back to article Google's teeny UK tax bill 'just not right', thunders senior MP

Top Labour MP Margaret Hodge has told The Register that it's "just not right" for Google to get away with paying so little corporation tax in the UK. Hodge, who heads up Parliament's influential Public Accounts Select Committee, rejected the advertising giant's executive chairman Eric Schmidt's defence of his company's tax …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. g e
    Holmes

    Is not the legal first duty of a company to its shareholders?

    Whether HMRC like it or not. Whether it results in ethical behaviour or not.

    Don't like they way they use your rules? Then change them.

    1. CaptainHook

      Re: Is not the legal first duty of a company to its shareholders?

      Having a responsibililty to work in the shareholders best interest does not mean it has to maximise profit at all costs.

      For example

      1) Company shafts customers with corner cutting and poor service (e.g. Tesco's)

      2) Customers get annoyed and boycott the company or the government changes

      The company's net profit margin is higher until Step 2, at which point turnover drops, profit margins drop etc.

      In the short term the directors were working to the idea of first duty to the shareholders, but those business decisions are not working towards the interests of the shareholders once step 2 is reached.

      1. g e
        Holmes

        Re: Is not the legal first duty of a company to its shareholders?

        Yeah but if they were being fluffy and behaving like a charidee and paying taxes as uk.gov would like then how long would it be before a shareholder, who happened to be an offshore accounty type, put his hand up and said

        'Why aren't you moving your tax burden to the Dominican Republic/wherever, thereby retaining an extra 1.2 Billion in profit?'

        And then the other shareholders would start rumbling, eyeballs would spin with dollar signs and then they'd end up doing it.

        I'd actually rather Google spent the money saved on building the University of Google (or something useful) in the UK as a real technology-oriented academic institution than just handed the damned cash over to the idiot politicians to evaporate away on anything _but_ the benefit of the electorate as per usual.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Is not the legal first duty of a company to its shareholders? @g e

          100 internets to you sir.

    2. cs94njw
      Thumb Up

      Re: Is not the legal first duty of a company to its shareholders?

      I don't think you'll ever be able to write water-tight laws to prevent tax evasion, so I can see why they haven't tried.

      But - I have to say I'm impressed with the government. What better tactic to use against popular companies, then actually making them unpopular.

      I hear Starbucks has actually had a real down turn in their profits - and with hundreds of coffee shops per city, and this stupid name-your-cup thing, it's quite easy to avoid them.

      It's tricky to make Google unpopular, Amazon too.

      But this "immoral" onslaught is probably the only way something may change.

      1. Mark Leaver
        Devil

        Re: Is not the legal first duty of a company to its shareholders?

        I think that it is a lot easier done than said really.

        The government should pass a law stating that all money earned within the country is taxable at 25%. If you try to move the money out of the country, then you have to pay a standard monetary exportation fee of 50%.

        Unless you are buying goods from the recipient and then we will tax you at the same rate as normal but will charge you a 25% tariff on the goods you are purchasing from the other company. If you are buying the goods from your parent company, then the tariff is 50%

        However, the first thing that the government should do is write a law banning lobby groups. But thats where it all falls down because I dont think that any self respecting politician is going to write into being a law that will cut into their chances of getting employed by one of the companies that the lobby group represents.

        And as for making Google and Amazon unpopular... just start spreading the rumours that the benefit reductions are all because Google and Amazon wont pay their fair wack of tax...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          benefit reductions

          Some of us think the benefit reductions and caps are long overdue.

      2. peter_dtm
        FAIL

        cs94njw @ 20130423 15:31z

        AVOIDANCE is what the thieving hypocrites are complaining about; something that is not only legal but specificaly encouraged by the very people who wrote the laws - people like hodges

        EVASION is ILLEGAL

        $deity's sake you have fallen straight into the socialist trap; of getting the basics WRONG.

        Avoidance is not only legal - it is your moral duty to your family/shareholders.

        If you have ever bought something (taxable) as cheap as you can then you are also guilty of tax AVOIDANCE (cheaper selling price means less VTA which means you just avoided paying soem VAT) - do you feel guilty now ? If not why not ?

      3. TeeCee Gold badge

        Re: Is not the legal first duty of a company to its shareholders?

        I don't think you'll ever be able to write water-tight laws to prevent tax evasion, so I can see why they haven't tried.

        Actually it's quite easy and many countries have it. It's known as "principle of payment" legislation. This basically says; "Yes, there may be loopholes in tax law as it's ruddy complicated. However, the tax rate is the tax rate. Apart from specifically stated exemptions that you are entitled to, that you may use to reduce your bill, anything else is evasion.". Or, in other words; "We tell you what you do not have to pay, rather than you telling us.".

