Ritchie and tax fairness
Posted by Christie Malry on November 29, 2012 at 10:07 am
Ritchie has what he considers is a killer argument:
Fiona McTaggart MP said in a debate on Google’s tax affairs on Channel 4 on Tuesday that she expected companies to pay their fair share of tax.
Madsen Pirie of the Adam Smith Institute immediately jumped on her argument.
“Who is to say what’s a fair rate of tax?” he demanded (or words to that effect).
Fiona’s response was spot on. “Parliament” she replied.
Quite so. It’s called democracy Madsen. And it sets the rules, and the law.
But that's only half the story. Yes, Parliament sets the rate. But, much more importantly, it also sets the tax base.
Multinational companies have been criticised for avoiding tax. But what they've been doing is entirely legal. The legality point is relevant here because Ritchie is appealing to the primacy of Parliament. And they have designed what they consider to be a fair tax base, to be taxed at a fair tax rate.
It may be that political pressure gets too much and the base has to be extended further. They have the power to do that.
What isn't fair is to tell companies they'll be taxed on one basis, only to demand they be taxed more under a different basis because you don't like the first answer. That's what Ritchie and other tax campaigners are trying to do. Ukuncut et al are, in the view of Parliament, unfair.
Posted from WordPress for Android. Post may be amended or reformatted later.
People who read this post also read:
And yet again, Murphy shows his total disregard for the rule of law.
In eyes, the sole arbiters of what is fair are the tax illiterate populist campaign groups. And himself of course assuming the role of Pooh Bah
@fcablog I think you've misunderstood. Surely he's saying that Google are paying a fair rate of tax...
So the argument seems to be:
Paying tax accordance with the law is not necessarily moral (PAC minutes)
Parliament defines the law on tax.
Parliament defines fairness on tax.
So if the tax law defined by Parliament is fair, but following it is not moral, then morality and fairness are not the same thing.
All we need now is for an MP to explain why it is that one can be fair but immoral, or moral but unfair.
All I can think of is that it's slightly immoral to demand fairness: a proper morality involves being slightly unfair to yourself for the benefit of others. So if you're carrying the heavy bag and the other person has a lighter one then fairness would suggest that you should swap half-way to the station, but it'd be wrong for you to suggest swapping as that'd be angling for you to be given an advantage - nevermind that it'd be a completely fair one.
Actually, that sounds rather like being English, so perhaps the MPs have a point here.