I had more or less the same reaction. It was an aside to their mate though so I didn't get the chance to engage. I actually think that both destructive and peaceful protest are useful components for any successful movement. Property damage gets attention; peaceful actions then back up the message without putting people off. Both are valid approaches in my opinion. (I think violence against people is never justified - but targeted vandalism / criminal damage can be.)
Why should anyone pay the Government more tax than they owe? Surely there is no obligation on anyone to arrange their affairs to maximise the amount of tax they pay. With companies that goes further: they would be manifestly breaching their duty to their shareholders if they failed to take all legal steps to minimise their tax bill.
Change may be desirable, but if it is it's the Government you need to convince, not Vodafone.
My understanding of the Vodafone case is that there was a lengthy dispute about how much tax was due in a complicated situation, and that after much argument and negotiation HMRC came up with a number which Vodafone then paid. Neither Vodafone nor HMRC have at any point acted unlawfully.
(I should point out that tax avoidance is legal: it's the very legality that distinguishes it from evasion, which is not legal.)
Comments 4
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Change may be desirable, but if it is it's the Government you need to convince, not Vodafone.
(S)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
(I should point out that tax avoidance is legal: it's the very legality that distinguishes it from evasion, which is not legal.)
(S) (quite happy to avoid tax)
Reply
Leave a comment