Options

Have you ever boycotted a company over tax evasion?

Lil_MLil_M Posts: 2,105
Forum Member
✭✭✭
I really haven't and I am not as fussed or as outraged as some people are.

I can't imagine life without amazon. It has everything I need and it has awlays my first port of call. from kettles to laptops to even a mug, I always order from there. Their customer service is amazing.

I don't tend to go to Starbucks as it is rip off and not because it evades tax. On top of that, it does not bode well with my diet. Having said I do like their frappuccino and caramel coffee.
«13

Comments

  • Options
    CravenHavenCravenHaven Posts: 13,953
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'd like the international scammers to pay the same rates as the local scammers, so I'd still have independent local scammers to go to.
    International companies should not be able to put locals out of work by undercutting them by not paying tax. We lose by not getting tax revenue, and locals being put out of work. No good getting cheaper prices when you're out of work or paying more to a massive social security bill to prop up the under-employed.
  • Options
    jrajra Posts: 48,325
    Forum Member
    Lil_M wrote: »
    I really haven't and I am not as fussed or as outraged as some people are.

    I can't imagine life without amazon. It has everything I need and it has awlays my first port of call. from kettles to laptops to even a mug, I always order from there. Their customer service is amazing.

    I don't tend to go to Starbucks as it is rip off and not because it evades tax. On top of that, it does not bode well with my diet. Having said I do like their frappuccino and caramel coffee.

    I think you are confusing tax avoidance (which is legal) with tax evasion (which is illegal), as companies like Amazon are not actually breaking the law by selling goods from tax havens like the Channel Islands. The same, presumably, with companies like Starbucks.
  • Options
    Tony TigerTony Tiger Posts: 2,254
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No, nor would I. The amount of shits I don't give is so vast it could not be measured by any current scientific methods.
  • Options
    dearmrmandearmrman Posts: 21,517
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No, and I couldn't really care less...you will get some that will avoid companies for this reason (Starbucks got a lot of stick), but I bet those people who avoided Starbucks, brought from Companies like Amazon, Apple etc making them hypocrites
  • Options
    xblingxbling Posts: 2,041
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jra wrote: »
    I think you are confusing tax avoidance (which is legal) with tax evasion (which is illegal), as companies like Amazon are not actually breaking the law by selling goods from tax havens like the Channel Islands. The same, presumably, with companies like Starbucks.

    Exactly. Also there is no point saying it's immoral either. Things are legal or not. No grey area. Corporation tax is one part of taxes. I think about other taxes getting paid such as PAYE.
  • Options
    sweetpeanutsweetpeanut Posts: 4,805
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    My daughter bycotts companies for other reasons not tax ones though.

    She goes bonkers at me if I buy a bottle of water in pound land as its Nestles
  • Options
    80sfan80sfan Posts: 18,522
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I avoid Starbucks at all costs and will not go there.

    I detest their poor excuse for coffee as much as their dubious business practices
  • Options
    Si_CreweSi_Crewe Posts: 40,202
    Forum Member
    Only company I've ever actively boycotted is Sony, and that's because they insist on making expensive products that they refuse to repair or support.

    The bastards.
  • Options
    stud u likestud u like Posts: 42,100
    Forum Member
    Local shops seldom have what I want and when I ask for things they have never heard of them, so a waste of time . Amazon always delivers!
  • Options
    PrinceOfDenmarkPrinceOfDenmark Posts: 2,761
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tony Tiger wrote: »
    No, nor would I. The amount of shits I don't give is so vast it could not be measured by any current scientific methods.

    Are you happy to be subsidizing them out of your own pocket then?
  • Options
    PrinceOfDenmarkPrinceOfDenmark Posts: 2,761
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dearmrman wrote: »
    No, and I couldn't really care less...you will get some that will avoid companies for this reason (Starbucks got a lot of stick), but I bet those people who avoided Starbucks, brought from Companies like Amazon, Apple etc making them hypocrites

    Not really - they'd only be hypocrites if they lorded it up large about their boycotting ways. It's easier these days to boycott Starbucks than it is Amazon, and you could reasonably take the view that every little helps.
  • Options
    PrinceOfDenmarkPrinceOfDenmark Posts: 2,761
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    xbling wrote: »
    Exactly. Also there is no point saying it's immoral either. Things are legal or not. No grey area.

