Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

ten police for four protesters?

3
6
On 30 Jan 2011 at 1:42pm bastian wrote:
Who witnessed the overkill outside boots this morning...there were 4 women demonstrating9which is their democratic right)outside boots the chemists about tax evasion(because boots keep their money off shore,common knowlege)and the plods were out in force.Finally they physically carried the last two women away..needless to say it was a peacefull protest until the plods took action and then words were exchanged like "shame" and "staedy on".Is it possible to kettle 4 people in a doorway?and more to the point,why?It was filmed by both sides including me..again..I'm going to get a reputaion for skulking in my home town at this rate.I tried to tell an officer that if boots didn't pay their tax then he wouldn't get paid,which is a reallity at present,if they actually thought about it they might have joined in.
2
 
On 30 Jan 2011 at 2:10pm harry wrote:
i wish I'd seen that. Are you going to upload this video to youtube? if so could you type in the link.
3
3
On 30 Jan 2011 at 2:24pm sam wrote:
haahaah watta dick, why wuld u want 2 see the video u bender!
5
3
On 30 Jan 2011 at 2:34pm Local wrote:
Actually there were ten protesters and five were arrested after stopping people getting into the shop. What on earth do these people think they will achieve£ why protest at one of the smallest boots stores in Sussex£ I suggest that boots do not pay the wages of the police. from what i saw the police were more than reasonable with these people and no excessive force what so ever was used.
I remeber the days when if the police told you to move then you did.
3
5
On 30 Jan 2011 at 3:29pm bastian wrote:
sorry local but moving people physically is not reasonable.Also,i wasn't suggesting that boots pay the police wages...don't you understand how the tax pot works..you know we all pay in and the police are paid out of the pot.If big companies like boots don't pay their share it leaves us,the little people,to pay more than our share to meet the shortfall.If all the other companies pay up ,why shouldn't boots.As for it taking place in our small town,why not?lewes has just as much right to a protest as any big town,after all,why waste the train fair to Brighton(sorry about the lack of capital for Lewes i'm trying to eat a bag of crisps...couldn't reach the shift key)
1
4
On 30 Jan 2011 at 3:31pm bastian wrote:
By the way local,nothing stopped people entering the shop because the side door was open.
4
6
On 30 Jan 2011 at 3:49pm Newmania wrote:
Bastian are you aware that corporate taxes are only paid by purchasers of products( The "incidence " is at the consumer more properly ). Your kind suggestion that we all pay even more tax via Boots et all is not appreciated by people who think they are vastly overtaxed to keep tribes of wasters in gold plated pensions we do without.
This nonsensical anti capitalism( thinly veiled ) is a blatant attempt to create fictional scape goats other than the Labour Party who are in fact responsible for the cuts we face , not to say the tax rises.
I have always thought the way to deal with such people is to talk to them kindly and with pity
 
3
On 30 Jan 2011 at 4:56pm bastian wrote:
What is wrong with being anticapitalist..Ive never hidden my cards about that..eat the rich,but let's eat the nouveaux riche as a starter.
4
 
On 30 Jan 2011 at 4:58pm Pervy Pete wrote:
Aah. Ttat was Marina Pepper again. Weren't they in nurses uniforms? I was going to go down there for a perv, but I understand that Marina does not look like she did when she did the Playboy shoots.
1
3
On 30 Jan 2011 at 5:05pm bastian wrote:
newmania are you suggesting that the police are wasters?after all they are public sector workers.Make your mind up which wasters you are talking about,unless you'd like a private police force..accountable to no one because to regulate is to put off competition.In fact you and I have had run ins over this before and I just think you're a tory twunt and you think I am a commie thicko bstard,thank the marx we're all so different.
2
3
On 30 Jan 2011 at 5:13pm SHS wrote:
Boots pay a huge amount of tax (including business rates), employ a vast amount of people who in turn pay tax thanks to Boots and transport tons of goods across the UK thus donating more tax on the fuel, etc etc. We pay more than our fair share of tax thanks to waste and incompetence by the previous govt, thanks to 2 million unemployed taking huge sums in benefits and thanks to too-many overpaid public servants. Why, to many people, is it such a crime to work or to run a successful business in this country???
3
 
On 30 Jan 2011 at 5:17pm citizen wrote:
SHS did you knoow that Boots moved their HQ to a PO Box in Switaerland in 2008 for tax purposes and now pay 3% corporation tax (preciously 33%). A perfectly legal but immoral move taken by many British corporations. Time for government to close those loopholes. Worth protesting about, I'd say...
 
