Starbucks - should it be boycotted?

[easty]

I prefer the coffee at Costa, but Starbucks is right outside my work so I do go at least twice a week for a coffee.

Starbucks has paid £0 tax in the last three years, but had sales of over £1billion! Since 1998 it's paid only £8.6m tax on sales of over £3bn. To put it in some kind of perspective, last year McDonalds paid £80m tax on £3bn of sales.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/oct/15/starbucks-tax-uk-sales

Legal, but it shouldnt be allowed. What can be done about it? Tip of the iceberg stuff obviously and clearly loads of companies will be at it. Should we boycott?

That said... I do quite fancy a venti extra hot skinny latte just now. :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

I prefer the coffee at Costa, but Starbucks is right outside my work so I do go at least twice a week for a coffee.

Starbucks has paid £0 tax in the last three years, but had sales of over £1billion! Since 1998 it's paid only £8.6m tax on sales of over £3bn. To put it in some kind of perspective, last year McDonalds paid £80m tax on £3bn of sales.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/oct/15/starbucks-tax-uk-sales

Legal, but it shouldnt be allowed. What can be done about it? Tip of the iceberg stuff obviously and clearly loads of companies will be at it. Should we boycott?

That said... I do quite fancy a venti extra hot skinny latte just now. :greengrin

There's a lot of sound-bites in that report, but not enough substance IMO. Companies don't pay tax on their turnover, they pay on their profits. So if, as the report suggests, they have made a loss then there is no tax to pay.

[VickMackie]

Unless there is a worldwide agreed corporation tax some countries will always get shafted by accountants.

I never use Starbucks anyway.

[easty]

There's a lot of sound-bites in that report, but not enough substance IMO. Companies don't pay tax on their turnover, they pay on their profits. So if, as the report suggests, they have made a loss then there is no tax to pay.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2218192/Starbucks-shortchanges-British-taxypayers-paying-just-8-6m-tax-past-14-years.html

You're the resident financial guru of .net CWG.....it can't be hard to make accounts look like they've made a loss can it?

[VickMackie]

There's a lot of sound-bites in that report, but not enough substance IMO. Companies don't pay tax on their turnover, they pay on their profits. So if, as the report suggests, they have made a loss then there is no tax to pay.

I just typed that but deleted it as I wasn't 100% sure.

[VickMackie]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2218192/Starbucks-shortchanges-British-taxypayers-paying-just-8-6m-tax-past-14-years.html

You're the resident financial guru of .net CWG.....it can't be hard to make accounts look like they've made a loss can it?

I believe that some tax rules mean you can spread your profits from products over a number of years aswell.

[RyeSloan]

Key facts here are that they are compliant with the tax laws. It's quite clear that they are therefore why would you boycott a compliant company? If people feel corporate tax is too low should the pressure not be on those that create the tax code to correct this situation?

Starbucks of course employs many thousands of people in the UK...all of which will generate PAYE and NI tax payments, they will also pay substantial business rates on their properties so there is much more than just corporation tax to the tax story.

Add in the fact that they will probably have a substantial UK supply chain and will use UK businesses like shopfitters, electricians, engineers etc to maintain their stores the fact that as a corporate entity they pay low level of corporation tax might not be so important after all.

You could also argue that Starbucks having low corporate taxes will allow them to re-invest more into their business (like HERE) (http://www.themarketingblog.co.uk/2012/06/starbucks-uk-and-ireland-has-unveiled-a-partnership-to-create-200-drive-through-and-100-conventional-stores-over-the-next-five-years-creating-5000-jobs/) and thus create more jobs etc etc....which may well be a much better use of the money rather than giving it central government....

Not saying they don't seem to be stretching things a bit but there does need to be consideration as to the tax code they operate in and why there seems to be a set assumption that big corporations should pay substantial tax on profits to rather profligate governments instead of either re-investing that into their business (and maybe creating some GDP growth at the same time!) or indeed paying that as dividends to their shareholders...dividends that may well then be spent as the individual sees fit (increasing consumer confidence & spending...another government like!) and of course if paid in the UK attracting a basic 10% tax or indeed 32.5% for higher tax payers (those pesky 'rich')

[CropleyWasGod]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2218192/Starbucks-shortchanges-British-taxypayers-paying-just-8-6m-tax-past-14-years.html

You're the resident financial guru of .net CWG.....it can't be hard to make accounts look like they've made a loss can it?

