How can I boycott Google?

tiggerlion's picture

I've struggled in my quest to boycott Amazon. I've made great progress & have achieved a lot. I have to accept goods are likely to take longer to arrive using play.com or discogs. Buying directly from bands' websites has been informative. Overall, I've actually saved money on my purchases and I've bought fewer items (believe it or not!). Occasionally, there is no alternative and Amazon has to be used but, even then, I only ever buy from the vendors.

I was feeling rather pleased with myself. Now, I discover Google is 'evil' and I'm flummoxed. I use the search engine constantly. I don't actually 'buy' anything from them. I presume they only make money from me by making them popular with advertisers or people who want to be bumped up the picking lists. I am at a loss as to how I could boycott them.

Are there any other search engines worth a candle? Or are there any other ways I can disrupt their business model, however small?

up
2 users have voted.

Comments

Thank-you.

They are exploiting loopholes in the law, as many other companies are no doubt doing. The people who are turning a blind eye to this sort of practice are the real enemies here. A boycott would do nothing, there is information about you on the internet that can be harvested, regardless of if you opt in or out.

I would actually recommend lobbying your MP regarding the tax laws.

alleges an ex Google employee has evidence that has been evasion (evil), not avoidance (not evil)

They regard Google as a competitor in the multimedia business, so I doubt they would be impartial on this. But, evidence is evidence, as NI have found out themselves recently.

Tax laws are never going to be perfect. These huge multi-nationals employ people to ruthlessly exploit loop-holes & are disingenuous in their practices (we don't actually sell anything in England, only in Dublin - indeed!). They know perfectly well what they are doing, then claim the laws are at fault, safe in the knowledge that tax laws will always have loop-holes.

We, the public, don't have to use their products. We can let them know how we feel about the way they conduct their business (however legal) by not using them. That's what I aim to do.

I doubt anybody could name a single "ethical" major multinational company, where "ethical" means always giving preference to the interests of society at large over those of their shareholders.

Pursuing their shareholders' interests - by cutting costs, including taxes, to maximise profits and, by extension, to increase dividends - is what companies are for. Nothing else.

There's another, broader argument in Google's specific case, which I don't necessarily hold to but is something that I do think is worth considering. The existence of their lead product - their search engine and its many useful adjuncts (Google Books, etc.) - has been hugely beneficial to society, measurably improving our quality of life, free of direct charge, in a way that could be seen as offsetting any requirement for them to pay more taxes than they do in order to increase the funding available for road-gritting or whatever.

It appears to me that some are clearly behaving more ruthlessly in this respect than others. I'm beginning with those whose exploitation of tax laws are at the extreme end of the scale.

The message I would like to deliver to these companies is I understand you need to make a profit but avoid paying tax to the nth degree & my custom will go elsewhere, to someone else who also needs to make a profit but is less flint-hearted.

If we all do that, where will their profits be?

(Edit- your last paragraph was added after my post. I'm unconvinced. Does this company seriously believe it does so much 'good' that it is entitled to tax breaks?)

This is why companies employ "reputational consultants" and the like. When a company's business practices or tax policies begin to have a negative effect on their image, and so on their sales, they will always pull back a bit. But only then. That's exactly what H&M, Zara and others did last week in the wake of the Bangladesh sweatshop horror.

So, yes, if enough people deserted Google because of their tax policies, they would do something to conserve our loyalty. But I wouldn't hold your breath. Their product is as essential to most people's lives now as the BBC, soap or petrol stations are. And it's free: a gift horse into whose mouth most people are resigned not to look.

Is it possible to live without them. Are their other gift horses to look into?

You are quite right about taking it to the limit. It's all a question of degree. I don't have a clear line in the sand but I know when I feel big, multi-national companies are taking the p*ss, often to the disadvantage of smaller companies closer to me & my high street.

Ironically, the best way to make a point may be to become a customer of one of their paid services. You could buy Google Ad Words (which allow adverts to be displayed when certain search terms are entered) that direct people towards an article explaining why you want to boycott them.

I expect this has already been tried.

I still think engaging politics and the law is the only way to redress injustice on this scale, which, to be clear, I am not convinced is actually as clear cut as it appears.

are all well-constructed and thought-provoking. Thanks, Mr Starkey.

I fully intend to lobby my MP on the matter. In the meantime, I've uninstalled Google Chrome. They asked for feed-back in order to improve their product. I ticked the box 'other' and added the reason why I'd uninstalled as 'tax dodging practices by Google'.