    You seem to be confusing legality with morality :confused:
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,249
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lol no. It's so futile. If evil company A can get me what I want cheaper than good company B, evil company A will get my business every time.
  • Options
    dearmrmandearmrman Posts: 21,517
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Not really - they'd only be hypocrites if they lorded it up large about their boycotting ways. It's easier these days to boycott Starbucks than it is Amazon, and you could reasonably take the view that every little helps.

    Still hypocrites then. Only a hypocrite would try and justify it.
  • Options
    PrinceOfDenmarkPrinceOfDenmark Posts: 2,761
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    dearmrman wrote: »
    Still hypocrites then.

    Err... no.
  • Options
    idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    There is nothing wrong with any multi-national looking to minimise liability by taking advantage of existing tax rules or utilising more favourable rates of tax in other territories.
  • Options
    dearmrmandearmrman Posts: 21,517
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Err... no.

    Err yes, avoid from one company because of tax, but buy from another company doing exactly the same thing. Is it something you do hence trying to justify it?
  • Options
    PrinceOfDenmarkPrinceOfDenmark Posts: 2,761
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    idlewilde wrote: »
    There is nothing wrong with any multi-national looking to minimise liability by taking advantage of existing tax rules or utilising more favourable rates of tax in other territories.

    You mean there is nothing legally wrong.
  • Options
    Lil_MLil_M Posts: 2,105
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jra wrote: »
    I think you are confusing tax avoidance (which is legal) with tax evasion (which is illegal), as companies like Amazon are not actually breaking the law by selling goods from tax havens like the Channel Islands. The same, presumably, with companies like Starbucks.

    Thanks. I meant tax avoidance and not evasion. My bad.
  • Options
    RebelScumRebelScum Posts: 16,008
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    xbling wrote: »
    Exactly. Also there is no point saying it's immoral either. Things are legal or not. No grey area. Corporation tax is one part of taxes. I think about other taxes getting paid such as PAYE.

    Some of the most complex and largest avoidance schems are PAYE related.
  • Options
    jrajra Posts: 48,325
    Forum Member
    idlewilde wrote: »
    There is nothing wrong with any multi-national looking to minimise liability by taking advantage of existing tax rules or utilising more favourable rates of tax in other territories.

    The last thing Amazon want, is to be caught for tax evasion (not tax avoidance), as that would very likely damage their reputation irreparably. Good accountants that these companies employ (at great cost) are adept at finding loopholes/legal ways to minimize the tax burden.

    So, if anything needs to be changed, it is the tax laws.
  • Options
    LakieLadyLakieLady Posts: 19,722
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Amazon, Starbucks and I buy as little as possible in Boots.

    I've been boycotting Murdoch and his evil empire since he was allowed to buy the Times in the 80's.
  • Options
    Tony TigerTony Tiger Posts: 2,254
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Are you happy to be subsidizing them out of your own pocket then?
    As in unimportant member of the public, I perceive absolutely no difference, nor would I if they paid more. It makes no odds to me either way, thus I choose to expend my energy worrying about more directly important things.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,249
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jra wrote: »
    The last thing Amazon want, is to be caught for tax evasion (not tax avoidance), as that would very likely damage their reputation irreparably.

    I honestly think most people wouldn't give a shit.
  • Options
    RebelScumRebelScum Posts: 16,008
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    idlewilde wrote: »
    There is nothing wrong with any multi-national looking to minimise liability by taking advantage of existing tax rules or utilising more favourable rates of tax in other territories.
    As long as the application of the rules is as they were intended to be applied then no, there is nothing wrong, legally or morally. However many avoidance schemes rely on the creation of artificial set ups in order to take advantage reliefs, set offs, incentives, etc. There's avoidance and then there's avoidance by deception. Most of the avoidance taking place is the latter.
Sign In or Register to comment.