to wonder why people shop at Amazon?

[poppytripll]

Starbucks and the other well known tax dodging companies? If we need more money to pay teachers properly, fund the nhs etc then surely if we supported retailers that pay UK tax it may help? I don't buy coffee much but I use Costa if I do, as it's part of a British company that pays tax.

I also shop in Sainsbury or Waitrose because they pay UK tax as opposed to Aldi and Lidl. I'm probably over simplifying this so please tell me if iabu!

[ouryve]

I do make a point of buying local, where I can, btw. I can buy a lot of my meat direct from the farmer, which probably puts more into the local economy than it would if I bought DS2's size enormous pull ups from Tesco, instead of Amazon.

[CinnabarRed]

ISAs aren't tax avoidance. Even the most active NGOs don't object to ISAs. The reason is that anyone saving into an ISA is using a tax relief in exactly the manner that parliament intended. That's the key point.

It becomes avoidance, under the most common definitions, when taxpayers find legal interpretations of the tax legislation which fall outside of the outcomes that parliament intended. How egregious the avoidance is depends on just how far removed from parliament's intent the outcome is.

When taxpayers outright lie, then we're talking about tax evasion, which is illegal.

I find it helpful to draw parallels with male/female relationships to explain the differences.

ISAs are like having work colleagues or friends of the opposite gender. Only the frothing seriously object.

Avoidance is like being unfaithful. It can range from an overly flirty friendship, to a drunken and much regretted snog, to a full on affair.

Evasion is like committing bigamy. It's a criminal offence.

[FreudiansSlipper]

When I has more money to spare I could be more ethical and smug in my choices of where I could shop

Now money is tighter those choices are far less it's that simple

Of course the government should change tax laws but what are they going to when their top business advisor avoids paying over a billion pounds in tax avoidance schemes

labour are promising changes I hope they keep to them

[PomeralLights]

davidrjmum I'm not saying laws should cover every aspect of moral behaviour. I do think laws should establish a minimum standard for being a functioning/non-harmful member of society. As a society, we have established the concept of a non-voluntary tax system in which the level of contribution is dictated by law. Voluntary contributions above that level are charity, surely? I'm distinctly uncomfortable with the idea that someone should need to decide for themselves the acceptable level of tax payments, which is what relying on standards of behaviour, rather than laws, would lead to. Apart from anything else, how on earth are companies supposed to work out what's appropriate? Estimate what everyone else is paying and pay the same?

[Southeastdweller]

When the greedy fuckers decided to scrap the free delivery for orders less than £10 is when I'd had enough so I buy elsewhere now.

But their customer service is excellent, their range of items comprehensive and not badly priced so YABU. When I was buying from them, those three things were what I cared about so to hell with tax avoidance - I simply don't care, likewise I still go to Starbucks.

[CinnabarRed]

It's worth remembering that around 90% of tax due from taxpayers is collected without any intervention from HMRC. Another 3% is collected following HMRC enquiries. On the whole, we're a remarkably compliant lot.

The remaining 7% is called the Tax Gap. It amounts to around £32bn per year.

Of that, £5bn is non-payment (basically, taxpayers either going bankrupt before their tax bill is paid or outright refusing to pay an agreed bill until county court judgements are applied for and gained), £4bn is avoidance (predominantly large companies and rich individuals) and £3bn is genuine disagreements between HMRC and taxpayers over how parliament intended a specific piece of legislation to work.

But £14bn is evasion (overwhelmingly the preserve of small businesses - cash in hand working which doesn't get declared to the taxman, mostly - and rich individuals) and £6bn is criminal activity by organised gangs (cigarette smugglers and the like).

Note that tax lost to criminal activities (evasion, organised gangs) five times higher than tax lost through evasion.

[ShineSmile]

Convenience and excellent excellent customer service and returns policy.

[VSeth]

Amazon deliver me cheap nappies in bulk. That's why I use them

[noddyholder]

I use neither but they should pay their taxes

[CarolineWheatley]

A round of applause for PomeralLights, who succinctly summarises transfer pricing!
"how on earth are companies supposed to work out what's appropriate? Estimate what everyone else is paying and pay the same?"

[stonecircle]

I use them because I believe it's a safe way to do internet shopping. Having been the victim of bank and ID fraud recently I will only buy from Amazon. They have everything, they are safe to use, I don't have much time.

[rubybleu]

Amazon do not avoid tax. Rather they adhere to their specific taxation agreement with the HMRC. Same as Costa, Starbucks, Boots et al. If it bothers you, take it up with the UK government, as Amazon have had their taxation agreements endorsed by the HMRC.

I use Amazon because the proliferation of chain shops in Central London makes it surprisingly hard to source certain obscure items (e.g. pharmacy goods not sold by Boots). Amazon Prime is worth its weight in gold.

We also shop at Waitrose but that's because the alternative, Morrisons, is too depressing for words.

