Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Actually, Amazon are cheaper because of their economies of scale and low-overhead structure being only an online retailer. Waterstone don't pay taxes either as they have been operating at a loss.


That's not to say I support Amazon's business practices (some of which under anti-competition laws are illegal) but let's not conflate things. If you think the extra money you will spend buying books at Waterstone is going to help fill HMRC's coffers, that won't necessarily be the case.

Amazon is a business, and they want to make a profit. They are not breaking any laws, so fair play IMO.


I'm not saying that I don't think they should pay more tax here, but laws need to be changed rather than MPs whinging about morals.


Besides, I save loads of money using Amazon.

What a hero


the-e-dealer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Amazon are cheaper because they don't pay their

> fair whack of tax. I'm actively trying to use non

> amazon products- Cancelled Love film in favour of

> Netflix. Buying from Ebay Shops etc.

Amazon do not charge for delivery unless you want it quicker, there is also a choice of obtaining it from the non Amazon dealers on each of the pages, but although cheaper the postage might be more than getting it from Amazon direct.

A problem with The Book People is you can only get ?25 worth of books free of postage, never mind the points that you accumulate they will vanish after a year.

Amazon is my choice for any book of reference.

I don't agree, Otta. Just because legal loopholes exist, doesn't mean it's morally OK to exploit them.


Saying that, I reckon almost all large companies do questionable things in the name of tax "efficiency", and I agree that the only way of stopping it is to tighten up the law. Pulic outrage is short lived.

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't agree, Otta. Just because legal loopholes

> exist, doesn't mean it's morally OK to exploit

> them.

>

> Saying that, I reckon almost all large companies

> do questionable things in the name of tax

> "efficiency", and I agree that the only way of

> stopping it is to tighten up the law. Pulic

> outrage is short lived.



Don't get me wrong, I never said it was morally okay, I think it's morally wrong. What I am saying is that rather than acting all shocked that the MASSIVE business has chosen to act in morally questionable way, the powers that be in this country should close the loop holes.

Thanks HMB - Its good that some people actually do something rather than just moaning the more the better.

I hear NO-Bucks are also going to start

paying some tax. Progress. Power to the People.


Help-Ma-Boab Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What a hero

>

> the-e-dealer Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Amazon are cheaper because they don't pay their

> > fair whack of tax. I'm actively trying to use

> non

> > amazon products- Cancelled Love film in favour

> of

> > Netflix. Buying from Ebay Shops etc.

Wind of hypocrisy blows through ED -


So some firms practice tax avoidance, is that really news to anyone?


I thought we'd come to terms with this when all the major pop stars etc. started to practice it back in the 80s, or when it was revealed that over 25% of FTSE 100 companies practice it.


Is there really anyone out there who didn't know what a tax haven was and/or how that principle worked?


Do you know the taxes paid by every company you use for any and everything? Are you also fully informed as to their ethical practices? Their use of cheap foreign labour and the dodgy regimes they may help to fund?


And at the next election when ALL politicians will be telling us how they will make sure you don't have to pay more tax in future, will you be telling them to get stuffed and to please increase tax to 30+% to pay for a higher level of services?


Yes I know there's a budget 'Chancellor's Statement' coming and pension tax relief will probably be walloped and it aint fair but look - there's a royal sprog on the way so it isn't all bad :)

Amazon has a lower cost structure even without taking tax into account. Now, their sheer size gives them the ability to negotiate better pricing due to volume than their competitors (in the same way the chain bookstores are able to against local indie bookshops). This combined with their huge book catalog that can be searched for by topic, the ability to read reviews and their fast shipping service has helped them dominate the market.


Now that they are in this dominant position, many in publishing accuse them of engaging in illegal anti-trust behavior regarding pricing to push competitors into bankruptcy. However, a group of publishers and Apple have recently been sued by the US government for an anti-trust price fixing scandal regarding e-books so let?s not pretend we have a perfect dichotomy of good and evil here.


Amazon can be praised and condemned for a lot but the tax issue is not really why they are cheaper. The UK government could end its tax treaty with tax havens but it does not want to for a host of reasons. Buy more expensive books if you want to but what you are largely funding is a less efficient business model rather than filling the government?s coffers.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...