If people did this in their droves, it might make a difference.

This is a bit like asking if any of us know any entirely "ethical" people. Of course not, but it's a question of degree.

We all have a point on the moral spectrum which we feel a business should not cross. We make our decisions (both in terms of who we buy from and who we work for) accordingly.

Also worth noting that some major companies put a hell of a lot of time and resource into CSR programmes. That's generally partially reflective of the requirements of their shareholders/PR needs, but in my experience it generally also reflects the attitudes and priorities of the management.

The nice stuff (promoting volunteering, fundraising, etc) that companies do to partially offset all the nasty capitalism.

Obviously it will never compensate for a billion quid's worth of lost taxes, but some organisations take it very seriously indeed, and they don't always publicise it. It's often a reflection of the desire of staff/management to use the huge clout and resources at their disposal to do some good.

I've not done much work with Google, so I can't tell you how much of this stuff they do, but I've worked with other companies of a similar scale and profile who do a surprising amount. In my last job (big, nasty law firm) I regularly went and cooked breakfast in a homeless shelter, gave civics talks in sink schools and every year helped raise cash for the organisation's chosen charities, which we would all vote for each summer having listened to presentations on their activities. All on company time and often with the firm matching our fundraising efforts.

I don't propose this should let Google off the hook (by any means), but it is an example of an area in which multinationals sometimes act in a positive manner without direct reference to shareholder interests (the indirect benefit being happier, more fulfilled staff).

This place is great.

is the main aim of companies, the degree of social responsibility shown in achieving those profits is a significant concern for most major corporations, and you can find oodles of "Corporate Social Responsibility" reports out there. Some analysts think that as much as 60% of purchase decisions are driven by reputation over product detail.

I struggle to see it being quite that strong myself, but I've seen the CSR bandwagon first hand - I'm part of my employers CSR team, and all employees have had to undertake mandatory (arse covering) ethics training. The value of CSR is real - no major employer is willing to risk the reputation damage (say) employing child labour bribery brings though both indisputably improve profits and dividends, at least in the short term. The more interesting question is whether tax avoidance will become a key reputation factor.

Google were quoted as number 2 in the US CSR rankings by Reputation.com; in part because of their unofficial credo of "you can make money without doing evil". Allegedly about as accurate as another part which claims "you don’t need to be at your desk to need an answer" - the champions of access it anywhere data are famous for being very less than positive about letting staff work from home.

My feeling is that Google is slipping down the league table.

Nearly all companies who do some form of social networking have information on you, regardless of if you are opted in or out. All it takes is for someone to agree to the "scan my address book to see if there is anyone you know on FaceFriend" (or whatever). Supposing two people have egg.friday@wordmagazine.org in their address book, but egg.friday isn't signed up. The knowledge graph that powers all of this will work out that this person exists, and will start building up information, even if that person is not even signed up to the service. The "shadow network" of non-participants is probably larger than the main network.

And so it goes. It is impossible to boycott companies that don't actually have a product.

I guess that *is* sinister.

What the internet really needs is a 'delete me' feature. Allowing you to remove all past traces. Guess who is seriously proposing this suggestion (however impractical)? Larry Page, from Google.

Imagine the fun blackmailers could have with a button like that to press on someone else's behalf. $1000 wired to my Pacific Island LLP within the hour or you get the Facebook nonentity treatment - it'd be enough to precipitate hysterical teenage suicide.

There as a nerdish naivety at work with these people. It would, of course, never work.

duckduckgo.com

just going through the internet until you find what you want?

How does one go 'through the Internet'?

You just "saunter" through (later "surf"), much in the way you might walk through a supermarket, looking at the stock on the shelves. They were more relaxed times, of course, and there was less "on the shelves", but the principle is still good. I bumped into Archie Valparaiso for the first time on a stroll through the "used ideas" shelves. He was fingering a notion about hollow chopsticks, attracted by the possibility of being able to use the venerable instrument for drinking as well as eating. Happy times!

where did you type "hollow chopsticks"?

What a hoot I've had with Gopher in the past!

I've been boycotting Amazon for a few months now and the f*ckers are still standing.

Looks like this might a longer game than I'd originally anticipated.

they want you.

I'm sure we'll win in the end!

