Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:11 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

How much tax did you pay last year?

Totally irrelevant but proportionately more than Tesco

Sal Paradise wrote:

They are paying a huge amount of taxation - they are not cheating the exchequer they are simple using the loop holes available in the law. Close the loop holes don't blame companies from using the loop holes!! To say they are cheating the poorest in society is a bit rich - their contributions to tax revenue is massive - perhaps if the public sector weren't quite so wasteful then there would be more of the Tesco tax revenue for poorest and most vulnerable!!

I bet your accountant ensures you pay the maximum you can in tax!! it is this hypocritical stance that loses you what little credibility you have.

My accountant ensures I pay what is due, without having to offshore any of my operations in order to avoid paying UK tax.

Oh BTW the £864 millions was the group's total tax paid, that will include taxes in other countries, not just the UK

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Sat Nov 26, 2011 8:04 am  

Big Graeme wrote: All you need to know here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Par ... tion,_2010 Poor old Dave really got screwed, didn't he? cod'ead wrote: My accountant ensures I pay what is due And Tesco's accountants ensure they pay what is due. A few salient points for those who didn't read the article: "These placements are not a substitute for full-time employees." "We have since reminded our stores that they must continue our normal work placement policy, which means they will take on candidates only when there is a chance of a permanent role at the end of the placement." He was working at Tesco with two other young unemployed people who did get a job at the end of their placement. So the companies say that the positions are only made available when there is the possibility of taking people on full time as a result and the anecdotal evidence provided backs this up.

Big Graeme wrote: All you need to know here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Par ... tion,_2010 Poor old Dave really got screwed, didn't he? cod'ead wrote: My accountant ensures I pay what is due And Tesco's accountants ensure they pay what is due. A few salient points for those who didn't read the article: "These placements are not a substitute for full-time employees." "We have since reminded our stores that they must continue our normal work placement policy, which means they will take on candidates only when there is a chance of a permanent role at the end of the placement." He was working at Tesco with two other young unemployed people who did get a job at the end of their placement. So the companies say that the positions are only made available when there is the possibility of taking people on full time as a result and the anecdotal evidence provided backs this up.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Sat Nov 26, 2011 11:01 am  

SBR wrote:

?.. And Tesco's accountants ensure they pay what is due...

No. Tesco's accountants ensure the company pays what it can get away with paying.

Just as with Vodaphone's accountants ensuring they get to have a nice chat with the revenue to pay a lower amount than what had been due.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Sat Nov 26, 2011 1:05 pm  

Mintball wrote:

No. Tesco's accountants ensure the company pays what it can get away with paying.

Just as with Vodaphone's accountants ensuring they get to have a nice chat with the revenue to pay a lower amount than what had been due.

They pay what is due. They don't pay what isn't due. If they take steps, within the law, to reduce what is due then there is nothing wrong with that. Just like there is nothing wrong with me reducing the amount of income tax I pay by using salary sacrifice to pay into my pension.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Sat Nov 26, 2011 1:18 pm  

In the tax debate I do think that governments have to be careful with legislation, the unfortunate reality at the moment is that we have a market that dictates ever increasing profits rather than just profits. Large employers (like supermarkets) come under tremendous pressure to cut jobs if profits and revenue don't perform in a certain way, and I know profits are quoted pre-tax, but if the likes of Tesco were taxed more heavily by closing loopholes then they would have to spend more revenue and potentially face reduced profits.
However, I don't think our tax system is used correctly to balance out who you take from, taxing an employee is easier because it doesn't make him unemployed, taxing his employer might result in that. There has to be a bit of balance in it and there have to be corporate taxes that can be raised without the ability to avoid them in some way (legal or not) and also targetted personal taxation for those who can afford an extra few quid (like myself) have to be used.

Then of course we could go complete bat $h!t crazy and blame trade unions for giving us (I say "us" but I've never actually been a member of a trade union) all too high a standard of living and running the country every time we have a Labour government.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:22 pm  

SBR wrote:

They pay what is due. They don't pay what isn't due. If they take steps, within the law, to reduce what is due then there is nothing wrong with that. Just like there is nothing wrong with me reducing the amount of income tax I pay by using salary sacrifice to pay into my pension.

Those two are not "just like" each other at all.
The first is taking advantage of the unintended consequences of an unplugged hole, the second is using a deliberately-provided encouragement.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:01 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

Those two are not "just like" each other at all.
The first is taking advantage of the unintended consequences of an unplugged hole, the second is using a deliberately-provided encouragement.

They are exactly the same thing. The government uses taxation to try and influence behaviour. People and companies change their behaviour in order to benefit from tax breaks. If these behaviour changes are not what the government intended then the problem lies with the tax breaks not with the people and companies.

It is crazy to suggest that people and companies should have some kind of psychic ability to determine the intent behind the tax rules and only seek benefit from some of them .

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:36 am  

Mintball wrote:

No. Tesco's accountants ensure the company pays what it can get away with paying.

Just as with Vodaphone's accountants ensuring they get to have a nice chat with the revenue to pay a lower amount than what had been due.

so, you're telling me, if you were running a business, you wouldn't try and get out of paying as little tax as possible then, or are you too pure and moralistic to behave like that?

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Sun Nov 27, 2011 12:11 pm  

World of Redboy wrote:

so, you're telling me, if you were running a business, you wouldn't try and get out of paying as little tax as possible then, or are you too pure and moralistic to behave like that?

Since I'm self-employed, I do. But thanks for showing us your real self. You'd cheat, and pour scorn on anyone who wouldn't (see Coddy's comments earlier). Nice. And obviously not 'moral', since you yourself deride anyone who wouldn't as "moralistic". Yet you'd also be one of those squealing about how others' bad behaviour is wrecking the country etc etc.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Sun Nov 27, 2011 12:15 pm  

SBR wrote:

... The government uses taxation to try and influence behaviour...

Ah. That's what health care, education, defence and policing are, are they? So when someone is being taught to read or having their life saved after a heart attack, or when the debris from a fire or flood is being cleared away, the bins emptied, the roads mended and children guided across a busy street, that's government trying to 'influence behaviour'?