Off Topic But these aren't ruining anything, of course...

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have no issue with any individual making as much money as they can, good luck to them.

For me, the far more pressing and unfair issue, is that of global corporations avoiding tax almost altogether.

The two are not completely separate issues, as Bezzos wouldn’t have made quite so much coin had Amazon paid the same rate of tax as all those competing with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LeftSaidFred, Help!, Newlandcasual2 and 6 others
DMD said:
And many of those fund schemes that benefit others. Taking it off them, to give to a government to spend, doesn't automatically mean it will do more good.
Click to expand...
Agreed
Obviously I’ve massively oversimplified things to make an over simplified point.
I do believe though that tax rules globally should change to ensure that it is so high at a level in the 100s of millions that it should make it less likely that some individuals accumulate more than a billion (GBP)
And of course Govts should manage money better, but ultimately people do have the power to make that happen
 
  • Like
Reactions: Evington
Oddly enough just watching a program about the origins of the Chocolate bar, Frys, Cadbury, Rowntrees. They all built the towns and estates surrounding their factories. Many others industries did the same, improving the lot of their workers. Doesn't seem to happen these days.

Remember a program about Apple when they moved into Seattle, got loads of tax breaks to do so but ruined the housing market in the process. Their workers were able to pay above the market rate for housing which drove out the locals. Something like 30% of those living on the streets were in full time employment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Newlandcasual2 and Edelman
DMD said:
The whole argument is bizarre, as it relies on any additional taxes he pays being given to Governments, who are unlikely to spend it on the things those complaining would like anyway.

The jobs created by these billionaires are liable to bring more benefits to people than the extra tax would anyway.
Click to expand...
Or they could pay employees a reasonable share of their earnings. I'm sure there are plenty of Amazon employees who can't afford healthcare in the States.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dennisboothstash
Off The Line said:
Or they could pay employees a reasonable share of their earnings. I'm sure there are plenty of Amazon employees who can't afford healthcare in the States.
Click to expand...

Amazon, not content with taking over online retail, launched Amazon Healthcare earlier this year. It’s open to any individual or company, but it also covers all their US full time employees.

They seem to look after their US staff better than they do elsewhere, they just upped their starting wage to $18 per hour, which is significantly more than they pay in the U.K.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Edelman and Off The Line
balkan tiger said:
Oddly enough just watching a program about the origins of the Chocolate bar, Frys, Cadbury, Rowntrees. They all built the towns and estates surrounding their factories. Many others industries did the same, improving the lot of their workers. Doesn't seem to happen these days.

Remember a program about Apple when they moved into Seattle, got loads of tax breaks to do so but ruined the housing market in the process. Their workers were able to pay above the market rate for housing which drove out the locals. Something like 30% of those living on the streets were in full time employment.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, all those ladies of the night, dodging the logs slithering down Skid Row on their way to the harbourfront ! Remember it well. :emoticon-0105-wink::emoticon-0105-wink:
 
originallambrettaman said:
Amazon, not content with taking over online retail, launched Amazon Healthcare earlier this year. It’s open to any individual or company, but it also covers all their US full time employees.

They seem to look after their US staff better than they do elsewhere, they just upped their starting wage to $18 per hour, which is significantly more than they pay in the U.K.
Click to expand...
They'd still need a separate cover for emergencies though.
 
Off The Line said:
They'd still need a separate cover for emergencies though.
Click to expand...

Would they? Do you know the levels on offer for employees? And let's say they do need extra for emergency....they are still be very well looked after by being given healthcare in the first place, they dont need to offer it. Is also say it's hardly Amazons fault the US healthcare system is the way it is.
 
Howdentiger2 said:
Would they? Do you know the levels on offer for employees? And let's say they do need extra for emergency....they are still be very well looked after by being given healthcare in the first place, they dont need to offer it. Is also say it's hardly Amazons fault the US healthcare system is the way it is.
Click to expand...
Yes, I've checked. And yes, they can afford to pay their employees a proper living wage.
 
Off The Line said:
Yes, I've checked. And yes, they can afford to pay their employees a proper living wage.
Click to expand...

What cover do they provide them then? Is there a deductible? Is it tax deductible? What are the exclusions? and how much should they be paid over the $18 an hour they currently get?

And again...how is it Amazon's fault that the US healthcare system is the way it is? Why should they pay for it and not the US government?
 
Howdentiger2 said:
What cover do they provide them then? Is there a deductible? Is it tax deductible? What are the exclusions? and how much should they be paid over the $18 an hour they currently get?

And again...how is it Amazon's fault that the US healthcare system is the way it is? Why should they pay for it and not the US government?
Click to expand...
I imagine Amazon are quite happy with the healthcare system, as they are now profiting from it.
 
Howdentiger2 said:
Well done for completely ignoring my points and replying with some random nonsense

How dare someone set up a business and make a profit...naughty naughty !
Click to expand...
Your point is irrelevant as employees should have always been able to afford healthcare, because the company can afford it. Instead they choose to offer it themselves as a profitable convenience. It's all back to front to me.
Staff wellbeing is not given the value that it should have in a civilised, forward-thinking society.
 
originallambrettaman said:
Amazon, not content with taking over online retail, launched Amazon Healthcare earlier this year. It’s open to any individual or company, but it also covers all their US full time employees.

They seem to look after their US staff better than they do elsewhere, they just upped their starting wage to $18 per hour, which is significantly more than they pay in the U.K.
Click to expand...

There are legal consequences for not paying a legal wage in the UK. Market forces set that value, it's irrelevant to the profit of the business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ric Glasgow
Howdentiger2 said:
And again...how is it Amazon's fault that the US healthcare system is the way it is? Why should they pay for it and not the US government?
Click to expand...
Where does the US government get money from to pay from healthcare? From taxes on people’s income and on corporations’ income. So if Amazon isn’t paying its way in the US (I’ve no idea if that’s right or wrong) then yes it is partially their fault.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drew
I consider myself in the low earner bracket.Warehouse work never did pay much and I'm now part-time through personal and age related choice.

I have never seen the need to question millionaires, billionaires or entrepreneurs,they chose a different path in life to me and it paid off.I do wonder sometimes whether footballers and such like need ,or warrant ,the huge amounts they change hands for but recognise the contributions they do make in terms of taxes.

In short,it interests me not what a man takes home on a Friday in his wages,it's not my business,it's his.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anal Frank Fingers, rovertiger, philhul and 3 others
AlRawdah said:
Where does the US government get money from to pay from healthcare? From taxes on people’s income and on corporations’ income. So if Amazon isn’t paying its way in the US (I’ve no idea if that’s right or wrong) then yes it is partially their fault.
Click to expand...

They pay what they legally have to I'm sure, should them and all other giant businesses pay more.. probably yes. But until the laws/rules etc change they can't be slated ( in my opinion ) for playing by the rules and laws and paying as little as they legally can. I'm almost certain no businesses or individuals would ever choose to pay more tax then they had to.

The rules of the game need to change more then the individual people& businesses I'd say.

I just hope the people voting yes for musk to sell of that amount of shares realise the knock on effect that that will have on the markets and everything linked to it. It will almost certainly effect them more then it will If he doesn't do it
 
Last edited:
RayVonn said:
Did he take it off them at gunpoint? Rob their house? Break into their bank account?
There are people on here with businesses. Do you think their money once belonged to someone else?
Click to expand...
Did I say he’d robbed anyone at gunpoint, or in any other way? No. I didn’t.

Of course profits anyone with a business make are made of of money that once belonged to someone else though…that’s how businesses work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back