It's socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us

[Mrr T]

Prawnboy said:

It's true i don't have great knowledge of the subject but i love to learn though so.....
starbucks pay 6% to a swiss subsidiary for brand rights, this reduces profits.
they also buy coffee through 2 subsidiary's, who mark-up, (within commodity prices). each mark up is reducing profit in the jurisdiction before.
finally the business has debt to pay inc interest on money it lent itself via the swiss subsidury, reducing profit.

to me reducing profit in one subsidiary with higher tax to increase profit in another juristiction with lower tax is moving profit.

what am i failing to see.

I have no detailed knowledge of Starbucks trading practices.

However, heres my take.

Starbucks is a brand name it is perfectly legal for the group to ask subsidiaries to pay to use the name. The practice is common and is accepted by most tax authorities. Many UK company do the same to their foreign subsiduaries.

I do not know why they buy coffee from group companies. Maybe they have a group purchasing policy to get maximum discount from suppliers. Coffee is a widely traded commodity so the costs between subsidiaries is likely to reflect market prices not cost plus.

If Starbucks UK need to borrow money to expand why should it not borrow the money from other group companies if they have a excess. The Starbucks company who is lending the money needs to charge a market interest rate; if it lent the money without interest they would be cheating their own tax jurisdiction.

No evidence I can see of any evasion or avoidance.

[Prawnboy]

Mrr T said:

I have no detailed knowledge of Starbucks trading practices.

However, heres my take.

Starbucks is a brand name it is perfectly legal for the group to ask subsidiaries to pay to use the name. The practice is common and is accepted by most tax authorities. Many UK company do the same to their foreign subsiduaries.

I do not know why they buy coffee from group companies. Maybe they have a group purchasing policy to get maximum discount from suppliers. Coffee is a widely traded commodity so the costs between subsidiaries is likely to reflect market prices not cost plus.

If Starbucks UK need to borrow money to expand why should it not borrow the money from other group companies if they have a excess. The Starbucks company who is lending the money needs to charge a market interest rate; if it lent the money without interest they would be cheating their own tax jurisdiction.

No evidence I can see of any evasion or avoidance.

they are doing nothing illegal & i have never said they are.

but from the original Reuters report of 2010

....Over the past three years, Starbucks has reported no profit, and paid no income tax, on sales of 1.2 billion pounds in the UK. McDonald's, by comparison, had a tax bill of over 80 million pounds on 3.6 billion pounds of UK sales. Kentucky Fried Chicken, part of Yum Brands Inc., the no. 3 global restaurant or cafe chain by market capitalization, incurred taxes of 36 million pounds on 1.1 billion pounds in UK sales, according to the accounts of their UK units.

to shift that much product without profit smells fishy.


this is an interesting read, and from a man who definitely knows his onions.

http://tcf.org/assets/downloads/2013-05-17-through...

[crankedup]

So what makes Starbucks apparently successful as a business I wonder. They sell expensive coffee to thousands of sheeple, fact. But what drives these sheeple to 'Q for the brew'? Is it merely a fashion for the numpties or some type of 'one-upmanship' you can't possibly drink coffee elsewhere darling!!

[Dr Jekyll]

crankedup said:

So what makes Starbucks apparently successful as a business I wonder. They sell expensive coffee to thousands of sheeple, fact. But what drives these sheeple to 'Q for the brew'? Is it merely a fashion for the numpties or some type of 'one-upmanship' you can't possibly drink coffee elsewhere darling!!

Perhaps they get a nice warm glow from knowing that the money they pay isn't being siphoned off into the governments coffers.

Or perhaps Starbucks is convenient? Or perhaps they like the coffee?

[turbobloke]

Dr Jekyll said:

crankedup said:

So what makes Starbucks apparently successful as a business I wonder. They sell expensive coffee to thousands of sheeple, fact. But what drives these sheeple to 'Q for the brew'? Is it merely a fashion for the numpties or some type of 'one-upmanship' you can't possibly drink coffee elsewhere darling!!

Perhaps they get a nice warm glow from knowing that the money they pay isn't being siphoned off into the governments coffers.

[crankedup]

Dr Jekyll said:

crankedup said:

So what makes Starbucks apparently successful as a business I wonder. They sell expensive coffee to thousands of sheeple, fact. But what drives these sheeple to 'Q for the brew'? Is it merely a fashion for the numpties or some type of 'one-upmanship' you can't possibly drink coffee elsewhere darling!!

