So you've just disproved your own argument that the prices will go up if we make them pay tax. Profits will go down if prices go up, because they will continue to price at the highest price they can get away with, which won't suddenly be 20% more than they're currently charging.I'm not advocating Starbucks avoiding paying taxes. I haven't been following your debate to be honest.
Businesses price their product at the highest price the market will bear, not the lowest price they can make and sell it for. How much tax they pay is never going to influence the retail price, merely the post-tax profits.
You didn't pose any challenge, you just said I'm forming a view on the basis of a 'snapshot' after your point about the UK Vs EU27 deficit was proven to be wrong. I've just explained why I'm not forming my view on the basis of a snapshot and that all the snapshot does is corroborate a wider trend and that, ironically, by trying to misrepresent my argument on the basis of a single post, it's you who has actually formed an erroneous opinion from a 'snapshot'.
I'll be honest, I really don't get what you're arguing now. You seemed to be implying that Starbucks were responsible for increasing spending, but now suggest that it's impossible to prove.That's why we don't, it's impossible to prove. We just look at overall spending.
This is why economics is imperfect mate, we don't know if Starbucks increase spending, we just know if we shut them down spending would fall.I'll be honest, I really don't get what you're arguing now. You seemed to be implying that Starbucks were responsible for increasing spending, but now suggest that it's impossible to prove.
Spending has increased in the past 40 years because disposable income has gone up. Spending has decreased in the past 10 years (in real terms) for the same (opposite) reason. When people switched from Tesco to Aldi, that wasn't Aldi 'increasing spending', nor was it Tesco doing anything wrong, it was people reacting to changes in their economic circumstance by spending less. And yes, now Aldi undoubtedly contribute more taxes to the economy, but Tesco contribute less.
And of course coffee sales have exploded in the past 30 years. What has happened to tea sales in the same time? Which is exactly my point. People will spend what they can on something, and companies just fight for their slice of a pie that already exists. They don't bake the pie. They don't magic more disposable income into people's pockets. If people spend money on coffee, by definition, they won't spend it on something else, and that area of the economy will suffer as a result (and hire less people, and pay less income tax).
Yes I did. You ignored it. As you always do if it doesn't fit your worldview.
Your entire case has been predicated on that snapshot. It is utterly, totally absurd.
I think you're arguing with the wrong bloke. Starbucks should pay their taxes. I never said otherwise.So you've just disproved your own argument that the prices will go up if we make them pay tax. Profits will go down if prices go up, because they will continue to price at the highest price they can get away with, which won't suddenly be 20% more than they're currently charging.
Those two things are exactly the same. If you know spending would fall, then by definition, they must increase spending.This is why economics is imperfect mate, we don't know if Starbucks increase spending, we just know if we shut them down spending would fall.
And she’s paying £120m for that.Well, we paid the midwife that delivered her, the teachers that taught her, we paid for the roads she was driven on...
Nope, we just know they occupy a space in the market, there's zero guarantee in a world without Starbucks someone else wouldn't occupy that space.Those two things are exactly the same. If you know spending would fall, then by definition, they must increase spending.
Never said you did. I'm debating this point:I think you're arguing with the wrong bloke. Starbucks should pay their taxes. I never said otherwise.
And you think the amount of coffee sold would not decline if the price goes up? Hmmmm, interesting theory which seems to have evaded the capitalist world for the past 100 years.