Starbucks boycott gaining momentum!

[Fudbeer 12]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9829108/Starbucks-threatens-Cameron-after-unfair-tax-attacks.html#

 

oh dear think they losing the plot now,plenty of other companys ready to take there place if they do cut investment,are they trying to say they invest in the uk for anything other than to make money?pretty pathetic really.

[tinfoilhat 11]

Im sure I've read the uk is Starbucks second biggest market. If they can afford to bin all that profit (you know the 70 odd percent that's left after the corporation tax they don't pay) sod em.

[DYKWIA 10]

I can kind of understand where Starbucks are coming from, it does seem like they are been singled out. Almost as though they are seen as a soft target to attack, when other large multinationals who are operating with tax arrangements just as immoral as Starbucks seem to be getting no bad press at all.

[mikem8634 10]

Well done again to those who have made their non-presence felt. You know who you are and you deserve my admiration.

 

As the following article suggests, momentum continues to gather.

 

 

Firms 'boycotted over tax stance'

 

A third of Britons are boycotting companies that they consider are avoiding their tax obligations in the UK, a survey has suggested.

 

The poll for international development charity Christian Aid found 34% of consumers are currently boycotting the products or services of a company "because it does not pay its fair share of tax in the UK". Another 45% said they were considering a boycott.

 

The survey also revealed that 66% of consumers believe tax avoidance is "morally wrong", up 10 percentage points since August last year.

 

Almost three-quarters of those questioned (72%) said the Government had a responsibility to ensure that all UK-based companies paid the appropriate amount of tax in every country in which they operate while 84% want to see multinationals' accounts more transparent and publicly available.

 

Christian Aid spokesman Joseph Stead said: "In the run-up to the Budget, which we hope the Chancellor will use to require companies to reveal more information about their tax avoidance in developing countries, this is heartening news.

 

"The public clearly understands the UK has a responsibility to ensure UK plc plays by the rules both home and away and we hope the Chancellor will show he does too. The overwhelming majority of the British public say that tax avoidance by multinational companies makes them feel angry.

 

"But what this survey also shows is that one in three people are actually prepared to change their buying habits and boycott some of the firms seen as not paying their fair share in the UK. This surely must be a wake-up call to all businesses."

 

The poll - in which ComRes spoke to 2,270 people between February 15 and 17 - revealed 85% of those questioned believe it is currently too easy for multinational companies to avoid tax, but the number of those who believe the Government is showing "a genuine desire" to combat tax avoidance has risen from 38% in August to 43%.

 

Mr Stead said: "People understand the importance of developing countries being able to collect tax that is owed to them by multinational corporations.

 

"Tax is a powerful weapon against poverty and three-quarters of Britons agree that if developing countries could collect more tax then they would, in time, be less dependent on international aid, and therefore better able to provide for their own people."

http://money.aol.co.uk/2013/03/01/firms-boycotted-over-tax-stance/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cukt2%7Cdl18%7Csec3_lnk3%26pLid%3D158818

[Cyclone 10]

Of those 66% who believe it to be morally wrong, I expect that nearly 100% of them are avoiding tax by paying into either pension funds or ISAs (or both). Which is amusingly ironic.

[mikem8634 10]

Of those 66% who believe it to be morally wrong, I expect that nearly 100% of them are avoiding tax by paying into either pension funds or ISAs (or both). Which is amusingly ironic.

 

Do those who pay into pension funds and/or ISA's go to the same tortuous and disingenuous lengths as Starbuck's did in transferring its profits overseas in the name of spurious royalty payments?

 

I only ask as I genuinely do not know as I don't do either. So your assumption of 100% is already looking a bit shaky.

[tinfoilhat 11]

Of those 66% who believe it to be morally wrong, I expect that nearly 100% of them are avoiding tax by paying into either pension funds or ISAs (or both). Which is amusingly ironic.

 

If you don't mind companies not paying corporation tax, abolish it. I'll leave it to you to find the £34bn shortfall.

[Cyclone 10]

Do those who pay into pension funds and/or ISA's go to the same tortuous and disingenuous lengths as Starbuck's did in transferring its profits overseas in the name of spurious royalty payments?

 

I only ask as I genuinely do not know as I don't do either. So your assumption of 100% is already looking a bit shaky.

 

My assumption of 100% is looking skaky? You think that some of those people had neither pensions or ISAs? Because that's what the % referred to.

 

How do you identify a royalty payment as spurious? If you can explain that then the law can be changed to make it impossible to avoid tax in that way.

 

---------- Post added 01-03-2013 at 15:12 ----------

 

If you don't mind companies not paying corporation tax, abolish it. I'll leave it to you to find the £34bn shortfall.

 

You've jumped from a statement about appreciating the irony to somehow me wanting to abolish corporation tax. That's pretty amazing.

[tinfoilhat 11]

My assumption of 100% is looking skaky? You think that some of those people had neither pensions or ISAs? Because that's what the % referred to.

 

How do you identify a royalty payment as spurious? If you can explain that then the law can be changed to make it impossible to avoid tax in that way.

 

---------- Post added 01-03-2013 at 15:12 ----------

 

 

You've jumped from a statement about appreciating the irony to somehow me wanting to abolish corporation tax. That's pretty amazing.

 

What, more amazing than comparing ISAs with wholesale corporation tax avoidance ? Youre making me blush.

[mikem8634 10]

My assumption of 100% is looking skaky? You think that some of those people had neither pensions or ISAs? Because that's what the % referred to.

 

Yes, I am well aware what the percentage referred to, thanks and, as I agree with those people and do not pay into ISA's or pension funds, it is quite possible that any number of them do not. You just made an assumption and then further assumed that it was enough to make a point. It was not.

 

How do you identify a royalty payment as spurious? If you can explain that then the law can be changed to make it impossible to avoid tax in that way.

 

I certainly hope that that is exactly the direction we are, indeed, moving in despite the difficulties pointed out in the article below..

 

Highly aggressive forms of tax avoidance should be regarded in a similar way to illegal tax evasion, David Cameron has said as he called on businesses to pay their fare share of tax.http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/18/david-cameron-india-visit-tax

Edited March 1, 2013 by mikem8634

[Cyclone 10]

Yes, I am well aware what the percentage referred to, thanks and, as I agree with those people and do not pay into ISA's or pension funds, it is quite possible that any number of them do not. You just made an assumption and then further assumed that it was enough to make a point. It was not.

Lets call it 75%, or 50%, I don't really care. Given who was surveyed though I expect it's closer to 100%.

If you wanted to argue against the point, I don't think quibbling about what % of people had ISAs or pensions was really the way to do it.

In what way was my point not made?

 

 

 

I certainly hope that that is exactly the direction we are, indeed, moving in despite the difficulties pointed out in the article below..

 

Highly aggressive forms of tax avoidance should be regarded in a similar way to illegal tax evasion, David Cameron has said as he called on businesses to pay their fare share of tax.http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/18/david-cameron-india-visit-tax

 

When he stops saying "should be regarded" and such woolly nonsense and actually passes a law that can somehow define how "highly aggressive tax avoidance" (That's highly aggressively doing what is legal), is illegal, then we'll be getting somewhere.

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2013 at 09:10 ----------

 

What, more amazing than comparing ISAs with wholesale corporation tax avoidance ? Youre making me blush.

 

Pointing out the irony of users of one perfectly legal form of tax avoidance complaining about another perfectly legal form of tax avoidance...

 

Compared to taking a statement about that irony and somehow equating it to abolishing corporation tax...

[mikem8634 10]

Lets call it 75%, or 50%, I don't really care. Given who was surveyed though I expect it's closer to 100%.

If you wanted to argue against the point, I don't think quibbling about what % of people had ISAs or pensions was really the way to do it.

In what way was my point not made?

 

You probably should care given that your whole point rested upon an assumption. What if we call it 75%, or 50%, or 10%, or none at all...? Does your point still make sense then? The truth is we know about Starbucks' tax arrangements we do not know about the tax arrangements of the people polled.

 

I did argue against the point - I asked you this -

Do those who pay into pension funds and/or ISA's go to the same tortuous and disingenuous lengths as Starbuck's did in transferring its profits overseas in the name of spurious royalty payments?

and you failed to answer... you focused instead on 'spurious royalty payments'. Incidentally, payments that are set at a completely arbitrary and self-serving level between two entities within the same multi-national for the express purpose of pretending that UK profits are non-existent are most certainly spurious - Not being what it purports to be; false or fake.

 

When he stops saying "should be regarded" and such woolly nonsense and actually passes a law that can somehow define how "highly aggressive tax avoidance" (That's highly aggressively doing what is legal), is illegal, then we'll be getting somewhere.

 

Agreed, which is why I said we were hopefully heading in the right direction.

Edited March 3, 2013 by mikem8634