6 ms·

Bezos can keep his donations, I just want Amazon to pay tax like any other business would in the UK, pay employees NI like any other business in the UK, and pa

Bezos can keep his donations, I just want Amazon to pay tax like any other business would in the UK, pay employees NI like any other business in the UK, and pay minimum wage like any other business in the UK. It shouldn't be up to the billionaires to choose where to spend money that should be in the hands of national governments and workers. This article for instance shows homeless Amazon warehouse workers living in tents [0]. Maybe a better solution to homelessness is to pay people properly. [0]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/amazon-workers-sleep-tents-dunfermline-fife-scotland-a7467657.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/amazon-worke...

yodsanklai 8y ago
> I just want Amazon to pay tax like any other business would in the UK, pay employees NI like any other business in the UK, and pay minimum wage like any other business in the UK I agree with you, but you can't blame Jeff Bezos for UK legislation.
- Jedd 8y ago
  > ... but you can't blame Jeff Bezos for UK legislation. Ahh, the old 'unless it's specifically and explicitly denied, regardless of moral or ethical considerations, let alone acting contra to the spirit of the law, then it's okay' defence. Your misdirection is correct - Jeff Bezos is not responsible for UK legislation - however how Jeff Bezos instructs his vendors and employees to act is very much his responsibility.
  - natalyarostova 8y ago
    If you want to optimize systems, you should expect people to operate with self-interest with respect to the law. Attributing moral blame for self-interested parties not donating money to be within the spirit of the law is unreasonable.
    - p1necone 8y ago
      No it's fucking not.
    - projektir 8y ago
      Attributing moral blame to self-interested parties is exactly the point of moral blame. Moral blame is specifically about accusing people of going for their self-interest and little else...
      - solveit 8y ago
        You're talking past each other. Moral blame isn't wrong, just not very useful.
        rsj_hn 8y ago
        Moral blame and $5 will get you a cup of coffee from Blue Bottle, which just sold out to Nestle.
      - manigandham 8y ago
        Why must there be anything else? If you're going to make this argument then you must have a compelling answer, specifically in the context of a corporation.
  - nambit 8y ago
    You want companies to pay more taxes than is legally required of them? What la la land do you live in?
  - manigandham 8y ago
    Companies follow laws and regulations, and optimize for profit and sustainability within those rules. Why would they ever pay MORE than they have to? There are no ethics or morals here. Taxes are not charity. If you want to change the tax laws then you can do so, via the government that you take part in.
    - r00fus 8y ago
      You don't think that negotiation and outright bribery (oh I'm sorry in the civilized West we call it lobbying) don't drive either the laws or the uneven enforcement of them? Amazon is so big that they can jurisdiction shop or even just shop for legislators/civil servants to help fashion the regulatory environment they prefer.
      - manigandham 8y ago
        Bribery is already illegal so what's your point with that? Everything you're saying falls under "change and improve your government" if you want to see something different. If they fail to act in the public interest then vote in someone else, or run for office and show them how it's done. It's not easy, but it's not impossible. And it's far more realistic than posting some comments and wondering why companies don't magically just donate their money away.
    - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
      I don't have complete control over every government in the world. It is perfectly reasonable for me to criticize the way that companies act, even if it is incentivized by a government. People do not have to be mindless money maximizers. They have a choice in how they act and they are responsible for their own actions regardless of what incentives the government creates.
      - manigandham 8y ago
