I'm with you - and these loopholes can easily be fixed by the authorities - the question should be why they don't (eg. who ends up on what board of directors when they retire from politics?).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Printable View
I'm with you - and these loopholes can easily be fixed by the authorities - the question should be why they don't (eg. who ends up on what board of directors when they retire from politics?).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Quite simply, the poachers are better paid than the gamekeepers. Whilst there is such a pay imbalance between the private and public sector, the Government will always struggle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peevemor
Theres also an argument that the larger companies create those loop-holes by having MP's and political parties in their back pocket. Its tax evasion via lobbying and back-handers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Whether it's legal or not there are such things as immoral laws. The get out that the law is somehow just there doesn't wash with me. Someone tailor makes those laws and they are aimed towards very specific echelons of the business world.
Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk
Yeah maybe true but there is also a danger that people only focus on one specific tax or ignore the wider benefits of a company doing business.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Amazon for example says it paid £293m in direct taxes last year. They also suggest they invested nearly £700m in their UK operations and were planning to create 10,000 jobs in the UK.
So headlines of Amazon only paying £14m in Corp Tax, normally then immediately compared to their unrelated turnover numbers, could be seen as misleading and in no way reflecting their actual contribution to the UK economy and tax revenues.
If they invest money & employ people it's to make more profit. No other reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
Well yeah, why else would you expect any business to invest and employ people? Hardly unique to Amazon that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peevemor
The alternative would be for companies not to invest and not to employ more people. Not sure anyone wants that.
My point was that this thread and others has had a number of replies saying they don’t use a specific company because of its perceived lack of payment of taxes. I was merely pointing out that the picture is possibly more nuanced than just headline corp tax figures juxtaposed to turnover values.
So Amazon could be described totally differently depending on what headlines you want to read:
Company pays taxes of £293m while investing over £700m in the UK creating over 10,000 new jobs
V
Company only pays £14m of tax on £13bn of turnover
Same company, rather different slant on what they bring to the table.
Yep. You also have to consider the spending power of its employees, which might not be the same had Amazon not been in the UK.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
That's moving into the debate around tax-sweetheart deals, and the extent to which they are beneficial to an economy. There's a moral debate around them, of course, but there is also a compelling economic argument in their favour. The EU don't like them (Apple/Ireland), but one can see a situation where the UK might embrace them.
Not related to Amazon as such but the Foreman grills are great but leach onto your hands, even after going through the dishwasher. I only handle them with kitchen roll.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibbyradge
As for the wider debate, I stay in a small town which has one of those shops that sells everything. I would prioritise them as much as possible but no denying that Amazon are good at price and delivery. When it comes to pricier goods, whether tech or clothing (especially for my label-obsessed son) they are usually unbeatable.
I think its great that Amazon invests so much in its employees even if by doing so it avoids paying taxes commensurate with turnover.
Jeff Bezos, the worlds richest person, and main beneficiary thinks its great too!
I know and I do understand very basic economics.Quote:
Originally Posted by RyeSloan
The point I was making is that Amazon aren't creating these jobs out of the goodness of their heart and there's no doubt an element of blackmail in their tax negotiations.
As is the case for many things, somewhere in the middle would probably be fairer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
All the while, the ordinary Employee has to pay a much higher level of tax on their income to compensate for the mega rich that manage to avoid doing so because of the many loopholes.
Said Employee might once have had the chance of a decent job, but now has to work in a relatively low paid, low skill role because of outsourcing, virtual monopolies, market fixing and governments that couldn't give a flying f... about ordinary people.
But never mind, as long as we can all sit at home, order online and have some Chinese/Indian manufactured device, made by under-paid workers, delivered to our door the next day.
Don't you use them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith_M
I agree, but until those loopholes are closed for the likes of Amazon and other big earner then everyone should take advantage of what is strictly legal. Why should the big boys hold a monopoly on tax avoidance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
For those that do use Amazon:
Top tip, when shopping online try their amazon.de amazon.fr & amazon.es sites. Same products but often cheaper when paying euros. Handy if you have a currency card or something similar to a Santander Zero card.
Years ago, I bought the Nintendo Wii when it was popular from their Germany site for a considerable saving compared to the .co.uk site.
Also bought Bose noise cancelling headphones from their French site, saving about 30%.
Ironically, I think the stuff still got shipped from Dunfermline!
Make the most of that while you still can. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
I use Amazon and eBay and, as you'll know, a lot of sellers use both. For less expensive items, ebay is almost always cheaper the cheaper option than Amazon. Though if you are a Prime member then it certainly blows ebay out of the water.
Sent from my LG-H870 using Tapatalk
I thought this article on Amazon was quite interesting, though it could have done with a bit more detail (probably edited down to size)
I think I am more in favour of a lower flat tax based on turnover with no deductions allowed. Every company paying the exact same based on their level of sales. No attributing costs to low tax countries etc. If it’s sold here, you pay tax here. Two benefits are that Amazon pay the same rate of tax as a corner shop but Amazon also can do away with the thousands of accountants and lawyers they employ trying to find loopholes because there won’t be any.
And we can find more productive work for those people.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's not really fair on businesses that have high turnover, with small margins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Funny you should say that, I ordered something from the German Amazon on Sunday, it's something not even available in the UK and is arriving on Thursday, even got a discount as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
Mon ze Germans
Tesco and Diageo made about the same profit last year with vastly different turnovers.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It’s the consumer who pays anyway if it’s on sales.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Like VAT?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Don’t your local small businesses also have set ups that mean they are run in the most tax effective way for the business owners?
Are we expected to run the rule over how well they play the game of what they are all claiming for tax expenses etc?
They are hardly comparable though, are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy74
Like I say, wait until we are all asked to pay higher tax to foot the bill for the collapsed economy, lets see how people feel about state endorsed corporate tax avoidance.
You think they would try, but rateable values on the High st/Shopping centres are significantly higher than warehouses, as being one, I found out doing some researchQuote:
Originally Posted by Andy74
You also wonder what effect Amazon has had on the 2 groups who have run into major problems this week
Not all Amazon’s fault, as maybe they didn’t modernise quick enough, but when you’re in a downward spiral, it’s really hard to turn it around!
Just on the Amazon being a monopoly thing, when it comes to electrical appliances, I always use AO.com. No idea who owns them (might be Amazon[emoji23]) or what tax they pay but I always find them to be the cheapest and the service is great.
And for a local supplier of white goods, Edinburgh components on Bonnington road usually price match with online prices and their service is good. I have to buy about 5/6 washing machines a year and they provide a good service.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Legal doesn’t necessarily mean ethical though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
IMHO, they should pay their way. Their owner doesn’t need billions of pounds, that money could be going to support the NHS, to fighting poverty, homelessness etc.
The UK Government could easily address with a Sales Tax or tax on online sales - and say use it to pay rates for High St shops - however they choose not to.Quote:
Originally Posted by scott_b_
Similarly, Employment Legislation could be bolstered to safeguard employees .. again not.
I'm not sure Amazon are operating outside the laws - tax or employment..
No.. It needs to be tieredQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby