|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Tax Avoidance is a Sin
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
. . . according to Archbishop of York John Sentamu.
quote:
Tax avoidance was "definitely a moral issue", the archbishop said and asked whether it was sinful, he replied: "It is sinful, simply because Jesus was very clear; pay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God."
Those not paying their full tax liabilities were "not only robbing the poor of what they could be getting, they are actually robbing God, because God says 'bring into my store house all the tithes'".
"So if God has told us to be just, to walk humbly and to be merciful and then we behave in a very strange way - God is being robbed, the world is being robbed, your neighbour is being robbed."
Note that Archbishop Sentamu is talking about tax avoidance, which is structuring your assets and expenses in perfectly legal ways to minimize your tax burden, not tax evasion, which is not paying taxes you legitimately owe. In some of the more extreme cases tax avoidance can take the form of lobbying the state to change the tax code in ways advantageous to your particular financial situation.
So, if taking advantage of tax law to minimize your taxes owed is immoral and sinful (though legal), isn't Sentamu essentially arguing against all the tax breaks that are traditionally given to churches? The Church of England, for instance, has an operating budget of £1 billion, another £4.4 billion in investment assets (as of 2008), and a huge real estate portfolio, all of which receives tax breaks unimaginable to Google, Amazon, or any of the other corporate entities being criticized by the Archbishop. Doesn't consistency require the Church of England to forgo these tax avoidance schemes if it's going to decry their use by others?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
I think you're right, Crœsos. I said so on Facebook the other day and am now in the middle of a lengthy exchange with a Christian friend who agrees with the Bishop!
Corporations should follow the law but otherwise seek to maximise their profits IMO. That's simply the role of corporations. There are other structure of organisation (in the UK, for example, you have charitable company, industrial and provident society, charitable incorporated organisation etc.) for those wish to set up an organisation that's not primarily about making money.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Of course tax avoidance is a sin - it is a way of loving money above loving God and one's neighbour that ensures that the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. And if the CoE is participating in this, then yes, that is committing sin. ++Sentamu might be hypocritical in saying this, but plenty of other people say it too (SCM for instance and the organisations we work with such as Church Action on Poverty) and are not hypocritical in saying so. Perhaps the bishop's stance might lead him to change things for the better within the CoE!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
THE SIN is being UNAWARE of the difference between Holy Law (Mosaic Law, 1689 Bill of Rights, English Common Law) VERSUS Corporate Statutes, ROMAN LAW (favoring Elites) and the Uniform commercial Code that derives from Laws of the Sea and Admiralty.
If you don't get THAT, you don't understand the predicament we the English-speaking peoples subject to Commercial Laws MUST ENDURE under the present Not-See Fascist regime.
In the United States of America CORPORATION, in the Uniform Commercial Code or Corporate Statutes--there IS NO LAW that mandates individual income tax liability. Period. It is absolutely voluntary.
IRS taxes only apply to citizens working outside the US or for foreign companies within the US.
Anybody stupid enough to file ... well, they get what their ignorance purchases.
EEWC
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[qb] . . . according to Archbishop of York John Sentamu.
[QUOTE]Tax avoidance was "definitely a moral issue", the archbishop said and asked whether it was sinful, he replied: "It is sinful, simply because Jesus was very clear; pay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God."
Those not paying their full tax liabilities were "not only robbing the poor of what they could be getting, they are actually robbing God, because God says 'bring into my store house all the tithes'".
"So if God has told us to be just, to walk humbly and to be merciful and then we behave in a very strange way - God is being robbed, the world is being robbed, your neighbour is being robbed."
Note that Archbishop Sentamu is talking about tax avoidance, which is structuring your
[ 20. June 2013, 22:33: Message edited by: Emily Windsor-Cragg ]
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
See, that makes absolutely no sense to me. Christ never said we had to donate money to the government, and it seems to me that choosing not to avoid paying extra money is another way of saying choosing to pay more than you have to.
I think, morally, one can differentiate between taking straightforward advantage of a tax exemption and constructing some artificial structure to sneak through a loophole.
In the case of charities, for example, governments have decided that people should be able to donate to charity from gross income. (Gift aid in the UK, deductions in the US, ...) Taking advantage of that is morally straight. Similarly, there is no moral issue with taking advantage of the significant tax incentives that governments offer in order to attract movie production, for example.
Setting up a holding company in, say, a Caribbean tax haven, which "owns" your company's intellectual property, and licenses it to individual per-country sub-companies at an essentially arbitrary rate in order to migrate profits out of a high-tax jurisdiction in to a low tax jurisdiction, is not exactly playing with a straight bat.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Setting up a holding company in, say, a Caribbean tax haven, which "owns" your company's intellectual property, and licenses it to individual per-country sub-companies at an essentially arbitrary rate in order to migrate profits out of a high-tax jurisdiction in to a low tax jurisdiction, is not exactly playing with a straight bat.