Just in case they manage to hold out that long. Feel free to join in.

amonsgt your mates at the Emirates. Just searched for Tottenham and Spurs on google and got 22,000 and 19,000 results. Arsenal produced 159,000 results. Spread the word at the Emirates and you might stand a chance of hurting them.

if this works but if you (a) don't clink on any of the top or side banners and (b) install Ghostery or Do Not Track This Plus, don't you pretty much get to use them for free while denying them the info on you that they sell on?

Would that, long-term, result in advertisers being put off?

Not unless everyone on the internet does this at the same time.

that Google's accountants have falsified the figures of what income has been actually earned under HM Revenue and Customs' jurisdiction. As yet they are just allegations.

Tax avoidance is perfectly legal and not something that just big corporations do. Most self-employed tradesmen in the Building industry have used tax avoidance schemes in the past, myself included. When you don't know for certain if you're going to be earning anything next week, or even going to get paid for what you've already done, it should be no great surprise if you want to hang on to as much of what you -have- recieved as possible.
These days I'm directly-employed and paying full whack, but I have some security of employment, am entitled to holiday pay and I get paid for public holidays.
I will not be boycotting Amazon or Google, but I'm in full support of getting our taxation system in proper order so the playing field is even.

as far as tax goes is an interesting one. Is the one man and his dog company as "evil" as Google if he tries to avoid tax using loopholes? I would say yes, in theory, but having been that man, and having seem HMRC change tax laws laws retrospectively, I would say an emphatic fuck 'em and their horsey.

Large companies get away with far more than the easily-threatened SME.

Clothes made in Bangladesh, effectively murderers :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22306135

That article mentions Tesco, Sainsbury's & Next. Are they good guys or bad guys? I think they are making an effort to be good but in the context of the article with its headline, they come across as bad.

In the context of ethical sourcing of products, they are certainly -trying- to be good guys. It's proving to be harder than they thought it would be, however.
In other areas, such as paying their UK staff a living wage, Tesco and Sainsbury's don't seem so bothered at present.

M&S dodge tax in an Amazon-like way!

Is nothing sacred? I'll have to buy my clothes from John Lewis instead.

"The biggest human right is the right for survival," said commerce minister Ghulam Mohammed Quader in an interview before the latest disaster.
From the article above. We should insist on fair working conditions, but if we boycott Banglasdesh are the people who suffer those poor folks now working in the sweatshops? What will they do for a living in future?

It's a difficult problem to solve

Did my twenty year refusal to buy South African fruit or bank with Barclays hasten the end of apartheid? I fear not but it made me feel good and that's about as much as any of us lowly consumers can expect. Unless Mr Google is found eating babies then I'm afraid any right-meaning and well-intended actions we take will end up being pretty meaningless. Not saying we all should continue buying from Amazon or using Google (there are literally hundreds of alternative search-engines out there, just enter the appropriate phrase into Google) but we need to accept it won't make one jot of difference.

I think it was a widespread enough boycott and it did have an effect, so yes, you helped.

appreciate the 'western' boycott?

It's a load of shite anyway.

is bullshit and encourages us to take our eye off the ball as do all other witchhunts - unfortunately it is what our society has become. Listen to one person spouting crap and the snowball gets bigger reaching avalanche proportions. I am much more concerned about what this lousy government is doing to our education and caring professions. If you want to know who the real bad guys are - look at the likes of Tesco and Asda. Whenever they open new stores they actively calculate how long it will take to close down the nearby butchers, greengrocers etc. A crime much more heinous than a corporation legally avoiding paying tax because of a loophole that the govt has the power to close. Oh and then the govt encourage young workers to go there and work for nothing. Look at the wankers running the country and I think you will see where the problem lies.

The likes of Tesco don't even pay their employees a living wage, which means that the government is effectively subsidising these hugely profitable companies through the tax credits system.

It's a scandal.

I avoid supermarkets, too.

I've heard that Amazon are also 'responsible' for many shop closures. Their low tax payments help them reduce their costs, undercutting shops that have additional overheads such as business rates, etc. Books and CDs are the best examples, but Amazon trade almost anything. I believe they are draconian with their vendors, too, much as Tesco are with their suppliers.

I notice Tesco are doing less well lately. Plus, bookshops are beginning to pickup. Perhaps, customers think both have gone 'too far' and are actively seeking a better purchasing experience? I hope so.

