is "please watch our show at 8.30 tonight".

I do keep wondering about this tax situation. Avoiding is legal and can there be anyone in the world who doesn't want to pay as little tax as they legally can? Evading is a crime and should be - is - prosecuted. What's the story?

Know nothing about the 8.30pm program, but think that the small levels of tax being paid by major corporations (compared to their turnover/profitability) has to be addressed.

Amazon, Google, Apple, Facebook avoid paying their fair share - through the legal usage of tax havens, breaks and other exotic financial instruments. Legal - but morally wrong.

Most agree but seem unable/unwilling to do anything about it. Perhaps this program will shed some light on the problem - and suggest some remedies.

If it's legal, good luck to them I say. Nothing morally wrong in my morality whatsoever. Should government close loopholes? Yes, absolutely. But what hope do we have when our politicians are brain dead morons with nice hair and good teeth? If we choose to fall for media images instead of reality, it's our fault when democracy does not work.

Depending on many factors - UK Corporation Tax is c20%.

Many of the major players pay 3/4% overall - simply because they have the time, money and opportunity to invoke the most beneficial aspects of tax laws in numerous jurisdictions.

As a 40% tax payer (in only this jurisdiction), I find that unfair - and am surprised you don't.

No I don't. I call it good business. If we want bigger income, let's bring in politicians who are competent, not products of tabloid slogans. And they will decide whether it's better to demand 95% tax and see the companies politely move to Monaco (like pop stars did under Wilson - I paid 95p in the pound on my Moon royalties) or find a middle way; get enough tax to pay for NHS, schools, ebola - but not so much as to make Bahamas more attractive. Simplistic solutions ("squeeze them like lemons") appeal only to morons.

The huge number of corporations with artificial tax arrangements such as Google or News Corp as just 2 examples : both pay a fraction of tax on profit via false "debt" accrued in say Litchenstein...it means all other taxpayers down the line are subsidising them unfairly.

Just because something is legal...such as CPS Saunder's nutty claim that men must now prove innocence in rape..does not make it right.

Capitalism, like socialism or communism can only survive if everyone participates.

Those with these artifcial (legal) arrangements are not participating in capitalism..they are socialisng profits and capitalisng expenses.

Blind Freddy should be able to see not just the unfairness of this but that it is unsustainable in the long run.

If it persists, the next big crunch or collapse will dwarf the 2007 one and could take decades to recover from.

And genuine capitalists know it.

I apologise for being unclear. Yes; the UK should be getting far more from big corporations. Yes; the government should make certain "avoiding" schemes illegal - and "evading". But NO, I don't consider it immoral to pay as little tax as you legally can, either personally or corporately. OK - some posters disagree and feel others should do like they do and pay more tax than legally required. That is a fine attitude though I would suggest giving to charities is a better way of doing it as governments will certainly waste any extra cash - spending it on the wrong things, as they do with most of our tax monies.

What I think is that governments should collect far more from big tax avoiders. But I also suggest (and accept that complex thinking is beyond the majority these days) that whilst "tax more" is a nice simplistic solution, it might not work. Companies and people will simply give up UK citizenship and go to more favourable tax countries. Remember I witnessed this brain drain in the 60s and 70s in the music and entertainment industries.

Now I'm NOT a government minister. But if I was I'd want lots of accurate facts before deciding whether to force more tax by law or try to charm and persuade the wealthy to contribute more. I simply say, as in so many other areas, the answer is NOT simple, despite public desire for slogan politics and tabloid headline government.

The "simplistic solution" brigade forget that firms like Amazon and Sky spent billions building-up their business BEFORE they ever made a single penny profit.

For years they ploughed money in, because they could not get the customers until they had the goods / machinery to deliver.

There are lots of way you can "punish" Amazon -

- you could stop buying their goods - but you don't want that, do you?

- you could ask them to increase the price (to allow for tax) - but you don't want that either, do you?

- you could ask them not to trade here - and sack the thousands that they employ - but you don't want that, do you?

Like all the ones with simplistic solution you want to have you cake and eat it too !

is ITK just a big dill or does he really this nonsense.

Amazon don't employ 1000s of people and didn't spend "billions " building uop their business,

They have how ever put 1000s of people in small bookshops out of work and on the dole subsidised by other taxpayers.

Not only was Sky built on a vast sea of artificial tax arrangements so that Murdoch pays no tax personally in the UK but decides who runs the country he has also just cost, and is still 100s of millions of pounds in police time pursuing the crooks he employs.

Nothing can stop progress but why does ITK have a problem with corporations paying the correct tax ?

And he ignores the basic rule of Capitalism : if there is gap it will be filled immediately even if the profits are less.

So if you tell Vodafone to fuck off to Thailand where their service costs a tiny fraction that it does in the UK (hence even the homeless there have mobiles)..an enterprising corp will fill the vacancy

perhaps he' s just stark raving mad,

hedda wrote:
is ITK just a big dill or does he really this nonsense.

Amazon don't employ 1000s of people and didn't spend "billions " building up their business,

They have how ever put 1000s of people in small bookshops out of work and on the dole subsidised by other taxpayers.

hedda has obviously never seen the Amazon distribution centres - the size of several football fields !

... and if you are worried about small bookshops, hedda - you can always buy something from them ! It's a free country !

BUT ... like the other social loonies they all want something for nothing - they want the lowest prices, but then expect huge amounts of tax ! (Just like the dolers want more and more - and give less and less, then wonder why there is no money for the NHS !)

Do you want Amazon to go the way of the British coalmines / Triumph motorbikes / Leyland cars (the dustbin of history) .... ?

hedda wrote:

Amazon don't employ 1000s of people and didn't spend "billions " building uop their business

Amazon to create 1,000 new full-time jobs in its eight UK distribution centres
to add to the 6000 they already employ in UK !

www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article...d.html#ixzz3RKRGH0ah

Since the company was created, shareholders have backed Jeff Bezos and his annual proclamations that Amazon was not about short-term profits. He has long expressed his disdain for short-term profitability, emphasising the need to plough funds into growing and evolving. Profits will come later.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector...r-be-profitable.html

I would probably avoid more tax if I could afford an accountant clever enough to find all the loopholes. However if I started filing accounts with negligible tax payments, I am more likely to get investigated by HMRC who can afford to send an inspector to my office for a few days rather than send a large team of inspectors to Vodafone for a year.

Amazon route c£5 billion of their UK sales through Luxembourg - and pay negligible tax. How anyone can believe that this legal tax avoidance is acceptable - I do not know.

If you claimed a taxi used to go to a business meeting as a legitimate deductible expense, should I consider it unacceptable? Good sensible business practice. And close one loophole, another will be found. Why? Because that's what certain good executives are employed to do. It's their job. We should employ equally clever and efficient people to collect taxes for us, not blame others for "moral" reasons when they make as much profits as they can. And why on earth shouldn't they? I find it incomprehensible to criticise a company or person for being efficient - as long as it's legal - and just can't understand why it should be considered "unacceptable". Far more unacceptable for the companies to make losses and go bust.