Benefits and tax: astounding graphic

[Bold Seagull]

If you're doing a chart to show differences, the chart needs to be accurate, otherwise you're just lying. Surely they have a bit of software that can create a chart, and not just ask a designer to create a couple of blobs.

Believe me, I know graphic designers. InDesign is more than capable of calculating areas for them.

 

[Hamilton]

No way we'll get to 10 pages now we're discussing graphic design and radii!

 

[Triggaaar]

Crikey you're quick. I edited that pretty much straight away. You on the strong coffee??

Have you not read my signature!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just looked at it and thought really? It just looked wrong, so I measured it, and gave up thinking when I realised they were talking shite.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Just on your second point about tax avoidance: it's not the cost of pursuing them that's deterring them from pursuing, it's the irrational fear (and threat) that certain corporations will pull out of the UK if they are forced to pay these taxes. This threat has always been a shallow one. Starbucks have proved that by making a gesture to pay a couple of years of these taxes. They will not leave. But the Government is scared of losing big business. The Tories have always been influenced unduly by the CBI and this is another example. It depends on your opinion of the Tories. Some feel they are fully supportive of these companies, others think they believe the threats. Either way, it's the wrong decision.

But it wasn't just the Tory's though, why didn't Labour close the loop holes when they were in power?

I wasn't just talking about the largest like Starbucks or Amazon, but about any corporation (regardless of size and number of employees) that may avoid paying some or all the tax that they could have potentially been liable for. It could also apply to the self employed who use every trick in the book to end up paying a token sum of money on their earnings over the year (from claiming expenses, travel, accomodation etc and making sure they hit their maximum allowances as write offs against tax owed)

 

[Hamilton]

Wouldn't have happened under Quark!

 

[Seasidesage]

...and that would be exactly right, until all 20k turn up and the police get a view of the attendees, and the mood of the attendees, who knows what could happen.

Seriously? Surely then, should the Police send enough officers to control 20k of hooligans just in case?

 

[Triggaaar]

Believe me, I know graphic designers. InDesign is more than capable of calculating areas for them.

Sure, it's not their job to get it right. But it is the job of whoever is righting the article.

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

Seems that avoidance and evasion have been lumped together.
There is a difference!
I would have serious doubts over most of this being corporate tax evasion,which is illegal.Tax avoidance maybe, but legal.Wonder how much 'paying cash in hand' is done in this country.Quite a lot I would reckon and most of this involving individuals and small businesses.
Personally,I have never thought that benefit fraud,whilst being wrong,is a huge problem in the overall scheme of things.

'The difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is the thickness of a prison wall.' Denis Healey.

 

[Bold Seagull]

No way we'll get to 10 pages now we're discussing graphic design and radii!

Me and Triggaaar are more than capable of steering this into calmer waters. Graphic designers and accuracy could still be 10 pages though!!

 

[Bold Seagull]

Sure, it's not their job to get it right. But it is the job of whoever is righting the article.

Ooooooo, got that one before you have a chance to edit.....kaaachow!

 

[Albumen]

 

[Machiavelli]

They are focussing on all those things.....what is your point, you can't solve this all at once, small steps.

By the way, there are more people investigating benefit fraud because potentially there are 30 million fraudsters....that as opposed to 300 people investigating tax evasion from a much smaller pool of potential transgressors.

David Cameron's Eton education was funded by an investment vehicle set up by his father that borders the distinction between tax avoidance and evasion. He was right at the start of this lucrative practice, as is well documented in the book entitled Treasure Islands by Nicholas Shaxson. They quite categorically are not doing anything about this, apart from a few token measures that fool far too many people … including you.

 

[Machiavelli]

I have a real outlook sir (some of it may appear nasty, but that would depend on your own point of view,we live in unpleasant times)... garnered from multiple sources, all equally considered, then I form a view. Same as my politics, depending on the factors currently in the mix as far as our society, economy and my family considerations are concerned, that dictates where I might lend my vote and opinions. I dont form opinions simply because someone in the student union once told me it was fact, nor do I vote simply because my father voted for a particular party, or his father before him...... I think for myself.

So you vote for what's good for you and your family, as opposed to the common good. Now I understand.

 

[Kumquat]

But it wasn't just the Tory's though, why didn't Labour close the loop holes when they were in power?

I wasn't just talking about the largest like Starbucks or Amazon, but about any corporation (regardless of size and number of employees) that may avoid paying some or all the tax that they could have potentially been liable for. It could also apply to the self employed who use every trick in the book to end up paying a token sum of money on their earnings over the year (from claiming expenses, travel, accomodation etc and making sure they hit their maximum allowances as write offs against tax owed)

Fair point, yes, Labour should have closed them or at least made an effort. It certainly isn't as simple as some people think but a real Labour Government would have done more to try and tackle tax evasion than Blair's lot did. I hope the lesson will be that whatever Government it is, it should not be spooked by threats by business to quit the country and threats of how it will impact negatively on our growth. The same arguments were used to oppose the minimum wage. We should know now that they are wrong.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

No way we'll get to 10 pages now we're discussing graphic design and radii!

It still has potential once the NSC anoraks wade into the thread

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

The government serves the corporations and rich elite, not the people - this needs to change.

Very unlikely to happen even with a change of Government.

 

[somerset]

So you vote for what's good for you and your family, as opposed to the common good. Now I understand.

What the hell does anyone vote for?,.. they assess whats best for them, and vote accordingly... thats democracy.

 

[Triggaaar]

Ooooooo, got that one before you have a chance to edit.....kaaachow!

Now you've got a mod editing my posts!

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Fair point, yes, Labour should have closed them or at least made an effort. It certainly isn't as simple as some people think but a real Labour Government would have done more to try and tackle tax evasion than Blair's lot did. I hope the lesson will be that whatever Government it is, it should not be spooked by threats by business to quit the country and threats of how it will impact negatively on our growth. The same arguments were used to oppose the minimum wage. We should know now that they are wrong.

Has the minimum wage been a sucess? it could be argued that a number of high street stores have failed because the minimum wage pushed up their costs to such an extent that they just couldn't remain profitable, especially when faced with online retailers with much lower costs.

Also the minimum wage has actually resulted in some employees ending up with lower wages as companies paid new employees less than established staff, and reduced the pay increases (or stopped them altogether) thus bringing their wages down to that of those on the minimum wage.

It also means that those on it arn't necessarily better off as costs of living have had to rise as companies pass on the costs of higher wages onto the shopper, meaning they may earn more, but if their outgoings have increased by the same or more, they are infact worse off. How come there are those still in poverty despite working full time if the minimum wage is such a sucess?

There are also loop holes where foreign workers employed through foreign agencies can earn far less than the minimum wage for 2 years and this has resulted in local people failing to get work (which would probably affect the school leaver generation worse)

So for all the good intentions and merits of such a scheme, there are also drawbacks.

 

[Soulman]

...............................................