Here's a survey QVC won't be quoting from...

[Weathergirl]

I had to think about it too. I think Weathergirl means to talk the hind leg of a donkey. I must say I am finding the thread very entertaining.

Spot on! If there is a yawn perhaps someone needs a nap!

 

[shopperholic]

I had to think about it too. I think Weathergirl means to talk the hind leg of a donkey. I must say I am finding the thread very entertaining.

What an odd comment to make when there are other posts roughly the same size, never mind let them carry on being funny/sarcastic/rude...........stick and stones and all that. :mysmilie_14:

 

[shopperholic]

Spot on! If there is a yawn perhaps someone needs a nap!

Please feel free to completely ignore my comments if you find them long, you only have to look to see you don't have to read, the yawn was because sarcastic, rude comments do bore me.

 

[Weathergirl]

Please feel free to completely ignore my comments if you find them long, you only have to look to see you don't have to read, the yawn was because sarcastic, rude comments do bore me.

I have never ignored anyone's posts ever and don't intend to start. If my comments are boring I don't really care. In just speak as I find and will never shy away from saying so. Some people (such as yourself) will argue the hind legs off a donkey. That is just my opinion ; ) If you want the last word that's fine

 

[shopperholic]

I have never ignored anyone's posts ever and don't intend to start. If my comments are boring I don't really care. In just speak as I find and will never shy away from saying so. Some people (such as yourself) will argue the hind legs off a donkey. That is just my opinion ; ) If you want the last word that's fine

Thank you for giving me permission to have the last word, I don't know were your sudden outburst came from because I'm not the only one commenting here, don't want to throw anyone under the bus, just stating a fact. I do find personal attacks on other posters rude and boring, I wouldn't expect anyone (such as yourself) to shy away from anything, you thought my posts were that I'd argue the "hind legs off a donkey" my thought was well why read them then? I'm not getting drawn in to an argument you so clearly want, and for the record.........I wasn't aware there was an argument, I thought it was just a discussion, but as I'm sure you're aware if you did think I was arguing, I can't argue by myself, it actually does takes two.

 

[Brissles]

Someone mention Starbucks ????

I don't need to buoycott, because I don't patronise them or Costa, or any other coffee shop either for that matter. All the branches are exceedingly 'grubby' and could do with a clean up refurbishment, they all stock the same gaggy muffins and heat to eat sandwiches, ugh ! to top it all there is always an assault course of prams and buggies to manoeuvre past belonging to single ladies who can clearly afford the prices charged.

 

[Tinkerbelle]

It's entirely legal. If it wasn't they would not be able to get away with doing it.

If they couldn't do it then they could well invest less in the UK so less jobs. Getting more money from Amazon in tax won't necessarily mean more money in the UK.

So why, if it is entirely legal, has Amazon decided to comply with European and UK tax laws and no longer practice tax avoidance? Its exploiting the tax system at the very least. Paying very clever accountants and risk analysts a lot of money in the hope that HMRC will not investigate, question their tax avoidance practices and force them to comply. Starbucks have also volunteered corporation tax payments. They know its wrong. They want to trade here but not pay the full tax price of doing so.

But as I said before. I choose not to use Amazon and others. That's my choice. Others do and don't agree Amazon are doing anything wrong. I'm not asking others to change their views, just stating mine.

 

[maymorganlondon]

So why, if it is entirely legal, has Amazon decided to comply with European and UK tax laws and no longer practice tax avoidance? Its exploiting the tax system at the very least. Paying very clever accountants and risk analysts a lot of money in the hope that HMRC will not investigate, question their tax avoidance practices and force them to comply. Starbucks have also volunteered corporation tax payments. They know its wrong. They want to trade here but not pay the full tax price of doing so.

But as I said before. I choose not to use Amazon and others. That's my choice. Others do and don't agree Amazon are doing anything wrong. I'm not asking others to change their views, just stating mine.

