The Guardian has reported that:
Treasury insiders have accused Margaret Hodge, the high-profile chairman of the parliamentary public accounts committee, of deterring multinational companies from coming to Britain.
A source said to be close to George Osborne briefed the BBC and Mail Online on Thursday about claims that senior ministers have been warned by businesses that the prospect of public humiliation in front of MPs and television cameras was making them think twice about where to invest. Hodge was singled out for particular criticism.
"Companies looking at Britain are being put off the idea of moving their headquarters here because they fear the level of public exposure for behaving perfectly legally. There is no doubt it is having an impact. We are trying to show we have one of the most competitive corporate tax regimes in the world, but the message is being sent out if you come here you will be exposed to this sort of criticism from Margaret Hodge and her committee," the source said.
This is important. First it shows the role of the Treasury in promoting the UK as a tax haven, something Hodge clearly opposes.
Second, it shows that the Treasury thinks democratic accountability of corporations does not exist.
Both actions are deeply subversive of democracy.
And yes, in the interests of full disclosure I should make clear that I do sometimes talk to Margaret Hodge.
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:
I think there’s a difference between democratic accountability and being publically lectured by someone who displays no understanding of the subject she’s lecturing you on, yet still says you’re in the wrong despite being unable to articulate why.
If Hodge was wrong she would not have already changed the world of tax
I’m afraid Andrew I’ll have no truck with the corporate fascist state that you and others like you wish to introduce to the UK.
I’m glad she’s deterring the big corporate parasites. Perhaps then indigenous businesses won’t be crowded out!
What corporate fascist state? I want corporates’ tax affairs to be properly scrutinised, which means making sure HMRC has the legal clout and the resources to do it.
Having Hodge barge in there and say HMRC are doing it wrong when she has no idea what either the companies or HMRC are doing – much less what they should be doing – is not helpful.
My view that Hodge is not helping with the job doesn’t at all mean I think the job shouldn’t be done, I just think she’s the wrong person for it.
Go and read what the corporate fascist state is
And the realise that by saying a parliamentarian should not ask questions you are promoting it
Asking questions is one thing, but berating companies for not paying tax that they don’t think is due – and that HMRC have confirmed is not due – is a very different matter.
Parliamentary privilege is not a carte blanche to do what you like.
The question is whether it was due
HMRC have never had the courage to prove the point
Never had the courage, or never had any evidence, or never had any appropriate facts?
I had a good look at the available accounts for Starbucks when this story broke, and so far as I can tell there’s no evidence in the public domain to suggest any avoidance which wasn’t picked up on and adjusted by HMRC (they reducd the deduction for royalties, for example, to a rate which seems consistent with other known royalty rates).
It may well be that there are other facts not in the public domain, but as HMRC have exercised their rights to enquire into the position, and have the right to demand any information they consider pertinent (subject only to legal profesional privilege), it seems unlikely to me that you know of anything which HMRC were not aware of. So I’m not sure that your opinion should be preferred to HMRC’s.
Just go and read what Tom Bergin said
I’ve read what Bergin said, and I stand by my analysis – which was, so far as I can tell, in rather more depth than his.
She’s wrong, and she’s changed it for the worse, in my view.
I can understand wanting to make sure people pay the right amount of tax – that’s my aim too. But so far as I can tell she doesn’t care about what the right amount is so long as she can find asomeone to score points off.
So the whole BEPS programme is changing things for the worse?
You mean her success – stunning success – in bringing companies to account for tax – is wrong when even the OECD now admit she was right?
Did Hodge start off BEPS and the OECD work? Sorry, I missed that announcement: I thought they were in progress anyway.
She’s done nothing to bring companies to account for tax. Apart from £20m from Starbucks – which it seems isn’t due anyway, as HMRC have said – what additional tax is she bringing in?
The best light I can paint her in is that she is making a lot of noise which attracts attention to an area that could stand some scrutiny. However, in my opinion she’s not adding to the quality of the scrutiny in any way: in fact by deterring people from talking about the issues because they’ll get ranted at she’s having a marked adverse effect on the quality of debate.
