Starbucks boycott gaining momentum!

[mikem8634 10]

I don't go in there anyway - does this count as a boycott?

 

Or would I have to start using it first, then suddenly stop going?

 

Yes it does.

 

No you wouldn't.

 

Keep up the good work.

 

---------- Post added 03-12-2012 at 00:24 ----------

 

 

 

Looks like the boycott may well have some impact - let's wait and see - and well done to those who cared enough about morality and conscience. Keep up the good work.

 

Starbucks To Review 'Tax Approach' With HMRC After Customer Boycott

 

Starbucks has said it is in talks with HM Revenue and Customs over its financial practices after coming under fire for paying no corporation tax in the UK in the last three years.

 

The US coffee firm - valued at £25 billion - has generated more than £3 billion of sales in the UK since 1998 but it emerged in October it has paid less than 1% in corporation tax.

 

Starbucks, which has more than 700 outlets in the UK, said it was "committed to the UK for the long term" and added: "We are looking at our tax approach in the UK. The company has been in discussions with HMRC for some time and is also in talks with the Treasury."

 

 

Starbucks has said it is in discussion with HMRC

The company said it would release further details of its UK tax plans this week, but according to the Sunday Times is preparing to pay more into Britain's coffers following a customer boycott.

 

Their comments came as George Osborne announced extra investment to crack down on tax avoidance by global companies with British operations.

 

The Chancellor plans to bolster the Inland Revenue team that deals with multinationals amid widespread condemnation of big-name firms like Starbucks, Google and Amazon after it emerged they pay little or no corporation tax in the UK.

 

Osborne told BBC 1's Andrew Marr Show: "I think you can do two things. One is you can enforce the taxes we have got and I am going to be announcing tomorrow extra investment in the part of the Inland Revenue that tackles tax avoidance by multinational companies.

 

"Second, you make sure internationally we have the right rules and it is actually Britain who has been working with Germany and France to get those rules on the international table.

 

"So we are doing those things but let me just say we can't tackle this by pricing Britain out of the world economy. If we make our taxes less competitive that will just mean more companies stay out of Britain."

 

UK Uncut issued the following statement after Sunday's news, calling Starbucks' announcement a "blatant admission of guilt that they have intentionally avoided tax in the UK for years.

 

"It is not up to Starbucks to promise it will pay a bit more tax when it suits them, it’s up to the government to force companies to pay their fair share," a spokesperson for the group added.

 

"This announcement shows that protest and public pressure works and that we are doing the government’s job for them as they refuse to tackle tax avoidance.

 

"The government’s next step must be to close the loopholes that Starbucks and other companies use to avoid paying billions in tax to the UK, instead of targeting single mums and disabled people through slashing public services, the welfare state and privatising the NHS."

 

Starbucks reportedly paid just £8.6 million in corporation tax in the UK in the last 14 years. The revelations prompted widespread anger amongst customers, with many threatening to buy their hot drinks elsewhere.

 

@iandstone

Ian Stone

Starbucks has pledged action after backlash. "We had no idea that people who paid tax would be upset that we didn't" said a spokesman

December 2, 2012 2:12 pm via web Reply Retweet Favorite

 

Its nearest UK rival, Costa, owned by Whitbread, recorded £377 million sales last year, compared to Starbucks' £398 million, but its tax bill came to £15 million, or 31% of its profits.

 

Starbucks previously said it paid its "fair share of taxes" in full compliance with UK law and no authority had suggested otherwise.

 

A four-month investigation by news agency Reuters discovered that Starbucks was able to cut income tax by paying fees to other parts of its global business, such as royalty payments for use of the brand.

 

This means Starbucks UK is effectively making a loss and therefore does not have to pay any corporation tax. As a result, it has not broken any law.

 

The most recent results, posted for 2011, show Starbucks UK recorded a loss of £33 million.

 

A Starbucks spokesperson said: "Starbucks is committed to the UK for the long term and we have invested more than £200 million in our UK business over the past 12 years.

 

"Starbucks has complied with all the tax laws in this country but has regretfully not been as profitable as we would have liked.

 

"We have listened to feedback from our customers and employees, and understand that to maintain and further build public trust we need to do more.

 

"As part of this we are looking at our tax approach in the UK. The company has been in discussions with HMRC for some time and is also in talks with the Treasury. We will release more details later in the week."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/02/starbucks-review-tax-approach-hmrc_n_2227439.html

Edited December 3, 2012 by mikem8634
Put back a comedy tweet that I had edited out.

