mikem8634 Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 You may disagree but would you pay more? Sorry you've lost me now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Sorry you've lost me now. You said you'd disagree with a government lowering taxes..would you pay more than they asked for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 You said you'd disagree with a government lowering taxes..would you pay more than they asked for? Not if everybody's taxes were lowered in the same way, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Not if everybody's taxes were lowered in the same way, why? So you'd be happy to pay the legal amount? No matter how low,yet you think it's wrong for companies to do the same? We got there at last Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) So you'd be happy to pay the legal amount? No matter how low,yet you think it's wrong for companies to do the same? We got there at last Sorry but you're wrong - it's not about how low the tax is it is about paying a fair share. As I have already stated, it is not immoral to pay low tax per se if that is everybody's legal requirement. It is immoral to use tax avoidance to lower your individual tax obligation below that of other equivalent tax payers who do not. It is pretty simple to grasp but I sense you have enjoyed yourself mining for hypocrisy that isn't there. Edited February 12, 2013 by mikem8634 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Sorry but you're wrong - it's not about how low the tax is it is about paying a fair share. As I have already stated, it is not immoral to pay low tax per se if that is everybody's legal requirement. It is immoral to use tax avoidance to lower your individual tax obligation below that of other equivalent tax payers who do not. It is pretty simple to grasp but I sense you have enjoyed yourself mining for hypocrisy that isn't there. Why should any company pay more than they are legally obliged to when you said that you wouldn't? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander surely? I'm not arguing I just don't understand how you can be happy with one set obeying the law yet when anoither set does the same you think it's wrong.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Are you talking legal tax due or "moral" tax..?If profits per employee were reduced do you think companies would employ the same number of people? Genuine question.. The fact that the question has to be asked is what is wrong with our society today. Legal and moral tax should be the same thing. And 'profits' should not continually be the bottom line for fantastically wealthy people who already have more money than they know what to do with. Profits equals jobs..or should I say lack of profits equals job losses..I'll ask agian,if profits were lower because of higher taxes would companies still employ the same number of people..? No, profits are what's left when all expenses including staff and taxes have been paid. An employer can chose to reduce profits or staff. In all the biggest companies profits are going up to the highest level they've ever been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 No, profits are what's left when all expenses including staff and taxes have been paid. An employer can chose to reduce profits or staff. In all the biggest companies profits are going up to the highest level they've ever been. I'm not sure what your saying here..can you explain.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 I'm not sure what your saying here..can you explain.. I'm saying that employers have choices (and in my opinion a responsibility.) When profits are pouring in, (which they are) they can choose to expand and employ more people, or pay their employees more, or dismiss people down to the minimum and increase profits still further. You seem to be saying the third option is the one they should choose. I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 Why should any company pay more than they are legally obliged to when you said that you wouldn't? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander surely? I'm not arguing I just don't understand how you can be happy with one set obeying the law yet when anoither set does the same you think it's wrong.. For the reason that Costa didn't do what Starbucks did. I have said many times that if I had the same opportunity as multinationals do to avoid tax I wouldn't do it because it is immoral. The laws that say individuals must pay tax at the level set by the government, whatever that may be, is fine by me. The laws that allow for the practices indulged by Starbucks are not and neither are the companies that take advantage of them. The responsibility for that immoral practice lies between those companies and the government. You see, two entirely different sauces? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now