3 ms·

This type of headline is not ok. This needs to be treated like a crime. It's eventually a crime against all tax payers of that country.

taeric 2y ago
It sounds like it was a deduction introduced by the government? I would be interested in seeing what the proposed benefits of the deduction were and if it seems to have worked. Also curious how many other companies it impacted. I really don't get the scapegoating of Amazon on many stories where they are sometimes not even the largest company involved in the story.
- INTPenis 2y ago
  Then it's a crime committed by the government. I personally don't understand people making excuses for this type of behavior. It doesn't matter if it's Amazon, Google, or the UK government, it is hypocrisy.
  - taeric 2y ago
    Again, I'd want to see data showing what the intent was and if it succeeded at it. I think it is most likely this was a big mistake. But I'm also somewhat concerned that people are yelling about it because a popular villain was highlighted in the headline.
    - INTPenis 2y ago
      A popular villain is all big businesses. I'm not at all interested in which company highlights this practice, because they're all either doing it or want to do it. This is a disagreement between two fundamental philosophies, one trusts corporations to do right by the citizens, the other does not.
      - taeric 2y ago
        And if you found this was most beneficial to small businesses? My disagreement with you is one of wanting more data.
        INTPenis 2y ago
        That's not how it ends up happening in practice. The bigger and richer you are the more access you have to legal resources that can twist and bend the system to your will. My former socialist home of Sweden has a richer culture of per-capita small business owners than the late-stage capitalist utopia USA. Take care of your people, fulfill their needs, and they will naturally want to be entrepreneurs. Irregardless of taxes and social fees necessary.
        taeric 2y ago
        But I'm asking specifically about this law. Surely there is a holistic analysis going over the goals of the changes compared with how they actually executed? I'm mostly fine assuming it is more abused by the bigger companies. But, I'm also more ok with larger companies benefiting from things, as long as smaller companies also benefit.
swarnie 2y ago
Aiding/encouraging business investment is a crime? We should probably round up every government ever if that's the case.
- tharmas 2y ago
  The Devil is in the details. This appears to be Amazon Warehouse. They don't really create jobs. In fact they destroy more jobs than they create. They killed "the high street shops". Those "high street shops" employed a lot of local services like accountants, lawyers, financial planners etc. spin off jobs. What spin off jobs does Amazon Warehouse create? They don't use local services described above. Robots? Were those Robots made or designed in the UK? If yes, then that's investment. If no, they are just Canibals.
  - butterfly42069 2y ago
    The high street shops (the ones open 9-5, the same time when most people who work, work) were never going to survive by their nature. They were always going to be beaten on availability. If it wasn't Amazon, it'd be the internet, if it wasn't the internet it would be a mail order catalogue, or a multi-department superstore/retail park (often open later, and cheaper to run with more product availability). This isn't a defence of Amazon, so much an examination of reality. Lots of small shops is very inefficient, and that's why they're gone. Amazon was just the most successful at translating the efficiency gains into profit and growth.
    - tharmas 2y ago
      I don't disagree with you about the shops. I'm just stating that Amazon Warehouse killed the retail economy and the spin off jobs it created. Also, you could add that Amazon Warehouse holds more variety of stock (items). The high street shops were never going to be able to compete with that. So its a win in terms of variety of availability but a loss with respect to the local jobs lost and the skills those people possessed. The other factor is that Amazon is an American based company so the profits go back to the USA. (Well, maybe its Ireland since I think they're registered there but you get my point).
charles_f 2y ago
It's amoral but not directly illegal though.

taeric 2y ago

It sounds like it was a deduction introduced by the government? I would be interested in seeing what the proposed benefits of the deduction were and if it seems to have worked. Also curious how many other companies it impacted. I really don't get the scapegoating of Amazon on many stories where they are sometimes not even the largest company involved in the story.

INTPenis 2y ago
Then it's a crime committed by the government. I personally don't understand people making excuses for this type of behavior. It doesn't matter if it's Amazon, Google, or the UK government, it is hypocrisy.
- taeric 2y ago
  Again, I'd want to see data showing what the intent was and if it succeeded at it. I think it is most likely this was a big mistake. But I'm also somewhat concerned that people are yelling about it because a popular villain was highlighted in the headline.
  - INTPenis 2y ago
    A popular villain is all big businesses. I'm not at all interested in which company highlights this practice, because they're all either doing it or want to do it. This is a disagreement between two fundamental philosophies, one trusts corporations to do right by the citizens, the other does not.
    - taeric 2y ago
      And if you found this was most beneficial to small businesses? My disagreement with you is one of wanting more data.
      - INTPenis 2y ago
        That's not how it ends up happening in practice. The bigger and richer you are the more access you have to legal resources that can twist and bend the system to your will. My former socialist home of Sweden has a richer culture of per-capita small business owners than the late-stage capitalist utopia USA. Take care of your people, fulfill their needs, and they will naturally want to be entrepreneurs. Irregardless of taxes and social fees necessary.
        taeric 2y ago
        But I'm asking specifically about this law. Surely there is a holistic analysis going over the goals of the changes compared with how they actually executed? I'm mostly fine assuming it is more abused by the bigger companies. But, I'm also more ok with larger companies benefiting from things, as long as smaller companies also benefit.

swarnie 2y ago

Aiding/encouraging business investment is a crime? We should probably round up every government ever if that's the case.

tharmas 2y ago
The Devil is in the details. This appears to be Amazon Warehouse. They don't really create jobs. In fact they destroy more jobs than they create. They killed "the high street shops". Those "high street shops" employed a lot of local services like accountants, lawyers, financial planners etc. spin off jobs. What spin off jobs does Amazon Warehouse create? They don't use local services described above. Robots? Were those Robots made or designed in the UK? If yes, then that's investment. If no, they are just Canibals.
- butterfly42069 2y ago
  The high street shops (the ones open 9-5, the same time when most people who work, work) were never going to survive by their nature. They were always going to be beaten on availability. If it wasn't Amazon, it'd be the internet, if it wasn't the internet it would be a mail order catalogue, or a multi-department superstore/retail park (often open later, and cheaper to run with more product availability). This isn't a defence of Amazon, so much an examination of reality. Lots of small shops is very inefficient, and that's why they're gone. Amazon was just the most successful at translating the efficiency gains into profit and growth.
  - tharmas 2y ago
    I don't disagree with you about the shops. I'm just stating that Amazon Warehouse killed the retail economy and the spin off jobs it created. Also, you could add that Amazon Warehouse holds more variety of stock (items). The high street shops were never going to be able to compete with that. So its a win in terms of variety of availability but a loss with respect to the local jobs lost and the skills those people possessed. The other factor is that Amazon is an American based company so the profits go back to the USA. (Well, maybe its Ireland since I think they're registered there but you get my point).

charles_f 2y ago

It's amoral but not directly illegal though.