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.”
Buried about half way into the article. So basically this is rabble rousing and there is no story.
The trouble is Vanders, that many people here on FR are crypto-anarchists see government as an evil to be thwarted at any opportunity, rather than a neccessary civic institution that needs to be maintained with taxes payable by every citizen.
Frankly, it annoys me to see large corporations avoiding tax with creative accounting, whilst ordinary plebs such as myself end up having to cough up the full amount and probably more thanks to their tax dodging. I find it hilarious that they view these people as heroes for cheating the government when they themselves are probably just ordinary guys like the rest of us who end up getting stiffed for more taxes to make up the shortfall caused by these tax-dodging corporations...
It’s always the most leftist companies that avoid paying taxes it seems
I understand your viewpoint. I would remind you that we don’t have an under-taxation problem. We have an over-spending problem.
Government destroys money. The private sector grows it.
Government spending is not self-sustaining.
Private enterprise is.
Anyone who can avoid taxes legally, is doing the Lord’s work as far as I am concerned.
One thing to take into consideration here, is this was taking place in Britain
I would like to know if you two refuse to take your personal deductions on your tax return. Have you refused to take your mortage deduction? Please fess up.
All Starbucks was doing, was taking measures that are fully compliant with tax law.
This is anarchistic? Whew!
In our nation, the federal government is tasked with doing perhaps 5% of what it does today legally, by the U. S. Constitution. Is there a reason why sound Conservatives shouldn’t take it to task for gobbling up so much of this nation’s wealthy year after year?
You guys need to rethink you opinions if you wish to be considered Conservatives.
Guys, I just sent this by private FReepmail by accident. Sorry about that.
Thanks Cronos. Sure seems that way to me.
I have never intentionally contrived to search for loopholes in order to pay less tax. And if they have exploited what amounts to a legal loophole that goes against the spirit of the relevant legislation, then it should be closed.
Whether the government imposes too many taxes is a separate issue, and it doesn’t give someone, least of all a big corporation, the right to dodge taxes that mean that more of the burden of taxation falls on the shoulders of ordinary people like ourselves. I don’t see these people as Robin Hood style heroes at all. They are more like insurance fraudsters whose selfish antics mean higher premiums for honest customers.
On that logic I dont pay taxes either. I collect taxes from the company I work for.
That is very true.
The issue here is that a very large, very powerful corporation is using its ability to afford very good tax lawyers to squirrel its substantial profits overseas away from the tax man. I don't doubt it's all legal and I'm quite sure that a good chunk of the motivation of the authors of the article is envy, but that doesn't make what Starbucks has done ethical. After all, as a private citizen, I dont have access to the legal loopholes they do.
I am taking the fact that this is in Britain into consideration. I'm a UK freeper.
There is no reason at all why sound conservatives shouldn't take the US government to task for over spending, wasting money and exceeding its alloted powers. I regularly do the same with the UK government. That however has nothing to do with this issue, which is about government income, not expenditure.
Presumably you also collect a little revenue for dividends for the stockholders, and to cover expenses, like yourself.
I prefer to think of myself as a revenue generator, not an "expense". Certainly I generate more revenue than is expended on me.
Irrespective, the point I was trying to get over is that all economic activity is interelated - individuals and corporations alike get their income from each other. Each entity retains its own rights and obligations though.
But you don’t get to refuse to pay on the grounds that you disagree with what it is being spent on.
If you believe the Government should be able to spend the tax money any way they choose i sure am glad you are still over there.
We already have too many people in this country who can not think of only one aspect of a particular issue.
For instance it is kind of ridicules to try to determine how to collect tax that should not be collected in the first place.
It is no different than figuring how to kill some one when you are not supposed to kill.
Use tax is what our Government is supposed to run on and if they can not do that then the people in Government needs to be replaced.
I don,t know if you are familiar with history or not but extortion money collected in the form of a tax is what got the tea from your country of socialists dumped into the harbor, that is also what should happen to the income tax.
Besides you can refuse to pay sales tax just by not buying anything, a different issue.
Big difference between income tax and use tax.
Use tax = if some one uses something they pay for it, income tax = extortion= socialism.
What, just because of that?
If you believe the Government should be able to spend the tax money any way they choose i sure am glad you are still over there.
No, I believe I as a citizen should be telling the Government how to spend the tax money they raise.
