Tax Avoidance = Immoral

[LucreLout]

sidicks said:

I certainly would expect anyone who vociferously decries multinational companies for (legal) tax avoidance not to work for Starbucks. Recall our recently-departed 'friend' CamMoreRon..,

Say it ain't so :weep:
Banned, or back to school?

sidicks said:

Likewise i'd expect people not to take advantage of cheap Amazon pricing if they don't believe the way Amazon operates is appropriate.

I quite like Amazon. I can get almost anything delivered next day, and any problems get sorted almost immediately.

Tax avoidance can be viewed as a social good provided it has the effect of forcing the government of the day to be less wasteful (are you listening labour). Those with moral objections to it are usually large state fanbois that think they know how to spend other peoples mine better than the person earning it.

[crankedup]

I find the whole tax avoidance thing by these large businesses and Corporations very immoral and anti Social. Big profits extracted from the pockets of people purchasing goods and services, the employees of these same businesses paying their taxes monthly, question mark over whether the Boards of the businesses do likewise.
Could it be that if the correct and legal taxation were applied and received the Country would be better off. Perhaps more front line staff in our essential services.
Tories are unlikely to change to much as it suits the Parties begging bowl. Example : reduce tax on hedge-funds by 147 million quid (2013)and we find the Tories receive a donation worth 30 million quid from the very same pot. Mere co-incidence of course.
'Were all in it together' some more than others it appears.

[Alex]

Where do "these large businesses and corporations" get their money from?

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

Could it be that if the correct and legal taxation were applied and received the Country would be better off.

Unless you're accusing some corporations (if so then which) of evasion rather than avoidance then correct and legal taxation is being applied. The more realistic question is: if more punitive taxation was applied would the country be better off?

crankedup said:

Tories are unlikely to change to much as it suits the Parties begging bowl. Example : reduce tax on hedge-funds by 147 million quid (2013)and we find the Tories receive a donation worth 30 million quid from the very same pot. Mere co-incidence of course.

Possibly not, but within reason a lower corporate tax level is worthwhile regardless of the presence or absence of donations. Better to incentivise the productive side of an economy rather than the unproductive dependency-by-choice side. More money in the economy is a good thing, not so good when it's in the hands of politicians.

[edh]

hedge funds = productive ? I know you like to be provocative, but this really is extreme..

[turbobloke]

edh said:

hedge funds = productive ? I know you like to be provocative, but this really is extreme..

We aim to please.

A productive side of the economy = finance / the City.

[edh]

turbobloke said:

edh said:

hedge funds = productive ? I know you like to be provocative, but this really is extreme..

We aim to please.

A productive side of the economy = finance / the City.

The extractive side I think... Rentiers "R" Us?

[turbobloke]

edh said:

turbobloke said:

edh said:

hedge funds = productive ? I know you like to be provocative, but this really is extreme..

We aim to please.

A productive side of the economy = finance / the City.

The extractive side I think... Rentiers "R" Us?

£50,000,000,000 = the order of how much the City pays in taxes per year.

Just imagine how many Labour voting unproductive dependency culture vultures depend on the City they love to hate.

Also speaking of stereotypes try this:

www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7132

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

Could it be that if the correct and legal taxation were applied and received the Country would be better off.

Unless you're accusing some corporations (if so then which) of evasion rather than avoidance then correct and legal taxation is being applied. The more realistic question is: if more punitive taxation was applied would the country be better off?

crankedup said:

Tories are unlikely to change to much as it suits the Parties begging bowl. Example : reduce tax on hedge-funds by 147 million quid (2013)and we find the Tories receive a donation worth 30 million quid from the very same pot. Mere co-incidence of course.

Possibly not, but within reason a lower corporate tax level is worthwhile regardless of the presence or absence of donations. Better to incentivise the productive side of an economy rather than the unproductive dependency-by-choice side. More money in the economy is a good thing, not so good when it's in the hands of politicians.

Quite clearly if read, I have mentioned the word avoidance.

You seem to be diverting so far off the topic with you're replies it renders you're post worthy of a new thread.

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

Could it be that if the correct and legal taxation were applied and received the Country would be better off.

Unless you're accusing some corporations (if so then which) of evasion rather than avoidance then correct and legal taxation is being applied. The more realistic question is: if more punitive taxation was applied would the country be better off?

crankedup said:

Tories are unlikely to change to much as it suits the Parties begging bowl. Example : reduce tax on hedge-funds by 147 million quid (2013)and we find the Tories receive a donation worth 30 million quid from the very same pot. Mere co-incidence of course.

