Comments

2 responses to “It’s not wrong to avoid tax | David Giampaolo and Geoffrey Wood # slightly astonished to find this in the Grauniad”

1. 2012/12/12

   Simon Waters

   They seem to be saying that the law is the final arbiter of ethical principles – I think it rather sad if that is their view.

   They also seem to be assuming what Starbucks have done is legal, it might be wise to withhold judgment on that till the HMRC have finished with them.

   The claim that the more tax a company avoids the more its owners will pay is simply laughable.

   They deploy also the tired and defeated arguments of tickle-down economics. Or the rich pissing on the poor as it has been described.

   If Starbucks siphon off UK profits to avoid tax by doubtful methods you can be sure that little if any tax will be paid as this money is transitioned to the pockets of the people who control the company. It certainly won’t be paid into the UK coffers.

   If it had been taken as tax it would likely be spent in the UK by the government making our lives better.

   I agree with them that tax laws probably need adjustment (and enforcement), but ultimately in complex company arrangements it is all to easy for people to hide or move money. Witness the manipulation of contracts to shuffle profits out of South West Water (where they are regulated) to other companies, allowing them to inflate the price of water in the South West. Ultimately we need external auditing to prevent and avoid these kinds of issue, which is why HMRC are getting more cash.

   Reply
   1. 2012/12/12

      alecm

      I think they’re saying that the law is the law, and if ethical principles don’t match the law then one or other should bend or be ignored.

      Makes sense to me.

      Reply