STARBUCKS - grounds for avoidance?

I have enjoyed a Starbucks coffee in Singapore, in cities in the US and here the UK. I even wrote to the company when Drake Circus (mall) was being built in Plymouth and suggested that the company ought to consider opening a shop there. Their response that Plymouth was not on their agenda disappointed me, but, a couple of years later, when Drake Circus was finished they had changed their mind and, now, Plymouth has two Starbucks cafes. I used to tell friends to drink there - that the mocha was good. I suppose you could say I was a Starbucks man.

So, maybe you can imagine my embarrassment and anger when I read that in its 14 years in the UK, on sales of £3 billion, Starbucks has paid Corporation Tax to the tune of just £8.6 million up until three years ago - and, during that last three years, nothing. Apparently, it is not Tax evasion as that would be illegal. It is Tax avoidance - and whilst that, sadly, is legal, in this day and age of austerity when the average man and woman is being squeezed until the pips squeak to repay the Government's deficit, I believe it's morally repugnant. That average man and woman has no choice about whether or not he or she  pays tax - it is a burden that is visited upon them in the same certain way as old age. However, we should remember that the more companies like Starbucks avoid paying tax, the more that average man and woman have to make up their shortfall. I am not naive enough to think that Starbucks is the only company to have tax accountants expert in the field of tax avoidance - which is why I believe that those companies who don't pay their share should be identified - as they are effectively thumbing their noses at us, their customers. Once we know who they are, then we can decide whether we want to give them our business (our cash) or whether we want to give it to a company who is contributing to the British economy (like Costa coffee) - because those companies help to reduce our tax burden.