[adsy]

because my nearest town is Rochdale and it sells nothing except Greggs sausage rolls.

[Saurus72]

I agree with people who have said that the tax laws are not fit for purpose and need to be changed urgently, on a global scale. A huge job, but surely doable if governments genuinely want to make a change.

I do use Amazon, mainly but not only for E-books. I choose to buy from Marketplace sellers where possible, but I won't not buy something if Amazon are selling it directly. I buy my groceries from Waitrose (via Ocado), and I am an enthusiastic John Lewis shopper, because I like their business model very much.

However, I think it is very interesting that many people seem to fetishise independent businesses. My DH worked for years for small independent businesses, and they broke the law as a matter of course re: working hours and working conditions; he regularly worked 14 hour days and once worked for 5 weeks without a day off. There is usually (not always) a greater element of legal protection as an employee if you work in a bigger company, although that can sometimes be accompanied by a less interesting role.

There was an interesting article about Foyles booksellers that I read recently. It described how, in the 1980s, their business regularly used to employ people for around ten weeks and then just at the point that employee rights would kick in (I'm guessing around the 12 week mark) they used to just get rid of people.

I totally agree that not paying enough tax is indefensible, however this is an issue that needs a global solution.

[ElizabethJennings]

Because it's so fucking easy.

[Saurus72]

Oh and also, specifically with regards to Amazon. Like others have said, their customer service is just outstanding - comparable to John Lewis which to me is gold standard. They do what they say they are going to do, in the way they say they will, and in the agreed timescale. That's a brilliant business.

The book trade (publishers specifically) had the chance years and years ago to band together and come Up with an alternative book sales and distribution model - they didn't. They could have formed their own website for books, refused to supply Amazon, and protected their business. What they did do, and continue to do so in many cases, is whine on and on about how terrible Amazon are, how people should want to buy books, how they shouldn't want to buy e-books etc etc etc. meanwhile Amazon are responding to how people actually want to consume literature. I have ordered via Waterstones' website, and it was a miserable experience; my order took weeks to be delivered (the website said it was in stock), with no communication as to when I could expect my order. They are a shockingly poorly run business, and just don't use them.

[LittleBearPad]

Because they are excellent at what they do, Amazon at least. If you have a problem with their tax affairs that is a matter for your MP as they are doing nothing illegal. Leverage and transfer pricing massively affect the corporation tax most companies pay, not just Amazon/Starbucks.

[RedToothBrush]

I use Amazon because it keeps my postie in a job.

Amazon allows me to buy products from small independent traders who wouldn't have a big enough market on their local high street, nor would be able to afford to advertise to gain that trade.

Often I buy things through amazon which are British made and support jobs in the UK.

Often the things I buy from Amazon are from companies who source ethically or try to produce items which are more environmentally friendly than those I can find on my high street.

Sometimes I buy things from Amazon because they sell things that are imported from abroad, which can't be purchased here, so it gives me a much wider choice than I could ever have otherwise.

And occasionally I do buy things from Amazon because they are cheaper and quite frankly I can't be arsed to look elsewhere.

I am well aware that Amazon has some dubious practices, but I know its impossible to be principled about everything. We do what we can, when we can. And as far as I am concerned, ironically Amazon has plus points which enable some good things in businesses which otherwise might struggle.

[Flipflops7]

weatherall, city banking types pay their full whack of tax via the PAYE system.

I like Amazon for the reasons cited. I don't like Starbucks coffee so I go to the other chains instead. Firms are optimising variances in corporation tax which they are allowed to do; also they are not UK incorporated.

[Andrewofgg]

I get my first fix of the morning from Starbucks because their branch near my office opens before its rivals - and also because the staff there know me, know what I want, and are always cheerful. All of which is more important - to me - than their tax affairs. They don't ask about mine.

[HumptyDumptyBumpty]

What flipflops said ^^
Oh, and those 'bankers' who earn over £100k? They pay proportionally MORE tax, as they start to lose their tax free allowance at that salary level. So, by your reckoning, weatherall those bankers are more moral than you! because they pay more tax.

[LittleBearPad]

Yup, their marginal rate of tax at £100k to about £118k is 62%. They must be the most moral tax payers there are.

[wheresthelight]

Amazon and the likes are doing nothing LEGALLY wrong. They are operating entirely within our tax laws

The issue is not with the companies it is with the government who refuse to close the loop holes (because most exploit them themselves I am sure)

[TucsonGirl]

Why do you think "loop holes" are there, wheresthelight?

[museumum]

Amazon because they sell stuff I can't find elsewhere. And because I was bought a kindle as a present.

Starbucks because my local branch and staff are the friendliest and quietest coffee shop to work in (self employed and use their wifi when I can't work at home).

I do think both should pay uk taxes though and I will/do add my voice to petitions to change the law or apply social pressure.