Guarantees, Sony, Trading Standfards and Amazon

Yes several blind people bought a few years back a so called talking phone,
this was very cheap and apparently made in china. When they got it it keept
on losing its memory and defaulted to speaking chinese. After a couple of
these with the same fault, Amazon gave a full refund. Obviously a faulty
batch. Its probably more cost effective with such devices I'd imagine.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Martin" wrote in message
...
My son bought a small Sony camera from Amazon almost two years ago.
Sony used to give a two year guarantee, but only gives one year now.
A crack appeared in the body of the camera between two screws. It looks
as if
one screw was over tightened in the factory.
My son thought he had a two year guarantee from Sony, so he phoned them.
He was
told he had to pay ?130 to have to have it repaired and a load of other
rubbish
by a man in India. I told my son to contact Trading Standards. Trading
Standards
were very helpful. The told him that under UK/EU law a camera should last
at
least 6 years and that Sony can't limit this with their one year
guarantee. They
also provided him with the text for a formal letter of complaint to
Amazon, but
told him to phone Amazon first. My son phoned Amazon and started to tell
the guy
what Trading Standards had told him.The guy from Amazon interrupted and
said
there's no problem. The retailer has the choice of repair, refund or
replacement
Amazon couldn't offer a replacement as Sony don't make the model of camera
anymore. Instead they have given him a full refund.

10/10 for Sheffield Trading Standards and Amazon
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE_IUPInEuc

Yes, I thought that as well.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Martin" wrote in message
...
With a turnover of £2billion and tax only £10million Amazon can afford to
be
generous.

On Wed, 28 May 2014 09:54:12 +0100, "Brian Gaff"

wrote:

Yes several blind people bought a few years back a so called talking
phone,
this was very cheap and apparently made in china. When they got it it
keept
on losing its memory and defaulted to speaking chinese. After a couple of
these with the same fault, Amazon gave a full refund. Obviously a faulty
batch. Its probably more cost effective with such devices I'd imagine.
Brian
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE_IUPInEuc

On 28/05/2014 10:23, Martin wrote:
With a turnover of £2billion and tax only £10million Amazon can afford to be
generous.


turnover means nothing.
you could have a turnover of ten billion and outgoings of ten billion
and 1 - still no tax.

--
Gareth.
That fly.... Is your magic wand.

In article , the dog from that film you
saw wrote:
On 28/05/2014 10:23, Martin wrote:
With a turnover of £2billion and tax only £10million Amazon can afford
to be generous.


turnover means nothing.

It means a lot. Without it a company has to resort to loansharking under
one fancy name or another. If there is no turnover and no profit then it
becomes hard to know why we would allow a company to continue to
incorporate.

People persistently forget that as a country we have chosen to allow
companies to behave in various ways like a 'person' (incorporation) and to
be 'limited' etc. So we give them some of the advantages an individual
would have whilst given them other advantages an individual does *not*
have. They have it both ways. This really does need looking into as some
clearly exploit it in a way and to a degree that was not intended, and
become anti-competitive and against the interest of citizens, ordinary
taxpayers, and consumers.

The problem, though is that the big companies make the laws via their
relationships to politicians, etc. (Here 'relationships' includes giving
them money, supporting them in their newspapers, etc.)

you could have a turnover of ten billion and outgoings of ten billion
and 1 - still no tax.

Yes. That's why we really need to replace existing corporation taxes, etc,
with ones based on the income of a company. And to shut down many of the
exemptions that allow them to play tricks like having their 'other
companies' 'loan' them money from a tax haven as a way of exporting their
actual profits and dodging the tax.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Martin
wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2014 09:18:14 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article , the dog from that film
you saw wrote:
On 28/05/2014 10:23, Martin wrote:
With a turnover of £2billion and tax only £10million Amazon can
afford to be generous.


Yes. That's why we really need to replace existing corporation taxes,
etc, with ones based on the income of a company. And to shut down many
of the exemptions that allow them to play tricks like having their
'other companies' 'loan' them money from a tax haven as a way of
exporting their actual profits and dodging the tax.

It seems that Amazon really does run at a loss worldwide.

Given the opacity and complexity of their operations I tend to view that
idea with some scepticism. IIRC they have all kinds of 'pretend we are in
different places for different parts of our acitivity so as to stash away
money somewhere' approach that has been exposed by various inquiries by
journalists and some politicians.

Starbucks...

