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.
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.