While you're at it can you [fix tax dollar issue] (spawn of Buy American project)

GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 While you're at it can you [fix tax dollar issue] (spawn of Buy American project)

Sorry boys, but this was WAY off topic...  (edit: Sapient)

While you're at it can you get your larger companies to give us back the cash due to us?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/12/amazon-google-starbucks-diverting-uk-profits


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4623
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 While you're at it can you get your larger companies to give us back the cash due to us?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/12/amazon-google-starbucks-diverting-uk-profits

Huh, I have been reading several news articles about this for the last month or so but this is the first one I've seen with this quote,

 

Quote:

"We're not accusing you of being illegal, we are accusing you of being immoral," replied Hodge.

I have been under the impression that they were accusing the companies (particularly Starbucks) of outright fraud. I see nothing immoral about legally using the tax code to maximize the profits for your investors. I think the MP's would be better spending their time analyzing the morality of the tax code itself and perhaps making changes but I admit I am rather clueless when it comes to the UK's tax code.

I do find it ironic though that major executives of all three of these companies have been particularly prominent in the US for the last decade calling for higher corporate tax rates. I think it is immoral to say one thing while doing the opposite.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 No, no-one is being

 No, no-one is being accused of fraud in this case. What's at stake is really the reputation of these companies. While they can, and have at times, claimed that tax avoidance is not tax evasion* and that ultimately a company is only responsible to its shareholders and should do everything legal it can to increase its profit margin, There has been a massive backlash from SMEs (Small / medium sized enterprises) and the general public that the big fish (Both corporations and wealthy individuals) seem to have the means to not pay the tax they probably should by hiring some slippery lawyers.

Essentially, while not illegal, it is considered immoral to be using these 'loopholes' because it's unethical, and makes a mockery of these companies' Corporate social responsibility schemes. And this position has weight too, judging by the red faces of those company faces in the hearings.

In any case, the outcome of this should be tighter tax laws in the UK. THe problem is British politicians are scared of losing international business if this happens.

My personal opinion? Lower all tax, like Hong Kong's model. welcome foreign business, tighten the tax laws we do want them to pay, ride the growth wave.

 

 

*Tax avoidance is legal, but considered slippery and exploitative, while tax evasion is illegal - i.e. not paying the tax you definitely should pay.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4623
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 No, no-one is being accused of fraud in this case. What's at stake is really the reputation of these companies. While they can, and have at times, claimed that tax avoidance is not tax evasion* and that ultimately a company is only responsible to its shareholders and should do everything legal it can to increase its profit margin, There has been a massive backlash from SMEs (Small / medium sized enterprises) and the general public that the big fish (Both corporations and wealthy individuals) seem to have the means to not pay the tax they probably should by hiring some slippery lawyers.

Essentially, while not illegal, it is considered immoral to be using these 'loopholes' because it's unethical, and makes a mockery of these companies' Corporate social responsibility schemes. And this position has weight too, judging by the red faces of those company faces in the hearings.

In any case, the outcome of this should be tighter tax laws in the UK. THe problem is British politicians are scared of losing international business if this happens.

My personal opinion? Lower all tax, like Hong Kong's model. welcome foreign business, tighten the tax laws we do want them to pay, ride the growth wave.

 

 

*Tax avoidance is legal, but considered slippery and exploitative, while tax evasion is illegal - i.e. not paying the tax you definitely should pay.

It is only immoral to avoid taxes if you make the assumption that the government is going to spend that money in a better and more moral way than you- something I would say is highly debatable. 

But I agree with you, any tax system should be strict and simple so that taxes can't be avoided to any significant extent by anyone without resorting to outright fraud. I always thought a consumption tax was more sensible in that respect because as soon as you attempt to define "income" you will run into difficulties taxing everything you want to tax while avoiding taxing something you don't want to. 
 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Absolutely - imho it's

 Absolutely - imho it's absolute madness to get taxed on both my income and my outgoings. I would vastly prefer a simple tax on the money I make OR tax everything I spend money on (Though the latter runs into difficulties if I buy a lot of stuff from abroad), but having both is crazy. 

I also agree with you on a lack of trust in government ethics. If I could avoid tax legally, I would. I really don't think we need to spend £6bil on a new nuclear deterrent system, so they can take the tax I don't want to pay from that.

 

 


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Re. thread split by

 Re. thread split by Brian.. 

 

Fair enough.