Amazon do you really want to buy from them?

[TonyR]

And despite all the relentless spin we get about people on benefits being work shy scroungers, reported today that the wealthiest 20% receive as much in benefits from the government as the poorest 20% http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/01/top-uk-earners-to-receive-as-much-in-benefits-as-poorest-by-2020.

Well if they were being honest that headline should be "UK's poorest to receive twice as much in benefits as top earners by 2020"

They only get the headline they do by calling the zero rate income tax band a benefit for high earners (although about £100k high earners lose the zero rate band which they seem to have forgotten) but not calling it a benefit for the lowest paid. So the lowest paid get benefits plus a tax break while the highest earners get a tax break only.

[pete75]

If you are content that the small business has to pay a higher rate of tax than the enormous multinational business, fair enough. If you are relaxed about large corporations working hard to find loopholes in taxation never intended by governments, fair enough. If you are willing to buy from whichever retailer provides the lowest price or maximum convenience, regardless of their impact on your society, fair enough. After all, why should any of us care any more about our fellow human beings than the law requires?

It is not a matter of what I am content about as regards tax laws.

Amazon pay the correct amount of tax required by law, like nearly every person and company does. There is no such thing as a 'loophole' in any law. If small businesses pay a higher rate of tax than large corporations then that is what the law decrees, and is nothing to do with Amazon. They don't make laws, just obey them.

I rarely buy from Amazon, but when I do I know it is no more exploitative of its workforce than lots of other UK employers, big and small, who receive no negative publicity.

Anyone who has a pizza or parcel delivered, has a care assistant from the local council or shops at many high street stores will meet people treated about the same if not worse than Amazon staff. And there lots more of them in offices, call centres and factories up and down the country.

Please tell me how that you think that justifies low wages and poor treatment of employees....

There are loopholes in many laws and only a fool thinks otherwise. When governments want to they close them - an example is the breathalyser law which had several loopholes as originally created. Other loopholes they leave in because they advantage groups the government wants to advantage.

Here's an article about the artifices large companies use to avoid paying tax http://www.fairtaxmark.net/wp-content/u ... id-Tax.pdf

[gaz]

GetNastyComputerVirusHere (Pro Bike Kit)

A leftover from a time when first posts on the forum were not subject to approval by the moderator/spambuster team and a lot more spam found it's way through.

Certain common spam terms were auto-substituted. Some have been fixed since then, it would appear from your research that at least one still survives.

[Mick F]

It would seem that the spam filters and anti-spam measures are so good now that we spambusters are being needed less and less for outright blatant spam.

However, there is a slow but steady increase in "stealth spam". People join the forum with a sort of normal first post for approval, then start to advertise and spam us once they get a foot in the door. They rarely succeed and they are given short shrift PDQ.

[Vorpal]

As said above, Amazon follow the laws in the way that is most profitable to them. Until there is some sort of international agreement to prevent tax-doging by large international companies, some countries will continue to provide tax shelters. If you were to sop buying goods from companies that engage in this practice, you'd practically have to become a hermit in a shack and stop buying consumer goods altogether.

As for being banned by Amazon, for many of the users, it's not only because they have returned goods, but also how they have handled it. Some have bought from companies for which Amazon is only a distributor and the company selling the goods may have 'no returns' policies, or returns only for exchanges, in circumstances where the users say exchanges are not acceptable. For one person, the article says

He had chosen to cancel problematic purchases rather than wait for Amazon to simply exchange the item.

So, he told his credit card not to pay Amazon, instead of handling it through Amazon's returns department. He has no reason to wonder why he was banned.

As for Kindle e-readers, it's entirely possible to buy books in other formats and use conversion software, or download books in open code formats. I have lots of non-Amazon books on my Kindle. It's just *easier* to get stuff from Amazon.

[pete75]

As said above, Amazon follow the laws in the way that is most profitable to them. Until there is some sort of international agreement to prevent tax-doging by large international companies, some countries will continue to provide tax shelters. If you were to sop buying goods from companies that engage in this practice, you'd practically have to become a hermit in a shack and stop buying consumer goods altogether.

As for being banned by Amazon, for many of the users, it's not only because they have returned goods, but also how they have handled it. Some have bought from companies for which Amazon is only a distributor and the company selling the goods may have 'no returns' policies, or returns only for exchanges, in circumstances where the users say exchanges are not acceptable. For one person, the article says

He had chosen to cancel problematic purchases rather than wait for Amazon to simply exchange the item.

So, he told his credit card not to pay Amazon, instead of handling it through Amazon's returns department. He has no reason to wonder why he was banned.

As for Kindle e-readers, it's entirely possible to buy books in other formats and use conversion software, or download books in open code formats. I have lots of non-Amazon books on my Kindle. It's just *easier* to get stuff from Amazon.

Under UK distance selling regulations your right to cancel an order starts the moment you place your order and doesn’t end until seven working days from the day after you receive your goods. The man was just following the law in the way that was best for him just as Amazon follow the tax laws that are best for them.

The same regulations say that companies must accept returns for goods sold online.

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/ ... egulations

[mercalia]

I understand that the govt has just leaked that Amazon will start to pay more tax from today

[JohnW]

I've deleted this post - it was boring and irrelevant - I'm going to make some tea.

[blackbike]

Please tell me how that you think that justifies low wages and poor treatment of employees....

There are loopholes in many laws and only a fool thinks otherwise. When governments want to they close them - an example is the breathalyser law which had several loopholes as originally created. Other loopholes they leave in because they advantage groups the government wants to advantage.