The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee is doing a much better job of scrutiny, I think, albeit with far less fanfare.
This week the OECD said without the press scrutiny in which she played a pivotal role there would be no BEPS
I am before the Lords on Monday
I shall be interested to see what you have to say.
They’re focusing on policy development and partnerships, I believe? Or is that just for the written submissions, with a wider-ranging discussion in person?
Wait til Monday
This is the Margaret Hodge who clearly opposes… “the role of the Treasury in promoting the UK as a tax haven” yet has her stake in her family business in a family trust so there is no inheritance tax to pay, effectively paying 0.01% tax.
Hypocrite.
And the Guardian…Owned by a Trust based in the Caymen Islands.
Hmmm….
Sorry Richard, I expect better from you.
Hodge did not put the structure into trust as far as I know. I am not responsible for my father or brother any more than she is
As for the Guardian – I have been clear in my criticism
But it’s fair to talk about David Cameron’s father, right?
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2012/04/22/why-its-fair-to-talk-about-david-camerons-fathers-tax-affairs/
Yes
Because it was relevant to the issue
So the difference between the two is what?
That David Cameron supports inherited wealth, so his fathers’ tax planning can be used as a stick to beat him.. but Margaret Hodge is, what? Is she opposed to inherited wealth? Is she opposed to rich people benefitting from tax planning? Are these reasons why we *shouldn’t* glance at the source of some of her considerable advantage and ask how it fits with her apparent desire for tax justice?
Nonsense. None of us are responsible for what how our parents manage their money until the day we start cashing the cheques. From then on, it’s all fair game. You were dead right about Cameron, and if Hodge is a willing beneficiary of a tax-avoiding trust then you should have the courage to call her on it.
One was contextual for Cameron’s attack on tax havens
As for Hodge, I note the Telegraph had to withdraw all its claims but it looks like you may be perpetuating them
I have made enquiry of her and was satisfied with the response as to her role
I think we are getting confused here,
Margret Hodge has a tax free trust, which contains a small number of shares in a company.
The Telegraph said, incorrectly, that this company didn’t pay tax and did a transfer pricing deal. This was incorrect on two accounts and an apology was given.
She still has the trust, which is a fact.
Her family created a trust as far as I am aware
I would want that its details were on public record
I want that for all trusts
I believe that the claims in the Telegraph related to the tax position of Stemcore itself, which they wrongly accused of aggressive avoidance after jumping to conclusions based on a simplistic reading of the accounts… Not the status of the family shareholdings, which are, I am led to believe, held in an (entirely legal and normal.. but, perhaps, not *fair*) trust which shelters them from inheritance tax. Perhaps that is not the case.. I recognise that there’s a lot of nefarious mud being slung around.
Her role may well be as a mere passive beneficiary.. but IHT planning is a major factor in inequality, allowing the very rich to preserve their wealth as they pass wealth through the generations. There’s not much that’s fair about that. If she is such a beneficiary then it’s fair for her to be called out on it. If not then good.. the fewer hypocrites in parliament, the better.
If she did not do the planning what William says holds true
Colin
This comes up over & again & is a silly point. How can Ms Hodge influence the structuring of a company which, so far as I understand, she has no involvement in?
Is your point that, in fact, she takes an active interest in the Company? If so, do you have any evidence?
You might say she should sell her shares but I can’t imagine her family would agree to that, or that any outside investor would want to acquire a minority interest in what is a typically family concern.
She tells me she has no active interest
No. She doesn’t have an active *role* in the company. But if she is exceptionally wealthy due to being a beneficiary of the shares, which I believe is the case, then it’s hardly true to say she doesn’t have an active *interest*. And, again, if David Cameron is ripe for criticism over his unearned advantage, then so is Margaret Hodge.
I note that someone mentioned she has a ‘small’ shareholding. My Gran’s £800 of BT shares was a ‘small’ shareholding. A few percent of a £bn company is not.
