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.
I must admit I am unaware if Starbucks has any political inclinations one way or another, but finding out any leftist leaning organisation does not "put its money where its mouth is" is hardly surprising. If you can bear to listen to their propoganda for any length of time, you hear constant references to greedy rich people hoarding wealth, but of course what constitutes "rich" is never defined. "Greedy rich" basically means "other people", which of course accounts for its success with the electorate. Its a variation of the blame game. Its always someone else's fault, and therefore its someone elses responsibility to fix it.
It seems to me that Leftist companies, even very large and obviously wealthy ones, buy into this line of reasoning too, illogical though it is. They support helping "the poor" (another very nebulous term) with government aid, which is financed through higher taxes that someone else will pay! Great isn't it?