        Nobody has complete control over any government, anywhere in the world. Companies are also not citizens, they are abstract structures designed to deliver value to customers and make a profit in doing so. A corporation has no specific loyalty to the government beyond following the laws and paying the dues required for operating. Corporations are also not able to judge what the "ethical" amount to pay is, which is why the government sets those rules on behalf of the people it represents. You're turning a government issue into a corporate issue because it sounds easy, but ultimately its just treating (or rather complaining about) the symptom rather than enacting any solution. Again, perhaps you should join the government and enact the change you want to see? Also since you are talking about responsibility and actions, I assume you donate all the spare cash you have that isn't going to taxes. Or is that not ethical in your case?
  - tim333 8y ago
    Jeff Bezos has a legal obligation to Amazon shareholders. He's not really allowed to donate their money to the UK government beyond what is required by UK law.
- jimnotgym 8y ago
  I'm not blaming the legislation, I'm blaming him for ignoring it. Using sub- contractors to evade employment taxes, for instance, is illegal in the UK. Somehow Amazon (and similar others like Uber) are above that. Jo Maugham QC (tax lawyer) has aledged that there is some kind of sweetheart deal with the UK government with regards to US tech firms, and brought a related case against Uber for using a similar ruse to evade sales tax. [0]https://goodlawproject.org/uber-case/ https://goodlawproject.org/uber-case/
- cyborgx7 8y ago
  Step 1: Use your wealth to lobby for laws that let you do things that are unethical but increase your profit. Step 2: Do those things. Step 3: When people criticise you for unethical behavior, point out you are just following the rules.
- majormajor 8y ago
  I feel like I can blame people who say "you can't blame [whoever]," though. What you aren't saying is "let's actually change things."
  - fosco 8y ago
    I would love to say "Let's actually change things" but can you provide a plan for that? what can we _really_ do about it?
artursapek 8y ago
They pay the tax they are legally obligated to. You can't expect any business to pay a penny more than that. It's on the lawmakers to remove the loopholes (which they and their friends probably exploit as well, so good luck with that...)
- jonahhorowitz 8y ago
  Yes, but they fought the headcount tax in Seattle, and they're actively seeking a low-tax jurisdiction for HQ2.
  - flyinglizard 8y ago
    Shouldn’t Amazon shareholders expect the company to look for low tax jurisdictions to operate from? Is there a morality issue that I’m not seeing?
    - ben_w 8y ago
      Yes, there is. Societies — as we know how to make them — break down if everyone figures out how to avoid paying their way. If a hacker gets root, they’re just using the rules of the system, finding a loophole they can exploit… taxes and laws are systems that can be exploited, but even in the cases where I find them bad (and I have plenty of broad examples of things I don’t like), I think it’s worse to let people get away with exploiting weaknesses in the system.
      - remarkEon 8y ago
        Deciding it’s best to operate in a low tax jurisdiction is not “exploiting a weakness in the system”. It’s simply acting rationally in an environment when you have multiple options for where you operate.
        ben_w 8y ago
        It’s the prisoners dilemma, except Amazon etc. are acting as the interrogator. Government shouldn’t be in the position where their own tax base can manipulate them.
WheelsAtLarge 8y ago
I like your thinking but Amazon/Bezos will push the boundaries to minimize costs and to be successful. The 2B is a start but it's up to society to make sure he doesn't go too far by putting limits where needed. Amazon's ways would change tomorrow if customers would speak up against its abusive ways but we all love PRIME, their customer service, and the convenience. Amazon at least has to hire people to get the job done, good or bad people still have work. Apple, the largest cap company in the world, does its work with a fraction of the people that Amazon does, 500k+ for Amazon vs 120k+ for Apple. And they minimized their tax footprint while having truckloads of externalities that cost society billions. The criticism of Standard Oil and John D. Rockefeller was highlighted by the longterm reporting of Ida Tarbell in the Saturday Evening Post. He was criticised before but Tarbell brought up to a different level in people's minds. No one seems to have the guts and long-term focus to do it for the new tech giants.
