Coca-Cola is an evil company, so I’m not surprised. All they had to do was make cola, and be cool. Instead they operated like a criminal cartel, murdered labor activists in third world countries, exploited workers, bribed politicians, and evaded taxes. They should crumble under the weight of their crimes. If the government bails them out then we should all protest heavily.
I think it would be fair to destroy product you see in stores. something to weaken plastic on the outside of bottles, or shaking them. things that make product unsellable, or make it make a mess.
these companies are beyond evil, clearly simple “im not buying this” doesn’t work; retailers must be punished for stocking this shit.
Why would making a mess at a random 7-11 hurt Coca Cola in any way? What is the logic here?
it would become a liability to stock that shit.
And small corner stores lose money?
If you want to do something, go slash the tires of Coca Cola execs. Or put some sugar in the tank of their private jet
Your motivation is honorable, but this plan would only impact innocent retail employees and would not hurt Coca-Cola at all. I like your initiative, though.
their hours will be spent cleaning rather than doing the shit they originally needed to do. stores will need to hire more workers (and maybe security. but still) to keep the same standard. is wiping up cola really worse than collecting carts at 40c+?
Just an fyi…the coke product is just one of several hundred brands Coca-Cola owns. Sure your plan could work, but to be more effective, one should target more of their brands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Coca-Cola_brands?wprov=sfla1
Huh, that probably explains why Minute Maid juices have so much added sugar.
If it’s on retail shelves, Coke already has their money. You have to aim higher.
Some retail stores now operate on a model where they essentially rent shelf space to wholesalers, who are responsible for stocking the shelves and keep all the money from sales of their product.
they have their money once. will they have it again? and again? and after this KEEPS happening?
You gotta corrupt the supply chain then. Shaking bottles in a store isn’t gonna do shit.
see, reducing demand at a retailer level is a lot easier to democratize and give kids to do so they feel empowered. plus it makes them think about OTHER products that are associated with awful shit. maybe, someday, I could even go grocery shopping without having to google every single god damn thing I put in my cart!
So they jack up thr prices of their products
How much can they jack up their prices? It’s already like $10 USD for a 12pk of soda.
In the machine where i work they are $5 for one 12oz can
Where you work is the problem lol, not coke in this instance. A can is like 50 cents
Are you, by chance, a Sherpa stationed half way up Mt Everest?
The middle man is taking you for a ride there. Soda is not that expensive.
deleted by creator
I thought child slaves are good because more profit? /s
Water is not problematic (except for at least four fifths of bottled water)
Removed by mod
You know, maybe all those hippies that have been home brewing their sodas lately have the right idea
You should try my craft fizzes. I’ve made a custom… ok I’ve already made myself want to jump off a bridge.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
You assume they’re paying it back and don’t do some pittance of a public service instead.
This article is basically their public flogging, they’ve paid their dues and can reenter society
For this to be criminal it’d probably require intent to be proven which is difficult without a “smoking gun” of an email being like “do this to avoid taxes or be fired”- CEO. For it just to be civil fines is a lot simpler to show. Their inevitable appeal and potential reduction in fine is a different issue.
deleted by creator
Sure but that’s a lot harder to prove.
deleted by creator
Which is hilarious because ignorance is not a defence for poor people.
the poor are not, according to the american criminal system; ‘people’. mutually exclusive categories.
It almost sounds like you’re saying corporations are not people. Don’t let the conservatives hear you say that.
With a wink and a nudge, transactions are often structured to shift profits from high-tax countries to low-tax countries to cut their tax bills. The most popular target for transfer pricing abuse is intangible property, including licenses for manufacturing, distribution, sale, marketing, and promotion of products in overseas markets. Since intangible property doesn’t really have a physical home—unlike, say, real estate—it’s easy to transfer it to countries that offer certain benefits, including more favorable tax treatment. (That’s what’s in dispute in the Coca-Cola case.)
Ugh
The intangible property for coke is a secret recipe that is preserved in some vault in the US. There’s no transfer of IP here and that’s not what’s in dispute.
The facts are centred around the profitability of concentrate producers that earn the super profits. Operating entities and the US makes a slim margin.
You can read a better informed analysis here.
