This comes from the Independent this afternoon:
At a time when public trust in business is plummeting, tax justice has been called 'the Fairtrade of our times' - a measure by which we tell a good business from the bad. And as with Fairtrade, when co-ops were the first to stock the products, co-operative councillors the first to demand fairtrade procurement, and Labour & Co-operative MPs the first to demand political support, it's the co-operative movement and social enterprises that have once again been ahead of the curve.
With so many of us outraged by the Google revelations, yesterday Labour called a debate in parliament to demand answers. Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell savaged Chief Secretary to the Treasury David Gauke for what he called a “bizarre, upside down and callous sense of justice and fairness”.
So how do we fight back against it?
One solution is the Fair Tax Mark. Launched in February 2014, it's designed to enable those of us unacquainted with the complexities of corporate balance sheets and Annual Reports to easily tell the tax dodgers from those who pay their fair share, and to change our consumer habits accordingly.
In order to achieve the Mark, companies have to open their books to a team of experts. It's up to applicants to prove that they are making a genuine effort to be open and transparent about their tax affairs, and that they are paying the right amount of corporation tax at the right time and in the right place.
Some of Britain's largest co-operatives have led the way, with Midcounties Co-op, Phone Co-op, Unity Trust Bank and the Co-operative Group the first to achieve the Mark. They've since been joined by transport operator Go Ahead Group, energy company SSE, and high street cosmetics chain Lush, with others scrambling to sign-up.
Yes, I know it's a long quote.
But I liked it.
Full disclosure: I created the Fair Tax Mark and am its technical director.
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!
No issue with the thrust of it but poor journalism yet again. Lazy terms like “tax dodgers” and “fair share” are meaningless.
Odd how much of the world disagrees with you
Two observations
– Based on the assumption that genuine interest in evidence based analysis and rational debate exists a reading of The Spirit Level seems well overdue here.
– It is both interesting and illuminating that whenever the term ‘lazy journalism’ is bandied about more often than not you never see examples like “benefit cheats” or “trickle down” described as meaningless, only the type of examples quoted above.
Seems that we have reached a point where there is not even a pretence at hiding blatant and obvious bias.
Fair share is subjective. Fair share to you is a different number to fair share to me. Hence meaningless when used by journalists and politicians. Tax dodger mixes evasion and avoidance so again meaningless.
Plenty of ways to convey these sentiments with more clarity. I suspect the left are happy to talk in woolly terms at the end of the day because it means they can avoid going into details. You are an exception of course in that you go into the substance which I respect you for. Others could learn from it.
Tax avoders and evaders bith free-ride
They are the same
And we can all identify that
Hence fair share is completekly meaningful
We have professionals i.e. HMRC to rule on what taxes business should pay, based on ALL the information available.
Why do we need some part-time amateurs making judgements on minimal information and obviously with a (poorly) hidden agenda?
Particularly when this seem people don’t appear to understand that there is a tax rule book and compliance with that rule book is what is required, not some subjective viewpoint on tax fairness…
Because tax is not just about payment
It is also about being seen to pay
And accounting is not addressing this issue so we are
Fair share isn’t to do with evasion or avoidance. It’s in the eye of the beholder. It’s a nothing term.
Only to a neoliberal pedant
Yo a large majority it is a guiding principle
You mean like:
“Something for nothing culture.”
“Benefit scroungers.”
“Workshy.”
“Swamped.”
“Benefit tourism.”
“Health tourists.”
“Sovereignty.”
“Trickle down.”
“Illegal immigrants.”
“Terrorists.”
“Democracy.”
“Free markets.”
“The hidden hand.”
“The rule of law.”
“Freedom of speech.”
“Equality before the law.”
“Free press.”
“Punching above our weight.”
“Free trade.”
“Choice.”
Not to exclude of course any official statistic involving GDP, inflation, employment levels, number of disabled etc.
Quite revealing Dave. Which terrorists do you think have been mislabelled?
That aside I agree politicians on all sides use foolish soundbites. That doesn’t mean my point on “fair share”
doesn’t hold (and its used by Osbourne as well)
It would help if you could spell Osborne’s name
Depends whose definition you are using Jim. How about the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear with the intention to coerce or intimidate governments or societies to attain political, religious, or ideological goals.
No weasel little qualifications like “unlawful” (as per the US army manual) which allows certain people, groups and states to hide behind their own self created legal niceties, effectively mislabelling themselves as not terrorists.
At present probably the key problem is that in practice the term does not have a static definition but a flexible one which keeps incorporating more and more behaviours. To take an example, this site because it is concerned with tax and finance issues has noted on a number of occasions in the past six months people flying kites in pursuit of a particular agenda, about abolishing cash.
In a similar vein normal reasonable behaviours, some of which can be classified as normal rational reactions, are increasingly falling into the moving definition of terrorism, either directly or by word association, again to suit a particular agenda which is to delegitimise opposition to whatever agenda. I recommend using a search engine to find the late Milton Meyer tract “They thought they were free” for an insight to how this kind of process operates.
Right now, there are a great many people about who seem to have no problem with verbally articulating that every Muslim is a terrorist; whilst there are others who compare legitimate dissent, protest, civil disobedience, trade union activity, downloading and copying data and a whole load of other activities in a similar way. It’s an old practice, demonising anything that seeks to challenge or criticise a self interested status quo or any specific agenda and one day someone, like yourself for instance Jim, can find themselves on one side of the line and the next day, because you’ve done, said or written something that challanges an agenda, you find yourself on the other side of the line.
Like for instance the Lawrence family. Or the families of the Hillsborough victims families. Civil groups concerned about the environment or their workplace health and safety, protecting their livelihoods and communities and so on. Treated as terrorists by the State organs of the British and US establishments and subject to surveillance, infiltration, agent provocateur’s, abusive relationships, blacklisting, itimidation etc.
Bit of a bugger this reality business ‘ain’t it Jim.
I’m sorry Dave but you’re in a fantasy land if you think the State treats the Hillsborough families as terrorists. Likewise that “a great many people” think all Muslims are terrorists.
When you say “reality”, I’m afraid it’s simply scenarios that you have fabricated.
In that case Jim why waste security, intelligence and police time and resources tapping people’s phones, infiltrating family circles, spying on their activities, disrupting and misdirecting their efforts etc etc.
You know Jim, all the kind of activities the security, intelligence and police services partake in towards terrorists and terrorist cells.
In terms of Muslims you’ve obviously never had the pleasure of regular contact with Daily Mail readers. You really should get out more, see and experience the world. As I implied earlier, when you have actually got to personally experience how this actually works, and there will come a time when that line whizzes past you, yes you, Jim, you will be the proud owner of what for you will be a brand spanking new perspective on life.
i have to agree with you Dave
Richard you called me a pedant in your previous post and then pick me up for a typo? Great stuff.
Typo’s are normal: I know
Not knowing the Chancellor’s name is just a little odd