Welcome to the forum. Although you can post in any forum, the USA forum is here in case of local regs or laws
prehaps labour and snp should read this ?
- Thread starter lame plumber
- Start date
-
- Tags
- None
View the thread, titled "prehaps labour and snp should read this ?" which is posted in UK Plumbers Forums on UK Plumbers Forums.
G
Gray0689
Smoke and mirrors
The amount of benefit fraud if you believe it's as little as that your very disillusioned my friend
The amount of benefit fraud if you believe it's as little as that your very disillusioned my friend
L
lame plumber
prehaps it would be good for the rest of us if Scotland were to go independant, best of all they can take on their banks debt of £133 billion themselves, I for one am ****ed off at having to support RBS.
might be worth a read sir 😉
Why did the banks only become Scottish ? after they failed? : Business for Scotland.
L
lame plumber
least you got the Sir bit right......... 🙂
Over in Ireland, d minister for finance was saying about when d country would get back to full employment. He said that'd never would cos some on d dole are allergic to work.
He got loads of grief over it, but fair play to him he didn't apologise.
There's still people coming to Ireland from elsewhere picking up jobs.
It's too cushy on d dole here. I say if ye worked and lost work ye should get loadsa help. Otherwise yer dole should be cut. I think it's about €200 dole for a single lad in Ireland a week. That doesn't include rent allowance.
To b honest, I've worked every day of me life, but sometimes I feel work is for mugs
He got loads of grief over it, but fair play to him he didn't apologise.
There's still people coming to Ireland from elsewhere picking up jobs.
It's too cushy on d dole here. I say if ye worked and lost work ye should get loadsa help. Otherwise yer dole should be cut. I think it's about €200 dole for a single lad in Ireland a week. That doesn't include rent allowance.
To b honest, I've worked every day of me life, but sometimes I feel work is for mugs
Work is not for mugs. Work is for peeps who take pride in themselves and want to make something of their lives. As for politicians not taking action against big companies that operate tax avoidance schemes, there is a good reason for that. Imagine if some big company says to the government: 'If you insist we pay this tax, our shareholders dividends will be down by 90%. We will just go ahead and close 300 stores leading to 5,000 staff being laid off work'.
Politician realises that these 5,000 laid off staff will have to claim some sort of benefit from the government. Unemployment figures will soar. That, is what no politician wants to be able to explain to it's people why they are out of work. Infact, governments have been known to pay ''investors'' to take on a supposedly failing company just so staff can be in employment. Eventually, the said investors strip the assets making as much money as they can for themselves and run off.
I agree with ye village. Hav worked all my life. Wouldn't change it but ye must get a pain in your rocks paying all d taxes going while some sit on their hands and it all comes to them
G
Gray0689
Have you ever taken any cash for a job and not declared it?
G
Gray0689
See your the same only on a smaller scale
G
Gray0689
As much as I thought this conversation was dead and buried weeks ago, I agree with voivid.
Companies like Starbucks avoid paying tax by over charging themselves for royalties in the UK business from countries with lower tax systems. The result is they make a loss on paper in the UK, but massive profits in other regions with a lower tax bill.
That's just wrong and sees us out of pocket by millions of pounds.
There's so much of it going on it is unreal.
Companies like Starbucks avoid paying tax by over charging themselves for royalties in the UK business from countries with lower tax systems. The result is they make a loss on paper in the UK, but massive profits in other regions with a lower tax bill.
That's just wrong and sees us out of pocket by millions of pounds.
There's so much of it going on it is unreal.
L
lame plumber
so those in office need to sortr it out, they made a start just need to finish it off now
M
Masood
The fact is that what they are doing is actually legal. What we need is for the government to close those loopholes. As for the companies' threats to leave the UK, well we need to call their bluff. They would not disappear, as they make money here and making money is the reason companies exist...
The true cost of people that are being described as "poor" that are on unemployment or disability benefits, etc, are surely much higher than imagined.
Okay, some are on a couple of thousand in a year of extra money, but then there's the other extreme of families getting tens of thousands on benefits.
