O/t Daybreak shows us all that's wrong in this country

[Jim D]

Was she fat. That would get my goat.........if she was fat.

If she was she'd not only get it but take it home, cook it and eat it - or maybe with the money she's getting she would employ a chef to do the cooking. Goat curry anyone?

 

[father_and_son]

While the story is an example of the huge amount we waste on benefits, I'd respectfully suggest the country being infiltrated by uncaring jobsworths such as in the story below drags us down far deeper.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-22855011

Why? Because of the negligence of the parents who were "warned 3 times" before the incident took place. He's a school governor and hasn't got the responsibility to ensure he pays his son's lunch money. Jesus wept, what the f**k did he expect to happen?

 

[spring hall convert]

for me its not the monetary cost, but the fact that her plight is given a sympathetic airing, and i think thats the point here. as far as money is concerned, previous generations would have had 5, 6, 7 kids with out state aid on alot less income. she can live on £32k, she just wants to live a high quality of life. tough, she's made decisions, she has to live with them.

I can't disagree with this, I just don't like the implication that this is the reason we are skint as a country. It isn't, this is a drop in the ocean compared to the vast sums used to bail out banks that need not have failed spectacuarly & corparations with vast profits (some previously under public ownership!) in their UK market that (legally) avoid UK tax.

If we want to strive for a fair system it needs to be fair for all. All I see is the taxpayer getting f***ed.

 

[keaton]

Why? Because of the negligence of the parents who were "warned 3 times" before the incident took place. He's a school governor and hasn't got the responsibility to ensure he pays his son's lunch money. Jesus wept, what the f**k did he expect to happen?

The article also says the father is trying to move his son to a new school. He clearly is all about his son's best interests

 

[father_and_son]

Odd mentality.

I am no lacky of big business, but how can you somehow excuse such shameless non productivity whilst others pay for her own lifestyle choices.

Have you ever thought that Tony Bloom who has lost £8m last year and invested £200m into our club with various business interest throughout the world might also fall into the category of your 'blue chip company' example.

Bloom would transfer, invest, lose, create, employ, succeed and fail whilst leading his various business interests.

I would suspect, expect, be grateful if he too paid only the minimum legal requirement of any his profits and I bet so do you !!!

Bloom or other big business is not the reason we have the feckless.

This... also worth noting any organisation who's parent company is regulated in the US has a LEGAL DUTY to minimise their domestic & international tax liabilities to the limit of the law. Failure to do so would leave the officers of the company subject to civil action by the shareholders.

Not saying this is right, but if I were in a position where I had to commit a moral wrong or legal wrong with no middle ground then, for the sake of my job and my families income, I'd be an immoral b**tard too!

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Why? Because of the negligence of the parents who were "warned 3 times" before the incident took place. He's a school governor and hasn't got the responsibility to ensure he pays his son's lunch money. Jesus wept, what the f**k did he expect to happen?

This bit wasn't on the original story so I would now agree with you - if it had been as the original story suggested then it would have been nothing short of heartless !

"
A statement, released by the school's governors, said the rule was introduced to prevent "significant numbers of previous occurrences of late payments and bad debts on school meals".
It went on to say: "Mr and Mrs Lynn were notified on three occasions prior to the mealtime of interest that their debt was due and that their son would not receive a meal if the debt remained unpaid."
The school said while it regretted the distress the incident had caused, it was "disappointed that it has been portrayed by this parent to have been fully responsible for withholding a meal from him". "

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Odd mentality.

I am no lacky of big business, but how can you somehow excuse such shameless non productivity whilst others pay for her own lifestyle choices.
.

Have you ever thought who makes up for the corporation tax these big businesses avoid? I pay for them AND I pay for her. In all likeliness I probably have to pay a lot more for the likes of Google, Amazon, Starbucks etc than families like the one in this example. If these big businesses are happy to play by the so called rules, overlook any moral obligation and deny the HMRC revenue then why should anyone else bother? She is playing by the rules as well. And if big business can dispense with moral duty why not the rest of us? I'm not saying this is right but what is good for the goose....

 

[BigGully]

I didn't say it was better, I said it costs us less money. They don't neccessarily mean the same thing, though many think they do.

How do you quantify a tax take that business is not yet liable for, your just offering a tax hike that offers a figure that is greater than another. ??

Tax big corporations if you wish, but it merits are vague, less so if you feel it should be used to fund those that do not wish to work.

 

[father_and_son]

This bit wasn't on the original story so I would now agree with you - if it had been as the original story suggested then it would have been nothing short of heartless !

"
A statement, released by the school's governors, said the rule was introduced to prevent "significant numbers of previous occurrences of late payments and bad debts on school meals".
It went on to say: "Mr and Mrs Lynn were notified on three occasions prior to the mealtime of interest that their debt was due and that their son would not receive a meal if the debt remained unpaid."
The school said while it regretted the distress the incident had caused, it was "disappointed that it has been portrayed by this parent to have been fully responsible for withholding a meal from him". "

Without the rebuttal by the school, I'd blame this on the local authority rather than anyone else. If you farm out the contract to feed the children to whichever organisation offered the lowest bid, then you really can't blame the company for ensuring that they don't lose money on the deal.
Had the school been supplying the food then I'd expect some latitude, but you can't walk into the local takeaway and expect credit or free food, so why should a contract caterer give either.

We should have greater choice in the legal status of organisations in this country and many many more should be "not-for-profit" or similar, whereby they can tender for work/contracts/whatever but not have to answer to shareholders, just pay staff (a fair rate) and give back any "profit" to whoever appointed them. School dinners could then be supplied at competitive rates, but on a far better basis than at present (better food, greater care for the end customer, not bleeding the Local Authority/School dry, etc etc).

 

[Stoo82]

for me its not the monetary cost, but the fact that her plight is given a sympathetic airing, and i think thats the point here. as far as money is concerned, previous generations would have had 5, 6, 7 kids with out state aid on alot less income. she can live on £32k, she just wants to live a high quality of life. tough, she's made decisions, she has to live with them.

Quite. The modern idea of 'poverty' is to live without a TV, radio or an Xbox one.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

This... also worth noting any organisation who's parent company is regulated in the US has a LEGAL DUTY to minimise their domestic & international tax liabilities to the limit of the law. Failure to do so would leave the officers of the company subject to civil action by the shareholders.

This is not strictly true is it? The wording is general and states organisations have to act 'in the interests of their shareholders.' Your version is a matter of interpretation and context as the wording does not specifically say anything about finances or say they have to use aggressive tax avoidance.

 

[spring hall convert]

How do you quantify a tax take that business is not yet liable for, your just offering a tax hike that offers a figure that is greater than another. ??

Tax big corporations if you wish, but it merits are vague, less so if you feel it should be used to fund those that do not wish to work.

Can you stop digging at me? Can I reiterate that this is wrong (I did state it in my orignal post), I don't wish to fund people not to work. I'm merely highlighting that this isn't perhaps the real enemy. After all similar to the tax avoidance, what she is doing is immoral, not illegal.

 

[father_and_son]

How do you quantify a tax take that business is not yet liable for, your just offering a tax hike that offers a figure that is greater than another. ??

Tax big corporations if you wish, but it merits are vague, less so if you feel it should be used to fund those that do not wish to work.

The sad truth is large corporations bring significant other benefits to the local economy that just Corporation Tax (income tax, NI, buying raw materials, business rates, rent, etc etc) and if you tax them too much then they f**k off somewhere that will take less overall. Hence the likes of Amazon/Google/Play/et al operating out of Ireland, Channel Islands, HK, etc.

There is a line to be drawn in ensuring the company wants to be in your territory vs getting as much out of them as you can for the privilege. Be too greedy and you get nothing. The fact that they already "passport" from other territories into the UK suggests were are already being too greedy.

A drop in tax rate more often that not generates more income in the long run and a tax hike reduces it!

