I would pay the higher price - if I'm dumb enough to pay £3 for a cup of something I can make for myself for about 5p, then price clearly isn't an issue.
But that said, I no longer buy from Amazon. The argument "my protest will mean nothing, so I'll keep doing it" is pathetic, in my opinion. All it boils down to is a justification for continuing to do something you feel is wrong, because "everyone else does it". And its because of that attitude that nothing will ever happen - because everyone relies on "someone else" to sort things out.
And yes, perhaps the government does waste some money on things that aren't the most moral. But a huge amount of tax is not collected through avoidance - the tax gap stands at between £40 and £120 BILLION at the moment.
If that money was collected, then we'd lift IMMEDIATELY out of the austerity measures. The money being cut from social services, the NHS, and schools would be reinstated. Taxes could go down.
I note in the paper this morning that Starbucks are volnteering another £10m of tax, taking them to £19m over the last few years.....on sales of £3bn. That's a tax rate of 0.6% on their takings.
If you think that is wrong, the answer is simple - you don't buy from them. If you do, you are condoning their actions, and all that that implies for the country and future generations.
So yes - I WOULD pay the higher price, and I DO pay the higher price, by avoiding companies such as Amzon.
Jim - 11 years ago
Insufficient detail in the question; "avoiding" tax is legal, "evading" it is illegal. Also, which country is the company operating in, the same as me, or a different one?
Perhaps you should ask if people would buy goods identified as "stolen from a warehouse"?
Jethro - 11 years ago
I reported this question on my Facebook page because I was interested in what people I know would say. The first answer pointed out that most people, when offered the choice of paying a little less for a service if they pay in cash, will take that option. The second person told me that most people who use him actively seek a cash discount before one is even offered.
I wonder if the answer people give to the question would be different in two different situations, buying a coffee from a machine, with no human interaction, and buying one in a busy coffee shop where others would hear your choice.
I'm afraid I think the 'I don't want to pay tax because I can't trust the government to spend the tax wisely' argument is a bit too convenient. If we're honest with ourselves none of us wants to pay tax, even if 100% of it was being spent in a way of which we approve. This truth doesn't make us bad, it just makes us human!
Jason - 11 years ago
There's little difference between willingness to buy something that is cheaper because tax has been (illegally!) avoided and willingness to buy something that is cheaper because it was stolen; while you wouldn't be guilty of tax evasion, you would be supporting tax evasion.
If 'hey I wasn't the guy who stole it' doesn't work, neither does 'hey, I paid *my* portion of the taxes...'
Pete - 11 years ago
In a recent poll, 100% thought that other people should pay more tax.
Karen - 11 years ago
I would pay the higher price because if I could afford the item, I could afford the tax, and my tax added to all the other peoples' taxes would amount to something. I also agree that the big businesses can afford to pay taxes but they spend all that money on lawyers to avoid the taxes and of course for CEO bonuses.
Dave G - 11 years ago
I voted for the lower. I still buy from Amazon despite knowing that they pay incredibly low tax - I'd be cutting my nose off to spite my face by paying more from a competitor.
The difference I alone would make by moving to a competitor would be infinitesimal - Amazon wouldn't pay more tax because I avoided them and it would be a silent statement. It would benefit the higher tax paying company though, but unless we all acted in unison it really wouldn't make a difference.
Indy - 11 years ago
In terms of big business taxes, I think its a misleading question. Big companies aren't avoiding tax because they cant afford it. They are currently trading at competitive prices (if they change profits will go down as customers move to competitors). The big companies 'hide' profits buy paying a subsection of their own company too much for a service or hiding profits in foreign arms of their company. What angers most people is the ability to pay, but choosing not too and for competitive reasons paying will not affect user price.
Caz - 11 years ago
Anyone who claims they would willingly pay the higher price is most probably lying. By the time I hand over my £2.50 or what-have-you in Starbucks I've already had a deduction of income tax on that money - I've paid MY tax (in fact, with PAYE I have no choice in the matter) so it's up to the company I'm purchasing from to pay theirs too. That's what you call fairness and honesty.
That said, if there existed a legal loophole for me to pay LESS income tax I'd sure as heck be doing it - we all would!
Stephen - 11 years ago
I would choose the lower priced coffee as I have a real problem with what our government spends the taxes on (Trident anybody?) If a more socially aware government was in charge who spent money on the NHS and spreading the wealth rather than looking after themselves and their rich buddies maybe my attitude would change.
stan - 11 years ago
I'm always a bargain hunter. However on this item I checked the higher price alternative, since I think that is the choice of integrity. So I'd be getting my money's worth by feeling better about my actions. Also I'm in the upper middle class who is undertaxed in general. However, for making that decision I'd really like to see a debate on that topic by top economist experts on taxation. I understand the argument in favor of paying the tax and I'd like to understand what would be a good economic argument for the lower price.
Nusin - 11 years ago
I agree with Dylan i woild also choose lower price in real life cause i actually don't think that governement controls fairly taxe issue
Nusin - 11 years ago
I agree with Dylan i woild also choose lower price in real life cause i actually don't think that governement controls fairly taxe issue
Nusin - 11 years ago
I agree with Dylan i woild also choose lower price in real life cause i actually don't think that governement controls fairly taxe issue
Nusin - 11 years ago
I agree with Dylan i woild also choose lower price in real life cause i actually don't think that governement controls fairly taxe issue
I voted for the higher price but I wonder if I did that just to present a positive self-image. If I actually had to choose in a real life situation, I think the difference in cost would be the major factor in my decision.
