Topic ID 6827
I see Starbucks are in the news again: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/good-bean-counters-starbucks-has-paid-no-tax-in-uk-since-2009-8212579.html Something to think about when you're spending your hard earned pennies on on of their coffees!
Reply ID 90527
quote:Wouldn't touch them with a bargepole (well maybe actually if it was to shove the Hertford branch into the river!)
Originally posted by dennismoore
I see Starbucks are in the news again: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/good-bean-counters-starbucks-has-paid-no-tax-in-uk-since-2009-8212579.html Something to think about when you're spending your hard earned pennies on on of their coffees!
Reply ID 90528
Never used them since they decided to open in Hertford with the crass ignorance of "apologies over permission".
Reply ID 90529
quote:Agreed - was always concerned with their global reach but far more offended by their local shenanigans. It's about time we dusted off our pitchforks and burning torches [}:)]
Originally posted by billybondsboots
Never used them since they decided to open in Hertford with the crass ignorance of "apologies over permission".
Reply ID 90531
Much prefer to support the independants. Better quality, better service, better all round!
Reply ID 90533
This is only my opinion. It never surprises me anymore why people spend time in these coffee shops just to get ripped off with hot water, some dried old vaccuum-packed coffee beans and an apple strudel for over 5 quid. Is it a kudos thing?
Reply ID 90534
the independants are utterly thriving in London! maybe this is the time it all changes
Reply ID 90535
Since the Hertford fiasco I never use any SB. I can't say I'm surprised they pay too little tax, but it seems to be the more you earn, the less you seem to pay.
Reply ID 90536
quote:This is not a defence of Starcostanerobucks but.... The big chains sometimes started small and, not that long ago, were the only places you could get consistently decent coffee easily (and to take out). They are now, as mentioned, too concerned with extracting our money (and keeping it) and have probably realised too late what we all know - that a local competitor will care more for its customers (Caffe Yum excepted) and, generally, be cheaper. As with most things, find what you like and stick with it (until something better comes along). Boycotts are probably less confrontational and easier to achieve for the congenitally lazy than pitchforks and flaming torches.
Originally posted by codek2
the independants are utterly thriving in London! maybe this is the time it all changes
Reply ID 90537
I add my name to those who have never been to the Hertford Starbucks, never will and since they stuck two fingers up at Hertford and did what they damn well please I never go a Starbucks anywhere.
Reply ID 90539
I like Starbucks...and spend a lot of time in there. free wifi, free electric (plug laptop in) bright and i think a nice place to watch the world go by...when really should be working....plus if you buy a regular filter coffee you get free refills...who else does that in town? Starbucks not paying tax (or very little) just highlights the problems HMRC have, i'm pretty sure there will be other multinationals doing the same. (not saying its right or wrong) Starbucks employe many people so thats a plus. they also fill a shop that must have a decent high rent and would be empty if an independent wanted it. as for independents i like them too...but they just aren't as comfy so use starbucks most.
Reply ID 90540
quote:Like Serendipity, you mean.
Originally posted by teddylad
...they also fill a shop that must have a decent high rent and would be empty if an independent wanted it.
Reply ID 90541
yes Steve like Serendipity...who's to say that they dont use the same tax loop hole as Starbucks? i, like you i assume, know nothing about the accounting of Serendipity so cant really say what their rent is or what deal they really have there. however well done to them and i love their sandwiches and milkshakes...however, i would like to point out that most of the shops within the centre are not independent....
