Michael Eavis Controversy

[eFestivals]

Should we be happy with reducing wages & a lower standard of living in the UK, because more jobs are moving to China or India - because it's helping them to improve their quality of life?

it's refreshing to have someone even notice that aspect.

I've spent hours arguing on here previously with others who cannot see that the up-shot of others' developments is a downgrade for ourselves.)

I say that we should do. We do not have some inalienable right to forever have a better standard of living than others in the world.

But you can be sure that others think differently. There will be wars - there are already wars - because some wish to think themselves King Canute.

The issue of jobs at a local (i'm meaning national, against global) level should not be about 'stealing' jobs from others via the artificial means of tax breaks but by building locally *AND* distributing the economic benefits locally.

(just to be clear that's not me saying that a multi-national can't open an office in a new country. I'm saying they should do so because that country is the right location from considerations which are nothing to do with a better tax deal).

[eFestivals]

Of course they are, but as I said, it's not an ongoing special deal with Apple to pay 2% tax.

I've only posted to correct that assertion along with the statement that Apple employ no-one in Ireland.

I didn't say "no one" I said "almost no one". And relative to the Apple money that passes thru Ireland that's a factually correct statement.

And given that I haven't lived there in years my complicity in the tax system there is a bit of a stretch.

you have voiced your support a system that ultimately robs you, wherever you live.

[ThomThomDrum]

(just to be clear that's not me saying that a multi-national can't open an office in a new country. I'm saying they should do so because that country is the right location from considerations which are nothing to do with a better tax deal).

[Windward]

Apple employ almost no one in Ireland. At the end of the day it's simply an office for tax purposes, to avoid taxes.

And any employment that has been 'generated' in Ireland has been robbed from elsewhere. So in actual fact no employment has been created, it's merely been moved from one place to another, and the only real advantage is gained by the company involved.

[eFestivals]

We would need some form of global tax standardization to prevent companies making those decisions. And that will not happen in our life time I would not think.

yup, and you're right, it won't. The greedy will ensure it never happens, as they hope to benefit by it.

[eFestivals]

Nearly 4000 people.

which equates to a tiny office against the revenue attached (some remotely) to it.

[The Nal]

which equates to a tiny office against the revenue attached (some remotely) to it.

[ThomThomDrum]

yup, and you're right, it won't. The greedy will ensure it never happens, as they hope to benefit by it.

[eFestivals]

The revenue in question is routed via two Apple subsids and has nothing to do with the Cork office or its operations really.

yeah, I know. It ends up in Ireland for the protection from taxes that Ireland gives it.

It's much like sheltering a criminal.

[eFestivals]

Ah, but the greedy also have higher tax rates in certain countries...........In fact it is very much the greedy that are crying that the Apples and the Googles of this world are not giving them more money...........

Yeah, of course you're right. People want companies to be fair about the taxes they pay because those people are greedy, and not because they think that some companies shouldn't gain an unfair advantage via unfair practices.

It's not greed that is driving a want for taxes to be paid. It's greed that is causing taxes to not be paid.

Edited May 24, 2013 by eFestivals

[ThomThomDrum]

It's not greed that is driving a want for taxes to be paid. It's greed that is causing taxes to not be paid.

[Windward]

which equates to a tiny office against the revenue attached (some remotely) to it.

[The Nal]

yeah, I know. It ends up in Ireland for the protection from taxes that Ireland gives it.

It's much like sheltering a criminal.

[ie_johnc]

I didn't say "no one" I said "almost no one". And relative to the Apple money that passes thru Ireland that's a factually correct statement.

[eFestivals]

Now thats rubbish. Its greed no matter which way you look at it.

No, it's greed dependent on what reference point you use to start your measure.

If 90% of companies pay their tax at a 'standard rate' but the other 10% are able to manipulate things so they pay half that amount, then it can hardly be regarded as "greedy" to want that 10% to stop avoiding taxes. It would be rightfully said to be "fair" to make that 10% pay the same rate as the other 90%.

If you think it's greedy for the govt to collect taxes (or collect taxes over a particular % rate) then you can rightfully believe that it's greed wanting those taxes.

Back in the real world, every entity has a moral and social responsibility to society, over and above any responsibility to shareholders. Some companies are shirking that mortal and social responsibility, because of their personal greed or the greed of their shareholders.

It's worth pointing out that Apple would still be a massively profitable company if they did pay the taxes that they should. It's not like they're avoiding taxes for their own survival (which whilst morally wrong would at least have a half-reasonable justification behind it, even tho ultimately one of selfishness).

A greed from some countries to get more tax so they can splurge on war machines and generate even more money and a greed by other countries to ensure they can somewhat secure the employment of some of their people

You're confusing to very different things. There is collecting taxes, and then there is how how those taxes are spent.

But even if we take your line, that just gets to mean that you're anti-democratic and selfish. It doesn't give much of a moral high ground.

Those complaining are doing so not out of a moral out cry but out of greed.

do fuck orf. It's about what is right and fair, and not about you trying to move your own justification for wrongdoing onto others.

They are the same folk that give tax breaks to many in their own countries when it suits them.

Oh, absolutely. I'm not trying to say that this is a game that the UK is not playing too. The corp tax rate in the USA is nearly double what it is in the UK, and our tax rules are moving much nearer towards a banana republic tax haven than away from that.

