As the Mail notes this morning:
The boss of Google has declared himself 'perplexed' by public anger at the internet giant's meagre UK tax contribution.
Eric Schmidt, Google's executive chairman, hit back after politicians criticised the California-based company for generating billions of pounds from its UK arm, but giving precious little back in taxes.
Google paid £10million in UK corporation tax between 2006 and 2011, despite pulling in revenues of £11.9billion.
But Mr Schmidt said the company had done what it was 'legally required' to do and would not pay a penny more than the demanded.
I regard this is as disingenuous. Google is saying it pays what is legally due and will pay no more. But as I am quoted saying in the article:
Tax expert Richard Murphy, of the Tax Justice Network, said Mr Schmidt wasn't abiding by the law, but simply side-stepping it by routing UK sales through Ireland, where taxes are lower.
'Let's be clear, he's actually not paying the right amount of tax, he's getting round the law. If we change it, he'll try to get around that law,' said Mr Murphy.
He said Mr Schmidt's comments proved that Britain needs a General Anti Avoidance Rule, which could be applied to any attempt to lower tax bills artificially.
'That would have undoubtedly caught their tax avoidance and then Eric Schmidt would have to comply with UK law,' said Mr Murphy.
That's one solution, and I called, with Margaret Hodge for another:
Mr Murphy agreed that a special committee should be set up to look solely at tax.
'HM Revenue & Customs doesn't have a minister responsible for it or a committee to review it and yet it's at the centre of British politics,' he said.
'It's time parliament took tax seriously and was given the funds to investigate just what's going on.'
Big business abuse has to be taken seriously and parliament has to evidence that, now, before the takeover of our tax authority by big business is complete and democracy is finally at real risk.
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:
Richard – if Ed Milliband is serious about change he has to go big on this in 2 years time with specific proposals. This is an open goal, its also unquestionably the right thing to do morally and politically.
That is my hope
I would be pleased if it was fulfilled
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/28/google_and_tax/
He’s not the only one perplexed. Bill Gates was on the ABC Q and A programme last night and someone in the audience was bold enough to ask this question of him:
MATTHEW THOMAS has asked: “After the recent global crackdown on tax minimisation schemes used by Microsoft, Apple and several other firms will you change your current finance strategies and bring capital out of tax havens and back into the countries so that you can honestly pay your tax?”
BILL GATES: “Yeah. I’m one of those rare people who is actually for taxes. Your know, I’ve paid over $6 billion in taxes in the United States gladly. You know I feel like the services I get from the Government are extremely worthwhile and all those tech companies, as far as I know, you know, are absolutely following all the rules about taxation. They are also, you know, fairly big taxpayers, so if somebody wants those companies to pay a higher percentage of profit and taxes, they should change the rules and make that happen. I think it’s great that that debate is taking place, but it’s not incumbent on those companies to take shareholder money and pay huge amounts that aren’t required. You really need – you need to have the rules say what the mechanism is if you want to make that a greater source of tax collection.”
You can view the whole transcript at:http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3761763.htm
We keep hearing how generous this man is. But I wonder how generous is he really? He has stuck his billions into a foundation, like the Rockefellers…but he still controls the money. So has he really given it away, as people keep saying? Isn’t a foundation like another form of trust? If he wishes all his expenses can come out of the foundation, so although the money is not his technically, he still controls where it moves. The other side of the coin, is that these foundations allow the ‘controller’ to continue furthering their ‘vision’ of the world. For the Rockefellers this has given them a lot of influence over universities and educational institutions. Can this really be a good thing?
We definitely need either a General Anti-Avoidance Rule or we need a radical simplification of the tax rules.
But most of all of course we need politicians with spines.
The suggestion I have been waiting for- of course there should be a Minister for Taxation. At present HMRC is directed by Treasury “teenagers” and Tax policy is driven in a an amateurish way through Parliament. And if our UK Universities are meant to be any good why is no decent tax research conducted through them? Tax research is being done by whatever Big 4 trainees are available. The Office for Tax Simplification is run on a rubber band budget. And HMRC needs a quantum leap to catch up with new forms of business and have international reach.
We agree entirely
Both Cambridge and Oxford have tax centres
Oxford’s is totally captured by big business – who set it up
Cambridge’s is better – but small
Minister for Taxation – wow that person wouldn’t be very popular at all. They’d have to try to define for everybody – each and every taxpayer – what a fair level of tax is…..
…..and then order each and every taxpayer to pay it in full on time whilst also trying to make sure that no-one used any device or system to legally reduce their bills…..
….whilst also trying to argue that each and every penny HMG gets is vital and that each and every penny spent by HMG is spent wisely on things we all need. Best of luck with that when it comes to VAT on fuels or spending on foreign aid or ‘five a day advisors’ and the like.
I’d give each incumbent about 30 days.
Politics is about taking decisions