The amount of mis-information we get fed by TJ (and often happily lap up) scares me... if we took a little more time to work stuff out for ourselves we'd be a lot better off IMO.
Fixed that for you.
Chat Forum
All those wingeing about public sector workers and pensions
-
Posted 6 months ago #
-
What misinformation pembo?
Posted 6 months ago # -
Well, we can start with the Tesco tax claims.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Plenty of evidence of Tesco avoiding tax
this is all I canbebothered to find it also hides exports profits adn imports losses to avoid tax.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/may/31/tesco.supermarkets
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/13/tesco-revives-jersey-vat-avoidance
We have now established that:
· On a property disposal programme totalling £5bn, the exchequer could be deprived of in the region of £100m of tax.
· Tesco has been involved in a game of cat and mouse with HM Revenue & Customs since 2003.
· On three occasions when the government has closed a loophole to prevent avoidance, Tesco has taken advantage of ingenious schemes to get around it.
· The firm's devices have centred on complex limited partnership arrangements and unit trust schemes based in Jersey, and have included offshore companies.
· Tesco still has 36 stores wrapped up in UK limited partnerships - with Cayman Islands registered partners - which were established in 2006 before the latest loophole was closed. These - called Tesco Blue, Tesco Fuchsia and Tesco Pink - are set up and ready to be used for large scale property deals, and would be free of the 4% SDLT.
On the day Tesco issued proceedings, a press release to the stock exchange from the company admitted tax "savings" on two deals already done (for the first time after months of protracted exchanges with the Guardian): "By structuring these transactions in this way Tesco expects to achieve savings of £23m in stamp duty-related taxes on the transactions completed to date. The maximum additional savings in stamp duty-related taxes that might be achieved from using these structures could be another £30m to £40m."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/may/03/tesco.medialaw
Posted 6 months ago # -
Oh go on -have some more
Via various schemes tesco has avoided a billion pounds in tax over ten years - thats enough to build two or three new district general hospitals
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/may/31/tesco.supermarketsThe magazine Private Eye this week identified what it said was a Tesco tax avoidance operation involving a complex web of offshore operations centred on the Swiss canton of Zug. These arrangements involved an English limited liability partnership (LLP) called Cheshunt Overseas. Cheshunt is the name of the Hertfordshire town where Tesco has its headquarters.
The Cheshunt Overseas accounts provide grounds for believing that the structure may so far have assisted the international retailer in sheltering more than £66m in profit from UK tax.
The supermarket company is currently suing the Guardian over allegations about its corporation tax arrangements.
If the profits in Cheshunt Overseas accounts were subject to corporation tax in the UK, Tesco could have been liable for £20m corporation tax. Those accounts state that Cheshunt Overseas paid £4m of foreign taxes, a saving of £16m. Most of this saving comes from one single full year of Cheshunt's existence to February 2007. Cheshunt Overseas accounts for 2008 have not yet been published. Tesco's lawyers told the Guardian: "Tesco rely upon [an] entirely legitimate tax exemption."
Have a read of this
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/06/01/tescos-the-zug-deal-is-tax-avoidance/
Posted 6 months ago # -
Thats Ace - the Guardian accusing people of Tax avoidance
Posted 6 months ago # -
Oh go on -have some more
Via various schemes tesco has avoided a billion pounds in tax over ten years - thats enough to build two or three new district general hospitals
yet in the link you posted it says:
"The retailer launched a libel and malicious falsehood action against the Guardian when the paper incorrectly said Tesco was avoiding up to £1bn corporation tax on those land deals. Tesco described it as "a devastating attack on its integrity and ethics". The Guardian has already acknowledged its factual errors, has apologised, and has offered to do so again".
Do you see what I mean?
You want some more? Here you go -
[url=http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/846169/Guardian-apologises-pays-damages-settle-Tesco-tax-case/]nullAnd here's the information from the Guardian website you forgot to post
Tesco - an apology
Tesco has accepted a formal offer of apology by the Guardian in relation to the reports "Tesco's £1bn tax avoiding plan - move to the Cayman Islands" and "Every little bit helps: tax free pot of gold at end of Tesco's rainbow" (pages 1 and 27, February 27) and a related editorial and podcast. In these articles we reported that Tesco had created an elaborate off-shore corporate structure to avoid paying up to £1bn in UK corporation tax on profits from the sale of its UK properties, and that it had already successfully avoided corporation tax on the £500m profit it made from its first two property sales. We also suggested that this corporation tax avoidance was hypocritical, having regard to Tesco's public stance on social responsibility, and that Tesco's response to the charge had been evasive.
We now accept that these damaging allegations were unfounded and should not have been published. All profits generated by this sale and leaseback arrangement were earned by UK tax-resident companies and have been or will be included in Tesco's UK tax returns. The use of Cayman Island companies in the scheme was for legitimate stamp duty savings purposes. We also accept that Tesco's responses to the charges were truthful.
