|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 7343 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Oct 2004 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2024 | May 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="DaveO"Your arguments ignore the most important point. [uThe wages paid are not enough to live off[/u. Where does your personal moral compass lie with that?
'"
I don't have a relationship with Wal-Mart as far as I'm aware, I rarely shop at ASDA, not out of any guilt but simply because there isn't one near me.
However, I'm not telling people they should shop there, shouldn't shop there, should work there, shouldn't work there. I am sticking to reality and saying that if people go there for low prices it is because costs are low, and for most businesses staff costs are the big variable cost they squeeze to get low costs. I don't advocate poverty wages as a business strategy, I think there are often better ways, but not neccessarily ones you'd be happy with. Business will pay higher wages when they see higher productivity as a return on that, but the flip side is that with higher productivity you need less staff but better skilled staff and capital investment in technology. That's just the nature of adding capital to labour, I read it expressed recently as like replacing ten men with shovels with one man and a mechanical digger, the man operating the digger gets more money than a man with a shovel. Now, it may be that the for Wal-Mart there is weak opportunity to replace low skilled labour with capital investment and higher skilled labour, I don't know. But higher wages without increased wage costs means increased productivity, and that means less staff; higher wages without increased productivity means higher costs, means higher costs that flow to whoever bears the costs.
The profit issue can become a bit of a red herring, most investors look for a normal range of return on investment, a certain percentage that varies based on the industry and the level of risk (I don't know what this is for Wal-Mart btw). Quoting huge headline figures is misleading without knowing what the return on investment is, $15bn is only a good return for the investor if each $ invested is generating more than that same $ could earn invested in something with a similar risk profile. By all means people can look at it very simplistically and say we'll slice a chunk off $15bn, but if $15bn is a normal return on investment on the amount of capital invested then it's a silly idea. This is the same sort of silly trap people fall into when they advocate Tobin taxes that shave pennies off billions of daily financial transactions, what they don't look at is what percentage of the value of those transactions they are actually looking to take i.e. taking 2p off a billion transactions looks great unless each transaction only generates 1.5p of profit, at which point the idea collapses.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Coach | 7343 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Oct 2004 | 20 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2024 | May 2024 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Mintball"[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/high-fidelity-julian-richer-rewards-staff-loyalty-with-holiday-homes-and-trips-on-the-company-jet-next-hes-planning-their-inheritance-8952760.htmlYou can be a profitable boss – and a decent one.[/url
Sounds like he's got a moral compass – which brings us back to Dave's question.'"
Based on my experience of Richer Sounds (which are positive), I would strongly suspect he employs fewer but better paid and more productive employees than some of his competitors. There is actually a fairly long-standing business mantra that lots of companies pay lip-service to, but few actually genuinely follow, in that if you focus on quality rather than cutting costs your costs will drop as a result of quality. The problem is that it doesn't fit with modern "managerialist" style management popular in most large organisations where generic management lack expertise needed to bring real focus on quality whilst short-term pressure to cut costs undermines efforts to improve quality and drive down long-term costs.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 47951 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2017 | Jul 2017 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Kelvin's Ferret"Based on my experience of Richer Sounds (which are positive), I would strongly suspect he employs fewer but better paid and more productive employees than some of his competitors. There is actually a fairly long-standing business mantra that lots of companies pay lip-service to, but few actually genuinely follow, in that if you focus on quality rather than cutting costs your costs will drop as a result of quality. The problem is that it doesn't fit with modern "managerialist" style management popular in most large organisations where generic management lack expertise needed to bring real focus on quality whilst short-term pressure to cut costs undermines efforts to improve quality and drive down long-term costs.'"
The living wage is another example of this – with companies such as KPMG having become a cheerleader for it on precisely these sort of grounds (improves retention, recruitment, levels of sickness, productivity etc).
The mantra you refer to – isn't it something about paying peanuts?
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 47951 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2017 | Jul 2017 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| [url=http://www.unison.org.uk/news/living-wage-could-create-58-000-jobs-says-leading-economistNew research says living wage could create 58,000 jobs.[/url
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Moderator | 14395 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2024 | May 2022 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
Moderator
|
| Quote ="Kelvin's Ferret"I don't have a relationship with Wal-Mart as far as I'm aware, I rarely shop at ASDA, not out of any guilt but simply because there isn't one near me.
