Starbucks Plans to Double Number of Stores in Thailand

[TotallyOz]

I love my Skinny Vanilla Latte. The cost is high though both in the USA and in Thailand. When I saw my first Starbucks in Pattaya, I didn't think they would succeed as they were so much more expensive than other places but they did.

 

I remember years back, I went there every morning to use the Internet when I lived in the Mosaik and the Internet sucked in my apartment. The cost for the net was really high as well but it was worth it for me.

[NIrishGuy]

I wonder will they decide to pay an tax in Thailand or just have a go at raping that country too just like they're doing here in the UK ( although to be fair I blame the Government more than Starbucks perhaps for putting in place rules which allow them to do it )

 

And also I think for a coffee chain such as Starbucks to charge for wifi in this day and age when it is expected and assumed to be free in so many places and especially after what they do charge is verging on criminal and personally I'd see them in hell first before I'd give them it.

 

And as for this new marketing bulllshit of asking your first name and writing it on your cup and then calling you up by your first name as they're your "personal frend" - screw that, I'll just wait at the counter like I always did and "here's your coffee Sir" will do nicely thanks - Americianism gone mad.

 

So, they're a "friend" who charges you for a slow, poor connection wifi and over charges you for your coffee - some friend, I think I'll stick to the independents where I can thanks where REAL service actually means something still.

[KhorTose]

Starbucks has been highly successful and they are not cheap.  They have a great employee program and employees have never tried to unionize because of it.  Sorry you don't like this particular American company, but rest assured that based on results, you are almost totally alone in this dislike.

[NIrishGuy]

Khortose I'm not sure where you reside but I can assure you that Starbucks name is generally mud here in the UK of late and I am absolutely not alone in my dislike of them or their morally questionable ( but I accept fully legal) tax avoidance practices.

 

That's not to say that they don't have a following and are profitable, but I can assure you my thoughts on them are not restricted to just myself.

 

To the point where a UK wide public boycott was called for and instigated in Dec 2012 / Jan 13 in tge UK and urgent talks were held by Starbucks management and the UK Government which prompted Starbucks to immediately VOLUNTEER to pay an impromptu £20 million pounds in UK corporation tax in January of this year - not many firms would do that unless under direct PR and sales pressure from their customers and it should be noted that amount paid is still only a fraction of the money they WOULD have been due to be paid if they hadn't of moved their profits offshore in order to avoid UK Corporation tax.

 

Source : type in Starbucks and UK tax to google and there's a mountain of pages of current info about all of the above ( so maybe not quite just me thinking that after all it seems perhaps eh? )

[Guest scottishguy]

There has certainly been a lot of adverse publicity in the UK re the tax avoidance issue - whether it impacts on sales is another matter.

 

Fortunately, I detest coffee anyway so I have no moral dilemma on this.

[bkkguy]

 a UK wide public boycott was called for and instigated in Dec 2012 / Jan 13

 

so we have one group of UK taxable entities, most of whom claim some or all of the deductions and benefits available to them under UK tax law, boycotting another UK taxable entity for claiming some or all of the deductions and benefits available to them under UK tax law

 

you are so willing to publicly castigate Starbucks, perhaps you will just as publicly tell us exactly what legal tax deductions and benefits you have claimed or received over the past 10 years and what tax reduction this resulted in for you as an actual amount or as a percentage?

 

at least the directors of Starbucks can claim fiduciary duty, how do you justify your "raping [the] country" by claiming your legal tax deductions and benefits?

 

and perhaps you could explain to us when exactly you think the actions of a taxable entity like yourself or Starbucks strictly following the tax law becomes "morally questionable" - when it is more than you think you can rort the system by thus making it unfair?

 

and apart from some handwaving about closing "tax havens" what exactly is the government doing about changing the tax laws to prevent this type of "rape"?  why should they bother when they can achieve such results with trial by witch hunt in the media - traditional and new!

 

bkkguy

[NIrishGuy]

Well I think for an organisation the size and scale of Starbucks to effectively set up their accounts to ensure that they pay NO tax in the Country in which they trade is morally questionable, I have accepted what they are are doing is perfectly legal and I don't disagree with you that that's something the Government should address.

 

However we're not talking about a Company paying slightly less tax here but going out of their way to pay absolutely none by setting up complex accounting procedures to enable them to totally avoid paying UK tax in the country where they genuinely made their profit.

 

Whilst i again absolutely concede they have done nothing illegal I do believe for an organisation of that size who talk so much about their wonderful social responsibly to the communities in which trade etc that is somewhat hypocritical.

 

And to answer your question I pay whatever my accountant tells me to pay tax wise and I don't mean by that that they go on some round the houses tax avoidance scheme but merely take income versus costs, work out the tax bill and I pay it.

