to think that you need to stop what you're doing right now and read this article. And I mean need.

[granted]

I posted this on the Politics section but it deserves a much wider audience:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/07/tax-city-heist-of-century?commentpage=last#end-of-comments

Quite possibly the best newspaper article I've ever read.

no, I just think they are being conned. Whipped into a frenzy by Oxbridge public schoolboys.

How about dealing with the substance of the debate rather than just posting ad hominem attacks on the author?

I think that calm, reasoned posters like Portofino, ccpccp and FoxinSocks have already dealt with the little substance involved. All that remains is to calm down the hysteria generated by Monbiot's article, which the learned Alan Johnson never seem to have mentioned in his tenure.

Do we know what Ed Miliband has to say on teh subject? He's not usually one to miss out on a bandwagon.

I doubt the top Labour brass would wish to offend the high earners either.

Doesn't mean it's not a travesty.

True, but they usually always make grandstanding statements to fool the public, and then never follow through. Why has it taken so long for Monbiot to find out about it, if it had been on the cards for so long, and appears to have even been kicked off under Labour?

'The obscure adjustments the government is planning to the tax acts of 1988 and 2009 have been missed by almost everyone ? and are, anyway, almost impossible to understand without expert help. But as soon as you grasp the implications, you realise that a kind of corporate coup d'etat is taking place.'

Thank heaven that Monbiot is on the case, he misses nothing. Whatever happened to all those committed progressive socialists? Were they asleep at the wheel? Didn't they see this coming?

'If, for example, Dirty Oil plc pays 10% corporation tax on its profits in Oblivia'

Why does he use the terms 'Dirty Oil' and 'Oblivia'? Does he want to push the buttons of the gullible, Guardian, green, global warming gaggle of geese? Is the pied piper playing a progressive tune to summon the faithful, the converts to climate catastrophe?

Yes, claig, of course he is. He's a campaigning journalist. Campaigns don't get very far without a few button-pushing soundbites ("Big Society" is another that springs to mind, along with "Your Country Needs You" and "You've Never Had It So Good").

Sophistry is the recourse of the vapid.

I agree. Big Society, Big Brother and all the rest are examples of newspeak and sophistry and are meant to deceive. Beware of button pushers who wish to deceive people and lead them by the nose.

It's nice to be referred to as calm and reasoned! I am pretty sure DH would not agree with that . I am no expert on the economy, but it seems to me that this is tory bashing hysteria. The legislation was started off by the Labour Party! I would want to read and understand a lot more about it before making judgement.

Most of this discussion has been about the FACT he brought to light, though, not about his personal beliefs. Attacking the messenger doesn't alter the message.

As someone remarked earlier, Portofino, Labour wasn't universally lauded for its financial wisdom!

I feel angry at the 'coalition' for pursuing this plan alongside many other policies, which even Tory fans can see are geared towards keeping the poor poor while making the rich richer.

Frankly, I'd care less about this if the rug wasn't being pulled out from under ordinary folks' feet.

There are false messnegers and false messiahs. You have to analyse the messenger as well as the message in order to judge its validity. Do you believe everything that George Osborne says ir that Tony Blair said? Some messengers have form. You also have to ask why other socialists didn't reveal this message 6 months ago.

I think Portofino, ccpccp and Foxinsocks made good arguments to show that the message has been hyped up.

Personally I see this as a way to encourage corporations to stay in the UK(and therefore to keep/create jobs) , as opposed to a measure to penalise the poor

And I must add, I am abroad now, but lived nearly 40 years in UK - and never voted for the conservatives.

I don't understand the last - production can be overseas, and the management and direction in the UK? I can see how this keeps high end jobs held by the few)but not how it encourages creation of jobs -perhaps admin and tax?

Labour can be sought in low-tax economies with no tax paid from these operations to the UK - so doesn't that mean that lower paid jobs (jobs for the poor) are going to move overseas with shareholders and senior managers paid a lot, (shareholders can be anywhere?) it seems like a benefit for the wealthy at a cost to the 'poor' to me...

I agree with that. Ireland boomed and became a tiger economy because of its low tax regime within the EU. It went bust due to banks, not due to low corporation tax.

The government is trying to encourage large corporations with tax incentives so that they base their headquarters here. They think there will be an increase in companies setting up here, and therefore an overall increase in the tax received, even though each company may be taxed less. It's about remaining competitive in a highly competitive world. It's about not killing the goose that lays the golden egg, which is what punitive socialists often do.

not to mention a reduced tax take so money available for measures to help the poor are futher restricted due to 'budgetting'... perhaps I am out of my depth, but it seems strange to me unless the long term objective once these organisations are attracted is to later re-impose these taxes once head offfices are here and therby gain from long-term investment overseas??

oops.. don't tell that last to the ccompanies...hush!!

I agree with Heroine.
I'm too tired to check up now, claig but didn't Eire's boom also have something to do with massive EU cash injections?

As I see it, wealthy foreigners are being invited to buy & sell property here, free of tax on their gains. Which seems weird under present circumstances. Meanwhile not-wealthy foreigners are being discouraged from coming here and community services are disappearing like fireflies due to lack of public funds. What the heck's it all about?

But one of the main beneficiaries will be the finance and insurance industries, sophisticated service industries, not full of low paid jobs. Labour and Monbiot didn't do much to stop these companies off-shoring their call centres, but now compain about this.

This is about making London and the UK attractive to these companies, so that all the ancillary services such as telecomms, accountancy and legal services can supply them in London. It's about keeping the high end management jobs here in London and the UK. It's good for the country. Rather than building white elephants like the Millenium Dome, this government is building bridges so that industry can locate here.

Sorry late to this but saw it yesterday - admire Monbiot generally and his writing here is brill cri de coeur.

Does anyone have figs on the value to the treasury of this move? ie. really simple loss of income vs. projected income due to us basically now being the Caymans?

Hang on, isn't the millenium dome now the O2 arena hosting some of the most high profile events in the country

The Treasury has promoted this policy for ages. If they've quantified the 'benefits' - they must have - I'd be fascinated to see how they work it out! The paper I linked to was laughably vague in almost all areas.

Mind you, the treasury now says what it's told to, as there's a huge axe hanging over its jobs.

Wales got EU cash injections as well, but it didn't boom like Ireland. Ireland boomed because of its low tax regime. Other EU countries were not happy that Ireland was allowed to get away with it, since it created an unlevel playing field and Ireland was more competitive and attractive to foreign companies than them. Some of them tried to force Ireland to scrap their competitive tax regime in return for bailing Ireland out. They knew it was that that made Ireland competitive and they wanted to end what they saw as unfair competition.