Better Nation

47 Comments

• #1 by aonghas on February 24, 2011 - 9:21 am

  

  UKUncut really is the epitome of Twitter – uninformed shouty people reinforcing each others’ outrage.

  An HMRC spokesperson said: “We cannot comment on the detail of the settlement but we can confirm that it was reached by HMRC following a rigorous examination of the facts and an intensive process of negotiation that tested the arguments of both parties.
  “As a result it was agreed that Vodafone’s liability was £1.25 billion and at no point was a liability greater than that established. There is no question of Vodafone having an outstanding tax liability of £6 billion. That number is an urban myth.”

  Screw the facts, we want the money! GIVE US THE MONEYYYY!!!!

  • #2 by Jeff on February 24, 2011 - 10:35 am

    

    Fair points, and I don’t know the detail of Vodafone’s tax liabilities so I’m no disciple of UK Uncut by a long chalk.

    However, if there was a perception that the Government was right on big businesses tails in terms of paying the right amount of tax then there would be no space for such bodies as UK Uncut to exist. The tax cuts delivered by Osborne, both directly to Corporation Tax and via the jawdropping reduction in tax on foreign income, allow the oxygen for protest groups to breathe, regardless of how baloney the figures may or may not be.

• #3 by Nobby Clark on February 24, 2011 - 9:29 am

  

  “the official Opposition, be it Labour in London or SNP in Edinburgh”

  Wishful thinking re the SNP?

  • #4 by James on February 24, 2011 - 10:47 am

    

    I think what Jeff meant to say is that the SNP here should be part of the opposition to the Tories in London. The fact that they’ve cosied up to the Tories at every opportunity rather weakens that position though.

• #5 by Gryff on February 24, 2011 - 9:55 am

  

  I’d be more convinced if Vodafone wasn’t the only provider to get halfway reliable signal in the parliament.

  Also if Green’s expect to eventually be close to power, and claim to be any better than anyone else, they should probably give stupid policies that make political sense a wide berth – look what happened to the LDs over Tuition Fees.

• #6 by Indy on February 24, 2011 - 10:14 am

  

  This is just a gimmick. What I think would be more interesting would be to look at whether we can put a legal obligation on public bodies only to enter into contracts with companies that pay their fair share of tax. I don’t know how easy that would be to do but it could be something that the parties could look at because there would probably be agreement on that.

  • #7 by James on February 24, 2011 - 10:48 am

    

    Tricia Marwick said in answer that the SPCB already have a clause in that direction. I’d be surprised as a loyal SNP supporter if you thought she’d endorse “a gimmick”.

• #8 by Indy on February 24, 2011 - 12:25 pm

  

  I am not clear what you are saying there – are you saying that Tricia Marwick said that the SPCB has a clause that requires companies to demonstrate that they pay full UK corporation tax on their profits before being awarded a contract?

• #9 by CassiusClaymore on February 24, 2011 - 1:38 pm

  

  So, are the Greens going to stop reading the Guardian, GMG being second to no-one in aggressive UK tax avoidance utilising offshore jurisdictions?

  CC

• #10 by CassiusClaymore on February 24, 2011 - 1:40 pm

  

  PS I might be more sympathetic to this latest Green policy if a Scottish Treasury actually was the beneficiary of the taxation in question.

• #11 by Douglas McLellan on February 24, 2011 - 2:11 pm

  

  The attacks on Vodafone are weird in many respects. It is for a country as a tax collecting authority to collect all the tax it deems each entity (person or company) that is liable to pay tax.

  If an entity avoids paying tax through breaking the law, then the full legal might of the state should be brought to bare on that entity. If a country is not happy with the amount of taxes a company is paying then it should investigate it and make a clear assessment as to the tax liability.

  Tax is an instrument of the state. If the state didn’t have a tax system, entities would not arbitrarily create one. All responsibility for setting rates of tax, assessing tax and collection of tax falls to the state. If anybody wants to change the tax system it is the state that they should lobby.

  When I pointed this position out to the Greens yesterday it was compared to the violent racism of apartheid South Africa. http://bit.ly/eYs0h6

  That is the problem with cheap stunts. There is little analysis or truth behind the message that is being conveyed. I was going to tweet asking about how many copies of the Guardian (who use schemes to reduce tax bills) are in the Greens offices. Or point out that the host of the Scottish Greens website views Google as a trusted associated despite Googles infamous Dutch Sandwich.

