Failure to act on corporate tax avoidance is a disgrace.

There is a direct political link between the tax avoidance of major companies operating in the UK and cuts in welfare spending. That link is the budget deficit, a major cause of which is falling tax revenue. Long gone are the days when Cameron and Clegg declared we were all in this together. The truth is that it is the poorest in our society who are being hurt the most. Whilst falling tax revenue is the major problem, Osborne sets his sights on indiscriminately cutting welfare spending. Unfortunately Labour have now adopted the same approach.

Yet whilst the poorest are being made to pay the biggest cost of 'cutting the deficit', major corporations with billions of turnover in the UK are avoiding tax. Apple, for example, avoided over £550m in tax on more than £2bn worth of underlying profits in Britain by channelling business through Ireland.

Of course there is the ethical issue involved here; big companies avoid paying tax, yet the government attacks 'welfare scroungers'. But the truth is the strategy of dealing with the deficit through cuts in welfare spending clearly isn't working. The budget deficit is set to rise not fall. The Osborne strategy isn't working. This is why it is alarming that Miliband and Balls appear to be falling into the same mindset, that you can cut the deficit through cuts in spending. You can't if the major cause of the rising deficit is falling tax revenue. And here we return to the problem of tax avoidance.

It is estimated that £120bn a year is lost through corporate tax avoidance, evasion and downright skulduggery. The poor pay the price.

We really do have to ask why the government continues to allow this appalling state of affairs to continue. Major corporations are failing to pay taxes in the UK and the wealthiest have got richer whilst the poor have suffered the most. Asda, Google, Apple, eBay, Ikea, Starbucks, Vodafone: all pay minimal tax on massive UK revenues, yet benefits cuts drive families from their homes.

Cuts cripple the NHS, whist companies such as Thames Water and Vodafone pay no corporation tax in the UK. For Thames Water they have 'deferred' payment. Meanwhile the NHS is expected to find some £20 billion of cuts. Front line services are suffering. Waiting lists are again becoming a problem and top down reorganisation has created uncertainty and chaos, threatening joined up care.

For richest 1,000 in Britain their wealth has increased by £155bn since crisis began. Heads they win, tails we lose.

The major cause of the budget deficit is falling tax revenue and yet the government fails to address this issue. It is a disgrace and it is time the government was forced to act.

Trading and investment profits made in the UK should be taxed in the UK. Corporations should not be allowed to squirrel them away.

Follow @Ray_Noble1

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'. The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba...

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties? When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'. Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metapho...

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different. It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to...

The Thin End

Search This Blog