Everyone has a pet subject and yours lead you to be frustrated on the terminology being used
I'm not frustrated by terminology. I'm frustrated by outrage in advance of consideration of the facts.
instead of being frustrated that the tax burden is heavier on the average person because some large companies and high earning individuals are underpaying.
On what basis is that true? There are some large multi-nationals engaged in tax avoidance strategies. These largely work because international tax law, and the Double Tax Treaty network in particular, is insufficient to deal with virtual, global commerce in the 21st century.
Some of those multi-national companies that have been accused of tax avoidance probably wouldn't actually have a liability to pay at all (Amazon for example made a loss globally in 2013). There are laws that favour high net worth individuals - the remittance basis for example - which are designed to encourage such people to live in the UK. I disagree with the basis of the law (incentivising people to keep money out of the UK) but there we are. There are also some high net worth individuals who use more aggressive tax avoidance strategies (offshore trusts loaning money to themselves) that are typically used by those with income other than earnings (footballer image rights, entertainer appearance fees, athlete prize money, self employed capital gains etc). The scale of this is difficult to determine, but exclude this and you'll find that the highest earners suffer the highest effective rates of tax and contribute by far the most tax revenue.
A situation which paints the government in a very bad light can be partly defused by airing frustration at the average person's understanding of tax laws.
I don't care in what light the government is painted. I don't get outraged by something just because it happened on "someone's watch". I'm only interested in the facts.
Reigniting the outrage at the situation is more likely to get the issue tackled.
Really? Name me something that was resolved by "outrage"
What has happened to Starbucks' tax burden after all of the headlines about their tax reduction policies? Nothing.
I read the other day Starbucks paid tax in their last filed corporation tax return. As above, the Starbucks transfer pricing scenario was permissible under inadequate international tax law. HMRC signed off on Starbucks not for lack of resources or conspiracy but because there position is in accordance with international law. I think that law should be changed and work is being undertaken at OECD level to do so. It is not a quick process though.
The government are borrowing more and more to pay for the general functioning of the country and that borrowing could be reduced if they did something about tax reduction policies.
Actually, the government is borrowing less and less to fund annual spending. There is substantial economic evidence showing that increasing tax take has a bigger negative impact on growth than reducing government spending. I'm not saying the government shouldn't collect liabilities, they should for moral hazard and justice reasons if nothing else, but it is not an economic free hit.
This is a big issue and the fact that us PAYE payers have no relationship with tax laws as our contribution has gone before we even get paid so do not tend to know the ins and outs of tax law is not the issue. Margret Hodge is chair of the Commons public accounts committee and if she is outraged then that is the most important peice of terminology as far as I am concerned.
Hodge is grandstanding and herself uses trusts for the purpose of tax planning. Nothing wrong with that, it is entirely legal, just as the tax arrangements of Starbucks, Amazon and thousands of non-domiciled and non-resident individuals who have Swiss bank accounts are.
In summary, if you are angry about tax avoidance then campaign for a change in the law and its enforcement. What we have now is point scoring and no action.