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.

We've already tried that one

I drink at Rhode Island. A small chain.

 

http://www.rhodeislandcoffee.co.uk/locations/

Rhode Island's not bad.

 

You can sit outside in sub-zero temperatures on Burnley's precinct of pound shops, pawnbrokers and Asian money sending agencies and just close your eyes and pretend you're in some little Tuscan village.

Bliss.

Starbucks next door is fucking rammers, as always, I suspect people in reality aren't boycotting it.

You live next door to Starbucks?

I'm not boycotting. The Salted Caramel Coffee thingie is bloody lovely.

 

I have no morals, clearly.

Salted Caramel Coffee?

 

really?

Salted Caramel Coffee?

 

really?

 

Really. It works

I meant did it really exist.

 

I like salt, I like caramel and I like coffee.

 

I'd try it myself, but I'm not morally happy with Starbucks' fraudulent behaviour.

Plus drinking in coffee shops makes you gay, apparently.

Really. It works

 

A bird at work (32FF - fact) brought some salted caramel sweets in that she'd picked up when in America. They were alreet. Must be an American thing.

Salt water taffy?

Salt water taffy?

 

Sounds about right, that might be the one.

As consumers we're shafted day-in, day-out...Why not, for once, make an example of a chain? And why not Starbucks? We hold so much power over these firms that we rely on for our stuff, but never (almost never) choose to exercise it.

 

Why should Wetherspoons pay £35.6 million in taxes and Starbucks nil? Our laws need reforming obviously, in the meantime - make an arbitrary example. They'll be begging the Government to reform the law after a while, they may even allow charges to be backdated

 

Isn't there an independent coffee shop in-between McDonalds and Poundstretcher? Not too far from Starbucks or Rhode Island?

 

Saying that, it's probably shut down now because of high costs of running it...

Edited December 4, 201213 yr by Youri McAnespie

A bird at work (32FF - fact) brought some salted caramel sweets in that she'd picked up when in America. They were alreet. Must be an American thing.

 

I think it is an american thing - I went to New York last week and noticed that most chocolate bars and ice cream had salted caramel chocolate varieties. Not that I tried them mind. I did get some Peanut Butter M&M's that some folk rave about, they were shit.

As consumers we're shafted day-in, day-out...Why not, for once, make an example of a chain? And why not Starbucks?

 

Because NB wants to gulp down her fill of hot salty liquid.

I meant did it really exist.

 

I like salt, I like caramel and I like coffee.

 

I'd try it myself, but I'm not morally happy with Starbucks' fraudulent behaviour.

Plus drinking in coffee shops makes you gay, apparently.

 

Go on, be a devil. Go to one no where near home and so no one will be any the wiser.

Knock yourself out. Have a read of Nietzsche's view on morals then you'll be off to Starbucks before you can say zero tax!

Edited December 4, 201213 yr by no balls

I did get some Peanut Butter M&M's that some folk rave about, they were shit.

 

The pretzel ones are bestest, and yes, they are salted. Clearly I like salty stuff. (Spazmóng can add some smutt in there if he so wishes)

 

M&S do salted caramel popcorn, it's top drawer.

Jimmy Savile, and therefore his estate presently, were rumoured to have a large investment in Starbucks. So, when you buy some Caramel Salty Balls, you're potentially lining the pockets of a monster('s descendants).

Jimmy Savile, and therefore his estate presently, were rumoured to have a large investment in Starbucks. So, when you buy some Caramel Salty Balls, you're potentially lining the pockets of a monster('s descendants).

 

I think I've already stated further up, I am without morals.

Edited December 4, 201213 yr by no balls

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.

 

No Starbucks are franchised, none at all. They wouldn't be able to run their accounting like this if they were. One of the only (if not the only) coffee companies not to franchise.

Jimmy Savile, and therefore his estate presently, were rumoured to have a large investment in Starbucks. So, when you buy some Caramel Salty Balls, you're potentially lining the pockets of a monster('s descendants).

 

Malcolm will probably be along in a minute to point out Savile didn't have kids...

 

Edit: I mean have kids as in he was a father.

 

I think I've already stated further up, I am without morals.

 

It's not a 'moral' issue, although I suspect I'm being reeled in here, it's a question of being taken for a mug. Some benefits scum take off us (via the state) and don't contribute - they (rightly) get singled out for vilification. A big corporation takes from us (via buying their dubious, overpriced wares) and don't contribute, and it's 'ah f*ck it - they do a nice latte...'

 

I'm in favour of opening up two fronts, against both overspending and laissez-faire tax laws. I don't see why we can't. It seems easier for the 'middle' to divide (and be conquered) their focus though.

Edited December 4, 201213 yr by Youri McAnespie

A big corporation takes from us (via buying their dubious, overpriced wares) and don't contribute, and it's 'ah f*ck it - they do a nice latte...'

 

One could argue they contribute through employing people, through National Insurance contributions and also through VAT...

They should tell some self-employed tradesmen who've been caught fiddling their tax to use that as a defence...

 

I wonder what the pension plan scheme of Starbucks is like? I wonder how many of their employees pay into it? I wonder if the Starbucks' employees' contributions to the state isn't massively outweighed by what they take? That leaves VAT, which everyone pays - even feral, workshy paedophiles

 

The points you make are exactly what they would probably make, I daresay if every Starbucks in the UK shut up shop tomorrow it'd barely cause a ripple in terms of unemployment etc.

 

They're probably not that big a long-term employer, the knock-on effect would also be minimal - I'd venture there isn't much distance from bean to paper cup, nor many ancillary industries involved.

Edited December 4, 201213 yr by Youri McAnespie

Well I'm going to carry on supping my salty caramel latte. I'm not a revolutionary, i'm too old & well groomed for that, and I'll not be told where I'm boycotting by some class action layabouts who've never paid a penny taxes themselves, if that's what's happening with the Starbucks boycott idea.

I'll stick to Nescafe, if I need better I take some fresh beans, grind em and chuck em in the cafeteria. Cost of all the raw materials and equipment is probably cheaper than 4 or 5 visits to those type of shops.

 

However imo any business operating in the UK should pay UK business tax.