economic situation is dire

[Risso]

No one has said that as you well know. Lots of things contribute to recovery plans, and when we are constantly told how we must all do our bit, you can understand the anger and frustration when the wealthy elements are obviously avoiding theirs

There will always be ways to pay less tax while there are jurisdictions that offer lower rates. However, it's more difficult under this government than it was under the last, as they are getting very tough with aggressive tax avoidance schemes. Working in the IOM there have been several big casualties amongst those sorts of firms, and those that are left are fighting over a much smaller market.

Much further to go, though. I think it would be interesting to see a similar degree of ferocity against people dodging tax as those practicing benefit scams. Scaled up in proportion to the amounts involved, of course.

When you say "dodging tax", what do you actually mean though? the average man in the street sees tax as a very simple business, you earn your money each month, and a proportion of it goes out on Tax and NI. Tax law at this level is mostly very simple, but even so there are often arguments about whether certain expenses are allowable.

When you get into international finance though, things can get very complex indeed, with often no "right or wrong" answers, which is why there are so many firms of rich accountants and tax lawyers arguing their side, with HMRC arguing the other. Take the Vodafone "£6bn" situation for example. That case first reared its head in 2000, ie ten years before it was actually settled. That was dragging on, and dragging on, so as often happens in lengthy disputes, both sides settled for something that they both considered reasonable. HMRC could probably have got more of course, but similarly they could have got nothing. Vodafone could have paid a lot more, and like wise could have paid nothing.

Expecting rich individuals not to have access to better accountants and legal advisors is like expecting them not have nicer cars and houses. All HMRC can do is make better laws and close loopholes.

[peterms]

I was working for a firm (small business) when we were in the teeth of this recession and demand fell off a cliff. We suddenly had staff who simply weren't paying their way and it took months of verbal warnings, then written warnings then finsl written warnings before they could be sacked.

As a result the business went down completely and many more than necessary lost their jobs. If those indviduals could simply have been given four weeks notice then it may not have turned out that way.

Why did the firm go down the route of conduct/competence, rather than using the far simpler method of redundancy on the grounds of reduced demand and therefore reduced requirement for the activities in question? Seems a very odd way to go about it.

[drat01]

Doffing caps to lords? WTF are you going on about now?!

More aggressive posting, why?

A worker has rights, many argue that these do not go far enough and you see the differences between how the UK workforce (what's left of it) and somewhere like Germany. Sacking someone has to be for correct reasons and follow procedures that are fair to all.

Your "system" would allow vindictive, bully boy employers to basically ride over the work force with little rights for the workers. Much in the same way as Victorian Britain where workers were often expected to "doff their caps" to their Lord and Masters.

Maybe people should just turn up at work, kiss the bosses feet, bring them an apple and be thankful they have a job?

But seriously if you honestly think that making it even easier to sack people will stimulate the economy then you could not be further from any sort of reality IMO

[Awol]

I was working for a firm (small business) when we were in the teeth of this recession and demand fell off a cliff. We suddenly had staff who simply weren't paying their way and it took months of verbal warnings, then written warnings then finsl written warnings before they could be sacked.

As a result the business went down completely and many more than necessary lost their jobs. If those indviduals could simply have been given four weeks notice then it may not have turned out that way.

Why did the firm go down the route of conduct/competence, rather than using the far simpler method of redundancy on the grounds of reduced demand and therefore reduced requirement for the activities in question? Seems a very odd way to go about it.

You'd need to ask the Director and his lawyer I'm afraid. The latter certainly said to the former that the route I mentioned was the only way.

[Awol]

Doffing caps to lords? WTF are you going on about now?!

More aggressive posting, why?

Exasperation, but as stated before please repost where I was being 'aggressive'.

Your "system" would allow vindictive, bully boy employers to basically ride over the work force with little rights for the workers. Much in the same way as Victorian Britain where workers were often expected to "doff their caps" to their Lord and Masters.

So instead of addressing the real world example I just gave you about asmall business and arguing on that basis, you hark back to some Victorian Britain scenario.

Useful.

[Risso]

Why not look at further tax incentives for businesses to take on more people and make it easier to hire and fire - so if the business doesn't benefit proportionally to the increased staffing they can be let go again?

