I had a pretty standard cup of Starbucks coffee the other day; unwontedly, I should say. I was on a train and only saw the logo when the drink was on my little table. I drank it anyway, my liquid and caffeine needs trumping the soft moral tug. Anyway, I had, by that time, already contributed to their UK non-profits. I don't normally patronise the brand, not thinking the flavour is up to much as well as being rather agin mega-globalised coffee chains. I do try to keep up with their hype, however, and so I was interested to see that the reports that the company's panjandrums were so upset by the prime minister's recent criticisms of their non-tax policies that they were threatening to reduce investment in the UK, were quite misplaced. Well, indeed, such a stance would have been a poor reading of the national mood.
But why not reduce (or stop) investment? Indeed, why not leave the UK altogether: why not go somewhere else and pay voluntary taxes there? It must be something they think about. Personally, I think this would be a double benefit to the UK: raising the proportion of companies that pay appropriate tax on earnings, and improving the taste of the average cup of coffee. A Win-Win outcome to rival that of 30 years ago when prime minister Muldoon said the migration from NZ to Oz was raising the IQ of both countries.
Respond