Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Arcadia goes into administration
Comments
-
Absolutely, don’t deny thathoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Depends what you define as progress?stonemuse said:
Fully agreed that they must pay the relevant tax amount.Algarveaddick said:
It is not a level playing field when Amazon pay less tax than Fred's Butchers.Rob7Lee said:
So that's not a level playing field then. It's penalising online for having a lower cost base and subsidising 'on the high street' for having a higher cost base.Algarveaddick said:
You tax online business at a higher rate, instead of a lower one (as in the case of Amazon).Rob7Lee said:
Not sure how you level the playing field. Not having to have a physical shop is always, on scale, going to be more cost effective than having one as long as you can attract the virtual footfall.Algarveaddick said:
Yes - that's true. I don't do that as I tend to buy in sales anyway. As @Athletico Charlton says, the government needs to at least stop deliberately giving companies like Amazon an advantage, and at best start levelling the playing field. Presumably if it was something that could not be addressed before Brexit, the goverment can now act straight away to help...AFKABartram said:I think @Algarveaddick the main non-Covid problem is, in general, a large batch of people like you and me do like still doing that. They then go home and buy it online from somewhere cheaper (bar Primark). That’s an issue that needs to be overcome.
But fair enough, let's call it that then. Unlevelling the playing field so that high street shops can compete with online retailers, thereby preserving tradition, social interaction and jobs.
Instinctively I agree with you about saving the high street - I also quite enjoy some shopping trips.
But we cannot, nor should we, stop progress.0 -
I think there’s many different reasons why people shop online. I know some people look for the cheapest option, but personally, if I know exactly what I want and I don’t need it immediately, I’ll order online rather than trying to find somewhere that has what I need.McBobbin said:Yes, what's the cause and effect. Do we online shop because it's a better experience, because we are last, or because it's cheaper? I'm sure there are people here who go to a shop, avail themselves of the advice and then buy the product elsewhere online. If shops go then a valuable source of interaction and advice goes with it. Maybe the types of shop will change but it has to be made possible with rents etcI just ordered some stainless steel cleaner that was recommended to me. I could have tried half a dozen stores and not found it anywhere, but a couple of clicks and it’ll be here on Monday. Same with parts - nobody stock small specialist parts, but they’ll order them. Why bother with that when I can order them myself.If it’s something I want to see/test, I’ll go to the store, but generally why do I want to waste time trudging round different shops to see if they have what I want in the right size, when I can order it sitting at the bar drinking a beer?3 -
Also worth mentioning that online shopping is a massive boon for those disabled or partially disabled.SomervilleAddick said:
I think there’s many different reasons why people shop online. I know some people look for the cheapest option, but personally, if I know exactly what I want and I don’t need it immediately, I’ll order online rather than trying to find somewhere that has what I need.McBobbin said:Yes, what's the cause and effect. Do we online shop because it's a better experience, because we are last, or because it's cheaper? I'm sure there are people here who go to a shop, avail themselves of the advice and then buy the product elsewhere online. If shops go then a valuable source of interaction and advice goes with it. Maybe the types of shop will change but it has to be made possible with rents etcI just ordered some stainless steel cleaner that was recommended to me. I could have tried half a dozen stores and not found it anywhere, but a couple of clicks and it’ll be here on Monday. Same with parts - nobody stock small specialist parts, but they’ll order them. Why bother with that when I can order them myself.If it’s something I want to see/test, I’ll go to the store, but generally why do I want to waste time trudging round different shops to see if they have what I want in the right size, when I can order it sitting at the bar drinking a beer?Even extends to temporary problems ... my wife broke her wrist in November ... without internet shopping, she wouldn’t have been able to get anything.1 -
not suprised its only a crap bar in bexleyheath0
-
Online fashion retailer Boohoo is in "exclusive" talks to buy the Dorothy Perkins, Wallis and Burton brands from failed retail group Arcadia
Any deal would be for the brands, and not the High Street shops.
Rival online fashion chain Asos is the frontrunner to buy Topshop, Topman, Miss Selfridge and HIIT brands.
0 -
At least we’ll be able to get our nails done and have a coffee.0
-
Amazon and similar multinationals avoid tax by paying licence fees to other parts of the same company in lower tax areas. I would suggest making those licence fees non-tax deductible.randy andy said:Any sort of additional "online only" fees are just going to hurt small time operators whilst doing nothing to effect Amazon.
If we say all online sales attract a fee than that hurts everyone (apart from maybe Primark), and punishes people who can't/won't travel to a store.
If we say fees apply to online only retailers, then Amazon just rents a couple of stores (which will be cheap as there is a major over-supply of retail premises currently). Result, Amazon aren't effected in the slightest, but thousands of sole proprietors are put out of business.
If we come up with a more complicated method to target big online only retailers whilst avoiding punishing small businesses then there will inevitably be loopholes, winners/losers near whatever threshold is set, large companies creating a million smaller subsidiaries and farming out orders to keep each under the threshold. Result, once again Amazon will find a way not to be effected and smaller businesses will suffer, either through more red tap, or being a loser on the arbitrary threshold.
The first thing that needs to happen is Amazon (et al) have to be made to pay their taxes. Yes they'll still be cheaper, but not by such a large margin, making the choice between price/service/convenience a closer decision.
