Boycotting Amazon

Meanwhile the current government spends our taxes on dismantling the NHS so that we can pay tax and pay again for health care

I would think if we got the tax Amazon, and these other companies, should be paying, it would help the economy markedly. And that might go towards helping the disadvantaged.

It's fact. Call it emotional blackmail if you will. [shrug]

PS I hate buses (due to OCD)

Oh yes. Very easy! I don't drive - I've got a bike. DH is a nightmare in shops.

My days of lugging home pressies on said bike are, I thought, over.

Will now have to re-think.

And wobble.

It's a bit of a stretch to hold Amazon responsible for the unfortunate cot death of the poor family we have mentioned.

Or to think that if Amazon paid more tax, such dreaful poverty would cease to exist.

JO5, it's dead easy to boycott Amazon. Just don't buy anything from them.

Worth the inconvenience surely, if you think it will save lives!

And whilst I'm on my high horse, is it necessary to employ emotional blackmail in these discussions?

jings, if you want to believe that boycotting amazon will make a difference to ther poor families like that, you go ahead and believe it.

I don't agree that jura is 'just' putting forward a point of view. She is criticising people as well, and so was JenD, by implying that we are not doing our share to try and improve the world, simply because the ways in which we wish to go about making a difference are not the same ways that they would choose.

But you're right, if anyone wants to get on a high horse on GN, that's fine.

So is asking them to get off their high horse because their high horsism is becoming a pain in the butt.

And I agree with her. And with the point Jendurham makes re the family having to live, and one them, die, in that awful flat.

I just wish it was easier to b oycott Amazon.

They seem to have cast their net wide and ensnared a lot of us. (sorry for mixed metaphors)

Bags I would have thought Gransnet would be a completely appropriate place to "get on your high horse". Granjura is simply putting forward her views. Forcefully. And why not? It isn't preaching. It's healthy debate.

Thank you Sel, I'd seen the original and like the updated version even more.

Sel what a great start to the day. I have vague memories of reading this years ago but it really made me smile.

I suggest that if we all write to our MPs (especially coalition ones), and keep writing until we get satisfactory replies, it will have far more effect than a boycott by a minority of Amazon customers which, to my mind, would be akin to a flea bite on an elephant, even if it makes the flea feel good. I am off to email my MP.

Thought I might lighten things a bit - it's an updated classic:

SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbor.

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk.

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk.

BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other and then throws the milk away.

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.
You sell them and retire on the income.

VENTURE CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by Your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated General offer so that you get all four cows back,with a tax exemption for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.

A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organize a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.

A QUEBEC CORPORATION
See "A French Corporation".

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows, but you don´t know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.

A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5,000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.

A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.

AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
Nobody believes you, so they bomb the crap out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows but at least you are now a Democracy.

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive.

A GREEK CORPORATION
You have two cows borrowed from French and German banks.
You eat both of them.
The banks call to collect their milk, but you cannot deliver so you call the IMF.
The IMF loans you two cows.
You eat both of them.
The banks and the IMF call to collect their cows/milk.
You are out getting a haircut.

Sel They are not American companies; they are transnationals which is what makes it possible to operate at a loss on paper in the UK for so many years.

yup. Whose doing a huge chunk of the voluntary work and unpaid caring round here...? Us, that's who.
(But there is a bit of me that wants to confiscate the X boxes and tell the parents to stop ferrying their offspring to entertainment and self development opportunities every five minutes!)

granjura I found that comment quite patronising. I can see why it was applicable to teenagers, but to suggest it could be aimed at us, with our accumulative wealth of life experience is pointless. I appreciate your frustration that not all of us agree with you, but that is life. Live with it!

I read this thread from beginning to end this morning. Started off being informed and ended up feeling very shirty indeed. If I wish to involve myself in boycotting a specific issue, then I will. Being preached at doesn't cut it with me.

B - In your last post you've put into words exactly what I've been feeling and struggling to say.

Sel - Yep - in a nutshell. You're comment 'Companies do deals with Governments' says it all. Always have done and always will.

Thanks, sel, for more rationality and good sense.

jura, now you're just being petulant because we don't agree with your point of view. If you think we grans need such a dressing down, you show very little respect for your fellow gransnetters. Besides that, you cannot know what we have done with our lives and how much we have fought (still do fight) for good causes. Just because we may not boast about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I'd thank you to get off your high horse.

j05 not sure I can respond to that without a Marie Antionette echo I am contrasting the situation here to those countries where there is real poverty with no safety net that we enjoy. Countries where people are scared to get sick, where a home isn't a given, where there is real fear of being without work. Yes, the money does have to come from somewhere - where? Quantative easing? Business generates it, and I am not arguing that these companies shouldn't pay tax, just trying to point out that they are not the only ones and it would be fairly simple for the Government to stop it. They don't, they haven't and maybe that's because if they close the loophole Amazon etc will just up sticks. That would result in job losses and loss of other revenues. A fraction of a cake etc etc. Companies do deals with Governments.

This outcry won't be exactly a surprise, it's been going on for years. Maybe the negative publicity will have some effect and something will change. The whole thing resulted from Obama and potential changes to US corporate tax policy.

"no one starves or has to beg". No?! Maybe they don't actually starve but neither do they have full bellies every day of the week.

Well, the money's got to come from somewhere to look after the disadvantaged Sel. Why shouldn't it come from the likes of Amazon, as well as from you and me?

According to this Amazon don't make any charitable donations. (One up from bottom of page)

granjura I love this. However, I wonder if I will read it and draw the same conclusion as others..why do people expect businesses to provide the money to take care of them, it's not their job. You elect a Government, they set the tax rules, they gather the income from business and hopefully re-distribute it. We are actually a pretty fair country, no one starves or has to beg. We have it easy and if everyone understood no one has a 'right' to anything it might simplify things.

We are all, actually singing from the same hymn sheets (sorry pedants!) Money rules, always has and always will. Companies do deals with Governments, they work out even more favourable tax rates to lure them to their country and mostly that's because Governments want to provide THEIR citizens with more benefits and lower taxes, then they can remain in power.

The whole issue about Amazon, Starbucks and Google has done one thing, it has highlighted what has been happening. But it's not just those three American companies, it's British ones too -not to mention all the individuals who incorporate themselves and avoid tax that way. Same moral issue.

I am not sure what Utopian paradise people think we are living in.

I wonder if they give to charity?