But Margaret has said there’s ‘nothing to see here’, so I guess that’s that. It’s not as if people are ever selective with the truth when it comes to their tax affairs. I withdraw all suggestions of double standards.
I think you have made your criticism
Now we move on
These are hominem arguments and prove nothing.
Margaret Hodge is not a neo-lberal puppet, unlike the coalition government and frankly HMRC. These companies need the light of publicity on their tax affairs.
Why should they be unhappy about it if they have nothing to hide?
Seems to me we are getting away from the point. The point is blackmail. And that is what underpins a great deal of policy announcements these days. I seem to remember that “holding the country to ransom” was a bad thing…..
Indeed: blackmailing companies into paying more tax than is legally due would be a bad thing.
Changing the law is another matter, and one which is of course open to Hodge to pursue.
No one blackmailed anyone
The OECD admits double non-taxation is likely though ergo Hodge was right
And so was I
The converse is true Andrew. Multinationals have been blackmailing governments for years, one example is in relation to offshoring jobs. Those companies from the US have got it down to fine art. They have had plenty of practice playing off State against State and mugging the Federal Government.
At least they provide jobs. Which is something that should be supported. holding this county to ransom, would be removing their companies as a result of her comments.
I really think you have it wrong how is doing the blackmailing here
That is done by big business and its agents
If Starbucks buggered of and allowed a lot of small, local, businesses to replace them that might be a good thing!
That’s overly simplistic, Luke. I’m all for creating employment but not at the expense of someone siphoning away tax money that could be used for the public benefit, big brands adding to the “clone town” problem or diverting profits away from local areas.
As Simon mentions, small businesses would thrive without these big firms muscling in. Just look at the booming coffee culture in Totnes, Devon – the 30 or so coffee houses are all independents, provide diversity & choice and keep money in the local economy. Oh, and they provide jobs too.
And as Richard quite rightly says, it’s the big firms simply saying they’ll provide jobs that holds planners to ransom – I lost a campaign to restore a pub & music venue and 30 jobs because McDonald’s promised 65 burger-flipping positions. So I’ve seen first-hand how these corporates schmooze local councils and it’s to the detriment of us all in the long run.
Hodge’s approach in the PAC hearings has been, unambiguously, designed to embarrass those in front of her and win support for her position and to influence how companies therefore behave. You might well argue that this is entirely right and proper.. but an obvious consequence of this will be companies changing their behaviour by deciding to avoid the UK because their leadership doesn’t want to be next in line. Given that, what’s wrong with the treasury pointing this out? The democratic thing to do is let the public understand that those PAC hearings come at a price.. and they can then decide whether it is one worth paying.
This is democracy at work
You have a problem with that?
Especially when the OECD admit Hodge was right?
Personally, I don’t like her approach. But that’s my opinion. Many people do, and they are entitled to. But it’s only ‘democracy in action’ when people who think that her approach is having a damaging effect also have their say.. which you seem to have taken exception to.
There are many other members of the committee form all parties
That is democracy in action
They can have their say
Lee T
If I were shareholder in a PLC & was told that they had decided not to invest in the UK, despite its obvious attractions, because the Directors wouldn’t want to be cross-examined by Ms Hodge, I wouldn’t criticise Ms Hodge. I’d petition to sack the Board of Directors.
In reality, of course, it wouldn’t happen. It is a wholly silly argument put forward by a Tory party that is desperate to retain power.
“Personally, I don’t like her approach. But that’s my opinion.”
Of course you don’t like her….because she is good at her job and is not letting corporations get away with quite as much murder as they usually do!
You must let big business do what they like, or the sky will fall in….apparently!
A few years ago Richard pointed out that the European Parliament had overwhelmingly voted against the use of tax havens (Conservative and UKIP MEPS voted the other way). The BBC for some reason, hadn’t reported this.
The view that tax is being avoided by dubious means, is more than a view put forward by Margaret Hodge. it is widely held. I don’t know if other European parliaments scrutinize the corporations in this public manner but London is a, perhaps the, key site for these activities.