I understand what you're saying, but if schemes like this are available and clearly legal, then why ought not a company set up its affairs to take advantage of such schemes? If any particular government decides it doesn't intend the tax system to operate like this, then make it illegal or (if that's not possible) give tax breaks to companies not using such schemes. Even in today's global economies, can individual governments really not take action against such tax-avoiding schemes?
Also, individuals are perfectly within their rights to decide whether they want to shop, invest or otherwise interact with organisations avoiding tax in these 'not exactly playing with a straight bat' ways. I've got no problem at all with consumer or investor boycotts; just with accusations of corporate immorality and the like, when companies are simply following the law.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
As an ex tax lawyer I have both helped clients take advantage of the tax breaks that are anticipated by and built into the legislation, and created elaborate structures that exploit loopholes and result in less tax being paid than otherwise would have been the case.
The problem legislators face is defining the point at which one becomes the other. On the coal face, it is perfectly clear in each case which is morally legit and which isn't but it is so hard to come up with generalisations. I took no pleasure, other than intellectual stimulation, in devising the complex schemes that saved millions in taxes. But "does angelfish feel comfortable with this?" has not yet been adopted by HMRC as a test for whether a scheme is moral or not.
I agree with Sentamu, but I think that there is a more important question underlying all of this, which is about our relationship with our money, other people's money and so on. I don't think "render unto Caesar" was intended by Jesus to be a moral imperative. Wasn't he just saying that money isn't important and we shouldn't waste time and energy worrying about it? If the government wants it, let them have it, your Father in heaven knows your needs so you don't have to cling to wealth.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
just with accusations of corporate immorality and the like, when companies are simply following the law.
Do you not see a difference between what is moral and what is legal? ++John isn't accusing these companies of acting illegally - he is accusing them of acting immorally.
Angelfish describes some of the practical difficulties with constructing a watertight tax code. In particular, addressing the issues involved with "creative accounting" by large multinationals probably requires re-negotiating tax treaties, rather than having one individual government make unilateral changes.
[ 20. June 2013, 23:07: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Do you not see a difference between what is moral and what is legal? ++John isn't accusing these companies of acting illegally - he is accusing them of acting immorally.
Angelfish describes some of the practical difficulties with constructing a watertight tax code. In particular, addressing the issues involved with "creative accounting" by large multinationals probably requires re-negotiating tax treaties, rather than having one individual government make unilateral changes. [/QB]
Bingo! This is the difference between English Common Law which legislates against harm, deceit, cost & waste versus Roman Law, which favorites Elites over the working classes.
Anyone not aware of the fact that corporations operate their [Roman-Admiralty Law] scams WITH IMPUNITY under the "United Kingdom Corporation" rubric these days is not looking at the world through clear eye-sights.
EEWC
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I thought so - you do subscribe to that 'Freeman on the Land' mumbo-jumbo, don't you?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
You betcher BIPPY, I do! ... up to a point.
When people start FOULING THEIR OWN NEST,
it's time to throw them out.
And Common Laws against harm, deceit, cost and waste ... are the way to throw them out.
It seems to me, it's WAY PAST TIME to throw the Rothschilds out of British banking due to their policy and practices of USURY, HARM AND WASTE ... to the British public.
Would you agree?
EEWC
[ 20. June 2013, 23:37: Message edited by: Emily Windsor-Cragg ]
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Well you're not going to throw out bugger all with pseudo-legal gobbledegook that's been laughed out of court on any number of occasions.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
So, let's throw out the Courts too. They're knee deep in nepotism, aren't they? Influence-peddling?
I should have said, Usury, Harm and DECEIT! That's what the banking system is into!
Never mind--PERSON-TO-PERSON trade, barter or sharing. It's all just a GAME to those predators!
EEWC
[ 20. June 2013, 23:41: Message edited by: Emily Windsor-Cragg ]
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
Caesar doesn't own all my money, only that amount which by law I am required to hand over. Which I do.
If, by only paying to Caesar what I am legally obliged to pay and no more, I am robbing the poor of what they would be getting then I am also robbing soldiers of guns and nuclear weapons, robbing bankers of bailouts and spies of surveillance equipment.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Emily Windsor Cragg:
Aside from the Freeman on the Land bit, I have applied for a job in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. If I am successful (from this keyboard to God's monitor!) I would move to Montreal. Quebec uses its own Civil Code, derived from the Custom of Paris and Roman Law. It is NOT English Common Law.