 

And I do understand your point and don't entirely disagree with you that Starbucks and other corporations got it in the neck simply for following ( and playing) the rules but I do also believe they went far and away over the norm in order to avoid tax that would normally have been due when a company posts their annual profits and THAT to me for a company with such a strong PR message about their social responsibility is the morally questionable part.

[Guest scottishguy]

Of course Starbucks are legally entitled to minimise the tax they pay, and I don't see where NIrish has stated anything to the contrary.

 

However, for bkkguy to equate the "UK public" -  the vast majority of whom are taxed at source via our  Pay- As-You-Earn tax collection scheme and who have no recourse to any tax planning advice whatsoever - with a fantasically wealthy operation which employs high-priced tax lawyers solely to find loopholes to exploit, is (in my opinion) rather spurious.

[TotallyOz]

Google does the same thing in the USA to avoid paying more US taxes. They have set up a corporate structure in which money is paid to companies overseas and the end result is less US taxes.

 

Any company that does this is doing it by taking advantage of existing loopholes. That is not the companies fault. And, I doubt this will change as the ones that have invested in the companies success are usually the ones making the decision (lawmakers).

[bkkguy]

However, for bkkguy to equate the "UK public" -  the vast majority of whom are taxed at source via our  Pay- As-You-Earn tax collection scheme and who have no recourse to any tax planning advice whatsoever - with a fantasically wealthy operation which employs high-priced tax lawyers solely to find loopholes to exploit, is (in my opinion) rather spurious.

 

forgive my ignorance, for more than 30 years in Australia and in Thailand I was a PAYE employee and I received some automatic benefits and could claim other benefits quite easily on my annual tax return submission without needing recourse to any tax planning advice - if the UK tax system is so much more opaque or difficult for the average tax payer then perhaps this is again something the government needs to address

 

obviously it is not a problem for NIrish - he admits has his own private source of tax planning advice so does this put him at an unfair advantage over the huddled PAYE masses? how much tax planning advise does he have to receive before it is "morally reprehensible"?

 

again my point is you and NIrish seem want to make some arbitrary decision as to what is "fantasically wealthy" and what is ""raping [the] country" - I am just looking for some guidelines on where to draw the line in the sand, and who gets to decide and who is excluded from the discussion, is it just you and NIrish? PAYE taxpayers who do not rort the system, ones who rort the system for less than 100 pounds? less than a 1,000 pounds?  the shareholders of some of these "fantasically wealthy" companies? the government?

 

bkkguy

[Guest scottishguy]

bkkguy - in the first place I did not criticise Starbucks for anything, in fact I said "Of course Starbucks are legally entitled to minimise the tax they pay". 

 

However, you are doing the same thing again in your latest response - you are conflating a PAYE earner (e.g Mrs Mopp, the hospital cleaner) with no access to expert Tax Planning, and who's maybe claiming a few quid a week on Child Tax Credit with a multi-billion dollar tax avoidance operation overseen and informed by batteries of highly-paid Tax lawyers. 

 

I'm sorry - but in my opinion it's a ridiculous comparison. You seem to be taking the view that claiming (say) £500 a year on tax credits which are an entitlement is equitable to a multinational Company actively and deliberately seeking out legislative loopholes to avoid £millions. Sorry, I don't buy that.

 

Obviously I do not know what level of Tax advice NIrish receives from the Chartered Accountant he is required by law to hire (assuming he operates a Limited Company) - but I'm willing to bet that whilst it may trump Mrs Mopp the hospital cleaner,  it is a far cry from the level Starbucks receives.  If that's not the case and NIrish's business is actually in the Starbucks turnover league he will no doubt tell us - and hopefully bung us a few grand not to shop him to the authorities.

[NIrishGuy]

My business is of course irrelevant to this discussion, it's nothing special, nor is it's turnover or is the tax advice, as in fact it's not so much tax advice as "there's you're tax bill, pay it" and I'm guessing my accountant spends about 20 minutes a year thinking about that if I'm lucky.

 

Anyway, as I say that's irrelevant as the point is that for ANY company to go out of their way paying legions of accountants all to ensure that they don't pay ANY tax in the country in which they operate WHILST AT THE SAME TIME TELLING US HOW SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE THEY ARE is to me totally disingenuous to say the least and if Starbucks didn't think they were being just a little bit sneaky then I'm sure they would have simply said "look, screw the lot of you, it's all totally legal and if you don't like it TOUGH" - but they didn't do that, on news of their tax avoidance scheme becoming public they immediately paid £20 million out to avoid the bad PR as even they were aware it looked shabby. And even if they didn't do that the fact that the public did mount a campaign against them then this then shows that the public thought it appeared shabby - which was my original point that no, I am NOT the only person that thinks their actions were less that suitable for such a large organisation. 

