5 ms·

Starbucks Commitment to the UK | Starbucks Coffee Company

15 points by Cbasedlifeform 14y ago

Cbasedlifeform 14y ago
Ha ha absolute meltdown in the comments. Methinks this won't go well for Starbucks.
- jnye131 14y ago
  brilliant, one blog post not to have comments on if ever there was.
youngtaff 14y ago
It's simple really... vote with your wallet and don't buy Starbucks coffee
- Cbasedlifeform 14y ago
  vote with your wallet and your taste buds and your health. All three suffer when you buy Starbucks coffee.
regularfry 14y ago
You'd have thought for all that effort they could have made some decent coffee.
SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
I prefer this article: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4777423 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4777423 (Starbucks, Google and Amazon: the tax crash of Monday afternoon)
WimLeers 14y ago
People stumbling upon this: please make sure you read the comments on that blog post. Apparently Starbucks changed the original writing; with huge semantic differences. It seems they divulged something they shouldn't have…
- jgrahamc 14y ago
  They didn't 'divulge something they shouldn't have' what they did was say that in the £160m in taxes they are saying they paid they include PAYE. PAYE is the portion of an employee's salary that is automatically taken by the taxman; so Starbucks were saying they paid taxes that in fact their employees paid. It would be interesting to know what other taxes they include in that figure (such as VAT which a company would merely collect from customers and pass onto the government).
  - WimLeers 14y ago
    "so Starbucks were saying they paid taxes that in fact their employees paid." That's what I meant by divulging something they shouldn't have. Them considering taxes their employees paid as taxes they (Starbucks) paid is obviously something that won't be received favorably.
scott_w 14y ago
The three things that stood out for me were: 1 Starbucks lumped National Insurance into their tax bill 2 They pay "branding rights" to the parent corporation 3 They make almost no profit in the UK The first point is that NI is pretty much unavoidable anyway, so including it doesn't really make you look great. Only really low-level tax evaders try to get out of NI and PAYE. The branding rights is an obvious avoidance measure. They don't have to pay this, since Starbucks UK is wholly-owned by their US headquarters (and if they're not, they may as well be). The final point actually follows from the second: they don't report high profit because it's all syphoned off via branding rights. Do they seriously expect people to believe they operate in the UK purely out of the goodness of their hearts?
- startupfounder 14y ago
  The film industry does something similar to what Starbucks is doing (and I am guessing many major brands). 'They pay "branding rights" to the parent corporation' This increases their overhead and is a major reason why most films are not "Profitable", but they are if you take out this brand licensing fee. Because many taxes and bonuses are based on profit companies can save huge amounts of money. Also, does anyone know if the company that owns the Starbucks brand is located in the USA? My guess is that it is not due to tax reasons.
  - jgrahamc 14y ago
    The Starbucks brand is controlled via a corporate entity in the Netherlands. This is pretty common; IIRC Ikea does the same thing.
  - scott_w 14y ago
    I don't know about Starbucks, but I know Google does the same thing and pays branding rights to their Irish HQ. Unfortunately, I can't find the article that details it. If I can, I'll post it.
- __alexs 14y ago
  > The first point is that NI is pretty much unavoidable anyway, so including it doesn't really make you look great. Only really low-level tax evaders try to get out of NI and PAYE. IANATL but do Starbucks even have any PAYE or NI tax to pay? Isn't it their employees that pay that? Just because Starbucks happen to take the money off of your pay cheque for you doesn't mean that it's not your tax liability that's being paid for. Not having your employees systematically avoiding tax (e.g. like what happens at some levels in the civil service) is great and all but it's not like Starbucks are out there preaching to their employees about how awesome it is to be a tax payer.
DanBC 14y ago
> Following a number of stories in the media over the last day about Starbucks and the amount of tax we pay each year, I believe it’s important that we share the facts with you on this important issue. I know that anything they say after this is going to be sleazy lies and distortions. It is baffling to me how they think they can churn out vapid puffery and expect people to believe it. The comments on the blog are delicious, and I really hope parliamentary researchers are reading and passing information onto the select committee.
RobAley 14y ago
I'm really curious. Did anybody here read that and think that it in anyway painted Starbucks in a better light, even if taken with a pinch of salt? A lot of press-releases are often aimed at investors or the business markets etc., which is why they sometimes appear strange to the general public. But even (perhaps especially) those types of audience are even more able to see through this kind of BS and understand how the "system" works, so I'm really not sure why they released it at all. Any thoughts?
- takluyver 14y ago
  I think it's aimed at consumers, trying to patch up their public relations. Taken at face value (and overlooking the comments), it does sound vaguely comforting - they quote a big number for taxes paid, protest that they're not making much money, and talk about the local things they source (so caring of them, not to fly sandwiches in from China!). If you were unsure, but kind of liked going to Starbucks, I imagine you could well go away thinking that maybe the allegations were overblown.
  - RobAley 14y ago
    Maybe. Most customers having heard the allegations though I would have thought that it would take a lot more than this to pull the wool over their eyes. Maybe I misjudge some of their customers though...
antihero 14y ago
http://pastebin.com/UGdPnaDb http://pastebin.com/UGdPnaDb mirror of the comments

Cbasedlifeform 14y ago

Ha ha absolute meltdown in the comments. Methinks this won't go well for Starbucks.

jnye131 14y ago
brilliant, one blog post not to have comments on if ever there was.

youngtaff 14y ago

It's simple really... vote with your wallet and don't buy Starbucks coffee

Cbasedlifeform 14y ago
vote with your wallet and your taste buds and your health. All three suffer when you buy Starbucks coffee.

regularfry 14y ago

You'd have thought for all that effort they could have made some decent coffee.

SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago

I prefer this article: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4777423 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4777423 (Starbucks, Google and Amazon: the tax crash of Monday afternoon)

WimLeers 14y ago

People stumbling upon this: please make sure you read the comments on that blog post. Apparently Starbucks changed the original writing; with huge semantic differences. It seems they divulged something they shouldn't have…

jgrahamc 14y ago
They didn't 'divulge something they shouldn't have' what they did was say that in the £160m in taxes they are saying they paid they include PAYE. PAYE is the portion of an employee's salary that is automatically taken by the taxman; so Starbucks were saying they paid taxes that in fact their employees paid. It would be interesting to know what other taxes they include in that figure (such as VAT which a company would merely collect from customers and pass onto the government).
- WimLeers 14y ago
  "so Starbucks were saying they paid taxes that in fact their employees paid." That's what I meant by divulging something they shouldn't have. Them considering taxes their employees paid as taxes they (Starbucks) paid is obviously something that won't be received favorably.

scott_w 14y ago

The three things that stood out for me were: 1 Starbucks lumped National Insurance into their tax bill 2 They pay "branding rights" to the parent corporation 3 They make almost no profit in the UK The first point is that NI is pretty much unavoidable anyway, so including it doesn't really make you look great. Only really low-level tax evaders try to get out of NI and PAYE. The branding rights is an obvious avoidance measure. They don't have to pay this, since Starbucks UK is wholly-owned by their US headquarters (and if they're not, they may as well be). The final point actually follows from the second: they don't report high profit because it's all syphoned off via branding rights. Do they seriously expect people to believe they operate in the UK purely out of the goodness of their hearts?

startupfounder 14y ago
The film industry does something similar to what Starbucks is doing (and I am guessing many major brands). 'They pay "branding rights" to the parent corporation' This increases their overhead and is a major reason why most films are not "Profitable", but they are if you take out this brand licensing fee. Because many taxes and bonuses are based on profit companies can save huge amounts of money. Also, does anyone know if the company that owns the Starbucks brand is located in the USA? My guess is that it is not due to tax reasons.
- jgrahamc 14y ago
  The Starbucks brand is controlled via a corporate entity in the Netherlands. This is pretty common; IIRC Ikea does the same thing.
- scott_w 14y ago
  I don't know about Starbucks, but I know Google does the same thing and pays branding rights to their Irish HQ. Unfortunately, I can't find the article that details it. If I can, I'll post it.
__alexs 14y ago
> The first point is that NI is pretty much unavoidable anyway, so including it doesn't really make you look great. Only really low-level tax evaders try to get out of NI and PAYE. IANATL but do Starbucks even have any PAYE or NI tax to pay? Isn't it their employees that pay that? Just because Starbucks happen to take the money off of your pay cheque for you doesn't mean that it's not your tax liability that's being paid for. Not having your employees systematically avoiding tax (e.g. like what happens at some levels in the civil service) is great and all but it's not like Starbucks are out there preaching to their employees about how awesome it is to be a tax payer.

DanBC 14y ago

> Following a number of stories in the media over the last day about Starbucks and the amount of tax we pay each year, I believe it’s important that we share the facts with you on this important issue. I know that anything they say after this is going to be sleazy lies and distortions. It is baffling to me how they think they can churn out vapid puffery and expect people to believe it. The comments on the blog are delicious, and I really hope parliamentary researchers are reading and passing information onto the select committee.

RobAley 14y ago

I'm really curious. Did anybody here read that and think that it in anyway painted Starbucks in a better light, even if taken with a pinch of salt? A lot of press-releases are often aimed at investors or the business markets etc., which is why they sometimes appear strange to the general public. But even (perhaps especially) those types of audience are even more able to see through this kind of BS and understand how the "system" works, so I'm really not sure why they released it at all. Any thoughts?

takluyver 14y ago
I think it's aimed at consumers, trying to patch up their public relations. Taken at face value (and overlooking the comments), it does sound vaguely comforting - they quote a big number for taxes paid, protest that they're not making much money, and talk about the local things they source (so caring of them, not to fly sandwiches in from China!). If you were unsure, but kind of liked going to Starbucks, I imagine you could well go away thinking that maybe the allegations were overblown.
- RobAley 14y ago
  Maybe. Most customers having heard the allegations though I would have thought that it would take a lot more than this to pull the wool over their eyes. Maybe I misjudge some of their customers though...

antihero 14y ago

http://pastebin.com/UGdPnaDb http://pastebin.com/UGdPnaDb mirror of the comments