- andrepd 8y ago
  >they minimized their tax footprint while having truckloads of externalities that cost society billions. This is what gets me. It's what they say: "privatised profits, socialised losses".
gnusci 8y ago
Maybe they are also contributing to the budget for: https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/13/uks-mass-surveillance-regime-violated-human-rights-law-finds-echr/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/13/uks-mass-surveillance-regi... So it is a political trade-off, but it looks horrible and unacceptable to us.
- arcticbull 8y ago
  Like it or not these things are done at the will of the people of the country; they could vote to change it, or vote in people who would change it but they won't. It's horrible and unacceptable to you, and to me, but not to your (technically, our, but I can't vote in the UK due to residency requirements) fellow countrymen. Humans fear devastating but statistically unlikely things disproportionately to their chance of happening, and will do basically anything to avoid them. Terrorism is such an example, and surveillance is a consequence. Thing is, if the people of the UK decide it's an unacceptable tradeoff they will vote to change it, and it will change. Just look at, lord have mercy, Brexit. It's in everyone's hands. That's not true of a billionaire's discretionary fund.
  - gnusci 8y ago
    Exactly my point. I just was been sarcastic (sorry). We believe they will do the best for us. But all this things happen all the time under the table. What I meant is that we don't like this things happening but we wont probably do much to change it.
rubyfan 8y ago
> It shouldn't be up to the billionaires to choose where to spend money that should be in the hands of national governments and workers. Yeah I couldn’t disagree any harder with this statement. The property rights are an essential element of a free society. The notion that government or “workers” are somehow entitled to prescribe or direct another’s property is at odds with the principals the United States was founded on. If you don’t like how someone else makes their money, you are free to take your patronage elsewhere and convince me to as well. Don’t try to convince me government or “workers” have a right to his property.
mankash666 8y ago
Yes yes - how very evil if Besos & Co. to dare follow the law. This socialistic rhetoric is all fun and games till jobs are lost & companies close down - case in point - etsy [1] [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/business/etsy-josh-silverman.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/business/etsy-josh-silver...
- kashyapc 8y ago
  What are you talking about? Jimnotgym is precisely asking to not screw the society and follow the law (yeah, they found some "legal" loopholes, therefore one could argue that Amazon is in the "legal green zone") pay regular taxes and treat the warehouse workers et al like decent humans.
  - mankash666 8y ago
    Stop making nonsequestirs. If Amazon is breaking laws, sue them. There's no forced labor in warehouses, it's at-will. No one's stopping the unhappy from getting another job. Raise the minimum wage in territories you suspect are untenable. Then there's the whole hypocrisy of you shopping on Amazon. How much do you save by shopping on Amazon (and equivalents). Why isn't a 100% of your shopping local and sustainable? Just stop with the B.S
    - kashyapc 8y ago
      You're missing the larger point. I'll try one last time. Labor "at will" doesn't mean you get to abuse the conditions "at will". If you can, and do have all the wherewithal in the world to make your workers lives less inhumane, why on earth wouldn't you do it? You jolly well must do it! On your assumptions on where I shop, yes, I admit that occasionally (maybe once in 3 months) I do shop on Amazon (for the things that I can't get locally; and these are not any 'big expenses'). But I boycott them to a large extent. And I "vote with my wallet" (and end up spending more than I "should") to support the local and stay sustainable to the most meaningful extent that I can, knowing my circumstances and dependents. I am reasonably proud of how I make my spending choices.

