Amazon is 25, so we should boycott it apparently.
As any hormonal Catholic teenage boy knows, it’s perfectly possible to believe something is a grievous sin and yet repeatedly, almost compulsively, do it anyway. Almost 90% of the UK population should know the feeling, with the main difference that any guilt is more justly deserved. That’s how many of us knowingly and willingly buy from a company that has a terrible record on employee terms and working conditions, avoids paying tax as much as possible and shares responsibility for boarded-up shops in decimated high streets across the country.
Yawn. Usual nonsense from the Guardian. Their treatment of employees is something that is felt across all industries. I experienced it at Sainsbury’s and years before that in a call centre. Sure, it’s no fun, but are they doing anything illegal? Likewise with tax. And no, they are not responsible for the boarded up High Street. The world changes. I’m sure buggy whip manufacturers felt the same. Adapt or die. I would also point out that punitive parking arrangements in town centres that are becoming increasingly hostile to motorists has an effect – it is now simpler to stay at home and shop online, which is an effect the ecoloons at the Guardian would otherwise be applauding – you know, keep the plebs and their cars out of the town centres.
By and large though, the question is this: Is Amazon breaking any laws? No? Well, nothing to see here then. And, no I feel no guilt whatsoever buying from them and will continue to do so.
It won’t do. Yes, government should create a level playing field by making such companies pay their fair share of tax.
Idiot. There is no such thing as “fair share.” There is what the law demands. Is Amazon paying what the law demands? Yes. That’s it then. What these people seem to want is a form of double taxation, which most certainly would be unfair, but because they are demanding it, that’s all okay then.
You can’t have any pretence of being an ethical consumer if you routinely use Amazon when you do have good alternatives.
Given that I’m not a sanctimonious, self-righteous virtue signalling Guardianista, my conscience is clear because I pretend no such thing and I’ll keep buying from Amazon whenever it suits me.
Julian Baggini is a writer and philosopher
There are more things in heaven and earth, Julian Baggini, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. And you can stick yours where the sun don’t shine.
What do you think about a digital sales tax LR?
What do you think?
It’s a left-wing hobbyhorse, basically to hit business that have an advantage. If I xould get something straightaway I wouldn’t mind paying a little bit more for it. People mainly use the high street for going out for a pint and a meal these days.
Which is why I am opposed. We pay too much tax already.
What would be the justification for such a tax, other than to penalise companies that people want to use, but the sanctimonious don’t like?
I’m not the slightest bit interested in being an ethical consumer. Employees must decide for themselves if they want to work for a company and I’m not worried about the carbon footprint of what I buy, I’m interested in getting good quality for the right price.
+100!
+n
Like you, I have no interest whatsoever in “carbon footprint” because it is all total and utter bollocks!
Haven’t we had enough over the millenia of religious cults!
Almost right. The problem isn’t online retailers paying insufficient tax, but bricks ‘n’ mortar ones paying too much. We looked at opening a small gift shop here, and were shocked (I tell you) to discover the business rates levied were about £64k per annum for something the size of a double garage. And that’s on top of rent and other operating costs.
How to fix? Dunno. Because even if the rates were reset to almost zero, the landlords would immediately increase rent by that much.
The real problem here is that the asset values of commercial property portfolios are based upon the rental values of the properties within said portfolios, making it very difficult to reduce rental values even when they are no longer sustainable by the high street.
The internet is not making the matter worse so much as acting as an alternative for those smaller retailers under pressure. If they can close the shop in the high street and sell half as much online but without the massive overheads of rent / rates, etc. then they are quids in. Who wouldn’t do that?
The larger companies are able to put pressure on landlords by using targeted CVA’s (Company Voluntary Arrangement) against ‘increase only’ rental contracts and other shady practices which simply ignore economic reality.
Want to stop the death of the high street? Then stop treating car parking as a cash cow for cash strapped local councils and require commercial property valuations to reflect the amount of actual rent paid rather than what someone paid during the height of a boom on a shop that has been empty since they went bust last year.
I’d also outlaw ‘increase only’ rental contracts, but the problem with that is that it becomes a form of price control by proxy. Better to just make the CVA process more streamlined so that it is not just the high street majors that is able to make use of the process.
