59 replies to this topic

[WearyRhino]

Only two things worth buying at Starbucks - those caramel wafer thingies (which you can buy elsewhere anyway) and their coffee grinders, which are the cheapest I've seen on sale anywhere.

Actually, I need a coffee grinder. Can you recall how much they are?

[Shadow]

Actually, I need a coffee grinder. Can you recall how much they are?

As an entry for "most middle class post of the year" that's not bad

[Futtocks]

Actually, I need a coffee grinder. Can you recall how much they are?

Bought mine several years ago, so the price may have gone up, but it was (I think) about £15. It's a blade machine, not a disc one, but is perfectly fine, especially for the price.

[WearyRhino]

As an entry for "most middle class post of the year" that's not bad

Fresh ground coffee and champagne for the masses Comrade!

[WearyRhino]

Bought mine several years ago, so the price may have gone up, but it was (I think) about £15. It's a blade machine, not a disc one, but is perfectly fine, especially for the price.

Thanks good Doktor.

[gingerjon]

Stemcor pays just 0.01pc tax on £2.1bn of business generated in the UK.

Stem-who? Ask Margaret Hodge about her family company! See http://blogs.channel...-for-hodge/1915

Should go down well when yet another hypocritical Champagne Socialist has a go at Starbucks over transfer pricing and corporation tax.

Turns out the Telegraph were mistaken.

http://www.telegraph...MP-apology.html

[JohnM]

Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Oh, hang on a min, though. This should give her apoplexy!

Edited by JohnM, 13 December 2012 - 10:19 PM.

[Steve May]

Stemcor pays just 0.01pc tax on £2.1bn of business generated in the UK.

Stem-who? Ask Margaret Hodge about her family company! See http://blogs.channel...-for-hodge/1915

Should go down well when yet another hypocritical Champagne Socialist has a go at Starbucks over transfer pricing and corporation tax.

The business that Stemcor is in is inherently a low margin one, so it's easy to be mischievous and show their tax as a proportion of revenue. In reality, companies pay tax on profit and a quick look at the Stemcor accounts will tell you that they pay, nominally at least, an appropriate amount of tax.

But then again, the same could be said about Starbucks. The big question to me is where that tax is paid, and whether it is ever paid at all or simply "deferred" and forgotten about.

[Steve May]

Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Oh, hang on a min, though. This should give her apoplexy!

Yes, it should.

And that man is rather foolish IMO.

Despite the much trumpeted launch of hardware that you can hold in you hand, Google is still exceptionally dependent on revenue generated from advertising on their website. Which is a problem. If I decide to not use Starbucks I have to vary my route to work to buy a different coffee. If I decide to not use Google I make one small adjustment to my browser and Google is gone from my life forever.

The constant battle for internet companies is to provide "stickability". Something that will bring the users back time and time again. The truth is, Google actually has very little of it beyond the laziness of it's users.

[gingerjon]

Yes, it should.

And that man is rather foolish IMO.

Despite the much trumpeted launch of hardware that you can hold in you hand, Google is still exceptionally dependent on revenue generated from advertising on their website. Which is a problem. If I decide to not use Starbucks I have to vary my route to work to buy a different coffee. If I decide to not use Google I make one small adjustment to my browser and Google is gone from my life forever.

The constant battle for internet companies is to provide "stickability". Something that will bring the users back time and time again. The truth is, Google actually has very little of it beyond the laziness of it's users.

The only exception I can think of to the rule that big internet companies are beyond stupid when it comes to realising their customers have no loyalty is Amazon - and that's because they are forever tweaking their site, increasing personalisation in a useful way etc etc. And even they still have to drive prices down all the time *and* be convenient.

The problem with changing search engines is that Google works and I've yet to find another that works as well or better.

[Steve May]

The only exception I can think of to the rule that big internet companies are beyond stupid when it comes to realising their customers have no loyalty is Amazon - and that's because they are forever tweaking their site, increasing personalisation in a useful way etc etc. And even they still have to drive prices down all the time *and* be convenient.

The problem with changing search engines is that Google works and I've yet to find another that works as well or better.

I wonder if the reason is that Amazon hasn't historically been an internet company. It's a supply chain company with a neat website. Perhaps the reality of having to spend so much on actual physical stock and warehouses has kept them much more grounded than Google?

Also, you yourself buy stuff from Amazon. You are the customer. They have to care about you. Google's customers are advertisers. You are their raw material.

