'We lost everything gambling on shares'

BillJones

mark88man wrote: »

Or perhaps they were normal, possibly high functioning, people who were led into the war zone and abandoned by Barclays

This view that adults are not responsible for their own stupid decisions is sadly all too common nowadays.

Archi_Bald

mark88man wrote: »

Jeff Bezos - head of Amazon, so not a bad capitalist, is a prime example of a company that looks to balance profit and customer priority (he also gets a lot of stick for not being more aggressive with pricing - yet he views excessive profit as not customer friendly)

I am beginning to understand why you think people need "a lawyer, CAB and Martin Lewis to not get shafted one way or another" if you think so positively of Jeff Bezos, whose company pays little regard to their workers or to paying their fair share of taxes. Unless I misunderstand once more what you mean.

atush

mark88man wrote: »

I don't think we are too far apart atush.


I agree they were fools, but I disagree that Barclays played them with a straight bat


Humorously, your quote could equally be applied to Lehman / ... and the only difference was the moral hazard that Joe Public wasn't going to get baled out by the public.


PPI "victims" are getting compensated - I see this as a worse abuse

I guess I don't agree because I have a marketmaster acct, and have had for decades. And when I began trading (with the child benefit I received) I was a beginner. And i did not use leverage, as I knew that would be unwise with my level of knowledge at the time.

At no time then or now has Barclays tried to entice me to trade above my risk level by using leverage.

atush

mark88man wrote: »

I do agree with you, it is about personal responsibility, YET


is there no such thing as corporate responsibility - for me it is the constant barrage of "not our problem" and "how much can we get" from large corporates that is a distortion of the business ethics and CSR they proclaim


Jeff Bezos - head of Amazon, so not a bad capitalist, is a prime example of a company that looks to balance profit and customer priority (he also gets a lot of stick for not being more aggressive with pricing - yet he views excessive profit as not customer friendly)

Remind me, on sales of over a billion how much tax did Amazon pay HMRC last year?

puk999

mark88man wrote: »

PPI "victims" are getting compensated - I see this as a worse abuse

PPI is different. That was coerced into being accepted, mis-sold, or bundled without knowledge. A lot of recipients didn't have a clue. Lots of people who get loans have no financial savvy and a lot need to be protected from extra things being bundled without their knowledge.

This discussion is about people who decided to trade directly in shares. The mere opening of a share account is an assertion that they think they're financially responsible. Once opened, the tool they abused wasn't coerced upon them.

Scarpacci

atush wrote: »

Remind me, on sales of over a billion how much tax did Amazon pay HMRC last year?

Amazon paid a lot of tax to HMRC on their sales of over a billion. The actual tax on sales, VAT, is applied on all orders shipped to the UK and goes to HMRC - whether the company is registered in Luxembourg or not. Apart from on some digital products and services, which EU law is changing on, it should make no difference VAT-wise whether Amazon's corporation is UK or Luxembourg based. VAT is by far the more important tax.

It's only corporation tax which isn't being paid in the UK, but in Luxembourg since that's where the corporation exists. Until we leave the EU, that situation is unlikely to change. I'm not defending Jeff Bezos as some superior capitalist, but the Amazon tax situation has been over-hyped in the media. A central tenet of the EU is the ability for companies to operate across borders and as long as these corporations are deemed to exist in one place and are taxed in one territory, there's really not much to criticise about Amazon's setup.

Archi_Bald

This is going somewhat off topic now but I can't resist commenting on Amazon yet again

Scarpacci wrote: »

Until we leave the EU, that situation is unlikely to change.

yep, and the last thing that will happen then is that Amazon will pay corporation more tax in the UK. They can build, or use, a distribution centre that ships to the UK from outside the UK tax jurisdiction, and can staff it with even cheaper labour than they get in Wales. It's ever so short sighted to think revenue from corporation tax will increase by leaving the EU.

Scarpacci wrote: »

there's really not much to criticise about Amazon's setup.

you wouldn't criticise their working practices? Did you see the Panorma report, or read employee and undercover journalist reports about them?

mark55man

puk999 wrote: »

PPI is different. That was coerced into being accepted, mis-sold, or bundled without knowledge. A lot of recipients didn't have a clue. Lots of people who get loans have no financial savvy and a lot need to be protected from extra things being bundled without their knowledge.

This discussion is about people who decided to trade directly in shares. The mere opening of a share account is an assertion that they think they're financially responsible. Once opened, the tool they abused wasn't coerced upon them.

Good point.


To Archi Bald - also good point, but wrt Panorama and Investigative journalism - sorry I believe them even less than most others

atush

Amazon paid a lot of tax to HMRC on their sales of over a billion. The actual tax on sales, VAT, is applied on all orders shipped to the UK and goes to HMRC - whether the company is registered in Luxembourg or not.

So, you are saying they pay TAX by handing over VAT, that they charge their customers on HMRC's behalf? that isn't them paying tax, it is their customer's paying tax. None of it comes from amazon's tightly locked coffer's

grey_gym_sock

Mirno wrote: »

what more do banks need to do? Have a member of staff at every branch making sure customers don't run with scissors?

clearly that would be unworkable. the only safe approach is to ban both scissors and and running altogether. have metal detectors at the door of the bank. and security guards to taser anybody who tries to run. it's the future!