I did note that this moron was claiming that Amazon don’t contribute to the infrastructure they use. As if corporation tax is the only tax out there. It’s a common trick with these people – they ignore the eye-watering business rates and NI contributions, the income tax generated by their business and VAT. Nah, don’t look there, nothing to see…
Parking charges in our town are astronomical. Stupid Wiltshire Council keeps putting them up and wondering why the high street is dying. Public sector muppets.
There is something else about on line shopping that the high street can’t provide. Lots of youngsters do lots of shopping on sites like Amazon when they are half cut in the middle of the night!!! They are often amazed at what they they have bought when it arrives!
So with this in mind the high street needs to stay open to the early hours and provide public transportation as shoppers too drunk to drive.
I think amazon should remain someone somewhere is benefiting from drunken midnight sales!
There are also out of town shopping malls that are modern, under cover and have more than adequate free parking. Often when we need various items we make a day out at one of these. The so called high street has to compete against these too.
I know that Trumpmania is a thing here but “malls”.
Usually they are not under cover though. They’re massive shopping parks.
The one in Bristol is definitely a mall. Likewise the one in Sheffield.
Like the Traffird Centre? I prefer The Quays.
Similar. Never go there myself. I use Amazon…. 😀
“You can’t have any pretence of being an ethical consumer if you routinely use Amazon when you do have good alternatives.”
Bollocks on stilts from a Grauniad columnist as always. Who defines these farcical ‘ethics’ anyway?
A writer?
And a philosopher?
Rab C. Nesbitt with a biro?
Rab C Nesbitt was interesting and intelligent.
In comparison to many Grauniad op-ed writers, certainly.
As a qualified accountant, I understand the different between tax avoidance and tax evasion.
Amazon pay what is required and use perfectly legal tax avoidance schemes.
They do not evade tax as that is illegal.
Amazon already pay their fair share of tax as they pay exactly what is required under UK and international law. If you want them to pay more, then change the law. Don’t shoot the messenger.
Somebody should explain this to the Guardian, although I suspect they are not really interested. Frankly I wouldn’t wipe my arse with the Guardian. Anyone who pays idiots like Owen Jones to write their crap is automatically disqualified from serious consideration in my book…
“I wouldn’t wipe my arse with the guardian”
I did once. I felt unclean!
“Legal” is whatever the left/twatter/facefuck turd flinging, moronic monkey house decide. It has no relation whatsoever to any former concept of due process, principle, precedent or any sort of morality. The last, again, is whatever the aforementioned turd flinging monkey house decide. This can vary daily, or hourly.
If Amazon put out a statement telling said monkey house to go and fuck itself, I strongly suspect its business would go up. I, for one would be more favourable towards it.
Similarly, had Jeff Bezos responded to comrade Corbyn’s laughable impudence on Amazon’s 25th in a similar tone.
How can amazon be bad? Don’t they own that river and rain forest? And let’s not forget all those empowered wammen they have created.
It must be very confusing for snowflakes (and let’s not forget titty in the lake district).
I can feel a hashtag coming on
I also have fun with my colleagues by castigating them as ‘Tax avoiders’ if they bring in cake instead of biscuits for their birthday. (for non-UK people, you pay VAT on biscuits, but not on cake)(ref. Marks and Spencer’s 13 year dispute with UK tax authorities as to the taxable status of chocolate tea cakes – M&S won in the end)
Join the discussion…Since our lawmakers are so clever, I’ve always assumed that any legal way of NOT paying tax MUST have been designed-in from the start. It’s a feature, not a fault.
SimonJ
Sin taxes have it designed in as a feature.
I find it interesting that a comparison is made with Catholics labelling a natural and harmless activity as a grave sin, and a Guardianista agonising over whether it is a grave sin to buy stuff from Amazon. Sort of answered your own question there haven’t you? The fact that Amazon is so successful is proof enough that the vast majority of people are concerned about getting a good service rather than absurd hand wringing about spurious ethical questions.
It is also worth noting that the lefty idea of punishing success and rewarding failure is so obviously guaranteed to be a disaster.