Yes, its impressive what games can be played by having 'franchises', to
suck the money abroad and leave 'no real profit' here. Bit like the games
others play with 'fees', 'loan repayments', etc, to offshore concerns. IIRC
one of the large optician chains gets up to this as well, as exposed in
Private Eye IIRC. All kinds of magic wands and 'find the lady' to fleece
the marks.

It's time somebody came to grips with VAT on Amazon purchases in UK
going to a Luxembourg branch of Amazon. Symantec does something similar
except the VAT goes to Ireland. They both claim that EU regulations
allows them to do this.

The basic problem is that corporation taxs become easy to dodge as
international companies can find many ways to shift 'profit' elsewhere and
make gains seem like losses. We won't fix this until we change the entire
basis of company taxation to being its income or turnover, leved by point
of purchase being where the customer resides.

VAT has similar problems and is hampered by being a 'flat tax'.

However imagine a form of corporate income tax. Even in the simplest
possible form of being the same as for individuals, think how much we could
raise personal allowances if companies paid up as well. With the right
structure it could dramaticially shift the burden away from ordinary
individuals to large companies. Might even make collection easier by being
a reduction in the number of types of tax HMRC had to work on.

Pigs don't fly, alas...

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article , Martin
wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2014 14:03:23 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:


It seems that Amazon really does run at a loss worldwide.

Given the opacity and complexity of their operations I tend to view
that idea with some scepticism. IIRC they have all kinds of 'pretend we
are in different places for different parts of our acitivity so as to
stash away money somewhere' approach that has been exposed by various
inquiries by journalists and some politicians.

My statement was based on the Guardian article that I posted a link to
in this thread. I can't believe the Guardian could be so gullible :-)

Alas, the Grauniad isn't really what it was on a day-to-day basis. They
still get some big and significant stories. But often they seem to just use
'Phil Space'. e.g. a recent item that simply repeats what was in the Radio
Times about popular kid's progs.



VAT has similar problems and is hampered by being a 'flat tax'.

The problem with mail order/online VAT is it that it is paid to a
country the seller chooses, not in the country where the item is
dispatched from or sold. The company chooses a country where they pay
zero or little corporation tax. Amazon pays VAT to Luxembourg, Symantec
pays VAT to Ireland, although the goods are neither made nor sold there.

Yes. We need more like the 'point of click' tax and/or 'transaction tax'.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Martin
wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2014 14:03:23 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:


It seems that Amazon really does run at a loss worldwide.

Given the opacity and complexity of their operations I tend to view
that idea with some scepticism. IIRC they have all kinds of 'pretend we
are in different places for different parts of our acitivity so as to
stash away money somewhere' approach that has been exposed by various
inquiries by journalists and some politicians.

My statement was based on the Guardian article that I posted a link to
in this thread. I can't believe the Guardian could be so gullible :-)

Alas, the Grauniad isn't really what it was on a day-to-day basis. They
still get some big and significant stories. But often they seem to just
use
'Phil Space'. e.g. a recent item that simply repeats what was in the Radio
Times about popular kid's progs.


Did you miss the smiley?
I think the last big or significant story that the Gruniad got was when they
reported that Queen Victoria had ****ed over Westminster Bridge on her way
to the State Opening of Parliament.
--
JohnT

In article , JohnT

wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Martin
wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2014 14:03:23 +0100, Jim Lesurf
wrote:


It seems that Amazon really does run at a loss worldwide.

Given the opacity and complexity of their operations I tend to view
that idea with some scepticism. IIRC they have all kinds of 'pretend
we are in different places for different parts of our acitivity so
as to stash away money somewhere' approach that has been exposed by
various inquiries by journalists and some politicians.

My statement was based on the Guardian article that I posted a link
to in this thread. I can't believe the Guardian could be so gullible
:-)

Alas, the Grauniad isn't really what it was on a day-to-day basis.
They still get some big and significant stories. But often they seem
to just use 'Phil Space'. e.g. a recent item that simply repeats what
was in the Radio Times about popular kid's progs.


Did you miss the smiley?

I did see it, and recognised the high iron content of your comments. ;-

Alas, recent readings of the Gurniad do lead to my added comment, though.
Their reality/(opinion+rambles+sponsored+fillspace) ratio does seem to have
fallen in recent years.

I think the last big or significant story that
the Gruniad got was when they reported that Queen Victoria had ****ed
over Westminster Bridge on her way to the State Opening of Parliament.

Crumbs. You've been reading for much longer than myself! 8-]

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html