yodsanklai 8y ago

> I just want Amazon to pay tax like any other business would in the UK, pay employees NI like any other business in the UK, and pay minimum wage like any other business in the UK I agree with you, but you can't blame Jeff Bezos for UK legislation.

Jedd 8y ago
> ... but you can't blame Jeff Bezos for UK legislation. Ahh, the old 'unless it's specifically and explicitly denied, regardless of moral or ethical considerations, let alone acting contra to the spirit of the law, then it's okay' defence. Your misdirection is correct - Jeff Bezos is not responsible for UK legislation - however how Jeff Bezos instructs his vendors and employees to act is very much his responsibility.
- natalyarostova 8y ago
  If you want to optimize systems, you should expect people to operate with self-interest with respect to the law. Attributing moral blame for self-interested parties not donating money to be within the spirit of the law is unreasonable.
  - p1necone 8y ago
    No it's fucking not.
  - projektir 8y ago
    Attributing moral blame to self-interested parties is exactly the point of moral blame. Moral blame is specifically about accusing people of going for their self-interest and little else...
    - solveit 8y ago
      You're talking past each other. Moral blame isn't wrong, just not very useful.
      - rsj_hn 8y ago
        Moral blame and $5 will get you a cup of coffee from Blue Bottle, which just sold out to Nestle.
    - manigandham 8y ago
      Why must there be anything else? If you're going to make this argument then you must have a compelling answer, specifically in the context of a corporation.
- nambit 8y ago
  You want companies to pay more taxes than is legally required of them? What la la land do you live in?
- manigandham 8y ago
  Companies follow laws and regulations, and optimize for profit and sustainability within those rules. Why would they ever pay MORE than they have to? There are no ethics or morals here. Taxes are not charity. If you want to change the tax laws then you can do so, via the government that you take part in.
  - r00fus 8y ago
    You don't think that negotiation and outright bribery (oh I'm sorry in the civilized West we call it lobbying) don't drive either the laws or the uneven enforcement of them? Amazon is so big that they can jurisdiction shop or even just shop for legislators/civil servants to help fashion the regulatory environment they prefer.
    - manigandham 8y ago
      Bribery is already illegal so what's your point with that? Everything you're saying falls under "change and improve your government" if you want to see something different. If they fail to act in the public interest then vote in someone else, or run for office and show them how it's done. It's not easy, but it's not impossible. And it's far more realistic than posting some comments and wondering why companies don't magically just donate their money away.
  - TheCoelacanth 8y ago
    I don't have complete control over every government in the world. It is perfectly reasonable for me to criticize the way that companies act, even if it is incentivized by a government. People do not have to be mindless money maximizers. They have a choice in how they act and they are responsible for their own actions regardless of what incentives the government creates.
    - manigandham 8y ago
      Nobody has complete control over any government, anywhere in the world. Companies are also not citizens, they are abstract structures designed to deliver value to customers and make a profit in doing so. A corporation has no specific loyalty to the government beyond following the laws and paying the dues required for operating. Corporations are also not able to judge what the "ethical" amount to pay is, which is why the government sets those rules on behalf of the people it represents. You're turning a government issue into a corporate issue because it sounds easy, but ultimately its just treating (or rather complaining about) the symptom rather than enacting any solution. Again, perhaps you should join the government and enact the change you want to see? Also since you are talking about responsibility and actions, I assume you donate all the spare cash you have that isn't going to taxes. Or is that not ethical in your case?
- tim333 8y ago
  Jeff Bezos has a legal obligation to Amazon shareholders. He's not really allowed to donate their money to the UK government beyond what is required by UK law.
jimnotgym 8y ago
I'm not blaming the legislation, I'm blaming him for ignoring it. Using sub- contractors to evade employment taxes, for instance, is illegal in the UK. Somehow Amazon (and similar others like Uber) are above that. Jo Maugham QC (tax lawyer) has aledged that there is some kind of sweetheart deal with the UK government with regards to US tech firms, and brought a related case against Uber for using a similar ruse to evade sales tax. [0]https://goodlawproject.org/uber-case/ https://goodlawproject.org/uber-case/
cyborgx7 8y ago
Step 1: Use your wealth to lobby for laws that let you do things that are unethical but increase your profit. Step 2: Do those things. Step 3: When people criticise you for unethical behavior, point out you are just following the rules.
majormajor 8y ago
I feel like I can blame people who say "you can't blame [whoever]," though. What you aren't saying is "let's actually change things."
- fosco 8y ago
  I would love to say "Let's actually change things" but can you provide a plan for that? what can we _really_ do about it?

artursapek 8y ago

They pay the tax they are legally obligated to. You can't expect any business to pay a penny more than that. It's on the lawmakers to remove the loopholes (which they and their friends probably exploit as well, so good luck with that...)

jonahhorowitz 8y ago
Yes, but they fought the headcount tax in Seattle, and they're actively seeking a low-tax jurisdiction for HQ2.
- flyinglizard 8y ago
  Shouldn’t Amazon shareholders expect the company to look for low tax jurisdictions to operate from? Is there a morality issue that I’m not seeing?
  - ben_w 8y ago
    Yes, there is. Societies — as we know how to make them — break down if everyone figures out how to avoid paying their way. If a hacker gets root, they’re just using the rules of the system, finding a loophole they can exploit… taxes and laws are systems that can be exploited, but even in the cases where I find them bad (and I have plenty of broad examples of things I don’t like), I think it’s worse to let people get away with exploiting weaknesses in the system.
    - remarkEon 8y ago
      Deciding it’s best to operate in a low tax jurisdiction is not “exploiting a weakness in the system”. It’s simply acting rationally in an environment when you have multiple options for where you operate.
      - ben_w 8y ago
        It’s the prisoners dilemma, except Amazon etc. are acting as the interrogator. Government shouldn’t be in the position where their own tax base can manipulate them.

