Hacker News Reader

Your remark sounds as if it is the company's fault to act like this.

1) The first part is exactly how the EU was designed: operate from one country, reduce your overhead. Maybe it is not Amazon's fault that they comply with the rules?

2) The second part is exactly how the Congress wanted its tax laws: if you bring money home, pay your taxes, if you don't, we are not involved. Maybe it is not Amazon's fault that they comply with the rules?

View on HN

That's fine, they act within the rules, but the rules are not set in stone, and neither does their public image depend solely on not breaking the law. The conversation is not about whether companies should voluntarily act in a certain way, it's whether the laws need to be changed. Or, on occasion, if the law cannot be changed, whether consumers can force change in an organized way, thereby making it profitable for the company to alter its behaviour. Companies are constantly shifting in response to campaigns, or in general to improve their image. It's not a legal requirement to use recycled cups or Fairtrade coffee, but many cafes will do that to look good. Companies shouldn't be surprised if the same sort of reputational damage applies to how they treat their workers or whether they pay a lot less tax than their rivals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com