Clearly, you don't live in Spain...
I would pay the higher price - if I'm dumb enough to pay £3 for a cup of something I can make for myself for about 5p, then price clearly isn't an issue.
But that said, I no longer buy from Amazon. The argument "my protest will mean nothing, so I'll keep doing it" is pathetic, in my opinion. All it boils down to is a justification for continuing to do something you feel is wrong, because "everyone else does it". And its because of that attitude that nothing will ever happen - because everyone relies on "someone else" to sort things out.
And yes, perhaps the government does waste some money on things that aren't the most moral. But a huge amount of tax is not collected through avoidance - the tax gap stands at between £40 and £120 BILLION at the moment.
If that money was collected, then we'd lift IMMEDIATELY out of the austerity measures. The money being cut from social services, the NHS, and schools would be reinstated. Taxes could go down.
I note in the paper this morning that Starbucks are volnteering another £10m of tax, taking them to £19m over the last few years.....on sales of £3bn. That's a tax rate of 0.6% on their takings.
If you think that is wrong, the answer is simple - you don't buy from them. If you do, you are condoning their actions, and all that that implies for the country and future generations.
So yes - I WOULD pay the higher price, and I DO pay the higher price, by avoiding companies such as Amzon.
Insufficient detail in the question; "avoiding" tax is legal, "evading" it is illegal. Also, which country is the company operating in, the same as me, or a different one?
Perhaps you should ask if people would buy goods identified as "stolen from a warehouse"?
I reported this question on my Facebook page because I was interested in what people I know would say. The first answer pointed out that most people, when offered the choice of paying a little less for a service if they pay in cash, will take that option. The second person told me that most people who use him actively seek a cash discount before one is even offered.
I wonder if the answer people give to the question would be different in two different situations, buying a coffee from a machine, with no human interaction, and buying one in a busy coffee shop where others would hear your choice.
I'm afraid I think the 'I don't want to pay tax because I can't trust the government to spend the tax wisely' argument is a bit too convenient. If we're honest with ourselves none of us wants to pay tax, even if 100% of it was being spent in a way of which we approve. This truth doesn't make us bad, it just makes us human!
There's little difference between willingness to buy something that is cheaper because tax has been (illegally!) avoided and willingness to buy something that is cheaper because it was stolen; while you wouldn't be guilty of tax evasion, you would be supporting tax evasion.
If 'hey I wasn't the guy who stole it' doesn't work, neither does 'hey, I paid *my* portion of the taxes...'
In a recent poll, 100% thought that other people should pay more tax.
I would pay the higher price because if I could afford the item, I could afford the tax, and my tax added to all the other peoples' taxes would amount to something. I also agree that the big businesses can afford to pay taxes but they spend all that money on lawyers to avoid the taxes and of course for CEO bonuses.
I voted for the lower. I still buy from Amazon despite knowing that they pay incredibly low tax - I'd be cutting my nose off to spite my face by paying more from a competitor.
The difference I alone would make by moving to a competitor would be infinitesimal - Amazon wouldn't pay more tax because I avoided them and it would be a silent statement. It would benefit the higher tax paying company though, but unless we all acted in unison it really wouldn't make a difference.
In terms of big business taxes, I think its a misleading question. Big companies aren't avoiding tax because they cant afford it. They are currently trading at competitive prices (if they change profits will go down as customers move to competitors). The big companies 'hide' profits buy paying a subsection of their own company too much for a service or hiding profits in foreign arms of their company. What angers most people is the ability to pay, but choosing not too and for competitive reasons paying will not affect user price.
Anyone who claims they would willingly pay the higher price is most probably lying. By the time I hand over my £2.50 or what-have-you in Starbucks I've already had a deduction of income tax on that money - I've paid MY tax (in fact, with PAYE I have no choice in the matter) so it's up to the company I'm purchasing from to pay theirs too. That's what you call fairness and honesty.
That said, if there existed a legal loophole for me to pay LESS income tax I'd sure as heck be doing it - we all would!
I would choose the lower priced coffee as I have a real problem with what our government spends the taxes on (Trident anybody?) If a more socially aware government was in charge who spent money on the NHS and spreading the wealth rather than looking after themselves and their rich buddies maybe my attitude would change.
I'm always a bargain hunter. However on this item I checked the higher price alternative, since I think that is the choice of integrity. So I'd be getting my money's worth by feeling better about my actions. Also I'm in the upper middle class who is undertaxed in general. However, for making that decision I'd really like to see a debate on that topic by top economist experts on taxation. I understand the argument in favor of paying the tax and I'd like to understand what would be a good economic argument for the lower price.
I agree with Dylan i woild also choose lower price in real life cause i actually don't think that governement controls fairly taxe issue
I agree with Dylan i woild also choose lower price in real life cause i actually don't think that governement controls fairly taxe issue
I agree with Dylan i woild also choose lower price in real life cause i actually don't think that governement controls fairly taxe issue
I agree with Dylan i woild also choose lower price in real life cause i actually don't think that governement controls fairly taxe issue
I voted for the higher price but I wonder if I did that just to present a positive self-image. If I actually had to choose in a real life situation, I think the difference in cost would be the major factor in my decision.