I agree with you, 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 change the tax laws then you can do so, via the government that you take part in.

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?

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.)

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.

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.

Step 2: Do those things.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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...

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.