I subscribe to the view that tax is being avoided by dubious means, and I’m keen to have those dubious means attacked – hence my previous comment about giving HMRC the resources to do so.
I don’t think it follows that dubious means have been employed every time a company reports a loss, or pays less tax on income than a journalist thinks it ought to based on turnover.
It is certainly blackmail: if you ask us to account for ourselves in public we will take our ball and play elsewhere. They can, of course do that. I do not see any value in having the likes of starbucks on our high streets, however, so let them. If there is a demand for coffee others will fill the gap: hopefully independents who might contrubute to our economy
I see it the other way round: Hodge is telling people to pay more tax than the law requires, or she will damage their reputation.
If she were to look at changing the law to better fit her view of how things ought to be, that would be a different matter. But going outside the law to get people to pay more tax is definitely tending towards the blackmail end of the spectrum, in my view.
I think Starbucks are fine. So far as I can tell they aren’t paying tax because they aren’t making profits, largely because they’re paying high rents. In that case the landlords are making the proftis instead, and so UK tax will be collected on those profits in the landlords’ hands instead of Starbucks’. In the meantime Starbucks are engaged in economic activity in the UK, which gives some people jobs, the exchequer VAT, PAYE, NI and rates, and me access to coffee and cake. Everyone’s a winner but the shareholders, and I don’t particularly care about them.
She has said no such thing
Stop talking utter nonsense
Andrew, that’s absolute drivel.
All this boils down to is the egos and hubris of the rich and powerful.
They don’t like to be accountable to the ordinary man or woman on the Clapham Omnibus.
The reason – they’re latter day “corporate monarchs” in the King John or Charles 1 mould. They believe in their “divine right” to rule their corporate minions, choosing to ignore the fact that we live in a democratic society.
This the real problem and the only cure is to spread democracy more widely in the workplace. We need far more “actors in the market place” that are businesses owned and manage by employees.
Let’s look at this from a slightly different angle shall we? Exactly what is wrong with a national Parliament questioning the chief executives of large and powerful companies over their tax affairs? Isn’t it part and parcel of the job that such people, who receive extraordinary financial rewards for what they do, should be able to explain their position, or defend the position they take on taxation if that’s the policy of their company?
Andrew, if Margaret Hodge is wrong in her assertions, surely these ‘Titans of business’ should be able to show her up, and discredit her? As is the case with those senior bankers whose judgement has been shown to be so poor, the fact that these people haven’t done so merely makes me think ‘what the hell are they being paid for?’
If these men are so scared of a mere MP who, according to you and members of some of the tax profession, is a clueless grandstander, they shouldn’t be CEO’s of these companies. And neither should government ministers and Treasury bigwigs be taking their side. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic.
Interesting statement that it is part and parcel of their job…
Let’s analyse this. The CEO/Chairman of a company is responsible towards his stakeholders. Who are the formal stakeholders?
Shareholders
Employees
Clients
Suppliers
Taxman
Regulators (where appropriate)
Environment (or the people living in it)
MPs are there to vote or not on proposed laws and to hold the government to account.
That one extends the rights of parliament to allow it to keep itself informed on current affairs outside of the government is perfectly understandable.
It is however not in the MPs attribution to lynch CEOs or whomever else. I will agree with you that it makes for great show on TV, but I am not sure it is their role and they may very well, by acting like a mob (not always), lose the goodwill of ANY unrelated party to come and discuss current affairs in good faith with them.
I am all for televised debates, but the blood sport element, is possibly exactly where the biggest problem of politics lies. Google will be here after the elections. Fiona Mactaggart, who got elected through doubtful democratic means (sorry, but all-women shortlists as used by Labour in 1997 is a bit of a weird practice), may or may not be there after the next election. So point scoring in a commission to raise one’s profile does not elevate the debate to where both parties want to have a constructive discussion.
As for these men being scared? Seriously, I doubt Eric Schmidt is scared by any MP…
Of course MPs can all witnesses and expect answers on key issues
Let’s stop offering any other nonsense
Well said!