The British authorities re-established French law in Quebec in 1774, in fact it was the very common French folk who wanted it rather than the English elites.
Please recognize that you're very near to being ignorant and insulting, dear.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Of course tax avoidance is a sin - it is a way of loving money above loving God and one's neighbour that ensures that the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. And if the CoE is participating in this, then yes, that is committing sin.
spot on. Government revenues are, in fact, a zero sum game. If you "avoid" taxes, either someone else must pay more (potentially someone poorer than you) or some government services must be cut (again, most likely services that benefit the poor).
Here in the US, American evangelicals seem to have it quite the reverse-- it's as if we had an ethical responsibility to find every loophole to pay as little taxes as possible, and to advocate politically for the lowest taxes possible-- not for the poor, but for everyone-- particularly the rich. That inevitably leaves the poor much, much worse off. And yet I find myself more often than not playing the game-- it seems somehow to be burnt into our DNA. Perhaps something to do with that long-ago tea party.
[ 21. June 2013, 01:20: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Perhaps something to do with that long-ago tea party.
Or the even-longer-ago apple cider party.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Probly to understand what is right and wrong about taxes and paying/not paying/avoiding would require a Talmud of explication?
If you straightforwardly don't declare income so that the gov't cannot tax it is the easy one. It gets complicated like these examples.
1. In Canada, you have the ability to decide how much to pay yourself as salary as a self employed person, and how much to keep within one or more or your companies. You can also decide to pay some funds to yourself as dividends and can also split income as salary or faux-company office fees to family members (or anyone else). Tax avoidance possibly? But it is playing by Caesar's rules. I do this.
2. If you board member of a major corporation, you
talk to your political friends, give money to their campaigns, talk to them about what board and management committees they might be appointed to once they leave office. You then "encourage" the politicians to pass laws to:
(a) give generally lower corporate tax rates to all major corps (we might reasonably ask if lowering the 75%+ corp tax rates to rates of abut 15% between the 1970s and today is a sin.)
(b) allow you to declare losses from one part of your operation or a subsidiary company against the profits in another
(c) give tax breaks to your industry, perhaps in the form of input tax credits
(d) forgiveness of taxes if you "create" jobs (always check the duration the jobs have to exist)
(e) laws that allow you to transfer your profits to a shell company, in say Ireland (you can turn up the company's name if you didn't hear about that).
(f) deduct the costs from income of sponsoring things like names of sports arenas, hospital wings, charities and charitable events in general. (This last one lets the companies dictate social policy because they decide what the public will get, in our case currently, an unneeded hospital instead of program funding for community health. And it becomes difficult to have an opinion other than positive, say uranium mining, fracking and oil from tar sands, if the school gym and band program are sponsored by them.)
Bottom line:
I guess I would say that tax avoidance is maybe only a sin for the individual tax payer in the view of the bishop. God obviously understands business and lets God-fearing and atheistic business types work with politicians to pass laws that allow them to decide what Caesar is due, which makes it all just great.
[ 21. June 2013, 01:56: Message edited by: no prophet ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
If you wish to live by Roman Law, go for it.
I'll pass, and I'm not intending to be insulting at all.
Each of us chooses our poison.
EEWC
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Emily Windsor Cragg:
Aside from the Freeman on the Land bit, I have applied for a job in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. If I am successful (from this keyboard to God's monitor!) I would move to Montreal. Quebec uses its own Civil Code, derived from the Custom of Paris and Roman Law. It is NOT English Common Law.
The British authorities re-established French law in Quebec in 1774, in fact it was the very common French folk who wanted it rather than the English elites.
Please recognize that you're very near to being ignorant and insulting, dear.
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
See, that makes absolutely no sense to me. Christ never said we had to donate money to the government, and it seems to me that choosing not to avoid paying extra money is another way of saying choosing to pay more than you have to.
I think, morally, one can differentiate between taking straightforward advantage of a tax exemption and constructing some artificial structure to sneak through a loophole.
Fair enough. I accept that I'm probably overthinking it. It seems probable that generally people know when they are using the laws to avoid taxes in ways that the lawmakers did not intend.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I guess I would say that tax avoidance is maybe only a sin for the individual tax payer in the view of the bishop.
Which doesn't match the article in the OP quote:
the Archbishop of York, told the BBC that individuals and companies needed to be held accountable for their actions when it came to tax.
quote:
Tax avoidance was hindering efforts to tackle hunger and malnutrition in developing countries, he suggested.
