Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,470
- Location
- Cornwall
Surely the time has come to replace On The Water with a Politics forum? stockhausen alone produces more threads than the entire On The Water forum 
Pay your taxes you scum - doesn't apply to tax-dodging millionaires or corporations.
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
This thread should/would be in Speaker's Corner.. however it's got no content from the original poster, so it wouldn't cut it there either.
It's just yet another fire and forget nugget of of rubbish from Stockhausen.
In my anything but humble opinion he either needs to articulate his point properly and post it in Speaker's Corner or go and take a **** to himself.
It's just yet another fire and forget nugget of of rubbish from Stockhausen.
In my anything but humble opinion he either needs to articulate his point properly and post it in Speaker's Corner or go and take a **** to himself.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 May 2004
- Posts
- 13,059
- Location
- Sunny Stafford
I think we've scared the OP off
I think we've scared the OP off
I don't think stockhausen gets scared off, he's just posts selectively.
I think we've scared the OP off
nah he's probably away fapping over his latest big corporation product while searching the net for the next 'political / social scandal' which contradicts his 'ideals'
small man syndrome at its worst
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Some interesting comments and it is most reassuring to see that a few people share my view that the practices of the likes of Boots, Vodafone, Amazon and the Arcadia Group are unacceptable.
The opposing view can best be summarised by the charming observation that "if a company applies Tax Avoidance schemes it's non [sic] of your damn business if it [is] immoral.". This is probably the stance taken by the average benefit abuser and is not one that I can share.
When a society stops basing its rules and behaviour on any concept of morality and justice it is rightly doomed. Of course, I have no doubt that these people are firmly of the view as expressed by the Grantham Grocer that that "there is no such thing as society; just greedy, selfish individuals whose only thought is their own personal advantage."
The opposing view can best be summarised by the charming observation that "if a company applies Tax Avoidance schemes it's non [sic] of your damn business if it [is] immoral.". This is probably the stance taken by the average benefit abuser and is not one that I can share.
When a society stops basing its rules and behaviour on any concept of morality and justice it is rightly doomed. Of course, I have no doubt that these people are firmly of the view as expressed by the Grantham Grocer that that "there is no such thing as society; just greedy, selfish individuals whose only thought is their own personal advantage."
I see you are yet again deliberately misquoting Thatcher. it cant be accidental, the context has been explained to you many times over, so it seems you are going all news of the world all over again, especially as you are also trying to misrepresent avoidance as being illegal again as well.
he who pays the piper
Why doesn't he campaign to ban himself from the internet already? If Murdoch is unfit to own media, surely he must be unfit from broadcasting his rubbish via any media, including random message boards?
Associate
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 2,283
- Location
- Rainham, Kent
If these major companies didn't avoid paying so much tax, maybe we could afford to have better services and national infrastructure (or tax cuts for us plebs if that's what you prefer). Someone has to make up the money the big corps are not paying ( i guess that'll be you and me then).
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
Some will suggest that if we closed the loopholes that allow them to avoid paying tax, they would run a mile and take their business with them, so we'd not get any tax revenue at all.
So it's better to accept a reduced amount than non at all.
It becomes my business when individuals and less-unscrupulous companies have to pay for 'tax avoision'.
If there is no grey area in taxation, then why do countries seek to employ a GAAR?
It's none of your business because there's no such thing as 'tax avoision', it's just a new buzz word made up by the lefties to make themselves feel like they have a cause.
You're just going to face facts my friend:
If a company is employing Tax evasion, i will join you shouting from the roof tops to bring that company to justice (or at least to put a stop to it)
If they are simply employing Tax avoidance, then it's the government that you should be calling to close loop hole and it's not the companies fault they're taking advantage. If i had a large company I'd be doing the same.
Simple As. Nothing more to it.
While there's an element of truth in that argument, it's somewhat overdone by the usual suspects. Do people really believe that Vodafone or Amazon will stop doing business in the UK if the loopholes they have/are exploited are closed?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
The problem is a rule for all, close the loophole, but what happens when 10 companies could afford to pay, say 40% tax and make a profit, while 1000 companies would simply move abroad if tax goes above 25%, and a bunch of others in the middle could probably afford 30% tax.
Where do you set the new rule, which politician wants to lose thousands of jobs to get X amount more tax, will the increase in tax from 100 companies cover the job losses from the companies that move away from the UK.
SO what do you do, set the tax rate to 25% and set one rule for one companies invididually that they pay 40% because they can afford it? I'd move my company away on principle at having to pay more than others for no apparent reason.
Fact is we live in a world economy now and if a company can make more money doing the same thing from another part of the world, they will. Yeah, great a world wide tax law where every company pays 40% tax no matter the country they are in, so it makes no difference is great, but will never, ever happen.
If we increase tax, close loopholes and force companies to stay, we'll start getting into fights about rights, freetrade, etc, etc, then companies will simply dissolve and start fresh elsewhere rather than "move" their company officially.
There isn't really an easy way around it, however, tax avoidance has been going on since.... tax was invented, and Labour MP's are really god damned good at doing it themselves, and made no attempt to stop it while the economy went into the crapper on their watch.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Why wouldn't they exactly? When they can ship every product to the UK from outside the UK and make more money if they were forced to do so, why wouldn't they? We then don't just lose their corporation tax, we lose the tax the 2500+ employee's pay, the jobs, and pay 2500 more people benefits.
Some companies won't leave, but as I just posted, where would you put the number, there are thousands upon thousands of companies in the UK, which ones can we live without, which would go under, which would move to asia, which would move elsewhere in the EU, how many jobs would be lost vs how much more tax would we get. The biggest problem is knowing where you would even establish a new tax level, closing loopholes isn't really the issue, you'd almost certainly find hundreds if not thousands of companies struggling if they suddenly started paying 30% more tax.
We would really need the loophole closed and new taxation rules introduced.... and the worst thing is, while politicians will publically be for it, the boards of companies they are on, and the companies they have future job's set up with, will have them vote against it in the end.
I'll just quote that again for you......how you enjoying your amazon kindle?
It's pretty moronic to assume that one should not purchase products from a company because they disagree with their tax avoidance when their product is uniquely placed in the market.
That tiresome idiot Louise Mench saying that the Occupy protesters were clearly privileged hypocrites and in the wrong because some of them purchased their coffee at Starbucks whilst she was on HIGNFY when there were no alternatives, what are they supposed to do, grow their own food and drink or starve to death?
It's like saying an innocent person who is executed on death row is partly to blame because he ate his last meal.