On 11 Jan 2012 at 6:23pm Dingo wrote:
Goldman Sachs are tax scroungers.Tell them where to go.
Check it out here »
On 11 Jan 2012 at 8:23pm Simple Simon wrote:
You sound supprised lol, Big business doesn't pay tax here and the government allow this. They have a stark choice, allow this or watch them all relocate.
What are you going to do about it, live in a tent outside St Pauls??? Loser!!
On 12 Jan 2012 at 12:14am Dingo wrote:
Never has a contributor had a more apt name, Simon.
On 12 Jan 2012 at 7:43am Clifford wrote:
Simple Simon is right - all governments (Tory, Tory/LibDem or Labour) are always in the pockets of big business because we live in a capitalist economy in which the interests of the 1% are paramount.
On 12 Jan 2012 at 9:20am DFL wrote:
Yes, very sad.
On 12 Jan 2012 at 12:46pm Dingo wrote:
So you are advocating that we roll over and play dead are you Clifford?
On 12 Jan 2012 at 4:58pm bastian wrote:
ok Dingo, what do you propose?
On 12 Jan 2012 at 6:07pm Clifford wrote:
On the contrary Dingo, I am advocating the we organise to overthrow the 1% system and replace it with one that works in the interest of all of us. I was describing thingsas they are, not as they should be. How about you?
On 12 Jan 2012 at 7:20pm Deelite wrote:
'Overthrow the system' is a phrase that attractive in my youth that, at 50 I find myself surprised to find attractive once again.
I might even listen to Crass again.
On 12 Jan 2012 at 8:12pm Dingo wrote:
Fight every bloody way can ,petitions including the one below,boycotts,industrial action,the arts,humour, and when the time is right INSURRECTION.
Check it out here »
On 12 Jan 2012 at 8:44pm not from around here wrote:
But.. if you put aside the 'principle' that it is wrong for wealthy companies to avoid tax you then have to ask: are we better off if companies stay in the UK and trade here or not?
I think the answer is clear - if the companies were not in the UK (even with their tax avoidance) then there would be less jobs and even less money flowing into the government pot.
So who would win if HMRC went aggressively after large companies? Ok, so maybe they would pay more tax as a one-off, but then when they re-locate to a more favourable country who is going to lose ALL the tax revenue and jobs? We are.
I say as long as what they do is of net benefit to the country as a whole then let them carry-on.
On 12 Jan 2012 at 8:46pm Clifford wrote:
not from around here says, 'Let the 1% do what they want and don't forget to tug your forelock as they pass'. A spirit to be proud of.
On 12 Jan 2012 at 9:11pm not from around here wrote:
No that's not what I'm saying at all although I'm surprised you type at all with all those chips on your shoulders Clifford..
I think I was clear - perhaps not.
Putting aside the 'principle' of fairness in tax recovery, would we be better off with or without the big companies being located in this country? I think, on balance we are clearly better off having companies that generate jobs and wealth.
Are you saying that for the sake of a principle we should cut off our noses Clifford? Please explain how the country would be better-off without these companies?
On 12 Jan 2012 at 9:26pm Albert Toady wrote:
Yes guvnor 1`ll just bend over for you and you can kick me up the arse if you like.Yes that`s right squire you can my pick my pocket and sh*g my wife if you want.No trouble sir,no trouble.
On 12 Jan 2012 at 9:48pm someone else wrote:
not from around here - do you know anyone who works for a US company? My experience is that the IRS pursues corporations far more aggressively than HMRC. And yet there's no panic about those US companies disappearing overseas. The notion that all these companies will vanish if HMRC simply collects monies owed is nothing more than a right wing myth.
However, if the tax regime is not 'fair' then it leads to a situation in which the average man in the street says, 'Well, if Vodafone aren't paying, why should I'? And that leads to real losses.
On 12 Jan 2012 at 9:53pm not from around here wrote:
Why is everybody so blinkered on here?
What has a legitimate question about the pro's and con's of tax avoidance v relocation of large companies got to do with 'forlock tugging' etc, etc?
On 13 Jan 2012 at 2:17am Albert Toady wrote:
Want me to sell my lads to you sir?A couple of quid sir?that`s very generous of you sir ,go ahead sir,go ahead take em.Want me to work for nothing sir?that`s fine coz if i don`t work for nothing you`ll go to some other country where they will be very happy to pay you for the priviledge of being exploited!I can understand that sir, that makes sense to me!Have you finished sh*gging my wife sir coz she`s supposed to be collecting up your dirty washing about now. and you`d like to fondle my daughter when she gets home ?That`s fine sir, right you are sir.
On 13 Jan 2012 at 2:31am Fartington Greedbucket wrote:
Toady `s the sort of chap I man like me needs around the place and his cottage has an extremely accessible rear entrance very suitable for the occasional nocturnal sortieI hear.What Oh!
On 13 Jan 2012 at 8:05am Clifford wrote:
Not from around here - Yes, why don't we forget we are supposed to live in a democracy and just let big business control everything? Can't you see that your advocacy of doing exactly what big business wants is what has got us into the state we're in now? Paying their fair share of tax is the least we can expect from them - we expect it of ourselves so why not them?
On 13 Jan 2012 at 8:16am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Some people seem consitutionally unable to see the corrosive effects of the cosy relationship between big business and government imo. It's like dealing with flat earthers or creationists.
On 13 Jan 2012 at 10:22am Peasant wrote:
I can boycott Boots & Vodafone. But how do I boycott Goldman Sachs?
On 17 Jan 2012 at 5:17pm not from around here wrote:
I notice that nobody has actually been able to answer the actual question I asked without resorting to some spectacular stereotypes.
So the question is: How does making larger companies leave the UK actually benefit us?
Replies on a postcard please.
On 23 Jan 2012 at 1:45pm Ed Can Do wrote:
One would have thought that with all the people in Lewes up in arms about the amount of tax paid by large companies, there was surely enough support for someone to open some "ethical" businesses? A combined food shop/pharmacy/phone operator/bank which promises to pay bang on the going rate of corporation tax on all it's profits to challenge the dubious practices of Tesco/Boots/Vodafone/Goldman Sachs, attracting custom from all the people in town so outraged about how bug business utilises perfectly legal tax practices to minimise the amount they pay. I've no doubt that the store would have queues out the door day and night with so much demand for ethical products, despite the fact that because of their massive CT bill, the prices in the store would be twice those in the mainstream store so that the company can pay out the level of dividends investors will demand to be persuaded to back the venture in the first place.
It's all well and good griping about companies not paying as much tax as you'd like but then a lot of you also gripe each time the price of shopping goes up and our weekly shop would be significantly higher if Tesco actually paid tax on their profits.
The problem is not the businesses themselves, it's the investors and shareholders. If a company doesn't pay out huge dividends, the shares get sold. What we need in this country is more staff-owned businesses. If workers actually profited from increased profits that the company made then they'd pay more tax themselves to make up the shortfall from the CT dodging for example. We also need the government to set up not-for-profit companies in every sector where profiteering is currently rife. A not-for-profit energy company, train company and bank. Lower costs by not needing to pay off shareholders would attract massive custom, other companies would be forced to stop their profiteering to compete and then the efficiencies you get from privately owned companies over state-run enterprises would make everything cheaper and better run all round.
I honestly think a government set-up bank and energy company at least would slash costs to consumers in both markets almost overnight.