That's already the case. One of the classic grounds for making redundancies is that the requirement for a particular function or activity (and the associated staffing) has diminished. It has always been recognised as a fair and proper reason for reducing staffing, and employment law reflects this.

Fair and proper it may be, fraught with problems and pitfalls it certainly is. Making people redundant is a costly minefield, especially for small firms. I was on an employment law conference in London yesterday, and we were told that 90% of unfair dismissal claims brought as a conequence of redundancy are settled in the employee's favour. So while an employer might make a reasonable call, such as making it "last in, first out" there's nothing stopping somebody making a claim based on say, age discrimination.

[peterms]

When you say "dodging tax", what do you actually mean though? the average man in the street sees tax as a very simple business, you earn your money each month, and a proportion of it goes out on Tax and NI. Tax law at this level is mostly very simple, but even so there are often arguments about whether certain expenses are allowable.

When you get into international finance though, things can get very complex indeed, with often no "right or wrong" answers, which is why there are so many firms of rich accountants and tax lawyers arguing their side, with HMRC arguing the other. Take the Vodafone "£6bn" situation for example. That case first reared its head in 2000, ie ten years before it was actually settled. That was dragging on, and dragging on, so as often happens in lengthy disputes, both sides settled for something that they both considered reasonable. HMRC could probably have got more of course, but similarly they could have got nothing. Vodafone could have paid a lot more, and like wise could have paid nothing.

Expecting rich individuals not to have access to better accountants and legal advisors is like expecting them not have nicer cars and houses. All HMRC can do is make better laws and close loopholes.

Private Eye is interesting on HMRC, Vodaphone and others, and the tendency for the head of the organisation to settle for small amounts in the face of legal advice that they have a strong case and can get a far higher settlement. A chat over a nice lunch, a gentleman's agreement.

Quite a contrast with how small-time crooks and fiddlers are treated.

The tax system does seem to be too complicated, and it almost invites people to spend time finding new and ever cleverer ways round what was intended. And that's the point about avoidance - it's not using available schemes like ISAs, created as public policy, but finding secret ways round to defeat the aim and purpose of the system.

What I would like to see is far harder action on evasion (eg lifetime ban on being a company director for anyone convicted of tax evasion, ban on practicing for any accountant and lawyer aiding them), together with measures to tackle avoidance (eg general anti-avoidance provision, shift to something like land tax which is harder to avoid).

[Eames]

Massive funds - as pointed out, and as being pointed out by the Deputy PM, massive funds need to be invested to create jobs. That is not happening, due to many factors including world events, but for those which this Gvmt have a real impact on the levels of cuts and the levels of incomes lost through Tax avoidance etc result in funds being not invested. Unless of course you do not agree that jobs are a major key to recovery?

But again, you've not been clear on the origin of these "massive funds" The economy cannot continue to operate with a policy of defecit spending, because ultimately, the books have to balance eventually. Cuts to reduce spending and pay down the billions this country has spent beyond its means, are unfortunately necessary. In terms of Welfare Cuts, if those who are able to work who choose not to, then the state should not provide support for them. For instance, at present we pay drug addicts INCAPACITY benefit. How is that right? If you CHOOSE to abuse illegal substances to a point that prevents you from functioning in society, how is the responsibility of the tax payer to look after you?

See you fall into that old right wing media trap of talking about the "public sector" as though it were one entity. It is not. You say it it is bloated and inefficient, but what parts are? Surely even if they were recovery and addressing this should be done as a structured well thought out approach? Interesting that this Gvmt, who claimed as a headline grabbing policy pre the election to "sort out the banks" are now giving them nearly 10 years to address their problem. BUT for the public sector as you call it with things like NHS attacks they are jumping in with two feet and slashing and closing (and privatising) without any real thought or understanding or even flexibility. Surely that is not right?

No trap to fall into here Drat. The public sector IS inefficient. We promote expert clinicians in the NHS to management positions without thought that they may not be as good a manager as they are clinically.

There are examples in the press of "non jobs" at most councils, local government offices, and the like.

Take the subject of pensions for example, how can it be right that those of us in the "public sector" strike over the retention of FS pension schemes where the private sector have already undergone a move to average earnings arrangements, shortend working hours and the like to protect employment.

So what you are saying is that we should just accept it? You and I then are at totally different ends of that particular spectrum

No - not accept it... but a balance has to be struck, is it not better than to collect say 75% of the total tax due - or 0% if that individual/company chooses to move their base of operations abroad. I don't begrudge ANY individual trying to protect as much of their earnings as possible is they have worked for them.

Again headline policy from this Gvmt was to address this and again are failing. To quote a well know Tory if you don't like where you live "get on your bike". Seriously though is it healthy for the country to allow this divide to continue to grow? Again it seems you are happy for that? If so again different ends of the spectrum

I do like it. Thats why I live here, the North might as well be the 3rd world as far as I am concerned. I earn more, but the trade off is that my house is more expensive. Seems fair to me.

No I don't see the need for a reduction in the number of MP's as a good thing. I saw electoral change as a good thing but the country did not. What are the real benefits for the expenditure for these changes? Reddy Eddy - Oh dear ...... . Again deflection from the points, and interesting that you do not mention the election of Police chiefs as a good use of public monies?

So reform you DO agree with is a chance for change? But reform you do not as Gerrymandering?

[Risso]

I was working for a firm (small business) when we were in the teeth of this recession and demand fell off a cliff. We suddenly had staff who simply weren't paying their way and it took months of verbal warnings, then written warnings then finsl written warnings before they could be sacked.

As a result the business went down completely and many more than necessary lost their jobs. If those indviduals could simply have been given four weeks notice then it may not have turned out that way.

Why did the firm go down the route of conduct/competence, rather than using the far simpler method of redundancy on the grounds of reduced demand and therefore reduced requirement for the activities in question? Seems a very odd way to go about it.

Because reduced demand is a reason for scaling back your workforce, but redundancy still requires you to have a method for selecting the people to be made redundant. And if those people don't like it, chances are they'll take you to a tribunal, with all the time and expense that that involves.

[drat01]

So instead of addressing the real world example I just gave you about asmall business and arguing on that basis, you hark back to some Victorian Britain scenario.

Useful.

By your own posts and others, it seems that the company went about ways of addressing downturns in a very strange way and probably showed the company bosses to be at fault rather than a system / set of laws that is there to protect the work force. I maintain that erosion and eradication of workers rights is NOT a way forward. The progress made on workers rights, including minimum wage etc have not affected economic growth in a bad way at all (despite the scare stories from certain Tory politicians before it was introduced). Allowing bosses to run companies in a atmosphere of fear is a step back to Victorian Britain and one that has no place in a 21st century society

[Risso]

What I would like to see is far harder action on evasion (eg lifetime ban on being a company director for anyone convicted of tax evasion, ban on practicing for any accountant and lawyer aiding them), together with measures to tackle avoidance (eg general anti-avoidance provision, shift to something like land tax which is harder to avoid).

Any accountant or solicitor found guilty of involvement in tax evasion (which is a criminal offence remember) would be expelled from their professional societies and banned from practising. HMRC is already talking about a GAAR, but implementing one is exceedingly difficult thanks to the UK's absurdly complex existing tax laws.

[Awol]

So instead of addressing the real world example I just gave you about asmall business and arguing on that basis, you hark back to some Victorian Britain scenario.

Useful.

By your own posts and others, it seems that the company went about ways of addressing downturns in a very strange way and probably showed the company bosses to be at fault rather than a system / set of laws that is there to protect the work force.

Or if we don't just ignore Risso's posts then maybe not..

I maintain that erosion and eradication of workers rights is NOT a way forward. The progress made on workers rights, including minimum wage etc have not affected economic growth in a bad way at all (despite the scare stories from certain Tory politicians before it was introduced).

The ony person referring to the minimum wage is you, presumably hoping that if repeated often enough people will think one of those obscene right of centre types mentioned it.

Allowing bosses to run companies in a atmosphere of fear is a step back to Victorian Britain and one that has no place in a 21st century society

Assuming that ALL or even many bosses would run their companies like a Poorhouse given more flexble labour markets is as backward as suggesting that EVERYONE on benefits is a thieving gypsy.

[drat01]

But again, you've not been clear on the origin of these "massive funds" The economy cannot continue to operate with a policy of defecit spending, because ultimately, the books have to balance eventually. Cuts to reduce spending and pay down the billions this country has spent beyond its means, are unfortunately necessary. In terms of Welfare Cuts, if those who are able to work who choose not to, then the state should not provide support for them. For instance, at present we pay drug addicts INCAPACITY benefit. How is that right? If you CHOOSE to abuse illegal substances to a point that prevents you from functioning in society, how is the responsibility of the tax payer to look after you?

