Friday, December 07, 2012

Onward octroi...

Raheem Kassam, Executive Editor of The Commentator says it far better than I could..unless of course I really tried: Big Bucks and Dumb F**cks.
"It is evident that if Starbucks opts to; create fewer jobs as a result of this moral penalty, train and pay its staff less, buy cheaper equipment (which of course are all likelihoods rather than possibilities), then the consumer and the employees suffer. In return, the Treasury suffers. If Starbucks is less frequented, or pays its staff less, then Mr. Taxman has problems. Farmers, wholesalers, delivery firms and even The Independent, which sells its newspapers in Starbucks branches, will suffer. The knock on effect, while currently intangible, is likely to be more than then £20m that the likes of the hypocritical Margaret Hodge MP have welcomed. 
What if, paraphrasing Raheem, 'even worse for the leftist coalition' that by demanding more cash from Starbucks, they - these do-gooder happy clappy touchy feely coffee traders - decide that, by paying more tax to the UK government, 'it must slash money from its corporate social responsibility department': what about no more fair-trade coffee etc.... Well, say no more. Full article HERE. Indeed what if Starbucks decided not to engage in politically correct sideshows that lefty twats normally applaud like "Helping Sumatran Farmers Respond to Climate Change" [Link], or its ethical sourcing, [Link]. What about their supplier diversity programme? [Link]. What about supporting farmers and their communities? [Link]: Starbucks goal: "Invest in farmers and their communities by increasing farmer loans to $20 million by 2015", 20 million, that rings a bell. You fa coffee?


Paul said...

I know this is becoming a left v right debate on the internet but I think the Conservative MP Richard Bacon summed it up perfectly when he said, "How can they suddenly decide to pay tax when previously they have claimed not to have a tax liability."

Starbucks have been caught out in a moral maze and should have either said they stood by their artificial transfer pricing policy (which was correct) or they had been lying (which they weren't).

The 'jobs will be lost' argument is a complete no-go, something that Raheem Kassam seems to not appreciate, if Starbucks were lying about their cross border trading.

Starbucks have backed themselves into a corner they could so easily have avoided by simply sticking to their guns - or face charges of fraud (against HMRC).

Span Ows said...

But the left/right is ironic, no? Abiding by EU law, doing a plethora of unnecessary money-absorbing trendy social conscience assuaging policies, being a massive employer, paying fortunes in various taxes but failing on one. Their caving in was what made me want to post something: they shoulda/coulda/woulda stuck to their guns; I have no doubt in my mind that they were offered some sort of deal and decided to take the route of less hurt.