For instance it is kind of ridicules to try to determine how to collect tax that should not be collected in the first place. It is no different than figuring how to kill some one when you are not supposed to kill.
Erm...I kind of think it is very different. Government has become too powerful and too intrusive and should be pegged back. But I do believe there actually should BE a government. And such a government is always going to need to be funded. Therefore discussions on how it should be done are perfectly legitimate. Killing people however very rarely is.
I don,t know if you are familiar with history or not but extortion money collected in the form of a tax is what got the tea from your country of socialists dumped into the harbor, that is also what should happen to the income tax.
I know enough about history to know that this comfortable meme that some Americans cosset themselves with is nothing more than a big fat juicy LIE. In the first place, the tax involved was an inport duty, which every nation in the world used. In the second place, it was chucked into the harbor AFTER the tax was REDUCED, by people were incensed they wouldnt make as much money via smuggling the stuff any more, and in the third place, Britain was in no way a socialist country then, on the grounds that socialism hadnt been invented yet.
So what has sales tax got to do with it? in you own words it is utterly irrelevent.
You've pounced on the words "sales tax", but in the context it is perfectly relevant. The point is that if you have a system whereby people decide they are not going to contribute to a public purse because they disagree with some aspect of Government spending, then pretty soon the whole system will collapse because no part of public spending does not meet with someone's disapproval. The issues are separate. If you believe that the government should not spend money on something, then the correct response is to campaign to have that something stopped. If you don't believe there should be an income tax at all, then campaign to have that changed.
You might think you are sure, but you don,t know how wrong you are, i am among the people who still believe that socialism is evil and income tax is a socialist program.
Ok, then I apologise for my presumption. However, do you really believe that it is possible to run a country the size and complexity of the US without income tax?
Okay, you’re a Britain Freeper, and I apologize if I included a subtle insult in there by mistake. It wasn’t intended.
You raise some valid issues to discuss. I think you make some decent points.
One thing I think is interesting, is that Starbucks is generally thought of as a Leftist leaning organization. (at least that’s my perception) As such, you would think they would be more than happy to pay more than their fair share of taxes. That’s what U. S. Democrats espouse as a belief. Strangely, when it comes to them, they don’t follow through. It’s just for peons like me that they hold this theory.
I will say that Starbucks has fiduciary responsibility to it’s shareholders to turn the most profit it can.
I just look at taxes as destroyed wealth. I look at money an individual or corporation gets to keep, as money that will be put to good use hiring people, purchasing things, or parceling out to shareholders.
You do make valid points in objection. I appreciate the response.
To me, the mortgage deduction is bedrock. I don’t have a mortgage, but I believe support for the family home translates as support to families and communities.
I understand where you are coming from. I don’t deny you have a valid point to support. I admit to having an aversion to governments taking money from their working citizens.
Fundamentally, I do agree that some funds should be siphoned off for government, but that level of funding is so much less than what is taken today, that I can’t find it in myself to really care when an entity finds a way to avoid paying taxes legally.
If Britain has eliminated the mortgage write-off, you can be certain this loophole will be plugged in short order.
Take care.
Ok, then I apologise for my presumption. However, do you really believe that it is possible to run a country the size and complexity of the US without income tax?
If the states can do it so could the federal Government if they wanted to, that is why our federal Government was to have limited power,to keep it small, but people found that they could vote for free hand outs by voting for the socialists and the socialist programs which in turn called for bigger Government.
And you are right the Government could not possibly support over 40 percent of the people with out robing the rich ( income tax ).
The problem is that congress according to the constitution can only collect taxes to pay their debts, millions of dollars in grants to every tom, dick, and harry are not debts and neither is welfare programs.
One issue leads to another so the fact that some one may say that starbucks are not paying their fair share may only be a single issue to you but to me in the U.S.it involves all of the issues involving income tax.
It changed us from what we at least thought was a free country to a police state.
I am about as poor as a church mouse, but when i hear some one say that the rich do not pay taxes it always turns out to be nothing but a lie, so i automatically get riled because i don,t like the poor me sobs to begin with.
The poor people do not pay taxes so where the hell does the Government get the billions of dollars every year to take care of all of the freeloaders who will not take care of them selves?
And that is the only apology i am giving.
Run the country?
Or run the government?
Quite telling that you conflate the two.
The American people are quite capable of running the country with a fraction of the "help" we are getting from the Federal government.
And I think tax evaders are heroes.
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.