|
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 8633 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2003 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2015 | Jun 2015 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
OK, I'll give you that, I was going from memory, but the fact remains that you can't blame any government for the state of the economic collapse is 2008, can you? The truth remains that it was an external and almost unforeseen issue that brought the country to it's knees. (I seem to remember one economist going 'this can't last' and getting laughed at for it...)
If you want to try and conflte the two, go ahead, but it'll be meaningless.
|
|
OK, I'll give you that, I was going from memory, but the fact remains that you can't blame any government for the state of the economic collapse is 2008, can you? The truth remains that it was an external and almost unforeseen issue that brought the country to it's knees. (I seem to remember one economist going 'this can't last' and getting laughed at for it...)
If you want to try and conflte the two, go ahead, but it'll be meaningless.
| |
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 18064 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"The money will be paid, that much is true, but very clearly before Starbucks (or anyone) sets on an employee they know that the cost of the employee comprises items including their gross salary and including the employer's NIC. Employers' NIC is paid for every employee by every company so the fact Starbucks also has to pay it isn't either earth shattering, or to their credit. It's just how it is. I don't know what point you are making. If it is implying that this somehow gives them a "credit" against corporation tax they do not pay, them I'm sorry, i don't think you have a point at all.
That's just more of the same. Every business which is registered for VAT accounts quarterly for VAT. This "free of charge" thing is just emotive nonsense, Starbucks does not shoulder any unusual burdens in regards to this function, which is plainly just a fact of life if you run a UK business.
I don't believe you are that naive. I am sure you know how it works, the accountancy firms, for huge fees, dream up highly complex and tortuous paths to pass money along, and do this all the time. Of course the tax laws do not "allow" this, in the sense that "Parliament specifically thought of this dodge and did not pass a specific law against it because Parliament positively thought that companies should be allowed to escape corporation tax by using this or that scheme".
The emphasis is in truth entirely reversed. It is, for obvious reasons, totally impossible to legislate in advance to prevent the operation of every tax dodge which has yet to be dreamed up. Far from considering that Parliament "allows" tax dodges the true nuance of meaning is that many such tax dodges are only legal until measures to close the loopholes are put in place. If you want to play semantics and say that in the meantime the tax dodge is "allowed" then knock yourself out, but nobody is accusing Starbucks of illegality, and to do so is to entirely avoid the point of this part of the discussion.
I'm not clamouring for high taxes. If I felt a need to clamour at all in this context then it would simply be for Starbucks to pay standard rates of corporation tax based on a fairly assessed figure which represents the true (and very considerable) profitability of their UK operations.
Sadly, and based on a number of well-publicised cases such as Vodafone and all the rest, I have no confidence that HMRC or indeed HM Government has either the appetite or the capacity for the task of making sure big multinationals pay their fair share. Like the bankers scandals, ultimately it seems people temporarily in charge of the UK shop are exceedingly reluctant to rock any boats, however many billions disappear down the toilet. A cynic might wonder whether something was in it for them.
Official "You Needn't Worry Your Pretty Little Heads, It's All Fine, We're On It, No Really" bullcrap [url=http://www.taxjournal.com/tj/files/article-files/HMRCIssueBriefing_TaxingMultinationals.pdfhere[/url.'"
I was merely challenging your statement that Starbucks pay nothing to HMRC - that you have admitted was incorrect.
The point about lower taxes is simple - these companies will be tax somewhere, perhaps if our tax rates were more attractive they might consider paying more here?
Our big multi-nationals will be doing exactly the same in other countries where taxes are even higher than the UK which means HMRC will receive a bigger chunk. Maybe it is just a case of swings and roundabouts. So if you means tested Starbucks for corporation tax in the UK you would potentially be opening up the opportunity for BP for example to be means tested in another country. |
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 18064 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"The money will be paid, that much is true, but very clearly before Starbucks (or anyone) sets on an employee they know that the cost of the employee comprises items including their gross salary and including the employer's NIC. Employers' NIC is paid for every employee by every company so the fact Starbucks also has to pay it isn't either earth shattering, or to their credit. It's just how it is. I don't know what point you are making. If it is implying that this somehow gives them a "credit" against corporation tax they do not pay, them I'm sorry, i don't think you have a point at all.
