easy2012 Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jul/19/oecd-tax-reform-proposals-amazon Amazon told: time is up for tax avoidance G20 nations hail 'once in a century' agreement to close international loopholes From the article... But even as the European trio of finance ministers congratulated one another on the unprecedented show of G20 unity, behind the scenes there were growing concerns that national self-interest could scupper some elements of the plan. Notably absent from the launch event was the US treasury secretary, Jack Lew. Sources with knowledge of the extensive negotiations said the US was growing increasingly frustrated with sniping from European politicians targeted at some of the most successful US multinationals including Starbucks, Google and Amazon. I think they have been talking about clamping down since the 1930s when corporation and income taxes becomes fashionable across the world. Even if they get it, Ireland will probably offer a special warehouse zone with special tax rates to divert those traffic over and that will all be within the free trade EU rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saving For a Space Ship Posted May 9, 2014 Author Share Posted May 9, 2014 Amazon UK boycott urged after retailer pays just 0.1% in tax www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/09/margaret-hodge-urges-boycott-amazon-uk-tax-starbucks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCountOfNowhere Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Amazon UK boycott urged after retailer pays just 0.1% in tax www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/09/margaret-hodge-urges-boycott-amazon-uk-tax-starbucks At least there are decent deals to be had on Amazon. Less tax = better prices. Tax = BAD No Tax = GOOD. If you compare it to other non-tax paying organisations....you aint getting no bargains there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richc Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) Amazon UK boycott urged after retailer pays just 0.1% in tax www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/09/margaret-hodge-urges-boycott-amazon-uk-tax-starbucks Better than a boycott is to make sure they lose as much money as possible. Everytime I order something from Amazon, if the product or delivery is not perfect, I lodge a complaint. As they can't be bothered with handling many types of returns or can't prove a delivery when they've left the package sitting in the rain on my neighbour's doorstep, they generally just let me have the shipment for free. It's amazing how many faults you can find in their service. I haven't paid for laundry detergent for 2 years now (and I only "buy" very expensive, organic, eco-friendly detergent). The Amazon business model is based on goodwill. They're running a store where no one is standing guard at the front door. Having completely broken their side of the social contract, consumers owe them exactly nothing and shouldn't be showing them any goodwill whatsoever. Edited May 9, 2014 by richc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Amazon UK boycott urged after retailer pays just 0.1% in tax www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/09/margaret-hodge-urges-boycott-amazon-uk-tax-starbucks The £4.2m in tax paid is just 0.1% of Amazon's UK revenues in 2013. But the Treasury sets corporation tax as a percentage of profits. The Guardian is acting as if not taxing revenues is some kind of loophole. They're also conveniently ignoring VAT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Amazon UK boycott urged after retailer pays just 0.1% in tax www.theguardian.com/business/2014/may/09/margaret-hodge-urges-boycott-amazon-uk-tax-starbucks I suspect that thanks to things like zero hours contracts, a large proportion of their staff are going to be getting things like tax credits or even working housing benefit. Given examples of the state providing grants, funding and other benefits (such as the road mentioned in an earlier post) it makes you wonder what the net benefit of their business is to the country at large. Still, I'm sure that the 'right' people have certainly seen a benefit to their net worth ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 The Guardian is acting as if not taxing revenues is some kind of loophole. They're also conveniently ignoring VAT. VAT would have to be paid by the consumer regardless of who they were buying the product off of, so I don't see how Amazon can be said to be generating that. They're just the ones making the sale and collecting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 VAT would have to be paid by the consumer regardless of who they were buying the product off of, so I don't see how Amazon can be said to be generating that. They're just the ones making the sale and collecting it. No-one puts a gun to people's heads and forces them to buy consumer goods and Amazon clearly generates demand beyond simply fulfilling orders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scappers Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 VAT would have to be paid by the consumer regardless of who they were buying the product off of, so I don't see how Amazon can be said to be generating that. They're just the ones making the sale and collecting it. So amazon's margins are approx 1%. So that's 43million on 4.3billion sales. So they paid about 10% tax ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 No-one puts a gun to people's heads and forces them to buy consumer goods and Amazon clearly generates demand beyond simply fulfilling orders. Based on my own experiences, I buy a lot of stuff from Amazon myself (it's very convenient and prices are decent) but there's not a whole lot that I wouldn't have bought somewhere else instead if Amazon wasn't there. I'm not concerned how much tax they pay - but I do question the state throwing money at them (or any other business) in return for little tangible financial return. Seems to smack of corporate welfare for the big boys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corruption Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Wonder if Dave will raid their bank account, or is that for the little people. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/10819885/David-Cameron-Taxes-will-rise-unless-we-can-raid-bank-accounts.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 I'm not concerned how much tax they pay - but I do question the state throwing money at them (or any other business) in return for little tangible financial return. Seems to smack of corporate welfare for the big boys. In what way is the state throwing money at them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) The Guardian is acting as if not taxing revenues is some kind of loophole. They're also conveniently ignoring VAT. Presumably they are paying business rates as well as NI and PAYE on their UK employed staff. They might as well abolish corporation tax and just collect via VAT / PAYE and business rates since it seems so easy for international businesses to fiddle their profit/loss figures. Alternatively they could always subsidise UK based businesses by having rates relief for local and national based companies to level the playing field a bit (not sure whether our EU overlords would allow it though). Edited May 9, 2014 by libspero Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 In what way is the state throwing money at them? The tax credits and housing benefit that is paid to top up their abysmal wages. The schooling of their employees. The roads they use to deliever their goods. Access to the court system if they ever run into problems. The police which acts as a general security force protecting all those lovely stockpiled goods. I'm sure I can think of dozens more if i really tried. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 The tax credits and housing benefit that is paid to top up their abysmal wages. The schooling of their employees. The roads they use to deliever their goods. Access to the court system if they ever run into problems. The police which acts as a general security force protecting all those lovely stockpiled goods. I'm sure I can think of dozens more if i really tried. Oh please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Presumably they are paying business rates as well as NI and PAYE on their UK employed staff. They might as well abolish corporation tax and just collect via VAT / PAYE and business rates since it seems so easy for international businesses to fiddle their profit/loss figures. Alternatively they could always subsidise UK based businesses by having rates relief for local and national based companies to level the playing field a bit (not sure whether our EU overlords would allow it though). The way to solve it is unitary taxation which gets rid of the "myths" that they use to avoid tax. Not suprisingly the big US corporates are wholely and completely against it, as is the US government which supports them. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/798f30d2-3242-11e2-916a-00144feabdc0.html#axzz31EmTP8cl The problem for them is that the world corporate tax system is starting to fracture. Nations see that the rules don't work, and that those rules are plainly giving an advantage to the big US corporates which are heavily IP based. So they are starting to go their own way on corporate tax rules. Up to yet china, brazil, and india, have instituted rules that differ from the OECD standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) Oh please! I see that you didn't actually refute any of my points.... Whether you like it or not the corporations and their owners benefit from those. Simply imagine Amazon trying to do business in the UK and thus making profits if all those in that list were absent. Edited May 9, 2014 by alexw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 I see that you didn't actually refute any of my points.... Whether you like it or not the corporations and their owners benefit from those. Simply imagine Amazon trying to do business in the UK and thus making profits if all those in that list were absent. But you're making a structural point about the make up of the economy. None of your points explains why Amazon has a competitive advantage versus any other corporation as a result of those policies, therefore it's a nonsense to argue that they are the beneficiaries of state cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 But you're making a structural point about the make up of the economy. None of your points explains why Amazon has a competitive advantage versus any other corporation as a result of those policies, therefore it's a nonsense to argue that they are the beneficiaries of state cash. ??? Your question was - In what way is the state throwing money at them? I've shown how they are. And yes it undoubtably has a competitive advantage due to this. It is getting services thrown at it without paying the CT that helps fund them, while it's competitors are paying that corporation tax. It's an impicit subsidy which it's competitors don't receive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybernoid Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 What would be done with more tax from amazon that is better than what is done by individuals who have more money in their pockets having made savings with their purchases with amazon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 ??? Your question was - In what way is the state throwing money at them? I've shown how they are. And yes it undoubtably has a competitive advantage due to this. It is getting services thrown at it without paying the CT that helps fund them, while it's competitors are paying that corporation tax. It's an impicit subsidy which it's competitors don't receive. It's competitors are free to copy any one of their practices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexw Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) It's competitors are free to copy any one of their practices. oh please... And i'm "free" to build a moon rocket any day I want. Or even my own airliner. You are posting an absurdity which though true, the same as my building a moon rocket is, is so pie in the sky as to be irrelevant. They de facto get a subsidy which 99%+ of their competitors will never ever recieve. No matter which way you try and frame your argument that statement will always be true. This is so obvious I have to wonder why you are defending them on this? Edited May 9, 2014 by alexw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wonderpup Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 What would be done with more tax from amazon that is better than what is done by individuals who have more money in their pockets having made savings with their purchases with amazon? If I raided an amazon warehouse armed with a shotgun would they call the police? Yes they would. Do they want to pay for the police? No they don't. So why should they gain the benefits of operating in a well ordered trading environment if they don't want to pay to maintain it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 oh please... And i'm "free" to build a moon rocket any day I want. Or even my own airliner. You are posting an absurdity which though true, the same as my building a moon rocket is, is so pie in the sky as to be irrelevant. They de facto get a subsidy which 99%+ of their competitors will never ever recieve. No matter which way you try and frame your argument that statement will always be true. This is so obvious I have to wonder why you are defending them on this? You're talking about a company which didn't exist 20 years ago which should be enough in itself to show you that your argument is false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bambam Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 If I raided an amazon warehouse armed with a shotgun would they call the police? Yes they would. Do they want to pay for the police? No they don't. So why should they gain the benefits of operating in a well ordered trading environment if they don't want to pay to maintain it? Nobody, strictly speaking, pays for the police, they merely pay taxes according to the law (hopefully, and certainly in Amazon's case). Amazon contribute a lot more in taxes than you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.