Tax dodging is not only limited to the UK

[ahinton]

Frankly, no! Life's too short to be fretting about having HMRC on my tail. Pay what you're due and re-laaaax :biggrin:

But I think that what RM's talking about here, given his use of the term "legally", is ways of saving tax about which one can be wholly open with HMRC in advance, in which case there should be no risk of having it "on one's tail" thereafter as a consequence of implementing such saving exercises; also, paying "what you're due" to HMRC is dependent upon them assessing you correctly in the first place - and there's no guarantee that they won't charge you too much or too little tax through no fault of your own.

[ahinton]

One of the issues that exercises many people arises from the fact that corporation tax rates vary widely not only from time to time but from country to country and it is the latter that gives rise to the competitive corporate taxation market. It would never be possible to achieve universal international agreement on a rate or rates or corporation tax in order to remove the competitive element from the corporate taxation market - unless, of course, one country were to take the bold step of abolishing it altogether, which would likely force other jurisdictions to follow suit fairly rapidly. Whether this, if done in Britain, could be achieved in such a way as to benefit workers rather than shareholders is a moot point but, if money so saved had to be used solely to fund business expansion and more employment, it might just work; I'm not saying that it would work, because I do not profess to know, but I do have a suspicion of any tax arrangements that tax the same funds more than once - and corporation tax is in most cases one example of this, where a company that pays it also pays taxes to employ workers who in turn pay taxes themselves.

[teamsaint]

AH, the "problem" of money being taxed more than once is surely not worth worrying about. It is just inevitable.

The problem on what to do to deal with a diminishing CT base is worth considering. It is already probably at around 5% of total tax revenues and falling, at a time when corporate profits are rising.
There is a structural problem. If the big companies get (what I think is) their way ,and CT becomes not worth collecting, there may well have to be a move to make up the difference , and that inevitably means through a switch to more taxes on income, property and spending.
Its not impossible that this might be made to work, (EG shareholder dividends would rise benefiting worker /shareholders) but a lot of people might think that it is scandalous that rich powerful companies should avoid moral obligations like this.

[ahinton]

AH, the "problem" of money being taxed more than once is surely not worth worrying about. It is just inevitable.

I don't see how it can be, given that some monies are taxed only once and others more than once.

The problem on what to do to deal with a diminishing CT base is worth considering. It is already probably at around 5% of total tax revenues and falling, at a time when corporate profits are rising.
There is a structural problem. If the big companies get (what I think is) their way ,and CT becomes not worth collecting, there may well have to be a move to make up the difference , and that inevitably means through a switch to more taxes on income, property and spending.
Its not impossible that this might be made to work, (EG shareholder dividends would rise benefiting worker /shareholders) but a lot of people might think that it is scandalous that rich powerful companies should avoid moral obligations like this.

But I think that what also needs to be considered is just what those moral responsibilities are, specifically how the moral responsibility to pay taxes that are rightfully due balances against the moral responsibility to expand operations so that they can employ more people, thereby generating more tax revenues from more employees and reducing the government's benefit liability. As I say, I'm not sure that this could be made to work, but I do think that it's worth considering, provided that anything that's tried does not mean that firms can simply pocket more money for shareholders and not use the tax savings to increase employment. If it could be made to work, there'd be no obvious need to make up the difference by increasing taxes on income property and spending other, perhaps, than in the short term while it settles down, because once tax revenues from new employees' incomes and spending more than makes up for losses in CT, such increases ought not to be necessary. There may be holes in this argument and I'm sure that some here will find them (which is fine!), but I thought it worth putting forward nevertheless.

[teamsaint]

I don't see how it can be, given that some monies are taxed only once and others more than once.


But I think that what also needs to be considered is just what those moral responsibilities are, specifically how the moral responsibility to pay taxes that are rightfully due balances against the moral responsibility to expand operations so that they can employ more people, thereby generating more tax revenues from more employees and reducing the government's benefit liability. As I say, I'm not sure that this could be made to work, but I do think that it's worth considering, provided that anything that's tried does not mean that firms can simply pocket more money for shareholders and not use the tax savings to increase employment. If it could be made to work, there'd be no obvious need to make up the difference by increasing taxes on income property and spending other, perhaps, than in the short term while it settles down, because once tax revenues from new employees' incomes and spending more than makes up for losses in CT, such increases ought not to be necessary. There may be holes in this argument and I'm sure that some here will find them (which is fine!), but I thought it worth putting forward nevertheless.