That's just more of the same. Every business which is registered for VAT accounts quarterly for VAT. This "free of charge" thing is just emotive nonsense, Starbucks does not shoulder any unusual burdens in regards to this function, which is plainly just a fact of life if you run a UK business.
I don't believe you are that naive. I am sure you know how it works, the accountancy firms, for huge fees, dream up highly complex and tortuous paths to pass money along, and do this all the time. Of course the tax laws do not "allow" this, in the sense that "Parliament specifically thought of this dodge and did not pass a specific law against it because Parliament positively thought that companies should be allowed to escape corporation tax by using this or that scheme".
The emphasis is in truth entirely reversed. It is, for obvious reasons, totally impossible to legislate in advance to prevent the operation of every tax dodge which has yet to be dreamed up. Far from considering that Parliament "allows" tax dodges the true nuance of meaning is that many such tax dodges are only legal until measures to close the loopholes are put in place. If you want to play semantics and say that in the meantime the tax dodge is "allowed" then knock yourself out, but nobody is accusing Starbucks of illegality, and to do so is to entirely avoid the point of this part of the discussion.
I'm not clamouring for high taxes. If I felt a need to clamour at all in this context then it would simply be for Starbucks to pay standard rates of corporation tax based on a fairly assessed figure which represents the true (and very considerable) profitability of their UK operations.
Sadly, and based on a number of well-publicised cases such as Vodafone and all the rest, I have no confidence that HMRC or indeed HM Government has either the appetite or the capacity for the task of making sure big multinationals pay their fair share. Like the bankers scandals, ultimately it seems people temporarily in charge of the UK shop are exceedingly reluctant to rock any boats, however many billions disappear down the toilet. A cynic might wonder whether something was in it for them.
Official "You Needn't Worry Your Pretty Little Heads, It's All Fine, We're On It, No Really" bullcrap [url=http://www.taxjournal.com/tj/files/article-files/HMRCIssueBriefing_TaxingMultinationals.pdfhere[/url.'"
I was merely challenging your statement that Starbucks pay nothing to HMRC - that you have admitted was incorrect.
The point about lower taxes is simple - these companies will be tax somewhere, perhaps if our tax rates were more attractive they might consider paying more here?
Our big multi-nationals will be doing exactly the same in other countries where taxes are even higher than the UK which means HMRC will receive a bigger chunk. Maybe it is just a case of swings and roundabouts. So if you means tested Starbucks for corporation tax in the UK you would potentially be opening up the opportunity for BP for example to be means tested in another country. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 37704 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2018 | Aug 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Sal Paradise"
The point about lower taxes is simple - these companies will be tax somewhere, perhaps if our tax rates were more attractive they might consider paying more here?
'"
Starbucks transfers its tax liabilities to a subsidiary in Ireland, where surprise surprise, [url=http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/starbucks-pays-57m-in-royalties-but--211055.htmlStarbucks manages to pay next to buggerall in corporation tax[/url |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 28357 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2024 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Sal Paradise"I was merely challenging your statement that Starbucks pay nothing to HMRC - that you have admitted was incorrect.'"
Nope, you were simply trying to be clever by introducing side-issues that are irrrelevant to the main point being discussed and which was and is perfectly clear. I am absolutely appalled that Starbucks pays no corporation tax and I am appalled at their avoidance and that they get away with it. The rather obvious facts that they do comply with laws they have no choice but to comply with eg PAYE/NI is neither in question, nor is it in any way some sort of "offset" against unpaid corporation tax.
