. Mind you, my taste buds have been infected with Maxwell House Instant! :lol:

 

[Chrispy]

I was just sent this Email, I have no way to check the truth of it but it seems believable to me. :roll:



Subject: Think About This

Recently, British Royal Marines in Iraq wrote to Starbucks because they wanted to let them know how much they liked their coffees, and to request that they send some of it to the troops there.

Starbucks replied, telling the Royal Marines thank you for their support of their business, but that Starbucks does not support the war, nor anyone in it, and that they would not send the troops their brand of coffee.

So as not to offend Starbucks, maybe we should support them by NOT buying any of their products!


I feel we should get this out in the open. I know this war might not be very popular with some folks, but that doesn't mean we don't support the boys on the ground, fighting street-to-street and house-to-house.

If you feel the same as I do then please pass this along.


Thanks very much for your support. I know you'll all be there again to support us when we deploy once more.


Sgt. Howard Wright,

1 Platoon, Recon Company, Royal Marines



PLEASE BE KIND ENOUGH AND DON'T DELETE THIS... BUT PLEASE PASS TO EVERYONE ON YOUR E- MAIL LIST, IN MEMORY OF ALL THE TROOPS WHO HAVE BEEN WOUNDED, LOST LIMBS AND EVEN DIED, SO THAT WE MAY HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE !



Also, please don't forget that when the Twin Trade Towers were hit, the fire fighters and rescue workers went to Starbucks because it was close by, for water for the survivors and workers, and Starbucks CHARGED THEM!!!



AN ADDED NOTE TO THIS: STARBUCKS HAD STORES ON SEVERAL MILITARY BASES IN THE UNITED STATES. THEY ARE NOW BEING REMOVED BECAUSE OF THIS.



There are 227 Starbucks stores across the UK, and there's no doubt that our soldiers would get the same response from this company, so let us do our bit and boycott Starbucks to show them how despicable their actions are.



When the Underground was bombed in London, the Marks and Spencer store at Edgware Road gave all the stock away to those in need. Perhaps you might care to get your coffee in there instead!

 

[devonwoody]

Chrispy, I would want to verify the above details before I took any steps myself, perhaps others could do same?

 

[andersonec]

If you think that only Starbucks are at it then think again, these are just some of the uk's top 20. The link to the list is just below the picture of Bob Diamond.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news ... avens.html

Add to that list;
Boots
Ebay
Ikea
Cadbury's
Walkers Crisps
Tesco
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Even the Guardian newspaper which is doing a lot of the shouting is at it.

It has been calculated that if all the tax avoiding companies were to 'play fair' and pay their due taxes (£20bn) it would be enough to reduce the basic tax rate by four and a half pence.

Andy

 

[RogerS]

If you think that only Starbucks are at it then think again, these are just some of the uk's top 20. The link to the list is just below the picture of Bob Diamond.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news ... avens.html

Add to that list;
Boots
Ebay
Ikea
Cadbury's
Walkers Crisps
Tesco
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Even the Guardian newspaper which is doing a lot of the shouting is at it.

It has been calculated that if all the tax avoiding companies were to 'play fair' and pay their due taxes (£20bn) it would be enough to reduce the basic tax rate by four and a half pence.

Andy

Yup..I already linked to the Guardian in an earlier post. That one really sticks in my craw....bloody Guardian...coming across all Holier than thou...at least the other companies could be said to be 'big business'...not hypocritical like the Guardian.

 

[RogerP]

An American report http://edition.cnn.com/video/?hpt=h...-boulden-us-companies-tax-clampdown-in-uk.cnn

 

[tekno.mage]

Another option is to go somewhere else?

The only couple of times I went into one I was only ever impressed by the price! The coffee was mediocre to say the elast.

Agreed - support your local independant cafe or coffee shop instead - their produce is probably cheaper as well.

Actually I don't drink coffee at all and am very disappointed at the emergence of all these "big name" chains of coffee shops everywhere (selling overproced designer hot drinks) - I'm a tea drinker!

 

[devonwoody]

I reckon Osborne should give me 10% commission on that tax windfall. (I started the ball rolling) :wink: :wink: :wink:

 

[Benchwayze]

The powers-that-be might be shooting themselves in the proverbial. The next move by some of these companies, might well be to close branches here and there, and put people out of work. They will call it 'cost-cutting' on the grounds that they have to make savings, due to high overheads. I seem to recall a phrase: 'claw-back'.... But then I accept, I am a cynic... :-"

 

[marcros]

I reckon Osborne should give me 10% commission on that tax windfall. (I started the ball rolling) :wink: :wink: :wink:

Starbuck have managed to get themselves a positive story onto every news channel in the land, for £10M, all at peak time. what would that cost as commercial advertising? they are not stupid!

 

[andersonec]

I reckon Osborne should give me 10% commission on that tax windfall. (I started the ball rolling) :wink: :wink: :wink:

Starbuck have managed to get themselves a positive story onto every news channel in the land, for £10M, all at peak time. what would that cost as commercial advertising? they are not stupid!

Yeh, but Mark, what a fabulous company, they are doing it because of the reaction of their customers,,,, not because it is a big business and they are making big profits and they are depriving the economy of the country in which they are making these profits.

What I can't understand is the support they are getting from some people with quote such as "they are not breaking any laws", does that make it ok then?

I hope you are going to pay your taxes on that 10% Woody.

Andy

 

[acewoodturner]

Depends on your opinion of a positive news story. I for one think that this company and their ilk should be paying the proper taxes. If that means paying very little just now so be it. If the Gov change the law and they get hammered for taxes then they have to put up with that. Starbucks and Amzon etc are not going to pull out of the UK because they are going to start to have to pay their dues. They make too much money for that to happen. Even under a new tax regime they will still be making plenty of money. If Starbucks do shut down in the uk think of it as a new opportunity for Costa and other uk businesses to expand and grow. Particularly where a Starbucks has opened and all the local coffee shops have shut. These are the companies who are actually putting real money back into the local communities where they operate, unlike Starbucks who buy all their supplies from abroad. As for the local jobs if they shut down, part time staff on low wages with their money made up in tax credits from the uk taxpayer (of whom Starbucks isnt one of them). These jobs will easily filled by other shops opening up who can make real coffee and real cakes etc

 

[whiskywill]

Starbucks......................buy all their supplies from abroad.

Doesn't coffee have to come from abroad? :?

 

[RogerP]

.......If Starbucks do shut down in the uk think of it as a new opportunity for Costa and other uk businesses to expand and grow. Particularly where a Starbucks has opened and all the local coffee shops have shut. ...........

I do basically agree with what you're saying but ...

The other shops don't shut because Starbucks open in a neighbourhood, they shut because people prefer to go to Starbucks. Same as when any big player, Tescos etc, open up locally - they only succeed because the public choose to go there.

Recently there was a big campaign to stop Tescos opening in a local parade near me. Tescos won and proved their point as they are always full. So if so many folk don't want these national chains on their doorstep who are the crowds that patronise them?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

+1 I've always said that. If a town or village doesn't want a McD or a Tesco or whatever , let them open - they'll be closed in 12 or 18 months if it's the will of the majority not to use them.