This discussion is closed.
ma406712
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
Can we, hand on heart, honestly say that we believe that black lives matter whilst continuing to give our money to tax-dodging companies like Amascum?

That may sound a bit odd but when you consider that "Poorer countries lose an estimated $200 BILLION to tax dodging every year – more than the international aid sent by all rich countries put together", isn't it about time that we made the connection between the world's problems and the part we play in them?

Is it the responsibility of billionaires to solve the world’s problems? Absolutely not. Should billionaires, like Jeff Bezos (the owner of Amascum, with his personal wealth of over $200 BILLION) pay their fair share in taxes so that people in Africa do not suffer and die unnecessarily? Absolutely!

If we truly believe that black lives matter, shouldn't we stop giving our money to tax-dodging companies that metaphorically have their knees on Africa's neck so that Africans are quite literally dying as a consequence?

What about those black lives? Don't they matter?

Note: If you are not capable of engaging in mature and respectful conversation or are only able to offer an immature contribution, perhaps your time could be better spent giving real thought to what this post intends to do.
1
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
Why are you posting a copy pasta?
https://www.facebook.com/UjimaRadio9...53440574741165
0
ma406712
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#3
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Why are you posting a copy pasta?
https://www.facebook.com/UjimaRadio9...53440574741165
What exactly is your point?
0
DiddyDec
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
(Original post by ma406712)
What exactly is your point?
Just seems a bit disingenuous to add the note about mature conversation when you can't even come up with your own argument.
2
Burton Bridge
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Just seems a bit disingenuous to add the note about mature conversation when you can't even come up with your own argument.
To be fair, its their argument now.

(Original post by ma406712)
Can we, hand on heart, honestly say that we believe that black lives matter whilst continuing to give our money to tax-dodging companies like Amascum?

That may sound a bit odd but when you consider that "Poorer countries lose an estimated $200 BILLION to tax dodging every year – more than the international aid sent by all rich countries put together", isn't it about time that we made the connection between the world's problems and the part we play in them?

Is it the responsibility of billionaires to solve the world’s problems? Absolutely not. Should billionaires, like Jeff Bezos (the owner of Amascum, with his personal wealth of over $200 BILLION) pay their fair share in taxes so that people in Africa do not suffer and die unnecessarily? Absolutely!

If we truly believe that black lives matter, shouldn't we stop giving our money to tax-dodging companies that metaphorically have their knees on Africa's neck so that Africans are quite literally dying as a consequence?

What about those black lives? Don't they matter?

Note: If you are not capable of engaging in mature and respectful conversation or are only able to offer an immature contribution, perhaps your time could be better spent giving real thought to what this post intends to do.
Tax dodging and legal tax avoidance is a huge problem in the west, a product of free market capitalism.

I'm not a major fan of indenity politics, what is apparent to me is poor lifes don't matter as much as being fAiR tO RiCh PeOpLe in many circles. What makes me laugh is the only time the hard right ever mention fairness is when they talk of tax, never the unfairness not paying it results in.
1
ma406712
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#6
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Just seems a bit disingenuous to add the note about mature conversation when you can't even come up with your own argument.
You might want to look at the Facebook post again and then look at my profile.
0
ma406712
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#7
(Original post by DiddyDec)
Just seems a bit disingenuous to add the note about mature conversation when you can't even come up with your own argument.
You might want to look at the Facebook post again and then look at my profile.

(Original post by Burton Bridge)
To be fair, its their argument now.


Tax dodging and legal tax avoidance is a huge problem in the west, a product of free market capitalism.

I'm not a major fan of indenity politics, what is apparent to me is poor lifes don't matter as much as being fAiR tO RiCh PeOpLe in many circles. What makes me laugh is the only time the hard right ever mention fairness is when they talk of tax, never the unfairness not paying it results in.
Absolutely.

I know some people don't like hearing it but I think now is the perfect time for us to start considering the part we play in social inequalities and what we can do to make the world a better place, like boycotting companies (like Amascum) that we all know are treating us like fools by not paying their fair share in taxes. Boycotting helped bring Apartheid to an end in South Africa which proves that financial loss can force people into doing the right thing.

