Oh dear
You do know that I've been a company director for over 25 years and own my business dont you ??

Just because I believe in people paying their taxes, based on their level of income and not ducking, diving and avoiding their share, doesn't make me a communist or loony leftie.

Some of us have a strong sense of equality and social responsibility and are not driven by GREED

I think most people think like you in respect of people paying their way - at the top end the government is taking close to 50% of people's earnings same as Germany & France higher than the US, Japan - The top 1% pay 30% of all the IT take, how much more do you think is equitable?

The tax dodgers are few in the true scheme of events and it is primarily international businesses where the loopholes appear - so unless you are prepared have one taxation system across the world there will always be challenges.

Well, in a highly globalised economy, a global taxation policy wouldn't be an unreasonable proposal. IMO, the answer isn't necessarily a higher rate of taxation, but a fairer system of taxation. For example, you can move money anywhere you want in order to avoid tax, however, you can't move customers. So instead of taxing companies based on where the money is, tax them based on where their customers are. For example, If Amazon make £100m in profits in a year, and 10% of their customers are based in the UK, then Amazon would be required to pay tax on £10m at the UK rates of taxation.

Something like this wouldn't be that difficult to implement, it's just the political will is lacking, especially in this country where providing access to our offshore tax havens is one of the most appealing aspects of our economy to 'investors', and in many ways props it up.

Your idea sounds great on the face of things.
However, business is not straight forward, especially for companies trading and with bases in different countries.
For instance, if you had a base in the UK and one in the USA and one of these businesses was losing money, with the other making a reasonable return, would you allow that company to mitigate it's losses in the other country and referring this to your example of Amazon, how would you allow them to offset investment costs in new territories against well established bases elsewhere.
As I said, far from straightforward and where would you go with businesses that relied on their sister companies as far as manufacture was concerned. Say a car manufacturer, pulling in components from multiple parts of the company to manufacture vehicles in a particular country.
Where should they take any profit and where should they pay their tax ?

If you base it on total global profits for the company overall, it wouldn't matter if the company had bases in different countries. The only factors are the total global profit and the percentage of the company's customer base in each country.

Nice idea.
However, the Americans are already kicking up a stink at a potential 1% levy for on line sales in the UK.
There isn't a hope in hell of them sacrificing potential tax contributions form some of their US based global companies.

Not a chance - say you are a big Pharma and all your R&D is in the UK - these costs can be billions so how do you correctly redistribute those costs to accurately reflect them in the cost of the drugs - accrual concept for those accountants amongst us? When drugs go in to manufacture the profits are huge so the profitability looks great but you must include the development costs to get a true reflection. Transfer pricing is a very tricky subject and get the correct balance is an unenviable task.

So is moving money through a web of 100s of shell companies in order to avoid tax and launder money, yet it's at the heart of our current financial system, and companies bend over backwards to do it.
There are things we can do to make our financial system fairer without raising taxes, it all comes down to political will. Sadly, the politicians are as culpable as the bankers, accountants and criminals that perpetuate this system.

There are a minority of legitimate businesses that behave in the way you suggest - it is expensive and is not without risk. Illegal businesses are doing this stuff all the time - their profits are huge and they have to afford the skills required to make these actions pay.

If all you were dealing with were internal companies I would agree - unfortunately that is not the case and it is these bigger international companies who stand to gain most from internal shifting of costs. Our needs as a nation are not the same as say Germany or Japan so to deliver what is a very reasonable suggestion all would need to be aligned and that will never be the case. Even in the UK - Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man all have different tax regimes.

Its everywhere though ,take your average construction site ,90% will be self employed working for the same companies using ir35 or limited company status ,its all tax avoidance
Your small to medium company owners will use the most tax efficient means possible ,ie low weekly wage with dividends paid and taxed at corporation tax levels

It might well be a minority of companies overall, however, we're talking about billions in lost tax revenue per year for most countries, it would be incredibly popular with their electorates, and of course it wouldn't be straight forward, but nothing regarding international finance, trade, or politics is.

I completely concur - perhaps I am a bit more sceptical.

Quote ="Zoo Zoo Boom"I completely concur - perhaps I am a bit more sceptical.'" Well, it's a start https://www.reuters.com/business/g7-nat ... 021-06-05/

Quote ="Zoo Zoo Boom"I completely concur - perhaps I am a bit more sceptical.'" Well, it's a start https://www.reuters.com/business/g7-nat ... 021-06-05/

Well Labour got a whopping 622 votes in the Chesham and Amersham by-election ,is Starmers time as leader coming to an end ,and if so who could they replace him with?

Labour didn't campaign in this by election, it was a Tory vs Lib Dem choice.
Starmer is only interested in Batley right now.

Well, Galloway is back trying to scupper Labour in Batley. Their approach to the recent Israeli Palestine conflict hasn't gone down well with many in the community.

And the Tories lost a (very) safe seat.

But they did campaign, Angela Rayner even visited to try and garner support ,so more lefty bull by you

Yes ,well done lib dems ,I hope in future elections they can gain more seats and provide a credible opposition

I couldn't care less if Rayner turned up, but I know how by election campaigning works and the effort of the Labour lot here was a study in disinterest.

Well the candidate threw everthing at the campaign according to Starmers spokesperson

You are indeed a "unique" poster.
You have endless posts criticising Labour, Socialists etc
You have also claimed not to be a Tory
You aren't celebrating this as a Lib Dem victory
You didn't vote in the EU referendum but, wanted the result upheld

Having never actually stated what your political preference is, you must either be a Communist or a Farage fan or maybe EDL.

So, which is it WUM boy ?

And Johnson said they put a ring of protection around care homes.

The clue in that statement is "Johnson said"

I want MY labour party back ,not this momentum infested turd which it has become,it needs somebody to do what Neil Kinnock did with Militant and purge the party of it,because if they dont the party will split and you wont see another Labour government again ,they need to go back to being centrist like New Labour were ,that's the only chance they have got of getting the working man and middle England back,socialists like you lot on here are pretty irrelevant in the great scheme of things, beliefs which did not work in the 60s and 70s wont work now,
Unfortunately good Mps like Caroline Flint lost their seats and we are left with the likes of Emily Thornberry ,Jonathan Ashworth, Richard Burgon et al