4 ms·

>Like we all do with our ISAs and pensions I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest it's like that, because the average person is not worth hundreds of billi

>Like we all do with our ISAs and pensions I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest it's like that, because the average person is not worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Sorry but you cannot in good faith compare the impact of tax avoidance by Amazon to an individual's pension. The problem really is that the loopholes are inaccessible to regular small businesses. A lot of small companies _do_ pay a fair level of tax which makes it difficult to compete with a company that doew not.

chrisseaton 8y ago
It’s fine to debate morals. But it’s important to make a distinction between legal and illegal. You’re accusing them of having a different opinion on a moral isssue to you. That’s one thing. Accusing them of doing something illegal - that’s something else. And it’s now super clear that it’s legal, since we’ve decided we have to introduce a new tax to tax them. My issue isn’t with the debate - it’s about being precise. If you say everyone’s evading then you ruin the power of really saying someone’s evading. You’re crying wolf.
- Joe-Z 8y ago
  I don't get it. On the one hand you say you just wanted to make clear the distinction between the two terms, on the other you claim when facebook and Amazon are avoiding taxes that's the same as when ordinary people try to save for retirement. If you didn't want to be quoted on that you shouldn't have put that comparison in.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    I don’t mind being quoted on anything. It’s either legal or it isn’t. For one you can prosecute, the other you can only criticise. It doesn’t matter if it’s a single person or a massive company. Either we have made the solemn decision as a country that it is prohibited with the force of the state punishing you, or we haven’t. It’s a huge difference. Think about it like this. The next time someone is really evading tax and you call them out on it people will think ‘oh well nothing we can do about that without new laws’ because you’ve conflated it with avoidance this time.
    - Joe-Z 8y ago
      Look, we disagree on how tax avoidance should be dealt with on a personal and a corporate level and that‘s fine. But you‘re constantly conflating a valid point (which is a proper distinction between the two terms and which I agree with) with your opinion on the matter. If one were less charitable you could call that a strawman.
OJFord 8y ago
It's not disingenuous, it's exactly the same motivation, just operating on a different scale.

chrisseaton 8y ago

It’s fine to debate morals. But it’s important to make a distinction between legal and illegal. You’re accusing them of having a different opinion on a moral isssue to you. That’s one thing. Accusing them of doing something illegal - that’s something else. And it’s now super clear that it’s legal, since we’ve decided we have to introduce a new tax to tax them. My issue isn’t with the debate - it’s about being precise. If you say everyone’s evading then you ruin the power of really saying someone’s evading. You’re crying wolf.

Joe-Z 8y ago
I don't get it. On the one hand you say you just wanted to make clear the distinction between the two terms, on the other you claim when facebook and Amazon are avoiding taxes that's the same as when ordinary people try to save for retirement. If you didn't want to be quoted on that you shouldn't have put that comparison in.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  I don’t mind being quoted on anything. It’s either legal or it isn’t. For one you can prosecute, the other you can only criticise. It doesn’t matter if it’s a single person or a massive company. Either we have made the solemn decision as a country that it is prohibited with the force of the state punishing you, or we haven’t. It’s a huge difference. Think about it like this. The next time someone is really evading tax and you call them out on it people will think ‘oh well nothing we can do about that without new laws’ because you’ve conflated it with avoidance this time.
  - Joe-Z 8y ago
    Look, we disagree on how tax avoidance should be dealt with on a personal and a corporate level and that‘s fine. But you‘re constantly conflating a valid point (which is a proper distinction between the two terms and which I agree with) with your opinion on the matter. If one were less charitable you could call that a strawman.

OJFord 8y ago

It's not disingenuous, it's exactly the same motivation, just operating on a different scale.