Other Search Engines Are Available.
If it's just search that you need to replace Google with, you could use Bing (owned by that nice little corner-shop company Microsoft) or go back to the (now Yahoo owned) Alta Vista - I remember when it was the bees knees before Google came along.
If you're replacing "cloud storage" you might find it a little harder. I'm a fan of Dropbox, but that's hosted by Amazon as is, of course their own "Cloud Drive". Again, you could try the MS flavour but I'm not sure that integrates well with Apple products.
GMail is easily replaced by a number of providers so no problem there.
Calendars - Yahoo is a popular alternative.
If you've got an Android device then you lose a huge amount of functionality and ease by dumping Google and, if you boycott amazon as well, you'll find it quite hard to install some of the higher profile (and most useful) apps but some are available direct from the origigal software house. Searching out them is, I guess the same concept as eschewing supermarkets.

I only use my phone for phone calls and texts. I don't need a cloud & have never knowingly used an app. I like music on CDs or iPods. I like shops if I need stuff. Oh. I do on-line banking.

Duckduckgo is looking good so far.

Set DuckDuckGo as your browser default home page, and you're half way to avoiding the use of Bing or Google.

such as cover art.

by ploughing through a general search engine! I have a whole bunch of bookmarks in a folder called 'CD Covers' for just such an eventuality. I've emailed the links to you; not all of them will still work, as I've had the same list for a while now, and beware of pop-up windows at some of the URLs!

for ages. You can tell it to anonymously search various popular search engines by adding a "bang" e.g. "bowie new album !gi" goes to Google Images.

Its general search results differ markedly from Google's though.

A combination of DDG and and an ad-blocker such as AdBlock - AdBlock - should learn 'em.

Nice suggestion!

Honestly there are far more evil fuckers in the World than Amazon or Google.

But, I don't have the skill-set to assassinate proper evil people.

I was just hoping to do my small, probably inconsequential, bit to combat corporate greed.

Do you have any other suggestions? I'm listening.

If you are willing to get your hands dirty... Install an alternative operating system from the Open Source community on your PC. I firmly believe this *is* the counterculture, which deserted music a long time ago, and moved on to creating amazing software for nothing, that anyone is free to use. The community embraces ethical issues in a positive way. It simply bypasses all of the huge corporations and generally avoids including anything in the system that is associated with them.

Ubuntu is a good place to start. But, once you're in, everything changes...

I'll google it.

Oops!

http://www.ubuntu.com/download

You can burn a so-called "live CD" to try it out, without destroying your existing machine. Or even run it from a USB key.

It's great but you have to be quite techy to get it running perfectly & get the best from it.

'Tetchy', maybe.

That's a little ominous.
How so?

You start to see that there is more than one way to do the same thing, and that you are not so tied to the tools that you use as you thought you were. In my case, this mental shift allowed me to realize that I could do some of my work without a computer at all, and that I had become set on a particular workflow. Granted, that might not happen to everyone!

Also, you become more engaged. If you have issues with the software, you can get hold of the people who develop it (in their spare time) and they will most likely fix it, very quickly.

The downside is that things do go wrong (as implied), but you become more patient and more adept at finding the cause of problems.

I think that's what I meant.

I firmly believe this *is* the counterculture

If by open source you mean Linux, then I think this is a rather romantic view. Linux is mainstream and big money these days -- nothing countercultural about it. Google and even Microsoft have both contributed to the Linux kernel. Android is also Linux and open source, but it's managed by Google.

(I prefer Linux Mint to Ubuntu btw.)

Be good, be kind...I honestly think that's much more important than, to be frank, meaningless boycotts of a company like Google which in the great scheme of things probably has done far more good than harm.....

I get very upset about corporate greed. These companies know exactly what they are doing. They are exploiting legal loop-holes to avoid paying their fair share, to the tune of millions or billions of pounds every year. Our nation's deficit would not exist if they followed the spirit of the tax laws. In the meantime, people I know, people who are disabled or poor, are castigated as scroungers and their benefit is cut. In my part of the world the bedroom tax is grossly unfair as there are thousands of properties under-occupied (& liable to this benefit cut), yet only a few hundred smaller properties to move into. And that is just one example. The contrast between how the authorities deal with those on benefits and large companies is startling. There is minuscule amounts of benefit fraud. The companies may well be following the letter of the law.

I think it's time we, collectively, made a stand. No laws are going to be so well written that all loop-holes will be closed. I, as a consumer and tax-payer, want to let them know that I think they should pay their fair share or my custom goes elsewhere. If they did pay up, this country might be a better, kinder place.

