The Starbucks scheme

[mos]

Quite.

Either that or give Dave Hartnett a fully paid privilege card.

It is quite funny ...

Starbucks to do sponsored head-shave for HMRC

.... but probably belong in general section ...

[sbakoola]

At the end of the day its a massive cheek to charge customers £2.75 for a cup of take away coffee and then pay around 0.1% corporation tax on profits per year, what baffles me is how HMRC have just let this one go year after year, they should have entered their offices and frozen assets year 1 or if not year 2 of trading when they started this scam. Instead of doing this they focus on targeting groups of one man contractor limited companies and small businesses to try and ruin them ?

it makes no sense to me. Is someone being bribed to look the other way ?

[LatteLiberal]

Another money maker from the coffee outlets are the larger sized coffees. They just add more water and charge an extra 50p.

[captainham]

Starbucks are not actually doing anything illegal, or have you not realised that...

And I bet their sales are scarcely affected by all this, except when UK Uncut target particular outlets of course!

[mos]

Starbucks are not actually doing anything illegal, or have you not realised that...

And I bet their sales are scarcely affected by all this, except when UK Uncut target particular outlets of course!

Yes we all realize that. The Tax Law is lo longer fit for purpose (unless the purpose is driving all local shops out of business).

[captainham]

Yes we all realize that. The Tax Law is lo longer fit for purpose (unless the purpose is driving all local shops out of business).

Not everyone realised this...LatteLiberal has now deleted his previous post that lead me to post my comment above.

It talked about storming their office, freezing bank accounts, seizing their assets, etc.

Edit: I'm an idiot, apology below.

[jamesbrown]

Not everyone realised this...LatteLiberal has now deleted his previous post that lead me to post my comment above.

It talked about storming their office, freezing bank accounts, seizing their assets, etc.

Indeed, a lot of people talk as though they don't really appreciate that point. Bringing "morality" into tax is a slippery and impractical slope. The few questions of morality are much more clear-cut and universally understood than tax laws. It's the job of government to introduce laws that are less obviously and egregiously circumvented and, in the case of Starbucks, the role of the consumer to express their distaste with how the company takes their decisions, including decisions on tax. They are legitimate decisions afterall. We're not talking about tax evasion.

[LatteLiberal]

Not everyone realised this...LatteLiberal has now deleted his previous post that lead me to post my comment above.

It talked about storming their office, freezing bank accounts, seizing their assets, etc.

Eh? I didn't post anything like that!

[captainham]

Eh? I didn't post anything like that!

You also pondered who they had bribed (in order to be able to get away with not breaking the law, which did amuse me). The fact you are now completely denying posting these comments tells me all I need to know about what sort of person you are.

You are clearly either confused, a troll, or probably both.

Edit: nope, I'm still an idiot, apology coming...

[LatteLiberal]

You also pondered who they had bribed (in order to be able to get away with not breaking the law, which did amuse me). The fact you are now completely denying posting these comments tells me all I need to know about what sort of person you are.

You are clearly either confused, a troll, or probably both.

Where did I post these comments? On this thread? I think you are mixing me up with someone else.