The problem is that Hodge is telling the public what they want to hear. People want to be told that big American corporations are cheating the system – they like scapegoats. When the CEOs defend their firms, many people simply want to disbelieve them, as they’re not saying what they want to hear. If people are saying “They would say that, wouldn’t they?”, you might as well not bother.
Add to that the fact that the media have something of a vested interest in telling people what they want to hear, and you get a cycle of reinforcement: the papers report the criticisms more fully than the defences, so they get into the zeitgeist, and so people expect to hear more of them.
Plus of course tax is fairly complicated, so explaining why a company’s tax is what it is takes the best part of half an hour even to a sympathetic listener who’s keen to learn, if you’re starting from scratch. In my experience you need to start by explaining a P&L account and work from there, to someone who’s not got an accounting or tax background. Nobody who is already convinced the company is in the wrong is going to listen to that much of an explanation, when they could settle for “they’re a big comapny, of course they’re cheating” instead.
I don’t think people are scared of Hodge, they just don’t want to feed the trolls.
You sound increasingly like one of those who assured the Emperor he looked good in his clothes before a small boy (in this case, Hodge) came along and pointed out the obvious
‘People want to be told that big American corporations are cheating the system’
They are not cheating the system they are PLAYING it! At present it is the poor who are scapegoats, the idea of the rich and powerful being scapegoats is oxymoronic.
“I don’t think people are scared of Hodge, they just don’t want to feed the trolls. ”
This, I think, is fundamentally the point. Regardless of whether Ms Hodge personally, or the PAC generally, are right, the idea that they somehow “scare off” investment is absurd. This is a ludicrous story straight from the mouth of Lynton Crosby & all it shows is that the Tories are terrified of losing the election. Mainly, I suspect, because people like Iain Duncan Smith & Liam Fox could face prosecution when we find out whats been going on on their watch.
Andrew, you criticise Ms Hodge by saying that “the problem is that Hodge is telling the public what they want to hear”. I believe it would be more accurate to say that she’s been asking questions that need answers in language the public understand and would themselves use.
Quite apart from the rights and wrongs of Ms Hodge’s approach, is she not doing much more than fighting fire with fire, confronting gross distortion of fact by the government and commercial reality by certain headline multinationals with questions that ordinary people identify with?
We are assaulted with largely unchallenged propaganda issuing from government and big business on a continuous basis; and very successful in persuading much of the population it has proved to be. I for one am delighted that we have a politician, of any party, prepared to stand up and confront that propaganda forcefully. If only there were more of them.
I could not agree more
And better put than I have done
“The problem is that Hodge is telling the public what they want to hear. People want to be told that big American corporations are cheating the system — they like scapegoats. When the CEOs defend their firms, many people simply want to disbelieve them, as they’re not saying what they want to hear. If people are saying “They would say that, wouldn’t they?”, you might as well not bother.”
Oh stop please…you’re breaking my heart – poor lambs! It’s awful when they are taken to task for cheating the taxpayer out of billions of pounds, isn’t it?
Oh they haven’t?? They are working perfectly within the law? They’ve paid their full whack of corporation tax then?
Yes, it is awful when someone is taken to task for something they’re not doing.
So far as I know, having looked into the matter as far as I am able on publically-available documents, Google, Amazon, Starbucks and most of the other companies which have been attacked by Hodge have been operating entirely within the law.
Whether that means they’ve paid their full whack of corporation tax is another matter, which depends on how you define “full whack”. I define it as the amount the law says should be paid, in which case yes, they have; but I’m aware that others think that isn’t enough – though it’s rare for anyone to articulate how the higher figure would be calculated.
I do have a fundamental problem with someone saying a figure is too small if they can’t come up with even an estimate of the figure they would consider sufficient, much less a justification for it.
We know they operated ‘within’ the law
That’s why we also know they abuse the ‘spirit of the law’
Only tax professionals – and not all of them – now deny this
And I have quantified numbers, often
Denying the self-evidently true does not help you
“So far as I know, having looked into the matter as far as I am able on publically-available documents, Google, Amazon, Starbucks and most of the other companies which have been attacked by Hodge have been operating entirely within the law.”
