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

Big Graeme wrote:All you need to know here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Par ... tion,_2010 Poor old Dave really got screwed, didn't he? cod'ead wrote: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 who did get a job 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.

Big Graeme wrote:All you need to know here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Par ... tion,_2010 Poor old Dave really got screwed, didn't he? cod'ead wrote: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 who did get a job 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'?