And, the is entirely consistent with recent campaigns by Christian Aid and other organisations. Where the main concern was multinational corporations with interests in developing nations who make vast profits, yet pay virtually no tax in the poor countries which are the foundation for many of those profits. Examples could be mineral exploitation companies that run mines in developing countries (often with very minimal controls to ensure the safety and health of their workers and the environment) paying those mines a pittance for their raw materials so they run at very small profits (hence pay a pittance in local taxes) while making their profits in a low-tax country where they simply trade those resources - often countries where the taxes pay for the services provided for the managing directors of these companies. It would be morally a far better situation if the tax paid was paid in the countries where the resources were mined, even if the total tax burden wasn't increased.
If the CofE is making a profit, then certainly it should be paying tax in the UK. Clergy (and other staff of churches) pay income tax on their stipend, the same as any other employee. I don't think the CofE is any different from any other organisation that makes no profit, since corporation taxes only get paid on profit.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
If, by only paying to Caesar what I am legally obliged to pay and no more, I am robbing the poor of what they would be getting then I am also robbing soldiers of guns and nuclear weapons, robbing bankers of bailouts and spies of surveillance equipment.
Certainly the UK has provided a system that allows you to take the decision of who to support out of their hands. In the UK, we can make direct payments to charities of our choice, and the charities get the tax we paid on that income. I can, if I wanted, pay enough to charities of my choice that the government gets zero tax. That would, of course, leave me not very much to live on ... but, would guarantee that my tax pounds were not being spent on guns and bombs.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If the CofE is making a profit, then certainly it should be paying tax in the UK. Clergy (and other staff of churches) pay income tax on their stipend, the same as any other employee. I don't think the CofE is any different from any other organisation that makes no profit, since corporation taxes only get paid on profit.
Do clergy pay tax on their income in the CofE? I thought that retaining the legal fiction of it being a stipend paid to enable them to not have some other job was exclusively for the purpose of getting around taxation law.
And then there's the question of the church and annual taxes on property value, which typically pay for local services such as maintaining roads and providing subsidised public housing for the lower class. My guess is that the CofE has a very substantial advantage in this respect compared to "any other organisation," and this is to the detriment of the local communities which the churches are supposed to serve - you can't use the "I don't want to pay for Trident" excuse with local government taxes. Do they pay their property taxes or are they squatting in the local communities?
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
[QUOTE]Do clergy pay tax on their income in the CofE? I thought that retaining the legal fiction of it being a stipend paid to enable them to not have some other job was exclusively for the purpose of getting around taxation law.
And then there's the question of the church and annual taxes on property value, which typically pay for local services such as maintaining roads and providing subsidised public housing for the lower class. My guess is that the CofE has a very substantial advantage in this respect compared to "any other organisation," and this is to the detriment of the local communities which the churches are supposed to serve - you can't use the "I don't want to pay for Trident" excuse with local government taxes. Do they pay their property taxes or are they squatting in the local communities?
All clergy in the uk pay tax on their income unless that income is less than the personal allowance (currently £9440 for 2013/14).
Churches don't pay business rates or council tax on their church premises. They do pay utility bills for water, gas, power etc.
Churches do pay the local taxes on any houses provided for clergy.
The reason for the "stipend" is that in the uk clergy are technically office holders (Trustees) and not employees (they are classed as employed by God). The idea of a stipend is that it was designed to give clergy sufficient money (a basic minimal amount) to live on, to enable them to focus on ministry without having to work in another way to get money to live on.
There are, admittedly, som tax breaks in being a clergyperson. Some expenses can be offset against income; you get your milegae and expenses paid when on church business; in a lot of cases you get a house where you only pay fpor light and heat. (The latter point is arguable for soem who find that living in soemone else's house - the church's- isn't an easy task).
The down side is that in the UK clergy are, to all intents and purposes, excluded from employment law. Terms and conditions CAN be bad and sometimes intolerable. Hours of "work" are some of the longest in any sphere (who else has just one day poff a week these days?) and clergy are excluded from the European working hours directive. Bullying and misuse of power goes on at levels which would lead to instant legal action in any other place of work and in soem denominations you can be dismissed from post pretty instantly without any redress whatsoever.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The down side is that in the UK clergy are, to all intents and purposes, excluded from employment law. Terms and conditions CAN be bad and sometimes intolerable. Hours of "work" are some of the longest in any sphere (who else has just one day poff a week these days?) and clergy are excluded from the European working hours directive. Bullying and misuse of power goes on at levels which would lead to instant legal action in any other place of work and in soem denominations you can be dismissed from post pretty instantly without any redress whatsoever.
