Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Corporate Welfare; Corps Leeching off Taxpayer
Topic Started: Nov 20 2015, 12:48 AM (856 Views)
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Then this sh1t happens, because the cash is wasted on corporate welfare and other needless bs.
Edited by skwirked, Nov 20 2015, 12:35 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Does anybody have some information about corporate welfare from a relatively non contentious source?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Nov 20 2015, 08:40 AM
Does anybody have some information about corporate welfare from a relatively non contentious source?
http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SPERI-Paper-24-The-British-Corporate-Welfare-State.pdf
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Beat me to it.

No such official data exists. It is only possible to read third party research based on govt stats.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Nov 20 2015, 08:47 AM
ACH1967
Nov 20 2015, 08:40 AM
Does anybody have some information about corporate welfare from a relatively non contentious source?
http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SPERI-Paper-24-The-British-Corporate-Welfare-State.pdf


Call me pedantic but ACH asked for a non contentious source. I shredded that report yesterday
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 20 2015, 09:27 AM


Call me pedantic but ACH asked for a non contentious source.
It is non contentious, just because it does not back up your thoughts on the subject you think it is.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Nov 20 2015, 09:29 AM
Steve K
Nov 20 2015, 09:27 AM


Call me pedantic but ACH asked for a non contentious source.
It is non contentious, just because it does not back up your thoughts on the subject you think it is.
Do you know what "contentious" means?

Here have some free education
Edited by Steve K, Nov 20 2015, 11:46 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Oddball
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Is there anything that is not contentious to at least some folks? Humanity, I would suggest, has never, well almost never, pissed happily into the same bucket.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 20 2015, 09:41 AM
Do you know what "contentious" means?
Yes I do thanks, and just what is your problem with the report I referenced?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
OK I will lower my expectations. How about something a bit balanced?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Nov 20 2015, 09:48 AM
Steve K
Nov 20 2015, 09:41 AM
Do you know what "contentious" means?
Yes I do thanks, and just what is your problem with the report I referenced?
As explained here http://w11.zetaboards.com/UK_Debate_Mk_2/topic/11419110/

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Nov 20 2015, 09:49 AM
OK I will lower my expectations. How about something a bit balanced?
I don't think you're going to find such. Some like our Sheffield report writer see corporation tax as a state subsidy on companies which to me is nutterism exemplified.




Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 20 2015, 10:56 AM
5 million extra people is not an explanation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Nov 20 2015, 11:04 AM
Steve K
Nov 20 2015, 10:56 AM
5 million extra people is not an explanation.
But this was

Quote:
 
The man's a nutter

Seems according to him we should end the welfare state as that's corporate welfare in his book. See his Figure 1. Some of his supposed 'sources' are highly contentious too.

He started with an agenda and never self challenged it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 20 2015, 11:06 AM
But this was

You did not link to that. As that video was not referenced data or research, it is a waste of time as evidence for anything.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Right!

What's contentious then?

Tax credits are a subsidy to help employers pay workers peanuts, so in effect a bung to employers? Y/N?

What sources were contentious then?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 20 2015, 11:59 AM
Right!

What's contentious then?

Tax credits are a subsidy to help employers pay workers peanuts, so in effect a bung to employers? Y/N?

What sources were contentious then?

Precisely. George Osborne by introducing a "living wage" is acknowledging it and stated it during his budget statement in the House of Commons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 20 2015, 11:59 AM
Right!

What's contentious then?

Tax credits are a subsidy to help employers pay workers peanuts, so in effect a bung to employers? Y/N?

What sources were contentious then?

So that’s one way of looking at it.
This is the problem I have always had with corporate welfare…On the face of it Tax Credits would seem like a bung but without them what would happen.
1 The employers would pay more.
2 The employers would call it a day and look elsewhere.
Instance 1 we win instance 2 we lose.
I go with 2 because I believe that Tax Credits just redistribute money to keep businesses in the UK that wouldn’t be able to compete otherwise (all about how do we keep low skilled below average bods meaningfully occupied in the face of globalisation).
That’s an opinion. Happy to discuss.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Actually it's a bit of both ACH, I think some SMEs on the breadline probably do survive with their workers on tax creds.

But it is a fact that big corporations with large profits use workers on tax creds too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Are Tax-Credits paid for by Corporation Taxes?

There has been no requests by Employers for a system of such credits, this was purely a political response to global competition. One could argue that without such then many companies will have already gone to the wall. One might even believe that if such companies cannot gain sufficient from customers to pay good wages then they should be allowed to enter the Knacker's Yard.

I do not believe we can eradicate such a mechanism to redistribute incomes from top to bottom, but we should take measures to ensure that these are balanced and we are not just prop[ping up low value businesses just to maintain jobs. This is a concern as the economy moves toward full employment which many Economists feel we are not far off.

Forcing up the NLW and reducing In-Work Credits is the correct strategy, but it will kill some jobs, hopefully this will cause increases in productivity across the economy and less low value adding jobs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 20 2015, 12:36 PM
. . but it will kill some jobs, . .
You say that like that would be a good thing

It would not, we need more in employment or we will spiral into the abyss



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 20 2015, 12:46 PM
RJD
Nov 20 2015, 12:36 PM
. . but it will kill some jobs, . .
You say that like that would be a good thing

It would not, we need more in employment or we will spiral into the abyss



Which sources were contentious then? The tax creds point is debatable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 20 2015, 12:15 PM
Actually it's a bit of both ACH, I think some SMEs on the breadline probably do survive with their workers on tax creds.

But it is a fact that big corporations with large profits use workers on tax creds too.
Thinking it through…tax credits distort the market. They were introduced to bring people out of poverty because the market wasn’t doing this because globalisation means low skilled workers are worth increasingly less.
The problem our low skilled workers live in a first world economy with first world costs of living. How do you deal with that without driving SME’s out of business or off shore?
Another issue is that this argument only really holds for exports. A good 50% of NMW workers are in hospitality, retail and cleaning. I think there is scope to do something here (hospitality and cleaning could be considered as domestic markets). Obviously this would have the unintended consequence of making low skilled workers move from export markets into domestic markets that would still hurt SME’s
Tax credits are a solution to a problem that is not likely to go away any time soon. Clipping it at the top end makes sense. Clipping it at the bottom end is ideological.
I am not sure I agree about large corps paying employees wages that need tax credits. They pay what the employees are worth to them. Alid pays it’s workers a living wage but it would appear they work them like dogs and in dodgy safety conditions.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 20 2015, 12:15 PM
Actually it's a bit of both ACH, I think some SMEs on the breadline probably do survive with their workers on tax creds.

But it is a fact that big corporations with large profits use workers on tax creds too.
Go on name one we can analyse

And remember that tax credits are not paid to the company but to the individual who is receiving a net wage. So the employer is net paying IE not receiving any corporate welfare.

I do encourage you to look at the facts of where the government gets and spends money

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 20 2015, 12:53 PM
skwirked
Nov 20 2015, 12:15 PM
Actually it's a bit of both ACH, I think some SMEs on the breadline probably do survive with their workers on tax creds.

But it is a fact that big corporations with large profits use workers on tax creds too.
Go on name one we can analyse

And remember that tax credits are not paid to the company but to the individual who is receiving a net wage. So the employer is net paying IE not receiving any corporate welfare.

I do encourage you to look at the facts of where the government gets and spends money

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/



Nice bit of patronising crap in that post.

Do you really think that PT workers on tax credits could afford to live without the top-ups given? Do you not think that the companies financially benefit from reducing workers rights, holding pay down as much as possible and by preventing career development.

IIRC Mitie offer contract cleaning services for LU and a lot of their workers are as I describe.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
It's really simple the company is only exploiting the situation if it is generating super normal profits.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Surely you agree that companies fiddle the figures and make profits look like losses?

I admit that proving such can be tough work. But I hope you will concede that it does happen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 20 2015, 01:37 PM
Surely you agree that companies fiddle the figures and make profits look like losses?