And we all know that “the law” has been heavily influenced by big business and banking lobby groups. If we didn’t have such a kiss-butt government or one that had a spine, these laws would be amended so these companies weren’t allowed to rip off the British taxpayer any more!
The drinks lobby could put pressure on the government to allow drinking and driving. So drinking and driving would be OK “within the law” but it wouldn’t make it morally right!
Let’s stop justifying blatant rip offs by hiding behind the law, shall we? We all know this law, as it stands, stinks!
We are not accountable to democracy. We are accountable to the laws of the land. Politicians do not have the right to call people up to what may amount to a show trial or public humiliation. Once you admit this then mob rule and tyranny of the majority become acceptable.
MPs do have the right to question why a company deliberately structures its taxes to avoid the spirit of the law passed by parliament which they undoubtedly had
You are opposing democracy
‘Spirit of the Law’ – doesn’t exist. It’s either law or it isn’t.
Hodge and yourself (and others) have decided that you don’t like the law and have decided to subvert it by show trials in the PAC. ‘Google does evil’ is pure grandstanding and adds nothing to the legal position.
Hodge is opposing laws she doesn’t like and has made no proposal to change them – just insults people.
Respectfully (or not) a great many QCs clearly think the spirit of the law very clearly does exist, and not just in English law
So you’re wrong on that, and all that follows
Can we have details of the spirit of the law being shown by QCs and accepted in court.
Try the GAAR
QC’s can think what they like. It’s only when they convince the judge that their interpretation of the spirit of the law is what should be applied that it is applied.. at which point it *is* the law. That’s how ambiguities are dealt with… not by people deciding for themselves how the ‘spirit’ should be applied, and running witch hunts against people who think differently. So the original comment is correct, and your response, whilst correct in itself, doesn’t change that. The two of you are just citing the position at different stages of the legal process.
Why is it only people who seem to have no working knowledge of the law who hold such views?
Well, Richard, I do have a law degree. But it doesn’t take one of them to understand such a basic principle.
You clearly missed a fundamental part of your education then
Others did not
I’m sorry – but there’s nothing more to say – no person with experience agrees with you – even the OECD this week clearly referred to the spirit of the law
“We are not accountable to democracy. We are accountable to the laws of the land. Hmmm – I can think of a few countries where very bad things happen with just this kind of justification.
James g: “Politicians do not have the right to call people up to what may amount to a show trial or public humiliation.”
Which is exactly the modus operandi of the current government, via the routine distortion of fact and promotion of counter-factual anecdote and rumour for the purpose of publicly humiliating its selected scapegoats. Are they not guilty of promoting mob rule?
And are they not guilty of tyranny when they simultaneously do precisely nothing tangible to either confront or change the behaviour those whose financial muscle is key to their success and in whose shadow they stand quivering?
Whatever else you believe about Margaret Hodge, she is asking questions that many people want answered and, in the process, standing up to the tyrany that many people believe is being inflicted on this country.
Well said
Yes, it seems perfectly acceptable to scapegoat benefit claimant’s, doesn’t it? If any ordinary folk fiddle our benefits or our taxes ad the authorities find out, we are hit with the full force of the law.
Multinationals do it and apparently that’s OK for some reason.
What was that about being one law for the rich……..?
If we understand why the law exists we will also understand why we should obey it. Hopefully laws are passed to preserve the moral basis of society and anyone who finds a clever way around the law is asking the question why should I be moral when it benefits me not to be? What should be done with such people when legal sanction cannot apply. The answer lies with such miscreants being ostracized (individuals) or boycotted (corporations) in order to do that we need to know what they are up to. Hence the need for the PAC and the likes of Margaret Hodge.
Spirit of the Law: you do indeed believe in that don’t you. So when a UK corporate sells its stake in a US enterprise you write an individual post on it. In fact I also seem to recall Ms Hodge calling on that UK corporate to “do the right thing”. However, when a UK corporate sells its remaining stake in a UK subsidiary I wait in vain for your individual post and for Ms Hodge’s call for it to do that “right thing”.
