"Once you've decided not to shop with Amazon you'll need to know which companies do pay tax. Otherwise you could simply end up supporting another tax dodging company.
We found five well known High Street shops that appear to be paying a fairer amount of tax.
Debenhams - Paid 22% tax on its profits for 2012.
Debenhams online offers everything from fashion to furniture.
John Lewis - Paid 35% tax on its profits for 2012.
John Lewis online offers virtually everything that's available on Amazon with the exception of books.
Lush – Paid 42% tax on its profits for 2011.
Lush online offers an extensive range of handmade cosmetics.
Marks and Spencer – Paid 27% tax on its profits for 2012.
Marks and Spencer online offers everything from frocks to food.
Next – Paid 26% tax on its profits for 2012.
Next online offers everything from evening wear to electricals.

Of course we always recommend that you support your local shops before you hit the big High Street chains."

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/boycotts/boycottamazon/amazonshoppingalternatives.aspx

Over the last few year I've tried to buy my xmas gifts in a 1 mile radius of home, though I think using the various
online/postal delivery retailers could well be more environmental efficient as i presume they use less premises (energy) to get product from manifacturer to end user and also deliver via an existing postal network.
Be interesting to hear the arguement for either model.

“XXXX paid yy% tax on its profits”.

That doesn't actually tell you a lot, does it? Isn't the main way of avoiding tax to arrange things such that you appear to have very small profits (at least in this country)?

Amazon is really just the shop window, very few of the products are their own. So not buying though them you can hurting a small UK company (was a bit about it on Y&Y about a Cornish company that makes birdbox webcams, not that I was going to buy one).
And
http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/2224734/scrap-corporate-taxes-and-revolutionise-system

On Question time a few weeks ago a member of the audience ran a Costa coffee outlet and he was a franchise holder so if the public stayed away his staff and himself would suffer more than the company. Not as simple as it sounds.

Its the government and its arrangements with Europe that need to sort this out. These companies are not breaking the law but being creative to keep their costs down. We would all do this if we could pay less tax !

Posted By: Seret
Either way, it's one for HMRC to sort out if required,I don't see the need to do anything as consumer. If people want to shop elsewhere that's great, but I find Amazon to be one of the best services around.

Seret,

I am sure you don't mean it this way but morally your stand point is the same as saying buying stolen goods is okay as theft is one for the police to sort out if required and no need for the consumer to do anything.

As you may gather I totally disagree with you. I believe that everybody should be look out for the community.

On your other point about higher prices and lower wages the taxes HMRC are missing from Amazon like companies is just collected through higher taxes on the rest of us but I guess you are happy to pay more so others can pay less and if you think Amazon are paying higher wages than decent UK taxpaying companies you are wrong.

Companies like Amazon do offer good service but at the end of the day they are only interested in making as much money as possible so long as it is slightly legal and sod any moral qualms unless it effects the turnover.

Jonti

Time for this one again i think

Posted By: seascapeI'm suspicious that it percolates upwards towards a few major shareholders.

Risk that "few major shareholders" are pension funds - so reduction in MegaCrop profits could impact man-in-the-street (although I'd be happy if, as a result, it caused the Pension Fund to move investments to companies that don't indulge in sharp tax practices)

For me the issue is that the tax, such as is being paid, is occurring in another jurisdiction; people would be a lot happier if the tax was levied where the money was made.

These companies are still paying taxes of course - they are end-user retailers, so VAT (although Amazon doges that [or "did"?] where possible by shipping from Channel Islands), NI and PAYE. Plenty of money spent within the UK too (Rent / Building / Stationery / Fuel etc).

I wonder how much of the total Tax that these huge companies - both the morally-good and the morally-bankrupt - is actually Corporation Tax? A "significant" amount? Maybe not.

Krispey - Hadn't thought about pension funds - not since all my friends paid into them for 40 years and get virtually nothing...didn't think people still invested in them!

ST - Montenegro 9% tax

So the corporation tax is significant - some £43b - just under 8% of £550.6 billion so it's worth chasing I think. Maybe it should all go into a pot for those whose pension funds have failed.

Montenegro: 9% Corporation and Individual, but 24% Social Security - binged it so can't verify info, but interesting to compare each countries corporate tax rates. No need to feel sorry for these companies, UK rate reasonable.

