The Guardian notes this morning that:
The bosses of some of Britain's largest multinational corporations have urged David Cameron to stop moralising and rein in his rhetoric on tax avoidance ahead of a G8 summit next month.
Chief executives of companies such as Burberry, Tesco, Vodafone, BAE Systems, Prudential and GSK were keen to take a final opportunity to lobby the prime minister in advance of the meeting of political leaders in Northern Ireland.
The action apparently took place during a meeting of Cameron's business advisory group, which he met with on Monday. Amongst those present was the president of the Confederation of British Industry, Sir Roger Carr, who has said tax avoidance "cannot be about morality — there are no absolutes".
He's wrong: there are absolutes, and it is most particularly true that there is no legal, ethical, fiduciary or any other duty to get round the law - which is what tax avoidance is. Put simply, seeking to abuse the law in this way - which many multinational corporations do - is unethical. That's true in itself: law abiding people do not abuse the law. But it's true at other deeper levels too.
First, any company doing this knows they shift the burden of tax at this onto someone else. That's free-riding the system.
Second, this is anti-competitive. Big business seeking to get a competitive advantage at cost to small companies is unethical.
Third, this can't even be defended by business need. The resulting cash surpluses are not used to employ people. Big business is simply sitting on massive cash piles for which it has no use, but which do inflate director's bonuses (which is what all this is really about).
Fourth, claiming companies pay VAT and PAYER in exchange is just nonsense, and a knowing fabrication of the truth: these sums are paid by customers and employees.
And despite all this the CBI is also proposing wholly unethical reform processes, as the Guardian notes:
The CBI boss invited the G8 to consider three points in relation to tax reform:
- Avoiding the moral debate — "it's all about the rules".
- Fixing the rules on an international stage, not unilaterally.
- Consulting on proposed changes with business.
The argument is:
1) Ethics have no role in business. What are the boundaries to this logic, I wonder?
2) The state must not act against big business - which is an argument to say democracy has no rights
3) Business may only be taxed with its consent.
This is arrogance in the extreme. But it is something much more than that. It is an argument that democracy has no place, states have no role, opinion no longer matters, and that the accumulation of wealth by an elite should be the focus of all policy.
In that case we have a fight on our hands: it is a fight for our way of life, security, principles and system of government, all of which the CBI is set out to destroy.
Make no mistake: this is not just a fight about tax (although it is that). It is a fight about the survival of democracy and self determination in the face of a global elite who want to destroy both.
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:
IS the CBI a pernicious organisation?
It gets a lot of the big economic calls wrong. As it did with Osborne’s austerity agenda which undermines the central interests of its members – that being having a prosperous and reliable market to sell in to.
We urgently need a national debate about business and professional ethics, and an action plan to transform behaviour of our leaders. I am surprised that in spite of the huge criticism of banking ethics, there has been no serious effort to transform banking culture and behaviour, nor any public dialogue about ethics. This is downright exploitation, greed and avarice and cannot be tolerated in an enlightened democratic society like Britain. I am ashamed to be British when I read about such behaviour by our leaders.
The problem is there are too few of us to lead that debate
Well said… it is deeply shocking that there has been little change in banking despite gross moral/ethical/technical failings. The only way I can explain it is that the prevailing culture, fueled by an evolutionary psychological interpretation, actually ‘admires’ this behaviour. Witness the proliferation of TV programmes with the aggressively suited entrepreneurs humiliating people that ‘don’t make the grade’ and who convey a view of reality that you are worthless unless you are ‘making it.’ People are cowed by this and it is the now dominant model of homo (non) sapiens.
I agree with your banking point in general — though the new boss of Barclays is trying to change the bank’s culture
Well said and beautifully put, Richard. How sad and pathetic it is that so few of our politicians can see this and thus act to stop our drift into a corporately controlled, neo-feudal state (indeed, world).
But I also find myself wondering how widespread the views of the likes of Roger Carr are across the business community, not least because last week it was the boss of Waitrose telling us the democracy should play second fiddle to big business. And to what extent, and from where, this message is being propogated and coordinated.
Anyway, with the G8 meeting on the horizon we can expect a PR and lobbying blitz from the representatives and spokespersons of big business and the 1% from hereon in.
Very true
The good news is I will be at the G8
Good luck at the G8 Richard – I am sure you will make your voice heard. I agree Richard, there are too few leaders critiquing the status quo, and those who do often do not have the power to make a difference or are side-lined. You have done a wonderful job of using the media to build a support base and challenge establishment thinking. I do think Cultural Diversity of leaders and voices can also help challenge ethical values and behaviour. All too often, the debate is very mono-cultural and as a result, the critique is also culturally specific. The presence of cultural diversity at the top table can help raise fundamental questions and also show different creative solutions to building a peaceful sustainable society. We need a multi-logue, not a mono-logue.
Just cam across your tweet and thereby the blog. Good luck in the G8 and I agree with your piece and all the replies.
Have Adam Smith’s “Theory of Moral Sentiments” ready to throw at any mannequin from a multinational as soon as he or she “bangs” on about the free market….
more evidenc that the financial world is fighting vigorously to oppose the so-called Robib Hood Tax which could slow down computer driven and socially harmful specultaion:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b8cdc3e6-bef9-11e2-87ff-00144feab7de.html#axzz2TwEBpAIk