We regret that we did not publish the letter from Tesco's tax adviser received on the day of publication of the original articles and accept that the correction published on May 3 was insufficient. We accept that Tesco was not hypocritical in its corporation tax planning of these transactions having regard to its public stance on social responsibility and has a legitimate interest in seeing the facts about its tax arrangements fairly and accurately reported. Furthermore, we accept that Tesco is a very significant taxpayer, having contributed over £1bn to the public purse for the year to February 2007. We are happy to put the record straight and apologise to Tesco. We have also agreed to pay a sum by way of damages to a charity of Tesco's choice and a payment by way of costs.
Posted 6 months ago # -
For the record and to make this clear to all Members.
I have not emailed enfht, as a I mod I would not do it but even as not as a mod I have never and would never email someone about something on a forum. Unless they requested our it was for buying something on classifieds.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Pembo - and one of the articles I linked to is after that correcting the mistakes
Tescos are a serial tax avoider - there is no doubt. The Guardian got a few minor details wrong in the original story.
Look up the Zug deal.
This quote is after the corrections on the minor details. Note tco did not sue - they only thretened to
We have now established that:
· On a property disposal programme totalling £5bn, the exchequer could be deprived of in the region of £100m of tax.
· Tesco has been involved in a game of cat and mouse with HM Revenue & Customs since 2003.
· On three occasions when the government has closed a loophole to prevent avoidance, Tesco has taken advantage of ingenious schemes to get around it.
· The firm's devices have centred on complex limited partnership arrangements and unit trust schemes based in Jersey, and have included offshore companies.
· Tesco still has 36 stores wrapped up in UK limited partnerships - with Cayman Islands registered partners - which were established in 2006 before the latest loophole was closed. These - called Tesco Blue, Tesco Fuchsia and Tesco Pink - are set up and ready to be used for large scale property deals, and would be free of the 4% SDLT.
On the day Tesco issued proceedings, a press release to the stock exchange from the company admitted tax "savings" on two deals already done (for the first time after months of protracted exchanges with the Guardian): "By structuring these transactions in this way Tesco expects to achieve savings of £23m in stamp duty-related taxes on the transactions completed to date. The maximum additional savings in stamp duty-related taxes that might be achieved from using these structures could be another £30m to £40m."
this is only one part of it there is the CD sales thru the channel islands, the Zug deal that exports profits andimports losses to avoid tax.Posted 6 months ago # -
Told of Tesco's low-key return to Channel Islands VAT avoidance, Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vincent Cable said: "It seems to me absolutely extraordinary and seriously unwise for a leading British plc to be caught out dodging tax at a time when the country has a very serious fiscal crisis on its hands. I am sure if they are sufficiently aware of the importance of their reputation in this area that they will stop it immediately."
Posted 6 months ago # -
Told of Tesco's low-key return to Channel Islands VAT avoidance, Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vincent Cable said: "It seems to me absolutely extraordinary and seriously unwise for a leading British plc to be caught out dodging tax at a time when the country has a very serious fiscal crisis on its hands. I am sure if they are sufficiently aware of the importance of their reputation in this area that they will stop it immediately."
Pffffffttt.
Posted 6 months ago # -
The Guardian got a few minor details wrong in the original story.
Yep, just a rounding error in the Guardian story as explained in the apology
"In these articles we reported that Tesco had created an elaborate off-shore corporate structure to avoid paying up to £1bn in UK corporation tax on profits from the sale of its UK properties, and that it had already successfully avoided corporation tax on the £500m profit it made from its first two property sales....
We now accept that these damaging allegations were unfounded and should not have been published. All profits generated by this sale and leaseback arrangement were earned by UK tax-resident companies and have been or will be included in Tesco's UK tax returns."Explain to me again how, in your words:
Via various schemes tesco has avoided a billion pounds in tax over ten years - thats enough to build two or three new district general hospitals
Posted 6 months ago # -
Ok then Vodaphone....
Posted 6 months ago # -
Pembo = just read the links FFS man - Tescos are tax avoiders on a large
scale
Thats weasel words designed to appease lawyers - you need the rest of the contextTescos does appear on this evidence to be a business that is avoiding UK tax. It has avoided stamp duty and corporation tax, and has set up immensely complex structures to do so. Which, incidentally, is exactly what the Guardian alleged.
The claim that Tescos pays a ‘disproportionately high amount of tax in the UK’ is also wrong in my opinion. It has not paid more than £1 billion that might reasonably have been expected of it over the last 9 years.