[JohnM]

Couple of questions I have not seen answered during the recent vilification of Starbucks
- what if any, British companies arrange their business affairs to minimise the tax they pay in other countries where they operate because by remitting profits here, they may pay less tax
- ditto other mulitinational swho operate here - Thales, Astrium, EADS, Airbus, Volkswagen, BMW, GM etc

We know the UK govt arranges its affairs to use tax havens ( see http://www.guardian....lions-avoidance and we all know that the original trust structure of the Guardian was set up by CP Scott to avoid inheritance taxes and that it was wound up in 2008 to exploit a loophole enabling them to pay zero capital gains tax on £307 million in profits.

All perfectly legal of course.

[Steve May]

we all know that the original trust structure of the Guardian was set up by CP Scott to avoid inheritance taxes and that it was wound up in 2008 to exploit a loophole enabling them to pay zero capital gains tax on £307 million in profits.

First I've heard of that John, do tell us more.

[gingerjon]

I wonder if the reason is that Amazon hasn't historically been an internet company.

I think that's a good point. It was never a dot com. It was a bookshop that didn't have a high street presence. And then later it was a book shop with a giant marketplace attached that doesn't have a high street presence.

It also avoids tax and always has done. Its DVDs used to come via Jersey.

[JohnM]

From http://www.gmgplc.co...-trust/purpose/

The Scott Trust was created in 1936 following the death of CP Scott and his son Edward in 1932. Edward’s brother John was left as the sole owner, and was faced with the threat of death duties, which would have crippled the business and jeopardised the future independence of the newspaper.To avoid this, and to secure his father’s legacy of the Manchester Guardian’s independent liberal journalism, John Scott voluntarily renounced all financial interest in the business for himself and his family, putting all his shares – worth more than £1 million at the time – into a trust.

Of course, all perfectly legal, and indeed a sensible thing to do, and something they don't hide. They are a bit more sensitive to their Cayman Isles connections, though.

[shrek]

Couple of questions I have not seen answered during the recent vilification of Starbucks
- what if any, British companies arrange their business affairs to minimise the tax they pay in other countries where they operate because by remitting profits here, they may pay less tax
- ditto other mulitinational swho operate here - Thales, Astrium, EADS, Airbus, Volkswagen, BMW, GM etc

I'd started to wonder about this, its always presented as a "win win" if Starbucks etc pay tax here then its additional money, nobody (certainly not in the news anyhow) seems to have bothered digging to see what the negative effect to the UK would be if Holland/Switzerland/whoever started to claw back there lost tax revenue from other companies.

I think that's a good point. It was never a dot com. It was a bookshop that didn't have a high street presence. And then later it was a book shop with a giant marketplace attached that doesn't have a high street presence.

It also avoids tax and always has done. Its DVDs used to come via Jersey.

The marketplace is an interesting one, and e-bay for that matter, I wonder how many people out there are up in arms about the antics of these companies whilst making a tidy profit using such tools themselves that never gets declared anywhere!

[Steve May]

From http://www.gmgplc.co...-trust/purpose/

The Scott Trust was created in 1936 following the death of CP Scott and his son Edward in 1932. Edward’s brother John was left as the sole owner, and was faced with the threat of death duties, which would have crippled the business and jeopardised the future independence of the newspaper.To avoid this, and to secure his father’s legacy of the Manchester Guardian’s independent liberal journalism, John Scott voluntarily renounced all financial interest in the business for himself and his family, putting all his shares – worth more than £1 million at the time – into a trust.

Of course, all perfectly legal, and indeed a sensible thing to do, and something they don't hide. They are a bit more sensitive to their Cayman Isles connections, though.

That's really fascinating John. You obviously know a lot about it. I'm surprised you haven't mentioned it before. Have you only just discovered it yourself?

[Steve May]

It also avoids tax and always has done. Its DVDs used to come via Jersey.

And didn't try to hide it either. I remember that they advertised the VAT avoidance as a low price offer.

[gingerjon]

And didn't try to hide it either. I remember that they advertised the VAT avoidance as a low price offer.

Indeed.

And I was one of many happy to buy my DVDs that way.

Of course, these days I just steal my music and films via illegal sites instead.

[Steve May]

Of course, these days I just steal my music and films via illegal sites instead.

Wimp.

I take musicians hostage and force them to play at knifepoint.