Be Excellent To Each Other

Is it even a year since they floated on the Stock Exchange?

Layoffs have started

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26728116

Heard about it this morning. Scumbags. Sell off royal mail and then its shares increase due to good profits. But still they need to sack people?

Of course they do - to maximise profits for all the new shareholders.

Let's not go mad - they're sacking middle managers. I feel this is to be applauded.

I love the knee jerk "Capitalist Scum!!11" reaction to cutting out dead wood, long overdue (and guess who's been paying, incl. massive accruing pension liabilities - taxpayers).

We learned in the 1970s that keeping people in "unjobs" is entirely bad, counterproductive and above all, most unfair to everyone else who's expected to pay for them (see also recent RMT discussion, London Underground etc.). I, for one, am not.

People need to get real; this is 2014, not 1974. It's tough out there. (Besides which, and I hate to have to point this out, but the Royal Mail are supposed to be a business, not a charity - and businesses need to make *profit*. So, far from a dirty word, it's a prerequisite)

Yes, I'm sure that their children will understand that perfectly when they're living in a shitty hostel after the family loses their home.

Applause all round!

...So, when the Royal Mail was publicly owned, we (taxpayers) should fund x number of totally unnecessary jobs (and divert much needed elsewhere tax revenue to fund salaries and pensions for those unnecessary jobs and/or push stamps prices up to ever less affordable levels) - because if we don't, they'll end up in "shitty hostels"...?

Worse, now that the company is privately owned, its shareholders must now do the same?

Seriously mate, get a grip here.

I'm not arguing about the economics of it (although I think you certainly could in this case), simply taking issue with the air of triumphalism around real people with real lives losing their jobs through no fault of their own.

'Applause' for getting rid of the 'dead wood' might look zesty on a forum post but these are men and women going home to their families and telling their nearest and dearest that they might be short of somewhere to live in the not too distant future.

And besides which if we're talking about 'the rest of us' propping up institutions that couldn't/wouldn't do things properly in the 'real world' then the BILLIONS that the taxpayer has dropped into the pockets of the bankers pales in comparison to the millions that the Royal Mail seems to think it can save for the benefit of its shareholders.

And lest we forget it was sold for a song in the first place, but we were told that private sector efficiences would be a positive development, as a commentator elsewhere put it:

Ruh-roh.

If we really want to save some money we should just cull the elderly

"An economic case" for employing thousands of people who are entirely unneeded...? Yeah, they tried that in the USSR; it didn't go so well.

Bleh. Can't be bothered with this laughable bollocks all over again, sorry.

And the sick. And the disabled.

After all, who needs those crippled fuckers, eh?

Uurgh, don't joke like that please. I imagine certain people round here would unironically cheer on culls of the vulnerable.

Mate, there's a difference between a COMPANY saving money, and a GOVERNMENT saving money. I argue that we want companies to be as efficient and profitable as possible, so that they:

(a) Pay as much tax as possible on profits, enabling the GOVERNMENT to spend it on people who cannot work and a whole bunch of other stuff besides

(b) Employ as many people as possible in jobs that ARE needed, in a successful, dynamic, challenging environment

(c) Beat off competition (esp. from overseas) to maximise benefit for UK PLC

Etc.

Don't conflate private companies & their objectives with the role and objectives of government (and please don't think that just because someone believes in employing people in real jobs, in the real economy, and that companies are businesses & there to make profits = wheel out the Soylent Green etc.).

There is nothing inherently immoral about a successful, lean, efficient company. (But there could well be something immoral about a company/monopoly that is impervious to competition and/or has captive market that forces its customers to pay through the nose for employing hordes of people not needed/beholden to unions etc.?)

Name those certain people.

I don't agree with various things people say on here, yet I can't think of a single person, regardless of their views or what I think of them, that would think that.

I think we should cull Mac owners... Or Windows 8 owners. Whichever is easier.

Bring back Logan's run.

