We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Should Tax avoiding firms be named and shamed
Comments
-
grizzly1911 wrote: »Tax-avoiding firms should not be named and shamed, says minister Danny Alexander refuses to endorse MPs' suggestion that companies failing to pay fair share of tax be publicly identified
A senior minister has ruled out the naming and shaming of companies that are paying little or no corporation tax.
Danny Alexander, chief secretary to the Treasury, said such a move was not a good idea because it would breach taxpayer confidentiality.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/dec/03/tax-avoiding-firms-not-named-shamed
It's the equivalent of naming and shaming individuals for using their ISA allowance...0 -
chewmylegoff wrote: »It's the equivalent of naming and shaming individuals for using their ISA allowance...
Been on holiday?
The government specifically tells people ISAs are available and expects them to use them within defined limits.I don't know whether the government monitor ISAs but they presumable forecast and what the impact will be on HMRC.
Transfer charging (or whatever it is called) may be legal but I doubt they expect it to be abused. I am sure they expect fair utilisation. Consider broadband, unlimited download (fixed fee), if Pirates 1,2,3 want to hog the bandwidth the starve everyone else. If the broadbrand provider can't afford more infrastructure or to buy additional bandwidth from elsewhere then Pirates 1,2,3 need to be reassessed.
There is always a warning shot, Jimmy Carr was one for private individuals, the coffe and internet brigade another now it is upto HMRC to follow through. Whether there is a political will to do it and whether HMRC are competent to do it remains to be seen. Does the cost negate the return?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Consider broadband, unlimited download (fixed fee), if Pirates 1,2,3 want to hog the bandwidth the starve everyone else. If the broadbrand provider can't afford more infrastructure or to buy additional bandwidth from elsewhere then Pirates 1,2,3 need to be reassessed.
I'm not sure that is the best example to use: A company is selling a limited service but marketing it as unlimited. The government should never have allowed this to become industry practice because it is misleading to customers.
Tax law is exactly the same. We publish 1000s of pages of rules which companies like Amazon are following and complaining that following the rules doesn't lead to the result we wanted. It seems to me like the solution is to simplify the law and stop creating tax incentives/exemptions etc for everything.
A simply solution that would have solved the Amazon and Starbucks abuse would be to decrease corporation tax and increase VAT (which appears to be harder to dodge).Having a signature removed for mentioning the removal of a previous signature. Blackwhite bellyfeel double plus good...0 -
A simply solution that would have solved the Amazon and Starbucks abuse would be to decrease corporation tax and increase VAT (which appears to be harder to dodge).
True but corporation B earns x profit under current arrangement.
Increase VAT no effect on company B they simply pass on the charge and forward it exchequer. VAT would have to be increased for all retailers.
In a perfect world they would reduce price to retain market share and custom but to do so they will lose profit. I doubt that will happen, the consumer will end up paying more. Perhaps not the full amount I accept as their may be a bit of pain sharing.
Widening the scope perhaps a higher VAT rate should be charged on luxury items. Before someone says it, I know it is verboten, under EU law, to have more rates.."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
I'm not sure that is the best example to use: A company is selling a limited service but marketing it as unlimited. The government should never have allowed this to become industry practice because it is misleading to customers.
Why not - it is unlimited subject to fair usage. and there is a finite pipe. if someone is abusing it then someone else goes without.
The governement has a certain tax revenue it needs to collect. If someone is not contributing a fair amount, avoiding it, then somebody else has to take up the slack.
At the end of the day what goes around comes around it just depends on where the burden falls and whether that can be absorbed fairly."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Name and shame the MPs who are refusing the change the law so that companies can no longer avoid paying tax.Happiness is buying an item and then not checking its price after a month to discover it was reduced further.0
-
-
zygurat789 wrote: »But isn't that a political donation?
Not if you are giving money to "the Public Purse" rather than to the actual party/ies in government.0 -
Legality is not morality. It's legal to cheat on your partner. I don't think cheating on partners should be legislated against but if I found out someone had a track record of cheating I wouldn't want to shack up with them.
Mr Google, Mr Amazon and Mr !!!!!bucks are the tax version of loverats. If they think they can get away with it they will.Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron0 -
Hello ninky, good to see you back again.Please stay safe in the sun and learn the A-E of melanoma: A = asymmetry, B = irregular borders, C= different colours, D= diameter, larger than 6mm, E = evolving, is your mole changing? Most moles are not cancerous, any doubts, please check next time you visit your GP.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards