[Closed] PSA- Maybe Free Stabucks

This is the Starbucks that decided not to use the loopholes available to it and ended up paying much more tax than it could have done?

This is the Starbucks that decided not to use the loopholes available to it and ended up paying much more tax than it could have done?

Yes, it's the Starbucks that made the financial decision that the reputational damage from not paying the tax would probably hurt it more financially than they'd save.

The same Starbucks that cannot win because whatever it does people have already decided it's evil and that's the end of it? That one?

Yes, it's the same Starbucks that will have to take shit for a period of time due to it's previous actions. Over time, opinions will change if it's shown to be a positive and permanent change.

Now, what can I get you today?

Grande vanilla latte with whole milk please.

TBF criticism of Starbucks' business ethics extends beyond just tax structures

Are those cups recyclable?

I would rather stab myself than drink their coffee.

I would rather stab myself than drink their coffee.

£20 says that's a lie.

I'd rather drink thier coffee than stab myself.

Good PSA, Costa do similar at our school.

TBF criticism of Starbucks' business ethics extends beyond just tax structures

Perhaps, but I'm wary of jumping on the big corporation evil bandwagon that is oh so fashionable these days.

I dislike starbucks coffee in (i imagine) I'd dislike a pint of frog spawn - the tase is horrible.

I'd rather drink starbucks however, than stab myself.
I'd probably give myself a littel cut than drink a pint of frog spawn.

Hope that helped.

DrP

Frogspawn is pretty tasteless but it's good for you.

This is the Starbucks that decided not to use the loopholes available to it and ended up paying much more tax than it could have done?

Nah. You are confusing it with the one who still uses various loopholes to lower tax and was using even more of them until their approach was highlighted by a campaign which a)got MPs interested in them and b)directly hit their trade.
Not quite the same thing as just deciding to pay more tax.

What sort of loopholes do they use?

Also don't think it hit their trade particularly. I didn't notice Starbucks being any less rammed during the debate.

Good use of old little chef roadside buildings though. As much as anyone thinks they hate Starbucks and their coffee it's better than any of the rubbish they used to dredge up in a little chef. At least on a journey on our beloved network of a roads you can at lest get something hot that resembles a decent cup of coffee (artisan coffee evangelists can agree to disagree on this point).

Are the snobs aware that there are usually at least two different blends in Starbucks at any given time? You have quite a bit of choice.

As much as anyone thinks they hate Starbucks and their coffee it's better than any of the rubbish they used to dredge up

Amen. People have some short memories, or lived their early years in Italy.

@Mister P the cups are probably not recyclable,unless they have changed policy for the better in the last ~12 months.

There was an article saying how millions of these cups go to landfill, because in the UK, there are only two specialist recyclable centres in the whole country that can deal with the chemical lining of the cups.

Waxed paper cups are recyclable in some places I think.

What sort of loopholes do they use?

Also don't think it hit their trade particularly

I'd rather snob myself than d,oh I see someone beat me to it:),is it true they ended up paying more tax than they had too?,thats good I suppose,i still remember them as the tax dodging devils,guess bad news lasts longer;)

i'd rather stick my nose up at starbucks than drink their coffee... unless free... or really thirsty for coffee and no other option... or fairly thirsty for coffee and only other option was really rank vending machine coffee.

I haven't even got a T.V.

I expect they just employed tax people who did their usual thing and did what everyone else did. And when they realised it was making them look bad, the management changed their practices.

Whether or not they really care or just did it as a calculated move to keep public image is debatable, but the two things are quite closely linked.

Their uk tax bill is still remarkable low, below 7 million I think. They paid the extra tax by removing workers paid breaks and other benefits.
I'm not doubting some of the stores do nice thinks, most are franchises, but the actual big cooperation does what big cooperations do, make money.

Their uk tax bill is still remarkable low, below 7 million I think

Yeah, but as an expanding company you'd expect most operating profit to be re-invested into expansion, so it wouldn't be put down as profit on the annual return and hence not subject to corporation tax - no?

I am not an accountant.

I thought it was because they buy their beans at hyper inflated prices from Starbucks Switzerland to avoid posting any taxable profits.
Given a choice, I will always support a smaller business who genuinely contributes to the community and economy, rather than a greenwashing global entity that siphons all the money abroad.

Yes, so would I, given the choice. But small businesses need to provide what I want. Which, often, is an unfashionably darker roasted bean.

Don't know about now molgrips, but the scandal was that they were money to the parent company to license the name and logo or something. This was conveniently just over their total profits, meaning they avoided all or most of the corporation tax. They are currently blaming brexit for their lack of profits/taxes.