Boycott Amazon

[Stillhomewardbound]

But for the fact that it is hardly a laughing matter, I'd laugh at how this debate always brings out the 'good luck to them' n'er sayers, the self-flagellation crowd who'll talk about hypocrites this and hypocrites that.

I'd say to them, if they are so unconcerned at about the excess they have to pay in taxation because of those who don't, well, why don't you pay my share while you're at.

[remdataram]

Why are we all talking about this 'being a disgrace' and 'a sense of personal integrity'?

Am I to take it that some members donate more Tax to HMRC than they are required to pay? Do they believe that their Taxes should be calculated on a moral or public spirited basis?

All these companies are working within the law, as I've previously stated - it's the Tax laws that urgently need updating. The Amazon's of this world are killing their competitors (Currys, HMV, ToysRus, Waterstones, etc. etc.) because the competition are paying much more Tax than Amazon; despite the fact that Amazon trade legally.

[anotherbob]

All these companies are working within the law, as I've previously stated - it's the Tax laws that urgently need updating. The Amazon's of this world are killing their competitors (Currys, HMV, ToysRus, Waterstones, etc. etc.) because the competition are paying much more Tax than Amazon; despite the fact that Amazon trade legally.

[Simon]

Hodge is just a disgrace, and always has been.
The Amazon issue is surely tied up with the whole business of ethical shopping.As I have mentioned before, even supposedly squeaky clean outfits like M and S have been caught out on abuses within supply chains, and they no doubt all have sharp financial minds minimising their tax bill...so what to do?
Perhaps a list of worst offenders by sector, (and by category EG tax avoidance, supply chain abuses,etc) would be useful, so that we could more easily make good, or least worst , choices.

Good post!

We rarely use Amazon, as we seem to find those few things we buy on line elsewhere. From now, we won't use them at all.

As for Starbucks, I've never been in one. There aren't any round here anyway. I would no more consider walking into a shop for coffee than flying to the moon. Why would anyone go and pay whatever they charge now for something you can make at home if you want?

[VodkaDilc]

Good post!
I would no more consider walking into a shop for coffee than flying to the moon. Why would anyone go and pay whatever they charge now for something you can make at home if you want?

Caffè Nero's pastries are one good reason!

[MrGongGong]

Caffè Nero's pastries are one good reason!

Monmoth Coffee ? (if in London)
or even this wonderful little place

http://www.scarthinbooks.com/

[aeolium]

Why are we all talking about this 'being a disgrace' and 'a sense of personal integrity'?

Am I to take it that some members donate more Tax to HMRC than they are required to pay? Do they believe that their Taxes should be calculated on a moral or public spirited basis?

All these companies are working within the law, as I've previously stated - it's the Tax laws that urgently need updating. The Amazon's of this world are killing their competitors (Currys, HMV, ToysRus, Waterstones, etc. etc.) because the competition are paying much more Tax than Amazon; despite the fact that Amazon trade legally.

We keep hearing this kind of argument which to me suggests that there is no other responsibility for the welfare of our society than the laws and what the government does, that individuals and corporations have no responsibility outside what is lawful. Yet it doesn't take long to think of actions that can be extremely harmful to society but are not illegal. The most obvious recent one has been the actions of the financial institutions leading up to the crash of 2008. No individual or corporation in the UK AFAIK has been prosecuted for any of the actions that led to the greatest financial crash in history - the reckless gambling on derivatives that took place in the lead-up to the crash was not illegal. Yet it has led to widespread austerity regimes, near-defaults on the part of several sovereign countries and enormous hardship for many.

The tax avoidance by Amazon and other multinationals is egregious and uses artificial schemes such as transfer pricing which were never envisaged by national tax authorities. All these companies benefit from the many facilities enabled by government expenditure such as an educated workforce, a national health service, transport, a secure trading environment, the whole edifice of company law and the courts that support it etc etc yet they are seeking to avoid paying tax which would help to maintain all these benefits despite their considerable wealth. Many people would regard that as immoral whether or not it is legal. And when we see, as we doubtless will tomorrow, another set of measures to crack down on the benefits of the unemployed and the disabled and a government minister will stand up and say there is no alternative people will simply carry on and accept it - after all, it is nothing to do with them: it is all to do with the government.

Well, I for one assert that something may be legal and still be wrong and what Amazon and co are doing is just that. Not only that, it has a direct relationship with the suffering and loss of services that people will endure as a result of government cuts.

[teamsaint]

Good post!

We rarely use Amazon, as we seem to find those few things we buy on line elsewhere. From now, we won't use them at all.

