Tax avoidance is harming us all.

[Anna Glypta]

If Ford choses to offshore its production, to pay low wages in Romania, and to avoid billions in tax, then who profits? British workers at Ford, together with their suppliers, lose their jobs, and their Romanian replacements are reward with a meagre subsistence. Meanwhile HM Revenue and Customs loses those billions, and I am sure that the overstretched and poorly resourced tax regulators of Romania are not capable of standing up to the powerful and sophisticated corporate sector lawyers and City financial merchants in order to hold Ford accountable for tax purposes in their country.

 

The executives and shareholders make more money to swell their already sizeable bank account. British workers are magically transformed from strivers to 'skivers' overnight, tax continues to go missing, and the poor people of Romania become slaves to a machine designed to exploit the labour and resources of the most vulnerable communities on earth.

 

Multinational corporations are cynically abusing weak state structures across the globe in order to drive down production costs and avoid tax, for the exclusive benefit of their executives and shareholders.

 

Why do you assume that countries like Rumania don't have any infrastructure? They were good communists until a few years back and keeping an eye on the workers and businesses was something they were always good at.

 

In China the standard of living of workers in manufacturing has increased considerably and wages increased since western manufacturers arrived. These are the countries that enjoy 5-10% growth. I see few in this country who aren't happy to buy flat screen TVs and motor cars that they build at a fraction of UK manufacturing costs.

 

By the way Ford hasn't "offshored" its production. They are an American multinational that happens to manufacture across the globe and has done for 100 years.

 

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1125155

Edited February 13, 2013 by Anna Glypta

[Staunton]

The US Ford Motor Company has an appalling human rights record, even in the in the USA, and particularly in its South American operations (see for example Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine, Penguin Books). Please do not mistake Ford for an innocent and benign manufacturer.

 

Multinational companies have the power and reach to frustrate, subordinate and neuter governments here in the UK and in the USA, so I would be surprised indeed if Romania's administration proved sufficiently resilient to resist the pressure of corporate aggression.

[Anna Glypta]

The US Ford Motor Company has an appalling human rights record, even in the in the USA, and particularly in its South American operations (see for example Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine, Penguin Books). Please do not mistake Ford for an innocent and benign manufacturer.

 

Multinational companies have the power and reach to frustrate, subordinate and neuter governments here in the UK and in the USA, so I would be surprised indeed if Romania's administration proved sufficiently resilient to resist the pressure of corporate aggression.

 

So would you advocate driving Ford out of the UK and closing its remaining manufacturing facilities? Ford have been in the UK for more than 100 years and one presumes that folk who have chosen to work for the company for their entire working life had done so because they got a pretty good deal in return for their labour. Ford have also paid £billions in corporation tax, VAT and income tax from its workers that this country has been happy to receive.

[Eater Sundae]

But ISA's are not a failing of the Treasury.

 

Eveyone has an ISA allowance that they can use each year to save money and avoid paying tax on interest/income/gains from said savings.

 

Likewise everyone has a personal allowance each year whereby an individual avoids paying tax on the part of their income.

 

These are totally different from the schemes manufactured by individuals/companies to avoid tax

 

My point is that any legislation can have intended and unintended consequences. It is not the job of companies to decide what the legislation was intended to, it is their job to create dividend for their shareholders. If the government of the day frames its legislation in such a way that a company is able to LEGALLY make additional profit, over and above what the government intended, then the problem does not lie with the company who were just doing their job, it lies with the government who were not doing theirs to a high enough standard.

[Staunton]

I'm afraid the rules of the game have changed significantly in the last 40 years. Multinational companies are no longer interested in producing goods and services, providing jobs and paying their taxes. Mr Osborne has reduced Corporation Tax by 25% since becoming Chancellor, and is seeking to do more to make the UK 'business friendly'. This by no means indicates that Mr Osborne is hoping to attract employers to the UK. His wish is to make the UK as a whole into a tax haven to shelter wealthy tax avoiders. This will enrich his City friends, but it will not translate into jobs or revenue for the population at large.

 

If you wish to understand just how powerful these forces are and how cynically they operate, then just take a look at Nicholas Shaxson's devastating book Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men who Stole the World, published by Vintage.

[truman]

I'm afraid the rules of the game have changed significantly in the last 40 years. Multinational companies are no longer interested in producing goods and services, providing jobs and paying their taxes. Mr Osborne has reduced Corporation Tax by 25% since becoming Chancellor, and is seeking to do more to make the UK 'business friendly'. This by no means indicates that Mr Osborne is hoping to attract employers to the UK. His wish is to make the UK as a whole into a tax haven to shelter wealthy tax avoiders. This will enrich his City friends, but it will not translate into jobs or revenue for the population at large.

 

If you wish to understand just how powerful these forces are and how cynically they operate, then just take a look at Nicholas Shaxson's devastating book Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men who Stole the World, published by Vintage.

 

Is that the guy who lives in the tax haven of Switzerland?

[Anna Glypta]

Is that the guy who lives in the tax haven of Switzerland?

 

He probably lives next door to Tony Blair and his tax advisors.

[Staunton]

My point is that any legislation can have intended and unintended consequences. It is not the job of companies to decide what the legislation was intended to, it is their job to create dividend for their shareholders. If the government of the day frames its legislation in such a way that a company is able to LEGALLY make additional profit, over and above what the government intended, then the problem does not lie with the company who were just doing their job, it lies with the government who were not doing theirs to a high enough standard.

 

This analysis does not take into account the fact that the current government are not benign managers of the UK economy, but are cynical operators, sworn to reducing tax, dismantling the regulatory mechanisms by which companies can be held accountable, and exploiting their tenure in public office to enrich themselves and their friends at the expense of ordinary folk. The conservative party has been taken over by a cynical and ruthless faction, inspired by corrosive neoliberal doctrine. They do not operate in the interests of the UK or of their constituents, but on behalf of a rapatious and merciless corporate sector.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Staunton

[ricgem2002]

Do you think Edd Balls's brother pays his due share of tax or his company advises its clients to do so?

nope but shouldnt fred bloggs get the same deal if not why not serious question?

[Staunton]

Is that the guy who lives in the tax haven of Switzerland?

 

I welcome your humorous contribution, but I do also urge you to take up my challenge and read Shaxson's text.