They already were complying with the law. Truth is, they are now bowing to public opinion. Sometimes in the world of PR you do yourself more good by accepting you are wrong, even when you are not.

 

[thatu]

Sorry to interrupt, but I wondered if anyone had any more surveys to add here?


Ducks to avoid heavy missiles from all sides

 

[ohnonotshoppingagain]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/redirect.html/ref=s9_acss_bw_tm_JeffProm_md1?location=http://www.mww.com/uk/newsroom/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Meaningful-Brands-Retail-Release_FINAL_July.pdf&token=781A625F1EFF3059C700262E846317A9CB339079&source=standards&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=merchandised-search-2&pf_rd_r=1YME8Y7PA82MTZVWATY1&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=665129887&pf_rd_i=7143867031

Yes and I can honestly say this list does not surprise me, having used all of them for home delivery internet shopping, not just groceries. I'm a big fan of online shopping with Amazon, M & S and John Lewis for speed, the others on the list who do home delivery take longer, and of course, some don't do home delivery i.e. aldi etc.

Good post.

 

[maymorganlondon]

Sorry to interrupt, but I wondered if anyone had any more surveys to add here?


Ducks to avoid heavy missiles from all sides

I did look, but I didn't find any other surveys currently, sorry! I suppose every brand will focus on the surveys which make them look good, and give them something to brag about!

The diversion from the OP is entirely justified, though, in my opinion... as the trust people have in brands does vary, and for a variety of reasons. Finding a company's tax compliance policy unacceptable is a perfectly justifiable reason not to want to use that brand, just as much as any other information in the public domain can influence consumers. The fact that others do not have an issue with something doesn't make each individual's reasons for supporting or not supporting a brand wrong - we all measure things by different yardsticks.

 

[historymystery]

shopperholic, agree 100%. I don't agree with firms 'fiddling' taxes, but there's a case for saying that if they do, and can get away with it for years, of course they will! Surely, the onus should be on making it virtually impossible for firms to be able to get away with fiddling tax? And that requires adequate numbers of Civil Servants employed to do a proper job (no chance of that). 'Fiddling' tax is one thing, tax 'avoidance' is a whole different animal and as far as I know, it's legal! We shouldn't kid ourselves - one company is just the tip of an iceberg big enough to sink 5 Titanics, and ordinary people deciding to stop buying from companies who've possibly 'avoided' paying taxes will not make one iota of difference in the great scheme of things. If all companies guilty of avoidance (or even fiddling!) taxes paid up tomorrow, there's no guarantees the money would be used to rescue infrastructure, where it's needed. And shopperholic's comment about the House of Lords - we have a disgraced politician living locally, who recently served a term of imprisonment - and yes, still claiming £300 a day + for sitting in the Lords! One of many, probably... Blurdy scandalous.

I'm not getting political on a shopping page, but that would never happen, even if they paid their taxes, never in a million years would the less well off and working class reap the benefits. If the Bankers paid what they're supposed to pay, if the Government reversed the millionaires tax breaks, if the House of Lords weren't payed £300 per day plus expenses, they still wouldn't build hospitals, schools or hire more doctors, and I don't mean any offence, but it would be pretty naive to think other wise. They've almost scrapped the benefits systems saving billions, yet still no new Doctors hired, no rises for nurses or schools built.

 

[alan1302]

So why, if it is entirely legal, has Amazon decided to comply with European and UK tax laws and no longer practice tax avoidance? Its exploiting the tax system at the very least. Paying very clever accountants and risk analysts a lot of money in the hope that HMRC will not investigate, question their tax avoidance practices and force them to comply. Starbucks have also volunteered corporation tax payments. They know its wrong. They want to trade here but not pay the full tax price of doing so.

But as I said before. I choose not to use Amazon and others. That's my choice. Others do and don't agree Amazon are doing anything wrong. I'm not asking others to change their views, just stating mine.

They always have followed the rules...they just want to appear to the public as doing the right thing and paying a bit more to appease the public and not to lose too many sales.

