Boycotting Amazon

Sorry I appear to be haranguing some of you.
You are four clicks away from the Austerity films on JRF. Search for it.
That's what happens when people do not pay the taxes they should.
Families of 4 living in a one bedroom flat with mould on the walls and ceiling.
Except now it's a family of 3, and if the father has any more epileptic fits, it could be a family of 2. So that will be okay then, and Starbucks and Amazon needn't pay their taxes.

Actually might be worth googling.

It's quite an interesting question.

granjura I don't have any evidence for anything. I was wondering if there was a practical reason for Costa paying more tax that didn't involve the goodness of their hearts.

I do live abroad but I am NOT and expat We mostly watch UK TV though.

I see mention of this and that programme on TV about topical subjects, do the expats get British TV ? they seem to know a lot of what is going on.

Another thing people who live in countries that give people tax havens might do, is to lobby their governments to make changes.

jura the holier than thou comment was not aimed at you.

My post was in reply to Bags's btw.

Blethering holier than though - I'd say that is rude, and very unfair. Touché perhaps. As said, so disappointed.

And the side swipes about tax havens are damn rude.

Nobody is condoning it, jura. Nobody is saying leave it to government. WE have to persuade the government to do something. Some gransnetters think boycotting is a good way of persuading the government to do something. Fine. But all the haranguing at those of us who aren't so convinced of the power of boycotting just reminds me of when I was at primary school and we were told that if enough people said enough Hail Marys, there'd be peace in the world. Aye, right!

Choosing not to boycott (those of us who don't shop with amazon can't anyway) does not mean we aren,t using our democratic rights to do something else in the same cause.

Yes. It's disappointing.

Indeed - and should we do something about it, or leave it to the Government to solve? Is best to get involved with charities like Oxfam to fight this - or leave it to Government?

I am fully aware suffragettes did more than boycott- and i did say it was not really a fair comparison. But they certainly didn't 'just leave it to the Government'. And neither should we - we now live in such a divided Britain, where children die of mould and damp- where the NHS is being squeezed,, education cut, service to the elderly and the handicapped. So big multinational should NOT be able to go by without paying fair taxes. Punkt Schluss.

Now I am no Tory and never have been - but even your leader is disgusted and condemns them. Why should we here condone- because inaction is a form of condoning, is it not?

I enjoy debate too but I get sick of the holier than thou attitude That comeas across from some quarters.

No tax haven investments here either. Be nice to have the mortgage paid off...
I just enjoy debate!

I do wish people wouldn't blether on as if something so incredibly complex as international tax law could be changed so simply!

Here's a question: if boycotting is so bloody powerful, why can baby milk manufacturers still promote their products in countries where many mothers don't have access to clean water?

Writing to one's MP, thinking carefully about which way to vote, investing ine's money (if one has any to invest) carefully, and many other things do not count as "leaving it to government". Democratic action is not just a case of boycotting. Boycotting isn't all the suffragettes did, for heaven's sake!

Petallus - do you have evidence for that. Why should Costa not be able to use the same loopholes? If you have evidence, I would be very interested to hear, thanks.

I know, not a fair comparison perhaps, and yet.

How long would it have taken for women to have the vote without the suffragettes. Most women derided them, and told them they were mad.

Would women have go the right to property and their own finances? If left to the Government. What about contraception, etc, etc, etc. Some of our mothers and grand-mothers were certainly made of sterner stuff. As said, I am so disappointed - perhaps more in those who have not contributed to this debate, than those who have and have disagreed.

Bags Yes! Prima facie Amazon sells books and various other items but it also sells services. It has developed the expertise over many years and many completely unrelated companies use that expertise to sell online. They also provide a platform for small sellers to grow a business. So, just not using Amazon will do very little. It's also unfair. There are many big UK companies doing this too.

Jendurham I don't have money in tax havens, as far as I am aware. I do have money in various funds which invest in large global and profitable companies so who knows.

I understand your comment 'there should be no tax havens' but I fear without global agreement, nad there isn't much history of that, it won't happen. The rush of US companies to more favourable tax countries eg Ireland and Switzerland was precipitated by fear of Obama introducing global taxation on those companies. By headquartering in a country that has a tax treaty with the US they can avoid that.

Don't forget who actually pays for everything, who creates the wealth and the jobs we all need. Taxing them on revenue rather than profit? Well I'm not sure how long a business could survive that and there would we be?

Yes, that was funny!

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!

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?

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

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.

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?

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.