Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 23 Oct '12 21:14 / 7 edits
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/may/01/ebay-traders-hmrc-tax-spotlight

    Governments crack down on small traders yet allow corporations to pay a minimal of
    taxation by creating a system whereby they can shift profits to other areas of the E.U
    where corporation Tax is less. Clearly there are two tiers, one for the corporations
    and another for the small trader. In a so called period of austerity, clearly there are
    winners and losers, those who pay taxes on small profits and who are pursued by
    government and those who dont on huge profits and who are aided by government
    to avoid doing so.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/10/21/ebay-is-not-avoiding-taxes-
    no-this-is-instead-the-point-of-the-system/
  2. 24 Oct '12 01:15
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/may/01/ebay-traders-hmrc-tax-spotlight

    Governments crack down on small traders yet allow corporations to pay a minimal of
    taxation by creating a system whereby they can shift profits to other areas of the E.U
    where corporation Tax is less. Clearly there are two tiers, one for the corporations
    and another ...[text shortened]... /timworstall/2012/10/21/ebay-is-not-avoiding-taxes-
    no-this-is-instead-the-point-of-the-system/
    Another thread starts with a hyperbolic lie. The short answer is that the rich do pay taxes, probably more than their fair share, although that is purely subjective.

    Hard to tell what you are really asking. But the objection seems to be that corporations, and the rich are successful at evading taxes, while small traders end up tracked down by the tax collector.

    My experience is that everyone goes to great lengths to minimize their tax obligations. The big difference is that large corporations have in house legal and accounting teams to navigate tax law, and to guide lobbying efforts.

    At the end of the day, would not flat rates, and no deductions or shelters serve both groups better?
  3. 24 Oct '12 01:47
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Another thread starts with a hyperbolic lie. The short answer is that the rich do pay taxes, probably more than their fair share, although that is purely subjective.

    Hard to tell what you are really asking. But the objection seems to be that corporations, and the rich are successful at evading taxes, while small traders end up tracked down by the tax ...[text shortened]... he end of the day, would not flat rates, and no deductions or shelters serve both groups better?
    Read the thread again Norm, Robbie is specifically talking about huge multinational corporations who ensure that their taxable profits are diverted to low tax havens like Luxembourg, and pay no tax, not one red cent in the country's like the UK where their profits are actually made.
  4. 24 Oct '12 02:28
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    Read the thread again Norm, Robbie is specifically talking about huge multinational corporations who ensure that their taxable profits are diverted to low tax havens like Luxembourg, and pay no tax, not one red cent in the country's like the UK where their profits are actually made.
    Well the "thread" contains just three posts. One can't blame multinational corporations from doing what everyone else does, that is to use their resources and the law to minimize the tax liabilities.
  5. 24 Oct '12 09:55 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Well the "thread" contains just three posts. One can't blame multinational corporations from doing what everyone else does, that is to use their resources and the law to minimize the tax liabilities.
    the point of course was that there is a clear disparity, on the one hand the
    government is intent on cracking down on sole traders who use services like ebay and
    yet create a system whereby the corporation itself can siphon off their profits while
    avoiding paying anything like the tax they have generated on sales. Traditionally
    corporations were able to appropriate profits in creative ways, provisions for
    depreciation etc , which of course is a nonsense because no company really puts
    money aside in that way, but this is an entirely legal method of tax avoidance created
    by government which favours corporations, thus while ebay by way of example shaved
    50 million off its tax bill, yet the government are intent on chasing sole traders for
    pennies or as the Americans say, nickels and dimes. Why do you think the
    government favour the rich in this way, Norm?
  6. 24 Oct '12 12:53 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Well the "thread" contains just three posts. One can't blame multinational corporations from doing what everyone else does, that is to use their resources and the law to minimize the tax liabilities.
    But one can blame the system that allows this to happen - which presumably is what the OP was getting at.

    The reason the rich don't pay taxes is because the rich have influence (due to their large spending power) and that influence has resulted in them being able to influence the system to their benefit.
  7. 24 Oct '12 14:37
    The post that was quoted here has been removed
    and the very reason why the Greeks have seen their democratic rights eroded and
    instead have a policy imposed upon them.
  8. 24 Oct '12 14:39 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Well the "thread" contains just three posts. One can't blame multinational corporations from doing what everyone else does, that is to use their resources and the law to minimize the tax liabilities.
    The "thread"consisted of one post when you rolled out your signature defence of the disparity between the political influence of the rich and the rest of us. The question goes to the 'fitness for purpose' of our democracies, and the threat posed to them by these multinational free loaders.
  9. 24 Oct '12 14:40
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    and the very reason why the Greeks have seen their democratic rights eroded and
    instead have a policy imposed upon them.
    The sense of entitlement of the Greeks is kind of funny . If you want to be bailed out from your own financial irresponsibility sometimes you have to meet the conditions of those who are giving you money.
  10. 24 Oct '12 14:43
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    But one can blame the system that allows this to happen - which presumably is what the OP was getting at.

    The reason the rich don't pay taxes is because the rich have influence (due to their large spending power) and that influence has resulted in them being able to influence the system to their benefit.
    Yes, its almost feudal in its scope. Its like the Sheriff of Nottingham and his cohorts are
    allowed to kill as much game as possible with impunity while those who are poaching a
    few rabbits here and there to feed their families are being pursued as outlaws. Now
    while of course one should pay their fair share of taxes as is the law I refuse to believe
    that the accounts of google, ebay, starbucks amazon, apple etc etc represent a fair
    and honest appraisal of their tax liability, even though it is legal.
  11. 24 Oct '12 14:43
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    The "thread"consisted of [b]one post when you rolled out your signature defence of the disparity between the political influence of the rich and the rest of us. The question goes to the 'fitness for purpose' of our democracies, and the threat posed to them by these multinational free loaders.[/b]
    If you presume that someone is a freeloader and refuse to let anyone question that assumption then than there is nothing to discuss. There certainly is an argument that multi-national corporations (like everyone) have a right to legally use tax rules to pay less taxes.
  12. 24 Oct '12 14:47
    Originally posted by quackquack
    The sense of entitlement of the Greeks is kind of funny . If you want to be bailed out from your own financial irresponsibility sometimes you have to meet the conditions of those who are giving you money.
    As far as I am aware, creditors do not get to dictate the policy of a company. For
    example you put your money into a bank, you are a creditor to that bank, does that
    then entitle you to dictate what the bank does with your money? hardly, you will now
    tell the forum why Greece is any different?
  13. 24 Oct '12 14:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by quackquack
    If you presume that someone is a freeloader and refuse to let anyone question that assumption then than there is nothing to discuss. There certainly is an argument that multi-national corporations (like everyone) have a right to legally use tax rules to pay less taxes.
    you have not stated why there should be one rule for corporations and another for sole
    traders, both are engaged in business, both make profits on trading and both should be liable to pay a fair and honest share of taxes on the profits they make.
  14. 24 Oct '12 14:49
    Originally posted by quackquack
    There certainly is an argument that multi-national corporations (like everyone) have a right to legally use tax rules to pay less taxes.
    A profound statement. I guess no else had the insight that people who are not breaking laws are acting legally. In a slightly more serious vein, the point of this thread seems to be whether a tax code that allows this is a good one.
  15. 24 Oct '12 14:50
    Originally posted by Barts
    A profound statement. I guess no else had the insight that people who are not breaking laws are acting legally. In a slightly more serious vein, the point of this thread seems to be whether a tax code that allows this is a good one.
    Its whether it represents and honest and fair appraisal of their tax liability.