[ceejay]

And, at the same time that they entered into talks with the UK government that ended in their making this tax payment, this company with a "great employment program" presented their employees with a new contract that cut paid breaks, sick leave and maternity benefits. Some were told to sign it or lose their jobs. All were ordered not to discuss it with the press.

[Guest anonone]

I am all for having some more coffee options in Thailand...especially if they open up before 9AM.  LOL

Starbucks is far from my favorite, but beats the instant usually on offer in the Thai places.

 

As for their tax shenanigans, I do not know a lot about it.  Companies do need to be careful when they promote themselves as socially responsible, as it does tend to come back and bite them in the ass when someone disagrees with their stance on a particular concern.

 

Just a while back I was impressed with their stance on an issue dear to my heart....

 

Starbucks CEO defends equal marriage backing and tells unhappy shareholder to sell stock

 

 

http://www.gaythailand.com/forums/topic/8747-starbucks-ceo-defends-equal-marriage-backing-and-tells-unhappy-shareholder-to-sell-stock/

[Guest fountainhall]

Living in Thailand, I visit Starbucks quite a lot. Recently, though, I have become very pissed off at the local franchise holder (I assume it's a franchise operation and not a direct ownership). One of the joys of Thailand is its fresh orange juice. Starbucks used to sell a plastic tumbler for Bt. 60 - outside on the street the same amount would cost around Bt. 20! Starting about 6 months ago, I noticed that this juice was being diluted with processed juice. There was still just enough original flavour, but someone was cheapening the product. Then about a couple of months ago, the 'original' juice disappeared form the shelves. In its place is bottled processed muck billed as Valencia orange juice which retails for, I recall, Bt. 85!

 

I wrote to Starbucks here and complained. Thai orange juice is inexpensive and available everywhere. Why change to bland, near-tasteless imported juice? I got a reply from the local media rep saying they had become concerned at the quality of the local product and decided to provide a product with guaranteed reliability and consistency!!! I wrote back saying that if there was a quality issue, the simple answer would be to change suppliers - not abandon the product and replace it with an inferior imported one at a 40%+ increase in price. I got no reply.

 

I am now writing to Seattle HQ!

[KhorTose]

I don't need the references to the tax situation in the UK. I regularly read the Guardian and they have had tons of information on corporate tax avoidance and the many other companies that are mentioned, as well as, the laws passed by your MPs that protect their actions. This is not just a problem in the UK, but in the US and other places in the world. A company is taxed where it is has it headquarters by international trade agreements. I completely agree that this is a bad policy and should be changed, but it is not fair to single out Starbucks. Nor do i think it is appropriate to say friendliness and customer service is "Americanism gone wild".

As to where I came from, it is the USA's Emerald City, better know as Seattle, the home of Starbucks, Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon.com, etc. etc. etc. I am very surprised about what ceejay wrote. I have not read about this in the Guardian, and this is the complete opposite of how their employees are treated in the US. Starbucks has been listed for years as one of the best companies to work for by Forbes, and they have helped thousands of their employees get a college education. They have contributed heavily to the Seattle community, established worldwide corporate giving projects, and set up fair trade coffee groups of farmers so that they, not the middle man, gets the majority of the coffee price. As the original home of Greenpeace, the super liberal majority of Seattle has had very good relations with this company, but oddly not with its owner Howard Schultz who has twice ran afoul of public opinion.

You can't please everyone, and all I can say---again--is that Starbucks is surely doing something right. It charges the highest prices of any coffee company in the world, but it continues to grow and show great profits. Maybe some of the many many corporation that are no longer owned by the citizens of the UK would still be around if they had adopted some of that "Americanism gone wild".

[NIrishGuy]

So, we're conceding "not just me thinks that way then" I hope now - good, lets move on.

 

And speaking personally I don't find it "friendly" for a firm to ask my first name to write on a coffee cup so they can call my first name and "appear" to sound friendly, its pure PR bullshit - and THAT was the "Americanism gone mad" to which I was referring, equivalent to the fake "have a nice day" some Americans seem to be so fond of now.

 

Somehow my coffee always seemed to manage to get to my table long before they knew my first name and I'm guessing it still will in the future when this policy fades out as it surely will.

 

And as for them being a very successful company for their shareholders or that there is no doubt - not hard I guess when as I said you're paying NO tax in the many countries in which you trade and simply taking your profits out the door and contributing nothing in terms of tax contributions to the countries where your profits are actually coming from - whether that is legal or not it is still questionable morally for a company who shout so

much about corporate ethics - and their admission in paying an immediate £20 million over to the UK tax man shows THEY know this to be true also in terms of how it looks.

 

I ( like all the other people here in the UK who expressed their opinion - so not just me then) stand by my post as you will no doubt yours as is your right - but likewise mine too.

[KhorTose]

So, we're conceding "not just me thinks that way then" I hope now - good, lets move on.

That was never said even indirectly--selective reading?

