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.

Public domain
Show Hide image

UK to reconsider blood donation ban for men who have sex with men

Under current rules, men who have had sex with another man in the past twelve months cannot donate blood.

During Women and Equalities questions this morning, Jane Ellison MP slipped in a bombshell: men who have sex with other men may soon be able to donate blood. 

Ellision, who is Undersecretary of State for Public Health, said that Public Health England has carried out a new survey of blood donors which is currently being analysed. Next year, the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood Tissues and Organs (SaBTO), which sets blood donation guidelines, will use the evidence to review the current policy. 

She said:

Donor referrel for MSM [men who have sex with men] was changed from lifetime to 12 months referral in 2011. Four years later it is time again to look at this issue. Public Health England has conducted an anonymous survey of donors and I'm pleased that the advisory SaBTO will review this issue in 2016.

The current ban (which also applies to a range of other groups including sex workers) is based on the fact that MSM are at higher risk of contracting HIV, according to every Public Health England survey ever conducted on the disease. Both HIV and Hepatitis C don't show up in blood tests immediately, so the 12 month rule is based on leaving a "window" for the diseases to develop and be testable. The rules are ostensibly based on sexual activity, not on sexual orientation.

However, as Michael Fabricant pointed out in response to Ellison's announcement, in practice, it also looks a lot like discrimination - there is no ban on blood donation from straight people who have had unprotected sex, for example. Fabricant continued that "equality on this issue" is needed, and clinicians themselves feel a change is "long overdue".

Blood donations in the UK have fallen by 40 per cent in the last decade, a fact which may have contributed to the decision to review the current rules.

A Stonewall spokesperson said:

We’re delighted the Department of Health Minister Jane Ellison has announced this review.

We want a donation system that is fair and based on up-to-date medical evidence. Currently gay and bi people cannot give blood if they have had sex in the past 12 months,  regardless of whether they used protection. Yet straight people who may have had unprotected sex can donate. These current rules are clearly unfair and we want to see people asked similar questions - irrespective of their sexual orientation - to accurately assess the risk of infection. Screening all donors by sexual behaviour rather than by sexual orientation would increase blood stocks in times of shortage and create a safer supply by giving a more accurate, non-discriminatory assessment.

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.