By paying extra tax Starbucks is doing exactly the wrong thing

A "moral taxation" system would be deeply weird.

So Starbucks has caved to public pressure and opted to pay more tax. It doesn't have to - it has paid its legal dues - but is chosing to, as a moral gesture, in order to appease public anger. It is also trying to appease MPs, who have been keen to tap into this public anger by declaring tax avoidance "morally repugnant".

Good thought, but any "moral repugnance" is in the tax laws they themselves continue to approve. No actual changes in legislation have been planned. Instead the government has opted to pressure companies not staying within the "spirit of the law" in a £77m crackdown.

This is odd. When government spots something "immoral" going on that is not yet illegal, common practice is to change the law (rather than simply moralise). It's also common practice for companies make money by working out how they can cut costs while staying within the letter of the law.

If these practices are abandoned, a deeply strange system starts to emerge. Namely, a tax system which relies on public pressure to a few high profile firms. This looks unappetisingly vague and inconsistent to outsiders. As Alex Henderson from PWC told City AM:

"It is important that we have stability and simplicity in the tax regime if the UK is to attract foreign firms - if there is uncertainty in the system that is concerning."

Admittedly, there are a few places where simply urging people to keep to the "spirit of the law" works - places like China, where laws are occasionally kept vague (but with huge penalties) to scare people into behaving extra well. It may not work so well here.

Starbucks. Photograph: Getty Images

Martha Gill writes the weekly Irrational Animals column. You can follow her on Twitter here: @Martha_Gill.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.