Posted on 10/15/2012 11:06:06 PM PDT by granada
STARBUCKS was yesterday slammed for “gaming” Britain — as it emerged the coffee king hasn’t paid a bean to the taxman in THREE years.
Experts claimed that, since 1998, the American coffee firm has paid just £8.6 million in income tax here.
Over the same period it has generated more than £3 billion of sales as customers flock to its cafes for cappuccinos and lattes.
The chain — which prides itself on being “ethical” — has been able to cut income tax by paying fees to other parts of its global empire, such as royalty payments for use of the brand and interest on inter-company loans.
This means Starbucks UK effectively makes a LOSS.
The coffee chain has not broken any law and yesterday insisted HM Revenue & Customs did not have a problem with its activities.
But Labour MP and tax campaigner Michael Meacher hit back: “They are trying to play the taxman, game him. It is disgraceful.”
Matthew Sinclair, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, added: “Taxes are too complicated.
“It means that companies can exploit loopholes to minimise their bills.
“It also means the public is losing trust in a system that is in need of drastic reform.”
The row comes days after social networking site FACEBOOK was blasted for paying just £238,000 in corporation tax in the UK last year.
A four-month investigation by news agency Reuters revealed yesterday that Starbucks has not declared a profit since 1998.
But bosses have told investors the UK is “profitable” — and in 2007 the UK business was doing so well it was funding growth elsewhere in the world.
In 2008, Seattle-based Starbucks recorded a £52 million loss — yet at the same time founder Howard Schultz was saying he would be applying lessons learned in Britain to its domestic market, the US.
In a statement last night, Starbucks said: “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 done.
“There has been no suggestion by any authority that we are anything but compliant and good taxpayers.”
Exactly. I say kudos to Starbucks, and I’m not a big fan.
So Starbucks reduced their tax outlays... cry me a fricken river Lefties.
CC
Lol
The problem with Starbucks and similar corporate entities using legal loopholes to reduce their tax burden is that someone else has to pick up the slack. And as that someone else would be me, forgive me if I don't share your appreciation of their creative accountancy.
it’s a smart way to reduce their taxes — and perfectly legal.
Good for them.
The problem with Starbucks and similar corporate entities using legal loopholes to reduce their tax burden is that someone else has to pick up the slack. And as that someone else would be me, forgive me if I don’t share your appreciation of their creative accountancy.
Or maybe you are talking about the government grants in the millions of dollars some one who call them self a scientist may get to study why a dissected frog can not croak.
Or maybe the millions of dollars the people in power comes up with all of a sudden after they come into power or why the so called public servants get more just in extra benefits than the people who pay them, the tax payers, get total income.
Any one who believes that all of this government crap in any country is ok should be willing to pay much more than their fair share of the tax.
The u.s. government use taxes and regulations to rob big and small business,s for the purpose of putting them out of business and bring in socialism.
If some of these business,s goes over seas to another socialist country who would do the same thing and beats them i see nothing wrong with that.
Good for Starbucks. You tax lovers probably don’t appreciate it but a successful company is being bashed. I say good for Starbucks. As long as it is legal, I say go for it.
And yet Freepers regularly (and rightly) point out that it’s hardly fair that 47% of US citizens pay no income tax.
The problem with Starbucks and similar corporate entities using legal loopholes to reduce their tax burden is that someone else has to pick up the slack. And as that someone else would be me, forgive me if I don’t share your appreciation of their creative accountancy.
Kinda like those who whine about individuals getting money from the govt....but support big business and banks when the government bails them out (anyone who votes for a Congress critter who voted for bank bailouts...this is you)
And, Starbucks is quite a leftist company...so I surely will not celebrate a liberal dodging the same taxman that they want everyone else to pay up to.
BTW...Costa Coffee....their Brit competitor...has much better coffee
At least Mr. Sinclair properly called it "tax minimization" rather than the illegal "tax avoidance."
What is it with libs who think people and companies should pay more to The State than required by law? Then you have people like Romney who paid 59% of his income combined to taxes and charity -- one coerced theft and the other generosity of the heart. Will Obama excoriate Romney tonight for not paying the entire 59% to The State?
What??? No wait: they are all about social justice and the poo-er and all sorts of lefty bs! And they are trying to stiff a tax bill?
They should be paying MORE than they should because thats what they claim to believe!
Yep its all good when its thee...not so hot when its me.
Sure take advantage everywhere you can of the breaks you can...but don’t support the hectoring to do otherwise....
Yeah..but I’m sure they paid a pound or two somewhere....
Exactly. You can’t have it both ways. It doesn’t matter if you are an individual mooching off the government or a major corporate player - the principle is that your success or failure should not be dependent on government largesse (as opposed to your own efforts). Similarly, you can’t condemn the 47% using their political will to avoid paying taxes and yet applaud when a large company does the same.
The point at issue here is how taxes are collected, not what government spends its money on. The objects of government spending is a separate issue. If you disagree with some crazy scheme the government subsidises, then you are certainly entitled to campaign against it. If you think that taxes are too high, then you can certainly campaign against that too. But you don't get to refuse to pay on the grounds that you disagree with what it is being spent on.
Think on it. If you allow such a principle to stand, then you will have environuts refusing to pay income tax on the grounds that it will be going towards nuclear power, or even worse, nuclear weapons. Ravening moonbats will refuse to pay sales tax because the money might be buying a new jet fighter, or improved highways instead of carbon reducing public transport systems.
Britain has decided it will need x amount of money to pay for y amount of expenditure. You can quibble about the figures, but that is what the duly elected government of the UK has decided. Now if Starbucks, or any other entity - be it corporation or private citizen, does not pay its bit of that tax bill, that means that everyone else has to pay just that little bit more. That is just logically true. And as I am a UK taxpayer who regularly pays on the nail I'm none too happy about that.
I'm also quite sure, in spite of your bravado, that if some Brit company set up in the US and didnt pay any taxes for three years you wouldnt be too happy either, especially when your own highly inflated tax bill drops onto the porch.
They’ve claimed to be ethical to local farmers, not royalty.
Perhaps the queen didn’t get the memo.
Don’t they pay VAT tax? Don’t their employees pay income taxes? Geez.
The article mentions them paying only millions on billions in sales. Typical statist position that “all your money belongs to us”.
I'm not an expert in British tax laws, but do they not pay property tax on each location? Do they have employees that they pay wages to that subsequently pay taxes?
If you tally up all the tax revenue associated with the business, it's suppliers and investors, I doubt it's a minuscule amount.
Corporations don’t pay taxes.
Corporations COLLECT taxes from their customers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.