You even proposed that PAYE deductions in some way are Starbucks' money that they pay HMRC when plainly they are not, they are the money of the individual taxpaying employees.
Quote ="Sal Paradise"The point about lower taxes is simple - these companies will be tax somewhere, perhaps if our tax rates were more attractive they might consider paying more here?'"
The point is no such thing. It should not be a matter for them to "consider" paying more tax here, they should be assessed to a fair corporation tax payment based on what business they actually do, which they would then be compelled to pay or appeal.
Your conviction that they "will be taxed somewhere" is touching. You could put it another way: you have no clue what tax they pay or where they pay it.
My point is that I don't care what tax they pay elsewhere or how much it is or at what rates. I am only interested in their UK operation paying a fair whack of tax on their UK business. Which plainly they do not.
Quote ="Sal Paradise"Our big multi-nationals will be doing exactly the same in other countries where taxes are even higher than the UK which means HMRC will receive a bigger chunk. Maybe it is just a case of swings and roundabouts. So if you means tested Starbucks for corporation tax in the UK you would potentially be opening up the opportunity for BP for example to be means tested in another country.'"
Now you really are missing my point. I neither know nor care what other jurisdictions do. But if it ended up that every multinational paid a fair chunk of tax on its UK operations to the UK taxman then I'd be very happy with that.
Starbucks should either pay up on the vast business they do, or if they don't like it, then shut the operation down. Of course, that won't happen, as plainly it makes them millions, however the accountants calculate the taxable bottom line. |
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 47951 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2017 | Jul 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Sal Paradise"... The point about lower taxes is simple - these companies will be tax somewhere, perhaps if our tax rates were more attractive they might consider paying more here?'"
That was the thinking in Ireland, George Osborn's favourite economy. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 47951 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2017 | Jul 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="sally cinnamon"In response to your question about why Ireland and Spain, having run budget surpluses in the run up to 2008, ended up in a worse situation than we did ...'"
 |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 335 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Sep 2002 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2013 | Apr 2013 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Mintball"On a par with your literacy levels, dear?
You do know that proper nouns exist, for instance?
No, dear. I didn't say that. 'Sounds a lot like' ('sound' requires an 's' at the end! by the way) is not a synonym for 'said'.'"
on an internet forum my literacy levels are irrelevant, hence, my constant lack of use of capital letters. however, out in the real world, being unable to multiply 34*47 without a calculator is a problem if you're currently trying to do a pharmaceutical chemistry degree, which will probably require a basic level of maths.
still, keep trying sweetheart.
paying people not to rob us. priceless. how much cash will we have to hand out to eradicate all crime do you think.
oops, sorry, forgot to ask, have you worked out how all these new insulating whizz kids will make any money after we've trained 'em up yet? |
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 26578 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jul 2017 | Apr 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="samwire"
paying people not to rob us. priceless. how much cash will we have to hand out to eradicate all crime do you think.
oops, sorry, forgot to ask, have you worked out how all these new insulating whizz kids will make any money after we've trained 'em up yet?'"
Seriously, do you have issues comprehending a debate? All you are doing is trotting out things that have been debunked ages ago like an aged tourette's sufferer. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 335 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Sep 2002 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2013 | Apr 2013 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Big Graeme"Seriously, do you have issues comprehending a debate? All you are doing is trotting out things that have been debunked ages ago like an aged tourette's sufferer.'"
debunked? hardly. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 18064 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Nope, you were simply trying to be clever by introducing side-issues that are irrrelevant to the main point being discussed and which was and is perfectly clear. I am absolutely appalled that Starbucks pays no corporation tax and I am appalled at their avoidance and that they get away with it. The rather obvious facts that they do comply with laws they have no choice but to comply with eg PAYE/NI is neither in question, nor is it in any way some sort of "offset" against unpaid corporation tax.
You even proposed that PAYE deductions in some way are Starbucks' money that they pay HMRC when plainly they are not, they are the money of the individual taxpaying employees.