So maybe you should talk to Mr Clegg. He is talking about "massive funds" to stimulate growth, where are they? You paint a picture as though there is literally nothing, when the reality situation is that funds are still there and will be generated more so from correct policy, something like a "plan B" . Again, and sorry but this is very typical of right wing supporters, there seems to be a either massive cuts or more borrowing argument, when the reality is that there is a lot more options, including looking at levels, targets and time-scales for budgets. I see you mention welfare cuts as some sort of justification, which is totally missing the point and using the vulnerable in society as a justification for idealogical led cuts

No trap to fall into here Drat. The public sector IS inefficient. We promote expert clinicians in the NHS to management positions without thought that they may not be as good a manager as they are clinically.

There are examples in the press of "non jobs" at most councils, local government offices, and the like.

Take the subject of pensions for example, how can it be right that those of us in the "public sector" strike over the retention of FS pension schemes where the private sector have already undergone a move to average earnings arrangements, shortend working hours and the like to protect employment.

What is the Public Sector? To claim is "inefficient" is a major one. So ALL areas of publicly financed society is inefficient? As with all areas of society things are fluid and would need looking at to improve. All companies, well ones that want to survive, do it and those that typically prosper are those that have a proper structured plan, one that does not impose massive attacks to its core base and its wealth generations. We see it at work when the "bean counters" get dragged in, typically they try and sack a few people, stop travel and make the idea of phone calls being better than face-2-face as a way to sell. The reality is though that more funds come into the company as a result of those actions and the old adage of spend a little to gain a lot is a very true one often. Problems have to be solved, I am struggling to find anyone who has said following the world crisis (led by the financial sector) that cuts and budgets need to be addressed. The problem occurs when actions are taken not to address the issues but to satisfy ideologies that benefit a few rather than the majority

No - not accept it... but a balance has to be struck, is it not better than to collect say 75% of the total tax due - or 0% if that individual/company chooses to move their base of operations abroad. I don't begrudge ANY individual trying to protect as much of their earnings as possible is they have worked for them.

Balance? At what point is your tipping point into acceptability? I thought Cameron said we are all in this together? If I don't pay my Income Tax and say to HMRC I'll give you 75% is that acceptable? Of course it isn't. This is really **** all to do with protection of monies earned, this is greed

I do like it. Thats why I live here, the North might as well be the 3rd world as far as I am concerned. I earn more, but the trade off is that my house is more expensive. Seems fair to me.

I'm sure that your view of the North being 3rd world is one that many in Gvmt share :-) - as for your house being more expensive, maybe a quick read as to cause on financial sector problems will help

So reform you DO agree with is a chance for change? But reform you do not as Gerrymandering?

Sorry for the abruptness here but do you actually understand what GerryMandering is?

In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating geographic boundaries to create partisan, incumbent-protected districts. The resulting district is known as a gerrymander; however, that word can also refer to the process.

Gerrymandering may be used to achieve desired electoral results for a particular party, or may be used to help or hinder a particular demographic, such as a political, racial, linguistic, religious or class group.

That was from wiki.

Electoral reform - i.e. AV etc is not GerryMandering

[peterms]

Fair and proper it may be, fraught with problems and pitfalls it certainly is. Making people redundant is a costly minefield, especially for small firms. I was on an employment law conference in London yesterday, and we were told that 90% of unfair dismissal claims brought as a conequence of redundancy are settled in the employee's favour. So while an employer might make a reasonable call, such as making it "last in, first out" there's nothing stopping somebody making a claim based on say, age discrimination.

Actually only 8% of unfair dismissal claims were successful at tribunal in 2010-11, according to Government stats. 10% were unsuccessful, and the rest were either struck out, withdrawn, settled between the parties etc. And that's of the ones where someone felt there was a strong enough case even to raise it in the first place.

Possibly the lawyers are overstating the complexity of the position and the consequent need for legal help.

Last in first out used to be a safe criterion for selection, though as an employer I never found it a sensible one (why would the newest person be the one you would want to get rid of first, regardless of ability and competence?). Now, it seems to be in conflict with age discrimination laws, and employers are advised to find other criteria.

