Boycott Amazon

[amateur51]

wasn't that what done for Winston Smith?

[MrGongGong]

You never heard of people-watching?

You mean there are OTHER PEOPLE ?
extraordinary I thought it was just me

[Flosshilde]

You never heard of people-watching?

I thought that was what those CCTV cameras were for

[Flosshilde]

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.

The Jackie Ashley article that I linked to above makes this point -

When Amazon sells books or games or DVDs at a low price, squirting its profits abroad, it is putting out of business lots of excellent smaller shops that do pay their taxes. The same goes for Starbucks and other coffee shops. We keep being told small and medium-sized businesses are what we're going to rely on for growth. But they are the very ones being hammered by this.

The smaller businesses are also the ones most likely to be locally based - the profits they make are re-invested locally. High-street shops also employ people who live locally, who spend their pay locally. The money is circulated locally & keeps the local economy going.

[roberta]

i use amazon a lot for course books, fast and cheap (and many other items too). they don't pay enough corporation tax because they take advantage of the EU tax rules where you can base your company ina country like ireland (apple) or luxemburg (amazon) and pay that countrys very low tax rate, even though you do most of your trade in england or germany or france.

solution - get the EU to cease this stupid unfair tax rule or leave the EU!!!!!!

i think it would be simpler to change the EU rule, too complex to leave the EU.

no need to boycott aamzon or strabucks, costa coffee etc etc etc etc!!!!1

[Flosshilde]

It does seem strange that the EU, so keen on the same rules applying to all EU member states because not to do so would compromise the 'single market' concept allows such disparate tax rules.

[roberta]

It does seem strange that the EU, so keen on the same rules applying to all EU member states because not to do so would compromise the 'single market' concept allows such disparate tax rules.

strange but true

all those american companies should have to pay their fair share and the only way to do that is to either change the EU rules or just get out of the EU.

i am a biology student, so i'll leave the EU politics to others others BUT i love starbucks, amazon and apple, BUT the EU loophole must be closed on them

[doversoul1]

The smaller businesses are also the ones most likely to be locally based - the profits they make are re-invested locally. High-street shops also employ people who live locally, who spend their pay locally. The money is circulated locally & keeps the local economy going.

I think the problem is that these days, people expect to be able to buy whatever and whenever they want. What can local small businesses do to cater for this new breed of customers? I have no intention of defending Amazon in regard to their tax problems but what about those businesses on their market place? You could say that Amazon is actually helping small business. Still, I have no idea how this works, so this is a complete guess.

It is like supermarket. They exist because we want them to. Can people’s attitude be changed?

[teamsaint]

The retail environment that we currently have didn't happen by chance. It has been designed that way. Consumers do make choices of course, but we have been given endless out of town retail parks. Trading on the high street is so expensive that it puts off most would be entrepreneurs when they first contemplate the idea. ludicrous and discouraging parking prices, which are such a disincentive to shoppers, don't happen by luck, they get implemented.
Go to somewhere like Ireland, (at least before the recession as I haven't been there for a few years,) and you find a wider more healthy variety of traders, presumably paying their taxes.


I tend to think that its the retail environment that needs changing. also,

[ahinton]

The retail environment that we currently have didn't happen by chance. It has been designed that way. Consumers do make choices of course, but we have been given endless out of town retail parks. Trading on the high street is so expensive that it puts off most would be entrepreneurs when they first contemplate the idea. ludicrous and discouraging parking prices, which are such a disincentive to shoppers, don't happen by luck, they get implemented.

Go to somewhere like Ireland, (at least before the recession as I haven't been there for a few years,) and you find a wider more healthy variety of traders, presumably paying their taxes.

Yes, probably so, but might that not at least in part be because the taxes are lower than in other EU nations?

What's being discussed is Starbucks and other multinational organisations paying what is deemed to be insufficient UK taxes on its profits, yet no one is, I think, suggesting that it's not paying them elsewhere; it's surely more of a question of such firms deciding where to pay their taxes, which most of us cannot do unless we relocate.

That said, whilst I'm hardly in the league of Starbucks et al, I'm in it, too and, other than in scale, I'm as guilty as they are. When I receive my performance and broadcast royalties via PRS, those from certain countries have that country's relevant tax deducted from them but those from others (still the vast majority) have no tax deducted so, as they're paid gross, they become subject to relevant UK tax. Who, however, decides that this should be the case? Not Britain, that's for sure - but Britain has to go along with what another country's tax régime determines, even when it is clearly at odds with its own régime. Irrespective of any double taxation relief arrangements that may or may not be in place between Britain and any of those countries that deduct such tax at source, HM Treasury can and does charge no tax on the amount withheld by those countries, so it loses out to those countries. The only difference (other than that of scale) between this situation and the Starbucks one is that Starbucks have to hire fancy expensive tax lawyers in order to use allegedly "aggressive tax avoidance schemes" to reduce their UK tax liability by ensuring that most such liability arises in more favourable tax régimes, whereas all that I have to do is just sit tight and do nothing at no expense to me and let other countries decide that tax for which I'm liable is paid to them and not into UK's coffers. Should I therefore go cap in hand to Mr Osborne and promise to behave better (which is what Starbucks seems now to be offering to do)? Of course not - because I can't! Why not? Because it's out of my hands.

Of course, the scale of this kind of thing is vanishingly small compared to the tax avoidance arrangements made by the large multinationals, but the fact that it represents something of a parallel ought nevertheless to help to focus the attention on the business of who does and should determine where anyone pays taxes. Almost any British citizen can, for example, try to relocate to IOM where the tax régime is vastly less punitive; no visa or green card requirements, no change of passport (even though IOM is outside EU) and a ceiling on annual tax liability. That's tax avoidance and it's legal, but is it really immoral? If so, that would be tantamount to declaring that moving to IOM is immoral in principle and I rather doubt that anyone here would suggest such a thing!