That's why the Dave Moron/Gidiot claims of cracking down on tax avoidance is so laughable. They say that whilst saying to companies "come to the UK and we'll help you avoid taxes".

Edited May 24, 2013 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Except this isn't illegal.

What is legal is decided by govts and is a forever shifting idea.

'legal' has no fixed relationship with 'moral'.

I could outsource scottie's job to India, and shift my own tax offshore, and i'll be around £15k-£20k a year better off.

For those of you who think this is such a great idea, you can tell scott that you think he should lose his job by emailing [email protected].

Unfortunately I can't give you the name of the person whose life will also be shorted as a direct result, but I'm sure you'll be happy to tell them that you think they should die sooner - just pick a random to tell that to, cos the victim will be random.

[eFestivals]

They are one of the biggest employers in the country. It's a massive mischaracterisation at best.

No it's not.

They could employ much of Ireland if the money they have stashed in Ireland was put to work* in Ireland.

(*rather than merely propping up the Irish banks from bankrupcy and need of another bailout [but at 10 times the size of the last].)

The difference between "one of the biggest employers in the country" (with just 4000 staff) and "could employ much of Ireland" is an absolutely VAST difference.

That's why I say they employ almost no one. For the associated money, they employ almost no one.

I don't believe I voiced any support for the status quo, just for maintaining accuracy in statements about it.

you're giving (or more correctly, trying to give) a moral justification for what Apple are doing.

And yet they are very definitely robbing someone of tax revenue in some country or other.

[mrtourette]

Why does the number that they employ need to be judged against the associated money? That may indicate that they employ 'almost no one' but looking at it from other angles (the local communities for one) the number of people they employ could be significant.

[ThomThomDrum]

But even if we take your line, that just gets to mean that you're anti-democratic and selfish. It doesn't give much of a moral high ground.

do fuck orf. It's about what is right and fair, and not about you trying to move your own justification for wrongdoing onto others.

[eFestivals]

Why does the number that they employ need to be judged against the associated money?

It's a company's money. A company's money should be used to make more money or it should be returned to shareholders.

The money in Ireland is parked doing nothing. It's only parked there for as long as taking it somewhere else is too costly in taxes in the opinion of Apple.

And yet it's not companies that should decide how money is taxed but govts. It's not "Ireland" money; Ireland is happy to admit that, and so it's not liable for taxes in Ireland - but it is elsewhere. Ireland are complicit in helping Apple avoid those taxes.

At the end of the day, what this 'parked' money is doing is causing there not to be the jobs that would be created by that money if something 'proper' (in the eyes of company ideals) was done with it.

It's costing hundreds of thousands of lost jobs somewhere in the world, and it's causing a massive productivity loss to the capitalist system.

We are *ALL* the poorer for it.

[eFestivals]

No need for that Neil.

ditto - but you can't see it, so i'll leave it there. Things to do.

[ThomThomDrum]

ditto - but you can't see it, so i'll leave it there. Things to do.

[ie_johnc]

The difference between "one of the biggest employers in the country" (with just 4000 staff) and "could employ much of Ireland" is an absolutely VAST difference.

That's why I say they employ almost no one. For the associated money, they employ almost no one.

[Teddington]

It's impossible to say that as things stand there's can be no correlation - but that's because we operate a world where such things are expected to be done in that manner.

Nurses go into nursing not for the financial rewards but for the health benefits their work has. We tend to think there's nothing odd about them doing so, and yet it blows the sort of capitalist theory you subscribe to out of the water.

And so the capitalist theory you're using to to come up with that question (where you expect the answer to be 'yes') can be proven to not be the only way that humanity can work things towards healthcare. And so your question is ultimately an irrelevance.

Like all things, things only happen if they can happen. No amount of money can invent a cure if there's not the knowledge to come up with that cure.

And for healthcare, just about no one acquires the knowledge to treat and cure others because of the financial benefits it brings them, but because they can. If some are well rewarded that's merely a side consequence of it.

The type of capitalism that operates in finding cures is about as rampant and immoral as it gets, and makes the bankers look like moral bastions. It's stuffed full of chancers who know how it works, and how there's massive payoffs for failures all the time (because just the merest sniff of success has the big boys come in with stupid money). The whole industry is a money making machine before anything to do with cures, but it's rarely those with the real skills who are getting the pay-off.

[gibbin82]

To go back to the original topic, there is no evidence to suggest Micheal Eavis was involved in the suppression of the U2 tax avoidance protest, had any knowledge of it or even approved of it after the event, so for the Wickipedia entry to infer he is an hypocrite is completely unjust.

Regarding the actual way the protest was dealt with. If the protest was an attempt to make a point with complete disregard to other people and spoiling their enjoyment by blocking their view, peacefully removing the obstruction could be deemed an appropriate measure. As for it stopping the protest from being known it had completely the opposite effect, as the removal hit the newspapers when it may have not if it had been ignored (although I think it may have been torn down by people being pissed off for stopping them from seeing something they had been looking forward to for a long time). However even though the protest was made and got plenty of publicity, it has effectively had no effect on the way U2 manage their finances (please correct me if I am wrong) or what people think of them (those who like them will still buy their CD's and those who don't will condemn them), also it is now mainly forgotten. As said before though the problem is not people taking advantage of the system, but the system being wrong in the first place to enable them to do that.