I could do with some 'Moral Fibre', can I buy it, for delivery tomorrow, on the interweb?

I prefer the business sustainablility argument (rather than using the word moral)
Ok, it's fine for Google etc. to be Capitalist . Make sense that they work the rules to thier benefit , most do , silly not to really.
For a multinational to make profit from a society it requires that society to function .The society needs money to function. Tax is a way to get that money. If people ( multinationals ) dont pay taxs , our society will struggle to function as it currently does. Therefore to create and keep a long term sustainable , profitable company you need to fund the society that allows you to make profit from it.
Yes , it should be governments responsibility to organise the tax system to collect, as it sees fit ( equally from all, or more from those with more, or vise a versa ), the funds required to function.
But as with many things the government falls short of the mark. The various competing interests pull it to and fro. creating inaction, or at best, slow reaction.
Most charitable actions or campaigns are voicing pressure or offering service to fill these government short falls.
The public consumer is in a position to voice its opinion via boycotts as a way to potentially steer or push others into action and outcome it desires.

As for Morals , i suppose you could say that it's the place of those leading society (multinationals included)
to set a moral example.
Many people I know justify thier actions by using the example of others (usually those in higher levels of society than thier own.)
As in, 'thier aving it off, so I will too'.

I'm not up on economics , but I'm sure someones having it off and unfortunately it ain't me

I know I'm grossly wealthy relative to most of the worlds inhabitants,
I'm wealthy relative to many UK residences even though i earn around the average nation income,(mainly because I dont spend our money on tat and live below our means)
I'm also extremely lucky to be born in this particular spot on the lump of rock we live on.

I just said "I'm sure someones having it off and unfortunately it ain't me"

I think the underly point of this is, how does a society get those with too much cash to dish it out a bit more
to fund up keep and progressive social development.
Multinational holding huge sums of cash off shore , claiming it's there for the next buy out etc. takes money out of the international economy , if they paid it in tax or spent it some other way this would help grease the wheels
of the market. How many billion does Google etc. have sitting in the bank ?

It wont 'trickle down' if they dont spend it ! ( please refer to previous captioned picture :) )

Take California , currently struggling to fund various state based activities , imagine the marketing and good will
a silicon valley company ( which exists off the back of that state) would get if it used some of it's reserve to help out. ( even though there are no doubt far worthier causes in the world , which the likes of Bill Gates seem to be putting his funds towards )

Posted By: Seret

Posted By: Jonti
Seret,

I am sure you don't mean it this way but morally your stand point is the same as saying buying stolen goods is okay as theft is one for the police to sort out if required and no need for the consumer to do anything.

That's not even close to what I was saying. For a start, buying stolen goods is actually illegal. Structuring your finances to reduce your tax is not only legal, it's something the government encourages us to do. There are lots of examples at an individual level: putting your savings into an ISA instead of a regular savings account, bundling works into a job which attracts 5% VAT instead of the higher rate, etc, etc. We all do these things, and you'd be mad not to.

Let's not conflate the law with morality. Your obligation to pay taxes is a legal one, not a moral one. You can't legislate for morality. The purpose of the law is to prevent abusive behaviour, not build moral fibre. Amazon aren't doing anything you could call abusive, they're providing an excellent service, keep lots of people in a job and are innovative.

Do I think Amazon are extracting the urine on tax? Of course, but there's no cause for moral outrage. Enforcement of tax law is an administrative matter for the bureaucrats. No one is doing anything illegal or immoral, they're just gaming the system, as you would expect any rational player to do. You can't extrapolate the moral fibre of a company's leadership from their tax bill, all it tells you is how crafty their finance department is.

Seret,

I wasn't accusing you of anything so I hope no offense was taken. I do however disagree on the moral issue and for me Amazon is happy to accept financial support from the government for its low paid workers whilst not wishing to contribute to it.

ST, Amazon, like Starbucks and any other major company has a US based part of the company even though its international headquarters are based elsewhere. It is just at the moment the UK based part is failing to make any real profit on the books. Were this however true, then they would have ceased trading quite a while back.

Jonti

True ST,

but 14 years (if I recall correctly?) seems a long time and were it really the case then their representatives would have been able to give straight forward answers when questioned by the commons committee the other week instead of trying to worm around the subject.

The fact is they are making a profit on their turnover in this country and should pay their fair share in tax on it.

Jonti