[ivcha]

Why would you make such an assumption? Did the headline suggest that the (relatively small) tax was based on revenue? No, it did not. Please stop making such hasty, strong, and destructive comments. As we all already know, we have issues with weak (and disinformative) headlines; at least we can strive to have better comments and discussions.

[lucozade]

> Why would you make such an assumption?

Because it would be wholly disingenuous to presume the opposite. The article in general and the headline in particular is juxtaposing tax against revenue explicitly in order to elicit the response that there's something fishy. The article even goes so far as to have a quote about tax avoidance whilst carefully avoiding accusing Amazon of tax avoidance.

It would have been a much more informative article if they had said, say, that Amazon expect to make a small loss on 20bn revenue and then go on to explain Amazon's business model. This would, of course, have shed a different light on their share scheme as it's clearly very beneficial for their workforce.

But no, it's a large American corporation that doesn't pay much UK tax so let's bang out a low quality article that insinuates heavily but says not a lot.

Full disclosure: I'm British, have no relationship to Amazon (other than as a customer) and am no relation to Mr Bezos though we do rock similar hairstyles.