I think i agree with you, in the sense that I think we agree that there has to be a pragmatic element to tax collection, as well as some sort of moral/ethical basis.
I don't see what you are saying about money getting taxed more than once. It will just happen. Money has to flow, and when it does, it gets taxed, often several times.

[teamsaint]

good news for fans of Apple, all the cash they have ($145 Bn) should help keep prices of their shiny gadgets down, after they have paid their taxes like you and me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/01/apple-tax-debt-move

Oh........

(Edit, read down the article, and you will se that they are lobbying for more tax breaks...meanwhile, in other news, some Bears in the woods take a comfort break......)

[amateur51]

good news for fans of Apple, all the cash they have ($145 Bn) should help keep prices of their shiny gadgets down, after they have paid their taxes like you and me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/01/apple-tax-debt-move

Oh........

(Edit, read down the article, and you will se that they are lobbying for more tax breaks...meanwhile, in other news, some Bears in the woods take a comfort break......)

It took me a moment, teams :erm::biggrin:

[ahinton]

I don't see what you are saying about money getting taxed more than once. It will just happen. Money has to flow, and when it does, it gets taxed, often several times.

That's perhaps because i was insufficiently clear; what I meant to refer to was not so much monies taxed more than once but taxpayers being taxed more than once on the same funds.

[teamsaint]

That's perhaps because i was insufficiently clear; what I meant to refer to was not so much monies taxed more than once but taxpayers being taxed more than once on the same funds.

ah. Well there is more chance of dealing with some aspects of that, I agree.
Corporate Money being taxed at all (in some cases) is more pressing though, I think we can agree !!

[Word]

good news for fans of Apple, all the cash they have ($145 Bn) should help keep prices of their shiny gadgets down, after they have paid their taxes like you and me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/01/apple-tax-debt-move

Oh........

(Edit, read down the article, and you will se that they are lobbying for more tax breaks...meanwhile, in other news, some Bears in the woods take a comfort break......)

Speaking as someone not in the US I'm all for Apple choosing to avoid paying 35% tax by not 'repatriating' their overseas cash reserves. Hopefully, instead, they'll reinvest it in the regions and markets in which it was earned (favouring the UK, of course, given our shared language ;)).

For the same reason I'm not in favour of the tax 'holiday' they're seeking, but those have happened in the past (the last time in 2004, I think) so I'm sure they'll happen again once the US government decides a smaller percentage of something is better than 35% of nothing.

[teamsaint]

well Margaret Hodge should know about this stuff if anybody does...:whistle:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d1193b70-be2b-11e2-bb35-00144feab7de.html#axzz2TU7dlEWF

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businesslatestnews/9668396/Margaret-Hodges-family-company-pays-just-0.01pc-tax-on-2.1bn-of-business-generated-in-the-UK.html

at least there is an expert on the case.

[Serial_Apologist]

well Margaret Hodge should know about this stuff if anybody does...:whistle:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d1193b70-be2b-11e2-bb35-00144feab7de.html#axzz2TU7dlEWF

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businesslatestnews/9668396/Margaret-Hodges-family-company-pays-just-0.01pc-tax-on-2.1bn-of-business-generated-in-the-UK.html

at least there is an expert on the case.

A tax hodge

[ahinton]

Anyway, it appears that all that stuff about Starbucks deciding of its own volition some while ago to give a £20m charitable (tax-relieved?) donation to HMRC as a PR exercise seems yet to have resulted in a penny being passed from the former to the latter, as the former is evidently still "in negotiations with" the latter - and, while we all wait (not) for the outcome of those negotiations, it also seems that Amazon paid less in UK tax than it received from the UK government in grants; I have to admit that I'd have little if any problem with paying taxes on my business if I could rest assured that the government to whom I was due to remit them would have funded those payments in advance and leave some change over therefrom...

[ahinton]

A tax hodge

Or maybe even a hodge fund...

[Serial_Apologist]

Or maybe even a hodge fund...

:biggrin: