Or Tesco has taken the defence of, we've got more lawyers than you.

Hardly justice.

That's not paying the bill (sic)! It means either the money was not due, it was unclear in law that it was due and so HMRC took a "commercial" decision or HMRC were incoompetent. Or, are you saying openly on this [upublic[/u forum that Tesco deliberately evaded part of it's tax liability?

Wages should be paid from income, which is based on sales. The price of the sales is generally set by including fixed and variable costs in the calculation. When the product is sold, the costs of staff, buildings, rent, rates, utilities should be covered.



Any company that covers rent etc, but not staff in their pricing will clearly need a sale just to pay the people who produce/sell the product in the first place. In your example, Tesco would never be able to pay their staff, as they wouldn't be able to sell any products, let alone make a profit.



Profits can be used as a basis for recruiting more staff, but as I've said, anyone relying on profits to pay staff at the outset is not going to be in business for long.

What on Earth are you waffling on about? It is quite clear that pricing cannot just be an arbitrary mark up on costs, it needs to take account of the market place. That's one of the main reasons why efficient businesses survive and less eficient ones go under.

I am saying that your logic is seriously flawed.

You say that HMRC would be chasing Tesco if they hadn't paid their "bill", therefore they must have paid.

I say not necessarily ... as we have seen a case recently where billions that were due by Vodafone (and had been found to due by the court and were upheld to be due by a higher court ... how much clearer in law do you want it?) were nonetheless written off on the say-so of one man, without reference to tax experts within HMRC or to HMRC's own auditors.

I'm "waffling" about you recommending that companies pay staff out of profits, which is lunacy of the highest order, even for you. For the 4th time, staff costs should be covered by turnover, not profits. Do you think Tesco don't factor the costs of having people work for them into the price they sell things for?



How does a not-for-profit organisation operate in Dallyworld? Presumably on the goodwill of staff who realise that they'll never be paid.

What your Ladybird book of Successful Business Management probably doesn't mention is the fact that a very large number of people on minimum wage, working for supermarkets (which together are the second largest employer after the NHS) are dependent on tax credits (which is paid for by taxpayers, and most of which comes from individuals not from companies).

The likes of Tesco are paying a large proportion of their workforce less than a living wage and "we" are subsidising their profits.



Then the bstrds don't do the decent thing by paying their whack.



So please don't try to make out that they are saving on tax in order to pay their employees, because that's total bollox.

I have never said wages are paid "out of profits" indeed I explicity said the opposite.

As to your points:



1. The Labour party distorting the workings of the free market.



2. Have you evidence they don't pay their true tax liability?



3. I never said any such thing.

You said "If the companies were taxed more heavily that would mean they had less avaiable to pay wages."



In the context of Vodafone and Tesco the tax that they've been "let off" was on profits. They would clearly not be paying the wages from profits, so how would they suddenly have less money for wages if taxed on profits?

Both wages and tax (and dividends) need to be paid by CASH though.

And?