Off Topic Politics Thread

[Archers Road]

Not at all. I am not suggesting it is easy. I am just stating that politicians who on the whole aren't even interested collectively in changing the tax rules then grandstand babbling on about moral obligations.

Now whether it is because in reality those tax rules shouldn;t be changed but Joe Public wouldn't understand that is another matter but these are deflections.

Did Amazon or Starbucks (or Trump) break the law to avoid tax? Nope. Why? Because they abided by the rules. Why aren't the rules changed then? Because it would not actually result in more tax take / just mean they go somewhere else etc. etc. etc.

If the actual result would be that changing the rules would end up with a worse off situation then be honest about that. Don't start grandstanding harping on about moral obligations. Trump played by the rules. End of story.

And on that note. If we accept that is the reality does that render Corbyn's stance on this as "pie in the sky" thinking?

Is this all just the "window tax" reinvented?

That's a very nihilistic attitude, and one that is frequently used by the right to justify all manner of injustice. You appear to be saying that all human beings are greedy and selfish, and therefore it is pointless even trying to create a fairer, more equitable society. I say that's baloney - the majority of us are capable of aspiring to something better, and if that involves pressurising the rich and powerful into contributing to the society that enriches them, then a means can be found if the will exists.

Remember that Amazon and Starbucks have already been shamed into voluntarily increasing their tax contributions, albeit marginally. If enough people boycott the companies they consider - by standards of common decency - to be acting in an unacceptable manner, that will hit their bottom line, and they will react.

 

[ImpSaint]

That's a very nihilistic attitude, and one that is frequently used by the right to justify all manner of injustice. You appear to be saying that all human beings are greedy and selfish, and therefore it is pointless even trying to create a fairer, more equitable society. I say that's baloney - the majority of us are capable of aspiring to something better, and if that involves pressurising the rich and powerful into contributing to the society that enriches them, then a means can be found if the will exists.

Remember that Amazon and Starbucks have already been shamed into voluntarily increasing their tax contributions, albeit marginally. If enough people boycott the companies they consider - by standards of common decency - to be acting in an unacceptable manner, that will hit their bottom line, and they will react.

Not at all. I am asking why we are harping on about what is right and wrong yet not mirroring this with law making.

Amazon and Starbucks throwing an extra few million over in a "wink, wink" deal that our politicians are in on is nothing. It is like you or I throwing your spare coppers or a biscuit over to your child to shut them up for a few minutes.

Are all human beings greedy and selfish? Yes to an extent. How many on here decided "No I won't re-decorate with that spare hundred quid, I'll give it to charity instead." I doubt any of us.

Would you rather have a system that forces companies / rich folks to pay their "fair share" even if it means less will actually reach the public purse?

If "public pressure" forces these companies to pay an extra 0.01% of what they really "should have morally paid" why did we not just change the rules rather than rely on public pressure?

I'm all for a fairer more equal society. I am just far too realistic to think that business is going to just "shrug" and be ethical/moral about these things. Even charities can't think that way when they are harranging people for money.

Individuals, I agree with you that they are much less greedy and selfish than business however individuals are still wanting the best return from their pensions or investments which rely on stocks and shares and investments which rely on business doing what they do anyway so indirectly the individual is being greedy and selfish anyway.

 

[Archers Road]

Not at all. I am asking why we are harping on about what is right and wrong yet not mirroring this with law making.

Amazon and Starbucks throwing an extra few million over in a "wink, wink" deal that our politicians are in on is nothing. It is like you or I throwing your spare coppers or a biscuit over to your child to shut them up for a few minutes.

Are all human beings greedy and selfish? Yes to an extent. How many on here decided "No I won't re-decorate with that spare hundred quid, I'll give it to charity instead." I doubt any of us.

Would you rather have a system that forces companies / rich folks to pay their "fair share" even if it means less will actually reach the public purse?

If "public pressure" forces these companies to pay an extra 0.01% of what they really "should have morally paid" why did we not just change the rules rather than rely on public pressure?

I'm all for a fairer more equal society. I am just far too realistic to think that business is going to just "shrug" and be ethical/moral about these things. Even charities can't think that way when they are harranging people for money.

Individuals, I agree with you that they are much less greedy and selfish than business however individuals are still wanting the best return from their pensions or investments which rely on stocks and shares and investments which rely on business doing what they do anyway so indirectly the individual is being greedy and selfish anyway.

So we just rollover and let corporations walk all over us? no thanks Imps.

