The Observer editorial today addresses the issue of unethical behaviour my major companies. As they say:
Looking back over the last seven years, one thing stands out: the extent to which it has been taxpayers, rather than the banking industry, who have absorbed the pain of the crisis is remarkable. This has remained a constant theme in relation to corporate malpractice.
And it was not hard for them to come up with a long list to refer to: anyone could have done that without a lot of thought. It's the difference in the reaction that draws their attention though:
Other sectors are far from immune from illegal and unethical practice: in recent years, politics, charities and sports have also been beset by scandals. But it is notable that the worst abusers of the MP expenses system ended up in jail; when unethical charity fundraising practices were uncovered, charities backed tough new rules that were quickly put in place; athletes are regularly banned from their sports.
In contrast, companies seem to get away with being treated far more leniently when they break the law.
So what does the Observer recommend? They start with this:
Government can also do much more to reform corporation tax to prevent avoidance, for example by taxing companies a proportion of their global profits based on UK sales.
That's unitary taxation, which the tax justice movement has long promoted.
And it says:
[The government] should promote international tax transparency, which would require all large companies to report profits and taxes paid in all countries in which they trade.
That's country-by-country reporting, which I created in 2003.
Next it says:
And [it]should take greater steps against the use of tax havens, many of which are British crown dependencies.
That's always been a tax justice theme.
And they say:
But if consumers are going to play a greater role in holding businesses to account, they need better information. For example, the European parliament has called for a fair tax kitemark so consumers and governments can make better decisions about who to buy from.
That's the Fair Tax Mark idea.
Now I acknowledge there are other ideas mentioned - but tax justice and the accountability we demand is clearly art the core of this issue. It would also let us tell whether the Observer's conclusion was right:
It is a handful of bad companies that persist in making money by breaking the law or engaging in unethical behaviour at the expense of consumers, taxpayers and employees. But it remains too easy for them to get away with it and their behaviour tarnishes the whole private sector. All of us — government, the private sector and consumers — have a responsibility to do a better job of holding them to account.
We know - and I readily acknowledge it - that there are good companies. But we do not know the split, and that is the problem.
Which is why we need Tax Reporting Standards. We need to sort out the good from the bad. Now.
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:
Suggest that the Observer learn the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion..
What criminal activities by corporates have gone unpunished?
Why should we want to limit ‘Tax avoidance’ if that avoidance is entirely consistent with the tax rules set out by Parliament?
Go and read the General Anti-Abuse Rule
You didn’t answer MarkB’s question – what criminal activities have gone unpunished?
When someone’s morality is defined by the law you know they have ceased to be a moral agent
You appear to not understand the difference between ‘criminality’ which refers to the law of the land and ‘morality’, which is entirely different.
So when you claim ‘criminality’ you are wrong.
I have no claimed criminality
I’m not stupid enough to make libellous claims
You made the claim of criminality up to suit your own purposes
Now stop wasting my time
If the TTIP agreement goes through we can wave goodbye to any hope of taxing, or controlling, corporations.
There is a lot of concern on the other side of the pond now, as people are beginning to see the TPP agreement as a democracy ending agreement that will reduce both senate and congress to being powerless.
Unfortunately, both main parties, for reasons of pocket lining, and fully in favour of it.
“Suggest that the Observer learn the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion..”
What, and then all the work that HMRC and the government have put into blurring the line and muddying the waters goes to waste? You can almost chart how two such distinct things are now always put together in the same context as if they are in any way similar, which they are not.
Tax evasion involves dishonesty, misrepresentation, criminality, deception and often conspiracy. As opposed to legally reducing one’s tax bill which is all fully disclosed and confirmed with legal/tax experts to be fully lawful and compliant. To deliberately conflate the two is amoral and disingenuous, yet in the same breath the government will speak about other’s morality.
Is the Benny Hill show the same as what a rapist does… they both involve using women, so let’s just treat them the same and speak of them in the same context. Do it enough, again and again and people will assume they must be similar.
Let’s start by saying that anyone who thinks anything Benny Hill did was socially acceptable is not welcome here
And then add that very clearly tax avoidance and tax evasion are very closely related – as both are economic free-riding
And then say that because of the level of argument you are bringing I will feel at liberty to delete your comments from now on