        Every time it's brought up it gets shelved, as included in the group that would get royally shafted by this happen to be a large number of MPs and most of the more generous lobbyists.

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

  2. Pete 2 Silver badge

    Can we check one thing?

    When MPs start criticising others, or companies, for dubious tax affairs - or claiming things they shouldn't ought to it's always worth looking back to inspect their records of honesty, apropos expense claims.

    Maybe she's not the best person to cast the first stone

    1. FartingHippo

      Re: Can we check one thing?

      Bit right-wing and screamy, but the facts seem sound:

      http://order-order.com/tag/hodge

    2. Ru

      Re: Can we check one thing?

      Maybe she's not the best person to cast the first stone

      You feel that hypocrisy is the worst of all possible offenses, and to have engaged in it in the past makes someone ineligible from ever pointing out the deficiencies of another? That's an interesting point of view.

      1. Bumpy Cat

        Re: Can we check one thing? @Ru

        Ongoing hypocrisy (not past) does render her arguments invalid, especially given that in this case she is saying that someone should do something voluntary, ie not required by law, which she is not willing to do herself.

        I find "practise what you preach" and "one law for all" are pretty good rules to work by.

        1. JimC

          Re:Ongoing hypocrisy (not past) does render her arguments invalid

          Nonsense. A valid argument is a valid argument whether its presented by Mother Theresa or Attila the Hun.

          However if you are evaluating whether an argument is valid or not then certainly the past record of the person making it is something to consider very carefully.

          1. Mad Mike

            Re: Re:Ongoing hypocrisy (not past) does render her arguments invalid

            Your logic is a bit warped here. On the one hand, you say a valid argument is a valid argument regardless of who presents it. In the next sentence, you say you determine if it's valid partially by looking at the past record of the presenter. That's contrary to your first point, as you're taking the presenter into account to determine if it's valid!!

            In reality, people rarely change their character. If someones been a hypocrit once in the past, maybe that's allowance, but when they've done it consistently, that's not. Unless they've had a religious conversion of course.

            Unfortunately, the very characteristics that make someone want to be a MP and the methods you have to use to become one, especially if you rise into the cabinet etc., rather make you the kind of person who shouldn't comment.

            Now, I'm not defending Google on this. Just that MPs in general, especially those of ministerial rank (or have been), generally speaking have a pretty poor history of acts and therefore are not the best people to point it out. It may be right or not, but having one bad person slag off another bad person (or company) is never as effective as having a good person do it.

            1. JimC

              Re: Re:Ongoing hypocrisy (not past) does render her arguments invalid

              > Your logic is a bit warped here. On the one hand, you say a valid argument is a valid argument ...

              > ...That's contrary to your first point, as you're taking the presenter into account to determine if

              > it's valid!!

              Sure. 2 + 2 = 4 (given an appropriate set of conditions), no matter who says it, and when the VAT rate was 17.5% then £13,572 +VAT was £15,947.10 no matter who said it.

              However if I'd sung out across the shop "what's 13,572 + VAT", then I'd probably have got more than one figure, and there were some people whose answers I'd have more confidence in than others...

      2. Pete 2 Silver badge

        Re: Can we check one thing?

        > You feel that hypocrisy is the worst of all possible offenses, and to have engaged in it in the past makes someone ineligible from ever pointing out the deficiencies of another?

        I don't think hypocrisy is like having the flu. You get it for a week or two and after that you're cured: a "moment of madness" if you will. I believe it is more an intrinsic part of one's personality (or not). Now, I can accept that people can and occasionally do, change - but acts of contrition after being caught don't cut it - they just reinforce the initial impression.

        It might not even be a bad attribute for a politician, if used properly. For example in negotiating with other governments it would be nice if our politicians were better liars, frauds and con-artists than the other guy's were. It's just when they do it (and so badly) to the people who pay them, that it annoys me.

    3. g e
      Meh

      Re: Can we check one thing?

      Lucky she's in the UK, in other countries she'd be lucky to have hands to throw anything, the amount of thievery politicians get up to.

    4. TeeCee Gold badge

      Re: Can we check one thing?

      The expense claims scandal is a very good point.

      One of the side effects of that was that many MPs ended up paying rather less tax than they should have, as legitimate parliamentary expenses incurred are offsettable against tax.

      One common and very seedy trick adopted, by those caught with their fingers in the till, was to make a very high profile point of sending a fat cheque to HMRC for the tax they should have paid. The seedy bit is that, without resubmitting their previous bent tax claims along with that, said cheque would be taken as a payment against current tax and returned as an overpayment at the end of the tax year, or "once the heat's off" as I like to think of it. Of course, if they had done the right thing and resubmitted, thus voluntarily reopening that year's tax return, HMRC would then be able to bring charges for any evasion that had occurred and rather more of the bastards would have gone to jail.