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2008/06/01/tescos-the-zug-deal-is-tax-avoidance/Posted 6 months ago # -
Isn't it a moot point anyhow? There is not a single trade union in the country that makes a net contribution to the exchequer.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Thats weasel words designed to appease lawyers - you need the rest of the context
As opposed to the weasel words in your last post which are the opinion of someone funded by 2 unions.He also states when challenged in the blog comments:
"You’re right too – this is not the most outrageous example of tax avoidance ever. Far from it."
Posted 6 months ago # -
Pembo - just admit it - as I said tescos are large serial tax evaders - I have backed it up.
You said I was giving out misinformation - I am not.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Labour would be cutting 1% less
Posted 6 months ago # -
To get back on track...
Still looking forward to my gold plated pension of £4,200 which will require me to work an extra 6 years ,increase my contributions by 30% and will not rise with the rate on inflation as it should....all of which was in the pensions contract which I signed up to 25 years ago.
I wonder what all the naysayers on here would say if after paying their mortgages for 25 years were told sorry but you haven't actually paid your mortgage off like you thought you had and you will need to carry on paying for another 6 years ,increase your contributions by 30% etc etc
Divide and rule it's what the establisment has always done while quietly looking after their own.Posted 6 months ago # -
I'd prefer it if the Tories had the stones to cut my pay, but they dont so we get all this crap instead
Posted 6 months ago # -
I wonder what all the naysayers on here would say if after paying their mortgages for 25 years were told sorry but you haven't actually paid your mortgage off like you thought you had and you will need to carry on paying for another 6 years ,increase your contributions by 30% etc etc
That's not whats happening though, is it? In the real world, the nearest analogy to the union protection racket would be someone taking out a cheap tracker mortgage, and then complaining when rates go up and insisting that their neighbours pay the extra.
Quite rightly, the neighbours would say get lost. Which is what the majority of the country are telling the union fatcats at the moment.
Posted 6 months ago # -
dmjb4 - Member
Not just about pensions, as already stated it is about the cuts being made elsewhere that have been introduced with 3 weeks notice in the case of my profession. The mistake they made was not just bringing the cuts to pensions in without any warning. Hence a strike.
Posted 6 months ago # -
I'd prefer it if the Tories had the stones to cut my pay, but they dont so we get all this crap instead
Same here. At least that can be increased again in future. Pension contribution increase is a 5% cut in take home pay for the rest of my life.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Not just about pensions, as already stated it is about the cuts being made elsewhere that have been introduced with 3 weeks notice in the case of my profession. The mistake they made was not just bringing the cuts to pensions in without any warning. Hence a strike.
There are cuts everywhere, as we are in a recession. In our factory we have had two rounds of redundancy, and no-one ever had a guaranteed pension. Not that a private company ever could guarantee a pension in any case, as companies can and do fail. Sales are down, budgets are getting cut.
Outside of the cushy public sector this has been the case since 2007, when you might recall queues outside Northern Rock.
Basically, you've had a lot more than three weeks warning that there may be cutbacks coming! Public sector workers have simply been living in laa-laa land pretending its all been nothing to do with them, just other people getting sacked... Yes, those other people that pay their wages and pensions...
Posted 6 months ago # -
although sad people are loosing jobs/pensions...
had too good for too long, the wife had a 3 month stint in the local council office in the tax department, out of an office of 21 people (her mate was a manager), half were on the sick **** all wrong with them just it was so easy to do. the rest used to abuse the flexy time with the managers turning a blind eye. even the mrs mate said 5 people could have easily done the job of the 21!
not nice people loosing jobs but public sector has been taking the piss for years and they know it! people in private sector have been shafted for years!
Posted 6 months ago # -
monkeyboyjc - Member
true - however, that is the way it is and has been in the private sector for years / decades
See, this is really interesting- you're getting the shaft, which is a shame, but you're also assuming that everyone else is getting the same shaft. This seems to be pretty common among the shafted. (within my old office, one person worked a lot of unpaid overtime and naturally got no benefit of it, everyone else claimed- but she swore blind that "everyone does it" even when we were all telling her "no we don't".)
I have no idea why, but I suspect it's just another side of the fact that people don't like to see someone else do better than they are- one response is to try and drag them down to your level, another is to just close your eyes to it and imagine that they're in the same boat.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Outside of the cushy public sector this has been the case since 2007,
Well most of your so called cushy public sector are in threat of being tupe over
and your service is only held for a year.Maybe you need to find a descent employer yourself and then we can moan at you ?
Posted 6 months ago # -
dmjb4 -
Not much point in arguing as you appear to have a firmly held view of the public sector which a few lines on a bike forum ain't gonna change.
However for the record
Our pay has been frozen for 3 years at least-also impacting on those due to retire on final salary pension schemes.I have never had a pay rise as high as the rate of inflation in all my career in the public sector
Redundancies are happening to public sector workers too even though we were always led to believe they wouldn't.
