Hacker News Reader

Comment by jimnotgym | Hacker News Reader

Bezos can keep his donations, I just want Amazon to pay tax like any other business would in the UK, pay employees NI like any other business in the UK, and pay minimum wage like any other business in the UK. It shouldn't be up to the billionaires to choose where to spend money that should be in the hands of national governments and workers. This article for instance shows homeless Amazon warehouse workers living in tents [0]. Maybe a better solution to homelessness is to pay people properly.

[0]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/amazon-worke...

View on HN

> I just want Amazon to pay tax like any other business would in the UK, pay employees NI like any other business in the UK, and pay minimum wage like any other business in the UK

I agree with you, but you can't blame Jeff Bezos for UK legislation.

> ... but you can't blame Jeff Bezos for UK legislation.

Ahh, the old 'unless it's specifically and explicitly denied, regardless of moral or ethical considerations, let alone acting contra to the spirit of the law, then it's okay' defence.

Your misdirection is correct - Jeff Bezos is not responsible for UK legislation - however how Jeff Bezos instructs his vendors and employees to act is very much his responsibility.

If you want to optimize systems, you should expect people to operate with self-interest with respect to the law. Attributing moral blame for self-interested parties not donating money to be within the spirit of the law is unreasonable.

Attributing moral blame to self-interested parties is exactly the point of moral blame. Moral blame is specifically about accusing people of going for their self-interest and little else...

You're talking past each other. Moral blame isn't wrong, just not very useful.

Moral blame and $5 will get you a cup of coffee from Blue Bottle, which just sold out to Nestle.

Why must there be anything else? If you're going to make this argument then you must have a compelling answer, specifically in the context of a corporation.

Companies follow laws and regulations, and optimize for profit and sustainability within those rules. Why would they ever pay MORE than they have to? There are no ethics or morals here. Taxes are not charity.

If you want to change the tax laws then you can do so, via the government that you take part in.

I don't have complete control over every government in the world. It is perfectly reasonable for me to criticize the way that companies act, even if it is incentivized by a government. People do not have to be mindless money maximizers. They have a choice in how they act and they are responsible for their own actions regardless of what incentives the government creates.

Nobody has complete control over any government, anywhere in the world.

Companies are also not citizens, they are abstract structures designed to deliver value to customers and make a profit in doing so. A corporation has no specific loyalty to the government beyond following the laws and paying the dues required for operating. Corporations are also not able to judge what the "ethical" amount to pay is, which is why the government sets those rules on behalf of the people it represents.

You're turning a government issue into a corporate issue because it sounds easy, but ultimately its just treating (or rather complaining about) the symptom rather than enacting any solution. Again, perhaps you should join the government and enact the change you want to see?

Also since you are talking about responsibility and actions, I assume you donate all the spare cash you have that isn't going to taxes. Or is that not ethical in your case?

This is an absolutely horrifying argument. You are basically getting rid of any notion of personal responsibility and saying that I cannot criticize anyone for doing anything that the government does not prevent.

Definitely not what I said. Your comment also doesn't seem to make much sense and I don't see what personal responsibility has to do with corporate taxes. You can also criticise all you want, that's never been the topic of discussion in this thread.

> People do not have to be mindless money maximizers.

No. They don't. Companies do.

To a degree, they DO have a fiduciary duty to maximize profit over the long haul; if Amazon didn't take all legal shortcuts it'd be at a competitive disadvantage and a competitor could put it out of business.

Optimizing every aspect of their operation gives Bezos, the person, the opportunity to act following his moral compass (space exploration, philanthropy, etc.)

You don't think that negotiation and outright bribery (oh I'm sorry in the civilized West we call it lobbying) don't drive either the laws or the uneven enforcement of them?

Amazon is so big that they can jurisdiction shop or even just shop for legislators/civil servants to help fashion the regulatory environment they prefer.

Bribery is already illegal so what's your point with that?

Everything you're saying falls under "change and improve your government" if you want to see something different. If they fail to act in the public interest then vote in someone else, or run for office and show them how it's done.

It's not easy, but it's not impossible. And it's far more realistic than posting some comments and wondering why companies don't magically just donate their money away.

Jeff Bezos has a legal obligation to Amazon shareholders. He's not really allowed to donate their money to the UK government beyond what is required by UK law.

You want companies to pay more taxes than is legally required of them? What la la land do you live in?

Step 1: Use your wealth to lobby for laws that let you do things that are unethical but increase your profit.

Step 2: Do those things.

Step 3: When people criticise you for unethical behavior, point out you are just following the rules.