WheelsAtLarge 8y ago

I like your thinking but Amazon/Bezos will push the boundaries to minimize costs and to be successful. The 2B is a start but it's up to society to make sure he doesn't go too far by putting limits where needed. Amazon's ways would change tomorrow if customers would speak up against its abusive ways but we all love PRIME, their customer service, and the convenience. Amazon at least has to hire people to get the job done, good or bad people still have work. Apple, the largest cap company in the world, does its work with a fraction of the people that Amazon does, 500k+ for Amazon vs 120k+ for Apple. And they minimized their tax footprint while having truckloads of externalities that cost society billions. The criticism of Standard Oil and John D. Rockefeller was highlighted by the longterm reporting of Ida Tarbell in the Saturday Evening Post. He was criticised before but Tarbell brought up to a different level in people's minds. No one seems to have the guts and long-term focus to do it for the new tech giants.

andrepd 8y ago
>they minimized their tax footprint while having truckloads of externalities that cost society billions. This is what gets me. It's what they say: "privatised profits, socialised losses".

gnusci 8y ago

Maybe they are also contributing to the budget for: https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/13/uks-mass-surveillance-regime-violated-human-rights-law-finds-echr/ https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/13/uks-mass-surveillance-regi... So it is a political trade-off, but it looks horrible and unacceptable to us.

arcticbull 8y ago
Like it or not these things are done at the will of the people of the country; they could vote to change it, or vote in people who would change it but they won't. It's horrible and unacceptable to you, and to me, but not to your (technically, our, but I can't vote in the UK due to residency requirements) fellow countrymen. Humans fear devastating but statistically unlikely things disproportionately to their chance of happening, and will do basically anything to avoid them. Terrorism is such an example, and surveillance is a consequence. Thing is, if the people of the UK decide it's an unacceptable tradeoff they will vote to change it, and it will change. Just look at, lord have mercy, Brexit. It's in everyone's hands. That's not true of a billionaire's discretionary fund.
- gnusci 8y ago
  Exactly my point. I just was been sarcastic (sorry). We believe they will do the best for us. But all this things happen all the time under the table. What I meant is that we don't like this things happening but we wont probably do much to change it.

rubyfan 8y ago

> It shouldn't be up to the billionaires to choose where to spend money that should be in the hands of national governments and workers. Yeah I couldn’t disagree any harder with this statement. The property rights are an essential element of a free society. The notion that government or “workers” are somehow entitled to prescribe or direct another’s property is at odds with the principals the United States was founded on. If you don’t like how someone else makes their money, you are free to take your patronage elsewhere and convince me to as well. Don’t try to convince me government or “workers” have a right to his property.

mankash666 8y ago

Yes yes - how very evil if Besos & Co. to dare follow the law. This socialistic rhetoric is all fun and games till jobs are lost & companies close down - case in point - etsy [1] [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/business/etsy-josh-silverman.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/business/etsy-josh-silver...

kashyapc 8y ago
What are you talking about? Jimnotgym is precisely asking to not screw the society and follow the law (yeah, they found some "legal" loopholes, therefore one could argue that Amazon is in the "legal green zone") pay regular taxes and treat the warehouse workers et al like decent humans.
- mankash666 8y ago
  Stop making nonsequestirs. If Amazon is breaking laws, sue them. There's no forced labor in warehouses, it's at-will. No one's stopping the unhappy from getting another job. Raise the minimum wage in territories you suspect are untenable. Then there's the whole hypocrisy of you shopping on Amazon. How much do you save by shopping on Amazon (and equivalents). Why isn't a 100% of your shopping local and sustainable? Just stop with the B.S
  - kashyapc 8y ago
    You're missing the larger point. I'll try one last time. Labor "at will" doesn't mean you get to abuse the conditions "at will". If you can, and do have all the wherewithal in the world to make your workers lives less inhumane, why on earth wouldn't you do it? You jolly well must do it! On your assumptions on where I shop, yes, I admit that occasionally (maybe once in 3 months) I do shop on Amazon (for the things that I can't get locally; and these are not any 'big expenses'). But I boycott them to a large extent. And I "vote with my wallet" (and end up spending more than I "should") to support the local and stay sustainable to the most meaningful extent that I can, knowing my circumstances and dependents. I am reasonably proud of how I make my spending choices.