  The Scottish Greens have some good and interesting policies, some of which are the only ones that make real sense (fish stocks for example). And when Robin Green was leader they had a real profile that was based on constructive and informed policies. Since Patrick Harvie became leader they have jumped on every left-wing band wagon going. Which is a real pity.

  • #12 by Jeff on February 24, 2011 - 3:26 pm

    

    Fair points Douglas, though still a bit harsh on the Greens if you ask me.

    Companies can of course legally take advantage of loopholes but as consumers we get to decide to what degree such profit-fuelling business decisions are fair game. I go out of my way to not shop at Tesco because I am of the opinion that they are not making a fair contribution to society, financial or otherwise. People are free to agree or disagree accordingly but it’s my choice to make. The Parliament is also a consumer as well as a lawmaker so, although I agree there is a stunt element to it, abandoning Vodafone remains a perfectly valid and common sense option for the Parliament if enough people feel as Patrick do.

    Tax rules can technically be circumvented but there is surely also a spirit of the rules that, while not legally enforceable, is applicable when we decide which companies we like or dislike. I don’t know how many tax accountants Vodafone (or Tesco) or whoever has but that’s usually a fair barometer of how keen they are on avoiding paying tax.

    At the end of the day, we are all probably somewhere on the spectrum of (1) never thinking that big super-profit companies are paying their share and (2) not wanting to ruffle the feathers of the big boys and always meekly accepting the status quo. Is it not worth erring on the side of busting big business’ chops if there’s possibly a few bob in it?

    • #13 by Douglas McLellan on February 24, 2011 - 11:21 pm

      

      If we have elected politicians advocating the breaking of a legal contract why should ordinary people who sign up for phone deals not be able to do the same if they feel that their supplier, whilst acting legally, is not operating to the the moral standards that the person sets? There would be chaos. By all means, the SPCB can seek to change supplier based on a set of unclear moral criteria but surely that would be a legal challenge.

      If enough people felt as Patrick does then the Greens would be/about to be a very large party in the Scottish Parliament. But bandwagons are not that popular for voters.

      If we had a much more simple tax system there would be fewer opportunities to use tax minimising schemes that are legal. One of the problems is that every economic transaction is taxed, a tax system that can leave people with tax bills that they didn’t know they were liable for, a tax system that taxes the saving of money, the spending of money and the transferring of money. As for companies operating internationally the system must be horrendous. Our tax system is greedy and seeks to take money that hasn’t been earned in the UK even when it has been taxed elsewhere. A consequence of this is that Usain Bolt won’t be in Glasgow.

      Research has shown that the biggest advocates of actual tax avoidance is the public in general. Small businesses, in particular the service/construction sector, report that many individual customers ask for ‘homers’ or ‘cash-in-hand’ jobs.

      Personal choices are fine. Often personal choices are based on a whole range of factors of which ethical positioning is one. You are against Tesco which is fine. I am not a fan of their landbank tactics and the impact of the the smaller cornershop premises on local communities. I think their tax situation is non-controversial so, on a purely financial basis, they contribute taxes and jobs to the UK economy and I cant see how they don’t contribute financially enough. Can a business be too profitable? What about profits made overseas? Can they be too high to be acceptable?

      Asda and Sainsburys are no better than Tesco at home or abroad. Can I ask if you avoid them as well?

      • #14 by Jeff on February 25, 2011 - 11:36 am

        

        “Asda and Sainsburys are no better than Tesco at home or abroad. Can I ask if you avoid them as well?”

        I do, yes. Haven’t been in either for months, if not a year.

        • #15 by Douglas McLellan on February 25, 2011 - 12:31 pm

          

          Excellent. I know a few people who righteously avoid Tesco but slavishly enter Asda every week.

          I am lucky in that my local deli, farmers market, coffee shop and Co-Op meet all but one of my needs. I think that large supermarkets are a real problem but I also think that arbitrary taxes achieve nothing.

          Tax systems should be open and transparent and if a company is successful it should not be told to pay extra tax outside of the tax system just because it is successful.

        • #16 by Malc on February 25, 2011 - 6:04 pm

          

          What’s wrong with ASDA & Sainsbury? And Tesco? And how big is this list of “dodgy” companies? And what do you have to do to get on the list?

• #17 by Indy on February 24, 2011 - 2:53 pm

  

  Agreed tax is an instrument of the state. Therefore the state should not give any business to companies which do not pay their fair share of tax on the profits they make. It may be legal to avoid paying tax but as taxpayers why should we subsidise that, which is what we would be doing if we give public contracts to companies which have a policy of tax avoidance.

  I don’t think it is the case at present that public bodies can – or do – take that into account when awarding contracts but I suggest it should be a factor in future.

  • #18 by Douglas McLellan on February 24, 2011 - 11:32 pm

    

    Define fair share !?!? Surely the only fair share of tax is what a democratically elected government asks for? If there are schemes to reduce tax bills then surely the state should judge what is fair for a company to use.

    I am not opposed to a clear and simple tax system that takes as much tax as society deems acceptable (I know that vodafone dividends fund my pension – why does Patrick Harvie et al want to reduce my pension?). The issue is that complaining and jumping on bandwagons regarding a company acting legally is a clear example of an excercise in futility. If vodafone opts to pay more tax than HMRC asks for then shareholders and shop floor staff will be denied as much for their dividends and sales bonuses.

    Lobby HMRC to fix any problems with tax collection, not individual companies.

    • #19 by Indy on February 25, 2011 - 12:05 pm

      

      Define fair share? Well Barclays Bank – to use a different example to Vodafone – paid 1 per cent corporation tax on profits of £11billion. That’s not a fair share in my view. They avoid paying corporation tax at the standard rate by shifting their money around the world.

      Legally they can do that, as can Vodafone and other companies. I completely agree with you that it is the fault of HMRC and the UK Govt that they are allowed to do that and I agree that people should be campaigning against that policy rather than demonstrating outside shops or making tokenistic gestures.

      But at the same time I also think it would be perfectly reasonable for public, taxpayer-funded bodies to say we are not going to give a contract to any company that does not pay the standard rate of corporation tax in the UK on its profits.

      • #20 by Jeff on February 25, 2011 - 12:58 pm

        

        Indy, Barclays paid 1% UK tax on global profits. I’m sure they paid US tax on US operations, Australian tax on Australian operations and so on. So setting the 1% against the £11bn is a false comparison to make. Furthermore, I believe the 1% applies to 2008 and the £11bn applies to 2009 as tax is paid a year in arrears. And even on top of that, they also carried forward losses from a prior year to offset against future profits, perfectly legally.

        There may well be an element of dodginess to the affair (offshores entities tend to point that way!) but the facts seem to be getting in the way of a good story here which lets the Guardian, and everyone else jumping on the bandwagon, down a little bit.

        • #21 by Douglas McLellan on February 25, 2011 - 1:24 pm

          

          What Jeff said.

          In an independent Scotland should an international company have all of its economic transactions taxed both abroad and at home? Is that SNP policy? How many business leaders based in Scotland (not the banks, there are others as well) would be happy with that?

          That would be like me working only in France, getting my income taxed in Euros and then HMRC asking for the PAYE as well.

          Define profits then? For which the standard rate of tax can be calculated. Which profits from where? From which part of the company?

          • #22 by Jeff on February 25, 2011 - 2:59 pm

            

            I’m not sure if you followed my points properly Douglas (and I’m not sure why you’re asking me about SNP policy either for that matter!?). I also don’t know why you are confusing “economic transaction” for profit. I’m not talking about a Robin Hood tax here, although that idea does have its merits.

            I can hardly speak for an independent Scotland as you urge me to but foreign profits are currently taxed in the UK but it depends how much tax has been paid in the foreign country. If Bank of Jamaica is owned by RBS and has paid 10% Jamaican tax on its profits then, as the rules stand now, there will be a further ~17% UK tax applied to that because British tax rules state that UK companies should pay about 27% Corporation tax (or whatever the rate is). If RBS owns a bank of Sweden which has already paid 40% Swedish tax, then there will be no UK tax to pay on the foreign profits that get transferred to Head Office.

            To continue your analogy; the above situation (again, as it currently stands) is like you working in France, paying 10% income tax there, but living in UK and enjoying the same public services that you’ve paid significantly less tax from your gross income to have access to.

            To take this further, George Osborne is apparently planning to remove the UK corp tax on foreign income so the Bank of Jamaica example above would not result in the UK charging a reasonable extra levy of tax on big business income. I think, if true, that is a horrendous state of affairs and really quite contrary to the idea of fairness that all parties were aiming for during the election.

