Big Graeme wrote:
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.
] ...
