Chucky Mama Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I find the reporting and public reaction to the Starbucks' tax avoidance tactics really intersting. Starbucks have made the 'grand gesture' of volunteering a large payment. The payment whilst appearing large would be pretty much covered by their marketing budget and does not cover the amount of tax they has avoided paying:evil: This makes me cross but so does the fact that people are heading out today to demonstrate and boycott Starbucks today. I bet though that they will happily go home to shop on Amazon for their Christmas presents and use Google. They both use the same tax avoidance tactics and yet have flown under the radar. Not having an overpriced coffee is an easy stand to take. It would appear that not using Amazon and Google is something that is too much of a hassle Let's face it no one wants to pay tax if they can legally avoid it. Why don't the government sort out the loopholes, this has been going on for years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Looney Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Absolutely. It's not right that tax is being avoided being paid by these big firms but until they are breaking the law then it restricts what can be done about it. And, as always, these things are more complex than we are led to believe by the media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olly Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 I've found this whole debate very interesting - and I wonder how many of the people 'boycotting' Starbucks would refuse to take advantage of a legal opportunity to pay less tax. The suggestion that taking advantage of legal loopholes to pay less tax is 'immoral' puzzles me. Tax evasion is illegal - tax avoidance, i.e. structuring your finances to reduce the income/profit subject to tax, is NOT illegal and in fact it's what many lawyers and accountants spend their days doing for wealthy clients (thus contributing to the economy). They would be negligent if they didn't strive to do this. Paying money into your pension or an ISA is 'tax avoidance'. I think the government need to sort the legislation out, rather than relying on companies to cough up. I never shop at Starbucks anyway - their coffee is too expensive! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lavenders_Blue Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 Agreed. What we deem 'morally right' and what is in fact legal are two different things. We might not like the fact that these companies are using loopholes in the law to avoid paying tax, but the fact of the matter is that it's perfectly legal and for that reason I won't be boycotting them - although I don't buy Starbucks anyway! As Olly has rightly pointed out, it's not really any different to paying money into a pension or ISA, just on a much larger scale, and I am sure many of us do that. Until the laws are tightened up, there is little point in getting het up about what these companies are doing, it's not really their fault if the law allows them to do this, is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatieB Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 In my view, the boycotts are hypocrits. how many would choose to pay more tax than they were allowed to legally? And if we get to see pictures of the people boycotts how many will be tax payers at all let alone higher rate tax payers. (Yes I know you can't tell by looking but you know what I mean) At least it means less queues in starbucks so I can get my Grande sugar free vanilla skinny extra hot and wet latte quicker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