Got to remember that benefits can include free dental treatment, one off payments for essential items, free legal costs (often massive!) etc. Many of these real costs are invisible in government figures.
It would be no exaggeration for one individual to cost the UK a few hundred thousand in a year. Drugs, booze, laziness, violence, other criminal behaviour such as theft, vandalism, child issues - (custody, contact orders, social worker involvement, courts, barristers, judges, solicitors letters, etc), police costs. Take your pick.
Multiply all these "poor" people's real benefits up & it will amount to several of the big companies supposed tax dodges.
Okay, some are on a couple of thousand in a year of extra money, but then there's the other extreme of families getting tens of thousands on benefits.
Got to remember that benefits can include free dental treatment, one off payments for essential items, free legal costs (often massive!) etc. Many of these real costs are invisible in government figures.
It would be no exaggeration for one individual to cost the UK a few hundred thousand in a year. Drugs, booze, laziness, violence, other criminal behaviour such as theft, vandalism, child issues - (custody, contact orders, social worker involvement, courts, barristers, judges, solicitors letters, etc), police costs. Take your pick.
Multiply all these "poor" people's real benefits up & it will amount to several of the big companies supposed tax dodges.
Last edited:
nope.....think you are wrong. All our business is electronically billed and paid for . So think you might be wrong ....again 😉
G
Gray0689
Absolutely agree. But then when the prime minister himself benefits from off shore accounts what incentive is there for change?
Both ends of the social scale are an equal burden on the average joe, the rich and the lazy.
Maybe the solution is a nationwide working mans (and women) strike and see the country grind to a halt?
Agreed. The likes of Amazon and Starbucks should be hit for more tax. The threat of leaving the UK is not really a problem in my eyes as they are usually the companies that employ people on minimum wage and zero hour contracts. They also take a lot of money from smaller companies (I know it is only business) but if they were to leave people would still shop on the internet but use a company that may treat their employees like human beings, and coffee shops wouldn't vanish forever little chains will start opening up.
I hate Starbucks
R
Ray Stafford
A few points.
1) Tackling tax evasion and reforming the benefit system are not mutually exclusive. We have HMRC working on the former and the DWP working on the latter. We should not defend abusers of one system by seeking to divert attention to abusers of the other.
2) The overall scale of illegal tax evasion is wildly overstated by many commentators. [DLMURL="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/364009/4382_Measuring_Tax_Gaps_2014_IW_v4B_accessible_20141014.pdf"]HMRC figures[/DLMURL] produced to the same rules under both colour governments show the total tax gap (the difference between what they think is genuinely due, and what is actually collected) steady at about £34billion plus or minus £3billion for every year since fiscal year 2005/6. As a proportion of the total, it has fallen slightly from around 8.5% to about 6.8%.
3) Of that total, HMRC estimate that large businesses are responsible for £9.3bn, substantially less than the £15bn attributed to small and medium sized businesses. The balance is made up of criminal activity and individuals.
4) A powerful force in reducing corporate tax avoidance (thats the legal kind) is not aggressive enforcement, but the steady reduction in UK corporation tax rates. Most corporate tax schemes do not seek to avoid tax altogether, but to move it from a high tax jurisdiction to a low tax jurisdiction. Back in 2010, the UK corporation tax was 28% - one of the highest of the developed countries. (The US is nominally high, but so riddled with exemptions that the effective rate is much lower). As the UK rate has been progressively lowered to 20% (now one of the lowest), the incentive to create tax avoidance schemes has reduced, and indeed may even have reversed, so multinationals may be moving profits into the UK to take advantage of the lower rate. As corporate structures move at least a year (and often 2 or 3 years) behind the tax changes, we may not yet have seen the full scale of the benefits of this. However, it is entirely possible (even probable) that in the long run, the total tax take from the lower rate may exceed the take from the previous higher rate - bearing in mind the incentives to avoid the latter.
5) The directors of companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to take all legal measures to maximise long term shareholder value. This includes taking professional accountancy advice to minimise tax liabilities, so long as this is within the law.
