You are aware that something can have multiple functions, aren't you? I didn't say the only thing the government uses taxation for is influencing behaviour. It should have gone without saying that it is also used to raise money.

Oh aye.



But you didn't mention any other uses of tax – and I doubt very much that changing behaviour is anything like the main one.

In the context of a discussion about tax – and specifically, corporate tax – it seems to me to be a diversion to mention tax for changing behaviour. Businesses – however small or large – benefit directly from education, health, the state of the roads, the state of refuse removal, fire prevention and the putting out thereof, crime prevention/protection (and they do better on this than the ordinary citizen, in at least some cases: see the City for an example) – etc etc. Indeed, one might ask why businesspeople rarely seem to complain about, say, fuel bills – except where it is transport fuel and then the complaint is invariably about the government's bit of the equation.

Do big businesses do special deals with, say, EDF to get their electricity bills reduced to what they think they should pay? If not – why not? If companies don't complain about rising bills like these, then why do they complain about taxation and threaten to leave the country because of it (and regulation)?

Perhaps it's only domestic electricity and gas customers that are seeing their bills rising by considerably more than the (official) rate of inflation – perhaps businesses get better tariffs in the first place? If so, why? Yet the fuel companies have claimed, on more than one occasion, that the business part of their businesses are the really profitable parts.

I think you will find all business are experiencing increases in utility bills - the factory I work at has seen a significant increase > than inflation in utility cost on a combined bill >£1m a year. It is obvious why the business side is profitable - one bill, one source - just think how many households it would take to consume a £1m worth of electric. What do they call it in economics - economy of scale!!

But the point is that we don't read or hear of businesses complaining about such costs.

I didn't mention them as they weren't relevant. My point was that the government does adjust taxation to encourage certain behaviour and discourage other behaviour. People and companies respond by adjusting their behaviour to minimise their tax liabilities. There is nothing remotely wrong with any of this.
If the government doesn't want people and companies to benefit from tax breaks they shouldn't create them.



Of course they do. Do you think they just get a standard tariff like a retail customer?

I could be missing something – but I haven't heard businesses complaining about taxation based on attempts to change behaviour, but on taxation in general, which pays for all the things that I mentioned (and many, many more), from which the businesses themselves directly benefit and would suffer without.



So again – why don't they complain about this, when they complain constantly about 'the tax burden', and spend a great deal of time, energy and expertise avoiding it? Do they employ accountants to look into how they can get their electricity bills reduced, a la Vodaphone with its tax bill? If not, why not? Why is tax the only 'burden' we hear business whinging about?

If we simply stopped taxing businesses alltogether and shifted the burden on to employees, how long before we saw the benefits of the increased investment in the economy? After all, Sal reckons that Tesco uses the money they avoid paying the exchequer by further investing it. None of that money would ever be used to further reward directors or go on increased share dividends would it?

I realise that there's a flaw in my plan: if the tax burden is shifted on to employees, they won't have a lot left to spend in Tesco's but surely Tesco can handle the downturn in business in the short term, while they invest in the economy and pay their employees more, so that they can then go out and spend..

If Tesco, Vodaphone, Philip Green, Richard Branson et al do not want to pay UK taxes on their profits from UK businesses, then why don't they fook off and do all of their business in Switzerland, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, the Cayman Islands or wherever? I'm sure there'll be plenty of UK businesses, who are willing to pay their fair whack, ready to fill the void.

i

I think you have me confused with someone else.

Do I agree with having the government sending people to work at the likes of Party.Sainbury's for just their JSA, not in the slightest, never have and never will.

Do I agree with all these companies,off shoring to pay as little tax as possible in the countrue where they have shops etc, no I don't

The problem with the off shoring is a not something you or I can change, this is the EU that has to change it, but it won't. Will this government do anything, no it won't
The fact is this Government make the previous government look like Einstein. To say it is clueless is an understatement. Teresa May said in a previous Tory Conference that they were referred to as the Nasty Party. The way they are going they may as well be the Nazi

Some of the offshoring could be stopped immediately if the government grew a pair. The likes of Tesco, Amazon, HMV etc that route their online sales through Guernsey to avoid UK tax could be stopped tomorrow.

Its not just big business that uses intricate accounting methods to disguise their income either... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/26/one-hyde-park-council-tax Can't even get the buggers to pay their council tax...

Its not just big business that uses intricate accounting methods to disguise their income either... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/26/one-hyde-park-council-tax Can't even get the buggers to pay their council tax...