Starbucks
- Thread starter Bluebs4
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
To be fair, they have agreed to pay additional taxes ( which they have no need to do), as opposed to ithers like Google, Amazon and others, who have basically turned round and said - "stuff it - we'll only pay what the law says we have to pay"!
International transfer pricing is a minefield, as is the whole concept of corporate taxation, particularly when the economic climate is tricky, like now. Why don't Google pay more taxes in the UK? Because they have their regional office in Ireland, who give them tax breaks to bring employment there. Tax havens ar used to increase employment and investment into a country, where the loss of tax revenue is seen as worth it because of the inward investment, jobs and industry it brings to a region. And of course payroll taxes from staff and corporation and other taxes from companies that support the new guys.
So simplistic arguments like "we should tax them more" run the risk of not only losing any corporate taxation from them at all as they move out of the UK's jurisdiction completely, but all the jobs that go with that.
International transfer pricing is a minefield, as is the whole concept of corporate taxation, particularly when the economic climate is tricky, like now. Why don't Google pay more taxes in the UK? Because they have their regional office in Ireland, who give them tax breaks to bring employment there. Tax havens ar used to increase employment and investment into a country, where the loss of tax revenue is seen as worth it because of the inward investment, jobs and industry it brings to a region. And of course payroll taxes from staff and corporation and other taxes from companies that support the new guys.
So simplistic arguments like "we should tax them more" run the risk of not only losing any corporate taxation from them at all as they move out of the UK's jurisdiction completely, but all the jobs that go with that.
The internet is a borderless environment so its a bit tricky but I would guess the government believes Google get revenue from advertising and service provision they provide the British people so should be taxed as such.
Seems they are doing a pretty decent job avoiding the US tax man too so we shouldn't feel special
Last edited:
I haven't looked up Google specificly as regards their taxes. It's just difficult to imagine exactly what any governement would base a tax on; exepting the government where they physically reside (and yeah, I suspect they're good at dodging that as well)
Stabucks on the other hand (being a company that actually sells a product for a profit in each individual country) is obviously easier to justify a tax.
Stabucks on the other hand (being a company that actually sells a product for a profit in each individual country) is obviously easier to justify a tax.
Why on Earth would anyone (corporation or individual) ever voluntarily pay more taxes that they are legally required to? In fact, if they do indeed pay more than legally required, it really isn't a tax anymore; it's a charitable donation to the government.
Stop buying from multinationals, ignore plastic cups and their huge carbon footprint, carve a wooden kuksa and lock up the carbon in the wood by keeping it in use for years ... lets save the planet!
Google make billions from allsorts. Avertisements mainly i expect. They did buy youtube for £1.8billion a few years ago. So they must be making much much more than that for that purchase to even be considered.
Pretty much my point about Starbucks! However, the "naming and shaming" of their UK turnover and minimal Corp tax led a bit of a boycott - they took a commercial decision to pay a bit more (that they didn't need to under the existing tax laws) and retain their UK customer base....
Oh I agree they're making scads of money. The point is, if those ads are placed by a company in Sweden (IKEA) on a provider owned by a company in Ireland (Google) then just what basis do other countries have for taxing them? And in reality, don't those ads generate revenue in all countries where they appear (such as the UK) in the form of VAT and/or other taxes collected on sales resulting from those ads? Granted that's less likely here where sales tax generally isn't imposed on internet sales.
In the end it worked out then. But wouldn't a better solution have been to petition the government to simply raise said taxes?
Mind y'all, I'm not particularly a Starbucks fan. It's mediocre coffee at best and overpriced and I prefer locally owned over chains. But TBH it's not the coffee most people go to Starbucks for anymore; it's their "home office" and meeting place nowadays.
Its almost completely advertisement and click through revenue. They made $3.3bn in Q1 this year. Lord only knows what they would make if they charged for the android OS. half the planet must use it daily.
If that was the case ALL companies would reside in a tax haven and rake it in, Google emply staff, have offices and make money in the UK ergo they should pay tax here, the amount should be based against how much money they make in that country, offsetting losses in other countries and other such ploys is just not on. Yes our government is completly spineless as was labour, but the people sometimes act up and get small things changed and good on them for doing so - I couldn't make a difference 'cause I never drink there.
The problem is these big companies destroy the local shops people actually like and replace them with courporate clones with no soul, allowing them to undercut others by not paying taxes these small busisnesses have to just makes the playing field worst.
Guys, I can't see how this thread can do anything except be political, accusatory and get angry, it'll end up getting closed but I do hope that you all prove me wrong 
No politics from me, Tony - just pointing out the financial/tax structures that led to Starbucks and Google's decisions!
Actually, another point worth remembering here is that British firms are in the top three of countries investing overseas, and all of those British companies "optimise" their tax affairs to pay as little as possible overseas. So we could suffer badly if we start a trade war re overseas income taxation!
Anyway, back to the OP. Anyone tried their cups yet?
Actually, another point worth remembering here is that British firms are in the top three of countries investing overseas, and all of those British companies "optimise" their tax affairs to pay as little as possible overseas. So we could suffer badly if we start a trade war re overseas income taxation!
Anyway, back to the OP. Anyone tried their cups yet?
Guys, I can't see how this thread can do anything except be political, accusatory and get angry, it'll end up getting closed but I do hope that you all prove me wrong
Sorry Tony, I may have kicked that off, I'm not having a good track record at the moment.
So the cup cost £1 with coffee inside it? Or you can buy one for £1 . Is the cup designed as reuseable?
Similar threads