The dispute centres on Coke subsidiaries in Ireland, Brazil, Eswatini and four other countries that manufacture concentrate, the syrup that gets mixed with carbonated water to make drinks such as Coca-Cola, Fanta and Sprite. The subsidiaries sit between the US parent company, which owns the brands, and the bottling companies that make the final product.
The company routinely shifted production of concentrate to countries with favourable tax rates, the US tax court found. The subsidiary in Ireland, which had a tax rate as low as 1.4 per cent, at one point shipped to bottlers in 90 countries.
Unlike independent contract manufacturers, which typically have low margins, an IRS analysis found these Coke subsidiaries were unusually profitable — earning a return on assets two-and-a-half times that of the US parent company that owns the iconic brands. By controlling how much the subsidiaries must pay other parts of the Coke network for use of the brands and marketing, and by setting the prices they can charge bottlers, Coke itself in effect decided their profitability, the court heard.
Those profit levels were “astronomical”, Judge Albert Lauber wrote in an initial ruling in 2020.
The company routinely shifted production of concentrate to countries with favourable tax rates
Manufacturing is different than IP transfers.
the US parent company that owns the iconic brands. By controlling how much the subsidiaries must pay other parts of the Coke network for use of the brands and marketing, and by setting the prices they can charge bottlers, Coke itself in effect decided their profitability, the court heard
IP is owned by the US. What they’re describing is transfer pricing. Subsidiaries are owned by coke hence by definition coke sets the prices under which the US charges for their IP. It’s tax advantageous to charge a low amount to shift profits to low tax jurisdictions.
Numbers look massive but overall not large enough. Coke is gigantic and the dispute spans multiple years. The IRS hasn’t always covered themselves in glory and they may still fumble a technical aspect on the burden of proof.
Interesting to see it unfold but coke has a history of environmental, business and humane malpractices. This is just another outcome of such business model.
Did you know it doesn’t even have cocaine in it anymore? What a ripoff!
Coca Cola ensured that international drug laws grant them an exception to use real coca leaves (with the cocaine extracted from them first). Oddly enough, they could still make their cola taste the same without the leaves. The reason they still use them is because they likely wouldn’t be allowed to call it “coca” cola it it had no coca leaves. The name was so recognizable that they asked for an exception to drug laws rather than change the name of their drink.
Sounds like an excuse to extract cocaine to me
Eh, works for me. BRB, making a new product called coca tea, for the… uh… tea.
The other reason is they make a good profit selling medical cocaine.
Branding is one helluva drug
When did they quit putting cocaine it? If I’d known that then I wouldn’t have been buying it anymore!
Good.
How many people have diabetes because of their Coca-Cola addiction? How many people are overweight and hate their bodies because of all of the non-nutritious sugars they have drank?
And they have the audacity to not only charge several dollars a pop for their sodas, but to also bottle water in the exact same plant and charge the exact same price for the water they have bottled that they do for their sodas.
Externalities with no direct impact on the company? No way! Milton Friedman assured me that capitalism was perfectly balanced with 0 exploits!
Don’t blame a soda company of you being fat and chugging 130 calories down 12 ounces at a time. Own up to your own shit. “This item tastes good. I blame it for ne being unhealthy because I won’t stop eating/drinking too much of it”
In isolation that is true, but it’s not a fair game. Own up to your own shit when They lobby against restrictions in schools to target children with their addictive substances. They have marketing budgets in the hundreds of millions to convince us one more won’t hurt. They employ psychologists to come up with the most manipulative strategys.
It’s not a level playing field.
several dollars a pop
Nice.
Thank you friend
They’ll pay up… Pay up to the wealth defense industry.
Now do Cargill, Tyson, etc al.
I am sure they totally haven’t made any money off the taxes they didn’t pay. I’d love to steal a million dollars and only get fined a million dollars 10 years later!
The IRS charges interest and penalties.
But the IRS will come after meeee! /s
I love the response, “But this could mean we’d have to pay more!”
… and?
And how many arrests?
You’re not going to believe this, but it turns out that no one knew this was happening - they’re all completely innocent! As long as they promise not to do anything immoral ever again, they’re fine. /s
Nail them to the wall.
