Chesterfield Online Forum
General Category => Politics => Topic started by: Pete on October 04, 2013, 03:20:25 PM
-
Hundreds of thousands of families losing child benefit payments this year need to "get off their backsides" and fill in extra forms to avoid being fined by the taxman, Lin Homer, the head of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has said.
Maybe she should get off her backside and get some tax off Starbucks etc.
If it weren't for people like Starbucks, Apple, Google, Amazon etc - we wouldn't have such an uphill fight to balance our economy.
http://bit.ly/GAtv5G (http://bit.ly/GAtv5G)
-
Once again Pete you are falling into the same trap.
Starbucks (Amazon Google list who you will) are doing nothing ILLEGAL.
Therefore unless the government change the rules (and all other countries do like wise to negate the benefits of moving money about) HMRC are powerless to do anything about it.
Exactly the same argument with the so called benefit 'cheats'. They aren't cheating they are merely playing the system for all its worth.
-
Totally understand Jon, but somewhere, ethically, it is wrong and it needs looking at. But to just let it carry on as it is without putting up some form of fight, it will lead to no big business paying their full taxes - despite their income coming from UK tax payers. Plus what about these deals that HMCR do over lunch with the company concerned?
Not wanting to be overly dramatic, but, with respect, your view of the situation is that it is beyond us to alter it. I remember you saying that they can afford the best minds in economics and tax affairs. To me thats like saying to concentration camp victim being bundled into a train and told not to fight back because there is nothing we can do about it. As the old saying goes I would rather die on my feet than on my knees... And yes, I would probably the the first to get chopped.
-
I think the concentration camp analogy is a bit much given that quite a few people were taken to Nuremberg and had the fact that what they had done was a crime pointed out to them.
Now I quite agree with you tax avoidance (as opposed to evasion) is morally wrong bu there really isn't anyone big enough to take the fight to them other than the government.
Or put it another way. A boycott of Starbucks was organised and resulted in them paying a little of what they allegedly owed. But during that boycott how many empty Starbucks did you actually see?
-
>> quite a few people were taken to Nuremberg and had the fact that what they had done was a crime pointed out to them.
"Quite a few" to balance the 5 million slaughtered?
I know its an inaccurate analogy, but just because I struggle to communicate and understand certain situations, doesn't negate my opinion or my right to express them clumsily…
If all I do is draw peoples attention to injustice, then I'm happy.
Just because we don't know how to put things right shouldn't mean we can't point out that they're wrong.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it...
-
Having read your conversations about Tax and the big boys can I ask what exactly if anything does the governments gain from letting this slide?
-
OC: As I've said before its pragmatism. Tax a millionaire at 90% and they have the ability to move and pay nothing. So we lose what they are paying.
Tax businesses (like the banks) and they move their offices. Again we lose tax and jobs. So it's a balancing act and if you imagine that balance to be a see saw labour would have it tilted slightly towards getting more money and the Tories towards letting business make profit unhindered. Both know they can't afford to have the balance too far out though the Tories push if further than labour do
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
So whilst the see-saw is leaning more to the tory side, the rich get richer and the poor get more taken away from them to pay for it.
IMHO :)