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 (857 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
 
Replies:
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 20 2015, 11:19 PM
File under serial ignorati.........
Don't be so hard on yourself. Just read the post you were responding to and it will be easier to get it right

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
I'm just disappointed I'm not the recipient of corporate welfare, hopefully the bitterness in my post did not spoil any ones enjoyment of it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 20 2015, 11:43 PM
I'm just disappointed I'm not the recipient of corporate welfare, hopefully the bitterness in my post did not spoil any ones enjoyment of it.
According to that daft Sheffield report you are.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
This book from the hk institute of bankers says '[SME] turnover and profits are usually understated for tax reasons'.

Link.

The FT also mentions such.

I think corporations in certain sectors have been proven to understate profits where there is a clear motive to do so. My links appear to prove this.

In the main, corps overstating profits would seem prudent in order to obtain confidence in the boardroom and from investors/min shareholders.
Edited by skwirked, Nov 21 2015, 07:01 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 20 2015, 05:31 PM
"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.
Clear enough. It says utilise them not as you inferred go out and create them. Nothing new in using up accrued Tax Losses but CEO do not go out to create such and expect to survive in that dog eat dog World.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 21 2015, 06:59 AM
This book from the hk institute of bankers says '[SME] turnover and profits are usually understated for tax reasons'.

Link.

The FT also mentions such.

I think corporations in certain sectors have been proven to understate profits where there is a clear motive to do so. My links appear to prove this.

In the main, corps overstating profits would seem prudent in order to obtain confidence in the boardroom and from investors/min shareholders.
You are confused. Accounts are audited by Accountants then filed for examination by Joe Public. Accounts are just an opinion and the final one is down to those auditing such and these tend to be over cautious. Hence those that throw caution to the wind would/could claim profits understated, but that to is just an opinion. Custom and practice is to believe what Auditors put their name and reputations on. That said there have, from time to time, been corrupt Auditors in the pockets of CEOs, but in each and every case it appears the objective was to deceive with exaggerated claims of profitability.

On top of all this there is an army of Analysts across the country, scrutinising such Accounts and the trends in such, for reasons of making or checking investment risks. If you have ever read a Balance Sheet you would know there are very few places to hide and those bolt holes, the Provisions, must be accompanied with notes of explanation. It really is very difficult to stash away from view any significant amounts of treasure, the opposite is easier.

So if you have evidence of such fraud with the objective to deceive with significant understatements of profitability then put them up. If not just more wild unsubstantiated opinion.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 21 2015, 06:59 AM
This book from the hk institute of bankers says '[SME] turnover and profits are usually understated for tax reasons'.

Link.

The FT also mentions such. . .
Do you have the FT link or equivalent as that book is about Hong Kong
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 21 2015, 08:56 AM
skwirked
Nov 21 2015, 06:59 AM
This book from the hk institute of bankers says '[SME] turnover and profits are usually understated for tax reasons'.

Link.

The FT also mentions such.

I think corporations in certain sectors have been proven to understate profits where there is a clear motive to do so. My links appear to prove this.

In the main, corps overstating profits would seem prudent in order to obtain confidence in the boardroom and from investors/min shareholders.
You are confused. Accounts are audited by Accountants then filed for examination by Joe Public. Accounts are just an opinion and the final one is down to those auditing such and these tend to be over cautious. Hence those that throw caution to the wind would/could claim profits understated, but that to is just an opinion. Custom and practice is to believe what Auditors put their name and reputations on. That said there have, from time to time, been corrupt Auditors in the pockets of CEOs, but in each and every case it appears the objective was to deceive with exaggerated claims of profitability.

On top of all this there is an army of Analysts across the country, scrutinising such Accounts and the trends in such, for reasons of making or checking investment risks. If you have ever read a Balance Sheet you would know there are very few places to hide and those bolt holes, the Provisions, must be accompanied with notes of explanation. It really is very difficult to stash away from view any significant amounts of treasure, the opposite is easier.

