Re: Corporation tax
Is this actually so? I hear it repeated often, but it seems unfeasible.
Ah, actually I'm not sure. I have heard it repeated many times, and accepted it, but from http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/10/24/companies-do-not-have-a-duty-to-maximise-their-profits-or-to-avoid-tax/:
172: Duty to promote the success of the company
(1)A director of a company must act in the way he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole, and in doing so have regard (amongst other matters) to—
(a)the likely consequences of any decision in the long term,
(b)the interests of the company’s employees,
(c)the need to foster the company’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others,
(d)the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment,
(e)the desirability of the company maintaining a reputation for high standards of business conduct, and
(f)the need to act fairly as between members of the company.
(2)Where or to the extent that the purposes of the company consist of or include purposes other than the benefit of its members, subsection (1) has effect as if the reference to promoting the success of the company for the benefit of its members were to achieving those purposes.
(3)The duty imposed by this section has effect subject to any enactment or rule of law requiring directors, in certain circumstances, to consider or act in the interests of creditors of the company.
It seems the duty is to promote the success of the company. However, for many the success of the company is defined in terms of profit, balance sheet and PR. Legal minimisation of the tax bill, where it doesn't impact on PR, would be almost foolish to let slip, and could be considered a dereliction of this duty.
As for "The Dude":
But if we want to do this right, then we need to start thinking seriously about abolishing taxation - period - full stop.
Really?! If that were the case, how would they pay for essential services? Police, fire service, courts of law... Would you suggest that everyone has to take out an individual contract with a security service to protect them if a crime is committed? What if they can't afford it, do they not get justice? Does the criminal walk free?
What about roads and other essential public infrastructure? Do we say "No, you can't leave your house because you haven't paid the fee to this company to walk on their pavement"?
It is barmy to believe that, in a civilised society, we could actually manage without a central authority contributed to by all (AKA Government and Taxes).