Corporations are not taxed on revenue, so I can only assume that the headline is designed to be inflammatory.
This is going to sound pretentious as fuck, but I'm gonna say it anyway: I'm so tired of the hoards of people passively accepting whatever headlines reinforce their extremely simple, uniform bias / value set.
Maybe this is just a reflection of the bias / value set of the crowd here, but at least it's a different one. I hope it's an indication of a higher level of general critical thinking, though.
Though, depending on your interests, some days there may not be much on HR that tickles your attention.
That's fairly nit-picky, though. I'll take it.
Because it would be wholly disingenuous to presume the opposite. The article in general and the headline in particular is juxtaposing tax against revenue explicitly in order to elicit the response that there's something fishy. The article even goes so far as to have a quote about tax avoidance whilst carefully avoiding accusing Amazon of tax avoidance.
It would have been a much more informative article if they had said, say, that Amazon expect to make a small loss on 20bn revenue and then go on to explain Amazon's business model. This would, of course, have shed a different light on their share scheme as it's clearly very beneficial for their workforce.
But no, it's a large American corporation that doesn't pay much UK tax so let's bang out a low quality article that insinuates heavily but says not a lot.
Full disclosure: I'm British, have no relationship to Amazon (other than as a customer) and am no relation to Mr Bezos though we do rock similar hairstyles.
True. Now, perhaps offtopic: why are individuals taxed on revenue (ie salary, benefits ect), but corporations are not?