Boycott Amazon

[aeolium]

Sorry, ahinton, we will just have to agree to disagree here. I do believe tax avoidance by multinationals is immoral and I don't believe that nothing can be done about it.

[ahinton]

Sorry, ahinton, we will just have to agree to disagree here. I do believe tax avoidance by multinationals is immoral and I don't believe that nothing can be done about it.

I don't entirely disagree with you in principle, actually but, as has been said with insufficient frequency here, it's where the taxes should be paid that is a large part of the issue, not that these multinationals are declining to pay any corporation taxes anywhere; a multinational that gets away with paying next to no corporation taxes anywhere on vast profits may well be acting immorally, but surely far more so than in merely choosing which countries' corporation taxes to pay on the basis of what's the least that they can legitimately get away with? Britain is now making noises about these outfits getting away with paying very little British tax, but won't that risk setting an example to other countries to try to get in on the same act? All that I'm saying about this particular aspect of the matter is that, before anyone screams about imposing boycotts on companies who pay very little tax in Britain on large profits, it is surely sensible to ascertain whether they can reasonably arrange their tax affairs in order to pay them elsewhere instead? I am not therefore saying that nothing can be done; what I am saying is that rushing in with drastic and ill-considered action would, as in other cases, be a bad idea and will risk not achieving the intended goals.

As to the intellectual property issue, one thing that makes it far more elusive than actual physical trading and the supply of goods and most services in particular locations is that, like the internet, they are not location sensitive or bound; as long as it remains possible to register such rights anywhere that their owners choose, their values will generally fall under the jurisdictions of those countries where they are located. I don't really see what can be done about that unless every nation on earth that has intellectual property rights legislation on its statute books agrees to adopt a taxation régime in respect of them that's identical to that of every other country so that no future tax advantages could be taken by means of prudent location of registrations. It's not gong to happen, though, is it? The only other way around this would be for global agreement to annul at a stroke all intellectual property values everywhere in order to create a level playing field, although this would adversely affect composers, novelists, scientists, academics and many others, even including governments (Crown copyright, anyone?), as well as reducing the values of those large multinationals so much as to affect everyone who invests in them directly or indirectly (i.e. almost all of us).

[amateur51]

In short, then, ...

... if only

[Simon]

Just heard a trail on R4 - this very subject is to be discussed on R4s "The Moral Maze".

Meant to add "at 8pm today".

[Lateralthinking1]

I haven't read all of this thread as I know the arguments people put forward. Can anyone explain to me though why there is suddenly all this focus on Starbucks, Amazon and Google? What makes them different from all of the other big companies? I genuinely don't understand it. Is it that they have paid virtually nothing whereas the others have paid a tiny amount?

[ahinton]

... if only

OK - you try to shorten the subject matter and the arguments for and against it!...

[ahinton]

I haven't read all of this thread as I know the arguments people put forward. Can anyone explain to me though why there is suddenly all this focus on Starbucks, Amazon and Google? What makes them different from all of the other big companies? I genuinely don't understand it. Is it that they have paid virtually nothing whereas the others have paid a tiny amount?

That's about it, I think; I've already implied that a handful of the largest multinationals accused of transgressing morals applicable to the British tax system are, rightly or wrongly, being put forward as potential scapegoats for alleged wrongdoing and immorality whedreas almost every incorporated entity might as easily be accused - again, rightly or wrongly - of similar such transgressions and immorality on smaller scales.

[Frances_iom]

That's about it, I think; I've already implied that a handful of the largest multinationals accused of transgressing morals applicable to the British tax system are, rightly or wrongly, being put forward as potential scapegoats for alleged wrongdoing and immorality whedreas almost every incorporated entity might as easily be accused - again, rightly or wrongly - of similar such transgressions and immorality on smaller scales.

treat them like admirals - hang one to encourage the others - reducing Starbucks income by say 30-40% would be a good start, easy to organise and unmistakeable - a EU-wide boycot would be even better as no doubt they are avoiding taxes in most states other than Ireland - as you say there are many others that could also be targeted by the public in the future.

[ahinton]

treat them like admirals - hang one to encourage the others - reducing Starbucks income by say 30-40% would be a good start, easy to organise and unmistakeable - a EU-wide boycot would be even better as no doubt they are avoiding taxes in most states other than Ireland - as you say there are many others that could also be targeted by the public in the future.

And then what would happen? As I also said earlier, the danger in doing too much of this is that their values and incomes will deplete severely and that will affect almost everyone; the public will very soon get tired of that when it realises that it's being made to suffer as much as the targeted companies. I wouldn't "boycott" Starbucks myself in any case - but that's because I don't patronise them now, so I can hardly withdraw my custom.

