Roger welcomes Starbucks decision to move European HQ to UK
Posted by Roger Godsiff, MP for Birmingham, Hall Green, at 16:51, Thu 24 April 2014:
Roger has welcomed the decision by Starbucks to move its European Head Office from Amsterdam to London by the end of this year, following the row which erupted over tax avoidance by Starbucks.
Said Roger: “Companies such as Starbucks have got away with evading their responsibilities to the UK by using ingenious and complicated tax avoidance procedures to avoid paying their fair share of Corporation Tax. This was totally wrong and has been rightly condemned.
“Be under no illusions, however. This decision by Starbucks was not made because the have suddenly accepted that they should pay Corporation Tax on profits they make in the UK, but because of consumer power. This resulted in many coffee drinkers changing to other outlets which do pay Corporation Tax in the UK.
“This sort of consumer power – hitting the company where it hurts the most, which is their profits – should not only be applauded and encouraged, but should happen more often.”
Comments
If you are subscribed to HearFromYourMP in this constituency,
log in to post a reply.
Otherwise, if you live in the UK,
sign up in order to
HearFromYourMP.
Posted by Mohammed Hemraj, 17:40, Thu 24 April 2014: (Is this post abusive?) #
Tax avoidance is not a crime but tax evasion is. So personally I see no wrong if companies employ tax experts to ensure they avoid but not evade paying tax. I think the government should go in the business of providing coffee to the masses which will reduce the UK's debt burden.
I personally do not drink coffee and as it is I can prepare it myself coasting me only 5 pence a cup as I do not use sugar and milk. Starbucks and the like are charging several pounds per cup which I consider to be exorbitant. Consumers need more competition in this field. At the moment I am quite happy consuming tea which I prepare myself and costs me 2 pence per cup with no sugar and milk. This is what I call consumer power in the real sense.
Posted by Colin, 07:54, Fri 25 April 2014: (Is this post abusive?) #
Mr. Hemraj, it is not wise for Government to be involved in the provision of coffee 'for the masses', or indeed any other business, with the possible exception of some of the key utilities. Wherever Governments become involved in business, we see waste, fraud, corruption, distortion of the market & ultimate failure. Where no-one has ownership or responsibility, no enterprise can succeed. With regard to cross-border tax dodging, Governments should look at imposing extra tax at the point of sale, but I agree that consumer power & exposure of these parasites is very important.
Posted by Mohammed Hemraj, 10:47, Mon 28 April 2014: (Is this post abusive?) #
You have expressed your views and so have I. You are suggesting that the UK government should be involved only in utility and not in other businesses and you are blaming the government for waste, fraud, corruption, distortion of the market & ultimate failure. If what you are stating is true then why do we need such a government? Why not privatise it?
You are also implying that waste, fraud, corruption, distortion of the market & ultimate failure does not occur in private/corporate businesses which may or may not be true. What I was suggesting is that the consumers need more competition which will make Starbucks reduce their prices and it will be good for consumers.