It's all good and well being horrified by the kind of poverty a lot Africans live in but if we continue to give our money to tax-evaders, our "Black Lives Matter" / "I care about people" / "I want to make the world a better place" argument falls a bit flat. It's a bit like not voting but then complaining about the current state of affairs eh. Actions, as they say, speak louder than words.
0
64Lightbulbs
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
That's a great point but I don't think it's the consumer's responsibility. We know rich people hoard wealth in offshore bank accounts, but we don't always have the option to boycott those people, and the majority of their money comes from investments either way. This is a policy level thing imo, not something that can be solved by getting a minority of people who have the money to buy more expensive products, not to buy from certain big businesses. It's definitely not something you should be okay with, but there isn't too much action you personally can take, besides starting some petitions, and calling your representatives in government. (which doesn't really work too well, at least in the US)
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
(Original post by ma406712)
That may sound a bit odd but when you consider that "Poorer countries lose an estimated $200 BILLION to tax dodging every year – more than the international aid sent by all rich countries put together", isn't it about time that we made the connection between the world's problems and the part we play in them?
I might take this more seriously if I believed that figure at all.
0
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by ma406712)
Can we, hand on heart, honestly say that we believe that black lives matter whilst continuing to give our money to tax-dodging companies like Amascum?
What on earth does Amazon have to do with the blm group?
That may sound a bit odd but when you consider that "Poorer countries lose an estimated $200 BILLION to tax dodging every year – more than the international aid sent by all rich countries put together", isn't it about time that we made the connection between the world's problems and the part we play in them?
again, what does this have to do with blm - blm being a western effort and having little to do with the 3rd world.
Is it the responsibility of billionaires to solve the world’s problems? Absolutely not. Should billionaires, like Jeff Bezos (the owner of Amascum, with his personal wealth of over $200 BILLION) pay their fair share in taxes so that people in Africa do not suffer and die unnecessarily? Absolutely!
Why should they? Aside from the fact his wealth is in stock, not cash, he has nothing really to do with Africa. They die because of their own petty wars, religious feudalism that prevents vaccination and the fact their government are corrupt and murderous. Not because Amazon delivers cheap parcels.
If we truly believe that black lives matter, shouldn't we stop giving our money to tax-dodging companies that metaphorically have their knees on Africa's neck so that Africans are quite literally dying as a consequence?

What about those black lives? Don't they matter?

Note: If you are not capable of engaging in mature and respectful conversation or are only able to offer an immature contribution, perhaps your time could be better spent giving real thought to what this post intends to do.
You dont even seem to know what blm even is..
Amazon is hardly exploiting Africa either. Africa is used for its mineral wealth.. amazon is not a mining venture incase you hadnt noticed :rolleyes:
As to "do they matter" in what regard? In general? Sure. To the machinations of a company primarily operating in the western nations.. not particularly unless they want to do some altruistic outreach. Companies not existing to serve your ideological bents.

It's duly noted that you stole this weird speech from elsewhere though. Hardly very genuine to go on about the moral standing of random companies when wallowing in your own moral turpitude in plagiarizing others. Irony abounds.
2
ma406712
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by Napp)
What on earth does Amazon have to do with the blm group?

again, what does this have to do with blm - blm being a western effort and having little to do with the 3rd world.

Why should they? Aside from the fact his wealth is in stock, not cash, he has nothing really to do with Africa. They die because of their own petty wars, religious feudalism that prevents vaccination and the fact their government are corrupt and murderous. Not because Amazon delivers cheap parcels.

You dont even seem to know what blm even is..
Amazon is hardly exploiting Africa either. Africa is used for its mineral wealth.. amazon is not a mining venture incase you hadnt noticed :rolleyes:
As to "do they matter" in what regard? In general? Sure. To the machinations of a company primarily operating in the western nations.. not particularly unless they want to do some altruistic outreach. Companies not existing to serve your ideological bents.

It's duly noted that you stole this weird speech from elsewhere though. Hardly very genuine to go on about the moral standing of random companies when wallowing in your own moral turpitude in plagiarizing others. Irony abounds.
Before I reply in full, perhaps you could tell us where I "stole this weird speech from"?

As for your "wallowing in your own moral turpitude in plagiarizing others" comment, I would refer you to the Note in my original post.
0
ma406712
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by L i b)
I might take this more seriously if I believed that figure at all.
There is an abundance of information on the interweb from reputable and highly respected sources that will attest to the figures quoted; whether or not you choose to believe them is entirely up to you.
0
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by ma406712)
There is an abundance of information on the interweb from reputable and highly respected sources that will attest to the figures quoted; whether or not you choose to believe them is entirely up to you.
No, there isn't.
1
ma406712
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by L i b)
No, there isn't.
I'll rephrase the statement, there is an abundance of information on the interweb from reputable and highly respected sources that will attest to the fact that hundreds of billions are lost to corporate tax evasion (with Action Aid estimating that $200 BILLION is lost); whether or not you choose to believe them is entirely up to you.

