More good work from Christian Aid today that I am pleased to share:
Millions of Britons are using consumer power to boycott companies seen to be avoiding their fair share of UK tax, new research reveals.
A ComRes survey about public perceptions around tax avoidance, commissioned by Christian Aid, found a third (34 per cent) of Britons say that they are currently boycotting the products or services of a company because it does not pay its fair share of tax in the UK. Almost half (45 per cent) say they are considering a boycott.
Public outrage appears to be growing following recent revelations about the remarkably small amount of UK tax paid by some multinationals, the poll suggests.
Two out of three (66 per cent) Britons now believe tax avoidance to be morally wrong, according to this latest survey — up 10 percentage points from when people were asked the same question in August 2012. And a remarkable four out of five respondents (80 per cent) say that multinationals' tax avoidance makes them feel angry.
But there is also public concern that the UK Government needs to do what it reasonably can about multinationals' impact on the rest of the world, the survey found. Almost three-quarters (72 per cent) of people agreed the Government has a responsibility to ensure that all UK-based companies pay the proper amount of tax in every country in which they operate, and eight out of ten people (84 per cent) want to see multinationals' accounts more transparent and publicly available.
‘In the run up to the Budget, which we hope the Chancellor will use to require companies to reveal more information about their tax avoidance in developing countries, this is heartening news,' said Joseph Stead, Senior Economic Justice Adviser, Christian Aid.
‘The public clearly understands the UK has a responsibility to ensure UK plc plays by the rules both home and away — and we hope the Chancellor will show he does too. The overwhelming majority (80 per cent) of the British public say that tax avoidance by multinational companies makes them feel angry.'
‘But what this survey also shows is that one in three people are actually prepared to change their buying habits and boycott some of the firms seen as not paying their fair share in the UK. This surely must be a wake-up call to all businesses,' he added.
The new survey also suggests that Britons have a strong sense of injustice around tax in the UK with 89 per cent of those questioned saying it is unfair that they have to pay their taxes when multinationals can avoid doing so, and 85 per cent saying that it is currently too easy for multinational companies to avoid tax.
Government ministers' recent condemnations of aggressive tax avoidance appear to have been noticed by the public, with the latest survey showing a rise in the proportion of people who agree that the Government is showing a genuine desire to combat tax avoidance, up to 43 per cent from 38 per cent in August. But the Government still has some way to go convincing voters as almost as many people (39 per cent) disagree.
But, as the UK readies itself to host the G8 Summit meeting in Northern Ireland in June, there is some comfort for the coalition. Three quarters (77 per cent) of those surveyed believe that David Cameron is right to make tackling tax evasion and avoidance a priority at the G8 meeting.
85 per cent say we need global leaders to stop multinationals from abusing the tax system, while 63 per cent think that strong action on tax avoidance and evasion at the G8 could help lift millions of people out of poverty around the world.
‘People understand the importance of developing countries being able to collect tax that is owed to them by multinational corporations. Tax is a powerful weapon against poverty and three quarters of Britons agree that if developing countries could collect more tax then they would, in time, be less dependent on international aid, and therefore better able to provide for their own people,' adds Joseph Stead.
Christian Aid estimates that at present, multinationals' tax dodging costs poor countries $160 billon every year, far more than they receive in aid.
Christian Aid is part of the Enough Food For Everyone IF coalition, which is calling on governments to stop big companies dodging tax in poor countries, so that millions of people can free themselves from hunger. The group of more than 100 charities and faith organisations wants the UK public to ask their MPs to lobby the Chancellor ahead of the Budget on 20 March. Enough Food For Everyone IF wants the Chancellor to use this Budget to require multinational companies to reveal the tax avoidance schemes they use in developing countries — and to commit the UK to sharing the resulting information with the countries concerned. This would help their tax authorities to decide how best to use their very limited resources.
Who said tax justice couldn't achieve popular support?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The reality is that it is easy to blame big business for avoiding tax, but the reality is that the tax avoided by thousands of small business men far exceeds that lost through the larger companies. The large companies contribute millions to the economy through PAYE and NIC and yet we boycotte them whilst turning a blind eye to the local small business cheating on its taxes. Sadly it is seen as bad to blame them and far easier to pick on the few banks and large companies
Evasion is a bigger issue
Is there any evidence for this? In my experience large companies have far more options available to avoid tax than small businesses. As we have seen, Amazon and Starbucks can engage in tax avoidance that would not be possible for independent book and coffee shops, even if they wanted to go down that road.
I agree. Small, on-shore business would have to resort to evasion to get the tax outcomes available to avoiding large businesses with CFCs.
This shows that we can use the tools of neo-liberalism (markets and choice) to punish these companies.
Alternatively, we can wait years and years in the off-handed chance that some government someday will take some sort of half-measure which might or might not have some effect, maybe……..
‘punish these companies’
For complying with the law (be it right or wrong in your opinion)?
What crime have they committed?
If you think they should pay their ‘fair share’ (whatever that is, other than your guess) then change the law?
Wait for the GAAR
And better still the General Anti-Tax Avoidance Principle that will follow
dont both need to be tackled? painters & decorators/local garages taking cash in hand as well as big corporate dodges? why prioritise one over the other, give HMRC enough resources to go after both simultaneously – we have a deficit to pay !
AGREED!
I would rather large companies were pursued more vigorously. It’s a class issue. Those small businesses are not infrequently on the borderline between bankruptcy/insolvency. Increasingly they are only self employed or running small businesses because they have little option. As opposed to large companies which currently sit on £750b in cash reserves and it is the large companies and high net worth individuals which have the recourse to tax dodging schemes in a way that the car mechanic or odd job man doesn’t and can’t.
I’m sorry Paulc but once you start prioritising one sort of tax evader over another you ae on a slippery slope. Bottom line is its illegal,they should both be pursued with the same vigour
I am not convinced by any “slippery slope” argument, because such arguments are fallacious. But particularly this one. As we are repeatedly told in another part of the forest there are not unlimited resources and we have to make “tough choices”. That applies to tax as much as it does to anything. We are also continually told that some things cannot be done, or must be done, because of the “message” they send out. I don’t believe that either: but if the government do (and they all say they do in some contexts) then the “message” is stronger if they take effective action against big multinationals than it is if they hit your local plumber. It will be reported and the plumber will not, at its simplest. Nor does the local plumber cause starvation in the third world.
Large-scale avoidance is the choice of large business.
Small-scale evasion is the option of small business [some].
Given that avoidance takes expensive resource to set-up and operate.