So if you have evidence of such fraud with the objective to deceive with significant understatements of profitability then put them up. If not just more wild unsubstantiated opinion.



:facepalm: I inferred that companies should create losses did I. God give me strength..

And thanks but I know what auditors and accountants do, in fact I never made mention of either but you appear to be taking a veiled pop at me, rather than debating the links I put up. Why might that be?

Further, check out the Osborne and Little thread again. That's a perfect example of hiding profits and overstating losses.

And here's one company:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ed52c9e6-263f-11df-aff3-00144feabdc0.html
Edited by skwirked, Nov 21 2015, 11:48 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Some companies manage profit statements for short term purposes and auditing is never perfect

But to say that deliberate or significant mis reporting of profits in large companies is a widespread evil would be wrong.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
This may interest:

http://www.goodmanjones.com/blog/2014/09/hmrc-misstated-profits/

http://blogs.ft.com/andrew-smithers/tag/profits/ (US rules)



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 21 2015, 11:53 AM
Yes we know Tescos overstated profits and inevitably paid extra tax.

As I said, if anything there is an issue that PLC companies over state profits to keep investors happy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
You do have a tendency to read the first part of links. Surely ctrl+f-ing the relevant phrases is a better way..?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 21 2015, 06:59 AM
This book from the hk institute of bankers says '[SME] turnover and profits are usually understated for tax reasons'.

Link.

The FT also mentions such.

I think corporations in certain sectors have been proven to understate profits where there is a clear motive to do so. My links appear to prove this.

In the main, corps overstating profits would seem prudent in order to obtain confidence in the boardroom and from investors/min shareholders.

Off Topic, but our Chancellor too is skilled at fiddling the accounts in order to deceive the public.
Politically disreputable, morally reprehensible!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 21 2015, 12:33 PM
You do have a tendency to read the first part of links. Surely ctrl+f-ing the relevant phrases is a better way..?
skwirked
Nov 20 2015, 01:37 PM
Surely you agree that companies fiddle the figures and make profits look like losses?.
Still think that broad brush condemnation is true?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
-
Edited by skwirked, Nov 21 2015, 12:53 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
No but then I never said every company is at it did I? I also said it is tough to prove did I not?

Then I gave you a link from an accountantancy/law firm that refers to HMRC's suspicion that such may be widespread.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 21 2015, 11:46 AM


But to say that deliberate or significant mis reporting of profits in large companies is a widespread evil would be wrong.
We probably don't know the true extent of any mis reporting because many large companies have highly complex tax, accounting and balance sheet set ups that defy proper scrutiny, an article in the Guardian on the 12 May 2013 laid bare the extent of this practice, of the then top 100 FTSE companies 98 of them were operating schemes likely to facilitate tax avoidance and thus full scrutiny of the accounts! So yes it is widespread and is corporate welfare via the back door.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Just to re-iterate a big point:

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

Very profitable companies paying workers low wages with almost no rights, with WTC top-ups.

I still see that the sources in the actual report remain unchallenged.

Here's the article tig refers to: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/12/ftse-100-use-tax-havens-full-list

Here's some more good uns:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/12/uk-companies-condemned-tax-havens

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/17/tax-avoidance-distorts-market

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/09/100-richest-uk-billions-offshore-tax-havens

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/oct/11/ftse-100-subsidiaries-tax-havens

Feel free to ignore all that...  ::)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
skw you said;
Quote:
 
Surely you agree that companies fiddle the figures and make profits look like losses?


Maybe your words are not clear for you but they are for me. I just pointed out what an idiotic generalisation that was and I doubt that you can even read a Balance Sheet or understand an iota of what Accounting and Bookkeeping is all about.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 21 2015, 05:24 PM
skw you said;
Quote:
 
Surely you agree that companies fiddle the figures and make profits look like losses?


Maybe your words are not clear for you but they are for me. I just pointed out what an idiotic generalisation that was and I doubt that you can even read a Balance Sheet or understand an iota of what Accounting and Bookkeeping is all about.


