Well firstly many abandon the country completely, so your argument doesnt apply to them, but secondly we now live in a world of global companies so a lot of CEO's etc. live abroad & you cant demand they all live in all the countries they operate in, nor pay tax in them all, & they will pick the best one for them.
So then why should they be allowed to take what they've gotten from the people of a country away from that country? If you do business in a country, you should be taxed by that country for the business you're doing. If you refuse to pay the taxes, then your business is now an illegal one.
& how does that work when the head of a multinational doesnt set foot in that country?
Because they conduct business there. It has nothing to do with where the person lives. It has to do with where the money is.
Because it's their property, why do you think? Where was it agreed upon that the government has that sort of authority over individual property?
Well then we, the people who live in the countries that these people are pillaging and abandoning, want a new agreement.
For someone supposedly studying to be a laywer, this idea that "loyalty" and your emotional perception of what people "should do", rather than the law being the deciding factor, is outrageous. Might as well be a doctor that plans on hurting patients intentionally with that sort of mindset.
Wow... that's pretty rude right there. Also stupid, since my skill in profession has nothing to do with my opinions about the relationships between government and business. I know full well what the law says. I also know when and why I disagree with it. There is a big difference between saying what the law is, and saying what it should be.
In the U.S. no matter where you get profits, it gets taxed. This helps prevent offshore tax havens. And you have to report it either way, so if it is offshore, they know you owe, and you pay, else face tax evasion. It doesn't require pillaging private citizens with terrifyingly inappropriate government authority as you suggested. Good grief.
And this is a good thing, though apparently it's not as effectively carried out in the UK, which is what the OP is about. Good reading skills. Also, in this country, there are far too many means by which to avoid paying those taxes. But you already know that. Those are some of the loopholes that conservatives and liberals agree ought to be done away with. So where's the controversy here? I want to enforce the rules as they exist, and possibly alter the numbers if they're too low. And if a business does not comply with the laws of the country where it is doing business, then the business should be kicked out of the country, since it is operating a criminal enterprise and breaking the law.
And now we here from the socialist-fascist crowd. What you are advocating is pretty much what Nazi's did to the Jews and the Soviet Union did to East Germans. You would hold people in a country hostage and confiscate their wealth. In short you advocate turning a country into a prison.
Name-calling... brilliant. Also contradictory, as fascism and socialism are very different philosophies, but I don't really expect you to know that. They're just buzzwords, right? And this is totally the same scenario as Nazi Germany, except for the part where these companies and their owners are violating the laws of the countries where they're doing business, and actually hurting people. But aside from that, demanding that profiteers actually compensate the nations where they build their wealth for all the benefits, services, and labor they obtain there is exactly like persecuting a religion.
So when I moved to Germany permanently from the US, I should've had all of my savings confiscated? I know you're referring specifically to the super rich, but I don't see how it would be different based on income.
Did you break any tax laws in the US before you left? Did you continue to reap the benefits of doing business here while avoiding paying for those benefits? No? Then clearly this doesn't apply to you. And technically, I never said anything about confiscation. I see that a few people went there, but I didn't mention in. If a business wants to use tricks and loopholes to avoid paying its due, then the nation that's being cheated should refuse to extend the protections of their laws to that business. That might manifest, in some cases, as confiscating what is left behind, but again, this is only a reaction to gross violations of the law and what amounts to massive theft from the people of a country. If you refuse to participate in the social contract, don't be surprised when no one else wants to extend its protections to you.
I believe the people in question paid their taxes owed then left to avoid paying future taxes. How does your reason for leaving change the situation, and how would the government ascertain their reasons for leaving in a court of law?
And an excellent response by the nation that is being abandoned would be to disallow any future business from those who do not hold any loyalty to the country that protected and benefited them for so long. If they want to cut and run, why shouldn't the UK or any other nation do the same? This is literally just reciprocating to these people what they have done in the first place.
Pasch's wall of text crits you in the face.