Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Wed Oct 17, 2012 11:24 pm  

Samwire, being a PhD Chemist myself, if the level of chemical knowledge displayed by some of our recent Chemistry graduates is anything to go by then I am also not surprised that they can't get jobs.

A former colleague of mine, having recently been made redundant, went for an interview for a position in a Pharma company. Although he passed the technical interview with flying colours he didn't get the job as his age of 53 and 25 years of experience counted against him in terms of the sort of people HR were trying to recruit. He went for a drink with a couple of the other candidates who went through the selection procedure with him after they had done for the day. These two recent graduates, with good degrees from Russel group universties, did not even know what a Grignard reaction was! Needless to say they didn't get the job either. As a former R & D manager I have found the quality of graduates over the last 10 years to have dropped dramatically. This seems to follow the trend for modular degree courses where students can avoid the difficult areas of the subject.

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Thu Oct 18, 2012 1:22 am  

Ajw71 wrote: Erm.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUY9ewD1Jls 'No return to boom and bust' - Where is the word Tory? . OK, I'll give you that, I was going from memory, but the fact remains that you can't blame any government for the state of the economic collapse is 2008, can you? The truth remains that it was an external and almost unforeseen issue that brought the country to it's knees. (I seem to remember one economist going 'this can't last' and getting laughed at for it...) If you want to try and conflte the two, go ahead, but it'll be meaningless.

Ajw71 wrote: Erm.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUY9ewD1Jls 'No return to boom and bust' - Where is the word Tory? . OK, I'll give you that, I was going from memory, but the fact remains that you can't blame any government for the state of the economic collapse is 2008, can you? The truth remains that it was an external and almost unforeseen issue that brought the country to it's knees. (I seem to remember one economist going 'this can't last' and getting laughed at for it...) If you want to try and conflte the two, go ahead, but it'll be meaningless.