 
On 30 Jan 2011 at 8:15pm mr sod wrote:
well done to the ploice for keeping boots safe for the rest of us shopers
 
 
On 30 Jan 2011 at 9:52pm Deelite wrote:
Yup, we love the ploice. Where would the ploice be without them?
 
 
On 30 Jan 2011 at 10:00pm ... wrote:
Marina Pepper arrested

Watch the video »
 
1
On 30 Jan 2011 at 10:29pm Newmania wrote:
Like David Cameron who called the Police the most unreformed service I think they are conspicuously inefficient and this has been quite rightly reflected in the above average cuts they face. God knows why you would assume I am a fan of the police. Yes a good deal of their functions could be usefully out sourced , traffic control , for example. If you think they are accountable I can only assume you are a close friend of the home secretary because otherwise they do whatever they like. ( When they turn up to work at all)
I`m not sure your subsequent remarks count as thinking at all actually. You have my sympathy.
 
 
On 30 Jan 2011 at 10:43pm Deelite wrote:
Fruitcake.
 
 
On 31 Jan 2011 at 6:09am Pro Plod wrote:
If you think the police are not accountable you are totally incorrect. I love how you make a sweeping statement about 'if they turn up to work at all' Perhaps you should try and make a more educated assessment of the police rather than being brain washed by the media.
 
 
On 31 Jan 2011 at 7:09am Newmania wrote:
Pro Plod I am arresting you on suspicion of loitering in a public forum with intent to fulminate without any knowledge of the subject .
Just on the turning up for work issue police sickness is an average of 8.5 days per year with an alrming amount of that caused by stress , soi disant( Government figures ). In any other organisation that alone would show us there was something seriously wrong. In 2007 8000 officerss were actually on recuperative duties whilst claiming full pay.
As far accountabiltiy is concerned they are theoretically accountable to the Coucil but in practice such is the assymetry of information and lack of muscle on the public side it makes absolutely no difference ( I do have some personal expereince of this ...and you?)
This is why we need directly elected chiefs of police a clear out of dead wood and an end to the culture of mediocrity on high slaries. Try getting one simple thing done , just one thing, and then you will see what it is like to deal with oiks who cannot be fired and do not care about the public unless it involves pretending to be a spy, or buying a helicopter
2
 
On 31 Jan 2011 at 9:51am 'ere be monsters wrote:
Just watched the video, what a bunch of twats.
 
 
On 31 Jan 2011 at 10:27am Deelite wrote:
And then there's the police early retirement policy and overly generous pension. I'm not surprised the cuts to this service are larger than others. They have it very good.
2
 
On 31 Jan 2011 at 11:56am Ed Can Do wrote:
I'd love to hear what the protesters would suggest doing to stop Boots from diverting all their money to Switzerland.

Maybe they'd like to legislate so that foreign companies holding an interest in UK companies would have to pay a huge tax bill when they move their money back to the holding company's own country? Maybe they'd like to drop the tax treaties with Switzerland so that any companies still registered there pay normal UK corporation tax? How about stipulating that any large PLC must have a certain percentage of ownership based in the UK?

Of course then the same protesters would be up in arms when the Japanese car manufacturers shut all their plants and moved production elsewhere. They'd probably be pretty upset when Tesco shut half their stores making thousands of people unemployed and the hilarious rise in costs of borrowing to the UK government as a result of distancing ourselves from Switzerland would doubtless also get prtoested or at least it would once it led to further cuts in public spending.

People do love a good, unresearched over-reaction though. The obvious thing to do would be to lower the rate of corporation tax and give incentives to companies who want to pay that rather than being based off-shore but if the media announced a tax cut for big business those protesters would be scrabbling for their placards before their newspaper hit the floor.

Boots pay very little corporation tax compared to the proscribed rate under UK tax law but then neither do Tesco, or Sainsburys, or Waitrose, or M&S, or in fact any large, UK company who can afford a semi-decent team of lawyers and accountants. They do pay a massive amount of employers NI though, monster sums of VAT and provide employment for thousands upon thousands of people who all pay income tax and spend money in other shops, stopping the economy from completely collapsing.

Not paying as much tax as the government would like you to is what the UK is best at, we're a nation of accountants and have the most complicated tax laws on the planet. There's a massive industry built up around people and companies not paying the right amount of tax but sadly, it's only really an option for those people who are self-employed. Those of us who get paid PAYE pretty much have to just grin and bear it. It's not in any way a new thing, it just seems to have become something of a cause celebre since the ConDems started swinging their spending axe.
 
