Starbucks and Google and so on

[king_pellinor]

Is it just me who's a little fed up that the Parliamentary Accounts Committee seems to have no clue at all about tax, and yet is berating companies for acting pefectly legally and commercially and within the rules?

It's as if some obnoxious oik were to come up when you're playing Bridge and complain that you couldn't possibly have won that trick with the Jack of trumps, because you didn't even have a pair.  What do you mean "that's poker"? I've seen people playing cards loads of times, from a distance, and you're doing things I don't understand so you must be cheating.

Comments

[beckyc.livejournal.com]

Me three!

And, king_pellinor, no, it's not just you. Er, I mean, it's not just you and philmophlegm.

If a company (or person etc) is paying the legally required amount of tax, then they are doing what they ought to do* for whatever set of tax rules are in place. Berating the companies if they are correctly following the rules (assuming they are) is misplaced ire - if you don't like the outcome then you need to change the tax rules (which in turn may or may not be a good idea).

*At least as far as tax. There are, of course, plenty of other reasons people might not like large companies.