Perhaps they get a nice warm glow from knowing that the money they pay isn't being siphoned off into the governments coffers.

Or perhaps Starbucks is convenient? Or perhaps they like the coffee?

Amazing what a cup of mass market coffee seems to do, must be a hallucinogenic as well. Can't see that a Multinational Company paying less tax than the average coffee drinker in Starbucks likely pays can be the passport to that 'a nice warm glow', unless that's anger perhaps

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

unless that's anger

Or the exact opposite.

[crankedup]

What no denial on the other possibilities;) Personally I will stick with the small cafe's, so much a relaxing convivial atmosphere to be enjoyed, 'better brew to with no Q' Starbucks do it well for the cattle-market trade, quick in and fast out, poor s*ds.

[chris watton]

I note that the latest headline on WUWT could be easily changed for topics like this:

Are [negative] Opinions on Climate Change tax and capitalism Related to Dependency on Government Money?

It seems that those who despise large companies (but, as always, except Apple for some reason...) and their profits usually work in the public sector, where said company's (or any other private company of any size) contribute to their earnings via their net contributions!

[sidicks]

Prawnboy said:

but from the original Reuters report of 2010

....Over the past three years, Starbucks has reported no profit, and paid no income tax, on sales of 1.2 billion pounds in the UK. McDonald's, by comparison, had a tax bill of over 80 million pounds on 3.6 billion pounds of UK sales. Kentucky Fried Chicken, part of Yum Brands Inc., the no. 3 global restaurant or cafe chain by market capitalization, incurred taxes of 36 million pounds on 1.1 billion pounds in UK sales, according to the accounts of their UK units.

Taxes are paid on profits not on sales, so the article is trying to lead the reader by emphasizing large (but irrelevant)'sales' numbers.

I guess some poorly-informed people fall for it though...

[Murph7355]

crankedup said:

What no denial on the other possibilities;) Personally I will stick with the small cafe's, so much a relaxing convivial atmosphere to be enjoyed, 'better brew to with no Q' Starbucks do it well for the cattle-market trade, quick in and fast out, poor s*ds.

I, for one, would like to thank you for your crusading efforts and think the whole system is a better place for them

(I don't drink coffee. No time to be sitting on my arse in someone else's space drinking something the core of which no doubt involves people significantly more poor than even the "poorest" in the UK being exploited )

[powerstroke]

crankedup said:

What no denial on the other possibilities;) Personally I will stick with the small cafe's, so much a relaxing convivial atmosphere to be enjoyed, 'better brew to with no Q' Starbucks do it well for the cattle-market trade, quick in and fast out, poor s*ds.

Personally I'm not keen on Starbucks but must go asap !coffee might be over priced and average but the warm glow of thinking leftys might be going puce and becoming
Upset ..... Priceless

[Prawnboy]

sidicks said:

Prawnboy said:

but from the original Reuters report of 2010

....Over the past three years, Starbucks has reported no profit, and paid no income tax, on sales of 1.2 billion pounds in the UK. McDonald's, by comparison, had a tax bill of over 80 million pounds on 3.6 billion pounds of UK sales. Kentucky Fried Chicken, part of Yum Brands Inc., the no. 3 global restaurant or cafe chain by market capitalization, incurred taxes of 36 million pounds on 1.1 billion pounds in UK sales, according to the accounts of their UK units.

Taxes are paid on profits not on sales, so the article is trying to lead the reader by emphasizing large (but irrelevant)'sales' numbers.

I guess some poorly-informed people fall for it though...

the article goes on to talk about profit, (or minus profit figures for 10 consecutive years in starbucks case).

[Prawnboy]

chris watton said:

I note that the latest headline on WUWT could be easily changed for topics like this:

Are [negative] Opinions on Climate Change tax and capitalism Related to Dependency on Government Money?

It seems that those who despise large companies (but, as always, except Apple for some reason...) and their profits usually work in the public sector, where said company's (or any other private company of any size) contribute to their earnings via their net contributions!

unless you live and work in a private gated community with it's own cottage hospital, security & groundskeepers don't we all rely on nett contributions to a greater or lesser degree?
just think how many private companies work is sustained by government contract.

[turbobloke]

Prawnboy said:

Just think how many private companies work is sustained by government contract.

The Whitehall Monitor Team at the Institute for Government carried out extensive research on that topic, and after 2 years spent studying 38 million gov't transactions they found approximately 180,000 suppliers contracted to HMG. In case this team's 16000 hours of analysis didn't quite hit the spot let's assume the total is 200,000 in which case, out of more than 5 million UK businesses that's 4% tops. Serco, G4S, Atos, and Capita would be hit hard if HMG contracts disappeared.