Presumably the C of E (and any other faith groups that do the same thing) feel this approach to be within the intentions of the law. Despite the fact that, as ExclamationMark says, it enables them to avoid much of the law around employment.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
just with accusations of corporate immorality and the like, when companies are simply following the law.
Do you not see a difference between what is moral and what is legal? ++John isn't accusing these companies of acting illegally - he is accusing them of acting immorally.
I do realise a lot of the work to close tax loopholes cannot be done by single governments acting on their own. It's a complex area. But still, describing companies that use clearly legal measures to reduce tax as 'immoral' doesn't feel right to me.
If a company wants to make a play for the moral high ground and takes an approach of keeping its affairs simple, so as not to avoid tax that other companies might avoid, then great, let them. And let customers do business with them in preference to other, tax-avoiding, companies. But I wouldn't describe the former company as more moral than the latter.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Do clergy pay tax on their income in the CofE?
Yes. Of course they do. Isn't that the case everywhere?
quote:
I thought that retaining the legal fiction of it being a stipend paid to enable them to not have some other job was exclusively for the purpose of getting around taxation law.
No. It has nothing to do with taxation. It does though convey the notion that they are not paid by the hour to do a particular job, which is worth that amount. The theory is that it is called a stipend rather than a wage because it is funding them not to have to earn a living the normal way. So, they can do God's work in stead.
quote:
And then there's the question of the church and annual taxes on property value, which typically pay for local services such as maintaining roads and providing subsidised public housing for the lower class. My guess is that the CofE has a very substantial advantage in this respect compared to "any other organisation," and this is to the detriment of the local communities which the churches are supposed to serve - you can't use the "I don't want to pay for Trident" excuse with local government taxes. Do they pay their property taxes or are they squatting in the local communities?
On rates etc on its plant the CofE is in the same position as any other charity whether religious or secular.
Opinions differ as to whether government, central or local, is a better organisation to decide what your donation money should be spent on than you are. But the logic of what you've just said is that those who are too poor to pay their local taxes should not be allowed to use the roads.
Giant Cheeseburger, you may not appreciate the background to this thread. There's been a great flurry of interest by high-minded worthies recently, in multinationals which choose which jurisdiction to put their European subsidiaries in, wholly or partly for tax reasons. A lot of Anglophone multinationals run their European operations from Dublin because Ireland speaks English and is in the Eurozone. The Irish government has a tax regime designed to welcome them.
If multinational G, say, sells something to a consumer in the UK, it has some leeway as to whether the profit from that sale is in the UK or Ireland. High-minded worthies, including one in particular who chairs a Parliamentary Committee and likes the limelight, think it is a moral issue, that in those circumstances G should pay tax in the UK rather than Ireland. It isn't totally clear whether this is because she thinks it is obviously more virtuous,
- to pay tax to her government rather than the Irish one, because she knows better how to spend the money than the Irish do, or
- to pay tax, plain and simple, because paying taxes is inherently good. The government is more virtuous than you are and always knows best.
She doesn't seem to have noticed the corollary. That is that where UK taxes are lower than foreign ones, a UK company selling stuff in another country should prefer to pay its taxes to the foreign country rather than to her.
When it comes to trading in Third World countries, nobody at the moment, which is surprising, seems to be saying that it is more virtuous to pay taxes in a country where an elite in dark glasses can snaffle the public exchequer. But it is difficult not to conclude that some of them think that.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
I'm not entirely convinced by the idea that once you get into a company you have to put profits first. For a start consider Schindler, the vile man deliberately hired weak people harming the profits of his company, and gave them far more benefits than he was legally obliged too. In fact driving his company bankrupt*. If on the other hand what he did was remotely justifiable then the argument defending tax avoidance has to be invalid (although it might come up with the right answer).
It also strikes me as although the line may be unclear, there is a clear distinction between taking advantage of tax breaks and mislabelling to take advantage. The problem is proving the distinction enough to prosecute.
The classic offshore routine being a clear case where you can see the value isn't being added where they are declaring it,
But at the same time a company genuinely operating there does deserve the break as it's not getting the benefit of tax paid roads/etc...
Likewise tax breaks for loans makes sense, but making a loan to yourself...requires stretching the word.
*which saves me from one line of argument. I'm not sure if he was sole owner, which does leave another argument exposed.
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So, if taking advantage of tax law to minimize your taxes owed is immoral and sinful (though legal), isn't Sentamu essentially arguing against all the tax breaks that are traditionally given to churches? The Church of England, for instance, has an operating budget of £1 billion, another £4.4 billion in investment assets (as of 2008), and a huge real estate portfolio, all of which receives tax breaks unimaginable to Google, Amazon, or any of the other corporate entities being criticized by the Archbishop. Doesn't consistency require the Church of England to forgo these tax avoidance schemes if it's going to decry their use by others?