As for Starbucks, I've never been in one. There aren't any round here anyway. I would no more consider walking into a shop for coffee than flying to the moon. Why would anyone go and pay whatever they charge now for something you can make at home if you want?

perhaps try being in field sales in central london.....I'm not, but I can imagine the appeal of a comfy starbucks seat, a recently cleaned toilet, and even their coffee on a freezing february day.....(especially if its on expenses)... not principled perhaps, but needs must....

Edit..personally never bought a drink in one, and I am certainly not inclined to now !

[remdataram]

We keep hearing this kind of argument which to me suggests that there is no other responsibility for the welfare of our society than the laws and what the government does, that individuals and corporations have no responsibility outside what is lawful. Yet it doesn't take long to think of actions that can be extremely harmful to society but are not illegal. The most obvious recent one has been the actions of the financial institutions leading up to the crash of 2008. No individual or corporation in the UK AFAIK has been prosecuted for any of the actions that led to the greatest financial crash in history - the reckless gambling on derivatives that took place in the lead-up to the crash was not illegal. Yet it has led to widespread austerity regimes, near-defaults on the part of several sovereign countries and enormous hardship for many.

The tax avoidance by Amazon and other multinationals is egregious and uses artificial schemes such as transfer pricing which were never envisaged by national tax authorities. All these companies benefit from the many facilities enabled by government expenditure such as an educated workforce, a national health service, transport, a secure trading environment, the whole edifice of company law and the courts that support it etc etc yet they are seeking to avoid paying tax which would help to maintain all these benefits despite their considerable wealth. Many people would regard that as immoral whether or not it is legal. And when we see, as we doubtless will tomorrow, another set of measures to crack down on the benefits of the unemployed and the disabled and a government minister will stand up and say there is no alternative people will simply carry on and accept it - after all, it is nothing to do with them: it is all to do with the government.

Well, I for one assert that something may be legal and still be wrong and what Amazon and co are doing is just that. Not only that, it has a direct relationship with the suffering and loss of services that people will endure as a result of government cuts.

I agree with all of your very well made points. I, too, deplore Amazon's actions and recognise that they will kill off many competitors; but in this instance changes in the Tax laws will put an end to these practices and create a level playing field for all. Taking a personal stand will, perhaps, help one sleep better at night, but it does nothing to rectify the wrongdoing.

I don't believe that the government is responsible for everything - but wouldn't it be nice if this one could actually decide on our London runway solution, start spending as much on the elderly as it does on prisoners, and start taxing the wealthy companies rather than screwing the individual?

Ultimately I think we all agree, we're just venting our frustration and anger in different ways....

[Simon]

perhaps try being in field sales in central london.....I'm not, but I can imagine the appeal of a comfy starbucks seat, a recently cleaned toilet, and even their coffee on a freezing february day.....(especially if its on expenses)... not principled perhaps, but needs must....

I suppose so, ts - a good point, if you are somewhere in a city.

Also agree with aeolium & rem, earlier, and others.

Concurrence has broken out on the messageboard at last!

[Flosshilde]

Why would anyone go and pay whatever they charge now for something you can make at home if you want?

To meet friends? To stop for a break if you are driving somewhere? To relax when you are visiting somewhere? I suppose if you live in a small village & never leave it they might not be very valid reasons (although the inhabitants of Emmerdale keep the coffee shop quite busy), but for people who live in even a moderately large town, or who are on visiting the small village, would find a coffee shop quite useful.

& coffee houses in the 17th & 18th centuries were, of course, hotbeds of gossip & intrigue (as they are now - c.f. Emmerdale) which is a very good reason for using them. You wouldn't get that at home.

[MrGongGong]

To meet friends?

Sorry ?
no , run that one past me again ?
not sure what you mean at all there

[Flosshilde]

But back to Amazon et al - a very good article by Jackie Ashley in yesterday's Guardian -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/03/firms-fair-share-tax-war

And one on how to put pressure on Amazon -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/04/protest-amazon-tax-avoidance-reader-reviews

[amateur51]

Good post!

We rarely use Amazon, as we seem to find those few things we buy on line elsewhere. From now, we won't use them at all.

As for Starbucks, I've never been in one. There aren't any round here anyway. I would no more consider walking into a shop for coffee than flying to the moon. Why would anyone go and pay whatever they charge now for something you can make at home if you want?

Ah well that's the café culture of the whole of Europe, Africa, South America ... you get my drift ... dismissed in a sentence.

You never heard of people-watching?

[teamsaint]

Ah well that's the café culture of the whole of Europe, Africa, South America ... you get my drift ... dismissed in a sentence.

You never heard of people-watching?

wasn't that what done for Winston Smith?