Reply ID 90543
is the starbucks tax loophole the same as the facebook one? The facebook one was simply paying all the profit back to the staff. So the average uk salary at facebook is nearly 300k. Now; In that scenario, those staff will be paying 40 and then 50% tax on that money. This personal tax they are paying is more than the corporation tax that would have been paid.. Is that right? So this is probably why HMRC arnt too fussed. But I dont know if the starbucks scam was the same as facebook.. Can't imagine many baristas on 300k :)
Reply ID 90545
quote:No, I would assume that most (certainly in Hertford)are on the minimum wage.... which I don't believe is currently taxed at 50% (but with Osbourne at the helm & getting desperate, nothing would surprise me). This is just good old fashioned Transfer Pricing, nothing at all altruistic about it and unless Serendipity have overseas sister companies to whom they pay for their coffee beans , for management services & for image rights & royalties, I somehow would guess that they have to pay their share of tax like most of us "little people". And before we get all dewy eyed about how much VAT & employee tax/NICS Starf**ks pay to the Revenue; they are actually passing on our money that they happen to handle for us, & in the meantime play with, on Far Eastern markets, to make a couple of bob out of (no problem for me there I add) before passing it onto HMRC
Originally posted by codek2
is the starbucks tax loophole the same as the facebook one? The facebook one was simply paying all the profit back to the staff. So the average uk salary at facebook is nearly 300k. Now; In that scenario, those staff will be paying 40 and then 50% tax on that money. This personal tax they are paying is more than the corporation tax that would have been paid.. Is that right? So this is probably why HMRC arnt too fussed. But I dont know if the starbucks scam was the same as facebook.. Can't imagine many baristas on 300k :)
Reply ID 90547
quote:I think Steve is responding to the fact that Serendipity applied, through the correct channels, for change of use on what was the old travel agents in order to expand but their application was denied. Whereas Starbucks stuck two fingers up and not only turned it into a cafe without so much as a care for an application for change off use but knocked the wall down and joined the units together as one. So the statement "they also fill a shop that must have a decent high rent and would be empty if an independent wanted it. " is incorrect, on two fronts. The old travel agent part of Starbucks would now be part of an expanded Serendipity and the larger part of Starbucks has been run as a successive chain of small local restaurants. In fact my understanding is that the manager of the last restaurant to reside there was bought out to move on and vacate.
Originally posted by teddylad
yes Steve like Serendipity...who's to say that they dont use the same tax loop hole as Starbucks? i, like you i assume, know nothing about the accounting of Serendipity so cant really say what their rent is or what deal they really have there. however well done to them and i love their sandwiches and milkshakes...however, i would like to point out that most of the shops within the centre are not independent....
Reply ID 90553
And I would imagine that all of the "cash" trade business in town declare every single one of there transactions..........
Reply ID 90554
quote:And if caught, HMRC would throw the book at them, as they should with SB. There would also be an argument to say that the 'cash jobs' are going to local people to spend in their local area. The money here is going straight back to head office. No one wants to pay more tax than they have to but blatant international tax avoidance should not be possible.
Originally posted by Victor Meldrew
And I would imagine that all of the "cash" trade business in town declare every single one of there transactions..........
Reply ID 90569
quote:agian, like most items in this forum speculation is the key here. the fact is...a shopping centre rent is high...why the restaurant/s before starbucks left paid or not paid to do so...i havent got a clue...why Serendipity didnt just move in to the old travel agents i dont know. but if i were to speculate...then the management agents wanted to get the best possible long term return for the owners of the shopping centre, so Starbucks is clearly the better tenant over an independant... as for starbucks...what have they done wrong really? they have played by the rules outlined by HMRC...is it right or wrong...well its HMRC we should be having a go at not starbucks...
Originally posted by Ewoowarquote:I think Steve is responding to the fact that Serendipity applied, through the correct channels, for change of use on what was the old travel agents in order to expand but their application was denied. Whereas Starbucks stuck two fingers up and not only turned it into a cafe without so much as a care for an application for change off use but knocked the wall down and joined the units together as one. So the statement "they also fill a shop that must have a decent high rent and would be empty if an independent wanted it. " is incorrect, on two fronts. The old travel agent part of Starbucks would now be part of an expanded Serendipity and the larger part of Starbucks has been run as a successive chain of small local restaurants. In fact my understanding is that the manager of the last restaurant to reside there was bought out to move on and vacate.
Originally posted by teddylad
yes Steve like Serendipity...who's to say that they dont use the same tax loop hole as Starbucks? i, like you i assume, know nothing about the accounting of Serendipity so cant really say what their rent is or what deal they really have there. however well done to them and i love their sandwiches and milkshakes...however, i would like to point out that most of the shops within the centre are not independent....
Reply ID 90570
on another note....if Serendipity opened another store in the town, say in the T-mobile store, would you all complain? then after 10 years theres a Serendipity in everytown...would you then complain? if the answers come back bleating about the ethics of big companies...well ask yourself where you purchase everything from? because unless you live in a tree you are funding another big business like Starbucks, somewhere along the line, who act in the same way as Starbucks...delivering to their shareholders...
Reply ID 90571
quote:All a bit hypothetical. Plenty of local businesses remain so through choice. I thought I'd covered this in my mealy mouthed, half hearted attempt to see both sides yesterday (@22:37) - [;)]
Originally posted by teddylad
on another note....if Serendipity opened another store in the town, say in the T-mobile store, would you all complain? then after 10 years theres a Serendipity in everytown...would you then complain? if the answers come back bleating about the ethics of big companies...well ask yourself where you purchase everything from? because unless you live in a tree you are funding another big business like Starbucks, somewhere along the line, who act in the same way as Starbucks...delivering to their shareholders...
