Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Risso]

 As said, and as many are saying the method used is one that benefits many charities and other organisations. Tax is still paid etc

 

Oops

 

Tax is still paid, just not as much as might have been otherwise.  Nothing illegal or untoward of course, but they have still avoided paying tax by structuring their affairs in a certain way.  Perfectly OK when MPs and political parties do it it seems (Including all the MPs who flipped their second houses etc) but when Joe Public or big companies do it, it suddenly becomes "morally repugnant".  Please note this isn't a party political point as they really all are as bad as each other.

[drat01]

 

It seems that Cameron is off to the Bilderberg meeting Wasn't Cameron the one who was claim transparent Gvmt?

isn't it traditional for the head of the government hosting the meeting to attend ?

 

why else would Tony Blair and Gordon Brown ( as well as Heath & Thatcher )  have attended previously

 

 

:-) - Oh Tony some things never change do they?

 

Ahhhh But L ...........

 

So the "transparency" thing was just a lie basically - one of many by Cameron?  - This is of course following Osborne and Ken Clarke attending similar meetings, I suppose they had stolen Cameron's hat and went disguised as the PM? The fact that there are no civil servants accompanying him sort of kills off Cameron's BS before, no? Did anyone mention lobbying? :-)

 

This is not a Tory / Labour or any political party thing, it's basically another perfect example of the lies and utter BS that people in politics spout

Edited June 7, 2013 by drat01

[bickster]

With the Labour donation thing, correct me if I'm wrong but couldn't the exchequer benefit in the long term as the yearly dividends will be taxable and any profit if the shares are sold is also taxable? Not by any means an expert in this field so I'd welcome correction.

But going back to the google, starbucks et al thing. I had a great deal of sympathy with what Mr Google was saying, it isn't googles job to pay any extra tax they don't actually have to pay (ignoring the lying about uk activity for a minute), it is the govt's job to clarify the tax laws and change it to what is appropriate but one suspects that will never happen, too many donors or indeed politicians themselves would lose out wouldn't they, being the hypocrites of whatever colour they are

[tonyh29]

when was Thatcher in the labour party  ?

 

Downing street told you he was going didn't they  isn't that transparent enough

[blandy]

But going back to the google, starbucks et al thing. I had a great deal of sympathy with what Mr Google was saying, it isn't googles job to pay any extra tax they don't actually have to pay (ignoring the lying about uk activity for a minute), it is the govt's job to clarify the tax laws and change it to what is appropriate but one suspects that will never happen, too many donors or indeed politicians themselves would lose out wouldn't they, being the hypocrites of whatever colour they are

Exactly. I think I've written this before, but the directors of a company are basically obliged to make decisions in the best interests of that Company. If that (from their perspective) includes legally (and without fibbing about their activities) minimising their tax bill, then they will. I don't think, morally, the likes of Google are doing the "right" thing, and nor does anyone else.

The politicians make a lot of noise about it, but they don't seem to want to actually act together to update the law, either nationally or internationally.

[tonyh29]

 

But going back to the google, starbucks et al thing. I had a great deal of sympathy with what Mr Google was saying, it isn't googles job to pay any extra tax they don't actually have to pay (ignoring the lying about uk activity for a minute), it is the govt's job to clarify the tax laws and change it to what is appropriate but one suspects that will never happen, too many donors or indeed politicians themselves would lose out wouldn't they, being the hypocrites of whatever colour they are

Exactly. I think I've written this before, but the directors of a company are basically obliged to make decisions in the best interests of that Company. If that (from their perspective) includes legally (and without fibbing about their activities) minimising their tax bill, then they will. I don't think, morally, the likes of Google are doing the "right" thing, and nor does anyone else.

The politicians make a lot of noise about it, but they don't seem to want to actually act together to update the law, either nationally or internationally.

