Boycotting Amazon

jendurham, it is the government's moral duty to make laws that are effective and fair. It would appear that successive governments have failed to do this with regard to company tax law. Does that make our governments immoral too? (that's a straight question; I am seeking your view, not expressing mine).

Would you/do you pay more tax than you are legally obliged to pay? If not, are you being immoral? I would suggest not.

In the past couple of weeks I have received from Amazon the bulk of my DGD's Christmas presents. By using them I have saved myself hours of wandering around shops (my idea of Hell) and a fair amount of money. Am I expected to return them in case I am regarded as some sort of spineless supporter of immorality? It's not going to happen!

Successive governments have failed to close these loophole. This article might be a touch too far left but it does highlight some interesting points.

l-r-c.org.uk/features/story/my-cousin-the-artful-tax-dodger/

By the way, I don't think anyone is saying that not paying tax is "fine and dandy" (granjura). I think people are just questioning the effectiveness of boycotting large companies as opposed to government actually doing its job properly and making tax laws without loopholes.

Boycotting South African produce during the apartheid regime did work eventually, but that was a somewhat different case, many more people supported the boycott, even governments up to a point, and it took YEARS. It was worth doing.

So far, I'm not convinced that boycotting Amazon would be an effective strategy. I'm saying this as one who has tried over some years various shopping strategies aimed at changing something fundamental (such as how milk is produced). My efforts seem to have been ineffective. That's putting it mildly.

Bags I think the views expressed range across a spectrum from "If it's legal, then it's okay" to "It's unethical and therefore wrong". Someone also suggested that if the opportunity to reduce our tax liability by legal, if questionable, means arose, we would probably do it.

As someone who is self-employed and not earning a lot these days, there's probably quite a bit of scope for manipulating and massaging the figures on my tax return. I have never been tempted to do so. I am scrupulous about claiming genuine expenses against tax but am equally scrupulous about declaring every penny of income. This doesn't make me Goody Two Shoes. I think everyone in the country should pay the fair and proper amount of tax and not find ways of wriggling out of doing so – and I am no exception.

I also avoid buying products from certain companies and countries because I believe them to be unethical. Some other people share this viewpoint but I don't think we expect to change much; we do it because we believe it to be the proper thing to do.

Many companies, including independent book sellers, must be keeping their fingers crossed that a significant number of people stop buying from Amazon and start buying from them instead.

I understand what you're saying, absent, and I think nearly all of us agree that it is the correct way to do things and what we would do too. However, the law apparently allows various definitions of company monies which, in turn, allow companies to get away with not paying tax when, really, they 'should', we think. A change in the law is clearly necessary and I think we're all agreed about that. The question is how to effect that. Some are not convinced a boycott would make a scrap of difference and resent the implication that they are immoral for thinking so and not acting, which leads me to wonder if behaviour that doesn't make any difference can be defined as immoral.

While I would prefer it if companies such as Amazon did pay taxes in the countries in which they operate, I can't really blame them for taking advantage of daft laws that allow them not to. I think our law-makers are far more to blame than any company on this issue. For all I know, the loopholes in the law may have been deliberately put there by politicians. That wouldn't surprise me one bit.

I can't do Xmas without Amazon.

If that makes me shallow, sorry.

No

Bags Is George Osborne's family trust fund offshore? (That was provoked by your last two sentences.)

I cannot imagine how Starbucks makes ANY profit. Tried their coffee once - never again.
However, admit to being hooked on Amazon; it's just so easy to find what you want and have it sent. But I WILL be exploring the alternatives more, from now on.
As for Kindle - I've been yearning for one, but can't really justify it as I use the local library regularly and get my books for free. Now I shall find it easier to keep resisting the urge to buy one!
But then, as others have already said, if we had intelligent and brave poiticians ( I include all Parties), and a functioning Civil Service, these loopholes would have been dealt with years ago.