  3. JimmyPage
    WTF?

    "A functioning transparent system"

    Did she mean transport ? In which case she's wrong.

    Oh, and if she didn't, she's still wrong.

  4. FartingHippo
    Holmes

    Well said

    Margaret Hodge is a bit of a rent-a-gob. Pops up left, right and centre with media friendly quotes but no real solutions to the "problems" she's highlighting. She's a politician, in other words.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Well said

      Mmm. Hodge might well be a hypocritcal rent-a-gob, but do her public statements advance your views on taxing google more (or not?)

      For example, if you happened to believe Google should pay more UK tax, it would perhaps seem odd behaviour to attack the person (Hodge) whose views agree with yours - but, in contrast, actually manage to get widely reported.

      Expecting politicians to be extraordinarily saintly is a bit hopeful, really. In the absence of such saintlyness, I prefer to make decisions based on what they do and how it affects what I'd like them to achieve.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Well said

      How does a politician know what is moral and what isn't? I have yet to establish if they have a moral compass?

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Remind me again what the MPs said about their expenses ..

    "We did nothing wrong. It's how the system works"

    1. Mad Mike

      Re: Remind me again what the MPs said about their expenses ..

      Indeed so. How many MPs hid behind the 'we did nothing illegal' defense even thought their acts were immoral. And now, they're trying to have a go at others who have also done nothing illegal, but have arguably been immoral.

      Anyway, it's in MPs power to change things. I wonder how long it will take MPs to realise that over complex tax laws is one of the prime causes of these loopholes existing (and therefore their use by companies). As they can change tax law, why don't they simplify the law massively and therefore remove most of these loopholes. They're complaining about something they created and they have the power to change.

      Simpler tax laws would also be useful to us poor non-accountant types who have to deal with HMRC. Most of the time, I find myself 'educating' them on how the tax system works and what the rules are!!

      1. NumptyScrub
        Unhappy

        Re: Remind me again what the MPs said about their expenses ..

        quote: "Anyway, it's in MPs power to change things. I wonder how long it will take MPs to realise that over complex tax laws is one of the prime causes of these loopholes existing (and therefore their use by companies). As they can change tax law, why don't they simplify the law massively and therefore remove most of these loopholes. They're complaining about something they created and they have the power to change."

        a) politicians know that complex laws can be used to hide loopholes

        b) politicians know that companies use these loopholes

        c) in many cases politicians use the same loopholes themselves

        d) the initial act of creating the loopholes has yet to be proven an accident

        e) if it was an accident it really should have been rectified by now

        Given the above, I would put it to you that the creation of these loopholes was a wilful act, intended to benefit politicians directly (campaign funding from pleased backers) and indirectly (companies awarding shares and/or retirement board positions to those selfsame politicians as a reward). The fact that these loopholes have existed through a few changes of government does not speak well for the intent of any political party to actually close them.

        I would absolutely love for them to prove me wrong by simplifying tax laws and closing the loopholes. I'm not holding my breath, though.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why should they?

    I'd prefer companies to pay more tax, but if the laws of the land don't require them to then why should they?

    1. LPF

      Re: Why should they?

      When its your baby girl waiting 4 hours for treatment becuase there is no A&E bed available , due to staff cuts, think about this post again...... dimwit!

      1. Bumpy Cat

        Re: Why should they? @LPF

        Do you voluntarily pay extra tax? No? Why not?

        Should corporations pay more tax? Quite possibly ... but then Parliament needs to write the law and HMRC needs to get off their fat arse and make it happen. You can't fault someone for obeying the law.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Why should they? @LPF

          Your argument is false - I personally don't pay more tax than I have to, I have premium bonds and isas, these are government sponsored tax avoidance schemes. I don't, however pay less than I should do, I am proud to be a higher rate tax payer, I am privileged so I can help society as a whole. I need the guy who runs the corner shop, I need to roads, I need the bin men, the hospitals and all the things that make society hang together. I don't go out of my way to use accounting methods to make me "tax efficient", no funnling money off-shore for me. This goes for the vast majority of people I know.

      2. Mad Mike

        Re: Why should they? @LPF

        You're making several very fundamental errors here. Firstly, you're assuming that if Google paid more tax, this wait wouldn't happen? Evidence points otherwise. The NHS hasn't got any better the more money is spent on it. So, the reason you're baby girl is waiting 4 hours for treatment is far more likely to be poor organisation, spending money on the wrong things, poor priorities etc.

