Richard Mowbray is correct: no corporation or individual is obliged to pay a penny more in tax than the law provides (Letters, November 16).
However, I disagree with him that the individual who, for example, buys an ISA to lower his or her tax burden is in the same position morally as a global corporation which takes aggressive action to ensure it pays no tax at all.
As individuals, we can take certain steps at the margin to reduce our tax burden, but however adept we are, the vast majority of us have no option but to pay a large slice of our income in tax. We are not able to declare ourselves citizens of Luxembourg, domicile ourselves or our spouses in Monaco, or morph ourselves into a service company for tax purposes. Nor, for the most part, do we wish to.
We accept as a matter of fairness and practicality that if we wish to enjoy good public services and provide a decent system of benefits, we have to pay for them. It may well be that current tax rates are too high, as Mr Mowbray suggests, but that is a separate issue from whether we should pay anything at all.
I believe in capitalism as a force for good, and a low-tax economy which encourages enterprise. But reciprocity is the oil which lubricates society. When Amazon, Starbucks, Google and many more wave two fingers at the markets that nourish them, by extracting eye-watering sums and making no contribution in return, they corrode not just their own reputations, but society in general.
It is that these companies provide substantial numbers of jobs, which are indeed a benefit, albeit that many of them are low-paid, temporary, or part-time. But how great a benefit are they when, as Andy Street, the chief executive of John Lewis pointed out last week, the fancy financial footwork of multinationals threatens the long-term viability of UK companies which provide the tax base on which our economy depends?
Governments internationally need to tackle this issue urgently and in concert. Arguments which attempt to justify the current position are like the standard Starbucks cappuccino – mostly froth.
Stephen Gold,
Burnside Road, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article