Cavey, I was only joking! I agree that companies should be efficient and all that jazz.

I also agree that they should pay taxes. Unfortunately, the companies seem to disagree, and in the eyes of the government if a company uses loopholes to minimise tax it is a good thing, but if an individual uses them to maximise benefits then they're an arsehole.

But I wasn't implying that you or anyone else wants to cull the elderly.

Entirely agree.



I know that mate; sadly I suspect some people don't - as truly batshit insane as that is.

You're allowed to make any offensive sweeping accusation if you're doing it in the name of bringing attention of the CLASS WAR being promoted by the Tories against the 99%.

Conversely in reality the people who carry out the most propaganda bullshit in war-like actions in this supposed class war are those complaining about the supposed existence of the war.

As with Cavey, I'm tired of all this shit now. All bankers are cunts, they've got all of our money, the Tories want to kill every poor person, everything the left suggest is valid and supportable without any facts to back it up, all companies choose to avoid tax, the natural wastage of 1200 jobs in a modernising industry due to fundamental changes in working methods to align with the needs of customers is like the holocaust, if you don't want unused ticket offices kept open for no good reason you're a Satanist.

I think Cavey and Riles being on the same page for several topics in a row is one of the signs of impending apocalypse!

As discussed previously, we're nearly always on the same page, just express it differently. Although, not today, clearly.

Careful APOD, there seems to be a few people who'll think you mean this.

...Impending apocalypse? No, just world domination. We'll be (mainly) benevolent, just don't have a Mac is all I'll say for now.

I don't entirely agree.

The majority of 'loopholes' for corporates are no such thing. They are deliberately structured facets of the system designed to encourage investment, recycling of investment and consistency across international trading partners. Ideally, the burden of tax should never fall on the corporate vehicle, it should fall on the investor, but corporate taxes are there to ensure a collection mechanism for an element.

That the man on the street doesn't understand this is reasonable, I'm not being patronising but I don't claim that I can understand particle physics, or personal accident law, or how to tarmac a road, so why everyone and his dog thinks he should 100% understand western taxation policy is only down to poor information from people who are (deliberately in many cases) misinforming from a point of no or limited knowledge, who should really know better.

I personally do think that international tax liberalisation has gone too far for corporates, but that supertanker isn't turning quickly, regardless as to how positive the G8/G7 claim to be on BEPS. I'll be surprised if the reach the promised land that they target for in 3 years time by the time I retire.

There is then 'other tax avoidance' which is loophole driven through synthetic tax products - think Chris Moyles/Jimmy Carr, both of which I deem unacceptable, but are a small fraction of the 'Tax Gap' that is punted around as being the route of all evil.

You're an Accountant; clearly your knowledge in this area is multiple orders of magnitude greater than my own, which is largely limited to what I learn from the (serious) media.

To be fair however, it certainly *is* the case that large, multinational companies at least ARE able to avoid largely paying Corporation Tax at all (via funnelling monies into zero-tax regime countries); there have been copious, recent, well publicised examples.

I'm certainly not trying to pretend that I've got a handle on all of this BUT it is entirely fair for me to agree with Curio's point, which is essentially correct: "the companies" being very large, multinationals, and the "tax" in question being Corporation Tax.

It pains me no end that "normal" UK firms, SMEs and even tiny outfits like mine get clobbered for tax on our meagre profits (spent in UK), and these behemoths are able to suck their billions out of the country, seemingly with impunity.

given the inefficiencies and inabilities of most ruling parties, coupled with man's inherent greed, I find it hard to believe that these structured facets are there purely for the benefit of the economy, and refuse to believe that they shouldn't be reviewed and adjusted as appropriate. However, the persons doing such a review would also be fallible to greed, etc and so basically, as with many of these things, it comes down to being seen to be doing something; when in essence there is no positive change and all that happens is that the money falls into someone elses greed paws for a short time before the status quo is resumed.

In short, we're all fucked.

Unless we're rich.