        Anyone who still believes pouring more money into the NHS (after the huge increases under Labour) will somehow magically fix it is the dimwit. It's about organisation and spending the money right, not about the total. Asking for more money is the easy and ultimately wrong way of fixing it. Don't spend more, spend more cleverly.

        Also, you might as well criticise all the people who get boob jobs, or weight reduction surgery or whatever. After all, they're lifestyle choices as well and therefore ultimately 'optional'.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        WTF?

        Re: Why should they?

        > When its your baby girl waiting 4 hours for treatment becuase there is no A&E bed available , due to staff cuts, think about this post again...... dimwit!

        When you can present a coherent argument without resorting to hyperbole, and unrelated hyperbole at that, then please call us. F*ckwit.

        BTW the word you're looking for is "it's".

      4. peter_dtm
        FAIL

        LPF 20130423 11:46z

        because the only reason you can't aford to go private is the hypocrites have stolen 40% (or more likly 55%) of your income; and then wasted it on crap; and because they 'protect' the management of the NHS (some of the most useless examples of phb going) the money needed to provision said service has been used to pay off some other phb who was going to tell the world just how appaling the NHS management really is

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    She's worse than dumb

    The primary reason companies like Google pay so little tax is that in the EU, companies only need to incorporate once, and it can be whereever in the EU it wants.

    Has she says she wants to change this? No? Then shut up, you cowardly troll!

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    > "Instead companies like Google are creating artificial structures and abusing current tax legislation to move profits offshore in order to avoid tax. That is just not right,”

    Did she manage to keep a straight face when spouting that?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businesslatestnews/9668396/Margaret-Hodges-family-company-pays-just-0.01pc-tax-on-2.1bn-of-business-generated-in-the-UK.html

    1. JimmyPage
      Black Helicopters

      and there you have it.

      Why nothing will be done.

      A scary thought is how much Google have on public officials. How many emails pass through Google servers, how much dirt can an internal-to-Google search throw up ?

      Imagine the power Google have to skew search results to sway public opinion ... search for "David Cameron" and you get pages of results detailing every negative story from the past 10 years. Search for "Ed Miliband" and you get pages of stories with him kissing babies and posing with puppies .....

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      as Merchman said :

      The Telegraph have already had to apologise to Margaret Hodge over this story:

      An item posted on the Telegraph website last night said: ‘Margaret Hodge MP – Contrary to our report “Hodge faces challenge over family firm’s taxes” (Nov 20), Stemcor, in which Ms Hodge has a small shareholding, has not abused transfer pricing to avoid tax. We accept that there is no inconsistency or hypocrisy in Ms Hodge criticising other companies for tax avoidance and apologise to her for any contrary impression.’

      http://www.taxjournal.com/tj/articles/telegraph-apologises-margaret-hodge-over-stemcor%E2%80%99s-tax-affairs-13122012

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: as Merchman said :

        > The Telegraph have already had to apologise to Margaret Hodge over this story:

        The Telegraph article accused her of hypocrisy for denouncing dodgy tax avoidance schemes whilst being a shareholder of a company that pays bugger all UK tax. They apologised because Stemcor's tiny UK tax contributions are all perfectly legal and above board; they did nothing wrong as far as HMRC are concerned.

        The problem is that Google's risible contributions are also perfectly legal and above board. If she's decrying Google as immoral for doing exactly the same as Stemcor then what exactly does that make her?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: as Merchman said :

          "The problem is that Google's risible contributions are also perfectly legal and above board. If she's decrying Google as immoral for doing exactly the same as Stemcor then what exactly does that make her?"

          Not sure what it makes her but it makes her speech hypocritical cant

  9. Tony Paulazzo
    Big Brother

    concluded that while the tech giants were sticking to the letter of the law, their money-shifting shenanigans were "immoral".

    Maybe if she'd called it obscene we could do them under the new obscenity laws, which can basically find anything it wants obscene...

    Of course, if the great British mass couldn't find Google, Facebook, MS etal because they were all boycotting the UK the electorate would have nothing better to do (UKTV mostly sucks) and might just become interested in what the politicians are actually doing with all their money.

    So I'm predicting nothing will actually change.

  10. Downside
    FAIL

    Am I missing something in these comments?

    Company fleeces 2.5 billion from UK businesses and pays 3.5 million tax? And that seems fair and equitable? or is this comment section just inhabited by self-interested contractors and French ministers?

    Sure seems to be the I-would-if-I-could brigade.

    1. Magister
      Headmaster

      @Downside

      "No man in this country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or to his property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel into his stores"

      James Avon Clyde (Lord Clyde)

      "It [tax] is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government [...] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name".