AFAIK, the CofE is not a commercial enterprise, it is a registered charity. (Well, I think actually every Parochial Church Council is its own legal entity. But they are all governed by charity laws, so for the sake of simplicity...) You may not care for what that charity does, you may find its wealth unseemly and you may protest the perks it gets from the government. But they are simply playing a different ballgame to Google and other businesses.
Simply put, the aim of the CofE is not to make a (pecuniary) profit for her owners. The aim of Google, amazon, etc. very much is to make as much profit as possible for their owners. So if these businesses use all kinds of trickery to avoid paying taxes, they are de facto taking away from the common good and giving to their owners. Whereas if the CofE is getting tax breaks etc., then this means that a part of the common good (namely that potential tax money) is invested in a different part of the common good (namely the charitable services that the CofE provides to the community). Again, you may wish that less or even no funds would flow from the common good into providing the kind of community services that the CofE offers. Whether this is rational or simply a case of envying others over services that you do not want is a different question. But it simply is not comparable to companies that avoid making a fair contribution to the common good in order to profit a select few owners individually.
(In addition, the comparison fails on the international vs. national perspective. These corporations are in effect pitting different national common goods against each other, in order to maximise their international profits. They are cleverly abusing the lack of a fully formed supra-national common good. The CofE, or indeed the Anglican communion, cannot be accused of such behaviour.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
. . . according to Archbishop of York John Sentamu.
quote:
Tax avoidance was "definitely a moral issue", the archbishop said and asked whether it was sinful, he replied: "It is sinful, simply because Jesus was very clear; pay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God."
The thing is, Caesar (i.e. government) has chosen to define what belongs to him by means of tax law. Therefore, income that is not taxable for whatever reason is not Caesar's - meaning that even according to Jesus' words there is no moral obligation to pay it to him.
quote:
Those not paying their full tax liabilities were "not only robbing the poor of what they could be getting, they are actually robbing God, because God says 'bring into my store house all the tithes'".
So is the Archbishop saying that taxes are the same as tithing? If so, given that taxes represent far more than 10% of my gross income, am I safe to assume that my obligation to tithe is already taken care of and there is no moral requirement for me to give any more of my income to charity/the church?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The tithe was a legal minimum set to support the corporate worship of the nation of Israel. When the Law was given there was no nation state with all the expenses entailed (supporting a judicial system, military etc), and there were other provisions in the Law for support of widows, aliens and others in need.
Jesus had some strong words to say to the Pharisees and others who claimed "I've done what the Law requires of me, I'm OK". He was quite strongly in favour of doing much more than the legal minimum for the sake of others; going an extra mile, giving the shirt off your back when asked for a coat, helping a despised foreigner mugged by the road side ...
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally written by the Archbishop of York:
With that in mind, live in hope, free from fear. Embrace every day that God puts before you with confidence.
And if you can buy the Sun seven days a week, even better!
Finding out that former Sun on Sunday columnist John Sentamu disapproves of tax avoidance makes me wish I approved of it.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
. . . according to Archbishop of York John Sentamu:
Those not paying their full tax liabilities were "not only robbing the poor of what they could be getting, they are actually robbing God, because God says 'bring into my store house all the tithes'".
So is the Archbishop saying that taxes are the same as tithing? If so, given that taxes represent far more than 10% of my gross income, am I safe to assume that my obligation to tithe is already taken care of and there is no moral requirement for me to give any more of my income to charity/the church?
That's a very good question. If Sentamu teaches that Christians should nevertheless tithe, then he's complete trying to have his cake and eat it.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
AFAIK, the CofE is not a commercial enterprise, it is a registered charity. (Well, I think actually every Parochial Church Council is its own legal entity. But they are all governed by charity laws, so for the sake of simplicity...) You may not care for what that charity does, you may find its wealth unseemly and you may protest the perks it gets from the government. But they are simply playing a different ballgame to Google and other businesses.
But they're not playing the same ballgame as other charities, either. How many other charities' employees get a tax break on their personal expenses, or can provide housing to employees without it being treated as an in-kind payment? (I actually don't know the answer to this last one. Anyone?) If the CofE is going to complain about those taking advantage of special provisions in the tax code to lower their tax burden, perhaps they should consider removing the beam from their own eye before going after anyone else's mote.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
Ah, but don't forget, the CofE doesn't have employees, it has people who do things for it, who it then pays.
Yes.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Jesus had some strong words to say to the Pharisees and others who claimed "I've done what the Law requires of me, I'm OK". He was quite strongly in favour of doing much more than the legal minimum for the sake of others; going an extra mile, giving the shirt off your back when asked for a coat, helping a despised foreigner mugged by the road side ...