This last point resonates particularly strongly with me, as the director of a £multi-million company. Unlike many companies, my shareholders are not wealthy individuals, hedge-funds or any of the other political bogey-men. My shareholders are all either current employees, or recently retired employees of the business. And I can absolutely assure you that the lad in the warehouse who sold his motorbike to buy £1000 worth of shares, or the girl in the accounts team paying for her shares out of salary deductions, no more wants to share dividend income or capital gain with the chancellor than anyone else. Which is why they hold their shares in a government approved scheme which reduces their tax liability.
Does that make them part of the problem? Or part of the solution?
🙂
1) Tackling tax evasion and reforming the benefit system are not mutually exclusive. We have HMRC working on the former and the DWP working on the latter. We should not defend abusers of one system by seeking to divert attention to abusers of the other.
2) The overall scale of illegal tax evasion is wildly overstated by many commentators. [DLMURL="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/364009/4382_Measuring_Tax_Gaps_2014_IW_v4B_accessible_20141014.pdf"]HMRC figures[/DLMURL] produced to the same rules under both colour governments show the total tax gap (the difference between what they think is genuinely due, and what is actually collected) steady at about £34billion plus or minus £3billion for every year since fiscal year 2005/6. As a proportion of the total, it has fallen slightly from around 8.5% to about 6.8%.
3) Of that total, HMRC estimate that large businesses are responsible for £9.3bn, substantially less than the £15bn attributed to small and medium sized businesses. The balance is made up of criminal activity and individuals.
4) A powerful force in reducing corporate tax avoidance (thats the legal kind) is not aggressive enforcement, but the steady reduction in UK corporation tax rates. Most corporate tax schemes do not seek to avoid tax altogether, but to move it from a high tax jurisdiction to a low tax jurisdiction. Back in 2010, the UK corporation tax was 28% - one of the highest of the developed countries. (The US is nominally high, but so riddled with exemptions that the effective rate is much lower). As the UK rate has been progressively lowered to 20% (now one of the lowest), the incentive to create tax avoidance schemes has reduced, and indeed may even have reversed, so multinationals may be moving profits into the UK to take advantage of the lower rate. As corporate structures move at least a year (and often 2 or 3 years) behind the tax changes, we may not yet have seen the full scale of the benefits of this. However, it is entirely possible (even probable) that in the long run, the total tax take from the lower rate may exceed the take from the previous higher rate - bearing in mind the incentives to avoid the latter.
5) The directors of companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to take all legal measures to maximise long term shareholder value. This includes taking professional accountancy advice to minimise tax liabilities, so long as this is within the law.
This last point resonates particularly strongly with me, as the director of a £multi-million company. Unlike many companies, my shareholders are not wealthy individuals, hedge-funds or any of the other political bogey-men. My shareholders are all either current employees, or recently retired employees of the business. And I can absolutely assure you that the lad in the warehouse who sold his motorbike to buy £1000 worth of shares, or the girl in the accounts team paying for her shares out of salary deductions, no more wants to share dividend income or capital gain with the chancellor than anyone else. Which is why they hold their shares in a government approved scheme which reduces their tax liability.
Does that make them part of the problem? Or part of the solution?
🙂
Last edited by a moderator:
That makes them part of the solution.
BTW, try and get some sleep Ray. What are you doing up so late? Trying to avoid keeping the missus warm are we?😉
R
Ray Stafford
The trouble is that you can't have "good tax avoiders" and "bad tax avoiders". You can only have "tax avoiders" (legal) and "tax evaders" (illegal). An attempt to create an additional class of businesses that are correctly doing their legal duty to shareholders, but are excoriated by commentators and the general public is just a return to the politics of envy.
Working late VI, and taking a few minutes to unwind. 🙂
M
Masood
It makes them capitalist fat cat scum, of course. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, wanting to better themselves by working hard and investing in their future. Wanting to create financial security for themselves! How very dare they!
Throughout time since taxes began it has always hit the people willing to take a risk and invest in themselves.