      Blacks Law Dictionary

      The companies concerned are simply taking advantage of the existing legal framework to minimise their tax bill. All of the politicians that are up in arms over this are the same people that have been taking advantage of similar legislation to minimise their own tax bills.

      Pot < -- > Kettle

      The fact is that Patrica Hodge and all of the other MPs have the solution in their own hands; change the tax laws. Until they do that, they have no legal authority to coerce any business to pay more money.

      Add to that, they need to get their own houses in order; and until they do that, they have no moral authority to ask anyone to pay one penny more than the law requires.

    2. Aldous
      Stop

      how did Google fleece those companies of 2.5 billion? Google is not a mandated charge you find on most businesses ledger.

      The tax laws are the way they are. Don't like it, change it (Protest, vote based on it etc). If people felt strongly enough they would get the law changed quickly like have done with pedophiles or terror laws.

      This is just a typical case of "Rabble Rabble Rabble" moving from Banks (because that got no where) to tech. Then everyone gets bored and moves on to the next target/celebutard wedding.

    3. theblackhand

      Tax

      I don't begrudge companies for reducing the amount of tax they pay via legitimate means. If a non-UK company pays tax in another part of the world that they use to offset their UK tax burden, then that is the price that the UK pays for other countries allowing UK countries to do the same.

      Many of the methods of avoiding tax can be closed with further regulation or, even better, a complete overhaul of the tax system to get it to the point where it is consistent and understandable to avoid the complex loopholes that exist today.

      Getting politicians whose families use similar methods of reducing the amount of tax their companies pay to lecture these "evil" companies in the hope that they will be shamed into paying more tax suggests hypocrisy and cowardice to me....

    4. Velv
      Boffin

      NOBODY is claiming its fair.

      What is being pointed out is that it is the LAW. The law is currently written to allow world trade.

      For any Scottish Independence supporters - this is a key principle on which the SNP hopes to make money for Scotland - by having a lower Corporation Tax rate than the rest of the UK. Encourage multinationals to be based in the UK so you can tax all their EU activity at a lower rate than anyone else and you make a LOT of tax.

      Let's not forget that Google DOES pay tax on its £2.5Bn of UK sales - just not tax in the UK.

  11. Dainase

    halfwit politicians - doncha just luv 'em?

    Is this the Hodge person who has something like £20million in shares of her family business all in a trust to avoid tax? Rather like how the Milliband's father - who was rather fond of Marxism - ensured his accumulated wealth was very carefully managed after his death to minimise tax. Oh, Chucka Ummuna like to keep quiet about his pad in Ibiza too, although I understand Toynbee has sold her place near Tuscany. For a hefty profit.

    Socialism has a noble idea of equality, but sadly it gets represented by some right shitehawk opportunists.......

  12. Old Cynic

    I seem to recall

    Labour were happy enough encouraging globalisation, offshoring, manufacturing in the cheapest place, bringing workers in from around the globe and paying them peanuts.

    Now some companies are globalising their tax payments they don't like it. Why not use the cheapest option - they were encouraged throughout Labour's reign....

  13. J.G.Harston Silver badge

    Google is an America company, I'd expect it to be paying taxes in America, not the UK.

    1. jonathan1

      It was founded in the U.S

      Its most definetely now a Muttinational....

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_corporation

      I expect it will pay taxes where it has to.

      The tax debate is interesting, I know personally I only want to pay the tax I'm required to as an individual (I'm PAYE anyway) Wonder if I owned a business or self employed and had more leeway would I do my utmost to reduce it. Honestly most likely.

  14. SirDigalot
    Coat

    They pay bugger all percentage of taxes (vs income) in the UK and bugger all percentage of taxes (vs income) in the US. This has been setup by lobbyists and governments and others who like to see that these companies are employing people (who pay their taxes... supposedly) so it is all meant to balance out, at least that's what we have been told.

    At least google DOES employ people, I am very tired of hearing how all the rich are "job creators" and need these tax breaks, because otherwise they will take their money somewhere else, and we will have large layoffs and high unemployment and the economy will be in recession and ...oh I guess they don't need their tax breaks anymore...

    <<<<< it has a fold-away pitchfork and an (unlit) flaming torch in it

    1. g e

      Yep

      And those people at least put some Google money back into HMRC via their PAYE each month.

      Well, unless they're directors I suppose ;o)

  15. Tim Worstal

    Well love

    "Hodge stood by that stance today.

    "All we are saying is that multinational companies should pay an appropriate amount of tax relative to the profits they make from their economic activity in this country," she insisted."

    Given that you're in Parliament why don't you try and do something about the law then?