Here's an article about the artifices large companies use to avoid paying tax http://www.fairtaxmark.net/wp-content/u ... id-Tax.pdf

A law can be altered or repealed. Loopholes are never closed because they don't exist. They are figments of the imaginations of those who would like the law to be different. There is nothing wrong or immoral in obeying a law as it stands just because other people think the law should be different.

And I have not attempted to justify any wage levels or poor treatment of employees.

I have pointed out that Amazon is entirely typical in its treatment of low paid staff. For some reason Amazon is now one of those companies which attracts special criticism from certain sections of society who consider themselves 'ethical' or caring. There seems to be an element of fashion in this phenomenon, who some call 'virtue signalling, rather than critical appraisal of a company's practices compared to those of others.

[Manc33]

The word "tax" has appeared 107 times in a 3 page thread about Amazon?

What next, stamp collecting?

[pete75]

Please tell me how that you think that justifies low wages and poor treatment of employees....

There are loopholes in many laws and only a fool thinks otherwise. When governments want to they close them - an example is the breathalyser law which had several loopholes as originally created. Other loopholes they leave in because they advantage groups the government wants to advantage.

Here's an article about the artifices large companies use to avoid paying tax http://www.fairtaxmark.net/wp-content/u ... id-Tax.pdf

A law can be altered or repealed. Loopholes are never closed because they don't exist. They are figments of the imaginations of those who would like the law to be different. There is nothing wrong or immoral in obeying a law as it stands just because other people think the law should be different.

And I have not attempted to justify any wage levels or poor treatment of employees.

I have pointed out that Amazon is entirely typical in its treatment of low paid staff. For some reason Amazon is now one of those companies which attracts special criticism from certain sections of society who consider themselves 'ethical' or caring. There seems to be an element of fashion in this phenomenon, who some call 'virtue signalling, rather than critical appraisal of a company's practices compared to those of others.

These figments of imagination have been used successfully in courts by lawyers defending clients. I believe there is on who actually calls his website the home of Mr. Loophole.

You have certainly tries to justify poor wages and treatment along the lines of "they all do it"....

Virtue signalling is a stupid concept invented by a writer in the Spectator, house comic of what John Major called swivel eyed loons, to condemn ideas with which he doesn't agree.
se Amazon
Anyone is entitled to not give their custom to companies they regard as having unethical practices. How do you know that those here who do use Amazon for those reasons also don't use other companies with similar practices.

[al_yrpal]

Watching CNBC News last night California is introducing a minimum wage of $15 per hour and NYC is going for $20 per hour. Like our 'Living Wage' legislation its several years off. Competition is the driving force here. Whilst there is an abundance of people who have no choice but to work for low wages our system will drive wages to the bottom by competing businesses. A statutory Living Wage is the only real answer to low wages under capitalism. We will all pay for it through increased prices which is fine by me. There is a lot of employer fuss about the Living Wage, but everyone has to pay it so its actually a level playing field.

Amazon is a particularly extreme case. They reinvest all the profit they generate in new operations making the business bigger and bigger and thus more and more valuable. They dont declare profit and distribute it to shareholders. Thus its very difficult to tax them especially when they operate out of Luxembourg a place the EU should be thoroughly ashamed of. Unlike Ireland which has lowish Corporation Taxes to attract businesses its a very rich place and lives off the back of the rest of EU countries by sheltering companies like Amazon instead of being a tax haven for Germans. Guess who is the President of the EU, Juncker, Luxembourgs ex Prime Minister!

Al

[pwa]

If you are content that the small business has to pay a higher rate of tax than the enormous multinational business, fair enough. If you are relaxed about large corporations working hard to find loopholes in taxation never intended by governments, fair enough. If you are willing to buy from whichever retailer provides the lowest price or maximum convenience, regardless of their impact on your society, fair enough. After all, why should any of us care any more about our fellow human beings than the law requires?

It is not a matter of what I am content about as regards tax laws.

Amazon pay the correct amount of tax required by law, like nearly every person and company does. There is no such thing as a 'loophole' in any law. If small businesses pay a higher rate of tax than large corporations then that is what the law decrees, and is nothing to do with Amazon. They don't make laws, just obey them.

I rarely buy from Amazon, but when I do I know it is no more exploitative of its workforce than lots of other UK employers, big and small, who receive no negative publicity.

Anyone who has a pizza or parcel delivered, has a care assistant from the local council or shops at many high street stores will meet people treated about the same if not worse than Amazon staff. And there lots more of them in offices, call centres and factories up and down the country.

You're right, of course, to point out that Amazon is not the only bad employer out there, Yodel is another glaring example. I try not to use them either, though I have less control there. But Amazon declare their profits in low tax countries where they clearly do not really make their profit. Small businesses are not in a position to do that and are therefore at a severe disadvantage when they have to compete with Amazon. And if Amazon are just complying with the letter of the law by not contributing more to our national wellbeing, so am I when I choose to avoid them. In my very small way I am making them pay a commercial price for their lack of concern for us. If more of us did the same they would have to behave like they care, and our schools and hospitals would be better as a result.

[Vorpal]

Actually, I know a couple of people who work for Amazon, and they don't seem to think they are badly treated.

[Arfur]

Actually, I know a couple of people who work for Amazon, and they don't seem to think they are badly treated.

And what does that prove, exactly? Do you work for them, or just like being an apologist for them? Do you support Monsanto, too?