I am afraid that I can find little logic in your argument

Those who argue for corporation tax cuts say that companies do not really exist. They say they are only made up of real people. And yet you are arguing that those real people cease to exist the moment they walk through the office door, at which time they leave their morality behind.

I do not believe that.

I think companies are as moral as any other person in the community. Of course, that means some will be immoral. but it is impossible for those who run these corporations to say that they can be excused that because they undertake their activity through a corporate entity. the same is true of anyone who says that that entity should be amoral. that is an excuse for abuse. abuse does follow from it.

I entirely agree with you that we do need to concentrate on law and accounting practice to tackle this problem. But we should never forget that when doing so we are tackling a moral deficiency on the part of those who run our major companies and who work in our professions.

That is not an observation. That is a fact

Richard

A company is not something capable of morality. Only the people in charge or working for those companies are capable of morality.

Companies don’t make money from drugs because it is illegal. If drugs were legal there would be many, many companies making money from them. (Fancy a cigarrette?)

Fair employment policies only exist because to do otherwise would be illegal. If legislation wasn’t in place there would be very many unfair employment policies. And there are many companies who don’t give two hoots for CSR or codes of ethics (most of which will get ditched in a recession).

Morality is both an inapplicable way of approaching this problem and alienating for many people. Most people don’t like paying tax and most people don’t like being told that their feelings are immoral. My concern is that your important message is being drowned out by the finger wagging.

It’s my view that we need to concentrate on changing the law and accounting practices and not try to bash the same people we need to get on board to change things.

Keep up the good fight,

Not once, not ever, have I said a person should pay more tax than is required of them.

My definition of tax compliance is simple. I say that a person is tax compliant when they pay the right amount of tax, but no more, in the right place and at the right time when right means that the economic substance of the transactions that they undertake are correctly reflected in the form in which they are reported for taxation purposes.

Please read what I say. Then some of your own comments might make sense.

Richard

We are happy to accept that companies are moral beings when it comes, for the example, to not trading in addictive drugs.

We are happy that they have codes of ethics.

We are happy that they pursue CSR

We expect them to have a fair employment policies

But when it comes to tax they are apparently amoral

Why do we accept that they are different in this one area?

I do not believe they are. I think it is an excuse.

Can you justify it?

Richard

In the real world which I suggest you visit, of course people should pay the tax they owe and no question about that. Tax evaders must be punished. But equally no-one has to pay more tax than they owe and if there are legitimate strategies to reduce tax, they should be free to implement those strategies until such time as they are not legitimate.

A lot of your arguments do revolve around morality and people doing the right thing. But isn’t it that the companies are not immoral (nor are markets), they are amoral.

Nobody is paying tax that they do not legally have to pay (including people who think that their income tax is too low for society’s sake). Companies who use tax havens are doing so because they don’t have to do something which would cost them more money (not use tax havens).

Is it not that we need to concentrate on change by the government who regulate companies and markets (or should), rather than try to impose a morality on things which cannot take those characteristics?

I would be very interested in your ideas on this.

Thanks
James