    Or would it mean that you'd have to recognise that it's EU law that allows Google to do what it does? Indeed, encourages it?

    I was on Sky News with her once and pointed this out to her. It's all EU law. She just said "well, I don't agree",

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Oh spare us from another New Labour hypocrite...

    ... she's the poster child of UK politicians - venal, self-serving scum without exception.

    When she pays her fair share of tax then I might listen to her pontificate about Google - until then she can fuck off back to her tax-avoiding family.

  17. Tim Almond
    Go

    Change the law then...

    If she thinks they don't pay enough, change the tax law or shut up.

    Personally, I avoid as much as possible. If you've got £11bn to spend on a 3 week hop, skip and jump competition, you don't need any more of mine.

  18. TrishaD

    The Difference?

    It seems to me that people dont appreciate the difference between Google and Margaret Hodge.

    If sufficient people dont approve of Ms Hodge's activities or attitudes, they have the option of not voting for her. Its called Accountability.

    As regards all the cries of 'Well, change the Law then' ... erm, she's an Opposition MP. And the Opposition doesnt get to change the law. That's the whole point.

    1. Magister

      Re: The Difference?

      >>And the Opposition doesnt get to change the law.<<

      True. But much of the legislation that Google et al are using was set-up in the last decade when she was part of the government. Didn't hear anything from her then.

    2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: The Difference?

      "..... And the Opposition doesnt get to change the law. That's the whole point." Actually, she could present a bill to Parliament even in opposition, and if she was actually more interested in the good of the public rather than making self-serving soundbites, she could form a cross-party alliance on the matter. Many UK laws have been passed with support from more than just the governing party. This carefully manufactured idea that Labour in Opposition can "do nothing" is a fraud - they could do plenty by working with the other parties, but it would mean overcoming their Labourite tendency to scoring political points over actually serving the people that elected them.

      1. TrishaD

        Re: The Difference?

        " Actually, she could present a bill to Parliament even in opposition, and if she was actually more interested in the good of the public rather than making self-serving soundbites, she could form a cross-party alliance on the matter. Many UK laws have been passed with support from more than just the governing party. This carefully manufactured idea that Labour in Opposition can "do nothing" is a fraud - they could do plenty by working with the other parties, but it would mean overcoming their Labourite tendency to scoring political points over actually serving the people that elected them."

        I'm going to stick by what I said. The fact that she's Labour is irrelevant. Our Parliamentary system tend (rightly or wrongly) to be adversarial and it's rare for parties of any stripe to work with other parties. Yes, laws have been passed with support from just the governing party, but they tend to be laws that arent associated with major policy issues.

        Regarding the 'self-serving' bit - she chairs a major Select Committee, for goodness' sake. She's obliged in that role to speak up.

        1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: TrishaDminus Re: The Difference?

          "....but they tend to be laws that arent associated with major policy issues....." Complete cobblers. Just for example, both the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965, and the Abortion Act 1967 were actually private member bills passed with cross-party support and both were very major policy issues.

          "....she chairs a major Select Committee, for goodness' sake. She's obliged in that role to speak up." No, she is EXPECTED to do something useful. The fact is she knows Google have done nothing illegal and it is nothing more then the shallowest of political grandstanding. It is doubly hypocritical given her own legal manipulation of tax law to avoid paying taxes.

          1. TrishaD
            Facepalm

            Re: TrishaDminus The Difference?

            "....but they tend to be laws that arent associated with major policy issues....." Complete cobblers. Just for example, both the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965, and the Abortion Act 1967 were actually private member bills passed with cross-party support and both were very major policy issues."

            Spendid. You've just given two examples that exactly prove my point. Both of these related to moral issues that transcend party boundaries, rather than tax issues which definitely do.

            Go stand in the corner or something...

            1. TrishaD

              Re: TrishaDminus The Difference?

              "Tax issues which definitely do not"

              Apologies

            2. Matt Bryant Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: TrishaDminus The Difference?

              "....You've just given two examples that exactly prove my point....." What, by showing that private member bills, even on matters of very great import, can suceed with cross-party support? That's the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you said - that Hodges couldn't actually do anything other than bleat because she was in opposition! I said she could raise a bill and try to get cross-party support, you said she couldn't and yet now you say I proved your point!?!?!? WTF? Seriously, stop watching Trish and/or Oprah and get a clue.

              1. TrishaD

                Re: TrishaDminus The Difference?

                Once more for the hard of understanding.....

                'Major Policy Issues' = Matters of government policy upon which a reasonable person might expect MPs to be divided on party lines. Examples - the Economy, Law & Order, Industrial Relations etc.

