Our next Europe Together event in The Hague will focus on fair taxation.
Add your voiceEurope has always been the global reference point for social justice and equity. The place where everybody – including the richest and most privileged – contributes their fair share for the welfare of all people. We are passionate advocates of this principle.
This principle has come under pressure and inequality is on the rise. The large corporates are making record profits while wages are stagnating. While workers still feel the effect of the financial crisis and pay the bill for bankers, the large corporates see the tax burden fall: a double whammy of higher profits and lower taxes. It is therefore high time to re-adjust the balance once more.
Do not get us wrong: It is good for all of us in Europe that companies, big and small, do business here and make decent profits. Let’s protect their freedom. However, the tricks and maneuvers made public through LuxLeaks or the Paradise Papers are not part of this freedom. We all pay for the roads and the networks companies use to sell their goods. Therefore, we are only reasonable when we insist that companies that make money also contribute their fair share to providing for the well-being of our children.
That’s why we advocate four simple rules with regard to corporate taxation:
Pay where you make profit. Cheating is immoral – and cheating is what companies do when they make money by doing business with our citizens here whilst paying taxes in a tax haven faraway because it’s cheaper.
Cheating has to be punished. Fiscal fraud costs every European citizen 2,000 euros per year. Tax evading countries and practices should be discouraged.
Equal rules for all. Respect for national decisions and the principle of fair competition need to be balanced with common rules across Europe. We need a single set of rules to close loopholes and to assure a level playing field between multinational companies and small local businesses.
Everyone pays a fair share. Minimum effective taxation of all profits is needed to stop the race to the bottom and assure that companies contribute to society.
We are fighting hard against greed and injustice and for a fair and sustainable European Union. A Europe in which all of us are protected, take care of one another and act responsibly. A Union where we proudly respect the rules and reject cheating, and where we rise up and stand united when our founding values are betrayed.
Let’s fight the race to the bottom for profit taxation together. Let’s make sure that if you and I pay taxes, so do large multinationals and their wealthy owners.
A former minister of labour under US president Clinton, Robert Reich, makes clear that higher income taxes do not obstruct economic growth, spread income more correctly in society and it creates a road to a more evenly spread wealth. Today it seems common knowledge that people who are best equipped to extract money from society are best equipped to invest in spending for the common good. Recent crises have shown the opposite. • I think government is best equipped to redistribute wealth in society, unless government is run by opposite forces. Government now is run by the opposite forces and the socialists are the opposition. Should it not be made clear that beyond cheating behaviour of contemporary governments and departments the tax system has to be reformed in such a way that the redistribution of income has to be reversed to all people who potentially create it and not to those whose activity is extracting money from society? • For this I like to refer to basic income proposal of the sector of social beneficiaries of the trade union FNV. It suggests to tax all sorts of income (wage, profit, interest, increase of value, heritage, transfers) with a progressive tax from 50% to 70%, with an exception for a liveable basic income. Everybody is free to work for more.
En este contexto social, cualquiera podría pensar en la actual crisis en la que nos vemos inmersos y que no afectado únicamente a la economía y a los servicios sociales, sino que se ha extendido a toda la estructura organizativa, desde la crisis de representación política hasta la aparición de los nuevos partidos políticos, pasando por las inminentes crisis territoriales como la de Cataluña en España o el Brexit. Esta crisis, como es natural, también se ve reflejada en las demandas de la ciudadanía en cuestiones relativas a profundización democrática cuyo conocimiento y ejemplificación parecen más accesibles hoy en día debido a la bien conocida por todos, la Sociedad de la Información en la que vivimos. En este sentido, creo que es especialmente necesaria la democratización interna de los partidos políticos en estos tiempos, cuando este objetivo es compartido por muchas personas no sólo como sentimiento sino también como principio inspirador para el correcto funcionamiento de nuestro sistema político. Sin embargo, los resultados que muestran cuantiosos estudios sociológicos de carácter analítico de los comportamientos de la sociedad y sus instituciones a todos los niveles y en todos los ámbitos, son poco esperanzadoras. En los últimos años, se han registradolos perores resultados en encuestas oficiales de este tipo y los partidos políticos han bajado notablemente su valoración, generando desconfianza en la clase política como una de las principales preocupaciones de la ciudadanía. Esta necesidad de democracia interna, no es una señal novedosa, sino que ha estado presente desde la aparición de los partidos de masas, esto es, que están cada vez están más alejados de la sociedad. Pero, a pesar de todo ello y de las recurrentes críticas, los partidos, siguen constituyendo el mecanismo asociativo más adecuado para canalizar la pluralidad política de la sociedad y para estructurar democráticamente los órganos de poder político de los Estados. De ahí la necesidad de seguir profundizando en la democratización interna de los mismos y en la plena vigencia en su interior de los derechos constitucionales de sus afiliados y afiliadas, como base del proceso de participación política democrática. Para ello, sería interesante, desde mi punto de vista, foto mecanismos, estructuras y/o procedimientos informales de organización con la perspectiva de evitar la tendencia de la