 
On 31 Jan 2011 at 12:16pm jrsussex wrote:
The bottom line is, in my opinion, the police service in the UK fail miserably to be value for money. Their targets over-ride all "proper and professional" policing. However as long as targets are achieved then policing is seen to operating efficiently, it matters not that litle serious crime is being realistically dealt with. Keep the Hom,e Office happy with statistics that show we are achieving our targets and all is well.
The police service complain that much of todays society no longer shows respect to their uniform. Well we all know that in order to gain respect you have to demonstrate it. Unfortunately police officers rarely do, They use the "power" of the blue in ways that turn the general public against them. I personally believe that the abuse, by police, of their uniform in ensuring they get their way is equally as bad as taking bribes , as happened some years ago.
I am not a person who would normally have a go at the UK police service, but I have watched it over the years sink lower and lower in the eyes of the public. Most of the blame can be attached to the police for failing the public in so many areas of their lives. E G Whether it makes a difference or not, the public like to see a policeman. in uniform with his helmet on walking the street. It makes most of us feel a little better and certainly safer
1
 
On 31 Jan 2011 at 3:57pm bastian wrote:
To bring you all back to the original point,and not to get confused by international trade,Boots is a British company avoiding tax in Britain by using an offshore account.The only people who get to lose are the British people who's pot is running dry.Pay toCeasar what is owed to Ceasar.And that goes for all other British trade groups with expensive soliciters,if it wasn't questionable they would't need a soliciter.
 
 
On 31 Jan 2011 at 4:22pm bastian wrote:
by the way forumers newmania is highly vocal and thinks they know everything,and I am yet to discover their sense of humour as their politics just keep getting in the way,I thought the letters page of the times was open to this kind of rant,"dear sir,I have never in my whole life encountered such ruffians as on the Lewes forum this week,I was tempted to take my riding crop to them,birch the lot of them it's the only language they understand."(scuse me while I wipe the rabid spittlke from my chin.
 
 
On 31 Jan 2011 at 4:26pm SHS wrote:
No bastian we don't loose anything because of Boots and similar companies, we gain - see Ed-Can-Do's comments which echoed my own further up the thread. Cut the waste, cut the crap, give credit and incentives for people to work hard, get skilled and who knows even get rich / make a profit.
 
 
On 1 Feb 2011 at 8:06am 'ere be monsters wrote:
There's tax avoidance which is perfectly legal and tax evasion which is not. This off-shore business has been going on for ever and if it was a bad idea then successive governments would have put a stop to it. More profit means more investment something we can't risk losing.
As for the protesters, why were they targeting Boots in Lewes? Seems to me they wanted to have a go at the police really, that's why they made such a fuss when told to move on. Of course it took so many police officers to arrest them, it's very difficult for one officer to arrest someone without harming them if they refuse to move. Like I said before "What a bunch of Twats" Hands up everyone who thought I was refering to the police!
1
 
On 1 Feb 2011 at 8:17am kevsy wrote:
Shs, so just that I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that all employing entities move their HQ's abroad to avoid paying corp tax, and ahould be encouraged to do so because of the general good they do in employing people etc. Or are you only saying that the large ones should do it while they smaller ones should have to pay the tax whilst also employing. Surely then as others have suggested, we may as well knock our rates down to next to nothing as well. May probably need to find some extra cash in the short term to do this mind. Any ideas for further cuts? Or maybe an increase in basic income tax?
 
 
On 1 Feb 2011 at 11:32am Newmania wrote:
I `m not exactly an expert but not all Companies can incorporate tax advantageously .I think you need a certain amount of capital is the location and the resources to arrange it. I am pretty sure every entity for which it is viable pays as little tax as they can.( This is certainly true of governmental organisations )
Corporations are in any case not real things . They are people sometimes shareholders but if you mean increasing costs then they are consumers.
There is no evil thing called a 'corporation' it is only its shareholders customers or employees .
They all pay tax already
 
 
On 1 Feb 2011 at 12:20pm jrsussex wrote:
What I fail to understand in threads such as this one is the continual carping about the "rich". I would guess that many, if not a majority, of "rich" people started out with little cash but worked very hard and have become "rich", entirely due to that effort. Alan Sugar comes to mind as a working class man who has does rather well as a result of the effort he put into his life. In a previous thrread I once mentioned a man from Enfield, North London, a friend of mine, who could not read or write. He, due to hard work, became a millionaire.
Do not assume that all "rich" people are from the landed gentry, born with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouth.
 
 
On 1 Feb 2011 at 3:00pm pleb wrote:
How does someone explain their failure to thrive in a nation like this with freedom and opportunity unrivalled in history? It must be the fault of somebody else. People get a sense of efficacy by protesting or attacking something external. Protesting is good fun and its disappointing if the police don't show.
Then put it on youtube/facebook and show all your "friends" how "committed" you are. Much easier than productive work or thinking.
 
 
On 1 Feb 2011 at 10:10pm Deelite wrote:
Now, you can't be talking about our lovely Marina now can you? I'm sure she's had a job.
 
 
On 1 Feb 2011 at 10:43pm So much nonsense ... wrote:
... in this thread, felt moved to spell out what this is about:
Before I do:
Corporations ARE real things (they are separate legal entities, ie. separate from their shareholders). Corporations pay corporation tax (i.e. tax on the profits the company makes). Consumers don't pay corporation tax - they pay VAT on items they purchase. VAT is not a real cost for many companies (including Boots). Boots charge us VAT on (most of) our purchases, but all the taxman gets from Boots by way of VAT is the difference between the VAT they charge us and the VAT that Boots get charged on its own purchases. The real cost of VAT is borne by us as consumers. I don't have a problem with this - that is how the VAT system is supposed to work.
OK, now what's all this Swiss tax dodge about?
Corporation tax is paid on the profits that a company makes - its sales less its various expenses. At some point, the shareholders of the company will want to take the profit out of the company, but they might be quite happy to let the profits "roll up" in the company until such time as they can arrange their own income tax affairs such that they would not pay much tax at the time they take the money out e.g. they could move to Monaco, where they can then receive dividends from the company free of income tax (this is why there has been so much outrage over TopShop, as it is Philip Green's wife who owns nearly all the shares and lives in Monaco, so can receive massive dividends tax free).
Now, if those profits are allowed to roll up in the UK, and the UK gets to tax them at 28%, then fine, none of us mind. But, once those profits are paid out to the shareholders, that money has gone from the UK. Gone. The shareholders will not be UK tax resident or if they are, they will be non-UK domiciled so able to avoid UK tax on any income or gains that accrue outside the UK. This therefore deletes an important source of tax income for the UK exchequer - a big hole that has to be plugged by other taxpayers.
What is happening here is that the shareholders don't want to see the company pay tax at 28% in the UK when it can pay at only 3% in Switzerland, leaving more for them to take out when they are ready to do so. So, the affairs of the company (well, group of companies) are arranged to do that.
This is an issue - it's a big one.
This is necessarily a simplification of how very large privately-owned companies arrange their affairs for tax purposes - there are many many more tax dodges that they are up to. It's very difficult to stop companies fleeing the UK and this is why we have seen corporation tax rates fall in recent years, in an attempt to make moving less worthwhile. However, it is not possible to compete with rates as low as 3%.
I could go on, but I've made my point. Night night.




 
 
On 2 Feb 2011 at 10:29am Ed Can Do wrote:
You haven't really made a point though. I think anyone who's ever read the business section of a paper, let alone worked in finance is aware of how and why companies base themselves off-shore in order to minimise the tax the pay. The issue is not that it happens, it's what could possibly be done to stop it and a long succession of governments have drawn a blank.

The UK simply cannot afford to match the corporation tax rates of Switzerland or say, the Cayman Islands. Switzerland has an economy based pretty much on financial services and arms dealing. There's very, very little unemployment and a lot of wealth. If we tried to run our economy the way they run theirs, it'd be carnage, the population is simply too high here for it to work. Switzerland balance their books by attracting enough foreign companies to register there and pay less tax to make up for the low rate. As such, should other countries make real steps to stop the practice, Switzerland would be in a lot of trouble but luckily for them they're sitting on massive amounts of gold and currency. If your government stops companies registering in Switzerland, Switzerland stops lending them money.

This of course is necessarily a simplification of how international economics works but my point is, there's more to this than "How terrible it is that these companies don't pay the full rate of corporation tax". There's a much bigger picture, one that is conveniently overlooked by the media when they are looking for headlines and seemingly never even considered by the kinds of people who think annoying the police outside Boots on a Sunday morning will make the blindest bit of difference to anything.

