Skip to main content

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.

Comments

  1. Nice read with a strong argument being presented. Corporations with no tax obligations do not contribute anything to society - something which they most definitely should do. Corporate Social Responsibility can easily be manipulated to invest in their own personal projects which benefit themselves. Some problems which the UK faces can be reduced considerably if tax avoidance/evasion is stopped.

    Peace and Love
    HS-91

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your kind comment. It is much appreciated.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As