ciudadanía a ver a los partidos desde un punto de vista meramente formal, de manera que esta visión minimice la importancia del realismo existente en las relaciones sociales y prácticas políticas presentes en las organizaciones. Pues, que los recursos de los partidos no sean estrictamente partidistas, ayuda a que los partidos alcancen sus metas y tengan una conexión fuerte con el electorado, lo que se convierte en un destacado condicionante de cualquier proceso de democratización interna de las formaciones políticas de un estado. A modo de resumen, podemos decir que es necesario descubrir cómo pueden conseguirse los mayores niveles de democracia interna en un partido. Y que, básicamente, esta consideración queda reducida a la elección de sus líderes y candidatos por sus afiliados y afiliadas a través de mecanismos competitivos; a la toma de decisiones de forma inclusiva y con la participación voluntaria de sus miembros; a la libertad de expresión interna y externa sin miedo a represalias y a que los candidatos/as, cargos públicos y autoridades rindan cuentas de sus actos a través de mecanismos de control efectivo que les conceda la confianza de sus bases asentada en el respeto de una serie de derechos, responsabilidades y garantías. En definitiva, parece que el futuro de los partidos políticos posiblemente esté asociado a una mayor transparencia en sus gestiones; a una mayor profesionalización de sus dirigentes políticos y al fortalecimiento de los mecanismos de fiscalización de sus actividades. Al fin y al cabo, los partidos más democráticos deberían suponer mayor número de recursos humanos y financieros para las actividades del partido; mayor legitimidad frente al potencial electorado y, en consecuencia, un mayor número de votantes y afiliados. A fin de cuentas, el objetivo final recae en la mayor confianza de los ciudadanos y que otorgará el éxito electoral y político a los partidos.
En los últimos años, la emigración desde las zonas menos desarrolladas hacia zonas más prósperas ha sido consecuencia directa del aumento de las desigualdades económicas en todas las partes del mundo en general. Asimismo, esta llegada de gentes de diversas culturas a otros países afecta a dos realidades interrelacionadas entre sí; la globalización y el multiculturalismo. Durante décadas ha existido un profundo debate entre los principales argumentos defendidos, de un lado, por liberales y, de otro, por comunitaristas. La clasificación que los divide tiene su origen en una forma de referencia un tanto ambigüa, debido a la amplia gama de teorías en ambas corrientes. Asimismo, a través de esta recopilación nos basaremos en la presencia de un conjunto de diferencias notables entre ellos. Por su parte el liberalismo, reúne un conjunto de doctrinas heterogéneas como el liberalismo igualitario o social y vertientes más radicales en cuestiones de independencia del individuo como el liberalismo individual, que ciertamente se opone al individualismo adoptado por el comunitarismo. Asimismo, una de las características primordiales del liberalismo, que a su vez lo dota de tintes de insuficiencia, es la defensa de una neutralidad por parte Estado, al que se le supone una actuación positiva. Frente a una diferencia clara con el comunitarismo que reivindica una política de la diferencia capaz de reconocer las peculiaridades de cada grupo con el claro objetivo de conseguir una democracia más inclusiva. De manera que, surge un debate ente la defensa de las minorías por parte del comunitarismo y la defensa de una cultura dominante por parte del liberalismo, el cual al mismo tiempo que da una imagen de esfuerzo por combatir la discriminación reforzando la legislación en la materia, propone que se puedan permitir determinadas modificaciones en las instituciones de la cultura mayoritaria. Por su parte, el comunitarismo distingue el concepto igualitario del de identidad, con el que busca el reconocimiento de unos derechos para los individuos pertenecientes al mismo grupo, a diferencia del concepto de igualdad amparado por los liberales, cuyos derechos son universales e iguales para todos. En definitiva, estoy a favor del pensamiento comunitario a la hora de atender las diferencias de los colectivos, algo imprescindible para evitar que algunas culturas minoritarias desaparezcan, y estoy de acuerdo con el fin de alcanzar la igualdad respecto de aquellos grupos más desfavorecidos. Por el contrario y a modo de crítica, el liberalismo me parece un sistema que establece límites en la defensa de los derechos de las comunidades lo que genera un déficit en el necesario reconocimiento de derechos de los ciudadanos, que entiendo como mecanismo corrector a la hora de garantizar derechos a ciertos colectivos, como por ejemplo el de la identidad cultural. Deduzco que el Estado no debe limitarse a defender los derechos de los individuos, sino también los de las comunidades culturales en las que éstos se integran. Finalmente, considero idónea la fórmula de comunitarismo, pero la revisión de ambos argumentos me hace considerar que la protección de las culturas de determinados grupos requiere que el reconocimiento de los derechos colectivos culturales sea condición necesaria para el ejercicio de la autonomía individual y merece la búsqueda de una identidad estrechamente ligada a la cultura; porque la identidad se forja en conexión con otros y depende por tanto del contexto social. Ese reconocimiento es necesario para alcanzar la igualdad respecto de aquellos grupos más desfavorecidos. En definitiva, todas las sociedades organizan su estructura en torno a los distintos fenómenos tanto naturales como culturales o sociales en los que intervienen o participan sus individuos construyendo asimismo una forma de presentarse al mundo. Cuando hablamos de cultura, hablamos de ese conjunto de símbolos, normas, creencias, ideales, costumbres, mitos y rituales que avalan la historia de un pueblo, que se transmiten de generación en generación y que otorgan un sentido de pertenencia e identidad a los miembros de una comunidad. En las últimas décadas y desde una cultura política democrática de las naciones, se ha llegado a una idea de pluralidad que parte de la convicción de que cada cual tiene el mismo derecho a ejercer todas las libertades individuales de manera que cada sociedad se rija por una actitud tolerante frente a las distintas creencias existentes y en ocasiones contradictorias, dentro de un mismo espacio político. En este sentido, hablar del principio de pluralidad implica el reconocimiento genuino del otro y de su derecho a ser diferente.
