Thank fook I've never had the displeasure of having to wilingly associate with any fooker that drinks in a Coffee-Shop.

I can only imagine.......................

Yes, hundreds of people wouldn't lose their jobs, landlords have empty commercial premises, suppliers have none of the orders that they currently do, truly "feckall".

Whatever Starbucks are, or aren't, they are a sizeable employer.

If the demand for good coffee is there someone else will fill the gap in the market.



Which doesn't mean they should get away with murder.

I agree, but wwhat they do isn't illeagal, poor laws made by poor law makers, I don't blame Starbucks for taking advantage, it's the fault of successive governments failing to legislate.

Agreed to a point, but the consumer has the ultimate power, if they don't like the way Starbucks are acting they won't spend their money there. Starbucks agreed to pay SOME tax in a reaction to the consumer backlash.

Which shows how weak the tax laws are. If tax is so voluntarily why the fook have I been paying my dues for 30 odd years?

Anyway the idea Starbucks threat has any weight is a joke. As Mintaball pointed out if they are as unprofitable as they claim why wold shareholders want the board to pour more good money after bad anyway?

If on the other hand further investment in the UK is to the companies benefit then equally shareholders will still want to the board invest if money can be made. It's their second largest market I believe so it's not as if they can go elsewhere and have the same turnover.

Bluff needs to be called here. Don't bank on it though. instead expect it to be used as an excuse for even lower corporation tax rates.

As someone else said, if the demand is there, Starbuck's staff would find jobs with the current competition ... and the demand (apparently) IS there.
As for suppliers, I believe the largest of Starbuck's suppliers is Starbucks.

Do you really think GDP would suffer if Starbuck's ceased to be?
Would people stop having a sandwich or a cup of coffee ?

I am tempted to wonder if they pull this stunt in all the countries they operate in and that indeed they are a charitable organisation.
They are liars and should be challenged.
Income in this country less LEGITIMATE expenses incurred in this country is what they should be taxed on.
And a bill sent to them.

Excellently put, Sir!





Totally agree. Totally agree. And wouldn't be bleedin' surprised.

Starbucks remind me of those type of people you get on internet forums who get into a heated argument with other users and then start a new thread to say "had it with this forum, IM OFF, GOODBYE!".

Rarely do other users congregate to beg them to stay.