        • #23 by Indy on February 25, 2011 - 2:32 pm

          

          You are right – the Guardian is my source and it says Barclays paid £113million in corporation tax in 2009 when it made £11.6bn of profits.

          II am crap with numbers but if what you are saying is correct then Barclays must have made a truly pitiful profit in the UK in 2009 because the standard rate of corporation tax is 28 per cent is it not?

          Which makes it strange that – according to the story – Barclays actually paid 2 BILLION in taxes to HM Revenue & Customs 2009 but only 113million of that was corporation tax. The rest i.e. almost all of it was payroll.

          How does that work, Jeff and Douglas? How can a company employ so many people in the UK that it pays almost 2 million to HMRC in payroll and make an overall profit of 11.6 billion but only pays 113 million in corporation tax?

          Do you guys seriously think that is legitimate?

          • #24 by Indy on February 25, 2011 - 2:34 pm

            

            That shpuld be 2 billion in payroll, not 2 million.

            Nearly 2 billion to HMRC for employees but only 113 million in corporation tax.

          • #25 by Douglas McLellan on February 25, 2011 - 6:29 pm

            

            Ok. Lets try this.

            In 2009 Barclays Group made £11.6bn. This is not in dispute. It, in fact, represents an increase of 95% on the year before.

            The first point though to note is that taxes paid that year are from the 2008 financial year. So instead of profit on £11.6bn we need to be looking at tax on the 2008 profit of £5.2bn across the Barclay Group.

            In 2008 47% of Barclays profit came from economic activity abroad. Given that each country levies its own taxes on economic activity in their own country (like India/China does to whisky) why should this incur further UK taxes? So lets half (for ease of calculations) the UK profit to £2.6bn. From that was paid the tax on 2007 profits of £790m. Which gets us to £1.8bn, Further tax deductions clearly stated in their publicly available accounts reduce this further (losses from some operations in 2007 were still affecting the accounts) it becomes earlier to see how the £113m is arrived at (although I guess there were several tax reduction schemes employed beyond the usual adjustments).

            The point is Indy that these issues are never as clear cut as they are made out in the papers or on Twitter. Do I think that Barclays could be more clear? Yes. Do I think HMRC needs to be resourced effectively to ensure that all companies pay a fair amount of tax? Yes. Does this country need a clearer tax system? Yes. Do I think that Vodafone, Barclays and others are doing anything other that operating within the law and operating to the benefit of their shareholders? No.

            And, to prepare you for follow-up misleading headlines next year, the operating profit of Barclays is actually less than the 2008 figure being £4.8bn. It was the sale shares in an asset that raised the overall profit figure to £11.6bn. Just so you know, a lot of that can be accounted for without paying tax – the substantial shareholdings exemption so the coloration tax paid by Barclays is likely to fall.

• #26 by Indy on February 24, 2011 - 3:29 pm

  

  Incidentally the comments about the SNP “cosying up to the Tories” are becoming a little tedious.

  Clearly I can’t speak for anyone else but I am a nationalist. I don’t see it as the job of the Scottish Government to cosy up to any administration in London, whether Labour or Tory, but to fight to get the best deal for Scotland as long as we are in the UK and to make the case at every opportunity for leaving the UK.

  The Green tactic on the other hand appears to be to cosy up to the UK Left – a position which pre-supposes that Scotland is going to remain a part of the UK and that the only viable way to escape Tory rule is the kind of Life-of-Brian campaigning where people march about waving placards and competing about how right-on they are while achieving absolutely zilch, as the vast majority of ordinary punters pay absolutely no attention to them.

  I am clear that there is an alternative to the UK cuts agenda. That alternative is for Scotland to become an independent country, raise and spend its own money and determine its own priorities with no reference to Westminster at all.

  It would be good if the Greens shared that ambition – but its becoming pretty clear that they don’t. Instead it seems they would prefer to see Scotland tied into the endless, dreary cycle of defining every political issue by how much you hate the Tories – despite the fact that there is as much chance of the Tories being elected to run Scotland as there is of Colonel Gadaffi being invited onto the next series of Strictly Come Dancing. It’s not completely impossible in other words but highly unlikely.

  • #27 by Daniel J on February 24, 2011 - 3:47 pm

    

    Funnily enough when it comes to the ‘The UK cuts agenda’ the SNP are all talk, even then it seems rather half hearted (oh I’m sorry did forget the pretty insignificant £30 Million ‘tesco tax’?).

