Ripping off the state

[mjmooney]

[Dodgyknees]

I can see where you are all coming from, I just see people working hard for minimal benefit. My sister is about to have her third child and works godless hours, her husband is a work fiend and they cannot afford to live as well as this other person can.

I'll think this over.

[Troglodyte]

Of course huge companies not paying tax and such are infuriating. More so than people committing benefit fraud, in my opinion. However, it must be hard for you to see this person if they are indeed living the easy life while you and your family are working hard, and I'm sure that just ignoring it isn't really an option. If you think they're truly taking the piss (not just trying to make things easier for their kids, etc.) then I can totally understand why you'd want to shop them. It's not really a case of you having to choose whether you are most annoyed with high-level tax dodging or the person who's committing benefit fraud.

[lapal_fan]

On one hand it will change nothing.

On the other hand, at least you'll know you've done your part.

There's always someone, somewhere doing something worse (i.e. Google, Starbucks etc), but that doesn't make this problem any less of a problem.

It's difficult to do something like this because you'll get nothing in return. But then at least you can then say to people like your sister who works a lot and has kids that you don't know of anyone who is abusing the system.

[peterms]

It's not really a case of you having to choose whether you are most annoyed with high-level tax dodging or the person who's committing benefit fraud.

And yet, despite being told that

We're not going to get through this as a country if we set one group against another, if we divide, denounce and demonise...

we are also told, almost in the same breath, that

Where is the fairness, we ask, for the shift-worker, leaving home in the dark hours of the early morning, who looks up at the closed blinds of their next door neighbour sleeping off a life on benefits?

There has for a long time been an offensive against people on benefits, aimed exactly at dividing, denouncing and demonising. The popular press play up to it, with stories written up by the liquid-lunching, exes-blagging hacks for their taxdodging owners.

This doesn't happen alongside focussing attention on the corporate thieves who dump their tax burden on the rest of us, but instead of doing so. (The Mail has done an article on corporate tax-dodgers, and it stands out as a rare exception to the usual omerta).

If you think someone is clearly ripping off the system and it makes you angry, then report it. My point is that the greater anger should be directed at the bigger players and those who collude with them, and in practice, for most people, it isn't, because it's easier to get angry at the bloke down the road than the real thieves. It's misdirection, again.

[Troglodyte]

Don't disagree with any of that at all. I just can't see dodgyknees and the folks he is complaining about uniting any time soon against the greater greed of those who are the far bigger problem economically. I suppose this may be indicative of the division that is enforced by those with the power, but on an individual level it's difficult not to see why dodgyknees feels aggrieved in his circumstances, and I don't necessarily agree that him ignoring it is somehow beneficial as I don't think that would be an alternative to being angry at those who truly do live excessive lives at our expense.

But yes, there is a hell of a lot of misdirection, and anger and frustration should be directed at the types that you mentioned, certainly much more so than a neighbour unfairly claiming benefits.

[Awol]

Bottom line the guy claiming and working is a thief. If you saw someone stealing a car then you'd shop him. If you knew your boss was on the fiddle you'd shop him. The situation you describe is no different. Not being able to right the wrongs of the whole world is not a justification to do nothing about the things you can put right.

Don't listen to the rest of the moral equivalence on here, you're instinct was to do the right thing. Nothing's changed.

[GarethRDR]

If you saw someone stealing a car then you'd shop him. If you knew your boss was on the fiddle you'd shop him.

Can't read that without this in my head...

[Eames]

it's easier to get angry at the bloke down the road than the real thieves. It's misdirection, again.

And yet the law would appear to disagree with you - avoidance of tax through legal accounting practices is not the same as a) fraudulently submitting an incorrect tax return, dishonestly claiming a benefit to which you know you are not entitiled.

I'm not defending tax avoidance -far from it - nor am I an expert, but tax legislation in this country needs a total overhaul and simplification in order to ensure "fairness"

[peterms]

Not being able to right the wrongs of the whole world is not a justification to do nothing about the things you can put right.

It's not a view that anyone has put forward. It would be ludicrous to suggest that until you can personally end the outrages committed by big companies, you should do nothing at all about anything.

My point is that there's a lot of time and effort spent on teaching us to care a great deal about the little things, and not at all about the big things. And doing something about a little thing while also shrugging your shoulders about the bigger things, is colluding in being misdirected. It's no harder or more timeconsuming to send an e-mail to your MP about one, than to ring the benefits cheat hotline about the other. Probably less.

[Jon]

If I pay my mate to fit a new front door for me because that's the business his firm are in and he has the know how, and it's cash in hand job on a saturday at 'mates rates', am I a thief who needs reporting? Is my mate a tax dodger?

[Chindie]

If I pay my mate to fit a new front door for me because that's the business his firm are in and he has the know how, and it's cash in hand job on a saturday at 'mates rates', am I a thief who needs reporting? Is my mate a tax dodger?

Yes, and I've shopped you already. In fairness I also sent Khalid Mahmood an email saying tell Amazon to **** off.