However, I'm not telling people they should shop there, shouldn't shop there, should work there, shouldn't work there. I am sticking to reality and saying that if people go there for low prices it is because costs are low, and for most businesses staff costs are the big variable cost they squeeze to get low costs. I don't advocate poverty wages as a business strategy, I think there are often better ways, but not neccessarily ones you'd be happy with. Business will pay higher wages when they see higher productivity as a return on that, but the flip side is that with higher productivity you need less staff but better skilled staff and capital investment in technology. That's just the nature of adding capital to labour, I read it expressed recently as like replacing ten men with shovels with one man and a mechanical digger, the man operating the digger gets more money than a man with a shovel. Now, it may be that the for Wal-Mart there is weak opportunity to replace low skilled labour with capital investment and higher skilled labour, I don't know. But higher wages without increased wage costs means increased productivity, and that means less staff; [uhigher wages without increased productivity means higher costs, means higher costs that flow to whoever bears the costs.[/u'"
And the suggestion is, given the level of profit, the shareholders should bare that cost.
I don't think [iare[/i dealing with reality. There no suggestion Wall Mart is going to replace low skilled labour with higher skilled or could if it wanted to. This is not an industrial revolution scenario. It's about a equitable distribution of the profits.
Winston Churchill had it right whe he made the case for a minimum wage in 1909:
"It is a national evil that any class of Her Majesty’s subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions… where you have what we call sweated trades, you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad and the bad by the worst; the worker, whose whole livelihood depends upon the industry, is undersold by the worker who only takes up the trade as a second string… where these conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration."
Quote The profit issue can become a bit of a red herring, most investors look for a normal range of return on investment, a certain percentage that varies based on the industry and the level of risk (I don't know what this is for Wal-Mart btw). Quoting huge headline figures is misleading without knowing what the return on investment is, $15bn is only a good return for the investor if each $ invested is generating more than that same $ could earn invested in something with a similar risk profile. By all means people can look at it very simplistically and say we'll slice a chunk off $15bn, but if $15bn is a normal return on investment on the amount of capital invested then it's a silly idea. This is the same sort of silly trap people fall into when they advocate Tobin taxes that shave pennies off billions of daily financial transactions, what they don't look at is what percentage of the value of those transactions they are actually looking to take i.e. taking 2p off a billion transactions looks great unless each transaction only generates 1.5p of profit, at which point the idea collapses.'"
But this still doesn't answer the moral question (which has nothing to do with if you personally shop at Asda or not BTW).
What you are suggesting is $15bn profit is possibly (you don't know for sure) an acceptable return on investment in comparison to investing this money elsewhere. Right?
Well if that is true one of the effects of achieving this level of ROI is poverty wages at Wall Mart and also, I would suggest, exactly what WC was arguing against.
Do you find a system that gives us this perverse result of $15bn profit and poverty wages a morally acceptable system?
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 14845 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2021 | Jul 2021 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="DaveO"And the suggestion is, given the level of profit, the shareholders should bare that cost.
I don't think [iare[/i dealing with reality. There no suggestion Wall Mart is going to replace low skilled labour with higher skilled or could if it wanted to. This is not an industrial revolution scenario. It's about a equitable distribution of the profits.
Winston Churchill had it right whe he made the case for a minimum wage in 1909:
"It is a national evil that any class of Her Majesty’s subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions… where you have what we call sweated trades, you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad and the bad by the worst; the worker, whose whole livelihood depends upon the industry, is undersold by the worker who only takes up the trade as a second string… where these conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration."
But this still doesn't answer the moral question (which has nothing to do with if you personally shop at Asda or not BTW).
What you are suggesting is $15bn profit is possibly (you don't know for sure) an acceptable return on investment in comparison to investing this money elsewhere. Right?
Well if that is true one of the effects of achieving this level of ROI is poverty wages at Wall Mart and also, I would suggest, exactly what WC was arguing against.
Do you find a system that gives us this perverse result of $15bn profit and poverty wages a morally acceptable system?'"
What needs to be looked at, and I believe Kelvin is alluding to, is Walmart's return on capital employed versus its cost of capital. Without that information the $15 billion figure is meaningless.
