Tuesday, November 13, 2012

It's not immoral nor is it illegal

If MP's were truly serious about stopping 'tax avoidance' then they'd actually change the laws to eradicate the loopholes in the system that people and companies exploit rather than bleat about it for 'big headlines' in which they berate companies for doing something quite legal because certain pressure groups can't quite grasp the difference between illegal, immoral and campaigning to get the laws changed rather than having a go at those they think are cheating...
The 'immoral' tricks used by corporate giants to avoid UK tax were laid bare yesterday.
Executives from Google, Starbucks and Amazon revealed how they base operations offshore and route profits to tax havens.
They had been summoned by MPs to explain why they contribute little or nothing to the Treasury's coffers. In a three-hour inquisition:
  • Google admitted funnelling profits to a company in the tax haven of Bermuda;
  • Starbucks said it had a deal with the Dutch government to minimise its tax bill and 'buys' coffee through Switzerland even though the beans never touch Swiss soil;
  • Amazon admitted basing its European operations in Luxembourg because of the low tax there;
  • The internet giant also claimed not to know its UK turnover.
Protest group UK Uncut yesterday vowed to take direct action on December 8 to try to shut down some of the nation's 700 Starbucks outlets. 
Ah UK Uncut, a group who claim not to be left wing nor right wing but an alternative, yet who appear to be socialist to the core in their hard of thinking attitude towards tax avoidance which is a perfectly legal activity and should be practised by all good citizens and companies.
 Direct action against companies not breaking the law? Yes that will be the left, rather than target ministers to change the law to close down the loopholes which allow such avoidance.
We really do seem to be in thrall to some utter cretins don't we? MP's summon some companies to ask them why they are using the tax laws in exactly the way they were meant to be used? Laws that some of those MP's would have had a hand in drafting? Certainly laws that some would have voted for when the budget was presented to the house. Even the Committee chairman Margaret Hodge (Ah yes, Labour, I should have guessed) would have voted for laws having been passed by the previous administration now sees a way to try and use the public's ignorance for political capital. I suspect she knows fine well that the companies are not breaking the law, or I would hope so or God help her constituents in Barking. She's just using it as a means to get at the government for laws Labour probably passed. She's just another one of these idiots who think that taxing the rich will make us all rich. Her definition of fair probably means the lowest common denominator (MP's excepted) for all rather than giving anyone the opportunity to become wealthy.
This committee is simply playing headline grabbing as a means to hit the government, it isn't interested in changing things, merely looking good.

6 annotations:

Dioclese said...

Not illegal or immoral - just plain intolerable.

Our politicians are useless.

Tiggger said...

Margaret Hodge...

There is a company called Stemcor with a shareholder called Margaret Hodge, run by her brother and founded by her father that paid 0.01% tax on 2.1bn of revenue, it couldn't be the same margaret hodge though.

Anonymous said...

It is Tigger.



treble9man said...

Maybe if every MP came clean, with ALL income and expenses shown on 1 website, so we can compare them all, the rest of us would trust them just a little bit.

Anonymous said...

Stonyground says:

Could we have a breakdown on what proportion of our taxes go toward the things that we understand that taxes are neccessary to pay for, hospitals, roads, fire police and ambulance services, an army to defend our borders etc. and what proportion goes to MP's mates, MP's fiddled expenses, fake charities, foreign wars, subsidising solar panels and windmills and stuff.

Maybe then all the plebs who think that they would somehow benefit if only those naughty tax avoiders could be made to contribute, would realise that they would benefit far more if the state stopped stealing their money to spend on stuff that they neither want or need.

Anonymous said...

The single market works for taxes too