I would imagine that if Google had to pay what you think they should, they wouldn't be here at all and wouldn't be providing employment for people in this country. These companies play by the rules and pay by the rules. It irks me a bit too but, as others have suggested, it's the rules that need changing if this is to be restricted and those rules need to be very very carefully written to avoid pricing the country out of an employer.

They employ 30,000 people worldwide, 1,200 in the UK. On revenue of $50 billion, they made a profit of $10.75 billion in 2012. That's not a bad profit margin.

In the UK, in 2011, their turnover was £395 million. They paid £6 million in UK tax, and declared a UK loss of £24.1 million after charging £51.4 million for shares to their employees.

I'm not impressed. If someone described that as 'milking' the UK tax system to reward its worldwide employees with share bonuses, I'd struggle to disagree.

All info available via the Internet.

I agree with fully.

Sorry, agree with JohnW

COSTS The country - then we're being milked. Its nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism or the way the world is - its graft. The big corporations ceaselessly lobby the government - with their tax advisors on massive retainers - for new loopholes unavailable to mere mortals - these get thoroughly exploited and all us PAYE drones get to keep the bill.

Just because they are employing people doesn't absolve them of all obligations. A semi-responsible govt and an informed population would keep them in line in some free market fantasy world - but we live in a corporatist state

Amazon have put thousands of businesses under because the poor saps couldn't dodge all that tax. Google are worse in many ways because they control so much access to internet information (which is why Murdoch is so desperate to get into 'search') and as somebody already pointed out - YOU are the product. YOU get flogged on in myriad ways to media companies, advertisers, and corporations (but 'cookies' is such a sweet word...)

And much respect - go get 'em!

I suppose there's a difference between moving away from using something like Google, which is free and easy to use, and Amazon where your interaction involves spending hard cash. Nowadays, I think we have to look closely at where we spend our money: Amazon are regularly referred to as "The Tax-dodgers" on this site which doesn't seem to slow people down when using them. I'm trying to see if I can get through 2013 without using them, because the tangible effects of Amazon (like supermarkets outlined above) is that they are closing your local shops. At the minute I live in a town of 20,000, there's no record shop and one of two local bookshops closed last year. You might have to pay a premium, but it's worth it to keep money and jobs in your town.

With that in mind, has anyone used Hive? http://www.hive.co.uk/

Googling Boycott?

I think you just type "Professional Yorkshireman+annoying twat" into the search box. Be sure to ignore the results for Parky.

I'm not implying I'd use one here - just raising the subject in a general way.

to that effect?

was chatting to Boycs recently. Geoffrey has an intense interest in Led Zep. I kid you not.

I'm not techy enough to understand why my post at 8.12am appears on the thread after johnw at 1.08pm but my paean of respect was to you not him!

Click here. All your problems solved.

What?

Are you using Windows or Mac OS? Microsoft and Apple have both been implicated in aggressive tax avoidance strategies.

I guess a handbuilt PC using ethically sourced components, running Linux or FreeBSD is the only way forward.

My lifestyle has to change drastically.

However, Google are worse in respect of aggressive tax avoidance than either Microsoft or Apple. If we all make a stand against the worst, those that are merely bad will watch their step. They will see the power of customers voting with their feet & take heed. At least, that's my theory.

of singling out Google.

It would seem Apple's flair for imaginative design extends to tax avoidance as well. Tim Cook is having to address a Senate committee on the subject.

Apple accused of 'highly questionable' billion-dollar tax avoidance scheme.

.. I will try and avoid both of them.

any multi-national corporation in any industry, not just on-line and IT related, and you'll likely run out of vendors of almost anything you need. Even here - can't view Youtube clips now, can you.

I first came across it in software royalties because I was in the industry (Oracle, Microsoft et al) paying huge proportions of their in-country income to some off-shore entity or other (rarely their home country, somewhere much more conducive to low taxes), then started hearing about the same dodge being used all over, Mitsubishi cars springs to mind. I think the article on TV was talking about the in-country subsidiary being charged an exorbitant fee to the parent for 'use of the Mitsubishi brand' or some such, which is how they got their profits to almost nothing while still taking in enormous revenues. Couldn't say whether it's still the same. With GM food crops, patented seeds and 'IP', it'll probably spread to a major part of the food supply chain (if it hasn't already).

As long as the tax codes are set at the country level, the multi-nationals will play them off against each other, and have highly paid tax advisors wherever they set up shop.

