Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
How long will it be
9 Answers
until one of or more of these corporations/ "wealthy people" take legal action against G.O.
http
He is using threatening rhetoric against people and corporations who so far have not been proven to have done anything illegal
If they are within the law then people can go all day long bashing on about the morals of it etc etc.
since when has it been anybodys duty, moral or otherwise to pay a penny more tax than they are legally are obliged to.
I was always under the impression that voluntary contributions were made to charities not greed consumed governments.
Who on here would actually pay more tax than the law says they should no matter what your profession or status ?
http
He is using threatening rhetoric against people and corporations who so far have not been proven to have done anything illegal
If they are within the law then people can go all day long bashing on about the morals of it etc etc.
since when has it been anybodys duty, moral or otherwise to pay a penny more tax than they are legally are obliged to.
I was always under the impression that voluntary contributions were made to charities not greed consumed governments.
Who on here would actually pay more tax than the law says they should no matter what your profession or status ?
Answers
1 to 9 of 9
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bazwillrun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Large corporations are very concerned about their image.
Look at how much Nike suffered when it's business practices of using sweat shops was revealed.
I rather suspect GO is upping the rhetoric to pressure some of the worst offenders to take action before the government takes action itself
Bit of a shot across the bows - take action or we'll do something you'll like less
And it seems it might be working
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20580980
Remeber this isn't 'the politics of envy' this is about providing a fair market.
The multinationals in avoiding corporation tax are disadvantaging smaller independants.
A crucial role of government is to regulate markets to stop abuses - I mean they could cancel corporation tax and up VAT - that would have a very similar effect but I doubt it would play very well with the public!
Look at how much Nike suffered when it's business practices of using sweat shops was revealed.
I rather suspect GO is upping the rhetoric to pressure some of the worst offenders to take action before the government takes action itself
Bit of a shot across the bows - take action or we'll do something you'll like less
And it seems it might be working
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20580980
Remeber this isn't 'the politics of envy' this is about providing a fair market.
The multinationals in avoiding corporation tax are disadvantaging smaller independants.
A crucial role of government is to regulate markets to stop abuses - I mean they could cancel corporation tax and up VAT - that would have a very similar effect but I doubt it would play very well with the public!
"Who on here would actually pay more tax than the law says they should no matter what your profession or status ?"
It's not about paying more than the law says you should, it's about deliberately arranging things to avoid the taxes that other people pay.
The most obvious example is the way that Starbucks buy stuff essentially from themselves, paying way over the normal market price, merely in order to shift their profits to a lower rate tax regime.
It's not about paying more than the law says you should, it's about deliberately arranging things to avoid the taxes that other people pay.
The most obvious example is the way that Starbucks buy stuff essentially from themselves, paying way over the normal market price, merely in order to shift their profits to a lower rate tax regime.
But the fact remains Rojash, that no matter how unpalatable, they are not breaking the law.
If you had an opportunity to legally save £100 off your tax bill, would you take it? (hypothetically speaking of course as I know most of us don't have such opportunity).
GO should change the law if he feels that strongly about it.
If you had an opportunity to legally save £100 off your tax bill, would you take it? (hypothetically speaking of course as I know most of us don't have such opportunity).
GO should change the law if he feels that strongly about it.
He is responding to "the age of austerity", the chronic need to help rebalance the countries finances, and that will require a balance between spending cuts and measures to increase revenue.
Given the ethos this government have been promoting - the "we are all in this together" philosophy, there are many people who think that some of the banks, some of the multinationals, and some individuals are feathering their own nest at the expense of the rest of us - ridiculously inflated bonus settlements for just doing their job, salaries for top executives with a huge differential over normal workers, corporates using creative accounting to avoid corporation tax on sales and services in the UK
There is much wrong with our current taxation system, and it needs to be simplified whilst at the same time closing out some of the more egregiously exploited avoidance schemes- "interest free loans" from service companies that attract no income tax, since such money is not regarded as income for tax purposes to name but one.
And consumer pressure can make some difference - Starbucks is reportedly reconsidering its tax arrangements, in view of their weak performance before the HoC Public Accounts Committee and the negative public image that this generated.
Given the ethos this government have been promoting - the "we are all in this together" philosophy, there are many people who think that some of the banks, some of the multinationals, and some individuals are feathering their own nest at the expense of the rest of us - ridiculously inflated bonus settlements for just doing their job, salaries for top executives with a huge differential over normal workers, corporates using creative accounting to avoid corporation tax on sales and services in the UK
There is much wrong with our current taxation system, and it needs to be simplified whilst at the same time closing out some of the more egregiously exploited avoidance schemes- "interest free loans" from service companies that attract no income tax, since such money is not regarded as income for tax purposes to name but one.
And consumer pressure can make some difference - Starbucks is reportedly reconsidering its tax arrangements, in view of their weak performance before the HoC Public Accounts Committee and the negative public image that this generated.
"Not against the law" is a bit of special pleading. What these tax avoiders do is not, in strict, literal, terms against any statute or the common law. But the Revenue retains the power to declare that any activity or scheme has the sole purpose of avoiding tax, whether it be literally legal or not, and to tax the person or company as though their activity or scheme had not applied to their affairs. They are particularly keen on stopping business transactions which are either wholly unnecessary or do not represent reality; are paper transactions; but which allow tax avoidance.
The idea that Switzerland is a European hub for trading in coffee, or importing coffee for re-export, is not credible. But it suits Starbucks to claim so, because that way they save tax. And the same applies to other accountancy practices they indulge in, picking whatever country's tax regime suits that part of the business. Nobody could complain if the company was taxed on the reality of their business as, it seems, Costa are, rather than the imaginary depiction of it on paper.
The idea that Switzerland is a European hub for trading in coffee, or importing coffee for re-export, is not credible. But it suits Starbucks to claim so, because that way they save tax. And the same applies to other accountancy practices they indulge in, picking whatever country's tax regime suits that part of the business. Nobody could complain if the company was taxed on the reality of their business as, it seems, Costa are, rather than the imaginary depiction of it on paper.
1 to 9 of 9
