3 ms·
> It's about taxing giant corporations who are evading taxes. I wouldn't say "evading" unless what they are doing is illegal. If they are following the law, an
by Rjevski 8y ago
> It's about taxing giant corporations who are evading taxes.
I wouldn't say "evading" unless what they are doing is illegal. If they are following the law, and the law allows what they're doing, then it's not tax evasion.
If you're not happy, then change the law to actually make it illegal, and then if those companies are still doing it then you can call it tax evasion.
- nicoburns 8y agoPointing out this distinction makes it sound like it's fine as long as it's legal. It's like when people say "It's not terrorism when a state does it because terrorism is defined as non-state political violence". It's technically true, but largely besides the point.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> It's like when people say "It's not terrorism when a state does it because terrorism is defined as non-state political violence". It's technically true Except that it's not; usual definitions of terrorism don't exclude state action, and indeed state action is of particular concern with regard to terrorism, to the point of being frequently cited as justification for state-on-state warfare in recent decades.
- Rjevski 8y agoThere's a difference between killing people and (legally) avoiding tax. I care about innocent people dying, but I couldn't care less that greedy governments get less money (they don't deserve any money to be fair, considering how bad of a job they're doing).
- user5994461 8y agoAre you American because it sounds like you're an American and you hate your government? There are countries where taxes actually pay things like healthcare, unemployment benefits or retirement and not financing wars in the middle east.
- drstewart 8y agoAre you European and send in additional money to your revenue collection agency? No? You're avoiding taxes (or evading taxes) by choosing to pay the lowest legal amount you're obligated to. Therefore, you must be American. What a paradox!
- moate 8y agoI mean, the UK is literally changing the law to require them to do it because they felt that the companies weren't paying their fair share, so it seems like they felt that something wasn't quite right.
- chrisseaton 8y agoThe fact that they changed the law rather than used the existing one makes it crystal clear that it was legal.
- Marazan 8y agoNot really. The GAAR makes many "technically legal" schemes illegal. But it requires expensive and long litigation by Hmrc to prove it. Passing a new law short circuits the process.
- tomatocracy 8y agoAnd the GAAR also by their own admission covers rather less than you imply anyway which is why litigation is likely to be involved. The official guidance[1] specifically cites circumstances which are not (in HMRCs view) caught by it (eg nominating a different residence every month as your primary residence in order to benefit from additional reliefs which extend for longer than the month on multiple properties and effectively completely avoid capital gains tax) which you might have thought would be caught. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tax-avoidance-general-anti-abuse-rule-gaar https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tax-avoidance-gene...
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoNot really. Often new laws are simply more specific, making prosecution easier. For example a "noise nuisance" law covers a subset of offences that a "breech of the peace" law does. Other subsets could be covered by blasphemy laws, profanity laws, etc.. Along with being more specific it's a chance to declare a moral position and appear to be doing new things to protect citizens/subjects.