Actually, it can. The accounts of a major corporation like Starbucks are subject to a lot of external scrutiny, eg

The shareholders.... who want to see a return for their investment.

The auditors.

HMRC.

[Billy Whizz]

I don't believe for one moment they ate trading at a loss. More like franchise royalties etc, being paid abroad to show the UK running at a loss. May help them also in getting better deals from landlords on rent etc

[Lucius Apuleius]

As an aside I went into one in Vegas. Ordered a latte for the missus, double espresso for me, two cans of Coke and four croissants. Came to about $30. She puts everything on the counter, Cokes are opened and half drunk before I even get my wallet out by son and his burd. Gave her a $100 note and she refused it. Against management policy seemingly. OK says me lets go people and started walking out the shop. Unfortunately said son stopped me and paid for it. Imagine not accepting your own money! Weird to say the least.

[Haymaker]

As an aside I went into one in Vegas. Ordered a latte for the missus, double espresso for me, two cans of Coke and four croissants. Came to about $30. She puts everything on the counter, Cokes are opened and half drunk before I even get my wallet out by son and his burd. Gave her a $100 note and she refused it. Against management policy seemingly. OK says me lets go people and started walking out the shop. Unfortunately said son stopped me and paid for it. Imagine not accepting your own money! Weird to say the least.


Loads of places dont accept $100 notes, some offys and food places near me wont accept $50s either.

[heretoday]

I agree. Boycott Starbucks and Costa too! I hate those places.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Loads of places dont accept $100 notes, some offys and food places near me wont accept $50s either.

Why? Apart from the obvious they may be counterfeit? Surely they can test them? This is the only place it has happened to me.

[Beefster]

I take it folk are also boycotting Google, Facebook, Amazon and hundreds of other big companies?

Folk seem to obsess over corporation tax and completely ignore income tax, VAT, NI and everything else that these companies contribute to the country.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Starbucks should boycott folk that give daft names to be put on their cup! Odd student behaviour that I just don't get!

[easty]

Starbucks should boycott folk that give daft names to be put on their cup! Odd student behaviour that I just don't get!

Why do they even bother asking for your name? I've just been to get a coffee and when it was ready they called out "venti extra hot skinny latte". I've got a wee sleeve on my cup with my name on it now, but I already know my own name, I dont need reminded.

[Wilson]

Why do they even bother asking for your name? I've just been to get a coffee and when it was ready they called out "venti extra hot skinny latte". I've got a wee sleeve on my cup with my name on it now, but I already know my own name, I dont need reminded.

:agree:

I've been drinking at the same Costa for years. The staff know my order but not my name. Somehow I still always manage to get my coffee.

Perhaps folk give stupid names because they feel being asked or having to provide their name is not necessary. I don't need, or want if I'm honest, to be on first name terms with the people in Costa. I'm simply a customer who wants a coffee.

Seems Starbucks try and force informality on people who might not welcome it. This process is then rightly treated with disdain

[Pretty Boy]

Crap coffee anyway so I'm already boycotting.

[HH81]

A starbucks in America is class.

Once spend 2 hours in one in San Diego as i forgot the code to get into my room around 6am. Great times :-)

BETTER THAN COSTA!

[Haymaker]

Why? Apart from the obvious they may be counterfeit? Surely they can test them? This is the only place it has happened to me.

I guess so, never asked to be honest and they just have signs saying "No $50 or $100 accepted".

Starbucks name thing is annoying.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Hard Rock Cafe, Ben and Jerry, Virgin, Starbucks......"he who fiicks nuns will later join the church".

[grunt]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A5qcBmuCAAIvG6e.jpg

[Hibrandenburg]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A5qcBmuCAAIvG6e.jpg

:-) Someone probably got in **** for that one.