[Mister M 1,624]

Great news and all credit to protest groups such as UK Uncut which worked really hard to highlight companies like Starbucks that don't pay what people to believe to be their fair share, are reviewing their tax arrangements.

[Phanerothyme 12]

Companies know that goodwill is important to them. When they start to lose it at a serious rate, their tune often changes.

Correct

 

A few latte lovers sacrificing their daily caffeine fixes to make a point is about as effective as the monkey pizzing in a lake to raise the water level

Incorrect

 

Oh sure go ahead if you think it will do any good. Reality is that Starbucks dont give a tuppennny damn if you choose not to spend your daily five quid or so on their products.

Incorrect

 

You think so? Or will they restructure anyway, to avoid retrospective legislation?

 

Restructuring voluntarily would have a PR advantage too.

 

I guess we will just have to wait and see.

correct

 

I hardly think that a corporation the size of Starbucks is going to "restructure voluntarily" (whatever that's supposed to mean) just to satisfy the agendas of a few in one of the many corners of the earth where they sell coffee drinks

incorrect

[tinfoilhat 11]

Starbucks has pledged action after backlash. "We had no idea that people who paid tax would be upset that we didn't" said a spokesman

 

I'm not sure whether to be offended, amused or disgusted with the above quote. Fair play on a positive response.

[mikem8634 10]

I'm not sure whether to be offended, amused or disgusted with the above quote. Fair play on a positive response.

 

Word of warning - if you click on the link you will see more clearly that this is presented as a tweet by a comedian called Ian Stone. I don't think anyone at Starbucks said it.

 

I'll edit out of my cut and paste.

 

Apologies for any confusion.

[tinfoilhat 11]

Word of warning - if you click on the link you will see more clearly that this is presented as a tweet by a comedian called Ian Stone. I don't think anyone at Starbucks said it.

 

I'll edit out of my cut and paste.

 

Apologies for any confusion.

 

Don't edit it, I'll look like an eejit !!!!

[SportsTrophy 10]

Looks like a whole new way of calculating moral earnings are required to show what companies put into the tax system through all the different taxes they pay.

[andygardener 10]

Looks like a whole new way of calculating moral earnings are required to show what companies put into the tax system through all the different taxes they pay.

 

Not really. VAT companies collect, not pay. Rates are there to pay for the costs of the locality in which they operate. Ni etc relate to the people who work for them.

 

The only over and above tax is corporation tax on profits. If they just tot up their profits honestly in the UK before remitting the after tax balance overseas then none of this would be an issue.

[Mister M 1,624]

Anyway the celebrations over Starbucks possibly discussing their tax arrangements with HMRC may have led to this:http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/dec/03/starbucks-slash-lunch-breaks

I wonder if the 2 are related?

The company are slashing workers paid luch breaks and sick leave.

 

However fear not! I did read in the linked article that "Staff who complete five years of service will continue to receive a pen and the right to take four weeks off without pay." Yay!

[adamf 10]

Starbucks are starting to feel the pain of dodging UK taxes with thousands of people simply now using competitors coffee shops to show their feelings on the subject.

 

Next time you're about to step into Starbucks, remember how they have been stealing from you, a genuine tax payer, to line their own already inflated pockets. Every quid they dodge has to be found from somewhere else- you!

 

Hit em where it hurts and dont give them your money. Power to the people!

 

Look around and simply use COSTA / NERO etc or even better a local independent.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/15/starbucks-in-pr-fail-as-customers-angrily-take-to-its-comments-board_n_2135438.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

 

I agree, but their coffee has always been crap so I haven't been going there anyway.

[dvp82 10]

News reports over the last day or so are still banging on about revenue revenue revenue. Of course revenue has absolutely no bearing on wheather a business is making a profit or not.

 

Average Joe on the street probably doesn't understand that and just sees these figures of 100's of millions of £ in revenue been throw around.

 

Has the so called boycott had any impact, gut feeling is little to non. Most likely it's just the bad press the brand is getting but I don't think regular customers are ditching Starbucks for other coffee shops.

 

Will things change after Starbucks have had a wee chat with the taxman ? maybe, maybe not. I guess only time will tell.

[Guest sibon]

News reports over the last day or so are still banging on about revenue revenue revenue. Of course revenue has absolutely no bearing on wheather a business is making a profit or not.

 

.

 

But they are clearly making a profit here. Why else would they have such a huge number of outlets if they were losing money?

 

The chat with the taxman is a direct result of bad press and damage to the brand.

 

Good.