...and tax authorities' costs would have been substantially lower, since there would have been no need to construct, sign and administer an entire new instrument of information exchange between jurisdictions.
-
-
Replying to @alexcobham @JudithFreedman and
The lobbying of the multinationals and their professional advisers against transparency led directly to higher compliance costs all round.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @alexcobham @JudithFreedman and
Is this one of those irregular verbs? You propose, but banks lobby?
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @DanNeidle @JudithFreedman and
Seriously? If you think the same verb applies to the transparency advocacy of civil society activists for tax justice, as to the opacity lobbying of paid advisers to protect tax abuse, you are far through the looking glass
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @alexcobham @JudithFreedman and
I get that you think you are a good guy, and they/we are the bad guys, but back in the real world, anyone who lobbies for a particular outcome is a lobbyist.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @DanNeidle @JudithFreedman and
I don't see any need to personalise things, this is just about the accurate use of language: there is no equivalence between activism intended to promote socially progressive outcomes (which you, Dan, may think good or bad); and promoting policies that favour clients financially.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @alexcobham @JudithFreedman and
There are plenty of people who genuinely think that public CBCR is pointless or counterproductive. Their advocacy is morally equivalent to the advocacy of NGOs who think public CBCR would be a positive. I would assume both sides are acting in good faith.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @DanNeidle @JudithFreedman and
That's an unrelated point - people can have any view of anything, often in good faith. But do you disagree that people advocating for social change are performing a different activity from people who are putting forward positions to benefit their clients financially?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @alexcobham @JudithFreedman and
Someone at an NGO advocating position X and someone at a bank advocating position Y are in the same position. Both paid for what they do. Both, I expect, acting in good faith.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DanNeidle @JudithFreedman and
I'm going to have one last try because I feel a bit sad about what seems to be the answer. Do you disagree that people advocating for social change are performing a different activity from people who are putting forward positions to benefit their clients financially?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Making proposals, commenting on proposals etc is same activity whoever does it. As a society we are better off if able to judge and test solutions without trying to weighing the souls of those involved or decide a solution must be right because it's advocated by the 'right' team.
-
-
Replying to @MForstater @alexcobham and
And another issue is whether activities in support of social change/justice are assessed differently from activities of businesses, non profit making bodies, etc. If so, what are the differences, eg whether and when is it acceptable to personalise?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @iaincampbell07 @MForstater and
I think the key is for all those commenting to be clear on their own position, and (if relevant) funding. Then those reviewing the comments can take that into account. But also TIIN process could be improved - numbers often opaque, and rarely reviewed with hindsight.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 9 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.