newsthump.com/2011/11/25/governm ... -stackers/

newsthump.com/2011/11/25/governm ... -stackers/

How much tax did you pay last year?

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.

You really cannot be this stupid!!
So answer a few basic questions - maybe you can get a Graham to hold your hand!!

1. So how did Ed Milliband get elected as leader of the labour party?
2. What taxes are Tescos witholding against the laws set out!!
3. If you increased fuel duty by 50p a litre do you think you tax take would go up or down!!

Your idea that you can just tax to the hilt and everyone will simply comply is nieve beyond belief - if I had a company the last thing I would want to do is give it to the government so they can waste a good majority in services with union dictated working conditions. I would much rather spend the money on my own business where it will get much better value.

You do know it is one or the other dont you?
They are either avoiding paying the right amount of tax (cheating the exchequer and using loop holes) or they arn't (Paying all the tax they are due to pay and not using loop holes) .
Which one is it?

Did you miss the increase in VAT as well as the widening of what it can be added to?
Did you miss the anouncement that 9p (Yes 9p) will be added to fuel duty by Aug 2012?

The poorest where given a tax break but add all that to the pot and they are really either no better off or it is hardly worth noticing.

Whilst the rest are being screwed to the wall.

Ah so we are back to your idea that workers should just shut up and work with no recourse if they are being wronged by their employer.
This will hardly come as a shock as you are on a diffrent planet most of the rest of us.

All in it together unless you own big buisiness or are the CEO of a big company or work for the government.

Apparently some of us can.

Quote ="Sal Paradise"maybe you can get a Graham to hold your hand!!'" Who? Quote ="Sal Paradise"1. So how did Ed Milliband get elected as leader of the labour party?'" All you need to know here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Par ... tion,_2010 Quote ="Sal Paradise"3. If you increased fuel duty by 50p a litre do you think you tax take would go up or down!!'" Straw man alert... You can not avoid fuel duty in the same way you can many other taxes.

Quote ="Sal Paradise"maybe you can get a Graham to hold your hand!!'" Who? Quote ="Sal Paradise"1. So how did Ed Milliband get elected as leader of the labour party?'" All you need to know here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Par ... tion,_2010 Quote ="Sal Paradise"3. If you increased fuel duty by 50p a litre do you think you tax take would go up or down!!'" Straw man alert... You can not avoid fuel duty in the same way you can many other taxes.

Totally irrelevant but proportionately more than Tesco



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

Quote ="Big Graeme"All you need to know here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Par ... tion,_2010'" Poor old Dave really got screwed, didn't he? Quote ="cod'ead"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: Quote "These placements are not a substitute for full-time employees."'" Quote "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."'" Quote He was working at Tesco with two other young unemployed people [iwho did get a job[/i 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.

Quote ="Big Graeme"All you need to know here - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Par ... tion,_2010'" Poor old Dave really got screwed, didn't he? Quote ="cod'ead"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: Quote "These placements are not a substitute for full-time employees."'" Quote "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."'" Quote He was working at Tesco with two other young unemployed people [iwho did get a job[/i 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.

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.

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.

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

.

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.

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'?

You are aware that something can have multiple functions, aren't you? I didn't say the [ionly[/i thing the government uses taxation for is influencing behaviour. It should have gone without saying that it is also used to raise money.

Oh aye.



But you didn't mention any other uses of tax – and I doubt very much that changing behaviour is anything like the main one.



In the context of a discussion about tax – and specifically, corporate tax – it seems to me to be a diversion to mention tax for changing behaviour. Businesses – however small or large – benefit directly from education, health, the state of the roads, the state of refuse removal, fire prevention and the putting out thereof, crime prevention/protection (and they do better on this than the ordinary citizen, in at least some cases: see the City for an example) – etc etc. Indeed, one might ask why businesspeople rarely seem to complain about, say, fuel bills – except where it is transport fuel and then the complaint is invariably about the government's bit of the equation.

Do big businesses do special deals with, say, EDF to get their electricity bills reduced to what they think they should pay? If not – why not? If companies don't complain about rising bills like these, then why do they complain about taxation and threaten to leave the country because of it (and regulation)?

Perhaps it's only domestic electricity and gas customers that are seeing their bills rising by considerably more than the (official) rate of inflation – perhaps businesses get better tariffs in the first place? If so, why? Yet the fuel companies have claimed, on more than one occasion, that the business part of their businesses are the really profitable parts.

I think you will find all business are experiencing increases in utility bills - the factory I work at has seen a significant increase > than inflation in utility cost on a combined bill >£1m a year. It is obvious why the business side is profitable - one bill, one source - just think how many households it would take to consume a £1m worth of electric. What do they call it in economics - economy of scale!!

But the point is that we don't read or hear of businesses complaining about such costs.

I didn't mention them as they weren't relevant. My point was that the government does adjust taxation to encourage certain behaviour and discourage other behaviour. People and companies respond by adjusting their behaviour to minimise their tax liabilities. There is nothing remotely wrong with any of this.
If the government doesn't want people and companies to benefit from tax breaks they shouldn't create them.



Of course they do. Do you think they just get a standard tariff like a retail customer?

I could be missing something – but I haven't heard businesses complaining about taxation based on attempts to change behaviour, but on taxation in general, which pays for all the things that I mentioned (and many, many more), from which the businesses themselves directly benefit and would suffer without.



So again – why don't they complain about this, when they complain constantly about 'the tax burden', and spend a great deal of time, energy and expertise avoiding it? Do they employ accountants to look into how they can get their electricity bills reduced, a la Vodaphone with its tax bill? If not, why not? Why is tax the only 'burden' we hear business whinging about?

If we simply stopped taxing businesses alltogether and shifted the burden on to employees, how long before we saw the benefits of the increased investment in the economy? After all, Sal reckons that Tesco uses the money they avoid paying the exchequer by further investing it. None of that money would ever be used to further reward directors or go on increased share dividends would it?

I realise that there's a flaw in my plan: if the tax burden is shifted on to employees, they won't have a lot left to spend in Tesco's but surely Tesco can handle the downturn in business in the short term, while they invest in the economy and pay their employees more, so that they can then go out and spend..

If Tesco, Vodaphone, Philip Green, Richard Branson et al do not want to pay UK taxes on their profits from UK businesses, then why don't they fook off and do all of their business in Switzerland, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, the Cayman Islands or wherever? I'm sure there'll be plenty of UK businesses, who are willing to pay their fair whack, ready to fill the void.

[deli[/del

I think you have me confused with someone else.

Do I agree with having the government sending people to work at the likes of Party.Sainbury's for just their JSA, not in the slightest, never have and never will.

Do I agree with all these companies,off shoring to pay as little tax as possible in the countrue where they have shops etc, no I don't

The problem with the off shoring is a not something you or I can change, this is the EU that has to change it, but it won't. Will this government do anything, no it won't
The fact is this Government make the previous government look like Einstein. To say it is clueless is an understatement. Teresa May said in a previous Tory Conference that they were referred to as the Nasty Party. The way they are going they may as well be the Nazi

Some of the offshoring could be stopped immediately if the government grew a pair. The likes of Tesco, Amazon, HMV etc that route their online sales through Guernsey to avoid UK tax could be stopped tomorrow.