The point is no such thing. It should not be a matter for them to "consider" paying more tax here, they should be assessed to a fair corporation tax payment based on what business they actually do, which they would then be compelled to pay or appeal.
Your conviction that they "will be taxed somewhere" is touching. You could put it another way: you have no clue what tax they pay or where they pay it.
My point is that I don't care what tax they pay elsewhere or how much it is or at what rates. I am only interested in their UK operation paying a fair whack of tax on their UK business. Which plainly they do not.
Now you really are missing my point. I neither know nor care what other jurisdictions do. But if it ended up that every multinational paid a fair chunk of tax on its UK operations to the UK taxman then I'd be very happy with that.
Starbucks should either pay up on the vast business they do, or if they don't like it, then shut the operation down. Of course, that won't happen, as plainly it makes them millions, however the accountants calculate the taxable bottom line.'"
Are you seriously suggesting we should have a "Little England" for corporation tax purposes? This would potentially have a negative impact on corporation tax revenues as whole. Are you also suggesting British companies trading abroad pay their fair share in the countries they operate as well rather than pay into the UK HMRC - just plain barmy.
Starbucks employs thousands of people, pays millions in tax/rent/rates and you are suggesting they should pack up - do you not think the country would lose more if they packed up? - yet another barmy proposition.
Where did I mention PAYE, I mention employers NI - a tax on the company not the individual - I would have thought you would have grasped that. |
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 18064 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
A glance at Starbucks financials for the whole business showed they paid $488m on taxable profits of $1.2bn an effective rate of 34% - quite a bit for a company that pays no tax. We need to make it attractive for it to pay some of this in the UK.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 37704 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2018 | Aug 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Sal Paradise"
Are you seriously suggesting we should have a "Little England" for corporation tax purposes? This would potentially have a negative impact on corporation tax revenues as whole. Are you also suggesting British companies trading abroad pay their fair share in the countries they operate as well rather than pay into the UK HMRC - just plain barmy.'"
I'd be happy with that arrangement because, contrary to your position, I believe that we would still be a net beneficiary. What are your views on the likes of Virgin, Arcadia and other 'British' companies that offshore their tax liabilities? Virgin manage to receive huge sums from the UK taxpayers, while avoiding paying UK corporation tax.
Quote ="Sal Paradise"Starbucks employs thousands of people, pays millions in tax/rent/rates and you are suggesting they should pack up - do you not think the country would lose more if they packed up? - yet another barmy proposition.
Where did I mention PAYE, I mention employers NI - a tax on the company not the individual - I would have thought you would have grasped that.'"
Please stop introducing straw men into the argument, the point in question is Starbucks UK corporation tax remittances. It matters not how much employer NI, UBR or rent is paid. Without knowing how many of Starbucks employees are paid less than £144 pw and therefore avoid UK employer NI contributions, your point is totally irrelevant. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 37704 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2018 | Aug 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Sal Paradise"A glance at Starbucks financials for the whole business showed they paid $488m on taxable profits of $1.2bn an effective rate of 34% - quite a bit for a company that pays no tax. We need to make it attractive for it to pay some of this in the UK.'"
Got a link?
Or is it like Tesco's financial report that includes all of the VAT and employee tax/NI in their receipts? |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 37704 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2018 | Aug 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
[url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-britain-starbucks-tax-idUKBRE89E0EX20121015Interesting comment from Reuters[/url
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 47951 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Aug 2017 | Jul 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="samwire"... however, out in the real world ...'"
