No and I never would. I don't agree that corporation tax is the huge free cash cow that so many people think it is. My main objection is that businesses will just pass the costs onto other people. They'll compensate by raising prices, minimising pay rises for staff and reducing dividends for shareholders. Companies can't be taxed. Only people can be taxed.
As long as the application of the rules is as they were intended to be applied then no, there is nothing wrong, legally or morally. However many avoidance schemes rely on the creation of artificial set ups in order to take advantage reliefs, set offs, incentives, etc. There's avoidance and then there's avoidance by deception. Most of the avoidance taking place is the latter.
Then it is up to the courts to decide if any contrived or artificial constructs cross the line from avoidance into evasion. I have no problem with any the courts deem to fall within the rules, even if they may not be in the spirit of them.
I honestly think most people wouldn't give a shit.
There's a lot more to it than just their buying members of the general public. The share price may nosedive (at least in the short term). They may lose business partners and contracts, due to not wanting to associate with a company that breaks the law. It may lead to big job losses, if profits are adversely affected by the tax evasion scandal. That sort of thing.
Then it is up to the courts to decide if any contrived or artificial constructs cross the line from avoidance into evasion. I have no problem with any the courts deem to fall within the rules, even if they may not be in the spirit of them.
It rarely gets to court. The goverment wants money coming in asap and the companies don't want (further) negative publicity. Establishing evasion in a court is costly, time consuming and risky for both parties. When avoidance by deception is discovered the usual way it is handled is by way of out of court settlements. The settlement is made up of duty, interest and penalties. Where possible changes to the legislation are then made, as happened earlier this year with the offshore manning avoidance schemes.
No and I never would. I don't agree that corporation tax is the huge free cash cow that so many people think it is. My main objection is that businesses will just pass the costs onto other people. They'll compensate by raising prices, minimising pay rises for staff and reducing dividends for shareholders. Companies can't be taxed. Only people can be taxed.
In the case of Amazon...
If they raised prices they would become less competitive - they currently enjoy an unfair competitive advantage against independent retailers who have little choice but to be domiciled, and therefore pay due tax, in this country.
They are already infamous for their awful treatment of staff, so it is unlikely that many of their staff's working conditions could be worsened without their employment terms becoming illegal.
They don't pay shareholders a dividend.
So in general - yes, as a company they could be taxed. The only major effect in their case, would be to slow their inexorable growth - which is effectively being funded by taxpayers around the world.
As long as the application of the rules is as they were intended to be applied then no, there is nothing wrong, legally or morally. However many avoidance schemes rely on the creation of artificial set ups in order to take advantage reliefs, set offs, incentives, etc. There's avoidance and then there's avoidance by deception. Most of the avoidance taking place is the latter.
It rarely gets to court. The goverment wants money coming in asap and the companies don't want (further) negative publicity. Establishing evasion in a court is costly, time consuming and risky for both parties. When avoidance by deception is discovered the usual way it is handled is by way of out of court settlements. The settlement is made up of duty, interest and penalties. Where possible changes to the legislation are then made, as happened earlier this year with the offshore manning avoidance schemes.
I know, as one of the tactics of recent times as seen by the likes of Margaret Hodge and her commission panel, is to try and browbeat companies with a thick lathering of moral scolding.
There is a reason why taxation is a legal requirement and enforced through threat of penalty. If it were merely left to the morals of companies and individuals to contribute to the exchequer, it would be an empty pot indeed.
I really haven't and I am not as fussed or as outraged as some people are.
I can't imagine life without amazon. It has everything I need and it has awlays my first port of call. from kettles to laptops to even a mug, I always order from there. Their customer service is amazing.
I don't tend to go to Starbucks as it is rip off and not because it evades tax. On top of that, it does not bode well with my diet. Having said I do like their frappuccino and caramel coffee.
No, I only buy based on what I want. If a given company has it at a reasonable price, I will buy.
I don't have any feeling of moral obligation to an organisation like HMRC, which operates like a criminal protection racket.
Are you happy to be subsidizing them out of your own pocket then?
I frankly don't see it a subsidising. If I give them any of my money it will be exchange for goods or services that I will have a need for or a desire for. If I have no particular needs or desires at that time I won't spend any money.
As for the legal/moral dimension. Well if the army of civil servants who work for the Inland Revenue are so useless that the accountants for these companies can run rings around them then that is a matter for politicians and for the recruitment processes at the IR.
I'd rather give my money to Amazon and get something tangible in return then to give it to the taxman to be spent on the EU.
I haven't and probably never will boycott anything over taxes. As long as they are not breaking any laws, I don't mind. Their lack of morals is for them to worry about.
And let's face it, if we could minimise the amount of tax we pay, I believe the majority would do it.
I tend not to buy branded electronics as they are all made in the same Chinese factories and then labels are stuck on.
I boycott all clothing with the manufacturers name or logo on the outside - but thats purely on grounds of taste and class.
I really haven't and I am not as fussed or as outraged as some people are.
I can't imagine life without amazon. It has everything I need and it has awlays my first port of call. from kettles to laptops to even a mug, I always order from there. Their customer service is amazing.
I don't tend to go to Starbucks as it is rip off and not because it evades tax. On top of that, it does not bode well with my diet. Having said I do like their frappuccino and caramel coffee.