    Why are some Nats so infuriated that the Greens support independence while not campaigning on it as a central piece of policy. My god might it not be central to their current policies?! Would you say the same thing of those within the SNP who advocate a slower move towards independence?

• #28 by Indy on February 24, 2011 - 4:42 pm

  

  When it comes to the UK cuts agenda every politicaian is all talk – what do you want them to do? Start smashing up windows?

  I am not infuriated by the Greens preferring to campaign against the SNP instead of in favour of independence, but I think it is disappointing.

  As I said, the only reason we are in this situation is because the Tories won the Westminster election. They didn’t win any election in Scotland – and they wouldn’t win any election in Scotland.

  So, rather than spending all your time campaigning against the Tories, it would seem more sensible to me to just cut the link with Westminster and have a Scottish Government elected by the Scottish people and accountable only to them.

  It is a shame that logic escapes you but there you go.

  • #29 by Jeff on February 24, 2011 - 5:47 pm

    

    The thing is Indy, sometimes I forget that the SNP’s main objective is independence. They have settled into Holyrood so well and not really pushed the cause as hard as they could, and perhaps, should have done. I am sure many in the SNP would agree with me, I know so infact. Consequently, it does seem a bit cheeky to be having a go at the Greens for not making up for the lack of Nationalist heave of late.

    The Greens presumably don’t see independence as being a key issue in the 2011-15 term, just as it wasn’t in the 2007-11 campaign, so why not focus on what can be short term – namely offsetting the worst of the coalition’s cuts.

    I can understand that you’d rather the Greens acted as the environment wing of the SNP but surely you can see how unlikely that is when SGP is a party with its leader currently a the 7th and final Glasgow regional MSP and the other one retiring. Party survival trumps joining the Nats in a bit of London-bashing and if that involves a few Tartan Tory jibes and differentiating themselves as revenue raisers to prevent job cuts then, well, isn’t it best to play the ball and not the men?

    • #30 by Indy on February 25, 2011 - 9:45 am

      

      Jeff when you are looking at the situation with handling the cuts, independence is the only issue as it is the only viable alternative to getting stuck in a cycle that we have been stuck in before.

      But the Greens have painted themselves into a corner whereby they accept that Westminster will decide what our budget is and all they can do is protest about it in juvenile ways and propose that Scottish people should pay more tax to compensate for the fact that Westminster has decided to give us back less of our own money to play with,

      It all reminds me of the 1980s and I recall something Jim Sillars said – he said imagine if all the energy that goes into fighting the Tories and defending Scotland’s egalitarian values could go into creating a better nation.

      Because we don’t NEED to fight the Tories or the cuts. We are only in this position because we are still governed from Westminster. I agree maybe you don’t hear this all that often and maybe it’s our fault for just assuming that everyone knows this is what the SNP is about. Because for us it is pretty obvious and if the Greens actually understood or believed in independence it would be pretty obvious to them as well.

      • #31 by James on February 25, 2011 - 10:06 am

        

        I believe in independence, and will campaign for it. But given we’re not currently independent, let’s use the powers we have rather than choosing cuts. The current apathy and opposition to that from the SNP is actually undermining the case for more powers, just as letting the SVR lapse did (which incidentally SNP Ministers just got harshly criticised for by the Finance Committee, Convenor Andrew Welsh MSP).

        • #32 by Indy on February 25, 2011 - 10:52 am

          

          I’m not going to argue with you because we are just not talking the same langauage.

          Your whole case revolves around accepting Scotland’s position within the UK and using the powers we have to wring more money out of ordinary working Scots while our oil revenues are used to subsidise illegal wars and nuclear weapons.

          That difference in oerspective is too big to be bridged and it is what I mean by saying you don’t get independence.

• #33 by John Ruddy on February 24, 2011 - 4:58 pm

  

  I would suppotr such a move – if it could be done without additional cost. The clause alluded to by Tricia Marwick indicates that might be a possibility, as many contracts have such an early release clause (or rather a clause to extend which doesnt have to be taken up).

  Even if Vodaphone is the cheapest, it is not always the best. My own experience at Angus Council bears this out. Angus went for Voda on the basis of being the cheapest (also as endorsed by the Scottish Parliament via its procurement quangoes) when the reception is pish-poor. For instance, most council buildings are in Forfar, and the biggest dead spot for voda in Angus is…. Forfar. And as for anywhere near a glen – forget it!