I admit that proving such can be tough work. But I hope you will concede that it does happen.
I do. But the only problem there is that we enter the realms of innuendo and insinuation. I accept that there will be firms that fiddle the figures. Basically this is illegal. But until they are found to be doing so there is no proof only the belief, that in all fairness, some companies will be engaging in illegal activities. As you say, unfortunately this may be difficult to prove and as it is your assertion you should be the one to prove it.

Moving away from that we can argue that it is a question of how many do this. I have the stronger position as I can say it is a few and support his by saying so far you haven’t proven that any are doing this. But because I am not going to be a knob I will just stick with the fact that I suspect it is a few but would be more than happy for those who police such things to be strengthened.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 20 2015, 12:46 PM
RJD
Nov 20 2015, 12:36 PM
. . but it will kill some jobs, . .
You say that like that would be a good thing

It would not, we need more in employment or we will spiral into the abyss



There will be a churn as people move from failing low value adding companies to better paid jobs, it is inevitable if we truly wish to force through higher wage rates. So in an economic sense a good thing, for some individuals who do not wish to change or find they cannot a bad thing. One has to be dispassionate about these matters otherwise nothing will get done.

In terms of getting things done I note borrowing in October was up.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Nov 20 2015, 01:27 PM
It's really simple the company is only exploiting the situation if it is generating super normal profits.
Could someone point out those companies with super normal profits as I have a few Bob which I would love to invest for an excellent return.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 20 2015, 01:37 PM
Surely you agree that companies fiddle the figures and make profits look like losses?

I admit that proving such can be tough work. But I hope you will concede that it does happen.
How does one fiddle such figures in Accounts that must be audited by Law and duly filed? Such is illegal. So what methods do they use to blindside Accountants?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Nov 20 2015, 01:56 PM
skwirked
Nov 20 2015, 01:37 PM
Surely you agree that companies fiddle the figures and make profits look like losses?

I admit that proving such can be tough work. But I hope you will concede that it does happen.
I do. But the only problem there is that we enter the realms of innuendo and insinuation. I accept that there will be firms that fiddle the figures. Basically this is illegal. But until they are found to be doing so there is no proof only the belief, that in all fairness, some companies will be engaging in illegal activities. As you say, unfortunately this may be difficult to prove and as it is your assertion you should be the one to prove it.

Moving away from that we can argue that it is a question of how many do this. I have the stronger position as I can say it is a few and support his by saying so far you haven’t proven that any are doing this. But because I am not going to be a knob I will just stick with the fact that I suspect it is a few but would be more than happy for those who police such things to be strengthened.
I have co-signed dozens of Company Accounts over the years and recall many an argument with Accountants who always appeared to side with ultra-caution in establishing the various provisions they wanted in the Balance Sheet, for just about everything, everyone plus his sister and Aunt. CEOs generally do not like to understate profits, if anything they would like to over state them. I cannot recall a circumstance where the actual level of profitability was depressed.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Nov 20 2015, 01:56 PM
skwirked
Nov 20 2015, 01:37 PM
Surely you agree that companies fiddle the figures and make profits look like losses?

I admit that proving such can be tough work. But I hope you will concede that it does happen.
I do. But the only problem there is that we enter the realms of innuendo and insinuation. I accept that there will be firms that fiddle the figures. Basically this is illegal. But until they are found to be doing so there is no proof only the belief, that in all fairness, some companies will be engaging in illegal activities. As you say, unfortunately this may be difficult to prove and as it is your assertion you should be the one to prove it.

Moving away from that we can argue that it is a question of how many do this. I have the stronger position as I can say it is a few and support his by saying so far you haven’t proven that any are doing this. But because I am not going to be a knob I will just stick with the fact that I suspect it is a few but would be more than happy for those who police such things to be strengthened.


http://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2015/jul/04/firms-paying-poor-wages-benefit-cheats-tax-credits#img-1

RJD
Nov 20 2015, 02:41 PM
ACH1967
Nov 20 2015, 01:56 PM
skwirked
Nov 20 2015, 01:37 PM
Surely you agree that companies fiddle the figures and make profits look like losses?

