4 ms·

Why can't they change the tax law to tax these companies? I know it would be difficult, but it can't be impossible. These companies will always want to operat

Why can't they change the tax law to tax these companies? I know it would be difficult, but it can't be impossible. These companies will always want to operate here.

Silhouette 14y ago
Why can't they change the tax law to tax these companies? They're working on it: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/tax_avoidance_gaar.htm http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/tax_avoidance_gaar.htm
pan69 14y ago
Because that will probably impact certain politicians and other "important" stake holders who benefit from these tax laws as well. In my opinion, every democratic country should make the following change to their laws: Politicians cannot own, or have a stake in, any commercial enterprise. Needs to be a bit refined but you get the idea.
- chii 14y ago
  or put it more broadly - you should be able to acquire the financials of public servants. All of it, and if they have significant others like spouse or children, their financials are also considered public. And any stakes in any company will cause that company's financials to become public (whether its a privately held company or not). This way, there is a web of transparency so that any dodgy transactions will be definintely caught (probably by the opposing party). It sucks that these days, its possible to "hide" the true owners of companies and stocks. Its not in the public interest to have this feature.
  - Silhouette 14y ago
    That may all be true, but it may also not be in the public interest to put off people who are smart enough to make a lot of money on their own and therefore independently wealthy enough not to be subject to unhealthy influences from entering public service. Also, it would be blatantly illegal under our privacy laws to force that kind of disclosure for relations who aren't the ones making the choice but whose intimate financial details would suddenly become public, and rightly so IMHO.
petercooper 14y ago
Because the UK can't arbitrarily change laws easily in the majority of cases any more due to being a member of the European Union. What would they be taxing anyway? If they're like many of the other companies similar stories have risen up about, they're paying a subsidiary in another EU country for rights to the brand. So we'd either need to outlaw free trade between EU states (which the EU won't allow) or somehow tax businesses not on profit but on turnover which would be grossly unfair.
- Silhouette 14y ago
  No, there is a third option that is looking increasingly credible: the UK could leave the EU altogether. Whatever the arguments for being in or out more generally, in financial terms that is almost certainly a win as things stand today, and it looks like any realistic outcome of the Euro problems will only strengthen the case.
  - tonyedgecombe 14y ago
    I'm not sure about that, if the UK wants to continue trading with the EU from outside then they will be forced to pay for that privilege some way or another.
    - Silhouette 14y ago
      But the "Europe project" originally was about free trade. It worked pretty well for the most part, too: we managed with multilateral free trade agreements for years without things like legislative policy and currency getting centralised as well, and there are still alternative platforms for cooperation like the EFTA and EEA, which for example include some Scandinavian nations that are not part of the EU. Given the UK's disproportionate strength, I don't see why it couldn't move to a similar relationship to what those Scandinavian nations have with Europe, being outside of the main EU and the Eurozone but still sharing common ground elsewhere. So until someone wiser about economics tells me otherwise, I think I stand by my previous position: whatever the pros and cons of being in the EU more generally, financially it's almost certainly in the UK's interest to leave.

Why can't they change the tax law to tax these companies? I know it would be difficult, but it can't be impossible. These companies will always want to operate here.

Silhouette 14y ago

Why can't they change the tax law to tax these companies? They're working on it: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/tax_avoidance_gaar.htm http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/tax_avoidance_gaar.htm

pan69 14y ago

Because that will probably impact certain politicians and other "important" stake holders who benefit from these tax laws as well. In my opinion, every democratic country should make the following change to their laws: Politicians cannot own, or have a stake in, any commercial enterprise. Needs to be a bit refined but you get the idea.

chii 14y ago
or put it more broadly - you should be able to acquire the financials of public servants. All of it, and if they have significant others like spouse or children, their financials are also considered public. And any stakes in any company will cause that company's financials to become public (whether its a privately held company or not). This way, there is a web of transparency so that any dodgy transactions will be definintely caught (probably by the opposing party). It sucks that these days, its possible to "hide" the true owners of companies and stocks. Its not in the public interest to have this feature.
- Silhouette 14y ago
  That may all be true, but it may also not be in the public interest to put off people who are smart enough to make a lot of money on their own and therefore independently wealthy enough not to be subject to unhealthy influences from entering public service. Also, it would be blatantly illegal under our privacy laws to force that kind of disclosure for relations who aren't the ones making the choice but whose intimate financial details would suddenly become public, and rightly so IMHO.

petercooper 14y ago

Because the UK can't arbitrarily change laws easily in the majority of cases any more due to being a member of the European Union. What would they be taxing anyway? If they're like many of the other companies similar stories have risen up about, they're paying a subsidiary in another EU country for rights to the brand. So we'd either need to outlaw free trade between EU states (which the EU won't allow) or somehow tax businesses not on profit but on turnover which would be grossly unfair.

Silhouette 14y ago
No, there is a third option that is looking increasingly credible: the UK could leave the EU altogether. Whatever the arguments for being in or out more generally, in financial terms that is almost certainly a win as things stand today, and it looks like any realistic outcome of the Euro problems will only strengthen the case.
- tonyedgecombe 14y ago
  I'm not sure about that, if the UK wants to continue trading with the EU from outside then they will be forced to pay for that privilege some way or another.
  - Silhouette 14y ago
    But the "Europe project" originally was about free trade. It worked pretty well for the most part, too: we managed with multilateral free trade agreements for years without things like legislative policy and currency getting centralised as well, and there are still alternative platforms for cooperation like the EFTA and EEA, which for example include some Scandinavian nations that are not part of the EU. Given the UK's disproportionate strength, I don't see why it couldn't move to a similar relationship to what those Scandinavian nations have with Europe, being outside of the main EU and the Eurozone but still sharing common ground elsewhere. So until someone wiser about economics tells me otherwise, I think I stand by my previous position: whatever the pros and cons of being in the EU more generally, financially it's almost certainly in the UK's interest to leave.