Amazon £7bn sales, but no tax! Should we boycott Amazon this Christmas?

Treevo

Doc_N wrote: »

You do that..........just don't be surprised when your local services (GP, hospital, library, road repairs etc) close down or get even worse because companies like Amazon, Boots and Starbucks decide they don't like contributing towards UK taxes.

Or when VAT, fuel and other taxes have to rise to compensate for the gap left by the likes of those three tax avoiders and their ilk.

To answer this and your above post - it's as ethical as having an ISA.

Treevo

Chickabiddybex wrote: »

Wow, I'm not outraged! I'm not even boycotting Amazon. I don't think you fully understand the situation. The companies are making money in the UK and paying pittance in Luxembourg because their taxes are lower but they base their offices there. No one makes money in Luxembourg and then pays taxes in the UK.
Or some businesses set up a new company which they still own, but base it in Luxembourg and ensure its the only one making profit. If Starbucks puts a bean seller company in Luxembourg and then sell the beans to themselves in the UK for very expensive prices then they don't even make any profit in the UK to pay taxes on! It's all in the bean company they set up. In Luxembourg.
Please don't insinuate I don't understand what I'm talking about simply because you phrase your questions poorly and also please don't imply I am boycotting businesses I'm not or say I'm outraged when again, I am not. I'd really appreciate it

You clearly don't understand. You're very reactionist though so well done for that.

I prefer calm understanding of reality myself, but it takes all sorts I suppose.

Doc_N

Treevo wrote: »

You clearly don't understand. You're very reactionist though so well done for that.

I prefer calm understanding of reality myself, but it takes all sorts I suppose.

Treevo wrote: »

To answer this and your above post - it's as ethical as having an ISA.

Sorry, Treevo - you've very clearly established in your posts here that it's you that doesn't understand this issue - not others. I think you need to read up a bit on the way that UK and multinational companies are taxed.

And your ISA point? That's another ludicrous argument. ISAs were introduced and promoted by the government in 1999 to encourage people to save money. How does that in any way relate to deliberate and aggressive tax avoidance which even David Cameron has slammed.

Chickabiddybex

Treevo wrote: »

You clearly don't understand. You're very reactionist though so well done for that.

I prefer calm understanding of reality myself, but it takes all sorts I suppose.

How patronising.
Anyway, what is it about my original point that you disagree with so much? Maybe I can clarify something? Do you not agree that Boots and Starbucks are often more expensive than their competitors? Do you not agree that the companies avoid taxes in the UK in favour of countries with lower rates? I mean... what is it?

gefuller

Its not amazons fault as they are just doing what companies do and reduce tax bills. It's the governments fault for not closing tax loopholes.

Doc_N

gefuller wrote: »

Its not amazons fault as they are just doing what companies do and reduce tax bills. It's the governments fault for not closing tax loopholes.

Utter drivel! Amazon make their own choices, and they choose aggressive tax avoidance. They don't have to.

On your argument, if the government doesn't close a technical loophole that allows rapists to escape conviction, "it's not the rapist's fault as they are just doing what rapists do".

Treevo

Doc_N wrote: »

Utter drivel! Amazon make their own choices, and they choose aggressive tax avoidance. They don't have to.

On your argument, if the government doesn't close a technical loophole that allows rapists to escape conviction, "it's not the rapist's fault as they are just doing what rapists do".

So you're now equating perfectly legal tax avoidance (not aggressive tax avoidance by any means) with rape.

That's beyond disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Doc_N

Treevo wrote: »

So you're now equating perfectly legal tax avoidance (not aggressive tax avoidance by any means) with rape.

That's beyond disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Not sure why you think it's 'disgusting' to make the point - it's the principle that's being discussed here, not the crime itself. Besides which, some companies are effectively raping the UK treasury of payments that are morally and ethically due. If Amazon don't have morals or ethics, I think we need to know that, and publicise it accordingly.

And 'not aggressive tax avoidance by any means'? How about this report in the Telegraph of recent comments by the Public Accounts Committe of the House of Commons:

Andrew Cecil, head of public policy at Amazon, was lambasted by Mrs Hodge for avoiding the Committee’s questions. She said she would “summon” Amazon’s most senior executives as a matter of priority to make up for Mr Cecil’s “unacceptable nonsence.”

Despite having its warehouses in the Uk and employing 15,000 people, Amazon drives all of its sales through Luxembourg.

“Your entire business is here but you pay no tax here and that really riles us,” said Mrs Hodge, who accused Mr Cecil of being clearly not “credible”.


I think that's pretty aggressive by normal standards, but maybe not by Amazon's own low standards.

DimitrisX

Try the browser add-on called Invisible hand (a pun on Adam Smith's free market invisible hand). It's a very reliable tool that pops a toolbar on top of the browser when you visit amazon product pages and will tell you if and where the product can be found cheaper. It has saved me tons of money!

koopa_troopa

Doc_N wrote: »

Despite having its warehouses in the Uk and employing 15,000 people, Amazon drives all of its sales through Luxembourg.

“Your entire business is here but you pay no tax here and that really riles us,” said Mrs Hodge, who accused Mr Cecil of being clearly not “credible”.


I think that's pretty aggressive by normal standards, but maybe not by Amazon's own low standards.

Telegraph: Margaret Hodge's family company pays just 0.01pc tax on £2.1bn of business generated in the UK

Margaret Hodge, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, is facing embarrassing revelations over the tax affairs of her family company just days before she is due to lead the grilling of US companies over controversial tax arrangements.

She's just looking out for t'working t'man, honest guv'nor!

What is tax in essence? It's government-sanctioned theft of private wealth. Ultimately if you tax "Big Business" it is subsequently paid by the employee and the end consumer.

Milton Friedman - The Free Lunch Myth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmqoCHR14n8