Sadly, avoiding tax is generally the preserve of the rich as the instruments to do so are pretty expensive. You need to be making a big saving for it to be worth it. Once upon a time the rate of corporation tax for small companies and the dividend tax rate was set so that if your net income was under £30k for a year, you were better off forming a company and billing your services that way, even taking into account the admin costs. Once loads of people did that though the government eased up the CT rate to equalise it with personal tax so now, there's very little savings involved, only the people who did form a company back then will have an established business so not want to disolve it and have to send annual accounts off to Companies House, whereas self-employed people only have their accounts looked at if they get inspected, once every ten years or so if at all.

Running an off-shore company isn't cheap but for a massive company, the tax savings will outweigh the costs and as their business is making money for their shareholders, they'll always do what they can to save money. The obvious answer if you're upset by a company's apparent profiteering is to buy shares in that company, thereby getting back some measure of what they're saving.

It's not an ideal situation but there really is very little that can be done about it in terms of legislation. If people were perhaps to organise a mass boycott, rather than a tiny, pointless protest, then perhaps firms would take note and change their ways but good luck finding enough people to actually make a difference who are willing to boycott Boots, Tesco, Esso, Waitrose, Sainsburys, Morrissons, WHSmith, Argos, Dixons, Green King, Marks & Spencer, Nestle, Mars group, Cadburys and in fact pretty much every FTSE 100 company and I would guess the majority of Plc's. You could probably just about survive in Lewes if you didn't need to drive anywhere and didn't eat vegetables but I'd wager that living even a month without buying anything from a company that didn't ultimately divert the money off-shore would be incredibly tough (And probably worthy of a documentary, just don't sell it to Sky, or ITV, or, er probably Channel 4).
 
 
On 2 Feb 2011 at 1:36pm So much nonsense wrote:
I'm afraid I don't have any ideas for tackling this issue - gawd knows how you stop it. My point was that this is an issue that we should be concerned about (and why) and to correct some of the misinformation from other posters.
 
 
On 3 Feb 2011 at 6:58am So Muchj Nonsense wrote:
So Much Nonsense - Example , lets say that providers to the NHS are instructed that they must pay tax on shore and employ no tax evasion strategies.
The result is that all pharmaceutical companies , lets say , set up "Stupid Companies" through which their NHS contracts are handled. This would force up the cost of,let say, cancer drugs increasing costs to the NHS which we would all have to pay in even larger taxes. Good work.
The same would more simply be true , in our economy , of any "Stupid Company" and its customers
I appreciate the argument here is not quite as simple as that but it is nothing to do with your so called "correction."
Chucking taxes at the Economy and where they fall is not the game you suppose it to be at all. For example the current estimate is that the the top rate will lose £4.5 billon per annum to the exchequer as we were already over the "Laffer cuirve " at the top end . Who plugs that gap do you think? In fact it is ordinary middling people who are , as always , the only ones who can milked to pay for this or that political wet dream.

ED Can Do it - I trust you will take into account who you will hurt when your mass boycott starts to increase the cost of living for everyone This is not a serious issue, its s silly chimerical slogan that no-one really believes in apart from a few students
 
 
On 3 Feb 2011 at 8:43am 'ere be monsters wrote:
SMjN tax evasion is illegal and can be heavily punished. These big companies, and many small businesses and individuals practice tax avoidance. Perfectly legal.
 
 
On 3 Feb 2011 at 9:55am Ed Can Do wrote:
That was kinda my point, you couldn't boycott all those companies if you tried anyway and those companies are what keep the economy ticking over. The people waving placards outside Boots are, I would imagine, quite happy to take advantage of the low prces they can offer on account of saving so much money on their tax bill. If all the big firms had to pay full whack corporation tax then prices on the street would rocket in order to maintain their profit margins.

I'm constantly amazed how people who are so keen to be pro-active about something to the extent of annoying policemen on a Sunday morning don't spend five minutes to actually think about what it is they're protesting about.
 
 
On 4 Feb 2011 at 9:29pm citizen wrote:
'Ere be monsters: indeed, tax evasion is illegal, but it's also immoral to avoid paying taxes in the country you are working in.
EdCan Do: what makes you think that a) the protesters would even shop in Boots at all and b) that the protest wasn't thought through.
There are a few people out there who are willing to stand up for principles, in the timehonoured way of changing things through protest. So stop slanging them off just cos you don't get it.


This thread has reached its limit now
Why not start another one


 

Lewes Town Clock 88:132
Lewes Town Clock

They're everywhere, popping up like mushrooms but much uglier. more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
Life begins at the end of your comfort zone
Nancy