It's that new form of Godwin again. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 335 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Sep 2002 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2013 | Apr 2013 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Mintball"It's that new form of Godwin again.'"
yes, of course it is, apart from being absolutely nothing like it. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 14845 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2021 | Jul 2021 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
I see Tesco is going to sell it's "Fresh & Easy" products in the UK. The (unconfirmed by Tesco) suggestion is that the UK will then pay royalties on the sales to its US Fresh & Easy subsdiary (which is loss making) which will help that company out bur presumably reduce UK tax at the same time.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Moderator | 14395 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2024 | May 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
Moderator
|
| Quote ="cod'ead"[url=http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/15/us-britain-starbucks-tax-idUKBRE89E0EX20121015Interesting comment from Reuters[/url'"
What is interesting to me about it is how some of these tax avoidance measures depend on HMRC accepting what the company does meets certain criteria to allow what they do to be tax deductible. The "arms length" principle strick me as one area where Starbucks are taking the mickey yet HMRC is OK with them doing this.
Here is the text:
The UK tax authority, Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMRC), allows companies to deduct intellectual property fees if firms can show the charges were made at "arm's length" - that is, if companies can show they would have agreed on the terms even if they were not connected.
One way to prove this is to show that a license for which a royalty is paid is key to the subsidiary's profitability, said Stella Amiss, international tax partner with accountancy firm PwC. After all, if you are paying for an asset that never generates a profit, you are probably paying too much. "You would need to show a track record of profitability," she said.
Starbucks says it abides by the ‘arm's length' principle, even if the company has not been profitable in the UK.
So you can deduct the costs of using a trade mark if doing so makes you a profit - but Starbucks are making [ilosses[/i year on year in part because they do this and also for other reasons such as paying very high interest rates on intra-company loans.
It stands out like a sore thumb they are taking the mickey and what annoys me is HMRC are not going in there and saying things like Starbuck's can't use these things as tax avoidance schemes as their main purpose for doing as they do. It's blindingly obvious they are over charging themselves intra-company loan interest so surely HMRC ought to be able to dismiss such unrealistic behaviour and simply say "You can charge your subsidiaries whatever interest rate you like but we ain't going to allow you tax relief on anything above x percentage points above some kind of market rate".
It strikes me as HMRC is far to compliant with companies wishes and it is far too easy to abuse what tax relief's there are available. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 28357 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2024 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Sal Paradise"Are you seriously suggesting we should have a "Little England" for corporation tax purposes? This would potentially have a negative impact on corporation tax revenues as whole. Are you also suggesting British companies trading abroad pay their fair share in the countries they operate as well rather than pay into the UK HMRC - just plain barmy.'"
No, I was not suggesting any of those things. I was suggesting those things that I wrote.
Quote ="Sal Paradise"Starbucks employs thousands of people, pays millions in tax/rent/rates and you are suggesting they should pack up - do you not think the country would lose more if they packed up? - yet another barmy proposition.'"
I can see from your repeated and overexcited use of "barmy" that I am getting under your skin, but still need to draw attention that you are back to your straw man.
Starbucks does not pay millions in tax. That is the whole point. In the last three years Starbuck has paid Nil in tax. This is not millions.
Whatever Starbucks pays in rent is, assuming the figures and arrangements aren't contrived, tax-deductible to whatever extent allowed by tax law.
Whatever Starbucks pays in rates is, assuming the figures and arrangements aren't contrived, tax-deductible to whatever extent allowed by tax law.
Starbucks would not pack up. They make too much money to pack up. Secondly, I reject your basic premise, that them packing up would harm the net revenues. The market for coffee houses would not shrink and I should imagine other competitor companies would rapidly move in to take up the slack.
Other established businesses, such as Costa, may well be interested in taking over many branches, complete with experienced staff.
The people who go for coffees etc to Starbucks would not, I think, abandon coffee but would spend their money at other establishments and those establishments are unlikely to get away with paying no tax on their profits.
