I know plenty of you wouldn't give them the steam off your latest brown trout.... but now they've been "outed" for tax avoidance (think we are talking £millions), will those who do like a fancy coffee be giving them a swerve?

 

As a UK business & tax payer it pisses me off that they've paid 0% in tax!! Fuckers!

 

If anything they should be the cheapest on the High St.

It's not only Starbucks though. Amazon and Vodafone do something similar and the Green bloke who owns Top Shop etc has made sure that the companies are owned by wife who lives off shore.

 

The problem is that everything they are doing is legal but morally wrong and by the way I have never been in one of coffee chains as I prefer to support small locally owned businesses.

if its legal i honestly couldnt give a fk - all this talk of "morally" wrong wouldnt bother me in the slightest. All these celebs that dodge tax, if its legal fair play who gives a shit about morals

aren't amazon.co.uk based in jersey?

I'll give them a miss because they charge 3 quid for a bastard brew

aren't amazon.co.uk based in jersey?

 

Some woman this morning on BBC said it was Belgium as it's Amazon Eu.

Some woman this morning on BBC said it was Belgium as it's Amazon Eu.

 

Luxembourg.

 

But you probably know that isnt Belgium, you little tinker.

Some woman this morning on BBC said it was Belgium as it's Amazon Eu.

 

My mistake its play.com

I'll give them a miss because they charge 3 quid for a bastard brew

We have a costa coffee in work anyway, 1.60, so go there

All global companies aim to pay as little tax as possible. There are plenty of huge companies most people have never heard of that do exactly the same.

 

These companies will devise ways of selling from one legal entity to another using an interco transfer price that ensures as little tax as possible is paid in the countries that have the higher taxation. These transfer prices are calculated using the retail-minus method. It's all perfectly legit under international accounting standards. ITKfactamundo.

 

in terms of taxation, a CEO who puts morals before profits wouldn't last very long.

 

 

.. and fwiw, I never see the need to go for a cup of coffee when I'm out and about anyway.

Edited December 3, 201213 yr by DazBobParr

I know plenty of you wouldn't give them the steam off your latest brown trout.... but now they've been "outed" for tax avoidance (think we are talking £millions), will those who do like a fancy coffee be giving them a swerve?

 

As a UK business & tax payer it pisses me off that they've paid 0% in tax!! Fuckers!

 

If anything they should be the cheapest on the High St.

 

How many of those Living social deals did you buy over the weekend for them?

 

£10 e-card for £5 ?

But if the tax we are missing out on is in the region of £10 billion... surely that would offset some of the smaller taxes being imposed elsewhere on the man on the street?

 

We are having our pants pulled down and fucked up the ass by some global companies and we are saying "ok, its legit, good on them"?

We are having our pants pulled down and fucked up the ass by some global companies and we are saying "ok, its legit, good on them"?

 

I don't think anyone's saying that.

 

... but if it's legal and in line with international accounting standards then global companies don't have a case to answer.

 

It's all good and well 'outing' the likes of Amazon, Vodafone, Starbucks etc, but for every brand name we recognise that operate this way, there are a lot more companies further back in the supply chain that people outside of that industry will never have heard of. The #1 priority of these companies is to keep shareholders happy. Always has been the case and always will be.

Edited December 3, 201213 yr by DazBobParr

It's not only Starbucks though.

 

That was my first thought, I'm not boycotting Starbucks when I don't know what their competition pay.

 

HOWEVER, it was on the radio last night that Costa pay 31% tax on their profits. THIRTY ONE PERCENT.

Before we start moralising about companies avoiding tax through legal means we need to think about how many of us have worked for cash in hand or had a job done by someone and not paid the VAT. This is tax evasion and illegal.

I work PAYE, I suspect many other people do.

if its legal i honestly couldnt give a fk - all this talk of "morally" wrong wouldnt bother me in the slightest. All these celebs that dodge tax, if its legal fair play who gives a shit about morals

So you won't be condemning anyone who's claiming shit loads in benefits then? After all, it's legal.

That was my first thought, I'm not boycotting Starbucks when I don't know what their competition pay.

HOWEVER, it was on the radio last night that Costa pay 31% tax on their profits. THIRTY ONE PERCENT.

 

You've just answered your own question. Apart from Nero's are there any others?

From now on I'm only using those (cash only) butty vans in lay bys that don't give you a receipt as they're clearly visionary outfits who save the world by working in a paperless environment.

aren't amazon.co.uk based in jersey?

 

I do know that 'ZOverstocks' CDs are so cheap on Amazon because they're the selling arm of 'Music Magpie'...

A lot of Starbucks in the UK are franchised out. All people will be doing is boycotting the brand, The hit on Starbucks profits would be negligible. The people who would be hit, are the small businesses that run them, and the people who work for them.

I find it more annoying that they keep their taps running all day.

One argument proffered is that the Government of the day allow these swerves because these businesses are such big employers (e.g. Vodafone, Arcadia - who I think own Burton, Topshop etc.) like they're running a f*cking charity, they've soon fucked Bolton Town Centre Burtons off, for example, since it stopped turning a profit.

Edited December 3, 201213 yr by Youri McAnespie

A lot of Starbucks in the UK are franchised out. All people will be doing is boycotting the brand, The hit on Starbucks profits would be negligible. The people who would be hit, are the small businesses that run them, and the people who work for them.

If that was the case Starbucks wouldn't be negotiating with the taxman.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9716155/Starbucks-opens-negotiations-with-HMRC-to-start-paying-more-UK-tax.html

Margaret Hodge who chairs the relevant Parliamentary committee is a major shareholder in a company which also uses transfer pricing and debt financing to pay SFA in the UK.

 

Lucky for her they don't rely on a brand name that a grandstanding politician can try to destroy.

Weren't Google fingereed as being economical with the tax as well ?