I am boycotting............

[DiscoDes]

The following:
Due to them not paying UK taxes (legally) I think the following are morally wrong and therefore I will make every effort to avoid using spending money with these companies unless their stance changes.

1. Starbucks
2. Amazon
3. Google

What's your thoughts?


*Edited for clarity

[millerkev]

one sec i`ll just go and google the answer and let you know

[DiscoDes]

OP edited

[greendollar]

difficult one this as I've got to count every penny at the mo and amazon are doing the bottle sterilizer the missus wants £10 cheaper delivered to my door than anyone on the highstreet , anyway seeing as they're not breaking any laws and it's government legislation that allows them to avoid paying tax then your gripe really should be with them , shouldn't it ?

[womble]

They are morally wrong, but they can also save me money sometimes and atm, that's more important to me than legal tax dodges.

If the government wants to stop this, then legislate.

I'm not happy about it, Starbucks paid 1% corporation tax in the last 10 years apparently, I paid alot more than that.

But that's what accountants are for, if mine didn't let me get the best return from my fees, I would be annoyed. Same as the big corps, just better accountants.

[Raffles]

Who's been watching Question Time then?

Seriously, you can't blame a business for maximising profits, we'd all do it if it was our business, wouldn't we, and it was legal?

The people to blame, as usual, are the politicians that allow it happen.

I'm not going too far into this as political discussions can quickly get out of hand, (and I need to get to bed), but they do make the rules, and over the years, on many issues, they continually get it wrong (usually for their own self interest & whatever party).

[timnowvapes]

The governments make the loop holes, and tax avoidance is legal, you think Cameron and Osbourne aren't using those same loop holes?

[domesticextremist]

Nov 15, 2012 23:24:17 GMT DiscoDes said:

The following:
Due to them not paying UK taxes (legally) I think the following are morally wrong and therefore I will make every effort to avoid using spending money with these companies unless their stance changes.

1. Starbucks
2. Amazon
3. Google

What's your thoughts?


*Edited for clarity

I'm with you all the way there Des - though the list of companies playing
these games is a lot longer, and some are easier to boycott than others.

Starbucks is easy - they destroy indeendent coffee shops (and the jobs
they provide and taxes they cannot avoid paying so easily) as well as
aggressively outbidding other chains for prime sites.

Costa is just as good, manages to make a profit and pay a fair share of CT.

Amazon is a bit harder to boycott, though not impossible. I appreciate they are
often cheaper, but then they can afford to be. When saving pennies you have
to think about the real cost of that saving.
I notice that WH Smith have Kobo Minis on sale £10 cheaper than online and
they can't be had for any price at Amazon (for some reason ).

At least they employ real people though they are trying to reduce that by
deliberately undermanning the tills in order to force you to use the
robo-checkouts.(I'm boycotting those job killers on principle, no matter
how inconvenient it might be).


Google are pretty hard to boycott due to their near monopoly on internet search
and YouTube.
However, that raises no revenue for them. I don't use their browser or social
networking stuff.
Their money comes from advertising, so you can use Adblocker and make a
point of not clicking through - pretty difficult though.

I appreciate that the government writes the loopholes and many in government
exploit them themselves - given that, then the only way to win is by boycotting
named transgressors with your wallet and your votes.

[Gordy]

surely those that buy things abroad and then not declare import tax are just as bad hhhhmmmmm

[domesticextremist]

Surely it's a matter of scale, and that we pay taxes so that the
multinationals and very rich don't have to....

[kurotoshiro]

I find it hard to view this situation as any more right or wrong than any other aspect of capitalism. But that's because I'm essentially a communist, and I view capitalism as wrong in its entirety. (Just to be clear what I'm talking about: when I say 'capitalism', I mean any system based on owning stuff and trading it to get other stuff.)

Of course, I'm not an idiot, and I realise that communism is an entirely futile ideal, and that no alternative to capitalism (ie, a system based on nobody owning any stuff and nobody needing to trade to get stuff) is ever remotely likely to be realised. Which is pretty much where my ability to add anything fruitful to a realistic discussion of politics comes to a dead end.

[giles]

I respect your stance Des, but I don't think it will change anything. There are far too many big companies paying little or no tax, and you can't boycott them all.

Those of us old enough remember boycotting various South African companies and goods during apartheid. As I remember we concentrated on Barclays, and changed their behaviour a little, but didn't effect anyone else much. It did make us feel a little better, and helped to publicise the cause.

The ordinary taxpayer probably doesn't lose much by it, because the companies are competing, and reduce prices to the point where post-tax profits are acceptable. The real losers are small companies, who lack the resources to be able to organise the tax dodges, and so find it harder to compete.

That said, small companies have a few things of their own which the big companies can't do. (I used to run a small company, did very nicely ).

I think it would be better to simply stop trying to collect CT and try to find some other way of taking it out of corporate hides.

[hifistud]

They're all foreign companies - Amazon, Google and Starbuck's - they may well be paying their taxes in their home lands on their earnings over here. Similarly with UK companies that have overseas interests - HMG wants tax on their overall profits - they can't have it both ways.

Given that the tax avoidance (if it is that) that they employ is perfectly legal, and given that there are many around us who, as Gordy says, will avoid paying import duty by having vendors put inaccurate pricing on shipping documents, I find it difficult to take a "moral" stance - and if you add to that the notion that Starbuck's, for instance employs christ knows how many folks, each of whom is tipping up 20% or more of their wages to the exchequer, they're raising a fair amount for the treasury...

[domesticextremist]

if you add to that the notion that Starbuck's, for instance employs christ knows how many folks, each of whom is tipping up 20% or more of their wages to the exchequer, they're raising a fair amount for the treasury...

With respect hidi, that's a bogus argument.
Firstly, everyone who works pays those taxes irrespective of who they work for.
Secondly, if Starbucks wasn't there, some other coffee shops would be.
As stated above, Costa is able to make a profit in the UK and pays a fair amount
of CT on them.

I'm not against capitalism per se, but what these folks are doing isn't capitalism.
Furthermeore, their ability to avoid taxes gives them an unfair advantage over
more honest competitors.

[giles]

hifi, companies are supposed to pay tax in each country on profits made in that country. So, there is a Starbucks Coffee Company UK Ltd, (wholly owned by Starbucks in the US) which would pay CT on its profits in the UK, if it made any. It doesn't, because it buys its coffee beans from Holland (famous coffee grower ) where Starbucks has a deal with the Dutch government not to pay much tax; also the US company charges the British company royalties, management charges etc, to make the UK profits and hence tax payment less. All this is standard business practice in a large number of multinationals.

At least Starbucks is a US company; privately owned corporations register themselves in places like Belize, which they do no business in, just because they don't get charged tax.