Have you ever boycotted a company over tax evasion?

13»

Comments

  • Lil_MLil_M Posts: 2,105
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    cessna wrote: »
    excuse poor grammar - should have read NHS's useless etc

    It is ok.
  • jrajra Posts: 48,325
    Forum Member
    Jefferson wrote: »
    I'd been meaning to put a similar thread up since my one about not using self service check outs intended to cut the number of workers.

    Not many were "fussed" about that either.

    There seems to be a lack of moral and social responsibility when it comes to the masses.

    You should know by now, most people are motivated by two things. Money and will whatever I'm doing benefit me. So, if it is more convenient to use self service checkouts, people will use them. They don't give a shit whether it will lead to job losses for others, as long as it isn't their job affected. If it affected their job, you can bet with certainty, they would stop using self service checkouts.

    That I'm afraid is how most people are motivated. Likewise for Amazon. If it's cheaper to buy there, they will. People don't care whether Amazon may or may not treat its workers well or if they fracture a few tax laws.

    The other thing of course is, would it make a difference if you boycotted Amazon and similar companies. Probably not in the long term, as it's a very big company and is always looking to expand its markets.
    And let's face it, if we could minimise the amount of tax we pay, I believe the majority would do it.

    Everybody would, if they could. Even if they didn't need the money, I suspect many would rather give 'the excess' to charity, rather than the government.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,486
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Just Teva Pharmaceuticals, Starbucks & Nestle. Nothing to do with Tax
  • dearmrmandearmrman Posts: 21,435
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jefferson wrote: »
    I'd been meaning to put a similar thread up since my one about not using self service check outs intended to cut the number of workers.

    Not many were "fussed" about that either.

    There seems to be a lack of moral and social responsibility when it comes to the masses.

    Trouble is you would have to target all companies some which include:-

    Ebay
    Apple
    Google
    Facebook
    Boots

    Along with Amazon & Starbucks.

    I take it you haven't used any of the above, or are you one of the masses as well?
  • NeverEnoughNeverEnough Posts: 3,052
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jefferson wrote: »
    I'd been meaning to put a similar thread up since my one about not using self service check outs intended to cut the number of workers.

    Not many were "fussed" about that either.

    There seems to be a lack of moral and social responsibility when it comes to the masses.

    It's not.the responsibility of "the masses", social moral or otherwise, to collect taxes. It's the responsibility of the Inland Revenue.

    Should all the righteous outrage not be targetted against them?
  • Pumping IronPumping Iron Posts: 29,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's not.the responsibility of "the masses", social moral or otherwise, to collect taxes. It's the responsibility of the Inland Revenue.

    Should all the righteous outrage not be targetted against them?

    Good point.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,811
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I have. Starbucks. I still boycott them.
  • RebelScumRebelScum Posts: 16,008
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It's not.the responsibility of "the masses", social moral or otherwise, to collect taxes. It's the responsibility of the Inland Revenue.

    Should all the righteous outrage not be targetted against them?

    It could be if all they were doing was twiddling their thumbs, but they collect billions of additional revenue each year through the compliance work they do. The only thing stoping them collecting even more is goverment cuts.
  • PrinceOfDenmarkPrinceOfDenmark Posts: 2,761
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I frankly don't see it a subsidising. If I give them any of my money it will be exchange for goods or services that I will have a need for or a desire for. If I have no particular needs or desires at that time I won't spend any money..
    You misunderstand. The point was that you are subsidizing their tax avoidance by having to pay more taxes yourself.
  • dearmrmandearmrman Posts: 21,435
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    WoodenCat wrote: »
    I have. Starbucks. I still boycott them.

    Is that because of the coffee or the tax, if it's the tax do you boycott other companies as well.
  • idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    You misunderstand. The point was that you are subsidizing their tax avoidance by having to pay more taxes yourself.

    So let me get this right. Every time a company or individual minimises his liability legally, the treasury thinks

    "I say, that's not cricket, we've already spent that money that we think we are owed but actually are not, as they've gone and jolly well used our own rules to lower their bill by Jove!"

    "Put the bills up for the rest of 'em then, by hook or by crook we'll get it!"


    And you think that is the taxpayer's fault?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,234
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes. Starbucks.
  • skp20040skp20040 Posts: 66,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    People always mention the companies such as Amazon and Starbucks, how many people are aware that Transport for London a company owned by us the taxpeyer has set up on offshore company with Capco for their share of the £12 billion profit redevelopment of Earls Court , which involves demolishing the centre, evicting hundreds of people from their homes and now during the evenings the bullying of local private residents who Capco and TFl want their properties as well are being told tro sell up or be compulsory purchased !! , along with forcing local independent businesses out overnight as they have promised the big chain names that they will have the shooping space in the new development.

    The likes of Amazon and Starbucks annoy we over tax but I get far more annoyed that an organsisation such as TFL is being allowed to do this.
  • PrinceOfDenmarkPrinceOfDenmark Posts: 2,761
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    idlewilde wrote: »
    So let me get this right. Every time a company or individual minimises his liability legally, the treasury thinks

    "I say, that's not cricket, we've already spent that money that we think we are owed but actually are not, as they've gone and jolly well used our own rules to lower their bill by Jove!"

    "Put the bills up for the rest of 'em then, by hook or by crook we'll get it!"


    And you think that is the taxpayer's fault?

    Don't be ridiculous
  • idlewildeidlewilde Posts: 8,698
    Forum Member
    Don't be ridiculous

    Thank-you. I always try to post the most appropriate responses.
Sign In or Register to comment.