 

 

 

indeed  ... but those company directors  don't bleat to the public about "tax avoidance is wrong"  whilst robbing the exchequer of £1.46m 

[snowychap]

I think I've written this before, but the directors of a company are basically obliged to make decisions in the best interests of that Company.

In doing that they are legally obliged to have regard for a number of things one of which is the impact of their company's operations on the community. Edited June 7, 2013 by snowychap

[peterms]

 

But going back to the google, starbucks et al thing. I had a great deal of sympathy with what Mr Google was saying, it isn't googles job to pay any extra tax they don't actually have to pay (ignoring the lying about uk activity for a minute), it is the govt's job to clarify the tax laws and change it to what is appropriate but one suspects that will never happen, too many donors or indeed politicians themselves would lose out wouldn't they, being the hypocrites of whatever colour they are

Exactly. I think I've written this before, but the directors of a company are basically obliged to make decisions in the best interests of that Company. If that (from their perspective) includes legally (and without fibbing about their activities) minimising their tax bill, then they will. I don't think, morally, the likes of Google are doing the "right" thing, and nor does anyone else.

The politicians make a lot of noise about it, but they don't seem to want to actually act together to update the law, either nationally or internationally.

 

 

We can clearly distinguish between using tax allowances and concessions which are created in order to fulfil a social purpose (such as encouraging capital investment, or employment, or whatever, and much of what goes on.

 

Leaving aside downright illegality, there's a whole range of things like calling employees "contractors", arranging paper transactions between subsidiaries to conceal where economic activity has taken place, and lots more.  At the upper end, firms place their staff in government as advisers, technical specialists and the like, so that big accountancy firms have their staff on secondment to the Treasury to write (and further complicate) the tax code, then advise clients on how to use the loopholes they have deliberately created for their own profit.

 

This is by no stretch of the imagination the duty of company directors to shareholders.  It is systematic, entrenched corruption.  The icing on the cake is that these grasping parasites then come bleating about how they are only acting responsibly.  It makes me heave.

[colhint]

Just a thought on companies seriously avoiding Tax on the starbucks scale. By law they have to have an AGM and report accounts etc. So if they are telling HMRC one thing, very little profit. Then telling the shareholders another, luverly jubberly profits. Couldn't the gov Suspend all trading in their shares, until its resolved, maybe give it a month. Maybe shut down operations. I reckon you would only have to do it a few times and they would all be on side

[blandy]

I think I've written this before, but the directors of a company are basically obliged to make decisions in the best interests of that Company.

In doing that they are legally obliged to have regard for a number of things one of which is the impact of their company's operations on the community.

Indeed they are, but I suspect they would argue that their decisions to "save" their Co. money is a greater good for their Co. than the impact they have on the community via paying more tax. I'm not saying I share that view, but I can defintiely see a case there.

 

We can clearly distinguish between using tax allowances and concessions which are created in order to fulfil a social purpose (such as encouraging capital investment, or employment, or whatever, and much of what goes on.

 

Leaving aside downright illegality, there's a whole range of things like calling employees "contractors", arranging paper transactions between subsidiaries to conceal where economic activity has taken place, and lots more.  At the upper end, firms place their staff in government as advisers, technical specialists and the like, so that big accountancy firms have their staff on secondment to the Treasury to write (and further complicate) the tax code, then advise clients on how to use the loopholes they have deliberately created for their own profit.

 

This is by no stretch of the imagination the duty of company directors to shareholders.  It is systematic, entrenched corruption.  The icing on the cake is that these grasping parasites then come bleating about how they are only acting responsibly.  It makes me heave.

And understandably so. It's the nature of most companies to essentially exploit "conditions" to their advantage. It's unfortuntely a wide ranging piece of human nature. Not every human, obviously, but enough to do huge damage to the environment, to national fortunes and to Society.

[snowychap]

Indeed they are, but I suspect they would argue that their decisions to "save" their Co. money is a greater good for their Co. than the impact they have on the community via paying more tax. I'm not saying I share that view, but I can defintiely see a case there.