Examples were given. I doubt your reading comprehension and your ability to make reasoned arguments most of the time and going on your posts, I've no idea how you survived in business, perhaps you got lucky like Lord Sugar of Amstraddled?
Edited by skwirked, Nov 21 2015, 09:06 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 21 2015, 07:56 PM
RJD
Nov 21 2015, 05:24 PM
skw you said;
Quote:
 
Surely you agree that companies fiddle the figures and make profits look like losses?


Maybe your words are not clear for you but they are for me. I just pointed out what an idiotic generalisation that was and I doubt that you can even read a Balance Sheet or understand an iota of what Accounting and Bookkeeping is all about.


Examples were given. I doubt your reading comprehension and your ability to make reasoned arguments most of the time and going on your posts, I've no idea how you survived in business, perhaps you got lucky like Lord Sugar of Amstraddled?
No they were not. You think they were, but that is down to your ignorance. Recommending that companies use tax losses effectively does not mean go out and generate them. Professional Financial Directors and their Accountants recommend construction Accounts, within the Laws, that are financially the best for the company and it's Shareholders.
skw you really are out of your depth on this forum.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
That is a laughably stupid claim to make.

Quote me where I said "businesses generate losses". If I am out of my depth here, then you must be completely unable to swim. I really have had enough of your seeming non-stop BS misrepresentation, spin and factual inaccuracies. It's on nearly every thread!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 22 2015, 12:06 PM
That is a laughably stupid claim to make.

Quote me where I said "businesses generate losses". If I am out of my depth here, then you must be completely unable to swim. I really have had enough of your seeming non-stop BS misrepresentation, spin and factual inaccuracies. It's on nearly every thread!
You said: Surely you agree that companies fiddle the figures and make profits look like losses?

Do you recognise your words? Do you understand what they mean? Due you understand that it is legal and a very sensible thing to do for a company to use accrued tax losses in order to bolster current profits (Net Profits after Taxation)?

I am beginning to think you really have no idea of what you say on this forum. Look above no misrepresentation of what you actually said. Unless of course someone else is posting in your name.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Nov 22 2015, 04:27 PM
Posted Image

Yeah it's a bit like that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
For posterity, I should point out that the choice of words used 'generating losses' implied to me deliberate sabotage of the business, but I now accept that this isn't what he meant. Yes SOME companies do make profis look like losses by understating profits and my links prove this whether anyone bothers reading them or not.

Just one of my "Waste of time links"

http://tinyurl.com/nczzok6

" HgCapital says Goldshield understated profits

Also linked PROOF of banks and energy companies understating profits.

Still no real refutation of the sources in the report...
Edited by skwirked, Nov 23 2015, 04:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 20 2015, 05:55 PM
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'.

No but that "work they do" could be serviced by a company that does not have to pay NMW. Either way the people have lost their jobs.

It really does depend on the business the company is in and the more I think about this the more it becomes clear that a blanket solution is unlikely to be an effective solution (and this coming from someone who thinks any market distorting activity is generally bad).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Nov 23 2015, 09:51 AM
Affa
Nov 20 2015, 05:55 PM
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'.

No but that "work they do" could be serviced by a company that does not have to pay NMW. Either way the people have lost their jobs.

It really does depend on the business the company is in and the more I think about this the more it becomes clear that a blanket solution is unlikely to be an effective solution (and this coming from someone who thinks any market distorting activity is generally bad).
That work is often then carried out outside of the UK. Just look at the demise of the UK SME textile businesses.

Economists are clear; increasing the NLW, as to Osborne's plan, will kill some UK jobs. Estimates are 60,000 to 120,000 depends on who you believe. This work will then take place elsewhere or achieved in a more productive manner. But jobs will go. That said the UK has the propensity to accommodate such and produce even more new jobs, hopefully with better wages. Therefore overall, because the estimated job losses are small and the gains to employed low wage workers of considerable benefit, then a risk worth taking.

Osborne is correct we must push on for higher value adding jobs that provide higher net disposable incomes. Our economy is already running at nigh on full capacity, growing at ~2.5% PA and the only way to improve on this is via increased productivity.
It is vital that the welfare system does not discourage individuals from working and even after the IDS reforms there is still a significant hurdle for some.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Nov 23 2015, 09:51 AM
Affa
Nov 20 2015, 05:55 PM
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'.

No but that "work they do" could be serviced by a company that does not have to pay NMW. Either way the people have lost their jobs.

It really does depend on the business the company is in and the more I think about this the more it becomes clear that a blanket solution is unlikely to be an effective solution (and this coming from someone who thinks any market distorting activity is generally bad).

If someone does lose a job, someone else discovers one ... the work remains!
Jobs are lost when there is no job to do ...... which happens in recessions because trade and turn-over are lost ... less business means fewer jobs.

Having low wages does not increase the number of jobs, it simply means lower operating costs, bigger profits.

Increasing the NMW to the NLW should not cause a single job to go ... conversely, with more money being put back - in pockets, then more spending means more business = more jobs.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
RJD
Nov 23 2015, 10:08 AM


Economists are clear; increasing the NLW, as to Osborne's plan, will kill some UK jobs. Estimates are 60,000 to 120,000 depends on who you believe. This work will then take place elsewhere or achieved in a more productive manner. But jobs will go. That said the UK has the propensity to accommodate such and produce even more new jobs, hopefully with better wages. Therefore overall, because the estimated job losses are small and the gains to employed low wage workers of considerable benefit, then a risk worth taking.

Economists are fickle. unreliable, often politically motivated .... what they say is worth hearing, relying on it is risky.

For every job lost another is found - privatisation recruited its staff from the pool of lost public sector jobs ...... a nice boast of 'we cut the size of the state, got rid of public sector (non jobs) and created thousands of private sector wealth creating jobs - ain't we wonderful!'

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 23 2015, 12:14 PM
ACH1967
Nov 23 2015, 09:51 AM
Affa
Nov 20 2015, 05:55 PM
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'.

No but that "work they do" could be serviced by a company that does not have to pay NMW. Either way the people have lost their jobs.

It really does depend on the business the company is in and the more I think about this the more it becomes clear that a blanket solution is unlikely to be an effective solution (and this coming from someone who thinks any market distorting activity is generally bad).

If someone does lose a job, someone else discovers one ... the work remains!
Jobs are lost when there is no job to do ...... which happens in recessions because trade and turn-over are lost ... less business means fewer jobs.

Having low wages does not increase the number of jobs, it simply means lower operating costs, bigger profits.

Increasing the NMW to the NLW should not cause a single job to go ... conversely, with more money being put back - in pockets, then more spending means more business = more jobs.

AFFA: If someone does lose a job, someone else discovers one ... the work remains!

But not necessarily in the UK. Firm A produces widgets for £1. Firm B produces widgets for £1. If all other things are equal and firm A has to pay it's employees more bye bye firm A.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Nov 23 2015, 01:03 PM

AFFA: If someone does lose a job, someone else discovers one ... the work remains!

But not necessarily in the UK. Firm A produces widgets for £1. Firm B produces widgets for £1. If all other things are equal and firm A has to pay it's employees more bye bye firm A.

You do realise that I view this 'exported jobs' crap as BS, don't you?
I had avoided having to say so, but my hand was forced!

Take the blue specs off and think about it ..... even importing creates jobs, makes for a lot of extra work. Apart from which, all I have said isn't about pricing jobs out of the UK. it is about business not being on State Welfare support.
The Tory way costs more jobs than any other ....... loses business, reduces living standard, and lowers the treasury funding box.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ACH1967
Member Avatar
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 23 2015, 01:14 PM
ACH1967
Nov 23 2015, 01:03 PM

AFFA: If someone does lose a job, someone else discovers one ... the work remains!