How do we ignite people’s sense of injustice on this topic? I find it is often difficult to demonstrate that the behaviour of companies avoiding taxation or paying minuscule amounts in comparison to profits, has a direct correlation to the way wealth moves through the welfare state. The mismanagement of business in Europe leads to a squeeze on immediate provision and state services; it impacts how quickly you can see a doctor and whether your children have a place at the local school, it determines the amount of crime on your street and the state of your city. In the UK we are struggling to care for a growing ageing population, we have a healthcare system running on empty and social housing is becoming a thing of the past. But the justified anger that then rises in society, the growing sense of inequality amongst those on the front line of suffering, is not channelled toward the silent faceless corporations but onto neighbours. How do you turn the face of the masses upward, not sideways? We have the policies so now we need to show voters the problem clearly and unapologetically. Justice demands that if big businesses want to operate in our nations they must pay for our time, our workers and our welfare. The ladder to success, expansion and profits cannot be paved with the happiness, the health and the rights of our citizens.
Nowadays global corporations which export their goods in the Single Market (Europe) are not paying the proper level of taxes. This situation stands because of the creation of several tax heavens and special tax areas in Europe. Socialists should stress the rules of no tax areas in order to limit the expansion of tax heavens in small countries. Limiting the independence of corporations in those countries means implementing the influence of democratic authorities in global cities and, in the same time, reinforcing legitimation and contractual power to developing countries. In a global scenario like this, only a strong democratic system would be able to really rule the city and its development that means allowing citizens the entire territorial control. Generally both in global cities and poor countries there is a huge gap between the political power of local administrations and the decisions made by corporations and their influence in the governance of the city. Through the limitation of tax heavens and the economic interdependence of global investments, public institutions will be able to achieve more power, ensuring equal rights to each citizen.
It’s been 10 years since the Financial Crash of 2008 took place; an incident of such seismic proportions, that it rocked the global financial system down to the core. 10 years on, the common person is still suffering the aftermath through failed austerity programmes, massive cuts to public spending, wage stagnation and rising poverty levels. Europe is at a crisis and this is because of the neoliberal orthodoxy and failed perception that deregulation will promote the failed notion of ‘trickle-down Reaganomics.’ The recent bombshell exposé of the Panama/Paradise Papers have only gone on to affirm that the mega-rich and wealthy corporations and individuals cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. The grotesque levels of wealth funnelling and tax avoidance is not only immoral, but also enormously damaging to global economies. Whilst calls for regulation from Socialist parties are often labelled as ‘anti-business’ and ‘anti-aspiration’ – this is incredibly untrue. The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation & Development) and the International Monetary Fund have also stressed that equality in society has a direct correlation on efficiency. The PES parties are not against wealth creation and company profits, but rather they believe that Governments should play their part and work closely with businesses to create a working order where those who work the hardest to allow these businesses to thrive, are fairly compensated for their services. For too long, businesses have felt completely at ease with exploiting the labour force through low pay, zero-hour contracts, unpaid internships and other schemes which under the guise of providing ‘experience and opportunity’ exploit the workers. Furthermore, these companies find it completely morally acceptable to funnel those profits out of the countries they earn them in; to Tax-havens around the world, purely to minimise their tax contributions. We are very fortunate to be seeing a change in the political tide; we’ve seen a progressive anti-austerity government get elected in Portugal with Antonio Costa, we’ve also seen Pedro Sanchez and the Spanish Socialists recently take government; and in the UK, Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party are knocking on the footsteps of Downing Street … The time is perfect for S&D parties to create a joint European new economic order for the Ages. One which is fit for purpose in the new world, where we see new economic challenges emerging through digital economies and crypto-currencies. What we really need now, is the introduction of Europe-wide Public share registers so that Tax authorities across Europe can hold to account those who misuse the system. The way we change European Policy and tackle tax-avoidance head-on internationally, is to lead by example. We can’t, and will not, wait for others. We must tell the world “look at us and follow our lead.” This has gone on for too long, and as a result of waiting for someone else to start the charge; European states have potentially lost billions, and that will continue until the issue is addressed! And not every business is an evil, tax-dodging and labour-exploiting leech. However, the actions of the immoral few severely harm public perceptions of all businesses. The ones who play by the rules and pay their fair share are being hit the hardest, and we must break the cycle of rewarding malpractice; whether that be tax evasion or bankers’ bonuses. Only then can we win back the public’s trust!