I'm not blaming the legislation, I'm blaming him for ignoring it. Using sub- contractors to evade employment taxes, for instance, is illegal in the UK. Somehow Amazon (and similar others like Uber) are above that. Jo Maugham QC (tax lawyer) has aledged that there is some kind of sweetheart deal with the UK government with regards to US tech firms, and brought a related case against Uber for using a similar ruse to evade sales tax.

[0]https://goodlawproject.org/uber-case/

I feel like I can blame people who say "you can't blame [whoever]," though. What you aren't saying is "let's actually change things."

I would love to say "Let's actually change things" but can you provide a plan for that? what can we _really_ do about it?

I like your thinking but Amazon/Bezos will push the boundaries to minimize costs and to be successful.

The 2B is a start but it's up to society to make sure he doesn't go too far by putting limits where needed.

Amazon's ways would change tomorrow if customers would speak up against its abusive ways but we all love PRIME, their customer service, and the convenience.

Amazon at least has to hire people to get the job done, good or bad people still have work. Apple, the largest cap company in the world, does its work with a fraction of the people that Amazon does, 500k+ for Amazon vs 120k+ for Apple. And they minimized their tax footprint while having truckloads of externalities that cost society billions.

The criticism of Standard Oil and John D. Rockefeller was highlighted by the longterm reporting of Ida Tarbell in the Saturday Evening Post. He was criticised before but Tarbell brought up to a different level in people's minds. No one seems to have the guts and long-term focus to do it for the new tech giants.

>they minimized their tax footprint while having truckloads of externalities that cost society billions.

This is what gets me. It's what they say: "privatised profits, socialised losses".

They pay the tax they are legally obligated to. You can't expect any business to pay a penny more than that. It's on the lawmakers to remove the loopholes (which they and their friends probably exploit as well, so good luck with that...)

Please see my reply above. It is alleged that they do not pay the tax that they are legally obliged to. No loophole, just special treatment.

Not OP, but OP's point stands. If they can get special treatment, someone else's might be able to. The fact that it's a possibility means they must use it or risk being at a competitive disadvantage of a less ethical player.

Before an argument of "this justifies any type of behavior such as murdering your competitors' CEOs." There's a natural limit (albeit fuzzy) to what rules is in the company's self interest to seek a "special treatment". Relationships with gov't go sour, governments change, etc. What used to be "special treatment" might quickly transform into proof of wrong-doing against the company.

But then the argument becomes rather different. It is no longer a question of "If that's the law then it is not Amazon's fault". It has moved on to "Can we get away with coercing the government into allowing us to break the law".

That is morally a lot more challenging, and there is nothing in the managements fiduciary responsibilities that compels them to break laws. Nothing. Indeed the responsibility to shareholders is more complex anyway, aggressive tax planning may for instance damage your brand and reduce the future profitability.

Yes, but they fought the headcount tax in Seattle, and they're actively seeking a low-tax jurisdiction for HQ2.

Shouldn’t Amazon shareholders expect the company to look for low tax jurisdictions to operate from? Is there a morality issue that I’m not seeing?

Yes, there is. Societies — as we know how to make them — break down if everyone figures out how to avoid paying their way.

If a hacker gets root, they’re just using the rules of the system, finding a loophole they can exploit… taxes and laws are systems that can be exploited, but even in the cases where I find them bad (and I have plenty of broad examples of things I don’t like), I think it’s worse to let people get away with exploiting weaknesses in the system.

It's not weakness, it's a commercial decision, both for Amazon AND for the jurisdiction. It's another tool the governing body has for drawing (or repelling) businesses.

There isn't a moral rate of taxation anymore than there is an absolute moral price to pay for a night at a hotel.

I’m not arguing about the absolute rate of taxation, I’m arguing about the ability to exploit different rates. Arbitrage of rules, I guess you might call it, in an environment where those setting the rules can be pressured into what would otherwise be suboptimal decisions.

Deciding it’s best to operate in a low tax jurisdiction is not “exploiting a weakness in the system”. It’s simply acting rationally in an environment when you have multiple options for where you operate.

It’s the prisoners dilemma, except Amazon etc. are acting as the interrogator.

Government shouldn’t be in the position where their own tax base can manipulate them.

I'm not participating in the conversation around the moral imperatives for corporations.

I am curious about your statement:

> Government shouldn’t be in the position where their own tax base can manipulate them.

I would like to hope by definition a democratic government is one where the tax base can manipulate the government. Going against that seems like suggesting we move to a model of "Taxation without representation".

I'm bringing it up because I'm sure you didn't intend your statement in this way. It might be worth it to re-think/phrase it.

> I would like to hope by definition a democratic government is one where the tax base can manipulate the government. Going against that seems like suggesting we move to a model of "Taxation without representation".