Reply ID 90573
quote:You haven't quite got it have you? The issue is that Serendipity went through the correct channels and were refused. Starbucks, as in other towns, stuck two fingers up at your local council planners, as much to say "Bo****ks to you all. We're too big and you can't touch us".
Originally posted by teddylad
on another note....if Serendipity opened another store in the town, say in the T-mobile store, would you all complain? then after 10 years theres a Serendipity in everytown...would you then complain? if the answers come back bleating about the ethics of big companies...well ask yourself where you purchase everything from? because unless you live in a tree you are funding another big business like Starbucks, somewhere along the line, who act in the same way as Starbucks...delivering to their shareholders...
Reply ID 90574
quote:If Serendipity grew and treated staff, customers and local planning laws with respect and paid their taxes, then I wouldn't mind how many outlets they had.
Originally posted by teddylad
on another note....if Serendipity opened another store in the town, say in the T-mobile store, would you all complain? then after 10 years theres a Serendipity in everytown...would you then complain? if the answers come back bleating about the ethics of big companies...well ask yourself where you purchase everything from? because unless you live in a tree you are funding another big business like Starbucks, somewhere along the line, who act in the same way as Starbucks...delivering to their shareholders...
Reply ID 90575
Ewoowar...i think YOU are the one who just doesn't get it pal....are you serendipity? are you the previous occupant of starbucks? are you on the planning board? Starbucks are smart enough to play the game serendipity didnt move in there was it because they didnt know how to play the game? or was it some other reason...maybe cost? dare i think out of the box...that its our wonderful british law and rules that is being played here by smart lawyers and accountants...
Reply ID 90576
quote:Savills own the whole of Bircherley Green and must have had a big say in the fight towards a coffee shop becoming part of it. Your point about smart lawyers is probably correct, however the accountants are the ones who are accountable. Where has the money actually gone?
Originally posted by teddylad
Ewoowar...i think YOU are the one who just doesn't get it pal....are you serendipity? are you the previous occupant of starbucks? are you on the planning board? Starbucks are smart enough to play the game serendipity didnt move in there was it because they didnt know how to play the game? or was it some other reason...maybe cost? dare i think out of the box...that its our wonderful british law and rules that is being played here by smart lawyers and accountants...
Reply ID 90588
quote:May I ask how you felt about the expenses scandal? Theresa Villiers, the previous MP for Barnet claimed x number of expenses ‘Playing’ the system despite living in a London constituency. David Cameron’s family wealth comes from off shore tax avoidance and don’t get me started on big George. Legally playing the system does not absolve them of guilt. Surely questions must be asked when the likes of McDonalds and KFC are being branded as ‘ethical companies’ comparatively speaking… I have no issue with chains, they are as you say an unavoidable part of society, they just need to pay their fair share.
as for starbucks...what have they done wrong really? they have played by the rules outlined by HMRC...is it right or wrong...well its HMRC we should be having a go at not starbucks...
Reply ID 90590
quote:Teddylad, may I first correct you as I am not your 'pal'. Secondly, am I Serendipity? No, Serendipity is a cafe and I (quick check in the mirror) appear to be a human being. Thirdly, and more seriously, simply because you can get away with something and/or even afford the level of lawyers and other experts to assist you, it doesn't make your actions right. Starbucks are renowned for similar actions in many towns. They didn't bother applying for change of use because they probably knew they would not be granted it. They already had what was the old restaurant and that had the correct permissions. I don't know where you live but, making an assumption you live in a house with a garden and with neighbours...........if your next door neighbour decided to turn his back garden into a fully functioning breakers yard and your neighbour the other side decided to turn his back garden into a manure storage facility, and somehow they managed to keep them via 'smart lawyers', I am sure youo would be on here defending their inginuity too.
Originally posted by teddylad
Ewoowar...i think YOU are the one who just doesn't get it pal....are you serendipity? are you the previous occupant of starbucks? are you on the planning board? Starbucks are smart enough to play the game serendipity didnt move in there was it because they didnt know how to play the game? or was it some other reason...maybe cost? dare i think out of the box...that its our wonderful british law and rules that is being played here by smart lawyers and accountants...