 

And speaking personally I don't find it "friendly" for a firm to ask my first name to write on a coffee cup so they can call my first name and "appear" to sound friendly, its pure PR bullshit - and THAT was the "Americanism gone mad" to which I was referring, equivalent to the fake "have a nice day" some Americans seem to be so fond of now.

Yes it is horrible to be so friendly to customers. How is your unemployment at the moment with all you industry gone?

 

 

much about corporate ethics - and their admission in paying an immediate £20 million over to the UK tax man shows THEY know this to be true also in terms of how it looks.

A funny way to look at it as no other company has offered to do that. Looks to me like they are trying to prove they are socially responsible.

 

I ( like all the other people here in the UK who expressed their opinion - so not just me then) stand by my post as you will no doubt yours as is your right - but likewise mine too.

No doubt and Starbucks will continue to be the most successful coffee company in the world.

[NIrishGuy]

 

No not selective reading at all.

[NIrishGuy]

[quote name="KhorTose"

 

Yes it is horrible to be so friendly to customers. How is your unemployment at the moment with all you industry gone?

 

Well if you consider false empty gestures that are implemented and designed solely to generate more sales a sign of friendliness knock yoursd going there, I consider it false bulllshit and it doesn't impress me one bit - or most of the UK public too as the sales gimmick it wasn't well received across the UK in general, but as I say if empty gestures are what floats your boat and makes you think the person selling you your coffee is your friend good for you.

[NIrishGuy]

[quote name="KhorTose"

A funny way to look at it as no other company has offered to do that. Looks to me like they are trying to prove they are socially responsible.

 

No doubt and Starbucks will continue to be the most successful coffee company in the world.

 

Well for a man that reads the Guardian I'm sure you're fully aware that the US and UK unemployment are also most identical at 7.9 and 7.5% respectively and the US has only just dropped last month so you're comment about unemployment is a bit ridiculous and mean spirited to I would add and of course if companies such as Starbucks actually paid their fair share of local taxes without employing teams of tax lawyers to avoid doing just that then OUR economy and thus our unemployment figures would I presume be even less - so yes thanks Starbucks, google, amazon etc etc for that - very socially responsible of you all - NOT !

 

And as for continuing to be the most successful company in the world I guess if you measure success in profit then perhaps but for a company that prides itself and tells us all about great they are on social responsibly I would have though striving for a balance and success in all areas of their business might have been a better indicator of their success or otherwise.

 

You talk of profit reminds me of the shareholder who stood up at the AGM to question their stance on marriage equality "in case it hurt sales with the Christian Right" - thankfully their CEO got it right that time and basically told him profit isn't everything in life and if he didn't like it could cash in his shares, lets hope they take a similar view now to their tax obligations in try counties in which they trade and start paying their fair share - enjoy your coffee, I'll pass for now thanks.

[KhorTose]

You talk of profit reminds me of the shareholder who stood up at the AGM to question their stance on marriage equality "in case it hurt sales with the Christian Right" - thankfully their CEO got it right that time and basically told him profit isn't everything in life and if he didn't like it could cash in his shares, lets hope they take a similar view now to their tax obligations in try counties in which they trade and start paying their fair share - enjoy your coffee, I'll pass for now thanks.

That was the most successful coffee company, and yes they are one of the most socially responsible companies around. Your example is perfect because that is exactly what happened at the Starbucks general meeting where Schultz told the stockholder who said that, that he could sell his stock if he was worried about that. Thanks for the citation, I had forgotten about that. Oh the subject was Starbucks tolerance for Gay employees and giving their partners health benefits.

Your unemployment is 7.8 and staying even, ours is going down. In Northern (Irish) Ireland it is 8.5%.

[Guest]

I don't care how much tax Starbucks pay. 

Firstly, governments are utterly clueless when it comes to spending money efficiently, so they should look at their own waste first.

Secondly, considering such waste, all individuals and corporations almost have a moral duty to minimise their tax by legal means.  It's certainly the rational thing to do.  If socialists want to be irrational, let them.

 

What does matter is their coffee shops.  Nothing special. 

In Thailand, I need to sign up for a month (or something daft like that ?) to use their wifi.   Other shops, such as Gafae in Pattaya can be vastly superior in every respect.  I'm pleased to support them.

[Guest fountainhall]

I think the Starbucks in Silom Complex should become a go-go bar. Some of the waiters there are really cute!! 

[Guest painai]

I go to Starbucks for the coffee, period.  I don't use the internet there, I have fast WiFi in my apartment. The coffee in Thailand sucks big time.  So many places have the same crap, only at Starbucks can I get genuine coffee that I acually like.  The Starbucks in TukCom on Pattaya Tai even keeps your personal cup for you and gives you a 10 baht discount for doing it. If you're really  looking for value, they do have the Bangkok Post, Nation and International Tribune available to read for free.  Again, I only go for the coffee.