Vodafone duck tax by buying their IP from an Irish subsidiary even though it was all created on the M4 corridor.

But you CAN apply pressure and act like an informed consumer - thats what capitalism and the free market is meant to be, not a load of cowed and indebted victims being fleeced by mega corporations who have bought HMRC and the politicians that set policy

I'm more determined to make a stand even though I know it's probably futile.

I think that really does count for something. You can only do what you can do

I agree with the view that it's unrealistic to expect large multinationals to do anything other than maximise their profits. For good or ill, that is what they do.

That said, I really don't believe Google will all leave if 'forced' to pay the UK rates of tax. If other companies can make profit within our tax regime then so can Google. And if they can make a profit they will stay.

I wish my mind was as cogent as yours.

Is that they will leave.

It we r ederiving no actual benefit form their presence - in fact we're subsidising it - good. If they pay a bit more and stay - thats fine and as it should be. Just because some alpha male starts shouting about taking his ball back doesn't mean we have to grovel

The thing that singles out Google as a company that can move where it wants is that (apart from two or three very recent exceptions) they don't sell aphysical product so don't actually have to have any physical presence in the country. The company is presumably here to gain those potential employees that don't want to live in the States. They know how much they want to spend per head on those people. Who knows (apart from Google) if they would stay if the price rose.
Somehow this seems similar to companies using cheap labour in other countries for help lines etc. They're doing it to maximise profit, in the case of the overseas support staff, they're doing it at the expense of domestic jobs. I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm saying that different companies maximise theor profit in different ways and, at the end of the day, have the profit per share to worry about.

One is where employees are based and the impact or otherwise on jobs. If I understand correctly, part of the debate at the recent Treasury Committee was whether Google services were sold by staff working in London or Ireland. In as much as I could follow it, the claim was that much of the real negotiation with clients was done by staff based in London. If true, this is presumably because either a) customers don't want to deal with people abroad ( Dublin, in this case) and/or b) the staff don't want to live in Dublin ( let alone the States).

I suspect in many cases the question of where profits are generated and taxed is a bigger issue than what happens to ( in Google's case) a relatively small number of jobs. In this context the absence of a physical product is not unique. The big management consultancies,advertising agencies all offer non -physical products and one would have hoped it wasn't beyond the wit of governments to figure out a way of taxing profits generated within their borders. Alternatively, if some ingenious ways are found to avoid tax by saying the 'product' is produced abroad, how about an equally ingenious way of taxing it on 'import', crudely analgous to the import duty I have to pay if I buy a record from America

How about the revenue generated in each country is liable to that country's tax, regardless of where the 'transaction' takes place?

Google only have 1,200 UK employees but they charged £51 million against the UK for a share reward to employees world-wide. This accountancy trick resulted in them declaring a £24 million loss in the UK. Remarkable!

a system to ensure a company doesn't pay tax on the same income more than once.

and not according to their 'host', wouldn't that work? The money they generate in the UK is paid according to UK taxes, the money generated in Ireland according to Irish tax, the money generated in the US is covered by US tax and so on...

The trouble is these multi-national companies simply switch their base to the lowest taxing country for tax purposes. If their base didn't matter, they could choose how hard to push their company in each territory & every country could choose how attractive they want to set their taxes in order to maintain trade. there would be no 'milking' of one country in order to benefit employees in another.

PS FWIW, nothwithstanding what I say above, I have been trying to avoid various 'tax dodgers' of late. I know some people will see this as an empty or pointless gesture and, yes, it may well make no difference whatsoever. But it's my money and I don't want to give it to them.

While we're taxed about Amazon and Google's taxes, this in today's Guardian about Apple's Holy Grail of tax avoidance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/video/2013/may/29/apples-dirty-litt...

that we shouldn't really expect them to pay tax

It's odd, I've always seen the stuff they make as cool but the company (especially Jobs) as very dictatorial and the epitome of uncool.

Even just five years ago, Apple were cool, but the shine has come off the brand very quickly. Tax avoidance, Foxconn, a Genius Bar that a recent Viz top tip accurately renamed "Twat Desk", a stagnant product line propped up by endless iterations of the same thing with tiny tiny differences.....not to mention the way their advertising language has done away with articles. "Give iPad for Mother's Day"? Properly gets on tits.

Even if you sound a bit mad, I agree wholeheartedly!

Cheap Ugg UGGs Outlet Cheap UGGs cheap ugg boots cheap nfl jerseys wholesale