The tax base and the voters are not the same thing. Unemployed have a vote, corporations do not.

Additionally, in the case of tax system manipulation, it is the richest who wield the greatest power. As a relatively boring private individual, no action I personally take to move my income to regions of low tax has any noticeable impact on a government — 100% of my tax is still less than most rounding errors. Large multinationals, on the other hand… Apple International is tax resident in the Republic of Ireland, and Apple (parent company not International) has an annual revenue of 70% of Ireland’s GDP.

I can see how my language choice led to your comment.

I’m worried this is one dollar one vote, not one person one vote.

The head tax was a poorly thought out law that would have inflicted a lot of collateral damage on Seattle-based businesses without trillion dollar market caps. It was broadly unpopular here for that and a number of reasons, in spite of widespread controversy about Amazon's effect on Seattle.

Of course they did, why wouldn't they? You don't expect them to willingly pay more tax than necessary. They're a business and their job is to make money.

As they were almost certainly legally obligated too, the problem is individuals still vote in officials who bend to the whim of businesses instead of individuals.

Yes yes - how very evil if Besos & Co. to dare follow the law.

This socialistic rhetoric is all fun and games till jobs are lost & companies close down - case in point - etsy [1]

[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/business/etsy-josh-silver...

What are you talking about? Jimnotgym is precisely asking to not screw the society and follow the law (yeah, they found some "legal" loopholes, therefore one could argue that Amazon is in the "legal green zone") pay regular taxes and treat the warehouse workers et al like decent humans.

Stop making nonsequestirs. If Amazon is breaking laws, sue them. There's no forced labor in warehouses, it's at-will. No one's stopping the unhappy from getting another job. Raise the minimum wage in territories you suspect are untenable.

Then there's the whole hypocrisy of you shopping on Amazon. How much do you save by shopping on Amazon (and equivalents). Why isn't a 100% of your shopping local and sustainable?

Just stop with the B.S

You're missing the larger point. I'll try one last time.

Labor "at will" doesn't mean you get to abuse the conditions "at will". If you can, and do have all the wherewithal in the world to make your workers lives less inhumane, why on earth wouldn't you do it? You jolly well must do it!

On your assumptions on where I shop, yes, I admit that occasionally (maybe once in 3 months) I do shop on Amazon (for the things that I can't get locally; and these are not any 'big expenses'). But I boycott them to a large extent. And I "vote with my wallet" (and end up spending more than I "should") to support the local and stay sustainable to the most meaningful extent that I can, knowing my circumstances and dependents. I am reasonably proud of how I make my spending choices.

There's no end to your moral policing of Amazon's wearhouse policies. No matter what they do, you'll find a reason to demonize them.

But just to play along with your line of attack - the answer is obvious - it would affect their bottom line. Their retail is legendary for being unprofitable, there's very little wiggle room for increasing costs. What would you rather have - a large army of employed, productive wearhouse workers, whose experience at Amazon opens up further opportunities, or an army of unemployed?

Like I cited initially, the permutations have played out before, at etsy. Etsy's flat growth, and reduction in employment, while simultaneously cutting back on previously granted generous endowments is what will result if Amazon does what the social media lynch mobs of Justice seek

Maybe they are also contributing to the budget for:

https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/13/uks-mass-surveillance-regi...

So it is a political trade-off, but it looks horrible and unacceptable to us.

Like it or not these things are done at the will of the people of the country; they could vote to change it, or vote in people who would change it but they won't. It's horrible and unacceptable to you, and to me, but not to your (technically, our, but I can't vote in the UK due to residency requirements) fellow countrymen.

Humans fear devastating but statistically unlikely things disproportionately to their chance of happening, and will do basically anything to avoid them. Terrorism is such an example, and surveillance is a consequence.

Thing is, if the people of the UK decide it's an unacceptable tradeoff they will vote to change it, and it will change. Just look at, lord have mercy, Brexit. It's in everyone's hands. That's not true of a billionaire's discretionary fund.

Exactly my point. I just was been sarcastic (sorry). We believe they will do the best for us. But all this things happen all the time under the table. What I meant is that we don't like this things happening but we wont probably do much to change it.

> It shouldn't be up to the billionaires to choose where to spend money that should be in the hands of national governments and workers.

Yeah I couldn’t disagree any harder with this statement. The property rights are an essential element of a free society. The notion that government or “workers” are somehow entitled to prescribe or direct another’s property is at odds with the principals the United States was founded on.

If you don’t like how someone else makes their money, you are free to take your patronage elsewhere and convince me to as well. Don’t try to convince me government or “workers” have a right to his property.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com