But that isn't the argument that these businesses (or indeed the media and others) make.

The argument is put forward that they have to make those decisions because to do otherwise would be a dereliction of what they claim is their only 'duty', i.e. getting the best (or highest) return for their shareholders.

What they really mean is that is the only instance (amongst their general duties) when they may be in danger of having someone take them to task for failure (be it the company or one of its members).

Perhaps we should look at public enforcement of directors' duties rather than private enforcement.

Edited June 7, 2013 by snowychap

[Risso]

 

Indeed they are, but I suspect they would argue that their decisions to "save" their Co. money is a greater good for their Co. than the impact they have on the community via paying more tax. I'm not saying I share that view, but I can defintiely see a case there.

But that isn't the argument that these businesses (or indeed the media and others) make.

The argument is put forward that they have to make those decisions because to do otherwise would be a dereliction of what they claim is their only 'duty', i.e. getting the best (or highest) return for their shareholders.

What they really mean is that is the only instance (amongst their general duties) when they may be in danger of having someone take them to task for failure (be it the company or one of its members).

Perhaps we should look at public enforcement of directors' duties rather than private enforcement.

 

 

They could also argue that saving tax allows them to employ more people in local communities.

[StefanAVFC]

As the days go by, my contempt for Gove grows and grows. Not for any particular reason, but when I wake up, I'm instantly reminded of how much I hate him. He's the first thing I see when I get up and the last thing I curse before I go to bed.

 

Michael Gove.

 

I hate you.

[villaajax]

As the days go by, my contempt for Gove grows and grows. Not for any particular reason, but when I wake up, I'm instantly reminded of how much I hate him. He's the first thing I see when I get up and the last thing I curse before I go to bed.

 

Michael Gove.

 

I hate you.

 

You should take his poster off your wall.

[StefanAVFC]

 

As the days go by, my contempt for Gove grows and grows. Not for any particular reason, but when I wake up, I'm instantly reminded of how much I hate him. He's the first thing I see when I get up and the last thing I curse before I go to bed.

 

Michael Gove.

 

I hate you.

 

You should take his poster off your wall.

 

 

But then what would I use as a dartboard?

[villaajax]

[tonyh29]

As the days go by, my contempt for Gove grows and grows. Not for any particular reason, but when I wake up, I'm instantly reminded of how much I hate him. He's the first thing I see when I get up and the last thing I curse before I go to bed.

Michael Gove.

I hate you.

Any rational reason for this hatred ?

[villaajax]

 

As the days go by, my contempt for Gove grows and grows. Not for any particular reason, but when I wake up, I'm instantly reminded of how much I hate him. He's the first thing I see when I get up and the last thing I curse before I go to bed.

Michael Gove.

I hate you.

Any rational reason for this hatred ?

 

 

Do you know who Michael Gove is?

[chrisp65]

 

still dead

[peterms]

 

 

Indeed they are, but I suspect they would argue that their decisions to "save" their Co. money is a greater good for their Co. than the impact they have on the community via paying more tax. I'm not saying I share that view, but I can defintiely see a case there.

But that isn't the argument that these businesses (or indeed the media and others) make.

The argument is put forward that they have to make those decisions because to do otherwise would be a dereliction of what they claim is their only 'duty', i.e. getting the best (or highest) return for their shareholders.

What they really mean is that is the only instance (amongst their general duties) when they may be in danger of having someone take them to task for failure (be it the company or one of its members).

Perhaps we should look at public enforcement of directors' duties rather than private enforcement.

 

 

They could also argue that saving tax allows them to employ more people in local communities.

 

 

As in, it allows them to employ more cleaners, cooks, gardeners, nannies, chauffeurs, caddies, greenkeepers, gamekeepers, pool attendants, and general gofers?

 

I don't think a return to the 17th century, patronage, the corrupt moneyed elite sexually exploiting the servants, is the basis for a modern economy.  But I recognise that some people do think that.