 

[BigGully]

Have you ever thought who makes up for the corporation tax these big businesses avoid? I pay for them AND I pay for her. In all likeliness I probably have to pay a lot more for the likes of Google, Amazon, Starbucks etc than families like the one in this example. If these big businesses are happy to play by the so called rules, overlook any moral obligation and deny the HMRC revenue then why should anyone else bother? She is playing by the rules as well. And if big business can dispense with moral duty why not the rest of us? I'm not saying this is right but what is good for the goose....

Not at all.

You are wholly dismissing the employment and tax these big business generate, there is a difference, they contribute she does not.

I think it was the politicians that brought the word 'moral' into the affray, I dont see it like that.

If big business isnt paying enough tax, then change the law, if she shouldnt be paid that amount than change the system, I am pragmatic not hung up an some political dogma here.

As an aside, I dont think big business will leave the UK if we increase their own liabilities however I am pretty darn sure that those increased costs will be passed on to us the consumer, so increase the tax and it will be us that pay, dont let the politicians take credit for a faux morality.

They just know it will be more money for them from us.

 

[spring hall convert]

Have you ever thought who makes up for the corporation tax these big businesses avoid? I pay for them AND I pay for her. In all likeliness I probably have to pay a lot more for the likes of Google, Amazon, Starbucks etc than families like the one in this example. If these big businesses are happy to play by the so called rules, overlook any moral obligation and deny the HMRC revenue then why should anyone else bother? She is playing by the rules as well. And if big business can dispense with moral duty why not the rest of us? I'm not saying this is right but what is good for the goose....

Well said Herr. Also consider that many of these large corparations benefit from the infrastructure that UK tax money has paid for but don't contribute. A classic example is that the internet was a British invention funded mainly by (you guessed it) the UK Taxpayer. What do Amazon do again?

 

[BigGully]

Can you stop digging at me? Can I reiterate that this is wrong (I did state it in my orignal post), I don't wish to fund people not to work. I'm merely highlighting that this isn't perhaps the real enemy. After all similar to the tax avoidance, what she is doing is immoral, not illegal.

Sorry, I wasnt meaning to, just a little discussion.

 

[spring hall convert]

Not at all.

You are wholly dismissing the employment and tax these big business generate, there is a difference, they contribute she does not.

I think it was the politicians that brought the word 'moral' into the affray, I dont see it like that.

If big business isnt paying enough tax, then change the law, if she shouldnt be paid that amount than change the system, I am pragmatic not hung up an some political dogma here.

As an aside, I dont think big business will leave the UK if we increase their own liabilities however I am pretty darn sure that those increased costs will be passed on to us the consumer, so increase the tax and it will be us that pay, dont let the politicians take credit for a faux morality.

They just know it will be more money for them from us.

Now we are getting to the crux. You openly admit that if big corparations paid more Uk tax they would pass the cost onto the consumer. Fine, let me make that choice. Do you really think it's fair that Starbuck's has a competitive tax adavantage over a local coffee house by virtue of their expensive accountants? It's anti-competitive and puts us all at the mercy of these global mega corparations.

Also their coffee is awful.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Well said Herr. Also consider that many of these large corparations benefit from the infrastructure that UK tax money has paid for but don't contribute. A classic example is that the internet was a British invention funded mainly by (you guessed it) the UK Taxpayer. What do Amazon do again?

Very good point. And where do you stop with the infrastructure argument? Amazon benefit from all manner of items paid for by the UK tax payer e.g. the education and health of their UK employees. If I was Cameron with a huge deficit on my hands I'd be looking at quick ways to reduce it and you would go a long way by shutting these loop holes; Google have even asked for this to happen. Fannying around with benefit culture, at the moment, is at best pointless (especiallywhen there is so little work available) and at worse a smoke screen for a bigger issue which needs sorting.

 

[spring hall convert]

Sorry, I wasnt meaning to, just a little discussion.

No problem, I just don't like the insinuation that I agree with this. I don't.

I just personally think it's a bit of sideshow to keep the "deserving poor" firmly focused against the "undeserving poor" & diverting their attention away from the fact that everyone bar the top 2% are getting poorer.

 

[keaton]

Not at all.

You are wholly dismissing the employment and tax these big business generate, there is a difference, they contribute she does not.

.

She presumably spends the money she is given so she "contributes" as well.