I'd been meaning to put a similar thread up since my one about not using self service check outs intended to cut the number of workers.
Not many were "fussed" about that either.
There seems to be a lack of moral and social responsibility when it comes to the masses.
No and I never would. I don't agree that corporation tax is the huge free cash cow that so many people think it is. My main objection is that businesses will just pass the costs onto other people. They'll compensate by raising prices, minimising pay rises for staff and reducing dividends for shareholders. Companies can't be taxed. Only people can be taxed.
My apologies of you have to click through an advert. Hopefully that's a direct link.
That depends. If increased costs affected the whole industry then the whole industry would indeed just raise prices to protect profits. However, if Company A (e.g. Starbucks) avoids taxes but it's competitor (e.g. Costa) doesn't, they might have to absorb the cost in order to stay competitive.
I'd been meaning to put a similar thread up since my one about not using self service check outs intended to cut the number of workers.
Not many were "fussed" about that either.
There seems to be a lack of moral and social responsibility when it comes to the masses.
I use sepf-service because of the bags. They are so stingy at tills with people on.
I do have a moral and social conscience and I do try to buy British where I can. But amazon l, I can't say no to them. They are just my first port of call and the service is amazing.
Who cares about who gets away with tax evasion or avoidance when we know our Govt will be spending it like theres no tomorrow on projects such as £-Bilions on useless NHS, and other Govt dept useless computer/IT systems, Aiding India, a country involved in space exploration, Illegal wars, Lords £350 daily sign in attendance allowances - To name but a few of the endless wastages we can rely on the British Govt to continue to fund - Courtesy of tax and tax payers !
Who cares about who gets away with tax evasion or avoidance when we know our Govt will be spending it like theres no tomorrow on projects such as £-Bilions on useless NHS, and other Govt dept useless computer/IT systems, Aiding India, a country involved in space exploration, Illegal wars, Lords £350 daily sign in attendance allowances - To name but a few of the endless wastages we can rely on the British Govt to continue to fund - Courtesy of tax and tax payers !
Comments
http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/08/who-pays-corporate-taxes-possibly-you/
My apologies of you have to click through an advert. Hopefully that's a direct link.
Then it is up to the courts to decide if any contrived or artificial constructs cross the line from avoidance into evasion. I have no problem with any the courts deem to fall within the rules, even if they may not be in the spirit of them.
There's a lot more to it than just their buying members of the general public. The share price may nosedive (at least in the short term). They may lose business partners and contracts, due to not wanting to associate with a company that breaks the law. It may lead to big job losses, if profits are adversely affected by the tax evasion scandal. That sort of thing.
In the case of Amazon...
If they raised prices they would become less competitive - they currently enjoy an unfair competitive advantage against independent retailers who have little choice but to be domiciled, and therefore pay due tax, in this country.
They are already infamous for their awful treatment of staff, so it is unlikely that many of their staff's working conditions could be worsened without their employment terms becoming illegal.
They don't pay shareholders a dividend.
So in general - yes, as a company they could be taxed. The only major effect in their case, would be to slow their inexorable growth - which is effectively being funded by taxpayers around the world.
Again, the confusion between legal and moral.
I know, as one of the tactics of recent times as seen by the likes of Margaret Hodge and her commission panel, is to try and browbeat companies with a thick lathering of moral scolding.
Again, the confusion between legal and moral.
There is a reason why taxation is a legal requirement and enforced through threat of penalty. If it were merely left to the morals of companies and individuals to contribute to the exchequer, it would be an empty pot indeed.
No, I only buy based on what I want. If a given company has it at a reasonable price, I will buy.
I don't have any feeling of moral obligation to an organisation like HMRC, which operates like a criminal protection racket.
That makes two of us
I frankly don't see it a subsidising. If I give them any of my money it will be exchange for goods or services that I will have a need for or a desire for. If I have no particular needs or desires at that time I won't spend any money.
As for the legal/moral dimension. Well if the army of civil servants who work for the Inland Revenue are so useless that the accountants for these companies can run rings around them then that is a matter for politicians and for the recruitment processes at the IR.
I'd rather give my money to Amazon and get something tangible in return then to give it to the taxman to be spent on the EU.
I cannot bear the sight of Murdoch's nasty little rags knowing who it funds. He really is vile.
And let's face it, if we could minimise the amount of tax we pay, I believe the majority would do it.
I boycott all clothing with the manufacturers name or logo on the outside - but thats purely on grounds of taste and class.
I'd been meaning to put a similar thread up since my one about not using self service check outs intended to cut the number of workers.
Not many were "fussed" about that either.
There seems to be a lack of moral and social responsibility when it comes to the masses.
That depends. If increased costs affected the whole industry then the whole industry would indeed just raise prices to protect profits. However, if Company A (e.g. Starbucks) avoids taxes but it's competitor (e.g. Costa) doesn't, they might have to absorb the cost in order to stay competitive.
I use sepf-service because of the bags. They are so stingy at tills with people on.
I do have a moral and social conscience and I do try to buy British where I can. But amazon l, I can't say no to them. They are just my first port of call and the service is amazing.
This but wouldn't say NHS is useless.
excuse poor grammar - should have read NHS's useless etc