 

[VocalMinority]

Not at all. I am not suggesting it is easy. I am just stating that politicians who on the whole aren't even interested collectively in changing the tax rules then grandstand babbling on about moral obligations.

Now whether it is because in reality those tax rules shouldn;t be changed but Joe Public wouldn't understand that is another matter but these are deflections.

Did Amazon or Starbucks (or Trump) break the law to avoid tax? Nope. Why? Because they abided by the rules. Why aren't the rules changed then? Because it would not actually result in more tax take / just mean they go somewhere else etc. etc. etc.

If the actual result would be that changing the rules would end up with a worse off situation then be honest about that. Don't start grandstanding harping on about moral obligations. Trump played by the rules. End of story.

And on that note. If we accept that is the reality does that render Corbyn's stance on this as "pie in the sky" thinking?

Is this all just the "window tax" reinvented?

Sorry i don't agree with your point on moral obligations. the only way we're going to get companies - and people in general, to not avoid paying tax is through a cultural change. As long as paying the minimum amount of tax is seen as the proper thing to do, then major companies will keep trying to do that. while independents will keep taking jobs for cash.

Just look at football. Diving in football is always going to be an issue while its encouraged and taught, doing absolutely everything and stretching the rules do win. Yet in other sports like rugby where the culture is different, its far less prevalent.

Improved tax rules will never work while there's no enforceable Regional/global tax system in place for the reasons you stated. So the best way to actually improve tax income from big companies is to have a culture where paying minimum tax is shamed and they are hit in the pocket by consumers. For that you need politicians and media outlets who harp on about transparency and paying tax to get it over to the public.

Trump is the antithesis of this. He floods the media discrediting stories about everything, and is creating a culture where there are enough fake and distorted facts people justify taking whatever actions they want to without any guilt. Rather than transparency he advocates complete confusion. Want to own a gun? that fine because guns don't kill people, they save people. there was that massacre the other week where he was stopped by a hero with a gun. if he didn't have a gun that he would have gone on to kill hundreds more people. Doesn't matter that no gun massacre in US history has had that many fatalities, it totally would have happened!

 

[ImpSaint]

So we just rollover and let corporations walk all over us? no thanks Imps.

You know I am the opposite to that. We should be legislating worldwide even if it costs us. what is worth more? Whatever the balance sheet says? or the moral argument?

We didn't just use "public pressure" to reduce racism/discrimination. We legislated to force cultural change. We should be doing the same here. Politicians who talk the talk but then do not actually change anything are part of the problem.

And ISIRTP, you say what I have said prior. Corbyn has some very attractive policies. Some that would be really good. They just won't work in this system which renders them worthless.

 

[TheSecondStain]

So we just rollover and let corporations walk all over us? no thanks Imps.

Coincidental that you would be chatting about corporations and a capitalistic domination of the world, even over democracy, because I stumbled upon this, this morning:

You must log in or register to see media

If you have any agenda against the individuals in the videos, please put them aside for the duration of the conversation. It's all about the chat that I'm posting this for. Myself, I thought it was very interesting. It clarified a few things for me.

 

[Missing Lambo]

We didn't just use "public pressure" to reduce racism/discrimination. We legislated to force cultural change. We should be doing the same here. Politicians who talk the talk but then do not actually change anything are part of the problem.

Much we might abuse politicians, they have to be the arbiters of just taxation. We cannot leave the defining of "morally right" to accountants.

One bit I can't get, is the question of "only paying the minimum". Don't we all do that? The question at issue is whether the rules are robust enough to get companies like Starbucks paying what should be their "minimum". As you say, Imps, it is for politicians to change the rules if this is not the case rather than accepting the crumbs from their table.

Of course, until HMRC is staffed by people who understand tax law we'll always be on a loser. The problem is that these people can earn mega-bucks advising the likes of Starbucks. So we'd have to pay them well, as for once the old adage you get what you pay for is appropriate. We don't, so we get a people with 2.2 degrees in The History of Art challenging the sharpest minds in tax avoidance. It's akin to asking a local Sunday league team to take on Man City.

 

[Onionman]

Much we might abuse politicians, they have to be the arbiters of just taxation. We cannot leave the defining of "morally right" to accountants.

One bit I can't get, is the question of "only paying the minimum". Don't we all do that? The question at issue is whether the rules are robust enough to get companies like Starbucks paying what should be their "minimum". As you say, Imps, it is for politicians to change the rules if this is not the case rather than accepting the crumbs from their table.