The intellectual property rights aspect of all this hasn't really been answered here yet either. That and all the aspects of what taxes should be paid where needs to be properly established before any action is taken; I'm not ruling out the possibility of action but it has to be the right action otherwise it might not even work.

[Dave2002]

I have seen another argument which might apply to companies such as Starbucks. The argument is that they employ a large number of people in the UK, buy and sell goods here, and that overall, even if they paid no tax that the economic activity they stimulate is beneficial to the country, as tax is paid on much of the activity they indulge in and also by those who pay for their services and products.

In the USA there was discussion during the Bush era (GW I think) re this, as one argument was that if firms were made to pay corporation tax (or whatever is equivalent there) then effectively the same activities were being taxed twice. Why there is anything special about those activities being taxed twice I can't see. I pay tax when I earn money and also when I spend it, so one could argue that "my" money has been subject to tax more than once, and if one looks at what happens further down the line there will be more tax paid by others in the chain.

I'm not defending the argument, just pointing it out.

[ahinton]

I have seen another argument which might apply to companies such as Starbucks. The argument is that they employ a large number of people in the UK, buy and sell goods here, and that overall, even if they paid no tax that the economic activity they stimulate is beneficial to the country, as tax is paid on much of the activity they indulge in and also by those who pay for their services and products.

In the USA there was discussion during the Bush era (GW I think) re this, as one argument was that if firms were made to pay corporation tax (or whatever is equivalent there) then effectively the same activities were being taxed twice. Why there is anything special about those activities being taxed twice I can't see. I pay tax when I earn money and also when I spend it, so one could argue that "my" money has been subject to tax more than once, and if one looks at what happens further down the line there will be more tax paid by others in the chain.

I'm not defending the argument, just pointing it out.

It's a point, to be sure, but a rather problematic one to defend realistically, I think. For one thing, companies whose products and services attract VAT at the full rate generate more secondary tax revenue than those whose products and services are wholly or partially ether zero-rated or exempt, so this isn't a level playing field. On the other hand, those who employ the greatest numbers of people usually generate the greatest amounts of income taxes but, again, there is no guarantee of direct correlation between numbers on a company payroll and its amounts of turnover and/or profits. There are therefore too many possible variables to make this argument stick, even though it has its own limited merits.

One of the arguments put up against IHT (Inheritance Tax) is that it is more often than not a tax on already taxed assets. You are, of course, right to point out that this is not particularly exceptional when you write "I pay tax when I earn money and also when I spend it" (by which I presume you to mean when you spend it on goods and services that attract some VAT), but then, to me, that points up one of the immoralities of VAT in that I do not believe that any funds should be taxed more than once and that, when they are, they serve only to demonstrate fundamental structural flaws in an already overbearingly complex tax system.

My experience also leads me to question why some countries that I've never even visited deduct tax from income generated in them that would otherwise go to HM Treasury; there's really only a hair's breadth, it seems to me, between the effect of big multinationals being able to choose where they pay their taxes and that of little self-employed sole traders like me having that "choice" enforced uponr them.

[Resurrection Man]

I haven't read all of this thread as I know the arguments people put forward. Can anyone explain to me though why there is suddenly all this focus on Starbucks, Amazon and Google? What makes them different from all of the other big companies? I genuinely don't understand it. Is it that they have paid virtually nothing whereas the others have paid a tiny amount?

That's not strictly true, Lat. There are many 'honourable' companies that pay a decent wodge of Corporation tax. For example, John Lewis and Halfords.

[teamsaint]

That's not strictly true, Lat. There are many 'honourable' companies that pay a decent wodge of Corporation tax. For example, John Lewis and Halfords.

The news that Halfords are able to make a profit and thus pay corporation tax is frankly amazing.
Very dispriting stores . (no offence to the doubtless fine people who work there).

[ahinton]

The news that Halfords are able to make a profit and thus pay corporation tax is frankly amazing.

Perhaps they followed the advice of Norman Tebbit and got on their bikes...

[Frances_iom]

And then what would happen? As I also said earlier, the danger in doing too much of this is that their values and incomes will deplete severely and that will affect almost everyone; the public will very soon get tired of that when it realises that it's being made to suffer as much as the targeted companies. ..

it seems that Starbucks can afford £10M pa as a PR issue - suggesting that this is a small fraction of their profits - indicating that they are making much from their totally artifical tax arrangements and more importantly that the initial boycott has worked - maybe try another company and see what the shakeout is