Or perhaps the clever people these companies employ will always be one jump ahead. As long as there are some countries with "light" tax regimes there will always be loopholes. Grant me the knowledge to know the things I can have an affect on...

i find amazon very good on delivery whether they pay tax or not is up to this so called goverment

Absentgrana, Osborne's family trust fund is offshore, or was in 2011,according to an article in the Guardian, and I cannot imagine that has changed.
Bags, you are just being silly. I assume I pay the correct amount of tax, as I fill in a tax return every year and have done since I set up my first business in 1989.
In fact this year I had a letter from the tax man to say I had underpaid by a thousand pounds when I closed the guest house, which shocked me.
So I sent a letter to the tax man and rang up the accountant I had had, who was equally upset as it said he was fiddling the taxman on my behalf.
Two months later, I had another letter apologising. My accountant had got it right. If they can chase me, they should be able to chase the big companies.
If I did pay more than I should that can hardly count as immoral.
Do you have shares in Starbucks or Amazon? You seem to be sticking up for them rather a lot!
And yes, actually, I believe the last three governments have been immoral as far as the tax question is concerned, going back to when Tony Blair took over. His wife is also being immoral by setting up a company that takes money from the NHS. Oh, and Thatcher was immoral before that. Answer your question?

Charming post, jend. I'm sure everyone will think me silly and an apologist for Amazon and/or Starbucks now. You make me laugh.

Vince Cable on the problem of international tax avoidance

It doesn't look like a very simple problem to me. One wouldn't expect it to, really, given what balls ups the Inland Rev can make of even "small people's" tax affairs.

Nothing simple about it bags These entities are not a single company they are a group of companies charging each other for services and having registered offices in different companies.
VC is angling for Cleggy's job I suppose. It is probably his if he wants it.

Apparently France and Germany do not believe Starbucks or Amazon. And neither did lots of the committee members that interviewed them.
The problem with relying on HMRC to sort things out is that they have lost hundreds of workers and are really overworked.
A long time ago my husband designed an extension for someone who worked for the tax people in London. After he handed over the drawings and told this man how much it would cost, he was asked if that was cash in hand. Ken said he never did that and anyway "You work for the taxman". This man said they were after bigger fish than Ken. Obviously not.
Bags, you asked me questions. I was answering them.

Thanks for the link Bags. And I like Andrew Marr's choice of words 'grotesque'- and he is no left-winger. Yes Petallus, the small local businesses, and larger ones at national level- would be delighted if some of the boycott business goes to them- and i'd be delighted for them too, I must say. Those businesses going through very tough times at the moment, and who pay every penny they owe in tax- no loopholes for them. Our great independent bookshops, record shops, toy shops and cafés- let's root for them- and at the same time send a message to those businesses that avoid tax + as a bonus, try to stop the cloning of our cities. Hurrah.

So why does Costa and Caffé Nero pay their taxes? Surely they could avoid that too, but they choose to do the right thing, why? Because they think it is right to do so.

Here our accountant has given us lots of ways of keeping quite on some things- we could easily keep stumm on some assets in the UK - but we told him, that NO we want to pay what is fair and due- couldn't do anything else.

I know some very wealthy people in the UK who spend a week on holiday in the Bahamas with their accountant- to work every possible way of tax avoidance, and it makes my blood boil. Other wealthy people who work out with their business partners that they do not make a profit on the books while their kids are at private school, so they get scholarships, etc, etc. It is WRONG - and if I can do anything about it, I will.

Well said, Granjura. I agree with everything you have said here.
Before I read about Starbucks and Amazon I admit I had just bought something from Amazon - 4 bottles of Sambucol for the inevitable colds before Christmas.
Last year I used all my Nectar points to get vouchers for my grandchildren. This year I will not. I will not use Amazon at all until they see the error of their ways.
We all use the influence we can.
I do not know if this is relevant or not, but I used to have one of the chocolatiers at Nestle staying in my guest house in York.
I used to tell him that I would not buy his products even though they tasted nice (he used to bring me samples of the new lines to try and comment on)
because of Nestles business ways and because they did not use organic or faitrade ingredients.
They now have some fairtrade products.
May or may not have been my influence. I like to think so. One person or one family is not enough to change the ways of these errant companies.
We can only influence those we meet.

I don't think that anyone here is passing judgement on others who are posting different views. Rather, this is a forum for ideas. Some will not feel able to boycott Amazon or any other company. Some will feel it is the least they can do. The point is that the millions of tax these avoiders don't pay is money that is not coming into government coffers, the absence of which forces cuts in government spending. I guess the question is do you feel comfortable supporting a multimillion pound business which does not contribute to the overall well being of the society from which it draws its customers? Their practices are not illegal, but they are immoral, selfish and greedy - IMHO.

If you need alternative shopping suggestions, check out the Sunday papers. They are FULL of ways to circumvent Amazon. There IS a growing movement to boycott these companies, though the fact that the list is growing means that it becomes ever harder to find "legit" alternatives. Name and shame!

......immoral selfish and greedy...how unusual for a big business!