Boycotting Amazon

Go, jess!

Avoid, evade – practically tautologies except for lawyers. We're bound to get them mixed up.

And yes, absent, you are often very funny with your "no sense of humour" so that doesn't really wash with me . When you bung that into a GN conversation, I just read "feeling grumpy". Just sayin'.

Bags I have a finely developed sense of irony, but irony is often not funny.

And sometimes it is funny. And you appreciate the humour, I'm sure, as any intelligent person would. However, it doesn't really matter to me whether you have a sense of humour or not. I have one, and what people make of it is up to them. Again, just saying.

Paul McCartney is reported to have said "I earn a lot of money therefore pay a lot of taxes".

Amazon, Google, Starbucks, etc earn a lot of money from UK consumers - they wouldn't operate here if they didn't, therefore they should pay their fair share.

No matter what legislation is in place some organisations make it their mission to pay what seems to be an absurdly low percentage of taxes, in relation to real profit, that is the profit made before the accountants get creative.

I'm sure my personal boycott of South African goods during apartheid didn't bring down that regime but felt that I was doing my bit and it was a point of principle.

I have been told so often on this and other forums that I have no sense of humour, it must be true!

You make up for it in other ways Greatnan!

Thanks - I think!

Tax Research UK has the answer.
Look at the website.
Instead of multinationals being able to put their profits in tax free economies, they have to give a list of profits and countries in which they make those profits, etc to the OECD who then divi up the tax beteen the countries where the profits are made.
Then you would not get the grotesque anomaly reported in an earlier report of theirs where the workers in a mine in Zambia pay more in tax than the company they are working for.

It can be done if we all show we have the will to do it, by boycotting companies that do not pay their fair share.

The boycotting of companies such as Amazon and Starbucks is being discussed on Radio 4 today, it's also a phone in for thos who might want to take part!

(I think it's on Call You and Yours, but probably best to check!)

Apathy rarely works though, does it? Perhaps I should say never?

The Government does have to close the loopholeS - but we too can influence this, and give Government more impetus and a clear signal that it is our wish that it should happen.

If I was going to boycott Amazon I would want to do a cost/benefits analysis first.

Amount of extra tax coming into the country's coffers against possible loss of jobs to a percentage of Amazon's workforce here and the cost of keeping them on benefits.

Also, Amazon's products increasing in price and how that would impact on it's business and the people who buy from it.

That's just from a financial point of view. I would probably also want to take into account stress and misery caused to employees who would be made redundant by Amazon when it looked at ways to reduce costs in order to find the money for the extra tax.

And then, of course, we would have to hope that any net financial gain was spent on worthwhile causes rather than on Trident or MPs expenses.

It might help some of the 3.6 million children living in poverty.

So are other firms like Costa, same market, same towns, totally stupid and irresponsible (! vis their workers) to pay fair taxes. Why do they when it must have a direct effect on their profitability, etc? especially as they are in direct competition with Starbucks who do not???

There's an article on the front page of today's Times about Chris Moyles asking a court to 'conceal his membership of an aggressive tax-avoidance scheme because exposing him would "infringe" his human rights'.

I'd quite happily boycott Chris Moyles.

Good question.

Maybe the loophole enjoyed by Amazon is not available to them.

That was in answer to granjura's post.

Having a single entity dictating the accounting practices of multinationals is , in my opinion, complete pie in the sky. They would have to have a staff the size of the population of Belgium for a start. This profit thing just aint that simple.
For many years when it was starting up Amazon did a lot of business but made no profit at all, as it was all ploughed back in to growing the business. This required the shareholders to keep faith in the expectation of an eventual increase in share value.
Let us not forget that Amazon pay in the UK:
Employers national insurance (a tax on employing people)
VAT
Property taxes
and all the employees pay income tax and NI.

Amazon also provides cloud solutions for other companies. They have the expertise and the servers. Many online purchases are handled through Amazon using their sales platform. Business is global now and although this Government could alter things it won't make much difference. The companies involved are integral to your lives and you will still use them, albeit unwittingly. Someone mentioned a hydra. Too right.

Companies are legally bound to act in the best financial interests of their shareholders and if that means finding the best tax haven, they will do it.

Boycotting may make you feel good but I doubt you could manage it today.

I've said that the best place to find out about boycotts is Ethical Consumer.

Might not find out about all the companies but it's a start.
If there were no tax havens, there would be no point in companies looking for them.
There should be no tax havens.
It makes me wonder how many people writing on here have money in tax havens.
I have told Amazon I am boycotting their company. So have others on this site, so obviously, Sel, you have not read all the comments on this thread.

No point in boycotting Starbucks as I have never been in there. However, they do not know that do they? so maybe I will tell them.

There is a worrying article on the Green Benches website. Eion Clarke has had to apologise to Circle about saying that they have sacked workers and that the hospital has become worse since they took over.

If this is not a spoof, it means that big companies with lots of money can threaten the opposition. I know it's about the NHS, but think of the further ramifications.

I think sel meant that international companies are too complex for boycotting to be very effective nowadays when she said she doubted you could manage it today, not that one couldn't tell companies that one was boycotting them. It's perfectly obvious that one can do the latter.

Is that a correct interpretatiion, sel?

Like I said above, not if there are no tax havens.
The other suggestion is that turnover should be taxed, not profit.
That sounds quite reasonable to me. Not extra VAT as that would mean loading it onto the poorest, and companies like Amazon can still dodge VAT.

So how do you propose to ban tax havens? I think you'd need a global dictatorship first.

JessM, of course they do - but most other companies pay all that + their taxes.

Why do Costa do it, for instance - nobody has replied? Are they just thick? Too stupid?

I said perhaps the loophole is not available to them. I can't believe they are paying more tax than they legally need to through the goodness of their hearts.

Me with a tax haven Jendurham I wish!

Yes, that was funny!