I admit that proving such can be tough work. But I hope you will concede that it does happen.
I do. But the only problem there is that we enter the realms of innuendo and insinuation. I accept that there will be firms that fiddle the figures. Basically this is illegal. But until they are found to be doing so there is no proof only the belief, that in all fairness, some companies will be engaging in illegal activities. As you say, unfortunately this may be difficult to prove and as it is your assertion you should be the one to prove it.

Moving away from that we can argue that it is a question of how many do this. I have the stronger position as I can say it is a few and support his by saying so far you haven’t proven that any are doing this. But because I am not going to be a knob I will just stick with the fact that I suspect it is a few but would be more than happy for those who police such things to be strengthened.
I have co-signed dozens of Company Accounts over the years and recall many an argument with Accountants who always appeared to side with ultra-caution in establishing the various provisions they wanted in the Balance Sheet, for just about everything, everyone plus his sister and Aunt. CEOs generally do not like to understate profits, if anything they would like to over state them. I cannot recall a circumstance where the actual level of profitability was depressed.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourbusiness/3545218/Ten-top-tips-for-companies-to-minimise-corporation-tax-at-the-year-end.html

Fair play re your experience maybe you were more honest.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-2534610/British-oil-gas-companies-need-come-clean-reveal-profits-taxes-says-Christian-Aid-chief-economic-justice.html

Too many more links so dont wish to waste your time.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 20 2015, 01:04 PM
Steve K
Nov 20 2015, 12:53 PM
skwirked
Nov 20 2015, 12:15 PM
Actually it's a bit of both ACH, I think some SMEs on the breadline probably do survive with their workers on tax creds.

But it is a fact that big corporations with large profits use workers on tax creds too.
Go on name one we can analyse

And remember that tax credits are not paid to the company but to the individual who is receiving a net wage. So the employer is net paying IE not receiving any corporate welfare.

I do encourage you to look at the facts of where the government gets and spends money

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/



Nice bit of patronising crap in that post.

.
:nono:

"Do you really think that PT workers on tax credits could afford to live without the top-ups given?" Not really

"Do you not think that the companies financially benefit from reducing workers rights, holding pay down as much as possible and by preventing career development."That's a 'have I stopped beating my wife' question.

"IIRC Mitie offer contract cleaning services for LU and a lot of their workers are as I describe" And you think 4% net profit after tax is massive? It's not atypical but it's thin. Competition works.

skwirked
Nov 20 2015, 01:37 PM
Surely you agree that companies fiddle the figures and make profits look like losses? . .
A few, mainly the small companies not on the FTSE 250, may do. The historical issue with large companies has been inflating profits to keep investors happy. Loads of examples I could quote.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 20 2015, 02:49 PM
ACH1967
Nov 20 2015, 01:56 PM
skwirked
Nov 20 2015, 01:37 PM
Surely you agree that companies fiddle the figures and make profits look like losses?

I admit that proving such can be tough work. But I hope you will concede that it does happen.
I do. But the only problem there is that we enter the realms of innuendo and insinuation. I accept that there will be firms that fiddle the figures. Basically this is illegal. But until they are found to be doing so there is no proof only the belief, that in all fairness, some companies will be engaging in illegal activities. As you say, unfortunately this may be difficult to prove and as it is your assertion you should be the one to prove it.

Moving away from that we can argue that it is a question of how many do this. I have the stronger position as I can say it is a few and support his by saying so far you haven’t proven that any are doing this. But because I am not going to be a knob I will just stick with the fact that I suspect it is a few but would be more than happy for those who police such things to be strengthened.


http://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2015/jul/04/firms-paying-poor-wages-benefit-cheats-tax-credits#img-1

RJD
Nov 20 2015, 02:41 PM
ACH1967
Nov 20 2015, 01:56 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
I have co-signed dozens of Company Accounts over the years and recall many an argument with Accountants who always appeared to side with ultra-caution in establishing the various provisions they wanted in the Balance Sheet, for just about everything, everyone plus his sister and Aunt. CEOs generally do not like to understate profits, if anything they would like to over state them. I cannot recall a circumstance where the actual level of profitability was depressed.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourbusiness/3545218/Ten-top-tips-for-companies-to-minimise-corporation-tax-at-the-year-end.html

Fair play re your experience maybe you were more honest.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-2534610/British-oil-gas-companies-need-come-clean-reveal-profits-taxes-says-Christian-Aid-chief-economic-justice.html

Too many more links so dont wish to waste your time.

