Starbucks - UK tax 'avoiders'

[Nibble]

funny conversation at work about this, someone was indignant on this matter, have to say i agree, then it was pointed out they do it so they know whose order it who's at the other end. oh. yeah, that does help. they work like a production line, passing your cup along the line.

Yeah I still don't like it for some reason but I can't see the point really. Go to the end and wait for what you ordered, if 2 have ordered the same thing it'll get sorted rather easily surely?

 

[beorhthelm]

Yeah I still don't like it for some reason but I can't see the point really. Go to the end and wait for what you ordered, if 2 have ordered the same thing it'll get sorted rather easily surely?

i reckon its applicable in the morning rush hour. dont go there often enough to know if its the same when quiet. i prefer Nero's.

 

[Nibble]

i reckon its applicable in the morning rush hour. dont go there often enough to know if its the same when quiet. i prefer Nero's.

I suppose it makes sense of sorts. I rather enjoy Small Batch coffee or near me is place called Grounds, they do a nice coffee as do Taylor St Barista on Queens Road. Not sure what their tax policy is though.

 

[Half Time Pies]

No I don't, if Starbucks closed their shops I would expect them to probably stay empty as the majority are in areas where the rent and rates price out local small businesses

The rents wouldnt stay high for long if the shops were left empty!

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Stabucks is a thoroughly despicable outfit - remember the story of the unwanted St James Street branch? If not: December 18, 2008 : 'We don't want a Starsucks,' say Brighton campaigners

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Stabucks is a thoroughly despicable outfit - remember the story of the unwanted St James Street branch? If not: December 18, 2008 : 'We don't want a Starsucks,' say Brighton campaigners

For people who didn't want a Starbucks in St James' Street, it seems to be pretty full whenever I go past the door.

 

[Working class pride]

Oh the self interested moral outrage from those creaming off a nice safe income from the taxpayer. Teachers that wont work more than five weeks without at least one week off, or firemen that wont change shift patterns so they can work about 100 days a year whilst doing another job, or policemen who retire then sign up for another Force to get a double salary, all of those mentioned also getting a large final salary pension. Yes these people have every right to have a go at a company that employs those struggling to get on in England. My local starbucks to work has a staff of Eastern European or asian workers almost exclusively. They work all hours and always have a smile. Why these guys should be in the slightest worried about the pensions of our teachers, I have no idea but I'm sure the Police Federation, Fireman's trade union and the NUT can in their own heads. Frankly until the state gets a grip of those that us taxpayers are paying for, then the public sector has no right to engage in moral outrage as it just looks like looking after their own cushy number.

 

[DumLum]

So many companies doing it. BBC3's THE REVOLUTION WILL BE TELEVISED do a sketch on it quite often. Boots, Apple and Vodaphone have all been pointed out as 'tax avoiders' on this show.

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

I know quite a few people that pay themselves a tax free salary of £8,105 then take dividends to supplement their income. That in itself I don't mind as it's perfectly legal. What takes the piss is when they claim tax credits based on the fact they earn £8K a year!

You could call 0800 788 887 in the morning and tell them about the "quite a few people you know"? The initial and annual renewal applications for Working Tax Credits require applicants to declare any share dividends received.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

For people who didn't want a Starbucks in St James' Street, it seems to be pretty full whenever I go past the door.

49 percent of the people in the world are of below-average intelligence. What can you do?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Frankly until the state gets a grip of those that us taxpayers are paying for.

Us? What makes you think you can speak on my behalf? you arrogant shit.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Been to a Starbucks a handful of times in my life. Final straw was when they started asking you for your name. That's the kind of faux friendliness that corporations use that infuriates me no end.

I am Spartacus.

 

[BadFish]

Starbucks 'paid just £8.6m UK tax in 14 years'

US coffee giant Starbucks reportedly paid just £8.6m in corporation tax in the UK over 14 years.

The four-month investigation by news agency Reuters also found the firm had paid nothing in the last three years. It found Starbucks had generated over £3bn in UK sales since 1998 but had paid less than 1% in corporation tax.

"We have paid and will continue to pay our fair share of taxes in full compliance with all UK tax laws, as we always have," Starbucks said. "There has been no suggestion by any authority that we are anything but compliant and good tax payers.

"We do this in a way that is consistent with the values that have guided us since we were founded more than 40 years ago: balancing our need to operate a profitable business with a social conscience."

But campaigner Richard Murphy from Tax Research UK, who was consulted by the Reuters team as part of its investigation, said: "Starbucks are playing the game here. This is tax avoidance, they're doing nothing illegal. That doesn't mean to say it's right, in my opinion," he told BBC Radio 5 live.

He said it showed that the current rules on tax did not work and it was up to politicians to put it right.

"When we have a tax system that lets very large companies like Starbucks be on our High Street and pay no tax and are competing with small locally owned businesses who are paying tax on all their profits, then there's something very clearly wrong with our tax system."

According to the Reuters investigation, Starbucks generated £398m in UK sales last year but paid no corporation tax. In comparison, rival Costa recorded sales of £377m in the UK last year, and paid £15m in tax, or 31% of its profits.

Starbucks is not alone though, in facing criticism for its low tax bill.

Last week Facebook was criticised for paying just £238,000 in tax last year in the UK despite estimates of making £175m in sales, while earlier this year Google was also criticised for paying just £6m tax on UK revenues of £395m.

In April, a report in the Guardian said that online retailer Amazon had generated sales of more than £7.6bn in the UK over the past three years but had not paid any corporation tax on the profits from those sales.