Of course, until HMRC is staffed by people who understand tax law we'll always be on a loser. The problem is that these people can earn mega-bucks advising the likes of Starbucks. So we'd have to pay them well, as for once the old adage you get what you pay for is appropriate. We don't, so we get a people with 2.2 degrees in The History of Art challenging the sharpest minds in tax avoidance. It's akin to asking a local Sunday league team to take on Man City.

My wife and I run a business that we franchise. We are perfect for selling our brand to a company we set up in the Isle of Man, licensing it to our franchisees (it's the main value of any franchised business), then running the profits back to the UK via Holland. We'd pay 0% tax on about 50% of our income and drastically reduce the tax on the remainder.

I don't do it because I like hospitals, the police, streetlights, empty bins, repaired roads, etc, etc.

Not everyone minimises their taxes as far as the law will allow. Some of us have morals.

Vin

 

[ChilcoSaint]

My wife and I run a business that we franchise. We are perfect for selling our brand to a company we set up in the Isle of Man, licensing it to our franchisees (it's the main value of any franchised business), then running the profits back to the UK via Holland. We'd pay 0% tax on about 50% of our income and drastically reduce the tax on the remainder.

I don't do it because I like hospitals, the police, streetlights, empty bins, repaired roads, etc, etc.

Not everyone minimises their taxes as far as the law will allow. Some of us have morals.

Vin

Excellent point Vin. As you say, none of us pay taxes voluntarily, and no one pays a penny more than we need to, assuming we know how to claim relief. You are the rare exception in the business world though, it seems. What the government (any government doing it would get my support) needs to do is to close the loopholes through which global avoiders like Starbucks and Amazon can legally drive their coaches and teams of horses. If the huge fish were caught in this net, then the smaller ones would automatically follow suit.

 

[Missing Lambo]

My wife and I run a business that we franchise. We are perfect for selling our brand to a company we set up in the Isle of Man, licensing it to our franchisees (it's the main value of any franchised business), then running the profits back to the UK via Holland. We'd pay 0% tax on about 50% of our income and drastically reduce the tax on the remainder.

I don't do it because I like hospitals, the police, streetlights, empty bins, repaired roads, etc, etc.

Not everyone minimises their taxes as far as the law will allow. Some of us have morals.

Vin

Good on you, mate, but I've not made myself clear. It's exactly these sort of loopholes to reduce tax I want closed. It is for politicians to do this.

One of my sons runs a business and was advised by his accountant to go off shore. Said accountant was asked if he liked sex and travel. However, people like you and my lad should not be the ones should not have to make these moral choices.

My point is that if the rules are right no-one need be concerned about paying the right amount of tax.

 

[VocalMinority]

I think this is an interesting discussion, seem to be some varying views.


Personally I think the order that some of you are saying is wrong.
No matter how much they want to, Politicians can't change rules if they don't have the publics consent.

Ok you can say everyone wants a better tax system. But the thing is, not many people agree on what that system should be. And you can't just impose a system on people.
I think most people want a better voting system, the liberals managed to get one a vote, and the public overwhelming voted against it because it wasn't the system they wanted.

If you want to change the system you first have to get the public united behind it (at least somewhat). Which for me means the job of a politician is not to change the rules but to get the public to want to change the rules.

So for me you need politicians to speak out and say things like "you know what, no, paying the minimum tax amount is not okay. Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't mean you should, didn't your mother teach you that?"

Only when you get enough people thinking like Vin will you get actual change. Politicians need to take the lead in that. And not take this populism stance of pandering to the public and say it's okay to make them feel better.

 

[Archers Road]

There will always be loopholes in any system, and as fast as you close one, some hotshot accountancy firm that specialises in doing so, will uncover another.

That doesn't mean that it is pointless to legislate to close those loopholes, or that you cannot shame multinational corporations into playing with a straight bat. All businesses trade on their reputations, after all. Of course, to really bring the large corporations to book requires international co-operation. Although in fact, an awful lot of offshore tax havens are British jurisdictions - the IoM, the British Virgin Islands, Malta, Gibraltar etc, so it is very much in our own government's power to do something about them.

 

[VocalMinority]

There will always be loopholes in any system, and as fast as you close one, some hotshot accountancy firm that specialises in doing so, will uncover another.

That doesn't mean that it is pointless to legislate to close those loopholes, or that you cannot shame multinational corporations into playing with a straight bat. All businesses trade on their reputations, after all. Of course, to really bring the large corporations to book requires international co-operation. Although in fact, an awful lot of offshore tax havens are British jurisdictions - the IoM, the British Virgin Islands, Malta, Gibraltar etc, so it is very much in our own government's power to do something about them.