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:33 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: The money will be paid, that much is true, but very clearly before Starbucks (or anyone) sets on an employee they know that the cost of the employee comprises items including their gross salary and including the employer's NIC. Employers' NIC is paid for every employee by every company so the fact Starbucks also has to pay it isn't either earth shattering, or to their credit. It's just how it is. I don't know what point you are making. If it is implying that this somehow gives them a "credit" against corporation tax they do not pay, them I'm sorry, i don't think you have a point at all. That's just more of the same. Every business which is registered for VAT accounts quarterly for VAT. This "free of charge" thing is just emotive nonsense, Starbucks does not shoulder any unusual burdens in regards to this function, which is plainly just a fact of life if you run a UK business. I don't believe you are that naive. I am sure you know how it works, the accountancy firms, for huge fees, dream up highly complex and tortuous paths to pass money along, and do this all the time. Of course the tax laws do not "allow" this, in the sense that "Parliament specifically thought of this dodge and did not pass a specific law against it because Parliament positively thought that companies should be allowed to escape corporation tax by using this or that scheme". The emphasis is in truth entirely reversed. It is, for obvious reasons, totally impossible to legislate in advance to prevent the operation of every tax dodge which has yet to be dreamed up. Far from considering that Parliament "allows" tax dodges the true nuance of meaning is that many such tax dodges are only legal until measures to close the loopholes are put in place. If you want to play semantics and say that in the meantime the tax dodge is "allowed" then knock yourself out, but nobody is accusing Starbucks of illegality, and to do so is to entirely avoid the point of this part of the discussion. I'm not clamouring for high taxes. If I felt a need to clamour at all in this context then it would simply be for Starbucks to pay standard rates of corporation tax based on a fairly assessed figure which represents the true (and very considerable) profitability of their UK operations. Sadly, and based on a number of well-publicised cases such as Vodafone and all the rest, I have no confidence that HMRC or indeed HM Government has either the appetite or the capacity for the task of making sure big multinationals pay their fair share. Like the bankers scandals, ultimately it seems people temporarily in charge of the UK shop are exceedingly reluctant to rock any boats, however many billions disappear down the toilet. A cynic might wonder whether something was in it for them. Official "You Needn't Worry Your Pretty Little Heads, It's All Fine, We're On It, No Really" bullcrap here. I was merely challenging your statement that Starbucks pay nothing to HMRC - that you have admitted was incorrect. The point about lower taxes is simple - these companies will be tax somewhere, perhaps if our tax rates were more attractive they might consider paying more here? Our big multi-nationals will be doing exactly the same in other countries where taxes are even higher than the UK which means HMRC will receive a bigger chunk. Maybe it is just a case of swings and roundabouts. So if you means tested Starbucks for corporation tax in the UK you would potentially be opening up the opportunity for BP for example to be means tested in another country.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: The money will be paid, that much is true, but very clearly before Starbucks (or anyone) sets on an employee they know that the cost of the employee comprises items including their gross salary and including the employer's NIC. Employers' NIC is paid for every employee by every company so the fact Starbucks also has to pay it isn't either earth shattering, or to their credit. It's just how it is. I don't know what point you are making. If it is implying that this somehow gives them a "credit" against corporation tax they do not pay, them I'm sorry, i don't think you have a point at all. That's just more of the same. Every business which is registered for VAT accounts quarterly for VAT. This "free of charge" thing is just emotive nonsense, Starbucks does not shoulder any unusual burdens in regards to this function, which is plainly just a fact of life if you run a UK business. I don't believe you are that naive. I am sure you know how it works, the accountancy firms, for huge fees, dream up highly complex and tortuous paths to pass money along, and do this all the time. Of course the tax laws do not "allow" this, in the sense that "Parliament specifically thought of this dodge and did not pass a specific law against it because Parliament positively thought that companies should be allowed to escape corporation tax by using this or that scheme". The emphasis is in truth entirely reversed. It is, for obvious reasons, totally impossible to legislate in advance to prevent the operation of every tax dodge which has yet to be dreamed up. Far from considering that Parliament "allows" tax dodges the true nuance of meaning is that many such tax dodges are only legal until measures to close the loopholes are put in place. If you want to play semantics and say that in the meantime the tax dodge is "allowed" then knock yourself out, but nobody is accusing Starbucks of illegality, and to do so is to entirely avoid the point of this part of the discussion. I'm not clamouring for high taxes. If I felt a need to clamour at all in this context then it would simply be for Starbucks to pay standard rates of corporation tax based on a fairly assessed figure which represents the true (and very considerable) profitability of their UK operations. Sadly, and based on a number of well-publicised cases such as Vodafone and all the rest, I have no confidence that HMRC or indeed HM Government has either the appetite or the capacity for the task of making sure big multinationals pay their fair share. Like the bankers scandals, ultimately it seems people temporarily in charge of the UK shop are exceedingly reluctant to rock any boats, however many billions disappear down the toilet. A cynic might wonder whether something was in it for them. Official "You Needn't Worry Your Pretty Little Heads, It's All Fine, We're On It, No Really" bullcrap here. I was merely challenging your statement that Starbucks pay nothing to HMRC - that you have admitted was incorrect. The point about lower taxes is simple - these companies will be tax somewhere, perhaps if our tax rates were more attractive they might consider paying more here? Our big multi-nationals will be doing exactly the same in other countries where taxes are even higher than the UK which means HMRC will receive a bigger chunk. Maybe it is just a case of swings and roundabouts. So if you means tested Starbucks for corporation tax in the UK you would potentially be opening up the opportunity for BP for example to be means tested in another country.