"The OECD estimates that governments worldwide are missing out on anything between four and ten percent of global corporate income tax revenue every year, or US$100–$240 billion." The World Bank

"Tax havens collectively cost governments between $500 billion and $600 billion a year in lost corporate tax revenue, depending on the estimate (Crivelli, de Mooij, and Keen 2015; Cobham and Janský 2018), through legal and not-so-legal means. Of that lost revenue, low-income economies account for some $200 billion—a larger hit as a percentage of GDP than advanced economies and more than the $150 billion or so they receive each year in foreign development assistance. American Fortune 500 companies alone held an estimated $2.6 trillion offshore in 2017, though a small portion of that has been repatriated following US tax reforms in 2018." - IMF

" Governments lose much needed funds: conservatively estimated at around 4-10% of global corporate income tax revenues, or USD 100-240 billion annually; money that could be spent on education, health care, infrastructure, pensions. Citizens lose out either by having to foot the bill through higher taxes for services that would otherwise have been funded by corporate income tax revenues, or going without those services." OECD

"Corporate tax dodging costs poor countries at least $100 billion every year. This is enough money to..........prevent the deaths of almost eight million mothers, babies and children a year." - Oxfam (Something to consider next time we give our money to a company that we all know doesn't pay their fair share in taxes (or we can continue to bury our heads in the sand so we don't need to consider the part we play in the preventable suffering of poorer people)
0
Joleee
Badges: 19
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
would you mind providing links to your sources on tax avoidance so we can at least read the info in context?

so governments in poorer countries lose lots of money through tax avoidance - tax avoidance from their own citizens or from citizens who live overseas?

were you a big fan of the EU bailing out Greece in 2013? just wondering.

the assumption that if Bezos didn't avoid taxes (assuming that's accurate) that that money would go to Africa is a bit weird tbh. if the US is losing money because of tax avoidance it will go to the national budget and be distributed accordingly. tbh foreign aid is based on politics and budgeting which puts national needs first; it's not based on how much aid other countries need.
0
ma406712
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#16
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#16
(Original post by Joleee)
would you mind providing links to your sources on tax avoidance so we can at least read the info in context?

so governments in poorer countries lose lots of money through tax avoidance - tax avoidance from their own citizens or from citizens who live overseas?

were you a big fan of the EU bailing out Greece in 2013? just wondering.

the assumption that if Bezos didn't avoid taxes (assuming that's accurate) that that money would go to Africa is a bit weird tbh. if the US is losing money because of tax avoidance it will go to the national budget and be distributed accordingly. tbh foreign aid is based on politics and budgeting which puts national needs first; it's not based on how much aid other countries need.
If you type "corporate tax avoidance global poverty" into whichever search engine you use, as I did when I researched the subject, you'll find all the information you need Joleee.

They lose money from their own citizens and from the multi-nationals (that we in the developed world feed) but given that a lot of Africans are living in the kind of poverty most of us have never experienced (and will hopefully never experience), the amounts aren't comparable.

Having lived in Greece, I have an understanding, albeit limited, of what part they played in their own troubles so can see why some people felt that the EU should not have bailed them out but I fail to see how you can reasonably compare a developed European country where most people have enough food to eat and access to clean water to Africa, where hundreds of thousands of people are dying every year because they do not have enough to eat or access to clean water so perhaps you could explain the similarity?

If Bezos (and all the others that avoid paying their fair share) didn't avoid taxes, if everyone paid their fair share, as you and I do, there would be more money in the pot for foreign aid and charities to lessen the amount of preventable suffering / deaths.
Last edited by ma406712; 1 month ago
0
Joleee
Badges: 19
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
(Original post by ma406712)
If you type "corporate tax avoidance global poverty" into whichever search engine you use, as I did when I researched the subject, you'll find all the information you need Joleee.

They lose money from their own citizens and from the multi-nationals (that we in the developed world feed) but given that a lot of Africans are living in the kind of poverty most of us have never experienced (and will hopefully never experience), the amounts aren't comparable.

Having lived in Greece, I have an understanding, albeit limited, of what part they played in their own troubles so can see why some people felt that the EU should not have bailed them out but I fail to see how you can reasonably compare a developed European country where most people have enough food to eat and access to clean water to Africa, where hundreds of thousands of people are dying every year because they do not have enough to eat or access to clean water so perhaps you could explain the similarity?

