I suggested that you can't complain if you have supported Philip Green by buying stuff from his shops. Have you ? Like it or not, and I many ways I don't, we live in a global economy, it is where we get our cheap stuff from, but there are consequences that are almost impossible to avoid, we can't put the genie back in the lamp.
Who said I aupported him? Maybe, if I have, that support is for the locals who need to work. Because of convenience. Its a nonsense argume t to suggest you cindone his actions. Next you'll suggest I dont use a bank because I disagree with their lending policy
If you have bought goods from his shops it has put money in his pocket that he has, morally wrongly but legally avoided paying tax on, Therefore you are complicit in his growing rich at taxpayers expense. Is that too difficult to understand ?
It is pointless closing tax loopholes unless UK taxation levels are internationally competitive otherwise many of the businesses and the employment they generate which millions of people rely on for their income over their entire lives will simply walk. And it is not competitive. The UK economy as a whole is grossly over-taxed and the State is grossly profligate. Legal tax avoidance is not theft, it is simply financial planning. Everyone does it. That is why accountants and ISAs exist. If there is a moral imperative to pay tax the process must be reciprocal and there must be democratic scrutiny of and sanction for the way in which it is spent. And there isn't. The notion that it is inherently more virtuous for politicians to be in possession of privately generated income rather than the person who earned it in the first place is false and that way lies corruption.
Artificial tax avoidance schemes exploiting legal loopholes are no more desirable for a society than illegal tax evasion. It reduces a nation's tax structure - any idea of fairness and equitable fiscal policy - to the level of a fucking game. It sickens me how politicians and businesses conduct this "game". Absolutely sickens me.
So where is the flaw in my logic ? We should spend our money where it fits with our beliefs, particularly if we wish to pontificate on the subject.
LOL. Principled stands in the modern world. Cool concept. Care to speculate on how many of your own purchases do not violate your own principles?
I'm not arguing against all taxation or in favour of systematic large scale tax avoidance. I'm arguing that where there is a moral imperative in subjecting the accounts of private individuals and businesses to scrutiny and handing money to politicians on pain of imprisonment there must be a corresponding obligation to account fully for the money taken and to spend it wisely and efficiently. If that part of the equation is missing; if there is no openness with public accounts and no audit trail; if there is an unchallengeable presumption that all public spending is virtuous, necessary and to the greater public good, that private wealth is or should be public property and that questioning these presumptions amounts to moral degeneracy, then there is no accountability and the moral argument for taxation without question is fraudulent. The money we pay in taxes does not go exclusively on schools and hospitals and police officers. If only it did. It goes on all manner of sundry things according to political whim, ideology and the pursuit of narrow electoral advantage. And the important things like health and schools and policing have become such sacred cows that they cannot be discussed or reformed. That is a charter for waste and corruption. It is not irresponsible or selfish to challenge that state of affairs, it is irresponsible and selfish not to.
I have a lot of sympathy with Gimlet's view here. Money taken in taxes to fund fraudulent behaviour is theft, in spirit if not in law. However, the only legitimate way to combat this is through political change - or by voting with your feet and emigrating to somewhere like Qatar where there is no income tax. It is not legitimate to set up artificial constructs whose only purpose is to avoid tax - such as those created by Starbucks Amazon, etc. You earn the cash in the UK - you pay the tax in the UK. End of fucking doscussion.
I've no argument with that. But accepting that principle amounts to a contract, a covenant if you like, between the state which spends the money and private enterprise (which is all of us) which generates it. If we are todo our bit the state must do likewise. That is not happening. I would add also that if you earn money in the UK there should be a limit on how much of it you may take out of the country, otherwise we invite the whole world to ransack our economy.
Agreed but why, with the majority citizens locked into a faulty contract with the Government, are a minority of richer folk allowed to partially exclude themselves? If the system is unfair, it needs to be equally unfair on everyone
Agreed in principle, but in a modern global economy goods are produced in one area and sold in another with costs incurred in both. We compete with the rest of the world for over corporation tax rates. I also think that if you have a British passport that you should pay British taxes on all your earnings.
The point of sale can usually be determined quite simply, at least at the consumer goods end. The country in which the sale is made is the country where the tax is paid. Heh, I made poetry. Strongly disagree with this. If you are not resident/not ordinarily resident as determined by HMRC, the amount of UK tax you pay should be nil or very limited - as it is now. I am referring to Income Tax where the income arises overseas and the employee/self-employed person is earning it overseas. The question of Corporation Tax is a little more mucky but there's a simple acid test - if people are paying for your product in the country they live in, the company profits arise from that same country. Just saying that people are purchasing from a "foreign country" (e.g. the Channel Islands) doesn't make it so.
But you only pay tax on profit, leaving the VAT question to one side, which brings in the cost of production in country where the goods are made, and if the raw materials were sourced from a third country, well you get where this is going; so it isn't quite that simple, but I agree in principle. Maybe some assumptions should be made my HMRC and tax levied accordingly, but big companies negotiate tax rates whilst we, or at least I do, pay PAYE.
All company income should be taxed in the coutry its derived. No allowances should be made for interest payments either, unless PE industry can be broken
