Margaret Hodge MP on "evil" Google and "angry" people!

[Dry Gulch Pete]

The silly publicity houndess with the large conk was on Sky News earlier and
said, about Google's tax avoidance, something like...

"We as a Select Committee are angry and the people are angry"!

I'm not angry - are YOU!? :D

Another fellow said this tax avoidance business was common practice by
British firms in America and generally how firms operate globally.

--
DGP

[Joe]

Why would you go to the significant trouble of opening a subsidiary
abroad, with another set of laws and possibly a language to learn, a
new set of politicians and officials to bribe, and all the other
difficulties, unless you expected at least as high a rate of return on
your investment as you could get in your own country?

Do these moronic politicians really believe that 'foreign investment'
happens for the benefit of the natives (and their parasites)?

Any country selling anything to another will make all the profit on its
own end of the deal. UK subsidiaries of Japanese manufacturing
companies, for example, will make little or no profit after paying
Japan high prices for the goods they resell, and its own cost of sales.
In return, the Japanese parent company will cover any small trading
losses which may occur. In what way is this different from a service
company paying a high 'franchise' fee to its parent?

Is Hodge suggesting that BMW in Germany doesn't make a socking great
profit from selling cars into the UK? Why would it pay any more than
salaries and employment taxes to its UK staff, plus the enormous rents
and taxes on showrooms, and the energy taxes? Why would it also declare
profits here so they could be additionally taxed?

And we already have a turnover tax on almost all goods and services,
and like all business taxes it is paid to the government (and some to
the EU) out of the pockets of customers. Even higher VAT, anyone?

--
Joe

[Norman Wells]

Of course they do. They are law-aiding companies and they follow the
rules. The rules are made by politicians - like Mrs Hodge - and she has
no right to get herself in a huff at them because she and her ilk didn't
do their job properly and make the rules do what they want.

But, in fact, I think she knows that full well. Tax avoidance is a
global issue and needs to be tackled globally. Her grandstanding is not
actually an attack on the companies who are behaving perfectly legally,
which she knows she can do nothing about, but an attempt to push the
global taxation issue up the international agenda.

[MC]

Dry Gulch Pete wrote:

> The silly publicity houndess with the large conk was on Sky News
> earlier and said, about Google's tax avoidance, something like...
>
> "We as a Select Committee are angry and the people are angry"!
>
> I'm not angry - are YOU!? :D
>

Considering the amount of profits involved, yes. Very much so.
The tax avoidance schemes these companies "actively" persue are only
good for the back pockets of shareholders and bosses while the citizens
in the country in which they carry out the their trade, and make their
profit, lose out. Nothing fair in that.

MC

[JNugent]

And don't forget Mrs Hodge's own part in the tax avoidance by the
family's business.

[Ar]

On 13/06/13 09:23, Norman Wells wrote:
> Of course they do. They are law-aiding companies and they follow the
> rules. The rules are made by politicians - like Mrs Hodge - and she has
> no right to get herself in a huff at them because she and her ilk didn't
> do their job properly and make the rules do what they want.
>
> But, in fact, I think she knows that full well. Tax avoidance is a
> global issue and needs to be tackled globally.

Tax avoidance is a non-issue (EVERYONE does it and is legal). Tax
evasion however....

[Bill]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:41:45 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

While Stemcor is a huge concern I understand that Mrs Hodge takes no
part in the running of it and declares her interest in it.

Perhaps you have some more details?

[Phi]

"Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5h2sr85fggdnojb2d...@4ax.com...

Presently Oppenheimer's son Ralph is executive chairman, while daughter
Margaret Hodge MP is a shareholder.

[Bill]

So what?

[JNugent]

The obvious detail is that she finds some way of not including her
fellow shareholders in her attacks on businesses which are alleged to
avoid unnecessary taxation.

Perhaps it's OK for her lot to avoid tax, but not OK for her selected
victims?

[JNugent]

So why doesn't she attack Stemcor?

[Bill]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 01:04:41 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

For the very good reason that she has a 'declared interest' and so
isn't allowed to comment on matters concerning them.

[JNugent]

On 17/06/2013 10:37, Bill wrote:

> JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> On 16/06/2013 22:07, Bill wrote:
>>> "Phi" <phi...@inbox.com> wrote:

>>>> "Bill" <black...@gmail.com> wrote:

In that case - and I'm being deadly serious here - she is most certainly
*not* a fit and proper person to chair, or even be a member of, that
Select Committee This is because she is disbarred from commenting on the
alleged misdeeds of one company but apparently free to comment on the
alleged misdeeds of any other company. That means that she is not
capable of being neutral and that is not open and honest government and
it is not justice. It also means that Stemcor's activities cannot be
examined by the Committee.