Labour MP and tax campaigner Michael Meacher said Starbucks' practice was "profoundly against the interests of the countries where they operate and is extremely unfair. They are trying to play the taxman, game him. It is disgraceful," he said.

A spokesman for HMRC said: "For legal reasons, we cannot comment on the tax affairs of individual businesses, but we make sure that multinationals pay the right tax to the UK in accordance with UK tax law."

I blame the layabout unemployed dole scroungers

 

[jonny.rainbow]

funny conversation at work about this, someone was indignant on this matter, have to say i agree, then it was pointed out they do it so they know whose order it who's at the other end. oh. yeah, that does help. they work like a production line, passing your cup along the line.

Here's an idea.

Print order number on receipt. Call out order number at the serving area. Done.

My preference would be Raffle tickets a la Market Diner and that's been going longer than Starbux. Plus their coffee is better. That's not saying much though, other than Starbux is overpriced, pigswill, served in a cereal bowl with a handle.

 

[Half Time Pies]

Oh the self interested moral outrage from those creaming off a nice safe income from the taxpayer. Teachers that wont work more than five weeks without at least one week off, or firemen that wont change shift patterns so they can work about 100 days a year whilst doing another job, or policemen who retire then sign up for another Force to get a double salary, all of those mentioned also getting a large final salary pension. Yes these people have every right to have a go at a company that employs those struggling to get on in England. My local starbucks to work has a staff of Eastern European or asian workers almost exclusively. They work all hours and always have a smile. Why these guys should be in the slightest worried about the pensions of our teachers, I have no idea but I'm sure the Police Federation, Fireman's trade union and the NUT can in their own heads. Frankly until the state gets a grip of those that us taxpayers are paying for, then the public sector has no right to engage in moral outrage as it just looks like looking after their own cushy number.

How you have managed to turn this in to a outblast against the public sector is beyond me. Do you think that Starbucks is making some sort of protest about the way that tax money is spent in this country, no it just doesnt want to pay tax! And the fact that it pays its eastern european and asian workers minimum wage and forces them to work all hours is another matter but also driven by the bottom line.

The fact is that tax loopholes should be closed so as all companies pay a fair tax contribution and there is a level playing field.

 

[BadFish]

Oh the self interested moral outrage from those creaming off a nice safe income from the taxpayer. Teachers that wont work more than five weeks without at least one week off, or firemen that wont change shift patterns so they can work about 100 days a year whilst doing another job, or policemen who retire then sign up for another Force to get a double salary, all of those mentioned also getting a large final salary pension. Yes these people have every right to have a go at a company that employs those struggling to get on in England. My local starbucks to work has a staff of Eastern European or asian workers almost exclusively. They work all hours and always have a smile. Why these guys should be in the slightest worried about the pensions of our teachers, I have no idea but I'm sure the Police Federation, Fireman's trade union and the NUT can in their own heads. Frankly until the state gets a grip of those that us taxpayers are paying for, then the public sector has no right to engage in moral outrage as it just looks like looking after their own cushy number.

You are quite simply a disgrace to your user name.

 

[mwrpoole]

I know quite a few people that pay themselves a tax free salary of £8,105 then take dividends to supplement their income. That in itself I don't mind as it's perfectly legal. What takes the piss is when they claim tax credits based on the fact they earn £8K a year!

Are you sure you're not referring to the 10% tax credit you automatically get when paying a dividend out?

Working tax credit/child tax credit are cross referenced with HMRC records so to get that they would have to not be declaring their dividends to HMRC which is tax EVASION not avoidance. Getting tax credits by doing so is then FRAUD. If I knew anyone doing this I would ring the hotline as ultimately we are all paying for this.

 

[Simster]

Been to a Starbucks a handful of times in my life. Final straw was when they started asking you for your name. That's the kind of faux friendliness that corporations use that infuriates me no end.

Although I have always preferred Neros and Costa to Starbucks anyway, I have to say I did actually completely stop going to Starbucks because of this. What a crock of shit.

 

[strings]

What tax loophole?

As far as I'm aware, they made no profit. The article is ignoring its balance sheet and profit and loss records. For all we know, they ran up high administrative costs and recorded allowable expenses in order to minimise their profit and alas their CT liability.

If what Starbucks are doing is wrong, then we must persue every limited company in the country who take below the threshold of the personal tax allowance, and bring down the tax threshold on dividends being paid out. But this won't happen.

I'm going to reply to this, because others have dismissed this comment, without explaining why it is wrong.

You are correct, Starbucks have made no UK profit. However, the reason for this is that they have been loading the UK business with costs of running Starbucks in other countries with much lower tax rates. This have the effect of making the UK arm show as being loss-making, whilst in other counties Starbucks make a huge profit. This means they do not pay much tax in the UK, but they do pay tax in the other countries on the profits.

Basically they have put in place a work-around so that they only pay taxes in the countries with low tax rates.

 

[BadFish]

I'm going to reply to this, because others have dismissed this comment, without explaining why it is wrong.

You are correct, Starbucks have made no UK profit. However, the reason for this is that they have been loading the UK business with costs of running Starbucks in other countries with much lower tax rates. This have the effect of making the UK arm show as being loss-making, whilst in other counties Starbucks make a huge profit. This means they do not pay much tax in the UK, but they do pay tax in the other countries on the profits.

Basically they have put in place a work-around so that they only pay taxes in the countries with low tax rates.

Which is of course all perfectly legal.

If only we could all do something to stop this kind of nonsense?



If only we could all decide not to drink their steaming hot milky dog shit and go to an independent cafe and get a decent cup of coffee, while simultaneously supporting a local business which will pay it's tax and spend it's profits in our local area thus supporting other businesses.