And even if no Starbucks customer ever bought another coffee, unless you seriously suggest they would put the money saved into savings account, that money would all be spent elsewhere to the benefit of other retailers and traders. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 1011 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2012 | 13 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Aug 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
I prefer Cafe Nero. This now gives me another reason to dislike Starbucks.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 16274 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2004 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Mark-ups in coffee are high, there was a 2006 paper analysing the coffee market: www.unc.edu/~mcmanusb/CoffeeMay06.pdf, in table 3 on p33 it had estimates of the price-cost margin which were 100% for drip coffee, 153% for regular espresso, 170% for sweet espresso.
Coffee is quite a cheap good to produce and there is plentiful supply - which is why despite 'fair trade' arrangements etc, coffee farmers generally get paid very little, because there is such a large supply of coffee beans coming from many farms in many countries. The staff working in coffee shops don't get paid much either so the price includes a large mark-up, which goes partly to the owners of the coffee shop and partly to the owners of the land the coffee shop rents. You will hear the owners of the coffee chains complain that they don't make as much profit as people think - because the coffee shop market is all about location, and the owners of the sites they rent (typically around train stations, city centre high streets) know this.
Because it's all about location, this effectively creates a barrier to entry. It's not that expensive to start up a coffee shop but it's expensive to rent a coffee shop in a prime location where you will get a lot of the type of people that buy coffee - because those big chains have bought up all the prime spots and the rent is so expensive a small firm wouldn't be able to get in.
If you tax Starbucks out of the UK, then as Fercious Aardvark says, the other big chains like Costa, Cafe Nero or Pret a Manger would take their market share so nobody would notice much difference. If you taxed all those big firms out of the UK then the difference would probably be that there would not be many city centre coffee shops in the key commuter hubs that you see today. However there would probably be more small independent coffee shops starting up - just they would be in places where the rent was more affordable so they would be in less busy places. Real coffee drinkers would still be able to get their coffee, in fact they would probably notice a fall in prices, they would just have to walk a bit further to get to them. People that just like their quick fix while waiting for a train/en route to a meeting etc would probably just spend their money on something else other than coffee. |
|
Mark-ups in coffee are high, there was a 2006 paper analysing the coffee market: www.unc.edu/~mcmanusb/CoffeeMay06.pdf, in table 3 on p33 it had estimates of the price-cost margin which were 100% for drip coffee, 153% for regular espresso, 170% for sweet espresso.
Coffee is quite a cheap good to produce and there is plentiful supply - which is why despite 'fair trade' arrangements etc, coffee farmers generally get paid very little, because there is such a large supply of coffee beans coming from many farms in many countries. The staff working in coffee shops don't get paid much either so the price includes a large mark-up, which goes partly to the owners of the coffee shop and partly to the owners of the land the coffee shop rents. You will hear the owners of the coffee chains complain that they don't make as much profit as people think - because the coffee shop market is all about location, and the owners of the sites they rent (typically around train stations, city centre high streets) know this.
Because it's all about location, this effectively creates a barrier to entry. It's not that expensive to start up a coffee shop but it's expensive to rent a coffee shop in a prime location where you will get a lot of the type of people that buy coffee - because those big chains have bought up all the prime spots and the rent is so expensive a small firm wouldn't be able to get in.
If you tax Starbucks out of the UK, then as Fercious Aardvark says, the other big chains like Costa, Cafe Nero or Pret a Manger would take their market share so nobody would notice much difference. If you taxed all those big firms out of the UK then the difference would probably be that there would not be many city centre coffee shops in the key commuter hubs that you see today. However there would probably be more small independent coffee shops starting up - just they would be in places where the rent was more affordable so they would be in less busy places. Real coffee drinkers would still be able to get their coffee, in fact they would probably notice a fall in prices, they would just have to walk a bit further to get to them. People that just like their quick fix while waiting for a train/en route to a meeting etc would probably just spend their money on something else other than coffee. | |
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 18064 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Feb 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"No, I was not suggesting any of those things. I was suggesting those things that I wrote.
I can see from your repeated and overexcited use of "barmy" that I am getting under your skin, but still need to draw attention that you are back to your straw man.
