Democrats’ hyper-narrative to call President Trump’s temporary travel restriction as a comprehensive Muslim ban has sent shockwaves through public opinion. Starbucks Coffee has decided to jump right on in and claim their moral superiority in order to posture themselves against President Trump.
The retail chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz, informed Starbucks and the public in a letter, stating:
Sounds compassionate, right? The one pertinent aspect they are conveniently leaving out is that Starbucks stands to make millions of dollars by specifically hiring refugees.
The United States Department of Labor offers (non-profit and for profit) businesses a tax credit for every adult refugee they hire. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) is an incentive program funded by the American taxpayer.
The tax credit could be worth up to $2,400 per individual. So, if Starbucks plans to hire 10,000 people over the next five years, they have the opportunity to make upwards of $20 million in additional profit.
The purchase of that flat-white or caramel macchiato won’t seem the same after realizing how much someone is actually paying for it.
Even though Trump supporters are calling for a boycott, the tax credit will fill the gap of lost profits.
Instead of prioritizing the 45 million U.S. citizens living in poverty, Starbucks has decided to politicize a business venture that will benefit them more than the people they are claiming to assist.
There is nothing wrong with any company taking actions to ensure its promises─ through legal means─ to shareholders and employees. However, presenting it in a veneer of virtue is morally distasteful. Starbucks’ attempt to shame President Trump and the American people is a poor emotional ploy.
Refugee resettlement is extremely lucrative. 95% of the revenue produced by refugee assistant services are subsidized by United States tax dollars. The U.S. does not get to choose from where we accept refugees from. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) selects the refugees after the U.S. State Department agrees on the number of people they are willing to take.
President Trump’s restrictions look more reasonable after considering the many factors that affect the issue.