So on that note, I might go open a lovely bottle of wine.

I think Riles is just copying and pasting his firm's last pitch document.

Right, but what are your opinions on tax loopholes?

Without going into huge detail (as I started with, I'm bored of it, and also I'm on holiday) - get into the detail and the siphoning isn't there. Some examples:

Boots - Head office is in Switzerland - but it pays UK tax on its profits in the UK. A scandal was attempted to be generated out of interest payments to Switzerland, but UK rules cap these for tax allowance, and they're taxed in Switzerland anyway, so not an actual saving.

Barclays - Pays 0.5% Corporation Tax on profits of £2bn. Agreed. However, paid £600m Tax worldwide on those profits. Try and make the UK catch more tax liability and the only thing you'd have done is generate a repayment.

Starbucks - made losses because they paid a connected party too much for coffee beans. Despite the fact that independent starbucks franchises in the UK pay at least the same rate, if not more. Again, force the issue and you give them bigger losses (Starbucks doesn't pay tax in the UK as they're badly managed and don't make profits but the US keeps writing a blank cheque).

Google/Amazon - Pay little tax here but have more employees. Granted, the rules seem odd. However I can be certain that my clients have paid half a billion in tax in the UK in recent years, purely by virtue of the same rule which keeps Google/Amazon outside the UK for CT purposes. Across the piece, tightening those rules to catch those companies would give away the same amount of tax in financial services.

And so on and so on. Its not loopholes, its a deliberate balance. However the person who shouts loudest isnt' Ed Milliband or Ed Balls, not Osborne or Alexander, its Margaret Hodge. Who is on the PAC, has no financial or exchequer experience and has gone so far outside her remit on the investigations by that committee its ridiculous.

Also, I stopped being an accountant 15 years ago, you cunt.

Fuck me, that's blown me away.... seriously...?




(Also: sorry )

(edit: agreed on Hodge, the business-hating, UK-damaging, self-promoting imbecile)

All good points, but to preempt the inevitable question:

Why should we care that Barclays paid a lot of tax in a different country. We want them to pay it here so we can build hospitals and pay nurses and teachers*




* All tax gathered from companies, of course, pays for teachers and nurses and firefighters. Not sure where they get the money for all those fucking wars; must have found a few quid down the back of the sofa.

I don't think the government like it when you beat people off for money.

Because international double tax rules say you cant be taxed on the same income twice, and hence it will only be taxed in the country in which it was earned, or you get given relief for the tax already suffered.

The same principle that people claim as a loophole for Barclays is the same one that stops Spain from taxing two weeks of your salary when you go there on holiday for a fortnight. Do note the massive oversimplification that I've applied there.

Riles, aren't you at Disneyland right now?

Shouldn't you be trying to work out if the girls in the princess outfits are over 16?

Isn't the rather important bit that they try to shift income around to the lowest tax rate jurisdiction rather than in the jurisdiction where they're actually undertkaign the activity and taking advantage of all the taxpayer funded things like roads and whatnot, by what can only be described as rather artifical arrangements?

I'm not aware Boots has a large operation in Switzerland.

They're fine with it as long as you declare it as taxable income.

Its never nice when there are lay offs, the Royal Mail is a great service, it still delivers mails to remote areas when most of the "open market" players are not bothered with.

But its riddled with unions and bad out of date practices, some things are getting better, now instead of getting missed delivery's sent to a depot that opens 5 hours a day they are sent to a post office locally with longer opening hours.

Privatisation was a good plan for the government, sell it off and let somebody else get the union fights and bad press whilst they drag the company into the 21st century.

You can't blame a single public company for doing this. They have a duty to shareholders to return the best profits. So if you can avoid tax by following legal rules that successive governments can't or don't want to change then so be it. Its morally wrong but legal.

What pisses me off is when you get a state like Ireland who has had billions in hand-outs from the UK and EU, yet still is allowed to have its corporation tax lower than the UK and can attract Google and MS over there.