If we follow Jesus' words, then the absolute minimum that any of should be giving is 100%. As not one of us actually gives that amount (and presuming we're not all Hellbound), there must be some amount that's enough to be counted righteous while still having a reasonable amount to spend on ourselves. I assumed that was what the 10% tithe was supposed to define, but maybe not.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
Ah, but don't forget, the CofE doesn't have employees, it has people who do things for it, who it then pays.
Yes.
I believe that was the theory also advanced by American creationist Kent Hovind. All of his supposed "employees" were really volunteers, who were occasionally helped out with gifts or charitable giving that just happened to look like salaries. That didn't go particularly well for him in court.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
AFAIK, the CofE is not a commercial enterprise, it is a registered charity. (Well, I think actually every Parochial Church Council is its own legal entity. But they are all governed by charity laws, so for the sake of simplicity...) You may not care for what that charity does, you may find its wealth unseemly and you may protest the perks it gets from the government. But they are simply playing a different ballgame to Google and other businesses.
But they're not playing the same ballgame as other charities, either. How many other charities' employees get a tax break on their personal expenses, or can provide housing to employees without it being treated as an in-kind payment? (I actually don't know the answer to this last one. Anyone?) If the CofE is going to complain about those taking advantage of special provisions in the tax code to lower their tax burden, perhaps they should consider removing the beam from their own eye before going after anyone else's mote.
If you are self employed you can claim working expenses against tax and if you are obliged to live in a house paid for by your employer as a condition of the job (as the warden of sheltered housing, say) that isn't treated as a taxable benefit. I think the main asset clergy have is that either, we can claim stuff against tax or claim it on expenses and make a prudential decision as to which we think is best, where as self-employed people have to claim it against tax and employed people, if they can't claim it as expenses, have to pony up. But I think that in the great scheme of things that's fairly minor and certainly hardly analogous to companies making a shed load of money in profit and not paying any taxes at all.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Jesus had some strong words to say to the Pharisees and others who claimed "I've done what the Law requires of me, I'm OK". He was quite strongly in favour of doing much more than the legal minimum for the sake of others; going an extra mile, giving the shirt off your back when asked for a coat, helping a despised foreigner mugged by the road side ...
If we follow Jesus' words, then the absolute minimum that any of should be giving is 100%. As not one of us actually gives that amount (and presuming we're not all Hellbound), there must be some amount that's enough to be counted righteous while still having a reasonable amount to spend on ourselves. I assumed that was what the 10% tithe was supposed to define, but maybe not.
Well, there is a big question as to whether anything is enough for us to be counted righteous.
So, you are right. We cannot give enough to be counted righteous. Whether that giving is in our contributions to the common good administered on our behalf by government, or directly to the poor and needy.
But, we need to examine ourselves. We can easily claim that we're so at fault that we can't possibly address the faults of others. A logical position, and one many have taken. But, that means we stand by and do nothing about injustice perpetrated by others. We don't campaign against racism, because deep down we all know we have a little bigotry. We don't call the police when we see someone being robbed, because we've all taken a pen home from work now and then.
Sometimes it is necessary to take the moral high ground and make a stand against something that is wrong. Albeit, with humility and in full awareness of our imperfections.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Sometimes it is necessary to take the moral high ground and make a stand against something that is wrong. Albeit, with humility and in full awareness of our imperfections.
I'm not bothered about the Archbishop taking a stand. I'm trying to work out what his words mean in terms of the level of tithing my church demands of me, especially in terms of whether I've been giving more than I have to for the last decade or so.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
Marvin, if your church is demanding anything of you, it's time to find a different church.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[qb] . . . according to Archbishop of York John Sentamu.
quote:
Tax avoidance was "definitely a moral issue", the archbishop said and asked whether it was sinful, he replied: "It is sinful, simply because Jesus was very clear; pay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God."
The thing is, Caesar (i.e. government) has chosen to define what belongs to him by means of tax law. Therefore, income that is not taxable for whatever reason is not Caesar's - meaning that even according to Jesus' words there is no moral obligation to pay it to him.
Again, you are missing the distinction between a moral and a legal obligation. You have no legal obligation to pay more than what the government requires.
There also is a distinction between the Roman government and US or UK government. Jesus was answering a trick question about the obligations of an occupied people toward their oppressors, essentially, do you have a moral obligation to fulfill the legal requirements established by an immoral oppressive power? A thorny conundrum, which is why the Pharisees raised it.