Starbucks does not pay millions in tax. That is the whole point. In the last three years Starbuck has paid Nil in tax. This is not millions.
Whatever Starbucks pays in rent is, assuming the figures and arrangements aren't contrived, tax-deductible to whatever extent allowed by tax law.
Whatever Starbucks pays in rates is, assuming the figures and arrangements aren't contrived, tax-deductible to whatever extent allowed by tax law.
Starbucks would not pack up. They make too much money to pack up. Secondly, I reject your basic premise, that them packing up would harm the net revenues. The market for coffee houses would not shrink and I should imagine other competitor companies would rapidly move in to take up the slack.
Other established businesses, such as Costa, may well be interested in taking over many branches, complete with experienced staff.
The people who go for coffees etc to Starbucks would not, I think, abandon coffee but would spend their money at other establishments and those establishments are unlikely to get away with paying no tax on their profits.
And even if no Starbucks customer ever bought another coffee, unless you seriously suggest they would put the money saved into savings account, that money would all be spent elsewhere to the benefit of other retailers and traders.'"
Seems I am getting under your skin - Starbucks paid no tax in the UK - not no tax period, they paid close to 500m in corporation tax.
If Starbucks left then Costa and other chains would not pick up their shops - Costa/Nero don't want two shops next to each other. You would very likely end up with even more empty retail outlets. For consumers that would also be bad you restrict their choice and one thing would surely happen - prices would rise as competition ebbs away. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 16274 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2004 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Sal Paradise"
If Starbucks left then Costa and other chains would not pick up their shops - Costa/Nero don't want two shops next to each other. You would very likely end up with even more empty retail outlets. For consumers that would also be bad you restrict their choice and one thing would surely happen - prices would rise as competition ebbs away.'"
You wouldn't get empty retail outlets in the type of prime location sites that Starbucks occupy, as they are worth a lot of money for the type of drinks and sandwich/snack shop that Starbucks is, targeting commuters/workers on the move or looking for lunchtime snacks. You might not get other coffee shops filling them you could end up with Greggs/Subway type places or other kinds of cafe/smoothie/soup shops. Consumers might actually end up benefiting from increased diversity of products.
These type of organisations don't face competition from online sellers or large supermarkets that have forced lots of other high street retailers to close. Some of those changes are just structural changes in the economy and how people like to shop, the economic downturn has sped up those changes by forcing unprofitable shops to close. Consumers have actually got lower prices.
As for your prediction that prices would rise as competition ebbs away, this is unlikely because it is relatively easy for a business to set up a coffee outlet to supplement its usual activity. If you remove all the Starbucks and businesses think there is a space in the market for serving coffee then those sited round the former Starbucks can start to enter the market which will stop Costa and Nero from hiking up their prices. If Starbucks were serving something with a patent or with high barriers to entry then their removal would give rivals a chance to increase prices but it would be difficult to do that with coffee because the prices are already so much above cost of production, given low set up costs for existing firms it would be easy to undercut rivals by just accepting a slightly smaller margin. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Moderator | 14395 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2024 | May 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
Moderator
|
|
Well it seems the anger against companies doing this is mounting with ebay and Ikea now coming under scrutiny:
[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/oct/21/multinational-firms-tax-ebay-ikea[/url
Ikea are adopting the tactic of charging a franchise fee to its UK operation which I think is a joke. Ikea UK is not a franchise.
An interesting comment in the above article was this:
Oakeshott said there was a simple way for customers to punish companies. "Consumer resistance is one way of going ahead. Don't go to Starbucks, go to Costa or your local."
And funnily enough I had already decided not to visit Starbukcks myself again. I am no great coffee drinker anyway but when you think their loyalty reward scheme changed recently to make it once in a blue moon where you ended up with a free cup whereas at Costa even an infrequent customer like me wracks up enough points to get one its a no brainer to frequent Costa given they do pay their taxes here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
