Thames Water

[kevo]

...the latest organisation to pay NO corporation tax, in spite of making a profit of £550 million. In the same period, bills increased by 6.7%. Despite the fact there was huge water wastage, the chief exec still earned a healthy bonus. It is a 'privatised' utility, but where else can people in the area get their water from? Sickening. What would they do if thousands of people simply refused to pay their water bills in protest?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jun/10/thames-water-no-corporation-tax

 

[beorhthelm]

"We have not paid much corporation tax in recent years because the government's tax system allows us to delay, not avoid, payment of tax based on how much we invest. Because we are investing £1bn a year from 2010 to 2015, more than any water firm in the UK's history, we are able to defer a lot of tax payments to future years."

when are we going to stop bleating at the corporations and ask the government to change the tax system? and when are headline writers going to stop using the revenue/trunover numbers to make embiggen the story?

 

[kevo]

when are we going to stop bleating at the corporations and ask the government to change the tax system? and when are headline writers going to stop using the revenue/trunover numbers to make embiggen the story?

Good point, but the government seem much more interested in the tiny amount lost through benefit fraud, or making savings through welfare cuts, than penalising these organisations.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Good point, but the government seem much more interested in the tiny amount lost through benefit fraud, or making savings through welfare cuts, than penalising these organisations.

Mainly because it's easier. They can do little meaningful about coprorate tax without European, if not global cooperation.

 

[dougdeep]

embiggen

 

[beorhthelm]

Good point, but the government seem much more interested in the tiny amount lost through benefit fraud, or making savings through welfare cuts, than penalising these organisations.

hmm, not sure you understood the point. how are you to "penalise" an organisation that is following the rules you have laid down for them to follow?

 

[Gazwag]

Good point, but the government seem much more interested in the tiny amount lost through benefit fraud, or making savings through welfare cuts, than penalising these organisations.

So its better to encourage lazy spungers rather than buinesses employing 1,000's

 

[RexCathedra]

hmm, not sure you understood the point. how are you to "penalise" an organisation that is following the rules you have laid down for them to follow?

Disorganized crime mugs you and takes your wallet.
Organized crime suborns your accountant, takes over your store, and burns it for the insurance.
Really organized crime has the legislature take larceny off the statute books.

 

[otk]

Fig. 1 Benefit fraud = £5 billion annually

Fig. 2 Corporate fraud = £200 billion annually

Apart from the mathematical difference, which is obvious, the other point is Old-Etonian Cameron and his ilk are 'in bed' with big business, perpetrators of figure 2...

 

[Hamilton]

Fig. 1 Benefit fraud = £5 billion annually

Fig. 2 Corporate fraud = £200 billion annually

Apart from the mathematical difference, which is obvious, the other point is Old-Etonian Cameron and his ilk are 'in bed' with big business, perpetrators of figure 2...

And total benefit spending each year is around £160bn (includes state pensions etc.)

If we collected all that corporate fraud we'd pay for it and have a spare £40bn left over. Cool.

 

[beorhthelm]

Really organized crime has the legislature take larceny off the statute books.

i supposed it could be argued the corporate world lobbies for the subsidies, allowances, exemptions, rebates etc. would be simpler without them all. point to note, they are put on to the statute books each year in the Finance Bill.

Fig. 2 Corporate fraud = £200 billion annually

and what has fraud got to do with this subject? or benefits? is the payment from someone for perpetuating links between these unrelated issues?

 

[otk]

And total benefit spending each year is around £160bn (includes state pensions etc.)

If we collected all that corporate fraud we'd pay for it and have a spare £40bn left over. Cool.

*Whispering* Shssshh!! There are quite a few Daily Mail-reading types on here, so don't be even hinting at an equitable society. Let's just all accept it's one law for the rich and another for the poor! OK?

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

...the latest organisation to pay NO corporation tax, in spite of making a profit of £550 million. In the same period, bills increased by 6.7%. Despite the fact there was huge water wastage, the chief exec still earned a healthy bonus. It is a 'privatised' utility, but where else can people in the area get their water from? Sickening. What would they do if thousands of people simply refused to pay their water bills in protest?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jun/10/thames-water-no-corporation-tax

My understanding is that their tax exposure is legitimately off-set against massive capital expenditures. Hardly the same as US corps having head office in Dublin and moving money round group companies all over the world to avoid paying tax?

Also, thousands of people do refuse to pay their water bills - and the water companies are required to keep supplying water.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Mainly because it's easier. They can do little meaningful about coprorate tax without European, if not global cooperation.

Not true.

 

[martyn20]

This case is totally different from the Starbucks and Google tax avoidance though, these tax breaks that they are using are for capital expenditure, the government have backed companies that invest in the UK with tax breaks for many years.
Very different case. They do seem to have taken it to an extreme level in this case!

 

[kevo]

This case is totally different from the Starbucks and Google tax avoidance though, these tax breaks that they are using are for capital expenditure, the government have backed companies that invest in the UK with tax breaks for many years.

Fair enough, but why are the bills still going up? They are making a substantial profit after receiving tax breaks and yet still putting bills up for customers who have no option but to pay the increase (we all need water - and there's no choice of supplier!)

 

[The Birdman]

The old south east water company taken over by the owners of Kent SE made a £100,000'000 paid £10'000'000 Tax now they are part of a larger company that produced a loss and now pays no tax this figure may not be right as it was second hand.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

And total benefit spending each year is around £160bn (includes state pensions etc.)

If we collected all that corporate fraud we'd pay for it and have a spare £40bn left over. Cool.

Cool indeed. Just think what we could spend 40bn on.

 

[Randy McNob]

Capitalism has failed

Ministers weigh contingency plan for collapse of Thames Water

Whitehall officials and Ofwat, the water regulator, have begun assessing the scope for a special administration of the UK’s biggest water company, Sky News learns.

news.sky.com

 

[Lurchy]

Capitalism has failed

Ministers weigh contingency plan for collapse of Thames Water

Whitehall officials and Ofwat, the water regulator, have begun assessing the scope for a special administration of the UK’s biggest water company, Sky News learns.

news.sky.com

It hasn’t… their gameplan is always to simply run it into the ground, pay as little out as possible to maintain it whilst extracting as much money out as possible.

Then hand it back to the tax payer to sort out.

We see it over and over again.