Exactly this, couldn't agree more. Especially as the world evolves and new laws are created to compensate. so its not just finding them, its new ones being created to find.

 

[Onionman]

One of the problems is that, as ever, it's a little more complicated than you might think.

As of last year the UK tax code is 10m words long. Twelve times the size of the complete works of Shakespeare.

(from http://www.annlhumphrey.com/tax-policy/why-we-need-to-simplify-our-tax-code/ )

Add in similar size codes from many countries (US is bigger) and then work out how they all interact with one another at a detailed level. It would be literally impossible to plug all the gaps. IIRC Apple gained from having their head office in Dublin (which means USA regards them as Irish so no tax) but held their board meetings in New York (which means Eire considers them to be a US domiciled company so no tax). One country on its own cannot fix that particular scam. Imagine how many permutations there are just in where you regard a company to be based.

There was a chap on TV a few years ago, a UK tax lawyer. He charges £4,000 a day to know that code back to front. He's up against civil servants who probably take more than a month to earn that. It's like lambs to the slaughter.

IMO the solution is to simplify as much as possible then to publicise and shame mercilessly and endlessly. Make it socially unacceptable.

Vin

 

[San Tejón]

I think this is an interesting discussion, seem to be some varying views.


Personally I think the order that some of you are saying is wrong.
No matter how much they want to, Politicians can't change rules if they don't have the publics consent.

Ok you can say everyone wants a better tax system. But the thing is, not many people agree on what that system should be. And you can't just impose a system on people.
I think most people want a better voting system, the liberals managed to get one a vote, and the public overwhelming voted against it because it wasn't the system they wanted.

If you want to change the system you first have to get the public united behind it (at least somewhat). Which for me means the job of a politician is not to change the rules but to get the public to want to change the rules.

So for me you need politicians to speak out and say things like "you know what, no, paying the minimum tax amount is not okay. Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't mean you should, didn't your mother teach you that?"

Only when you get enough people thinking like Vin will you get actual change. Politicians need to take the lead in that. And not take this populism stance of pandering to the public and say it's okay to make them feel better.

You suggest that the politicians need to unite the public to push changes through, but I would suggest that the majority of the public are already united in their desire to see tax loopholes closed.

The politicians, globally, will already know this, but they won’t shut the loopholes for many reasons eg, they or family members use them, party political donors use them, politicians are employed “part time” by those using them etc. (In a nutshell, corruption).

With regards to tax matters I am quite naive, so I expect my thoughts to be pounced upon by someone who is knowledgeable of these things, but for me the answer is quite simple.
All nations sign up to an agreed level of corporation tax and companies pay that level of tax to the country in which they make their money. Even set the tax low, maybe 10% (for example), because 10% of £20m is better than the 0% of umpteen millions we get from some companies.
Also criminalise the use of off shore tax avoidance schemes that undercut the global tax agreement, so even if there are some nations that don’t sign up to the tax agreement, the companies that use them can be hammered.

None of what I would like to see is likely to happen, because of the issues I raised in my second paragraph, which is quite sad, IMO.

 

[I Sorry I Ruined The Party]

Just because Trump pays the bare minimum doesn't mean he doesn't pay a lot of taxes!!!

Actually, it does. The tax report that leaked showed that Trump paid a total of $0 in taxes that year.

Trump claimed he paid a lot of taxes. Trump's claim is debunked by a leak of his tax filings showing that he in fact paid not a single penny of taxes. This makes Trump a liar.

So rather than admit he lies, Trump twists the issue and blames it all on liberals for writing a bad tax code. The tax code was not the issue. The issue was that Trump would not release his tax filings (which he still has not done) and was lying about the taxes he had paid.

 

[TheSecondStain]

Don't know if it's been mentioned on here, but one of the supporters claims of Trump is that he is a good businesman and therefore is able to run a country. Well running a business and being fiscally sound while running a nation are two different things for starters, but I digress. That good businessman thing... It has been said that if Trump had put the money he inherited from his father into a bank, on only the savings rates that have been around during that time, he would have significantly more money in personal wealth than he has now by being a businessman and going bankrupt 4 times.

 

[Beef]

You must log in or register to see media

 

[ChilcoSaint]

You must log in or register to see media

Bastards

 

[tiggermaster]

Complete and utter!!!!!