There was a "who do you blame?" chat about this matter on this morning's Today programme on R4; no one involved mentioned the idea that what's really to "blame" - if indeed anything or anyone - is the very fact that different countries have different tax régimes and levels of corporate and personal liability, without which this scenario wouldn't arise (or would have to be created by quite different forms of "aggressive tax avoidance). How is is possible to determine on what profits made by firms such as Starbucks or any other large international corporations should be liable for tax and where? I don't think that this is a simple matter of mounting a moral high horse and accusing these corporations of "aggressive tax avoidance" but of reflecting on the fact that, not only in EU but also outside it, tax liabilities vary enormously. One cannot even try the argument about the origins of the trades that generate those profits, because that isn't clear any more when people in most countries order online from large multinationals with trading and administrative bases in many countries; if I order something online in UK from a company that might supply it from any one of a number of its manufacturing bases and pay for it with a foreign credit card, for example, where should the tax on that firm's profits from the transaction be paid?

In short, then, a large part of the problem is that firms and the business that they do are multinational but taxes are national, thereby creating an irresoluble problem.

[Flosshilde]

What's being discussed is Starbucks ... paying what is deemed to be insufficient UK taxes on its profits,

I think one of the aspects that truly stinks, & reveals Starbuck's mendaciousness, is that they claim not to make any profits in the UK. One wonders why they are so keen to open up new shops here.

[Frances_iom]

I think one of the aspects that truly stinks, & reveals Starbuck's mendaciousness, is that they claim not to make any profits in the UK.

don't confuse morals with legal exploitation of tax laws - IMO there is NO moral US company - by the nature of being a plc they have to put shareholder interest above all other considerations - hence the vigorous exploitation of tax rules made easy by countries such as Ireland that allow the dodgy tax structures - the celtic tiger during its growth had severe constipation and shat over much.- however there are many other countries (inc many British crown dependencies) that aim to undercut neighbours wrt tax arguing that a very small share of a large cake is worth having - as others point out it is the tax laws that need fixing but this is impossible under the current government as too many of their friends are beneficiaries of the specially crafted loopholes.

Personally I'd support a boycott of Starbucks ala anti-Arpartheid demonstrations agt south-african businesses

[ahinton]

I think one of the aspects that truly stinks, & reveals Starbuck's mendaciousness, is that they claim not to make any profits in the UK. One wonders why they are so keen to open up new shops here.

I'm not here to defend Starbucks and it seems as though that firm is of its own accord seeking to consider making some amends (perhaps by getting together with Google and some other massive multinationals to buy HM Treasury lock, stock and over a heavily borrowed barrel) but, again, assessing what profits are "made in Britain" is not so easy as it might seem. The coffee beans that it turns into mostly overlarge cups of coffee are not exactly grown in Britain. I'm not suggesting that your concern is unfounded - far from it - but assessing accurately all the various specific national sources from which Starbucks does derive its profit would be one astonishingly elaborate, complex and expensive exercise for which someone would have to pay.

[eighthobstruction]

assessing accurately all the various specific national sources from which Starbucks does derive its profit would be one astonishingly elaborate, complex and expensive exercise for which someone would have to pay.

....I'll put my mind to it if I've got time (after I've taken my library books back and got some milk)....cannot be that hard surely ..... international finite resources and logistics versus total international profit....blow up Bahamas and Cayman Islands (and Lux)....Surely most companies derive their products and raw materials from all over the world??...It's just that these dodgers buy from their own companies and place their billing depts in tax havens....it's accounting sophistry....

[ahinton]

don't confuse morals with legal exploitation of tax laws - IMO there is NO moral US company - by the nature of being a plc they have to put shareholder interest above all other considerations - hence the vigorous exploitation of tax rules made easy by countries such as Ireland that allow the dodgy tax structures - the celtic tiger during its growth had severe constipation and shat over much.- however there are many other countries (inc many British crown dependencies) that aim to undercut neighbours wrt tax arguing that a very small share of a large cake is worth having - as others point out it is the tax laws that need fixing but this is impossible under the current government as too many of their friends are beneficiaries of the specially crafted loopholes.

But don't all plcs (or foreign equivalents) risk putting shareholder interest above other considerations, not just US ones? And why only plcs? - some companies who could be described as multinational are not even plcs or equivalent but merely limited liability companies or partnerships. Isn't it therefore the case that every incorporated entity from Microsoft down to the couple that own the shop down the road risks putting shareholder interests first? - even those companies with just two shareholders? If so, then what you really mean is not that "there is NO moral US company" but that "there are NO moral companies of any size anywhere. OK, small British companies who do not - or only rarely - trade outside Britain wouldn't be able to take advantage of the kinds of tax avoidance schemes that are available to genuine multinational but, in still trying to put their shareholders first, they presumably are restricted to using other kinds of tax avoidance scheme.

Furthermore, isn't there something of "don't blame the messenger" about certain attitudes to this? Who are the shareholders in whose interests these corporations act? You and I, that's who! Everyone that has money in a bank account or is contributing to a pension or any other investment is a shareholder by virtue of where those banks, pension funds et al reinvest their depositors'/contributors' funds. On that basis, might it also reasonably be argued that not only are their no moral companies, there are also no moral shareholders? If so, there'd hardly be a soul left to cast the first stone!...

Personally I'd support a boycott of Starbucks ala anti-Arpartheid demonstrations agt south-african businesses

But would you single out just that one company? and, if not, who would you exempt from such a boycott and on what grounds? and who would be willing or could be trusted to implement it and how?