If Bezos (and all the others that avoid paying their fair share) didn't avoid taxes, if everyone paid their fair share, as you and I do, there would be more money in the pot for foreign aid and charities to lessen the amount of preventable suffering / deaths.
i'm trying to argue against your argument as you are the originator of this thread, which is why i asked you to provide the links. if i can read your quotes in context then i can assess your argument and whether it's worth anything. again, do governments in poorer countries lose lots of money through tax avoidance from their own citizens or from citizens who live overseas? asking because obviously if one pays or avoids taxes in the UK, for instance, and don't earn income in African countries then they don't owe or avoid taxes in African countries; hence the problem for African countries is local citizens and local corruption - not international citizens who have no responsibility there.

how do poorer countries lose money from tax avoidance from multi-nationals as you suggest? your quotes don't explain it.

i asked you about Greece because this would be an example of other countries bailing out a country who desperately needed it largely because of tax avoidance.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33479946

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...outputType=amp

if a country is in crisis then because of local corruption, in your view, it's cuz of tax avoidance overseas?

again, you assume if billionaires avoided tax in America it would solve international problems. but foreign aid is not based on dollar or pound amount; it's based on politics and percentage of the national budget. if you want more foreign aid you would have to address the percentage handed out to foreign aid from the budget and who decides that. still, a local government is not going to put the needs of others countries before their own.
1
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 month ago
#18
(Original post by ma406712)
I'll rephrase the statement, there is an abundance of information on the interweb from reputable and highly respected sources that will attest to the fact that hundreds of billions are lost to corporate tax evasion (with Action Aid estimating that $200 BILLION is lost); whether or not you choose to believe them is entirely up to you.
I don't necessarily hold ActionAid to be a reputable and highly respected source, nor do I accept that you have even correctly presented their position here.

"The OECD estimates that governments worldwide are missing out on anything between four and ten percent of global corporate income tax revenue every year, or US$100–$240 billion." The World Bank
A figure that would make your claims unlikely. See, even if we're being flexible about the definition of "tax avoidance" here, suggesting that there is between $100-240bn of it globally rather undermines your suggestion (even if we're to assume that, perhaps, less developed countries have less ability to mitigate against it) that $200bn of it is going on in "poorer countries".

Indeed, the source that you're going for via ActionAid (Crivelli, De Mooij and Keen) undermines this suggestion. Its claim that the dollar value of "base erosion and profit shifting", to give it its fancy title, is actually far higher in the OECD countries than non-OECD countries. Were we to accept a global figure of $240bn for both, then - proportionately - the large majority of that would happen within the OECD.

"Tax havens collectively cost governments between $500 billion and $600 billion a year in lost corporate tax revenue, depending on the estimate (Crivelli, de Mooij, and Keen 2015; Cobham and Janský 2018), through legal and not-so-legal means. Of that lost revenue, low-income economies account for some $200 billion—a larger hit as a percentage of GDP than advanced economies and more than the $150 billion or so they receive each year in foreign development assistance. American Fortune 500 companies alone held an estimated $2.6 trillion offshore in 2017, though a small portion of that has been repatriated following US tax reforms in 2018." - IMF
The problem now is that you're multiple secondary sourcing to suggest there's more of it than there is. What is happening there is that the same claim made in one publication is being repeated by ActionAid and the IMF F&D magazine (it's a stretch to suggest that's a statement by the IMF, incidentally).

"Governments lose much needed funds: conservatively estimated at around 4-10% of global corporate income tax revenues, or USD 100-240 billion annually; money that could be spent on education, health care, infrastructure, pensions. Citizens lose out either by having to foot the bill through higher taxes for services that would otherwise have been funded by corporate income tax revenues, or going without those services." OECD
And again, for Source 2, which I think tends toward contradicting rather than supporting your claim.

"Corporate tax dodging costs poor countries at least $100 billion every year. This is enough money to..........prevent the deaths of almost eight million mothers, babies and children a year." - Oxfam (Something to consider next time we give our money to a company that we all know doesn't pay their fair share in taxes (or we can continue to bury our heads in the sand so we don't need to consider the part we play in the preventable suffering of poorer people)
Given that this claim seems to be unsourced on Oxfam's website, I think it's probably just falling into the trap above - albeit from an organisation than is probably even less of a "reputable and highly respected source".

I appreciate what you're trying to do here, and it's fair enough. You're defending a legitimate study. But you're presenting that figure as fact when in fact its own authors called it "highly speculative". What you're doing is presenting with certainty a number which the people who came up with it are presenting with a great deal of caveats.