[peterms]

And yet the law would appear to disagree with you - avoidance of tax through legal accounting practices is not the same as a) fraudulently submitting an incorrect tax return, dishonestly claiming a benefit to which you know you are not entitiled.

I'm not defending tax avoidance -far from it - nor am I an expert, but tax legislation in this country needs a total overhaul and simplification in order to ensure "fairness"

To take one example, Starbucks tell their shareholders that their UK operations make a profit, but they tell HMRC that they make a loss.

They do this by buying their coffee beans from Starbucks Netherlands at an artificially set price, and paying a royalty fee to another bit of Starbucks in a secrecy jurisdiction - Switzerland, is it? - which again is not an open market price, but a wholly artificially constructed bit of transfer pricing aimed entirely at avoiding paying tax here, while benefitting from all the things that our taxes pay for, from the education and healthcare of their staff to the roads that their supply vehicles drive on to the legal system that enables them to operate at all.

In what way is that different from some dodgy plumber charging one price for cash and recording another in his accounts? Not at all, apart from one having the cloak of legality provided by legal and accounting chicanery, and the other not. In the real world, there's no difference at all.

Yes, the tax system needs a thorough overhaul.

[Jon]

If I pay my mate to fit a new front door for me because that's the business his firm are in and he has the know how, and it's cash in hand job on a saturday at 'mates rates', am I a thief who needs reporting? Is my mate a tax dodger?

Yes, and I've shopped you already. In fairness I also sent Khalid Mahmood an email saying tell Amazon to **** off.

In fairness, he did do a very good job!

[Eames]

To take one example, Starbucks tell their shareholders that their UK operations make a profit, but they tell HMRC that they make a loss.

They do this by buying their coffee beans from Starbucks Netherlands at an artificially set price, and paying a royalty fee to another bit of Starbucks in a secrecy jurisdiction - Switzerland, is it? - which again is not an open market price, but a wholly artificially constructed bit of transfer pricing aimed entirely at avoiding paying tax here, while benefitting from all the things that our taxes pay for, from the education and healthcare of their staff to the roads that their supply vehicles drive on to the legal system that enables them to operate at all.

In what way is that different from some dodgy plumber charging one price for cash and recording another in his accounts? Not at all, apart from one having the cloak of legality provided by legal and accounting chicanery, and the other not. In the real world, there's no difference at all.

Yes, the tax system needs a thorough overhaul.

Technically there is no difference - but morally, because of the sums involved, the plumber with his cash in hand is more palatable and people see a benefit of the evasion. Presumably the only people benefitting from Starbucks is the faceless "shareholders" and their dividends.

[Awol]

My point is that there's a lot of time and effort spent on teaching us to care a great deal about the little things, and not at all about the big things.

I'm not sure it is down to being taught, people know when something they see offends them on a moral level, it is more perhaps a feeling of helplessness when confronted with Starbucks, Vodaphone et al.

It's no harder or more timeconsuming to send an e-mail to your MP about one, than to ring the benefits cheat hotline about the other. Probably less.

Agreed and people should kick off more about all sorts of stuff they know to be wrong. Perhaps the focus should be on how to get those people to do as you suggest in relation to the big stuff, rather than dismiss the importance of also dealing with the little things - which when rolled together still represent a huge amount of public money that is then not available to school kids, sick people, etc.

[peterms]

Technically there is no difference - but morally, because of the sums involved, the plumber with his cash in hand is more palatable and people see a benefit of the evasion. Presumably the only people benefitting from Starbucks is the faceless "shareholders" and their dividends.

Another concern is that the idea of "free competition" doesn't seem to apply. The little neighbourhood cafe run by someone who works long hours and struggles to get by is likely to be paying more tax than this massive competitor. So much for supporting small business.

[peterms]

I'm not sure it is down to being taught, people know when something they see offends them on a moral level, it is more perhaps a feeling of helplessness when confronted with Starbucks, Vodaphone et al.

Agreed and people should kick off more about all sorts of stuff they know to be wrong. Perhaps the focus should be on how to get those people to do as you suggest in relation to the big stuff, rather than dismiss the importance of also dealing with the little things - which when rolled together still represent a huge amount of public money that is then not available to school kids, sick people, etc.

I think we can agree.

That's not supposed to happen.

[Eames]

Another concern is that the idea of "free competition" doesn't seem to apply. The little neighbourhood cafe run by someone who works long hours and struggles to get by is likely to be paying more tax than this massive competitor. So much for supporting small business.

That has been going on since the dawn of time - its the fault of successive governments. But all the more reason to support the little cafe. I also guarantee 99/100 the coffee will be better as well.

[AVFC_Hitz]

To me, Amazon and Starbucks paying no tax does not directly affect me as much as the bloke defrauding the benefits system. Starbucks are still providing jobs to British people although it no way gets them off the hook with me. However, Dave from number 42 claiming single occupancy on his council tax and claiming income support riles me because it's something I could do but choose not to on moral grounds. It will still get back to me if, one day, I'm unemployed and declare it truthfully and get the correct benefits on the back of it. Whilst others take the piss based on lies. What I'm trying to say is, morally I have more of a problem with man on the street rather than the big corps.