Possibly not, but within reason a lower corporate tax level is worthwhile regardless of the presence or absence of donations. Better to incentivise the productive side of an economy rather than the unproductive dependency-by-choice side. More money in the economy is a good thing, not so good when it's in the hands of politicians.

Quite clearly if read, I have mentioned the word avoidance.

So having given you the benefit of the doubt, if you're referring to avoidance and yet say "if the correct and legal taxation were applied" then you're talking rubbish as avoidance is another way of describing payment of the correct (due) and legal amount of tax. It's already being applied.

crankedup said:

You seem to be diverting so far off the topic with you're replies it renders you're post worthy of a new thread.

Thanks - but if what you say is true, it happens merely from replying to other posts, in this case yours - so take a bow yourself.

As it happens, the title of the thread and recent posts coincide reasonably well. Have you had some potent juices recently?

Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 4th February 17:04

[iphonedyou]

Guam said:

Bloody Iphones lol

Good autocorrect, that!

[edh]

turbobloke said:

£50,000,000,000 = the order of how much the City pays in taxes per year.

Just imagine how many Labour voting unproductive dependency culture vultures depend on the City they love to hate.

Also speaking of stereotypes try this:

www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7132

Always depends how you slice the figures - where's that £50Bn coming from? Amuses me when firms justify their existence by being tax collectors for HMRC..

£3.8 Bn in corp tax & bank levy last year from the banking sector, total from "financial" sector ~£5.4Bn

So of the same order as manufacturing, distribution, and almost 4 x smaller than "other industrial"

Just think of the wealth we could generate if all those clever people were engaged in productive business sectors, and all that capital was put to productive use..

[turbobloke]

edh said:

turbobloke said:

£50,000,000,000 = the order of how much the City pays in taxes per year.

Just imagine how many Labour voting unproductive dependency culture vultures depend on the City they love to hate.

Also speaking of stereotypes try this:

www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/7132

Always depends how you slice the figures - where's that £50Bn coming from? Amuses me when firms justify their existence by being tax collectors for HMRC

Do they? Being a tax collector by proxy is what I was doing with VAT returns. It didn't justify anything, least of all doing it, but it was done.

edh said:

£3.8 Bn in corp tax & bank levy last year from the banking sector, total from "financial" sector ~£5.4Bn

So of the same order as manufacturing, distribution, and almost 4 x smaller than "other industrial"

Just think of the wealth we could generate if all those clever people were engaged in productive business sectors, and all that capital was put to productive use

They are in a productive business sector and the capital is being put to productive use, it's perverse to suggest otherwise.

Well Of Course UK Productivity Is Up The Finance Sector Is Expanding

Tim Worstall said:

A standard whinge in the UK is that finance is too large a part of the economy. Another standard whinge is that in recent years the productivity of the UK workforce has been static and or falling. The problem with these two statements is that either one can or could be true. It’s just that it’s usually the same people who whinge about both of them. And the truth is that the finance sector is the most productive part of the UK economy. Meaning that if you shrink finance you will be lowering the productivity of the UK labour force.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/12/24/well-of-course-uk-productivity-is-up-the-finance-sector-is-expanding/

[JensenA]

edh said:

Always depends how you slice the figures - where's that £50Bn coming from? Amuses me when firms justify their existence by being tax collectors for HMRC..

£3.8 Bn in corp tax & bank levy last year from the banking sector, total from "financial" sector ~£5.4Bn

So of the same order as manufacturing, distribution, and almost 4 x smaller than "other industrial"

Just think of the wealth we could generate if all those clever people were engaged in productive business sectors, and all that capital was put to productive use..

And what would all those clever people produce? Perhaps if you didn't buy a German car, and purchased a British one instead, then more people would be able to work in the 'productive' sector of the UK.

[edh]

turbobloke said:

They are in a productive business sector and the capital is being put to productive use, it's perverse to suggest otherwise.

I see you've not offered a breakdown of the £50Bn claim though..

Productive? If you mean taking a slice out of other people's efforts, then I suppose so..

Yes of course there is some function for banks to lend to businesses who want to invest in productive capacity. But how much of the capital is invested in productive enterprises? How much in property, and how much in speculation? Where do the profits come from?

[edh]

JensenA said:

And what would all those clever people produce? Perhaps if you didn't buy a German car, and purchased a British one instead, then more people would be able to work in the 'productive' sector of the UK.

Ah sorry, it's my fault..

Maybe if we'd run our automotive sector better it wouldn't have failed miserably? The same UK workers seem quite capable of producing cars for Japanese and German firms.

Maybe those clever people would also be engaged in inventing / developing the technologies of the next 50-100 years?