There is also the wider question of what we consider to be "poorer countries". Based on its use of OECD membership, the study in question requires you to believe that Brazil is a poorer country, while Costa Rica and Chile are not. Or that Croatia is a poorer country, while Columbia is not. I'd suggest that is reasonably flawed from the get-go.
0
ma406712
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#19
(Original post by Joleee)
i'm trying to argue against your argument as you are the originator of this thread, which is why i asked you to provide the links. if i can read your quotes in context then i can assess your argument and whether it's worth anything. again, do governments in poorer countries lose lots of money through tax avoidance from their own citizens or from citizens who live overseas? asking because obviously if one pays or avoids taxes in the UK, for instance, and don't earn income in African countries then they don't owe or avoid taxes in African countries; hence the problem for African countries is local citizens and local corruption - not international citizens who have no responsibility there.

how do poorer countries lose money from tax avoidance from multi-nationals as you suggest? your quotes don't explain it.

i asked you about Greece because this would be an example of other countries bailing out a country who desperately needed it largely because of tax avoidance.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33479946

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...outputType=amp

if a country is in crisis then because of local corruption, in your view, it's cuz of tax avoidance overseas?

again, you assume if billionaires avoided tax in America it would solve international problems. but foreign aid is not based on dollar or pound amount; it's based on politics and percentage of the national budget. if you want more foreign aid you would have to address the percentage handed out to foreign aid from the budget and who decides that. still, a local government is not going to put the needs of others countries before their own.
i'm trying to argue against your argument as you are the originator of this thread, which is why i asked you to provide the links. if i can read your quotes in context then i can assess your argument and whether it's worth anything.
- You can simply copy the quote and paste it into a search engine yourself.

again, do governments in poorer countries lose lots of money through tax avoidance from their own citizens or from citizens who live overseas?
- Both.

asking because obviously if one pays or avoids taxes in the UK, for instance, and don't earn income in African countries then they don't owe or avoid taxes in African countries; hence the problem for African countries is local citizens and local corruption - not international citizens who have no responsibility there.
- “International citizens who have no responsibility”. This is exactly what is wrong with the world, the belief that we are not, in part, responsible for helping people less privileged. It's humanity. If we are going to shrug off our responsibilities as ethical consumers with regards to corporate tax evaders which, contrary to what you might think, does exacerbate human suffering, or companies that we know are destroying the planet, what does that say about us as human beings?

how do poorer countries lose money from tax avoidance from multi-nationals as you suggest? your quotes don't explain it.
- Less money in the pot means less money for international development / foreign aid and charities that, thankfully, are of the opinion that we all have a responsibility to help those less privileged (as well as them helping themselves of course) That’s what makes us (decent) human beings isn’t it?

i asked you about Greece because this would be an example of other countries bailing out a country who desperately needed it largely because of tax avoidance.
- Are you saying that you think that Africa’s problems stem largely from its citizens not paying what they should be paying in taxes?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33479946

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.was...outputType=amp

if a country is in crisis then because of local corruption, in your view, it's cuz of tax avoidance overseas?
- No and I don’t recall saying that I did. My point is that corporate tax avoidance by some of the biggest, wealthiest and most powerful businesses on the planet contributes massively to global poverty. It is not the only contributing factor but it is a factor. That is not my opinion, it is the opinion of economic experts and as experts, of which neither, I presume, of us are, I believe that they know better than most what they are talking about.

again, you assume if billionaires avoided tax in America it would solve international problems. but foreign aid is not based on dollar or pound amount; it's based on politics and percentage of the national budget.
- No, that is what you assume I think but you have misinterpreted what I have said and you are wrong. I believe that when certain governments have more money (which they would have if everyone paid their fair share, nothing more, nothing less, in taxes) they would increase their foreign aid. There would also be more money available, in the form of grants, to charities that use their position of privilege to support people that are less privileged. When any country is doing less well financially, one of the first things to go is foreign aid as they need to look after their own citizens first. As things improve financially, it stands to reason that more money will be available for foreign aid ‘cause for the best part, most people want to do something to stop people from suffering and dying from preventable diseases.

if you want more foreign aid you would have to address the percentage handed out to foreign aid from the budget and who decides that. still, a local government is not going to put the needs of others countries before their own.
- Do you honestly believe that if everyone paid their fair share in taxes, if there was billions more in the pot every year that millions of people would still die from preventable diseases?
0
Final Fantasy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 month ago
#20
What's wrong with Amazon?
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling being back in school?

Happy (52)
24.19%
Unhappy (56)
26.05%
Conflicted (107)
49.77%

Watched Threads

View All