The other solution, rather than an online tax would be a delivery tax. That would definitely have an effect on Amazon's bottom line, and it would be far easier to set a sliding scale based on number of deliveries per time period from a location. Amazon's choice would be to then either charge more, or have a far larger number of smaller fulfilment centres. The later would massively increase costs, thus achieving the same price rise. Having a sliding scale based on number of items shipped would be far gentler to smaller businesses.
The advantage of a tax on number of parcels dispatched from each location would also have other benefits. It would encourage batching of items in a single package (thus reducing packaging waste) and encourage batching deliveries (rather than have a single Amazon order with 3 items coming as 3 deliveries on different days) thus reducing traffic and therefore polution.0 -
That would just trigger a game of whack-a-mole as Amazon find different things to move the money with and HMRC keeps moving the goalposts. First move would be to move the software platforms to a holding company and then charge local subsidiaries for access. Not sure how HMRC could make paying for software non-tax-deductable.AddicksAddict said:
Amazon and similar multinationals avoid tax by paying licence fees to other parts of the same company in lower tax areas. I would suggest making those licence fees non-tax deductible.randy andy said:Any sort of additional "online only" fees are just going to hurt small time operators whilst doing nothing to effect Amazon.
If we say all online sales attract a fee than that hurts everyone (apart from maybe Primark), and punishes people who can't/won't travel to a store.
If we say fees apply to online only retailers, then Amazon just rents a couple of stores (which will be cheap as there is a major over-supply of retail premises currently). Result, Amazon aren't effected in the slightest, but thousands of sole proprietors are put out of business.
If we come up with a more complicated method to target big online only retailers whilst avoiding punishing small businesses then there will inevitably be loopholes, winners/losers near whatever threshold is set, large companies creating a million smaller subsidiaries and farming out orders to keep each under the threshold. Result, once again Amazon will find a way not to be effected and smaller businesses will suffer, either through more red tap, or being a loser on the arbitrary threshold.
The first thing that needs to happen is Amazon (et al) have to be made to pay their taxes. Yes they'll still be cheaper, but not by such a large margin, making the choice between price/service/convenience a closer decision.
The other solution, rather than an online tax would be a delivery tax. That would definitely have an effect on Amazon's bottom line, and it would be far easier to set a sliding scale based on number of deliveries per time period from a location. Amazon's choice would be to then either charge more, or have a far larger number of smaller fulfilment centres. The later would massively increase costs, thus achieving the same price rise. Having a sliding scale based on number of items shipped would be far gentler to smaller businesses.
The advantage of a tax on number of parcels dispatched from each location would also have other benefits. It would encourage batching of items in a single package (thus reducing packaging waste) and encourage batching deliveries (rather than have a single Amazon order with 3 items coming as 3 deliveries on different days) thus reducing traffic and therefore polution.
You need to levy a tax on a physical process that happens in the UK, then there's no way to effectively offshore that tax liability.0 -
Online fashion retailer Asos has bought the Topshop, Topman, Miss Selfridge and HIIT brands from failed retail group Arcadia in a deal worth £295m.
Administrators for Arcadia confirmed the deal, saying about 300 people currently employed by the brands in design, buying and retail partnerships would transfer to Asos.
The administrators added that the deal was expected to complete on 4 February.
However, neither Asos nor the administrators made any mention of the people who worked in the brands' store networks.
It is thought that the deal puts about 2,500 jobs at risk.
0 -
Online shopping will continue to dominate, and the high street as we know it is pretty much on its last legs. Covid has dealt the biggest blow but in reality has just quickened the high street's demise. How do I know this? My wife, a seasoned and immensely dedicated 'shopper', is now totally committed to online!
Just a word on Amazon though - I'm no apologist and it should of course pay all relevant taxes, but outside of the US market it makes a loss on retail. Amazon makes its money via its web services division (AWS).0 - Sponsored links:
-
any money paid to buy an Arcadia brand name or any surplus stock should go straight to the government and then into the Arcadia group's various pension funds which are reportedly some £350 Million underpaid .. how come the odious slimy Green still has his knighthood ?3
-
Online fashion retailer Boohoo has bought the Dorothy Perkins, Wallis and Burton brands from failed retail group Arcadia for £25.2m
The deal includes the brands and online businesses, but not the 214 shops nor 2,450 workers employed in them.
0 -
Taxpayers will only recoup a fraction of the £44.2m owed by Sir Philip Green's fallen Arcadia retail empire.
As secured creditors, the Greens will, however, recoup the £50m lent to Topshop according to newly released documents.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-9284211/Taxpayers-recoup-fraction-cash-owed-Arcadia.html
1 -
There are so many parallels between Philip Green and Robert Maxwell. Just like Captain Bob I hope the last thing he ever sees is the stern of his bloody yacht.2
-
Ikea is buying the former flagship central London store of Topshop for £378m following the collapse of Sir Philip Green's retail empire.
The Swedish giant will turn several floors of the huge Oxford Street site into a furniture store as part of a strategy to open inner-city outlets.
The 239,000 sq ft retail and office space, on seven floors, also houses NikeTown and Vans, who stay as tenants.
1 -
Will be good to see that space filled1
-
Sod bringing home a flat pack on the tube.3
-
Walk or cycle with a wardrobe on your back init.guinnessaddick said:Sod bringing home a flat pack on the tube.2 -
What about meatballs?O-Randy-Hunt said:
Walk or cycle with a wardrobe on your back init.guinnessaddick said:Sod bringing home a flat pack on the tube.0