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:33 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: The money will be paid, that much is true, but very clearly before Starbucks (or anyone) sets on an employee they know that the cost of the employee comprises items including their gross salary and including the employer's NIC. Employers' NIC is paid for every employee by every company so the fact Starbucks also has to pay it isn't either earth shattering, or to their credit. It's just how it is. I don't know what point you are making. If it is implying that this somehow gives them a "credit" against corporation tax they do not pay, them I'm sorry, i don't think you have a point at all. That's just more of the same. Every business which is registered for VAT accounts quarterly for VAT. This "free of charge" thing is just emotive nonsense, Starbucks does not shoulder any unusual burdens in regards to this function, which is plainly just a fact of life if you run a UK business. I don't believe you are that naive. I am sure you know how it works, the accountancy firms, for huge fees, dream up highly complex and tortuous paths to pass money along, and do this all the time. Of course the tax laws do not "allow" this, in the sense that "Parliament specifically thought of this dodge and did not pass a specific law against it because Parliament positively thought that companies should be allowed to escape corporation tax by using this or that scheme". The emphasis is in truth entirely reversed. It is, for obvious reasons, totally impossible to legislate in advance to prevent the operation of every tax dodge which has yet to be dreamed up. Far from considering that Parliament "allows" tax dodges the true nuance of meaning is that many such tax dodges are only legal until measures to close the loopholes are put in place. If you want to play semantics and say that in the meantime the tax dodge is "allowed" then knock yourself out, but nobody is accusing Starbucks of illegality, and to do so is to entirely avoid the point of this part of the discussion. I'm not clamouring for high taxes. If I felt a need to clamour at all in this context then it would simply be for Starbucks to pay standard rates of corporation tax based on a fairly assessed figure which represents the true (and very considerable) profitability of their UK operations. Sadly, and based on a number of well-publicised cases such as Vodafone and all the rest, I have no confidence that HMRC or indeed HM Government has either the appetite or the capacity for the task of making sure big multinationals pay their fair share. Like the bankers scandals, ultimately it seems people temporarily in charge of the UK shop are exceedingly reluctant to rock any boats, however many billions disappear down the toilet. A cynic might wonder whether something was in it for them. Official "You Needn't Worry Your Pretty Little Heads, It's All Fine, We're On It, No Really" bullcrap here. I was merely challenging your statement that Starbucks pay nothing to HMRC - that you have admitted was incorrect. The point about lower taxes is simple - these companies will be tax somewhere, perhaps if our tax rates were more attractive they might consider paying more here? Our big multi-nationals will be doing exactly the same in other countries where taxes are even higher than the UK which means HMRC will receive a bigger chunk. Maybe it is just a case of swings and roundabouts. So if you means tested Starbucks for corporation tax in the UK you would potentially be opening up the opportunity for BP for example to be means tested in another country.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: The money will be paid, that much is true, but very clearly before Starbucks (or anyone) sets on an employee they know that the cost of the employee comprises items including their gross salary and including the employer's NIC. Employers' NIC is paid for every employee by every company so the fact Starbucks also has to pay it isn't either earth shattering, or to their credit. It's just how it is. I don't know what point you are making. If it is implying that this somehow gives them a "credit" against corporation tax they do not pay, them I'm sorry, i don't think you have a point at all. That's just more of the same. Every business which is registered for VAT accounts quarterly for VAT. This "free of charge" thing is just emotive nonsense, Starbucks does not shoulder any unusual burdens in regards to this function, which is plainly just a fact of life if you run a UK business. I don't believe you are that naive. I am sure you know how it works, the accountancy firms, for huge fees, dream up highly complex and tortuous paths to pass money along, and do this all the time. Of course the tax laws do not "allow" this, in the sense that "Parliament specifically thought of this dodge and did not pass a specific law against it because Parliament positively thought that companies should be allowed to escape corporation tax by using this or that scheme". The emphasis is in truth entirely reversed. It is, for obvious reasons, totally impossible to legislate in advance to prevent the operation of every tax dodge which has yet to be dreamed up. Far from considering that Parliament "allows" tax dodges the true nuance of meaning is that many such tax dodges are only legal until measures to close the loopholes are put in place. If you want to play semantics and say that in the meantime the tax dodge is "allowed" then knock yourself out, but nobody is accusing Starbucks of illegality, and to do so is to entirely avoid the point of this part of the discussion. I'm not clamouring for high taxes. If I felt a need to clamour at all in this context then it would simply be for Starbucks to pay standard rates of corporation tax based on a fairly assessed figure which represents the true (and very considerable) profitability of their UK operations. Sadly, and based on a number of well-publicised cases such as Vodafone and all the rest, I have no confidence that HMRC or indeed HM Government has either the appetite or the capacity for the task of making sure big multinationals pay their fair share. Like the bankers scandals, ultimately it seems people temporarily in charge of the UK shop are exceedingly reluctant to rock any boats, however many billions disappear down the toilet. A cynic might wonder whether something was in it for them. Official "You Needn't Worry Your Pretty Little Heads, It's All Fine, We're On It, No Really" bullcrap here. I was merely challenging your statement that Starbucks pay nothing to HMRC - that you have admitted was incorrect. The point about lower taxes is simple - these companies will be tax somewhere, perhaps if our tax rates were more attractive they might consider paying more here? Our big multi-nationals will be doing exactly the same in other countries where taxes are even higher than the UK which means HMRC will receive a bigger chunk. Maybe it is just a case of swings and roundabouts. So if you means tested Starbucks for corporation tax in the UK you would potentially be opening up the opportunity for BP for example to be means tested in another country.

