What is it about employing thousands of people that uniquely qualifies you to avoid paying your taxes and then have a special deal thrown at your feet years later rather than a summons?

Do larger employers that did pay their taxes now qualify for a rebate?

Why do you accuse others of envy when anything that involves a famous person means you either don't care about their civil liberties and human rights or are looking for ways to treat them differently than ordinary people under the law?

What else can you make them read and why would you want to?

It's not unique. We can all avoid tax, even those of us on PAYE.
"Special deals" is just a tax office being pragmatic.

I'm sure you can point me to other cases of companies avoiding six billion in tax and then having by far the greater majority of it written off, what with it not being unique and everything.

Ah, ok, so when you said

"What is it about employing thousands of people that uniquely qualifies you to avoid paying your taxes and then have a special deal thrown at your feet years later rather than a summons?"

What you actually meant was a far more specific:
"What is it about employing thousands of people that uniquely qualifies you to avoid paying specifically $6b in tax and then have a special deal offered that writes the greater majority off, rather than a summons?"

In which case, that was quite unique, unlike general avoidance of tax.

I think given the context it would take an expert in avoiding the charitable interpretation to have avoided understanding what I meant. But then this is the sin bin, so such things are to be expected.

If Wayne Rooney did avoid paying some or all of his income tax, he would still be dodging a minuscule fraction of the amount the likes of Tesco and Vodafone dodge. They should [iall[/i pay what's due, but enforcement should start with those whose avoidance makes the most difference.

Oh, and, what vbfg said.

Does Rooney "dodge" tax? You make a bold, potentially libellous comment!

It wasn't my statement, actually. Standee made the assertion that Premiership footballers routinely dodge tax and used Wayne Rooney as an example. I just chose not to contest that point. I accept though, that for clarity my post should have began:

"If Rooney does in fact avoid tax..."

I'll edit it now.

Not really, not when you're asking why a unique situation with a unique company and a unique outcome, was not unique.

In the interests of balance, I am aware of one former CEO of a high street retail chain who put his entire £20m settlement package on his "retirement" through PAYE, thereby paying tax and Class 1 NIC on the lot - and have seen the payslip that went with it.

Being super-rich doesn't necessarily mean you're indulging in tax avoidance/mitigation/evasion.

Better to be safe than sorry.

I wasn't asking that, as evidenced by the words I used and the order in which I used them.

In which case the scenario is far from unique to companies that employ thousands.
So in answer to "What is it about employing thousands of people that uniquely qualifies you to avoid paying your taxes and then have a special deal thrown at your feet years later rather than a summons?" I'd say that employing thousands of people gives no unique qualification to avoid paying tax, nor is the avoidance of tax unique to those that employ thousands of people.

Did you ask to be moved to a commission based pay plan that day?

That's a little closer.

I thank you for answering the rhetorical question aimed at Standee in an entirely non-patronising way after driving all round the houses to avoid the kind of charitable interpretation that most human beings are eminently capable of even though the context was blindingly obvious. It's been a great help.

No it hasn't. Standee still didn't bother to reply to you.

I am still trying to get my head round the whole tax high earners thing.

Did we ever work out exactly what constitutes a high earner, and how much you have to be earning before you fit into this bracket?

We don't have to, HMRC does that for us.

But for what it's worth, I'd leave the tax rates as they currently are, apart from those earning more than £1 million per year. I'd tax them at 55%, rising at 1% increments every three months. Then when we see a downturn in receipts in one 1/4, we will have found the tipping point and we can drop it back 1% and leave it there.

And before the usual suspect(s) chime in with the "envy" allegation, I'm simply proposing we maximise our resources

I think tax at the higher rate kicks in at around £38,000. It then goes up to 50% if you are earning over £150,000, I think.

Someone earning the former figure in London, whilst trying to support a family, is really not that well off.

think the 40% band starts at 42K or thereabouts.

So, you raise the threshold before becoming eligible for tax, then everyone benefits and you tax the richest more to compensate. Then the lower paid benefit more proportionately, as does the economy because the lower paid will spend any extra insted of sqirreling it away. It's called fairness

The cigarettes, alcohol and petrol taxation model.

I couldn't bothered about reading eight pages worth of comment because I'd already heard from a respected economic commentator (the guy from The Times) that there is pretty much no evidence to suggest that cutting the top rate tax band will create jobs.

I'm not convinced that Standee responding to rhetorical questions is the deciding factor in whether or not something is helpful.