Perhaps those QCs who believe they believe in the “spirit of the law” should be referred to the combined writings of Richard Murphy and Margaret Hodge. The Courageous State reads to me rather like the Arbitrary State. Is this democracy?
Those QCs appear before the Supreme Court regularly
On many issues they disagree with me
But they do know the law
And so do I
And we know therefore that there is a sprit to the law
Note the GAAR
You must have read another book called ‘The Courageous State’. Richards book describes a State with an essentially humatitarian view of society, as opposed to the government’s corporate-friendly neo-feudalist view, with people at the bottom of the pile.
The choice between putting the majority of the people before the rich elites, or vice versa, may be arbritary in your view, but some others may consider it to be rather an important choice.
They didn’t read the book
They just presume what I wrote
This being the GAAR that would be in mo way relevant in the cases of Amazon, Starbucks, Google or Vodafone that Hodge is tubthumping on? So why is it relevant in the context of this debate?
It is about the spirit of the law
Read it
I helped write it, admittedly
But you’d have I know nothing
http://thosebigwords.forumcommunity.net/?t=49310661&p=371123398
There is an awful lot of special pleading in this thread. There is no doubt that many of those who sell tax avoidance schemes are perfectly well aware that they are engaged in an arms race and that what they are doing is tested against the spirit of the law. They told that same PAC so quite openly.
The argument is predicated on the notion that our heads button up the back. Give it up, please
I’m suggesting you and Ms Hodge apply double standards;your failure to post anything on the SSE this week supports my suggestion.
May I offer a further example: you expressly refused to allow anyone to refer to Ken Livingstone or to his tax avoidance scams. However David Cameron’s DEAD FATHER’s tax affairs are fair game.
This “Spirit of the Law” thing seems horribly arbtirary and your idea of democracy quite tyranical.
To a libertarian anything that is democratic is tyrannical
“To a libertarian anything that is democratic is tyrannical ”
Bit of a broad brush there.
We do indeed refer to the tyranny of the majority though. Perhaps that’s what you mean? For example, a libertarian (or a classical liberal) would argue that what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms is entirely up to them and not a matter for the law at all. Large majorities of the British have disagreed with this idea for some centuries, which is why we had things like homosexuality being illegal.
Which is a neat illustration of the larger point: sure, majority rule y democracy is just great, least bad system there is. But this does not mean that al and any decisions made by said majority either must or should be enacted. As in, for example, when such a majoritarian decision tramples over the civil liberties of others.
Another example: I’m pretty sure you could get a majority of the country to vote for capital punishment, even these days. Yet we’re also members of the Council of Europe that says that capital punishment is a breach of civil rights. Who should win here? The civil rights or the democracy?
If it’s the civil rights then that means that there are indeed times when the simple expressed wish of the majority is not enough. Possibly, and I use this just as an example, not enough to over rise the rights to the rule of law and or due process concerning taxation?
But as you will have noted democracy has been remarkably good at preventing such mistaken excesses
In other words if is your broad brush that is far, far too wide in seeking to hide a self evident truth
Ironman (yeah, i bet)
How come Worstall hasn’t commented on a whole ream of trash in the last couple of weeks that he would usually snigger at except it’s mainly about people he knows or supports? His blog is just full of the shit he thinks about after wiping himself up.
As you will know, the criticism against Hodge and a related company (re you and your mates’ ongoing lies about her) was publically apologised for.
As you should also know, your devotion to worstall has nothing to do with real life, and you are merely grouping together with a bunch of other elderly sociopaths because it makes you feel superior.
Most of your mates don’t even live in England. Most of them only rabble rouse because they are bored and have a superiority complex.
Worstall should stick to being a rubbish oligarch, one that fixates about gays and women that have opinions.
I have to admit that I had reservations about posting this comment
But it far loss offensive than 95% of what Worstall writes
“As you will know, the criticism against Hodge and a related company (re you and your mates’ ongoing lies about her) was publically apologised for. ”
As above there are two entirely different things here.