It's up to the government to stop loop holes like this...and they don't seem to keen on the idea as they don't want to put off companies investing in the UK.

 

[Tinkerbelle]

They always have followed the rules...they just want to appear to the public as doing the right thing and paying a bit more to appease the public and not to lose too many sales.

It's up to the government to stop loop holes like this...and they don't seem to keen on the idea as they don't want to put off companies investing in the UK.

I'd like to think they did do it because they're good guys at heart but the threat of a diverted profits tax starting in September 2015 is most likely to explain their change of heart. But they've said they'll do it so that's what matters. I personally won't shop there until they actually keep their promise.

And a little extra? 20% corporation tax on £5 billion sales. What's that? Lordy but my calculator can't work that out. £150 million at 3% profit rate? As opposed to the £4million they have paid in the past.

I do agree though that whilst this money will go into the government coffers there are no guarantees it will go towards services in most need. It certainly won't go towards those services if it remains in Amazon's back pocket.

 

[shopperholic]

I'd like to think they did do it because they're good guys at heart but the threat of a diverted profits tax starting in September 2015 is most likely to explain their change of heart. But they've said they'll do it so that's what matters. I personally won't shop there until they actually keep their promise.

And a little extra? 20% corporation tax on £5 billion sales. What's that? Lordy but my calculator can't work that out. £150 million at 3% profit rate? As opposed to the £4million they have paid in the past.

I do agree though that whilst this money will go into the government coffers there are no guarantees it will go towards services in most need. It certainly won't go towards those services if it remains in Amazon's back pocket.

At least while its in Amazons back pocket we can all benefit (well, the online shoppers can)........ if it was in the Governments back pocket, no one would benefit the tight gits.

 

[shopperholic]

shopperholic, agree 100%. I don't agree with firms 'fiddling' taxes, but there's a case for saying that if they do, and can get away with it for years, of course they will! Surely, the onus should be on making it virtually impossible for firms to be able to get away with fiddling tax? And that requires adequate numbers of Civil Servants employed to do a proper job (no chance of that). 'Fiddling' tax is one thing, tax 'avoidance' is a whole different animal and as far as I know, it's legal! We shouldn't kid ourselves - one company is just the tip of an iceberg big enough to sink 5 Titanics, and ordinary people deciding to stop buying from companies who've possibly 'avoided' paying taxes will not make one iota of difference in the great scheme of things. If all companies guilty of avoidance (or even fiddling!) taxes paid up tomorrow, there's no guarantees the money would be used to rescue infrastructure, where it's needed. And shopperholic's comment about the House of Lords - we have a disgraced politician living locally, who recently served a term of imprisonment - and yes, still claiming £300 a day + for sitting in the Lords! One of many, probably... Blurdy scandalous.

Thanks History, I totally agree with you.

 

[donna255]

What I am watching has been going up as well as down.

That happened to me last month. As I bought a new TV(local corner electrical shop, which will match Amazon's prices), decided to get a new DVD player all region. Spotted one on Amazon(local guy could not get that model), the price went up and up and up nearly £10 more over a few days!!!!! Found another Amazon seller who had it at the original price and free shipping so bought it. Quite a few Ebay sellers are now moving to sell on Amazon it seems.

I have a Philips Sonicare nearly 5 years and just got my replacement heads on subscribe and save.

 

[Tinkerbelle]

At least while its in Amazons back pocket we can all benefit (well, the online shoppers can)........ if it was in the Governments back pocket, no one would benefit the tight gits.

I wish I believed that. The majority of it will go to the company bosses and shareholders. Big business is every bit as selfish as government.

 

[boffy]

this government condones any activity that protects the ruling one percent over the needs of the majority 99%

 

[alan1302]

I wish I believed that. The majority of it will go to the company bosses and shareholders. Big business is every bit as selfish as government.

Amazon as a company is not good at giving much back to the shareholders - most get put back into the company.