                Likelihood of consensus politics - next to zero

                '"Moral Issues" = Matters of policy where MPs might be expected to divide, not on party lines, but on grounds of personal belief, sense of ethics etc. Examples - Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Age of Consent etc.

                Likelihood of consensus politics - quite high.

                Private members bills are likely to succeed in the latter case.

                Now... was that too difficult to comprehend?

                1. Matt Bryant Silver badge
                  FAIL

                  Re: TrishaDminus The Difference?

                  FFS, read your own posts!

                  ".....Law & Order...." So the death penalty, nothing to do with law and order? How about abortion law? The clue is in the "law" bit.... DUH!

                  ".....government policy upon which a reasonable person might expect MPs to be divided on party lines....." Caroline Lucas (Green Party), Kate Green and Jeremy Corbyn (both Labour) presented the private bill on Tax and Financial Transparency Bill 2010 which was read in Parliament in March 2011. Taxation is usually the domain of the governing party and is exactly what Hodges is bleating on about. At the time the bill was presented neither the Greens or Labour were in the Government. So there is absolutlely NOTHING stopping Hodges creating her own bill other than the deluge of ridicule her hypocritical presentation would be greeted with. You fail again. Oh, you want another example?

                  Antarctic Act 2013, just received Royal Assent, i.e., passed into law, presented by Neil Carmichael (Con) as a private members bill, supported by (amongst others) Martin Caton (Lab) and Dr Julian Huppert (Lib Dem). I'd say an international treaty on the Antartic was a pretty serious policy affair. You might have heard of the Antartic, if you've reached that stage of schooling where Geography starts yet.

  19. David Neil

    Hodge

    From November last year

    Hodge claimed in a grilling by Michael Crick earlier this month that “I am a tiny, tiny, tiny shareholder”. Her direct shareholding is 1.26% which, given that Stemcor paid out £4,519,000 in dividends last year, means she received some £56,939. That shareholding alone is worth £1.8 million. Hardly a tiny amount.

    What’s more Stemcor confirmed yesterday that this figure “excludes shares held in trust or in her children’s names”. The company share register shows that Hodge holds several million pounds worth of shareholdings in trusts, including for members of her family. As Polly Toynbee helpfully explains, this is a clever way of minimising future inheritance tax liability:

    “The big sell is trusts, special ones devised for this company’s clients, guaranteed to protect almost all your wealth from inheritance tax. They are right, it can be done easily. Put all moveables and all cash and investments into a discretionary trust, and it passes to your heirs without tax as soon as you die, not even waiting for probate. It counts as a gift so the beneficiaries need pay no tax either.”

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Headmaster

    Shouldn't they have a look at .e.g. BP too ?

    Maybe they're not quite the tax spenders either....

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Shouldn't they have a look at .e.g. BP too ?

      BP are owned by the americans now.

  21. Fogcat

    Sorry - can some one point me to The Register? I seem to have stumbled into the Daily Mail pages.

    1. All names Taken
      Paris Hilton

      Daily Mail?

      Morning Star?

      Grnadian?

      How about: biting the hand that feeds IT

      ?

  22. G R Goslin

    A minor point

    A minotr point I feel that I should point out. ALL tax paid by a company, and that includes Corporation Tax, is derived from the charge made by that company, on it's customers. So, if Google did not pay the tax, then it's goods and services are therefore cheaper to the customer, all thing being equal.. Thje Governmeat would love Google to pay higher taxes, but that does not mean that the customer would be paying lower personal taxes as a consequence of the government gaining a new revenue stream. It seems to me, of late that the government has given up it's real purpose of governing the country, but has become, like any other company, it's there to maximise it's profits.

  23. 100113.1537

    Oranges are not the only fruit....

    I am at a loss here as to why people are only focussing on Corporation Tax - as though this is the only tax on the whatever number of billion pounds Google has in turnover in the UK. Google employ a lot of people in the UK and all of these people pay income tax, plus the employers NI contributions, plus the VAT on everything Google sells in the UK, thus there is a great deal of UK govt revenue already coming from Google.

    In a globalised world economy, national taxes on profits are pretty much negligible as if you make your corporation taxes too high, companies move away and if you force them to pay tax where they employ people, they will move where they employ those people. The EU recognised this and - basically - put employment first by making it easier for a company to register in one EU country and then operate in them all. Individual EU countries then competed to get the company registrations by setting corporate taxes low and other countries competed for jobs by setting other taxes low (I think income tax in Luxembourg is pretty high isn't it?). So what if the UK doesn't get a lot of corporation tax from Google - by the sound of things, the UK is getting a lot of other "goods" from them and UK gov is till getting a lovely big wodge of tax.