[drat01]

Or if we don't just ignore Risso's posts then maybe not..

But the reality is the company did things in a very strange way and you are still maintaining that if draconian working practices were allowed it would have been acceptable.

the mention of minimum wage (and again why the tone of your post?) is a simple one. That is one major workers right that has been questioned by similar right wing supporters as you and many have said they would like to see it abolished. You have claimed on here that removing workers rights on hire and fire would help to stimulate the economy. Would you say then that extension of that and removal of minimum wage would also do the same? Where do you stop are removal of workers rights?

Assuming that ALL or even many bosses would run their companies like a Poorhouse given more flexble labour markets is as backward as suggesting that EVERYONE on benefits is a thieving gypsy.

AWOL removal of rights as you suggest are NOT enabling more flexible labour markets whatever way you want to dress it up. And if you honestly do not believe that making it easier to sack people would not be abused, I think you are very much mistaken

[peterms]

I was working for a firm (small business) when we were in the teeth of this recession and demand fell off a cliff. We suddenly had staff who simply weren't paying their way and it took months of verbal warnings, then written warnings then finsl written warnings before they could be sacked.

As a result the business went down completely and many more than necessary lost their jobs. If those indviduals could simply have been given four weeks notice then it may not have turned out that way.

Why did the firm go down the route of conduct/competence, rather than using the far simpler method of redundancy on the grounds of reduced demand and therefore reduced requirement for the activities in question? Seems a very odd way to go about it.

Because reduced demand is a reason for scaling back your workforce, but redundancy still requires you to have a method for selecting the people to be made redundant. And if those people don't like it, chances are they'll take you to a tribunal, with all the time and expense that that involves.

Which is why sensible employers establish a redundancy policy setting out criteria for selection, consult staff on it, and take their representations into account. Having done that before any redundancy situation arises is a pretty good defence. Making it up as you go along, as some seem to, is asking for trouble.

[JamesWithe]

Things are going to get worse and worse and worse :nod:

(At least going to football could become really cheap again)

[Risso]

I was working for a firm (small business) when we were in the teeth of this recession and demand fell off a cliff. We suddenly had staff who simply weren't paying their way and it took months of verbal warnings, then written warnings then finsl written warnings before they could be sacked.

As a result the business went down completely and many more than necessary lost their jobs. If those indviduals could simply have been given four weeks notice then it may not have turned out that way.

Why did the firm go down the route of conduct/competence, rather than using the far simpler method of redundancy on the grounds of reduced demand and therefore reduced requirement for the activities in question? Seems a very odd way to go about it.

Because reduced demand is a reason for scaling back your workforce, but redundancy still requires you to have a method for selecting the people to be made redundant. And if those people don't like it, chances are they'll take you to a tribunal, with all the time and expense that that involves.

Which is why sensible employers establish a redundancy policy setting out criteria for selection, consult staff on it, and take their representations into account. Having done that before any redundancy situation arises is a pretty good defence. Making it up as you go along, as some seem to, is asking for trouble.

Even if things are played by the book, it can bite companies on the arse. You could make 2 people out of 4 redundant, and whether it is based on first in last out, or qualifications etc, if the two people being made redundant are old, or female or just about anything, it is quite possible for a claim to be made, which as we both agree on, leads to 90% of claims being settled, whether as a result of a successful unfair dismissal claim, or as is far more common, a compromise payment that is still more than the worker is legally entitled to, but is less expensive than defending an ongoing claim.

[Awol]

Or if we don't just ignore Risso's posts then maybe not..

But the reality is the company did things in a very strange way and you are still maintaining that if draconian working practices were allowed it would have been acceptable.

No, I'm not. I haven't said anything about draconian working practices, minimum wage or selling the poor for fuel.

mention of minimum wage (and again why the tone of your post?) is a simple one. That is one major workers right that has been questioned by similar right wing supporters as you and many have said they would like to see it abolished.

Drat, many left wing supporters like you would prefer to see 80-90% tax on top rate earners and nationalisation of everything in the country. I don't bring that into a debate with you about something unconnected because you have never expressed those as your personal views - so why do you insist on doing it?

Would you say then that extension of that and removal of minimum wage would also do the same?

No or I'd have said so, wouldn't I?

[Risso]

Drat, many left wing supporters like you would prefer to see 80-90% tax on top rate earners

I bet he wouldn't!