As we all know, public services are a main source of equality among any population. Unfortunately, these are under threat due to the increasing number of multinational companies that pay their taxes on offshore accounts in order to pay fewer amounts, therefore reducing their contributions on the States where they operate. The ultra-rich at very top, the 0,01%, keep increasing their profits and personal wealth – plus they barely face repercussions from cheating out of it, while millions of citizens of much less income do their duty. Evidently, I do recognize the importance of business in producing wealth, generating jobs and contributing to welfare. Unfortunately, the latter is at risk while we do not address tax havens – every country has the right to choose the form of taxation it wants, but we must not comply with manoeuvers that allow multinational companies and the ultra-rich to avoid paying taxes where they make profit. This trend is worrisome because it leads to less revenue for the welfare state, which has been compensated with higher taxes on lower-income households, thus increasing inequality. We, socialists, need to defend the public service from tax avoidance and ensure equal rules for all and a fair contribution from everyone.
In the EU there are so many diffrent rules about taxing, that some of our countrys or islands are very simmilar to fiscal paradises. Changing this could be faced like an intrusion in the countrys laws…or not. We are all together in this so if we have a simmilar economic politics could be a beginning
Modern societies have been dealing with a concerning trend of growing inequality. Nowadays, most of the world’s equity wealth belongs to few people, whom are still the main beneficiaries of offshore tax options – thus contributing to their personal enrichment at the cost of our welfare state. All the taxes these multinationals and ultra-rich have been dodging are transferring the burden towards lower-income households, a logic that hinders the social mobility of these people. Every country has the right to choose the form of taxation it wants. Plus, business overall does have a positive influence in our society when it is producing wealth, creating jobs and paying their fair share of taxes for the welfare of us all. Socialists need to advocate for more transparency and a fairer system that ensures our prosperity as a whole and not only the success of the few and more inequality. It is paramount to foster tax justice and ensure that everyone contributes to our society!
The European Union is still a rather wealthy place in the world. This means that it is a great opportunity for many firms to try and enter this market, to develop new products and push forward technological progress. As a socialist, I cannot but encourage all those who follow their passion and talent and put it to the service of everybody else by working hard and competing in the business world. It is simply right that those who succeed enjoy a reward for this. A strong free market *can* be a wonderful opportunity for consumers, as long as actors who are in it are accountable to society as a whole, to their shareholders but also to their stakeholders. This, in Europe, is not the case any more. Huge corporations have managed to harvest a political, financial and commercial firepower that is big enough to influence collective decision making processes. We came to the point where the Greek people were humiliated and stripped of their hopes and futures because a couple of bank across Europe were full of their bonds. Today, governments are competing against each other to steal away firms and businesses from neighbour countries by lowering and lowering corporate taxes. This is unfair, when some states are already facing tremendous financial problems. It is unfair because it advantages those countries who are already stronger and it incentives the creation of fiscal loopholes. It is therefore a mechanism that leads to a deepening of the dangerous asymmetries that have developed through member countries and that are leading to profound political instabilities. Fiscal competition can be beneficial when it is fair and sustainable. And it should work the other way round. The weakest parts of the Union should have fiscal incentives to develop, not the other way round. It is therefore time to act on this, to call for a minimum corporate tax adjusted according to the industrial power of the countries, to rebelance competition, because no market is better than a truly inclusive market. It is time to combat fraud and evasion: nobody is successful on their own, but thanks to the fact there is a society around them. Asking to give back is therefore legitimate and everyone should comply. I firmly believe that the European Union will have no future if we do not rediscover and propose to the public debate ideas and words such as respect, solidarity, fairness, democracy. It is only us, the Socialist, that can do this.