[V8 Fettler]

turbobloke said:

Prawnboy said:

Just think how many private companies work is sustained by government contract.

The Whitehall Monitor Team at the Institute for Government carried out extensive research on that topic, and after 2 years spent studying 38 million gov't transactions they found approximately 180,000 suppliers contracted to HMG. In case this team's 16000 hours of analysis didn't quite hit the spot let's assume the total is 200,000 in which case, out of more than 5 million UK businesses that's 4% tops. Serco, G4S, Atos, and Capita would be hit hard if HMG contracts disappeared.

Is this suppliers or contractors, or both? Measuring by number of organisations is meaningless, the key figure is the total value

[turbobloke]

V8 Fettler said:

turbobloke said:

Prawnboy said:

Just think how many private companies work is sustained by government contract.

The Whitehall Monitor Team at the Institute for Government carried out extensive research on that topic, and after 2 years spent studying 38 million gov't transactions they found approximately 180,000 suppliers contracted to HMG. In case this team's 16000 hours of analysis didn't quite hit the spot let's assume the total is 200,000 in which case, out of more than 5 million UK businesses that's 4% tops. Serco, G4S, Atos, and Capita would be hit hard if HMG contracts disappeared.

Is this suppliers or contractors, or both? Measuring by number of organisations is meaningless, the key figure is the total value

It's from all recorded transactions apparently, including charities.

Value is indeed relevant but the point I was replying to was specifically about the number of companies.

[Hackney]

sidicks said:

vonuber said:

Thoughts?

Lot's of fallacies and inaccuracies and manipulation of the truth:

1. More than £1tn of public money was poured into the banks following the financial collapse

No it wasn't.

2. n 2012, 2,714 British bankers were paid more than €1m – 12 times as many as any other EU country

Er, because London is a much bigger financial centre than the other countries...

3. Between 2011 and 2013, bank lending fell in more than 80% of Britain's 120 postcode areas, helping to stifle economic recovery.

Er, because it was unfettered lending that led to the massive boom and bust. Only the Guardian could criticise the banks for previous poor lending decisions and then complain when they tightened their lending to strengthen their balance sheets...

4. Between 2003–4 and 2010–11, a whopping £176.64bn was spent on them. Now, millions of working people who would otherwise be languishing in abject poverty depend on these tax credits.

If the government didn't tax the lowest earners, the minimum wage would be a living wage and such tax credits wouldn't be required.

Once again, only the Guardian would criticise employers for paying low wages but justify why the government should tax those wages.

5. In 2012, £4bn of taxpayers' money was shovelled into the accounts of the biggest private contractors: Serco, G4S, Atos and Capita

Shouldn't that be "£4bn was paid to private contractors to provide services..."
(who cares who provides the services as long as they are appropriate and value for money)

6. According to a report by the Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change, state spending on the privatised railways was six times higher than it was in the dying days of British Rail

How many people are travelling on the trains and are the services better..?

Compare the billions lost through tax avoidance to the £1.2bn lost through benefit fraud, an issue that remains the news fodder of choice for the right wing press.

Remind me about the Guardian Group's use of tax avoidance measures....

1. How much then? From where? Because there's no doubt that the banks were bailed out.
2. 12 times bigger? 12 times better for the country?
3. Too much lending and not enough lending are both issues worthy of criticism. How about the banks try and get it right?
4. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", pay someone enough and they can afford to be taxed appropriately. Who would agree with low pay and taxes - which is what we have now.
5. Trouble is they're neither appropriate nor good value when provided by companies like those listed
6. "how many people are travelling on the trains"....The trains to the abbetoir are full though. The services are best in the only publicly owned (soon to be re-privatised) rail operator.
7. "See, nothings wrong because they do it too!" brilliant argument. News International is rife with crooks, does that mean they can't report on fraud, deception, privacy laws, drugs cases?

Edited by Hackney on Thursday 4th September 11:18

[turbobloke]

Hackney said:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

Pure and simple Marxism.

So, this is relevant once again...

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

Hackney said:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

Pure and simple Marxism.

So, this is relevant once again...

Capitalism is on the other hand working oh so well! Europe imploding (PIGS) America a little in debt and jolly little U.K. just about bust. Still we will ignore that and party on in blind faith. (cue the question 'well what would you do'?)