View Full Version : Jeff Bezos (Amazon)
His wealth in terms of grains of rice:
https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2020/03/02/jeff-bezoss-wealth-represented-by-rice-is-blowing-peoples-minds/
garynortheast
02-03-20, 08:48 AM
That is obscene. :-(
SV650rules
02-03-20, 11:33 AM
It is often hard to visualise a billion compared to a million, and it worries me when people in favour of big white elephants like HS2 talk about billions as if it is nothing, so it has gone from initial £30B to over £100B ( just for phase 1) and makes no economic sense, but they still want it.
Good luck to Jeff Bezos, many of the ideas that made people wealthy started in someones garage ( Amazon did ) and they took enormous financial risks ( like risking all their savings and house and then borrowed money ) and worked 20 hours a day - and for every one that worked out millions did not. Is it only in the UK that we hate rich successful people who worked hard to get it ? Maybe I don't like spoiled people who inherited a successful business from parent (s) and then sold up and squandered to proceeds, but self made people -great, and to be fair Amazon offer a great service to consumers, maybe not so great for their sellers but they are probably nowhere near the worst.
Is it only in the UK that we hate rich successful people who worked hard to get it ?
I have no problem with people getting rich providing they are not doing so at the expense of their workers or by avoiding/evading tax.
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/7xm4dy/ambulances-were-called-to-amazon-warehouses-600-times-in-three-years
The fact that Amazon need to advertise that their working conditions are wonderful on tv indicates that there is a problem.
Similar complaints are voiced over Amazon's working conditions in Germany and in the US. They moved their UK tax base to Luxembourg to avoid UK tax (remember Juncker from the EU/Brexit negotiations - when he was Lux's Finance minister he facilitated Amazon style tax avoidance but when in EU railed against tax avoidance). I avoid using Amazon.
SV650rules
02-03-20, 01:08 PM
Well the NHS, Police force, Army, navy, Air force and education system ( for teachers ) all advertise on TV and radio to recruit. Amazon employ about 30,000 people in UK - one of the biggest employers. I guess majority of companies in China, India etc have worse employment conditions than Amazon, but lots of people still buy stuff made there. Nobody forces anyone to work for a company, and if Amazon cannot recruit enough people I guess market forces will mean they have to improve things.
My question is always, if you could pay less tax than you do. Would you? The answer is probably yes because we all want to see more of the money we earn.
The tax loopholes exist, and whether we like it or not they are legal. Someone along a supply chain from the procurement of the raw material to the consumer, is probably paying less tax than they 'should'. It's the world we live in which is run by economics.
My question is always, if you could pay less tax than you do. Would you?
If services (and roads) were improved because of me paying more tax; I would pay more. Would I want to manipulate the system, legal or not, to pay less; no.
The tax loopholes exist, and whether we like it or not they are legal.
Legal: yes. Ethical: no.
The amount of tax I could avoid or all of us could avoid is trivial and would make little difference. The tax that Amazon and the rest avoid would make a difference.
This thread, though, was simply to show the scale of 1 man's assets. Visualising a billion is difficult, the link shows the staggering size.
Craig380
03-03-20, 07:55 AM
Two years ago, my company (10 people, turning over about £750K, profitable) paid more corporation tax in the UK than Facebook UK did.
That's because it doesn't make financial sense for us to set up a brass-plate 'parent company' in Luxembourg that we can 'license' our brand from and move profits to. It costs around £200K to set one up, and around £120K per year to maintain it and keep the paperwork legit.
So the point is that small and medium-sized companies cannot access the loopholes that FB, Amazon, Google etc exploit to avoid corporation tax on their vast profits.
Of course, large firms like the ones mentioned always wave the "look how many people we employ and all the PAYE and NI they generate" argument. While that's true, it's a straw man argument. The fact remains that the companies are deliberately sheltering their profits from taxation in any jurisdiction.
Bezos' charitable donations are a drop in the ocean compared to what Amazon should be paying, and should have paid over the decades, in tax. He's making those donations to improve his image after being caught with his todger out, and to salve his guilty conscience.
My question is always, if you could pay less tax than you do. Would you? The answer is probably yes because we all want to see more of the money we earn.
The tax loopholes exist, and whether we like it or not they are legal. Someone along a supply chain from the procurement of the raw material to the consumer, is probably paying less tax than they 'should'. It's the world we live in which is run by economics.
And if you can bribe politicians to allow more loopholes that benefit you who already has more money than you could ever spend at the expense of millions who are struggling every day to make ends meet then great :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
If services (and roads) were improved because of me paying more tax; I would pay more. Would I want to manipulate the system, legal or not, to pay less; no.
Legal: yes. Ethical: no.