She should therefore tender her resignation from the committee (she's
not even any use as an ordinary member if she cannot comment on the
activities of all and any companies in a fair and even-handed manner).
And the fact that she has not done so, but continues to criticise
law-abiding companies whilst - with whatever excuse - ignoring her own
family company, is proof, if it were needed, of what a hypocrite she is
and how unfit she is to be a member of that committee.

Surely she should be chairing the Child Protection Committee?

Ooops...

[Bill]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:55:22 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

I'm afraid that those are the rules.

If an elected official owns more than (I think) 10,000 shares in a
company then they must declare an interest and take no part in
discussions where that company is involved.

[JNugent]

In that case, the rules mean that she cannot, in her circumstances,
honourably serve on the committee.

What if her committee *needed* to examine the activities of Stemcor?

In fact, what makes anyone think that the committee *doesn't* need to
examine their record.

Is her presence on the committee a get out of jail free card for her
family company?

> If an elected official owns more than (I think) 10,000 shares in a
> company then they must declare an interest and take no part in
> discussions where that company is involved.

On a local authority committee, the chairman would vacate the chair
during such discussion and let the vice-chairman deal with it.

[JNugent]

On 17/06/2013 21:43, Bill wrote:

That takes us not an inch further than your previous post.

Hodge is not a fit and proper person to be a member, let alone chairman,
of that committee.


>

[Bill]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:27:41 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

Do you know of a case where she hasn't done so when her family company
was directly involved?

[Bill]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:29:39 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

>On 17/06/2013 21:43, Bill wrote:

>> If an elected official owns more than (I think) 10,000 shares in a
>> company then they must declare an interest and take no part in
>> discussions where that company is involved.
>
>That takes us not an inch further than your previous post.
>
>Hodge is not a fit and proper person to be a member, let alone chairman,
>of that committee.

So you're saying rich people shouldn't be allowed to take part in
public life?

[JNugent]

Yes.

She has been hot on the heels of certain household name American firms
for allegedly avoiding tax.

She has not been hot on the heels of Stemcor (which does not have the
excuse of being a foreign firm).


>

[JNugent]

I'm saying that people with an interest to be declared in the
deliberations of a committee (whether directly discussed or indirectly
discussed in principle) are patently unsuitable for being on that committee.

That is far from being a claim that the person is generally unfit to be
an elected representative.

[Bill]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:44:49 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

And as I have explained repeatedly, she's not allowed to.

[Bill]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:46:42 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

wrote:

>On 18/06/2013 11:33, Bill wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:29:39 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/06/2013 21:43, Bill wrote:
>>
>>>> If an elected official owns more than (I think) 10,000 shares in a
>>>> company then they must declare an interest and take no part in
>>>> discussions where that company is involved.
>>>
>>> That takes us not an inch further than your previous post.
>>>
>>> Hodge is not a fit and proper person to be a member, let alone chairman,
>>> of that committee.
>>
>> So you're saying rich people shouldn't be allowed to take part in
>> public life?
>
>I'm saying that people with an interest to be declared in the
>deliberations of a committee (whether directly discussed or indirectly
>discussed in principle) are patently unsuitable for being on that committee.

You'd be more or less disqualifying everyone from everything.

[JNugent]

Then she is incapable of doing the job of chairman of that committee and
so should not hold the post.

[JNugent]

Not in the slightest.

Just disbarring those with a vested interest from positions of power
over that interest.

[Bill]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:54:14 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

That's not what the law says.

Will you be campaigning to get it changed?

Because if you do you more or less eliminate almost everyone from
politics.

Own a home; you can't be on anything involving planning.

Own some shares; you can't be on any committee granting tenders or
affecting business.

Own a car; you're not allowed to comment on any roads being built...

[Bill]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 23:55:16 +0100, JNugent <jenni...@fastmail.fm>

Everyone who owns a car has a vested interest in road building.
Everyone who owns a few shares has a vested interest in that business.

Systems exist for MPs to get around this. It's called 'The register
of members' interests' in which MPs declare their interests and so are
disqualified from commenting on issues affecting them.

[JNugent]

What legislation covers it?

> Will you be campaigning to get it changed?
> Because if you do you more or less eliminate almost everyone from
> politics.
> Own a home; you can't be on anything involving planning.

Not true.

> Own some shares; you can't be on any committee granting tenders or
> affecting business.

Not true.

> Own a car; you're not allowed to comment on any roads being built...

Not true.

[JNugent]

If your faulty reasoning were to be accepted (ie, if it weren't faulty),
there could hardly be a single MP who could comment on the construction
of a new road, and there wouldn't be a single one able to speak in a
debate about income tax rates.
>