But not necessarily in the UK. Firm A produces widgets for £1. Firm B produces widgets for £1. If all other things are equal and firm A has to pay it's employees more bye bye firm A.

You do realise that I view this 'exported jobs' crap as BS, don't you?
I had avoided having to say so, but my hand was forced!

Take the blue specs off and think about it ..... even importing creates jobs, makes for a lot of extra work. Apart from which, all I have said isn't about pricing jobs out of the UK. it is about business not being on State Welfare support.
The Tory way costs more jobs than any other ....... loses business, reduces living standard, and lowers the treasury funding box.

You may view “exported jobs crap as BS.” But that is a view whereas manufacturing departing these shores for lower cost production countries is a verifiable fact.

A country has to earn money to spend money on imported goods. If the work gets off shored that is less money earned to spend on imports. The last bubble and the next bubble are as a result of borrowing to spend. The economy needs rebalancing and pushing more jobs offshore will not achieve that. What RJD said about the NLW and risks was quite sensible and measured.

This comment “take the blue specs off” is really childish and completely unnecessary.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RJD
Member Avatar
Prudence and Thrift
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 23 2015, 12:23 PM
RJD
Nov 23 2015, 10:08 AM


Economists are clear; increasing the NLW, as to Osborne's plan, will kill some UK jobs. Estimates are 60,000 to 120,000 depends on who you believe. This work will then take place elsewhere or achieved in a more productive manner. But jobs will go. That said the UK has the propensity to accommodate such and produce even more new jobs, hopefully with better wages. Therefore overall, because the estimated job losses are small and the gains to employed low wage workers of considerable benefit, then a risk worth taking.

Economists are fickle. unreliable, often politically motivated .... what they say is worth hearing, relying on it is risky.

For every job lost another is found - privatisation recruited its staff from the pool of lost public sector jobs ...... a nice boast of 'we cut the size of the state, got rid of public sector (non jobs) and created thousands of private sector wealth creating jobs - ain't we wonderful!'

You say that as if it is a universal truth when clearly it is not. It may be true in a growing economy, but unfortunately this is not always the case.
I think that the risk of some job losses, art this time, is a risk worth taking to establish a higher going rate for unskilled labour. Now we just need to get the job taxes off their backs and increase the tax threshold. But we will have to wait years whilst Osborne slowly pares down the obscene cost of the State.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
ACH1967
Nov 23 2015, 01:41 PM
Affa
Nov 23 2015, 01:14 PM
ACH1967
Nov 23 2015, 01:03 PM

AFFA: If someone does lose a job, someone else discovers one ... the work remains!

But not necessarily in the UK. Firm A produces widgets for £1. Firm B produces widgets for £1. If all other things are equal and firm A has to pay it's employees more bye bye firm A.

You do realise that I view this 'exported jobs' crap as BS, don't you?
I had avoided having to say so, but my hand was forced!

Take the blue specs off and think about it ..... even importing creates jobs, makes for a lot of extra work. Apart from which, all I have said isn't about pricing jobs out of the UK. it is about business not being on State Welfare support.
The Tory way costs more jobs than any other ....... loses business, reduces living standard, and lowers the treasury funding box.

You may view “exported jobs crap as BS.” But that is a view whereas manufacturing departing these shores for lower cost production countries is a verifiable fact.

A country has to earn money to spend money on imported goods. If the work gets off shored that is less money earned to spend on imports. The last bubble and the next bubble are as a result of borrowing to spend. The economy needs rebalancing and pushing more jobs offshore will not achieve that. What RJD said about the NLW and risks was quite sensible and measured.

This comment “take the blue specs off” is really childish and completely unnecessary.
lol
They'd have a tough time exporting counter serving jobs at McDonalds, same for office cleaners and a miriad of other NMW jobs ......... the 'specs' comment is defining, is valid!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Nov 23 2015, 08:42 PM
ACH1967
Nov 23 2015, 01:41 PM
Affa
Nov 23 2015, 01:14 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
You may view “exported jobs crap as BS.” But that is a view whereas manufacturing departing these shores for lower cost production countries is a verifiable fact.

