In 2010, corporation tax made up 7% of the total tax take.

As to the jobs Minty is looking for - vancacies in the UK are up 9% in the first quarter relative to the same period last year.

And in work benefits accounted for how much of the tax take?

Yes it has.

You are objecting to recent progress on the basis that it takes away jobs, just like the word processor, the mechanised loom etc. So, what's the difference between the self-checkout making a checkout operator redundanty and farm machinery making the farm worked redundant? Why do you claim you would not have objected to the latter, whilst objecting to the former? Do you see the discrepancy?



You'll need to clarify then what you think you meant then, because it wasn't at all clear.


Chill out. The fact that you can't make your contradictory views understood is not my fault. I have made no attempts to "twist" anything at all.



Never takes you long to start with insults, longer than usual in this thread, but never long. Anyway, onwards:


It's been replaced by the internet. Progress. Brilliant. I find the staff at Waterstones particularly knowledgeable by the way, but that's soon to be replaced by the progress of the likes of the Kindle: More expertese, better expertese, faster expertese. Progress. Brilliant.


Is that what you think most consumers want from a supermarket? The way supermarkets have positioned their service would suggest the significant majority of consumers do not, and instead want low prices and fast service. So the supermarket has progressed to supply what it's customers want.
There is (or should be) still the facility for the minority that want advice from their supplier, if there are enough of them.


I thought it answered the question perfectly well.



Not BS at all. Try getting an employee whilst offering a pound an hour. You won't get one. Nor at £2 an hour. You will get an employee at a price, a price that represents a price a person is prepared to work at.

Then why go through such a ridiculously circular way of doing it? Why not just pay them a decent wage?

Because the companies are paying the market rate (people queue for the jobs). The tax credits are not paid by the companies.

Neither is the true rate of corporation tax that should be funding the credits (among other things), by some larger companies

What on Earth is the "true" rate of corporation tax!?

The rate they should be paying as opposed to paying accountants to help them avoid it.

But, what is the rate they should be paying? Isn't it set by law? Why don't you stand for election to try to change things?

[url=http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-camerons-81p-tax-giveaway/10180?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitterLooks like the much-trumpeted increase in personal allowances wasn't all it was cracked up to be either[/url

The Guardian was on about this the other day.

These are IFS figures.

Needless to say, Cameron doesn't accept them

But that was his argument, that the amount of tax which those companies paid, in turn paid for those tax credits to bump up the wage, so those companies were paying a decent wage but in a very roundabout way. Though you have gone on to make my point for me that they arent.

Because like all of us they pay what they consider a reasonable purchase price for the labour. When you buy something I doubt you pay more than you think is a reasonable cost. What would you consider a reasonable rate for unskilled labour?

Companies don't just pay corporation tax do they? they also pay Employers NI all 14% which is effectively a tax on employing people - where does that go?

Companies like Vodafone are simply paying tax according to the rules set down in legislation. Do you voluntarily pay more tax than you should? I doubt it.

I would pay as little as I could get away with. Though i would do that fully in the knowledge that those employees are entitled to strike if they believe that amount is too low. I would think not accepting that would make me a massive hypocrite who deserves to go out of business.

Saying that though, i am quite lazy and dealing with striking employees seems like a lot of effort so what i would most likely do is have a chat with them, see what they thought wanted, if it was affordable for the company i would probably pay it.

Buying a yacht would lose some of its attraction if my employees were living in near poverty.

But there seems to be a bit of a change, why have you changed "market rate" to "reasonable rate" those two things arent synonyms, they can in fact be completely opposing. I.e I would say an employee getting a reasonable rate for their work was a good thing. I would say an employee getting a market rate which was so low as to force the state, which educates, protects, and keeps healthy those employees to subsidise their earnings simply so they can afford the basics of living to be a very bad and immoral.

I have never ever done anything to minimise my tax payment. I have no idea why i would. I have needed 3 operations on my jaw which cost over £50k each to perform (all between the ages of 17 and 21 when there is no way i could have afforded to pay for either them or private insurance) The surgeon who operated on me was educated by that same state, his university education and his practical education within the NHS was paid for by the state, he is one of the eminent maxillofacial surgeons in the world and my treatment was exemplary. I was educated by the state and that education is responsible for the fact I can now get a job I not only enjoy but leaves me with a standard of living I am happy with. My nieces and nephew are now educated by the state, they have safe and secure homes but if they didnt the state would protect them.
Why wouldnt i want to minimise my contribution to an organisation which did that kind of thing?

If companies simply wanted to avoid corporation tax they'd take on more people or pay them more - the wages costs being tax deductible.

In many if not most cases, companies pay what they think they can get away with paying.

And since we have companies that compete on the grounds of price and price alone – regardless of the impact on British jobs etc – then they obviously will want to keep driving down pay (well, for the plebs on the shop floor, but not for themselves. Obviously).

That is called basic economics.

And in the 'real world' that you're sop fond of, high unemployment is a wonderful way to help drag down those wages.

There are loads of people who don't feel loved by their employer, who is driving down their pay, but they don't do anything about it – presumably because they're scared. Indeed, they tell others that they shouldn't complain or dare to fight back.

And for goodness sake – everyone pays National Insurance, not just the employer. And everyone pays other taxes too. Plenty of them. It isn't just the poor big business.

In more news, [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17661011Osborne expresses shock that lots of very wealthy people aren't paying much tax at all.[/url

Now, is he naive – or does he really think he can con us?

If he really is shocked at the report that he asked for from HMRC that some of the country's highest earners often pay only around 10% in taxes on their income then his shock should be directed at HMRC who are well aware of the legal loopholes and seemingly fail to inform MPs, Ministers and the Chancellor that all of this is happening.

Personally I would just about be willing to accept his excuse of a combination of naivety and a not fit for purpose Revenue, having had to deal directly with them in the past.

Touch wood, I've not personally had any problems with them. Mind, last time I spoke to them, in the autumn, the person dealing with the issue said that he wished everyone was as easy to deal with as me.*









* [size=40This is a reverse Dally story.

[/size

Erm, is this the Osbourne that used to be chancellor? He was responsible for a few of the bloody loopholes being there in the first place.

I wonder if he'lll start with his Dad?

What's the point of announcing this bollox, when all the super-rich will do is dump their wages into their own company?