Well I opened up your first link and found nothing to support your claim, so I did not bother with the rest. Are you aping another regular here whose links generally are a complete wast of time?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
"Maximise use of tax losses

Be aware of the options available with regard to any losses. For example a previously profit making company could carry back losses to the previous year and secure a tax refund. The Chancellor recently announced that up to £50,000 of trading losses can be carried back against profits earned up to three years ago. In addition to securing a cash flow advantage, losses may be relieved at the higher rate of corporation tax of 30pc rather than 28pc going forward."

Enough now. Please stick me on ignore if you wish, I no longer wish to engage with your rantings, our conversations are a waste of both of our time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 20 2015, 03:15 PM
skwirked
Nov 20 2015, 01:04 PM
Steve K
Nov 20 2015, 12:53 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deephttp://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/



Nice bit of patronising crap in that post.

.
:nono:

"Do you really think that PT workers on tax credits could afford to live without the top-ups given?" Not really

"Do you not think that the companies financially benefit from reducing workers rights, holding pay down as much as possible and by preventing career development."That's a 'have I stopped beating my wife' question.

"IIRC Mitie offer contract cleaning services for LU and a lot of their workers are as I describe" And you think 4% net profit after tax is massive? It's not atypical but it's thin. Competition works.

skwirked
Nov 20 2015, 01:37 PM
Surely you agree that companies fiddle the figures and make profits look like losses? . .
A few, mainly the small companies not on the FTSE 250, may do. The historical issue with large companies has been inflating profits to keep investors happy. Loads of examples I could quote.
Steve:

I see. So 'competition works' for the S American cleaners does it?


""Do you not think that the companies financially benefit from reducing workers rights, holding pay down as much as possible and by preventing career development."

That's a 'have I stopped beating my wife' question."

It is? It's more 'bleedin obvious' to me.

"A few, mainly the small companies not on the FTSE 250, may do. The historical issue with large companies has been inflating profits to keep investors happy. Loads of examples I could quote."

True, that does happen and I've seen examples also.

This may interest and seems to partially support my claim:

http://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2015/jul/04/firms-paying-poor-wages-benefit-cheats-tax-credits#img-1

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]

If a company goes under, an SME no longer able to trade because of an increase in the NMW, does that mean that the work they do (did), the role they have (had) disappears with them?
To those that say 'yes', I say 'you know nothing about business'.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonksy
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Nov 20 2015, 08:40 AM
Does anybody have some information about corporate welfare from a relatively non contentious source?

New research reveals the scope of the ‘British Corporate Welfare State’


A pioneering study by a University of York academic estimates the value of Government support to businesses through corporate welfare could be worth as much as £180 billion a year.

The report, by Dr Kevin Farnsworth, of the University’s Department of Social Policy and Social Work which is published today, examines the extent of corporate welfare as well as estimating the potential cost or value of the various forms of public provision for private businesses.

Dr Farnsworth, using 2012-2013 as a snapshot year, estimates that subsidies, capital grants, tax benefits, insurance and advocacy as well as transport, energy and procurement subsidies to be worth around £93bn per year.

https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2015/research/corporate-welfare-state/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 20 2015, 02:34 PM
skwirked
Nov 20 2015, 01:37 PM
Surely you agree that companies fiddle the figures and make profits look like losses?

I admit that proving such can be tough work. But I hope you will concede that it does happen.
How does one fiddle such figures in Accounts that must be audited by Law and duly filed? Such is illegal. So what methods do they use to blindside Accountants?
Tax havens? Not heard of them then? You know the sort of thing, trade in one country and pay tax in another?

I pay more percentage wise in tax than do both Google and Amazon, and no one is not an opticians and the other a large river in South America.

File under serial ignorati.........
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply