Shortfalls in taxation (I.e.the funding for public services) is directly attributable to the global tax policies of companies who think HOW they trade doesn't matter. We should not accept tax dodging as an inevitable consequence of free trade. Director and shareholder behaviour will only change when transglobals realise these aggressive and anticompetitive policies are unsustainable. Moving, with immediate notice, to 'name and shame' will help consumers to make informed choices in future, and will cost offending transglobals both new and loyal customers as well as their reputation with shareholders and markets. If shareholders cannot create ethical and sustainable policies on their own account, they will have to be encouraged by Governments to do so. As Government is aware, the EU The Anti Tax Avoidance Directive sets out a comprehensive framework of anti-abuse measures, containing five legally-binding anti-abuse measures, which all Member States should apply against common forms of aggressive tax planning. This includes measures to deter profit shifting to a 'low / no' tax country, to prevent double 'non-taxation' of certain income, to prevent companies from avoiding tax when 're-locating' assets, to discourage artificial debt arrangements designed to minimise taxes and the additional safeguard of the anti-abuse rule designed to counteract aggressive tax planning. As an absolute minimum measure today, Government should immediately escalate a 'name and shame' policy to encourage consumers to be aware, so consumers can use alternative brands or local companies who fairly pay taxes in markets they sell to. With Liam Fox looking to resurrect a new version of the dreadful TTIP or dubious CETA with the US, involving potentially highly contentious ISDS, we should demand to know why so many huge US companies play on this kind of uneven tax playing field, as well as make it clear that this is a global problem which individual nation states ARE willing to take on, in order to protect local competition and essential services for UK citizens. UK Government should take a lead in saying we welcome trade and business, but not at any price. Pay to play!! Irrespective of the status of Brexi by 2019, the UK MUST ensure that it applies the EU Anti Tax Avoiance measure from 1 January 2019 ,which provide the minimum level of protection against corporate tax avoidance throughout the EU, while ensuring a fairer and more stable environment collectively for UK and European businesses in competition with transglobals brands. In doing this, Government will need to distance itself from the antidemocratic influence of the far right press, as their vested interests are in continued tax avoidance loopholes, irrespective of whether their owners are British citizens, foreign born or foreign domiciled. The first priority must be to protect British companies and British public services.

The release of the Panama Papers has shown that tax avoidance/evasion is still a massive problem allowing the greed of a rich elite to rob HMRC of £10's billions which could be used to fund Education, Welfare or the NHS, instead of us having to have ideological austerity forced on us. No MP, and certainly no Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet member should be found to be making any kind of gain from offshore accounts/tax avoidance schemes so, In the interests of transparency and in the public interest all Cabinet/Shadow Cabinet ministers should make their Tax Returns public to show they are not using any tax avoidance schemes and there is no conflict of interest.

To make the UK a fairer place to live, not one where the rich avoid paying their fair share towards society. WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.

Germany has a very different outlook on money matters from this country. If we are to keep control of our own traditional London Stock Exchange it can not have a man in charge and a second in command both from the German Stock Exchange. To be a part of bringing a historical and proud tradition to an end by doing nothing, merely to please big business, is not the way I want to be remembered.

40,000 jobs+ are at stake. The wellbeing of families in Port Talbot, Rotherham, Corby, and Shotton is at steak. Wales and the North have already suffered with the closures of the coal mines. Unemployment brings misery, poverty and low self esteem which can lead to mental and physical illness. I live in Devon but my family comes from South Wales. Let's all support each other no matter where we live!

We are continually told by Government that privatisation or the involvement of the private sector is the cure for all economic woes. The NHS is suffering from creeping privatisation, the national rail system was sold off years ago and the government is currently selling off executive agencies such as Ordnance Survey regardless of the business case. However they appear to be strangely reluctant to apply their policies at the heart of government by selling off their own premises. About £3.5 billion will need to be spent in the next few years on repairing the Palace of Westminster in the least expensive option considered. The buildings are apparently subsiding and are in any case very vulnerable to rising sea levels. The government should accept the logic of their own policies and relieve us of this expensive burden by relocating to a less expensive location (possibly an out-of-town retail area with good communications), and to complete the package outsource their day-to-day support services to one of the many out-sourcing companies they consider competent to manage hospitals, prisons and the rail network.

Farmers with infected herds are unable to move live animals off their farm, and suffer loss when infected cattle in their herds are culled

Because businesses that make large profits from the UK market, such as Cadbury, can and should be paying their fair share of taxes. Failing to do so means there is less money to spend on schools, the NHS and other vital public services, which companies rely on to educate and look after their workforce and customers. Cadbury was set up by Quakers and had a long tradition of being a responsible employer that looked after its workforce and made a positive contribution to the communities where its chocolate was manufactured. In 1893, George Cadbury developed the Bournville estate in Birmingham, a model village designed to improve the living conditions of its employees. Easter time, when supermarket shelves are stacked with Cadbury's chocolate, is a good time to remind them of their roots and start putting people ahead of profits. For more information, read: http://ind.pn/1Ode1QJ

For some self employment is chosen, for others, in this current climate, it is the only way of having an income, for some adoption is chosen and for others it is their only chance to have a family. An independent report by Julie Deane OBE recommends that self employed people should be given the same rights as those that work for an employer. This has been seen by parliament and so far ignored. I am proud to be self employed, I am also very much looking forward to starting my family however and whenever it happens but I know that without the same support the my employed friends get, we could struggle. This is unfair. The current government is very proud of the rise in self employment. It is one thing that has made the unemployment figures look better over the last few years. The entrepreneurial spirit is something to be proud of. It is time to bring adoption, maternity and paternity pay for self employed people in line with that of employees.

So many social issues the UK faces today are to do with the fact that "trickle down" economics proved to be a myth. Societies down the ages have faced the choice: redistribution or revolution. The U.K. may be far from the latter; but anger and frustration is felt by millions. A sensible wealth tax is always possible. All that stands in the way is political will. An unbalanced society is healthy for nobody. Make the change before anger turns into rebellion.

The principle of reciprocity currently seems violated by those refusing to pay what they are due whilst taking full advantage of their right to have their voice heard in how the nation is governed; seemingly undermining the principles of a democratic nation. Depriving tax dodgers of their right to vote may help tackle this trend, whilst adding to the national treasury, which seemingly fits in with the intent of current austerity programmes.

Almost all public bodies are required to release information about companies under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but there is a special exception ('loophole') that means HMRC does not have to do so. The loophole is contained in Sections 18 & 23 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. This exception means that HMRC does not have to (and cannot) release information about corporate tax payers even when it can be shown that the public interest is harmed by non-disclosure. In fact, HMRC would not have to release information it holds even in cases where corporations have acted illegally or knowingly misled the British public about the tax they pay. Whilst we accept that private individuals have a right to privacy, we fail to see why this right extends to the tax affairs of multinationals and other large corporates.