Thus tax avoidance has been around just as long
When poll tax was introduced back when we were fighting the French. It was 12 shillings per head but the average wage was 4 shillings per day so in order to make it fairer the poorest would be financially helped by there slightly more affluent neighbours. All fine when it's one or two people but it wasn't you were looking at upto 100 people needing your financial aid. At the time it was the Lord of the land responsible for collecting these taxes and being part of the community and friends with many would help to hide villagers. One village in Essex had 38000 residents on one census but by the second poll tax dropped to around 20000. First example of tax avoidance.
Then came the window tax, as windows were easier to count then people.9 windows was the maximum you could have on the lower threshold each window above that was a shilling each. Guess what? People started blocking their windows up! The window tax was actually the start of the tax system as we know it. It sore the introduction of official tax collectors and the banding of windows definition of what was a window etc a huge fines if you were found to be unblocking windows after your inspection.
But the best example of fair taxing across the board being beneficial for everyone involved is the tea tax!
Originally set at 112% no one could afford it. And no tax was raised from it. An illegal trade started and people were hung for it.
Twinings successfully argued the case that if the tax was reduced to 12% although the income would be less per purchase the quantity of purchasing would be higher thus increasing revenue. The king agreed at tea went from next to no sales to 1,000,000 pounds (weight) in about 2 years.
Thus tax avoidance has been around just as long
When poll tax was introduced back when we were fighting the French. It was 12 shillings per head but the average wage was 4 shillings per day so in order to make it fairer the poorest would be financially helped by there slightly more affluent neighbours. All fine when it's one or two people but it wasn't you were looking at upto 100 people needing your financial aid. At the time it was the Lord of the land responsible for collecting these taxes and being part of the community and friends with many would help to hide villagers. One village in Essex had 38000 residents on one census but by the second poll tax dropped to around 20000. First example of tax avoidance.
Then came the window tax, as windows were easier to count then people.9 windows was the maximum you could have on the lower threshold each window above that was a shilling each. Guess what? People started blocking their windows up! The window tax was actually the start of the tax system as we know it. It sore the introduction of official tax collectors and the banding of windows definition of what was a window etc a huge fines if you were found to be unblocking windows after your inspection.
But the best example of fair taxing across the board being beneficial for everyone involved is the tea tax!
Originally set at 112% no one could afford it. And no tax was raised from it. An illegal trade started and people were hung for it.
Twinings successfully argued the case that if the tax was reduced to 12% although the income would be less per purchase the quantity of purchasing would be higher thus increasing revenue. The king agreed at tea went from next to no sales to 1,000,000 pounds (weight) in about 2 years.
K
kirkgas
Plenty voters realised they don't want wee nippy holding labour by the balls, so they voted tactically to keep her out of power, shows you how much they are hated that some people would rather the Tories were in charge haha
Snp want Independance and will do whatever they think will get it, disappointing the majority who voted NO to independance are being ignored, bit it's not a surprise
Snp want Independance and will do whatever they think will get it, disappointing the majority who voted NO to independance are being ignored, bit it's not a surprise
Was no mention EVER of independence in this campaign....apart frae the other parties.
If labour had got in...snp were trying to end this dumb bum austerity con. It wasnt a way to stop paying back the money...it was to make it pay back at a lower rate over a longer time ..so that services wouldnt be cut so bad...heyho some people fell for the con .
ps wonder why Georgie boy is saying hes gona have an emergency budget soon.....prepare for the BIG CUTS to start .
stop bailing out all the big companies ...you say they employ...true ...most on pish wages.
but the tax they should be paying is more of the issue..
If they paid people a bigger wage...in turn they would spend more...in turn we all would make more money.
Just my way off thinking anyway 😉
pps see the Icelanders have just jailed some of the 'B'ankers who caused their crash...wonder if they will do thjat here....and dont get me started on the 'libor theives either 😉
Hae a guid nicht all ...tomorrows a new day 🙂
G
Gray0689
I wish there was I dislike button lol
Official Sponsors of Plumbers Talk
Reply to the thread, titled "prehaps labour and snp should read this ?" which is posted in UK Plumbers Forums on Plumbers Forums.
Similar plumbing topics
We recommend City Plumbing Supplies, BES, and Plumbing Superstore for all plumbing supplies.
