This month it was revealed that Amazon, Google, and Starbucks have systematically been avoiding tax on most of their profits. The glib view these companies take of their tax obligations was on full display two weeks ago, when Amazon’s Director of Public Policy, Andrew Cecil, caused the usually sedate members of the public accounts committee to scold him for his ‘outrageous’ and ‘deliberately evasive’ responses and his fantastical claim that he was not aware of how much Amazon made from its British operations. These companies are not exceptions. The total amount avoided in tax is approximately £25 billion; the amount illegally evaded is far higher, at £70 billion. In reality, the distinction between avoidance and evasion is nebulous, arising at least as much from the pusillanimity of tax inspectors as legislative loopholes. Over the last eight years, HMRC has failed to take to court a single company for avoidance of corporation tax, preferring to conclude amicable arrangements which result in companies paying a titular sum amounting to only a pitiful fraction of their actual liabilities. The image of the pertinacious taxman obstinately pursuing tax-dodgers is something that only applies when it comes to the rest of us, not big business. Moreover, HMRC’s inherent lassitude in enforcing corporation tax is compounded by the government’s efforts to reduce it a token organization, with only a token staff. 10,000 of its already over-burdened inspectors are to be made redundant once new budget cuts come into effect.
Joseph Richardson - “When Plutocrats Blame the Poor”
too tired to comment properly but:
- This sort of stuff is of course emblematic of the general decades-long trend provided by NeoLiberalism and now Austerity measures (an arm of NeoLiberalism). Things weren’t great before this trend started, but now it’s like an Accelerationist’s wet dream.
- So each time any sort of gov’t official announces an Austerity measure or a budget cut or the closing of a program that provided something potentially beneficial (like NEH or NHPRC funding) much less fundamental (like welfare and entitlement programs or the postal service) one should be reminded that such cuts are 100% unnecessary and enforced only and purely to the benefit of the already powerful.
- In the face of differentials of Power, the Law is irrelevant. As are regulations. Individuals and smaller businesses are subject to the Law and regulations, but larger corporations will always find a way around, through, and over… As much as these corporations enrich the government, as much as these things are institutionally entwined, the government is fine with that.
- Archives/Library/Information Professional friends… This is what I mean when I say “Fuck Google in the Eye”, yes they do amazing things with information technology, with linked data, with digitization, but by operating as a monstrous corporate entity they are effectively stabbing all your colleagues in the back as they grow and monopolize. Remember this next time you see a pathetically funded professional position or the lack of one all together. People in Publishing can recognize this with Amazon, it’s time Archivists and Librarians began recognizing this with Google.
It is a measure of our current ideological morass that liberals, in their own enlightened and open-minded way, still masochistically embrace a throne-and-altar orthodoxy that subordinates the people’s will to a virtually unalterable diktat handed down by an ancient council of aristocratic, semi-deified lawgivers. At this very moment, when expansionary monetary policy and debt relief for homeowners are demanded by the Left to address the ongoing, grinding social crisis, it should not be forgotten that “a rage for paper money” and “an abolition of debts” were precisely the sorts of “wicked project[s]” that James Madison, writing in Federalist No. 10, specifically hoped his Constitution would rule out.
we put the Justice Department in a very difficult place if we’re telling them, “This is supposed to be against the law, but we want you to turn the other way.” That’s not something we’re going to do.
Act 13 does many things to elevate the rights of gas companies above the civil rights of people and communities. To start, it revokes local zoning authority to discourage oil and gas development, stating, “this section pre-empts and supersedes the local regulation of oil and gas operations” (page 162). Municipalities can adopt some rules on how drilling is to be done, but they cannot say no to drilling.
The law also gives the industry the power to seize private property for any part of a drilling operation. On page 65, it states, “a corporation empowered to transport, sell or store natural gas or manufactured gas in the Commonwealth may appropriate an interest in real property” for “injection, storage and removal” of hydrocarbons. However, it does not require the industry to notify any town government of leases it has acquired or of a future interest in using any property—for say, a pipeline or processing facility. Neither homeowners nor other businessmen seeking to develop property are protected if the gas industry intends to use their land.
The law also prevents heath professionals from discussing medical impacts. On page 99, it requires oil and gas companies to tell medical professionals what chemicals are used in drilling fluids—but only after they sign “a statement of need and a confidentiality agreement.” However those details—the chemicals in drilling fluid and medical significance—it states a page later, are secret and “shall not be a public record.
Fracking Democracy: Why Pennsylvania’s Act 13 May Be the Nation’s Worst Corporate Giveaway
1. Sorry, Pennsylvania, but you’re fucked.
2. How, exactly, can you be a politician in favor of this and not realize you are truly fucking your constituents who you, allegedly, serve? How is it not painfully obvious to all who might say something (ANY other politician, the news, the law/courts, their own fucking consciences if there is such a thing) that by signing something like this you’ve obviously been bought by these companies?
3. If you’re the sort of asshole who defends this sort of thing (“Jobs! It’ll create jobs!” I can hear such shitheels saying already), like whoever that dumbfuck was arguing with OneFootInTheGrave over this sort of thing, you can go take a long walk into a fracking hole and disappear forever.
The president interprets the Constitution as president. If the court makes a fundamentally wrong decision, [the] president can in fact ignore the courts.
Newt Gingrich, who hopes to be the GOP nominee, and is also crazy. (via wilwheaton)
This is actually the most purely Presidential thing Newt Gingrich has said. He really comes off as an American President saying something like that. A regular Andrew Jackson or Barack Obama. Who the fuck cares about the law when you’re the leader of the “free world”? Thus it’s always been so.