The amount of tax I could avoid or all of us could avoid is trivial and would make little difference. The tax that Amazon and the rest avoid would make a difference.
This thread, though, was simply to show the scale of 1 man's assets. Visualising a billion is difficult, the link shows the staggering size.
unfortunately our tax system (& others) aren't based on ethics. I by no means agree with any large corporation not as much paying tax as they should. But I was pointing out that there are multiple avenues they can use to avoid it.
There was a case for an investment arm of HSBC that just settled a 300M Euro fine for a tax fraud case in Belgium - if the Banks are avoiding it, who else is?!
And if you can bribe politicians to allow more loopholes that benefit you who already has more money than you could ever spend at the expense of millions who are struggling every day to make ends meet then great :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Unfortunately so, or even whole countries.
what TAX is it exactly that the person who owns amazon is supposed to be evading?
income tax?
employee tax?
VAT?
import tax?
import duty?
if its income tax then you cant expect someone who lives in another country to pay income tax here in the UK.. thats just nutz.
people who slag the mega rich are usually jealous as they have nothing.. its not the rich persons fault that the poor are poor. its the poor persons fault that they dont have the brains or indeed risk taking ability to succeed. why should a rich successful person give their money away to people who wont or cant take a chance. employing them is enough is it not even if the working conditions are supposed to be bad. to these people i say go get a job in India then tell me what bad working conditions are.
the people in western world country's need to get a furkin grip of reality and stop spending all their money on "trinkets" or if they feel that bad about poverty then give all your own money away..................... if you are in poverty and cant get out then who's fault is it coz its not the rich person. its easy to blame others.
It's Amazon the company that is avoiding taxes.
1) partially pay employees with shares instead of full salary
2) all UK Amazon purchases go through Luxembourg so although we know that sales have increased we don't know how much tax is paid. Which seems bizarre.
It's summarised here: https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-why-does-amazon-pay-so-little-tax
or here:
https://www.taxjustice.net/2018/08/10/why-is-amazon-still-paying-little-tax-in-the-uk/
The problem is that the loopholes exist and successive governments seem reluctant to close them. I wrote to my MP (waste of space Martin Vickers) and was told it was difficult to close loopholes. It seems to me it's only difficult if no one is trying. Some of the worst tax shelters are under UK jurisdiction (eg: Cayman Islands)
Sentiment seems to be changing with an increasing clamour for a digital tax but unless all countries sign on the large companies will keep exploiting loopholes. Then we have France announcing a digital tax followed by Trump threatening tariffs against them.
Last word about Jeff Bezos - he earns $149,500 per minute.
Craig380
04-03-20, 08:08 AM
See my earlier post, Bibs. Why did my small, 10-person company pay more UK corporation tax in 2017 than Facebook, which at the time had 2,300 UK employees and UK revenues of nearly a billion pounds?
It's because Facebook aggressively avoids paying taxes on its UK profits by a Russian-doll structure of holding companies, with the parent firms in low- or zero-tax jurisdictions. The fact is, small and growing firms are easy targets for tax authorities, whereas larger companies can set up complex holding structures to evade tax.
Yes, it's 'legal.' But as Seeker said, it isn't ethical.
its not the rich persons fault that the poor are poor.
What the absolute F???
The entire point of capitalism is to keep the majority of money under the control of a few mega wealthy people.
SV650rules
06-03-20, 08:45 AM
What the absolute F???
The entire point of capitalism is to keep the majority of money under the control of a few mega wealthy people.
Most economists seem to agree that if the money in the world was divided up equally that in 5 years time the same people would be rich and the same ones poor.
John D Rockerfeller was walking through New York when a homeless man started shouting at him, "you rich people are selfish, why don't you give money away to others", Rockerfeller replied "well OK, I am worth 200 million dollars, and as it happens there are about 200 million people in USA, so here is your dollar, go and get a hamburger".
Most economists seem to agree that if the money in the world was divided up equally that in 5 years time the same people would be rich and the same ones poor..
Of course they would, rich people aren't rich because they were born with money (even though most of them are), they are rich because they have the contacts and support of other rich/clever people.
York when a homeless man started shouting at him, "you rich people are selfish, why don't you give money away to others", Rockerfeller replied "well OK, I am worth 200 million dollars, and as it happens there are about 200 million people in USA, so here is your dollar, go and get a hamburger".
I doubt this ever happened, but that's not the point. No-one expects rich people to give away their whole fortune to millions of people equally. What would be nice however is if someone worth 115 billion, provided his staff with basic benefits like insurance. He wouldn't even notice the few hundred thousand it costs him, for the staff though it would be life changing.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/13/20864636/amazon-whole-foods-medical-benefits-part-time-workers-jeff-bezos
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.