  If I might make a suggestion? The SP (and other public bodies) should opt for O2. Very good customer service, excellent reception and its the only operator which recognises a trade union – so the workers aren’t treated like dirt.

  • #34 by Jeff on February 24, 2011 - 5:25 pm

    

    Oh you and your ‘trade unions’ John….

    No, just joking, fine suggestion and evidence-based too. Maybe a Labour/Green coalition would work just fine….

    • #35 by Indy on February 24, 2011 - 5:30 pm

      

      It’s clearly what they are aiming for

      • #36 by John Ruddy on February 26, 2011 - 5:13 pm

        

        Not ruled out if what I heard today is true. The Greens gaining significantly on the list at the expense of the SNP can only benefit Labour – and if it makes a Red/Green coalition more likely, even better.

• #37 by CassiusClaymore on February 24, 2011 - 5:16 pm

  

  #15 Daniel

  What exactly are the SNP supposed to do about the ‘cuts agenda’?

  Westminster gives us a block grant, comprising most (but not all) of the tax paid by Scottish taxpayers. The Scottish Government then decides how to cut it up. That’s more or less it, because of the very limited tax raising powers available to the Scottish Government.

  Raising Council Tax just punishes the poorest. The income tax varying power is unavailable. The SNP’s attempts to introduce a local income tax were vetoed by the other parties. Likewise the proposed supermarket tax.

  So, what’s your suggestion for what the SNP should do?

  CC

• #38 by CassiusClaymore on February 24, 2011 - 5:24 pm

  

  Just to dig a bit deeper on Green policies, how are the SPCB supposed to ascertain why a relevant supplier is ‘paying their fair share’? Presumably the Greens aren’t recommending that the SPCB just take UK Uncut’s word for it…..so, who decides, and on what basis?

  CC

• #39 by Observer on February 24, 2011 - 7:27 pm

  

  Shouldn’t the Greens be campaigning for closing down tax loopholes instead of changing supplier. I think that would actually make them more popular with voters because you know they do actually come across more & more as Rik from the Young Ones.

  So do the Uncut people. Do they actually think anyone is going to stop shopping in Top Shop because they stage a few demos outside them?

  Rik – v – Kate Moss. It’s not hard to figure out who wins in the popularity stakes.

  There isn’t anything we can do about the cuts as long as the Tories are in charge of our pocket money. We can protest as much as we like but they are still going to happen. There is no way to avoid them unless you just ignore them, in which case it would end up like Liverpool under Hatton sending round taxis with redundancy notices.

  Gesture politics won’t get us anywhere. At the *very least* we need fiscal autonomy. The Greens would be a lot better off campaigning for that rather than all this twitterati stuff that most people don’t pay any attention to.

• #40 by douglas clark on February 24, 2011 - 9:18 pm

  

  Cassius Claymore @ 21 / 22.

  I don’t think that is the right target. It is a question of morals that appear to have been bent, transcended, whatever, by HMRC.

  It is pretty clear that some folk – y’know, those that think about these things – that Vodaphone were allowed to get off a bit lightly. You may disagree, but the corporate entities that are described as having the same ‘rights’ as you or I – human rights – do not appear to have the same responsibilities.

  I cannot escape income tax, I cannot set up weird tax haven or fancy footwork to avoid my responsibilities to keeping this creaking state off it’s uppers. The corporate entities can.

  It is pretty disgusting that one legalistic concept of a human being – a corporate – is able to bring sufficient firepower to the table in the sense of corporate lawyers when you and I cannot.

  That is the injustice of it all.

  That is why people are a tad upset.

  • #41 by Douglas McLellan on February 25, 2011 - 12:14 am

    

    Its not just corporate entities but also rich people who can pay accountants or clever people themselves that have these rights. And even people with modest amounts of money to save can avoid tax on those savings (which are in effect profits from working).

    Our tax system is so convoluted that, even with the best of intentions, tax reduction schemes are exploitable. Rather than seek to exploit emotions and implement intangible and flexible moral positions why not make the tax system simpler?

  • #42 by Indy on February 25, 2011 - 9:57 am

    

    And how is the SPCB cancelling a contract with Vodafone going to change that situation?

    It won’t, it is pure gesture politics. A gimmick.

    I would agree with putting in place a system that made it a requirement that any company bidding for a public contract had to demonstrate that it paid tax in the UK on the profits it makes.

