Well I'm going on my experience – and reports from a number of people I know – and I suspect we outnumber you, Dally.

I used to love going into the Virgin Megastore on Oxford Street, to the classical music section. The staff in there really knew their stuff. They could suggest things to you that almost always worked for you. I might be able to get things cheaper from Amazon, but I miss that experience and that human interaction.

HMV at Piccadilly Circus had been like that too, before it closed.

What really grates with me is the Walton family actively and aggressively employ any meaures they can to avoid or minimise paying federal and state taxes. They then expect the US and UK taxpayer to pick up their slack on behalf of their employees.

Frankly, on that basis alone, they're filth.

It surely wouldn't be that difficult to assess the total goverment support (tax credits, housing benefits etc) paid to subsidise a company's employees. HMRC could then simply present the company with an annual bill, including all costs of calculations, to reimburse the exchquer. That might be one way to concentrate a few minds away from paying less than subsistence wages

Sheer genius.

It would be interesting to work out for some companies. And see if it could be alleviated through higher wages, company provided employee benefit schemes, higher/correct amounts of tax paid etc

Name one FTSE 250 company that does not pay the correct amount of tax in accordance with the law of the land.

Except you very well know that there is not one single "law of the land" to say yea or nay to any tax dodge - every new tax dodge scheme is created on the basis that one set of expensive suits reckons either it is at least arguably within the complex provisions, or that it will still probably work out worthwhile even if it falls foul as even then the chances are a very favourable deal will be done.

Your point is entirely bogus. If a company assesses its own tax liability following such arrangements as being nil, but the taxman disagrees, then the taxman will assess the company to pay £X instead. Thus both positions are "in accordance with the law of the land". That's how it works. But if, say, Vodafone do a sweetheart deal with HMRC letting them off millions, that doesn't mean the scam couldn't be challenged in court; and a court may think differently; and Vodafone would have to pay. That payment would be also in accordance with the law. Unless they successfully appealed, and didn't have to pay after all. Which would yet again be now in accordance with the law.

Thus your challenge is pointless.

What the aardvark said.

If there was a smiley for the black American woman clicky finger thing I'd use it.

But Vodafone were not paying the correct amount of tax for long enough. Even then, what do you think to the rest of the point rather than one incredibly narrow and almost irrelevant element of it?