I ask the question in the title of this blog at least in part for practical reasons.
As I mentioned early yesterday morning, I engaged in a round trip to the OECD in Paris yesterday that took more than 18 hours to appear before a committee made up of representatives of the BEPS nations to discuss the way in which tax relief is given to multinational corporations for the interest charges they incur.
As Luxleaks has shown, interest is being used to divert profits to low tax jurisdictions on an industrial scale, so this apparently rather dry and pretty technical issue is important. When Eurostar was late both ways though; when I did not find time for a proper meal at ay time in the day, and when I finally got home just before midnight I confess I did, at least momentarily, wonder last night why I chose to be one of those who partakes in such processes.
I feel slightly the same about today, when the suit will be dragged back on again as I head to parliament to appear before the Scottish Affairs Committee this afternoon to give evidence on the problems of identifying the beneficial ownership of land.
So why do it, especially when there is no certain way of establishing that effort gives rise to outcome? My guess is that I hope that there will be an outcome. I am in many ways a pessimist: I presume nothing will change. As a result I remain continually surprised, and pleased, that contrary to my expectation change can and does occur. But what experience has shown, to me at least, is that change happens for at least three reasons.
The first is that a technically sound demand is made.
The second is that it can be demonstrated that a reasonable number of people believe that change will result in an enhanced outcome on the issue.
And third, that sentiment is sufficiently supported to attract media attention and so attract the attention of those capable of effecting change.
The first part of this process is the one in which I spend most of my time, although I am, of course, aware that some would dispute it. Developing the technical basis for the arguments I presented on a formula basis for interest allocation between states and solving the accounting issues that have to be addressed to make that work has involved a great deal of time and effort, writing and exchange with a limited number of other people (most especially Prem Sikka and Sol Picciotto) to get the argument to the current stage, and as yet and even so much of it remains unpublished. Those long hours pay off when a difficult concept can be presented, I think coherently, to address what is a very real issue.
But none of that would be possible without the engagement of the NGOs and campaigners who have put this issue on the agenda. Oxfam were at yesterday's meeting, and trade unions were represented, but most NGOs weren't and that's fine: those present would not have been heard without the pressure for change the NGOs have helped create. The roles we have are different and distinct. Developing country aspects of the issue, which were firmly on the agenda, and where it looks like I have more to do, would have been ignored, I suspect. but for NGO pressure.
And then there's the media. Yesterday was conducted on a Chatham House basis. That does not assist media coverage and there will be none. Except for this note, limited as it is and as non-specific as it necessarily has to be to comply with the requirement of that rule.
Was it worth it? I hope so. That's all I can say. It's the basis on which I work.
Now it's time to find a tie and to prepare for another day and another committee and to ask for another change that might make help deliver tax justice.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
‘Bon courage’ Richard!
But with all those wonderful bistros serving good simple but real food at very moderate prices, how sad to spend a day in Paris without a proper meal. Man cannot live on tax alone – take care of yourself.
This man runs on buns
I am afraid that is also showing
It would be nice to think our leaders could be working on these issues on our behalf. As it is, I for one am grateful that there are a few people like you who will do it because it is right to do so.
When I a little boy i had a copy of Scouting for Boys and there was a story there. Two frogs fell into a bowl of cream and couldn’t get out. One gave up and drowned. The other kept on and eventually it whipped the milk into a cheese and was able to get out.
Change often comes quickly but the event usually has a long trail of causation. We don’t know the future but the situation is such that many might see the time is right and support could emerge unexpectedly from several directions.
Best of luck today.
Thanks
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/main/Player.aspx?meetingId=17022
you can watch yourself here, or anyone interested can watch as well.
Richard, I know you’re a Quaker, but it seems to me that you’re quite like the great John Wesley, treating “all the world as my parish”, and criss-crossing the country preaching the “word” on tax to informal assemblies of people excluded from the Establishment way of thinking (and acting too).
Two of John Wesley’s great concerns were the abolition of slavery (and, of course, of the slave trade), and education of the ordinary working man (and woman – Wesley was heavily on the side of women’s rights).
And both of these concerns bore fruit, with the abolition of slavery in 1833, and the setting up of working men’s institutes and the “eights hours work, eight hours leisure and eight hours rest” movement that fed into the labour movement generally, and to the founding of the Labour Party.
Alas, we have a Government intent on reversing both those advances – serfdom being effectively slavery, and Tory education being effectively “Gradgrind triumphant”.
Thank you for persevering; Wesley won in the end, and I think you and those who share your struggle will also win in the end too – providing we can clear the hurdle of the General Election, which, if the Troyes win, will result in a neo-feudal state, and a sharp step back to 1815, rather than 2015.
Thanks Andrew
Keep on trucking, we know you are right (and so do they).
Thanks
Richard
Following on from Andrew………
I’ve just started to read your book (they sent me Keegan’s book by mistake before Christmas – still a good read though except when Mr Keegan refers to Larry ‘I love Derivatives’ Summers as a serious economist – NO WAY Bill, NO WAY!) and I’m moved to say the following.
I’ve got to the bit where you talk about today’s politicians being part of something they don’t actually believe in (that ‘something’ is Government itself) on pages 30-31.
Why I find your blog so compelling is that for a long time I felt as if I was the only person who had this thought too (and others). I’ve always told colleagues at work or friends that when voting for Tories and some in Labour too, you were voting for people who did not believe in what they were doing. They were anti-government activists enjoying the benefits of working in government.
I used to use the comparison of a job interview to try to get this over to people.
Imagine someone applies for a job with your firm and you ask him or her how they would go about their job.
If the candidate answered that they were going to give away parts of your business to other companies; sell them at below their value; cut your operating budgets and therefore reduce your turnover so that you rely more on debt to fund the business; turn away long standing customers and those who depended on your services – would you employ them?
The answer is invariably ‘No’.
Yet these behaviours are the sort of things voters have been voting for since 1979 to employ politicians.
So I too are glad that you are here. I feel less lonely and that the light is being shone on these matters like never before. Long may it be so Richard and may it also lead to much needed change – especially for our children’s sake.
That’s a good comparison
And my children are a big motivation for doing what I do