Our long held redunancy terms have been savaged and are still the case of an ongoing judicial review because the government broke the law in changing them.
Workers in the private sector with poor pay and conditions of service have my sympathy and support.Most would not choose to work there if they had the choice and move on when better opportunities arise....to jobs with better pay.pensions etc
The better parts of the private sector had a long term view and paid good salaries,had good pensions and lots of staff perks, cash bonuses,shares,social clubs etc and as a consequence recruited the best staff and the companies benefited in output ,creativity,quality etc. it's a whole other thread about why that's no longer the case.Posted 6 months ago # -
What about business lunches,Xmas parties,putting it on expenses,kickbacks from suppliers,clocking in for one job and getting paid for the whole day on double time etc-Never seen it in all my years in the public sector but that's part of the private sector culture-perhaps explains it's demise......
Posted 6 months ago # -
nick1962 - Member
What about business lunches,Xmas parties,putting it on expenses,kickbacks from suppliers,clocking in for one job and getting paid for the whole day on double time etc-Never seen it in all my years in the public sector but that's part of the private sector culture-perhaps explains it's demise......What. Utter. Garbage.
Posted 6 months ago # -
Most of us do work for decent, fair employers. Our place would love to offer a employer sponsored pension and give everyone a raise, but if the 2012 lineup was priced up 20% to cover that, it wouldn't sell! We could strike if we like, but failed deliveries would half the customer base and we'd all be out of a job in time for Christmas.
Public sector has become fat and bloated. The vast majority of the public don't support the planned strike. If the strike does go ahead, I believe the outcome is more likely to be tougher controls on union activity than another bonus for union members.
Posted 6 months ago # -
What. Utter. Garbage.
I think not. One example-
My in law works for what was a long established succesful British family company bought out by an American multi national.
All of the above goes on-company meetings held at an all expenses paid resort in the Caribbean-where the head honchos hook up with high class hookers on expenses?? I could go on. Suffice to say the British arm of the corporation is now financing the rest of the worldwide operation as it is the only profitable part(surprise surprise) and guess where they are cutting back on staff benefits-yes the UK whilst the corporate board swan around the world in 5* hotels and paying themselves 6 and 7 figure bonuses last year . They also have a plant in Africa where they are raping the local environment and poisoning their workers to fund the (bankrupt)American arm of their operation.
Ain't compassioante capitalism great.Posted 6 months ago # -
dmjb4 - Member
Public sector has become fat and bloated
I want to challenge the idea that the public sector is somehow synonymous with an underachieving, couldn't-care-less attitude.
You get the impression that those who work in the public sector are burdens on the state rather than dedicated professionals who work hard to improve the quality of people's lives.
Public service - the concept of working for the good of the community - is a high ideal. We see it in our doctors and nurses, our police officers and our soldiers.
But we also see it in many, many areas of our civil service and local government. Yet this is rarely, if ever, acknowledged.
And when I hear Ministers bashing bureaucrats - or declaring that their departments are 'not fit for purpose' - I wish they'd have the decency to admit that very often it's their policies that are at fault, not the people who work for them.
Instead of using public servants as scapegoats we should acknowledge their successes.
The truth is that public servants are privately dedicated to what they do. To them, it's not just work - it's their vocation. Often it's not just their job - it's their life.
Think about what the term "public service" actually means.
It signifies two clear things: that something is being provided for the public, and that it is a service.
Too often these days, there seems to be an automatic and lazy assumption that you get terrible service in the public sector and fantastic service in the private sector.
You regularly hear politicians and commentators going on about "bringing private sector efficiency to public services" - for example sending in private sector 'hit squads' to teach hospitals how to perform better.
There's a widespread assumption that we should always and everywhere encourage the public sector to adopt the techniques and the style of service found in the private sector.
The quality of service that someone gets doesn't depend primarily on whether that service is being provided by the private sector or the public sector.
It depends on a whole range of things that affect the people who are actually delivering the service.
Whether they're well led.
Whether they're motivated.
Whether they have the resources to give good service.
Whether they're trusted to use their personal skills, experience and discretion to do a good job.
We need to understand what lessons the public sector may have for the private sector, instead of the automatic and lazy assumption that it's always the public sector that has to learn from the private.
In my life, I've received amazing service from the public sector - with a quality of care and commitment that you do not always find in the private sector.
Posted 6 months ago # -
ernie
To be fair the last few ministers in charge of our department whether they be Labour or Tory regularly praise our efforts in completing various projects and implementing new government initiatives,achieving challenging targets and delivering excellent cutomer service.
Unfortunately ministerial praise wont pay my fuel bills in my dotage...the pension I have been building all my working life was for that.Posted 6 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