    That would be a policy and it would be a policy that we might even be able to find some consensus on.

    • #43 by Doug Daniel on February 25, 2011 - 2:33 pm

      

      That sounds like the best way to implement such a stance.

      Overall though, Mr McLellan (with his excellent first name) is right that what really needs to be done is to close these tax loopholes. It’s not going to happen at Westminster of course, especially not with the current government. However, one would hope that once Scotland becomes independent, tax avoidance schemes are consigned to history. Gordon Brown made the tax system so convoluted, and what we need is a simple system. If there are genuine reasons for people or companies to not pay tax, then why do they have to be hidden under a quagmire of clauses and regulations?

• #44 by CassiusClaymore on February 24, 2011 - 11:36 pm

  

  #24 Douglas

  You say Vodafone got off lightly – maybe, maybe not. Neither you nor I are in a position to judge. Neither, most assuredly, are “UK Uncut”. The fact is that we have to trust HMRC to enforce the law. Why wouldn’t they? I’d be amazed if HMRC had just decided not to collect 4.5m from Vodafone. Why on earth would they do that? The truth is highly likely to be that Vodafone were not obliged to pay any more than they did.

  People are definitely upset about corporate tax avoidance. Unfortunately, those people are rarely fully informed due to an unfortunate combination of a superficial, celeb-obsessed press and the populist, ill-informed, never-had-a-job student politicians who currently infest our political class.

  If people are upset about our tax laws (rightly or wrongly), then they should be lobbying the government to change them, rather than loitering outside Top Shop playing Citizen Smith. You and I don’t volunteer to pay more tax than we are legally obliged to, so why should Vodafone/Guardian Media Group? If you want companies to pay more tax, the Westminster Government are the only people who can make it happen.

  CC

• #45 by Observer on February 25, 2011 - 6:43 pm

  

  ”I believe in independence, and will campaign for it. But given we’re not currently independent, let’s use the powers we have rather than choosing cuts.”

  If that is the essence of the Green argument then you are in a very strange place.

  You seem to be arguing that we should use tax raising powers to make Scots pay more to make up the shortfall from the Tory cuts, rather than trying to get more powers – over taxation, welfare, etc, which could actually prevent Tory policies being implemented here.

  The best way of closing tax loopholes & ensuring that we have as fair a system as possible is to demand the powers to do these things ourselves. That doesn’t mean independence. It could just mean fiscal autonomy. If a consensus could be built up around that – which would include much of civic Scotland who are ahead of the game here – then that would prove far more effective than a million people standing outside Top Shop or changing their mobile phone providers.

  • #46 by James on February 25, 2011 - 7:13 pm

    

    The irony is that your position involves us going cap-in-hand to Westminster to ask for more powers, whereas ours involves Scotland acting now. I think I know which of these is more likely to work.

• #47 by douglas clark on February 27, 2011 - 12:21 am

  

  Cassius Claymore,

  As usual you miss the point. Unless you yourself happen to be some sort of super rich individual or foreign billionaire resident here or, to the point, a corporate entity, your room for manoeuvre is limited. I would argue it is non existent.

  We are tied down and they are not. That is not a level playing field.

  Your idea that no-one pays taxes willingly is only half of a half of a story. But one of the points about a democracy is to mediate between our desire to have everything for nothing and the realistic expectation that security and education and health cost. Next there is the question of how we should pay for common services that we need. It is a generally settled view in Western Europe that state provision for certain services is preferable. That is what people have voted for.

  So, we come to the subject of taxation, on which you appear to have an entirely libertarian view, one I do not share. It seems to me that you would argue black is white on the subject of taxes. We, those of us who pay PAYE, are the serfs of the system, and your heroes are those that don’t. For they have ‘clever’ avoidance mechanisms that are not available to the rest of us.

  Just out of curiosity, how many people commenting here have the ability to do what Vodafone did here?

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/14/vodafone-tax-evasion-revenue-customs

  Paying damn all might be a reasonable objective, but, if it is, it is a reasonable objective for every citizen, not just corporate entities that can pull political strings.

  Frankly, Cassius Claymore, I think you cry too much for the rich and don’t really give a damn about the rest of us.

  There are enough corporate lawyers and, these days, politicians, who firmly believe that what is good for the rich is good for the rest of us and their mistakes ought to be taken from the PAYE drones.

  There is nowt wrong with direct action. Usual caveats apply.

Comments are closed.