Re: Nick Kew Re: Nick Kew Yes, but
"..... whoosh...." Yes, I bet that's a sound you're very familiar with. In essence you are now trying to insist you don't want to say that tax avoidance is not legitimate, it's just you're so upset by Tim's article that you just have to disagree some way, so you chose to make out someone (obviously not as reasoned and smart as you, and in some way reality-challenged, which you of course are not) might bring up your point. Shall we look at your original post?
".....Yes of course Starbucks is doing the right thing given its structure, but the issue there is: was there ever a legitimate reason to create that structure in the first place?....." Because, of course, you know there is actually no difference in legality between Vodafone's case and Starbucks tax avoidance, you just try and make the inference that planning to pay less tax and putting in place measures to do so makes it "illegitimate". Because, of course, you are too reasoned and smart and not in any way reality-challenged by socio-political outlook to think that really, you're just suggesting others might think that way, right? A river in Egypt comes to mind.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