A country has to earn money to spend money on imported goods. If the work gets off shored that is less money earned to spend on imports. The last bubble and the next bubble are as a result of borrowing to spend. The economy needs rebalancing and pushing more jobs offshore will not achieve that. What RJD said about the NLW and risks was quite sensible and measured.

This comment “take the blue specs off” is really childish and completely unnecessary.
lol
They'd have a tough time exporting counter serving jobs at McDonalds, same for office cleaners and a miriad of other NMW jobs ......... the 'specs' comment is defining, is valid!

This may or may not be in the right thread but as the word "corporate" is mentioned....how about this, PFIZER has applied to have their head office domiciled in NI so as to avoid taxation on profits of £178 Billion, what chance has any country got if this sort of thing is going to happen? :nono: :nono: :nono:

But as they are breaking no rules (apparently) what can be done?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Nov 23 2015, 08:48 PM
Affa
Nov 23 2015, 08:42 PM
ACH1967
Nov 23 2015, 01:41 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
lol
They'd have a tough time exporting counter serving jobs at McDonalds, same for office cleaners and a miriad of other NMW jobs ......... the 'specs' comment is defining, is valid!

This may or may not be in the right thread but as the word "corporate" is mentioned....how about this, PFIZER has applied to have their head office domiciled in NI so as to avoid taxation on profits of £178 Billion, what chance has any country got if this sort of thing is going to happen? :nono: :nono: :nono:

But as they are breaking no rules (apparently) what can be done?
Treat corporate profits in the same way as VAT? ie you pay at the point of sale/transaction and cannot offshore the tax liability of your domestically generated income.

Oh bugger, I just went all anti business there and forgot VAT is primarily a deserved and unavoidable tax on the less well off whilst corporation tax is an shameful penalisation of wealth creators..........
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
skwirked
On Enforced Vacation
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Nov 23 2015, 09:09 PM
Rich
Nov 23 2015, 08:48 PM
Affa
Nov 23 2015, 08:42 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
This may or may not be in the right thread but as the word "corporate" is mentioned....how about this, PFIZER has applied to have their head office domiciled in NI so as to avoid taxation on profits of £178 Billion, what chance has any country got if this sort of thing is going to happen? :nono: :nono: :nono:

But as they are breaking no rules (apparently) what can be done?
Treat corporate profits in the same way as VAT? ie you pay at the point of sale/transaction and cannot offshore the tax liability of your domestically generated income.

Oh bugger, I just went all anti business there and forgot VAT is primarily a deserved and unavoidable tax on the less well off whilst corporation tax is an shameful penalisation of wealth creators..........
Right on.

Start using uncontravenable unanswerable taxes that don't hit the poorest and which are fairly distributed among income brackets.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rich
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
skwirked
Nov 23 2015, 10:48 PM
Tigger
Nov 23 2015, 09:09 PM
Rich
Nov 23 2015, 08:48 PM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deep
Treat corporate profits in the same way as VAT? ie you pay at the point of sale/transaction and cannot offshore the tax liability of your domestically generated income.

Oh bugger, I just went all anti business there and forgot VAT is primarily a deserved and unavoidable tax on the less well off whilst corporation tax is an shameful penalisation of wealth creators..........
Right on.

Start using uncontravenable unanswerable taxes that don't hit the poorest and which are fairly distributed among income brackets.
Then you had best get the global financial market to morally gaze at it's navel.....good luck with that little task.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Rich
Nov 23 2015, 11:08 PM
Then you had best get the global financial market to morally gaze at it's navel.....good luck with that little task.
Apart from the City of London Britain has 11 offshore tax havens, sadly and despite this Cameron has said he cannot force these havens to come clean or divest information that would go a long way to preventing the exporting of tax liabilities.

Once again someone will have to do the job we are unwilling to do, and of course Cameron himself is a fucking hypocrite of the highest order when he made the comment that Britain is no place for dirty money.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply