Prem Sikka has been arguing in favour of unitary taxation in the Guardian. He's right to do so, but it is only fair to say we are working on research on this issue together righ now. As he says:
The unitary taxation model should be debated at the next G8 meeting. It can easily be applied to EU member states and beyond. There is plenty of room for negotiations around the apportionment formula and related factors, but the ultimate prize of making a serious dent on organised corporate tax avoidance is worth pursuing.
It's more than that: the OECD has promised radical reform and unitary taxation is ultimately the only alternative to the current failed systems.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
The Independent today (Monday) had an article on Margaret Hodge and tax being a moral issue. I was shocked by the huge number of negative comments and ‘they are not breaking any laws’ opinions.
I had to reply.
Is it a moral issue when big vested interests subsidize ‘think thanks’ and politicians who advocate policies which benefit them over other sections of the community? Koch brothers and Murdoch/Fox News come to mind.
Is it a moral issue when domestic companies pay tax and their competitors don’t or just minimal amounts?
is it a moral issue when a small proportion of the population manipulate the laws to increase their wealth ( a greater proportion of the GDP goes to a smaller
percentage than was the case a generation ago) while at the same time, many others, including some of the poorest people in the nation, are facing real reductions and hardship?
Tax regulations and laws are designed to be fair to business e.g. not double tax, give relief on money borrowed for investment. This was the intention of Parliament and they have been utilised in ways never intended by the law makers. English law introduced the concept of equity to mitigate the letter of the law in the interest of justice.
Does this apply here?
Yes, it is a moral question.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/benefits-crackdown-humiliates-disabled-army-war-veterans-8633610.html
Sorry, hit return inadvertently.
The problem is that the coalition appears to have no comprehension of the meaning of morals but joins its friends in wanting to engage in a philosophical debate despite lacking that comprehension. That’s at best; at worst they’re simply evil (oh bugger, another concept they don’t understand).
“I was shocked by the huge number of negative comments and ‘they are not breaking any laws’ opinions.”
Don’t rule out the possibility that these commenters are being paid by some PR firm to “help mould opinion”.