Margaret, Lady Hodge, is a shareholder in Stemcor. It is absolutely correct to state that as a minor shareholder she is not responsible for how that company acts. The Telegraph’s apology was for claiming that in some manner she should be.
On the other hand, the inherited family shareholding in Stemcor is largely in an an inheritance tax avoiding (entirely and wholly legal) trust.
It does have to be said that that jars a little with her public persona over tax.
This is the last comment on this issue
First it does not conflict if the arrangement was not of her creation and I am not sure it was
Second, what you actually reveal is the hypocrisy of the libertarian position. You condemn anyone with values for what you consider to be their failure to live up to them. In place of values you promote an absence of values. That is indication of the absolute hypocrisy of your position because you continually reveal your willingness to exercise judgement when it us your stated position that there is no right to do so.
But if someone (Margaret Hodge) was REALLY opposed to tax avoidance as morally wrong as she says she is her conscience would not allow her to benefit from it. To say that it wasn’t her who set up the trust so it’s OK if she benefits from it is a flimsy defence.
Like someone saying that Amazon is a morally reprehensible organisation then selling their books on it.
To bring a moral dimension into the argument and then say that those morals only apply to other people is a pretty weak stance.
At least Diane Abbot had the good grace to admit she is a hypocrite about sending her children to a private school.
The comments made to Tim Worstall apply equally here
What a strange comment.
Why are you before the Lords on Monday? I’m interested to know – maybe it is a subject for a separate post. Good luck. Give em hell.
Interesting that the powerful can get all in a twist about Margaret Hodge when day after day the FT are reporting alarm from foreign companies regarding the Conservative’s anti-European drift- recently I recall big car manufacturers such as Nissan and Toyota and also American Banks to say nothing of the Chinese and Japanese banks expressing displeasure at English isolationism. These FT stories are ignored by the BBC and the other press which spent so much of the new year on the Romanian threat to our shores.
If they do not like heat, I suggest they stay out of the kitchen!
Given that most CEOs´ captain ships that are crewed by not-yet-imprisoned crooks, I regard their wailing as just something they are using to cover-up yet more burying of evidence…
Inform me, again, exactly how much has been paid, worldwide, in penalties for immoral/illegal transactions ?
Many tens of billions (£$), is that an answer?
Hey, one just got handed a $13 billion penalty for ¨questionable¨ (AKA, criminal) practices.
These croc tears, they really tear me apart. Whatever will we do if they actually start to lock these guys up?
What happens to the money from these fines -we know that the PPI fines were a contributory factor to growth! I imagine that in the US it gets absorbed into the military industrial complex.
What a confusing thread.
Are we saying that everything about Mrs Hodge is okay. Even though she told a lie on tv in a desperate attempt to get out of trouble. When she was found out about her trust.
However the PM DC is okay as well. His father possibly made some offshore companies. This was nothing to do with him either. So that’s okay as well.
Glad I have that sorted.
I am sure Margaret Hodge has some issues she would like to cover – anyone of 70 has
The argument is she has done a public service on this issue
And DM has never come near admitting the conflicts
I think that’s about it
But candidly – if Margaret Hodge is less than pure so what? Remember that guy who said something about the person who should cast the first stone?
Is there any evidence than DC father was still using his offshore facilities. Or how he has personally gained from this activity.
I have to be honest, as a child I wasn’t sure what my father did at work. Even worse some would say, I don’t know what my wife does. Although I know its very important.
As for being pure, next time I am in trouble, I shall ask my drug dealer for a reference. I am sure that will go down well.
Was well documented by Guardian on his death
I am genuinely confused by this comment from the treasury. As far as I am aware Margaret Hodge is not on her own and is a member of a committee. The committee membership seems to have a conservative majority. If she is genuinely getting her facts wrong, why doesn’t somebody point this out? Is the theory that tax is too complicated for any of the committee members (who presumably have access to advice) to understand?
You are right
It is sexist ad hominem attacking by HMT