But, despite all the tea party rhetoric, neither the US nor the UK are oppressive regimes holding their citizens hostage. They are democracies. Unlike the relationship of Rome to Israel, in this case "the government" is not "them" but is in fact us. So the question is entirely different. Rather than talking about our obligation to "them" it is a question about our obligations to
one another. I would suggest therefore that Jesus' teachings about how we care for "the least of these" would be far more relevant to our particular situation.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Jesus had some strong words to say to the Pharisees and others who claimed "I've done what the Law requires of me, I'm OK". He was quite strongly in favour of doing much more than the legal minimum for the sake of others; going an extra mile, giving the shirt off your back when asked for a coat, helping a despised foreigner mugged by the road side ...
If we follow Jesus' words, then the absolute minimum that any of should be giving is 100%. As not one of us actually gives that amount (and presuming we're not all Hellbound), there must be some amount that's enough to be counted righteous while still having a reasonable amount to spend on ourselves. I assumed that was what the 10% tithe was supposed to define, but maybe not.
Both these arguments are seriously flawed. The state is not a poor and needy person who has no shirt to keep out the cold or is lying beaten up in a ditch. It's well able to look after itself.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Jesus had some strong words to say to the Pharisees and others who claimed "I've done what the Law requires of me, I'm OK". He was quite strongly in favour of doing much more than the legal minimum for the sake of others; going an extra mile, giving the shirt off your back when asked for a coat, helping a despised foreigner mugged by the road side ...
If we follow Jesus' words, then the absolute minimum that any of should be giving is 100%. As not one of us actually gives that amount (and presuming we're not all Hellbound), there must be some amount that's enough to be counted righteous while still having a reasonable amount to spend on ourselves. I assumed that was what the 10% tithe was supposed to define, but maybe not.
Both these arguments are seriously flawed. The state is not a poor and needy person who has no shirt to keep out the cold or is lying beaten up in a ditch. It's well able to look after itself.
When it comes to the state's ability to pay for another big-a** high-powered military toy, your description is spot on. When it comes to the state's ability to pay for assistance for the poor and ill among us. the description of a shirtless beggar beaten up in a ditch is very nearly literal.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, you are missing the distinction between a moral and a legal obligation. You have no legal obligation to pay more than what the government requires.
I'm not sure there's a distinction between the two when it comes to corporate entities. Corporations are legal persons in some respects, but don't usually have any inherent moral code, in part because the corporation endures regardless of any change in personnel. As such, many corporations use the law as a proxy for a moral code.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The state is not a poor and needy person who has no shirt to keep out the cold or is lying beaten up in a ditch. It's well able to look after itself.
There are a vast number of needy people without a shirt or lying beaten in a ditch. Billions of them. As long as there is someone in that situation then there is a need for contributions towards the common good. When the actions of multinationals deprive those most able to assist the poor of the funds they need then that's action contrary to the common good. Calling that immoral sounds about right.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, you are missing the distinction between a moral and a legal obligation. You have no legal obligation to pay more than what the government requires.
I'm not sure there's a distinction between the two when it comes to corporate entities. Corporations are legal persons in some respects, but don't usually have any inherent moral code, in part because the corporation endures regardless of any change in personnel. As such, many corporations use the law as a proxy for a moral code.
A corporation can be held legally liable, as a legal person, for its actions. However, I don't presume God will be holding Amazon.eu to account for its actions come the Day of Judgement. He will, however, I am sure, have something to say to the individuals (direcors and shareholders) who set the policy for that company, and used their considerable influence to enrich only themselves.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelfish:
He will, however, I am sure, have something to say to the individuals (direcors and shareholders) who set the policy for that company, and used their considerable influence to enrich only themselves.
"Well done, good and faithful servant?"
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
“You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?”
Guess what the Gospel is the first Sunday in Aug, when I'm next down to preach?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Cliffdweller
Government revenues are, in fact, a zero sum game. If you "avoid" taxes, either someone else must pay more (potentially someone poorer than you) or some government services must be cut (again, most likely services that benefit the poor).
This seems a bit of an over simplification to me. I agree that we have a moral responsibility which goes beyond our legal responsibility, but it's a bit more complicated than avoiding courses of action which result in paying less tax. I generally cycle to work for example. If I drove to work, I would pay a lot more in tax as petrol is quite heavily taxed here. According to the zero sum game argument someone else has to pay the tax I'm not paying. But few people would describe my action of cycling as tax avoidance or particularly sinful.
It seems to me that is partly because there are other social goods than those paid for by the government and I might be contributing to some of them. Also I think it is partly because my choices are within the spirit as well as the letter of the taxation system we have. I am not trying to circumvent the intention of any rules.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