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:36 am  

Sal Paradise wrote: The point about lower taxes is simple - these companies will be tax somewhere, perhaps if our tax rates were more attractive they might consider paying more here? Starbucks transfers its tax liabilities to a subsidiary in Ireland, where surprise surprise, Starbucks manages to pay next to buggerall in corporation tax

Sal Paradise wrote: The point about lower taxes is simple - these companies will be tax somewhere, perhaps if our tax rates were more attractive they might consider paying more here? Starbucks transfers its tax liabilities to a subsidiary in Ireland, where surprise surprise, Starbucks manages to pay next to buggerall in corporation tax

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:03 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

I was merely challenging your statement that Starbucks pay nothing to HMRC - that you have admitted was incorrect.

Nope, you were simply trying to be clever by introducing side-issues that are irrrelevant to the main point being discussed and which was and is perfectly clear. I am absolutely appalled that Starbucks pays no corporation tax and I am appalled at their avoidance and that they get away with it. The rather obvious facts that they do comply with laws they have no choice but to comply with eg PAYE/NI is neither in question, nor is it in any way some sort of "offset" against unpaid corporation tax.

You even proposed that PAYE deductions in some way are Starbucks' money that they pay HMRC when plainly they are not, they are the money of the individual taxpaying employees.

Sal Paradise wrote:

The point about lower taxes is simple - these companies will be tax somewhere, perhaps if our tax rates were more attractive they might consider paying more here?

The point is no such thing. It should not be a matter for them to "consider" paying more tax here, they should be assessed to a fair corporation tax payment based on what business they actually do, which they would then be compelled to pay or appeal.

Your conviction that they "will be taxed somewhere" is touching. You could put it another way: you have no clue what tax they pay or where they pay it.

My point is that I don't care what tax they pay elsewhere or how much it is or at what rates. I am only interested in their UK operation paying a fair whack of tax on their UK business. Which plainly they do not.

Sal Paradise wrote:

Our big multi-nationals will be doing exactly the same in other countries where taxes are even higher than the UK which means HMRC will receive a bigger chunk. Maybe it is just a case of swings and roundabouts. So if you means tested Starbucks for corporation tax in the UK you would potentially be opening up the opportunity for BP for example to be means tested in another country.

Now you really are missing my point. I neither know nor care what other jurisdictions do. But if it ended up that every multinational paid a fair chunk of tax on its UK operations to the UK taxman then I'd be very happy with that.

Starbucks should either pay up on the vast business they do, or if they don't like it, then shut the operation down. Of course, that won't happen, as plainly it makes them millions, however the accountants calculate the taxable bottom line.

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:06 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

... The point about lower taxes is simple - these companies will be tax somewhere, perhaps if our tax rates were more attractive they might consider paying more here?

That was the thinking in Ireland, George Osborn's favourite economy.

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:09 am  

sally cinnamon wrote:

In response to your question about why Ireland and Spain, having run budget surpluses in the run up to 2008, ended up in a worse situation than we did ...

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:32 pm  

Mintball wrote:

On a par with your literacy levels, dear?

You do know that proper nouns exist, for instance?

No, dear. I didn't say that. 'Sounds a lot like' ('sound' requires an 's' at the end! by the way) is not a synonym for 'said'.

on an internet forum my literacy levels are irrelevant, hence, my constant lack of use of capital letters. however, out in the real world, being unable to multiply 34*47 without a calculator is a problem if you're currently trying to do a pharmaceutical chemistry degree, which will probably require a basic level of maths.

still, keep trying sweetheart.

paying people not to rob us. priceless. how much cash will we have to hand out to eradicate all crime do you think.

oops, sorry, forgot to ask, have you worked out how all these new insulating whizz kids will make any money after we've trained 'em up yet?

Re: How do cutbacks save economies? : Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:05 am  

samwire wrote:

paying people not to rob us. priceless. how much cash will we have to hand out to eradicate all crime do you think.

oops, sorry, forgot to ask, have you worked out how all these new insulating whizz kids will make any money after we've trained 'em up yet?

Seriously, do you have issues comprehending a debate? All you are doing is trotting out things that have been debunked ages ago like an aged tourette's sufferer.