[turbobloke]

edh said:

turbobloke said:

They are in a productive business sector and the capital is being put to productive use, it's perverse to suggest otherwise.

I see you've not offered a breakdown of the £50Bn claim though

Until now nobody had asked. As it happens PwC calculated the figure of £53,400,000,000 in 2010 for a bad year, and their breakdown not mine is covered here:

http://www.cityam.com/article/53000000000-how-much...

edh said:

If you mean taking a slice out of other people's efforts, then I suppose so..

You type it like it was true, when it's a caricature.

edh said:

Yes of course there is some function for banks to lend to businesses who want to invest in productive capacity. But how much of the capital is invested in productive enterprises? How much in property, and how much in speculation? Where do the profits come from?

Your definitions of productive and productivity as seen from posts are flawed. Predicating anything on them is flawed as a result, asking leading questions is pointless but you might direct them at the City of London Corporation or similar body with the information to hand, and report back.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

Could it be that if the correct and legal taxation were applied and received the Country would be better off.

Unless you're accusing some corporations (if so then which) of evasion rather than avoidance then correct and legal taxation is being applied. The more realistic question is: if more punitive taxation was applied would the country be better off?

crankedup said:

Tories are unlikely to change to much as it suits the Parties begging bowl. Example : reduce tax on hedge-funds by 147 million quid (2013)and we find the Tories receive a donation worth 30 million quid from the very same pot. Mere co-incidence of course.

Possibly not, but within reason a lower corporate tax level is worthwhile regardless of the presence or absence of donations. Better to incentivise the productive side of an economy rather than the unproductive dependency-by-choice side. More money in the economy is a good thing, not so good when it's in the hands of politicians.

Quite clearly if read, I have mentioned the word avoidance.

So having given you the benefit of the doubt, if you're referring to avoidance and yet say "if the correct and legal taxation were applied" then you're talking rubbish as avoidance is another way of describing payment of the correct (due) and legal amount of tax. It's already being applied.

crankedup said:

You seem to be diverting so far off the topic with you're replies it renders you're post worthy of a new thread.

Thanks - but if what you say is true, it happens merely from replying to other posts, in this case yours - so take a bow yourself.

As it happens, the title of the thread and recent posts coincide reasonably well. Have you had some potent juices recently?

Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 4th February 17:04

How very generous 'benefit of the doubt' indeed. Rather now that you have actually read my post to which you responded 'way off piste', you come back with more of you're nonsensical nit picking. The post could be interpreted wrongly I suppose but only you seem to manage that.

Rather random comments full stop, me thinks you have a need to post regardless of the content.

'if what you say is true' unworthy.

[crankedup]

JensenA said:

edh said:

Always depends how you slice the figures - where's that £50Bn coming from? Amuses me when firms justify their existence by being tax collectors for HMRC..

£3.8 Bn in corp tax & bank levy last year from the banking sector, total from "financial" sector ~£5.4Bn

So of the same order as manufacturing, distribution, and almost 4 x smaller than "other industrial"

Just think of the wealth we could generate if all those clever people were engaged in productive business sectors, and all that capital was put to productive use..

And what would all those clever people produce? Perhaps if you didn't buy a German car, and purchased a British one instead, then more people would be able to work in the 'productive' sector of the UK.

As the Government, at long last, recognises the current over dependence upon the banking sector being unproductive, other than generating some tax, we are moving back towards a Nation of 'making things' for export. The growing emphasis toward the upcoming professional's required within Pharmaceuticals, engineering, sciences bodes well as does continued high tech industry.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

edh said:

turbobloke said:

They are in a productive business sector and the capital is being put to productive use, it's perverse to suggest otherwise.

I see you've not offered a breakdown of the £50Bn claim though

Until now nobody had asked. As it happens PwC calculated the figure of £53,400,000,000 in 2010 for a bad year, and their breakdown not mine is covered here:

http://www.cityam.com/article/53000000000-how-much...

edh said:

If you mean taking a slice out of other people's efforts, then I suppose so..

You type it like it was true, when it's a caricature.

edh said:

Yes of course there is some function for banks to lend to businesses who want to invest in productive capacity. But how much of the capital is invested in productive enterprises? How much in property, and how much in speculation? Where do the profits come from?

Your definitions of productive and productivity as seen from posts are flawed. Predicating anything on them is flawed as a result, asking leading questions is pointless but you might direct them at the City of London Corporation or similar body with the information to hand, and report back.

50 Billion pounds, not far off what we the tax payers loaned to the 'brilliant' banks, saving their skins. At least we can rely upon our local waste collectors to carry out their tasks in a professional and timely manner.