Amazon Customer service - Best there is

MarkBargain

AJXX wrote: »

Aren't they just making use of a legal loop hole like many other big companies do?

It's the government who should be to blame for allowing it.

Yes it might be morally wrong on Amazons part but at the end of the day they're a business and it's all about the profits.

I agree governments should sort it out. In the meantime, I try to steer clear of big companies who reportedly pay little tax. The real losers are our young people, faced with university fees, maintenance grants withdrawn, no entitlement to housing benefit, no 'living wage' until they are 25...the list goes on.

Azari

AJXX wrote: »

Aren't they just making use of a legal loop hole like many other big companies do?

It's the government who should be to blame for allowing it.

Quite.

How on earth should a company decide where to draw the line at implementing legal, tax efficient, accounting protocols?

It's nuts to expect them to do so and it would probably be illegal as they have a duty to maximise their value to shareholders.

I agree that it is appalling that companies get away with paying tiny amounts of tax on enormous revenues and profits but the fault is entirely with the government for not closing the loopholes that allow them to do this.

MarkBargain

Azari wrote: »

Quite.

How on earth should a company decide where to draw the line at implementing legal, tax efficient, accounting protocols?

It's nuts to expect them to do so and it would probably be illegal as they have a duty to maximise their value to shareholders.

I agree that it is appalling that companies get away with paying tiny amounts of tax on enormous revenues and profits but the fault is entirely with the government for not closing the loopholes that allow them to do this.

So if companies devise complex international tax avoidance schemes with the help of very clever accountants, you don't blame them at all but place 100% blame on the UK government?

What about how workers and publishers are treated?

Do you think that company reputation does not matter and that boycotts have no effect?

Azari

MarkBargain wrote: »

So if companies devise complex international tax avoidance schemes with the help of very clever accountants, you don't blame them at all but place 100% blame on the UK government?

Yes, because, as I said, it is the business of a company (or individual) to ensure they operate in the most tax efficient manner.

How is a company supposed to decide exactly how tax efficient it should be?

If you assert that the company should not be as tax efficient as possible, what you are saying is that it should be free to make its own decision on how much it pays, within the range of that resulting from the least to the most tax efficient operations.

How can that be right?

It is for the government to ensure that companies are properly regulated so that at maximum tax efficiency they pay a reasonable amount of tax.

What about how workers and publishers are treated?

Companies will pay workers the smallest amount they can get away with based on factors such as motivation, reliability and competition for skills.

That is why we needed a minimum wage.

The relationship with suppliers is a commercial one and would normally be outside the remit of government unless a small number of companies have such a large proportion of some market that they are able to unfairly make use of an effective monopoly.

Do you think that company reputation does not matter and that boycotts have no effect?

They may well have, and in that case the company will have to figure the damage to its bottom line caused by such boycotts when deciding on the degree to which it will pursue tax efficiency or the amount it will pay its unskilled workers.