  24. DrXym

    Instead of moralising

    Close the tax loopholes. Companies will save every penny they can if the law is imprecise or can be worked around. Same for individuals. Instead of moaning about it, make it so onerous to evade tax that companies comply and pay up or gtfo.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why not introduce yearly "one off" windfall taxes on these tax avoiding corporations?

    A windfall tax should be introduced based on the difference of the tax that should have been paid had the corporation acted ethically and the actual amount it paid. The windfall could be charged at 200% of the difference thus meaning that companies that "avoid" tax through unethical means get hammered. Such a tax would be a legal and fair way to deal with an unethical corporation that had abused the local tax system. If such a tax were introduced it would quickly no longer be worthwhile trying to operate complex tax avoidance schemes as these would end up being punished not through fines but through a windfall tax.

    1. peter_dtm
      Devil

      Re: Why not introduce yearly "one off" windfall taxes on these tax avoiding corporations?

      since we know live in a secular society - ethics are relative & personal.

      Whose ethics are you going to use ? Stalin's ? MaozseTung ? Kinnock ? Thatcher ? the Pope's ? Mugabe ? Mandella ? Al Gore ? yeh right.

      ALl that needs doing is adopting a fair tax system - my fair tax system is a single band of 10% on all earnings over minimum pay and a 0.5% tax on every bank transaction (building society etc etc included).

      No exceptions. Applicable to all those legal 'people' (corporations companies etc) as well

  26. All names Taken
    Paris Hilton

    Read all 'baht it!

    Brit MP cobbled by Whitehall and Whitehall's lust for your cash.

    With the economy the way it is senior UK civil servants are worried that there mitt not be enough cash in the Treasury's kitty to reward senior staff with the pension and pension package that they deserve.

    It's okay for those former colleagues now seconded into "private" business (know wot I mean 'arry? TUPE n'all that) but the remaining staff still in place as senior civil servants might not be able to get comparable pension packages.

    With a bit of influence exerted upon a vulnerable MP the Whitehall mandarin march to greater self-indulgence and jigger you mate continues unabated but slightly less well disguised no?

  27. FozzyBear
    Happy

    I am reminded of Kerry Packers senate hearing and the quote he made regarding the amount he paid in personal tax.

    "I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now of course I am minimizing my tax and if anybody in this country doesn't minimize their tax they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra."

    Not exactly company tax but the principle applies why would you pay any more tax than you are required to by law

  28. andro
    Megaphone

    Its legal, clearly the law needs changing to prevent this.

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not forgetting

    It is us who benefit from googles tax avoidance.I think its amazing how these companies are being hung out for the unthinking to attack when it is that same unthinking population who enjoyed the low prices from these retailers. Why did you buy the item online or buy that google advertising? And I assume yoiu dont use googles free services and apps?

    Added tax is added cost. That extra money isnt for more police, nurses or hospital beds it is used to pay for another privacy invading scheme. It isnt used to supply equipment to our troops its spent on porn, duck houses and second houses.

    Yet the unthinking mob is told how wrong and immoral it is to follow the law. At the same time you have your ISA's. Had google broken the law I may have judged them differently. There are reasons to complain against google but following the letter and spirit of the law isnt one of them.

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    tax avoidance

    Im fed up with MPs bleating about the ineffectual laws they have created which enable large companies to avoid paying tax.

    Its the Government's responsibility to us,the voting taxpayers to get it right and they have failed.

    They call for bankers and corporations to be held to account but conveniently forget that they are 100% responsible for any failure in the system.

    Numpties

  31. Sirius Lee

    Do you think show knows...

    just how stupid she sound? She's a 'senior politician' complaining that a company, applying the law, is paying too little tax while she, a politician, someone who is able to change the law, fails even to advocate doing so. Hippocracy only hints at the absurdity of Hodge's position.

    Of course she's hamstrung because the Labour party has no economic strategy beyond spending more money, money they seem to be planning to shake from some money tree they must have found. If Hodges proposed, say, increasing corporation tax or taxing foreign entities that would be policy which would stand out in the barren waste of Labour economics.

  32. James 36
    Facepalm

    blah

    Politicians moaning about corporations tax behaviour winds me up. Comments like this

    "Instead companies like Google are creating artificial structures and abusing current tax legislation to move profits offshore in order to avoid tax. That is just not right, and people like Eric Schmidt need to understand the legitimate public outrage that behaviour generates.”

    piss me off as the only people who can change this are the politicians. So Ms Hodge is you don't want corporations behaving this way change the tax code and stop whinging about ethical behaviour which is just a crap way of trying to guilt a corporation into changing and trying to swap responsibility from the politican to the corporation.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like