I do not know anything about Walmart's situation but it could be that $15 billion represents a marginal effective return and by increasing wages the company would be starved of capital for expansion / reinvestment. If that were the case the company would rapidly contract and employees lose their jobs anyhow.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Moderator | 14395 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2024 | May 2022 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
Moderator
|
| Quote ="Mintball"[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/high-fidelity-julian-richer-rewards-staff-loyalty-with-holiday-homes-and-trips-on-the-company-jet-next-hes-planning-their-inheritance-8952760.htmlYou can be a profitable boss – and a decent one.[/url
Sounds like he's got a moral compass – which brings us back to Dave's question.'"
That is quite an inspiring article, full of some very pertenant facts and not a little irony given the current discussion.
This is very interesting.
"It was no surprise to hear Richer, 54, [uwho still holds 100 per cent of the company[/u he started 35 years ago, explain this week how he has formed a trust for when he dies so that the business becomes a mutual, similar to John Lewis, under which every staff member receives an equal share, with the IT director, Julie Abraham, stepping up to managing director."
Not only is the idea of a trust fantastic the fact he owns 100% of the business is what allows him to do this. It's the same as John Caldwell and Phones 4 U when he used to run that. It was not listed on the stock exchange and as a result it made him rich but it also allowed him to pay his employees very well without the constant pressure to drive down costs (wages!) to improve profit..
The irony comes from this:
"Others have taken note. Richer is in huge demand as a consultant ([uAsda[/u, BAA and Halifax are just three, much bigger firms to benefit from his wisdom) and motivational speaker."
Has anyone told the Walton family the UK arm of its business is trying to learn of Julian Richer?
The other irony is this:
"Richer grew up in Bristol, the son of parents who worked for Marks & Spencer ([uit was from their tales of M&S, which also famously treated its staff [/uwell with perks such as a good canteen and hairdresser, that he developed the notion of the Richer Way). "
This is long gone. I have a relative and a neighbour who work for them and I can assure you The Richer Way has long left the M&S building. And funnily enough they aren't considered that brilliant a retailer any more. Certainly not compared to John Lewis.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Moderator | 14395 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2024 | May 2022 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
Moderator
|
| Quote ="Dally"What needs to be looked at, and I believe Kelvin is alluding to, is Walmart's return on capital employed versus its cost of capital. Without that information the $15 billion figure is meaningless.
I do not know anything about Walmart's situation but it could be that $15 billion represents a marginal effective return and by increasing wages the company would be starved of capital for expansion / reinvestment. If that were the case the company would rapidly contract and employees lose their jobs anyhow.'"
It's not meaningless because even with $15bn of profit we end up with poverty wages.
Whatever the return on capital is this, it is not delivering an equitable situation. And the fact that is the reality of the situation leads to the question is this morally acceptable?
They used $7.6bn to buy back shares. That says they are not running on any such tight margins such that they need to screw their employees to generate $15bn profit. They are screwing their employees in order to inflate what they saw as an under valued share price and the increased share price boosts the wealth of the Walton family who own over 50% of the shares.
Seems pure greed to me!
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 14845 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2021 | Jul 2021 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="DaveO"It's not meaningless because even with $15bn of profit we end up with poverty wages.
Whatever the return on capital is this, it is not delivering an equitable situation. And the fact that is the reality of the situation leads to the question is this morally acceptable?
They used $7.6bn to buy back shares. That says they are not running on any such tight margins such that they need to screw their employees to generate $15bn profit. They are screwing their employees in order to inflate what they saw as an under valued share price and the increased share price boosts the wealth of the Walton family who own over 50% of the shares.
Seems pure greed to me!'"
How do you know they don't have low margins? They are a large enterprise, I hav no idea what $15 billion profit represents to them. Do you?
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Moderator | 14395 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2024 | May 2022 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
Moderator
|
| Quote ="Dally"How do you know they don't have low margins? They are a large enterprise, I hav no idea what $15 billion profit represents to them. Do you?'"
It represents the ability to spend $7.6bn on a share buy back to inflate the Walton family personal fortune by driving the share price up. What bit of this did you miss?
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 14845 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2021 | Jul 2021 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Seems Walmart made net profit of c. $17 billion on turnover of c. 469 billion in their latest reported year. So, about 3.6% of turnover. Couldn't readily see staff numbers and what % of revenue staff costs represent. But, it would seem liklely that a big hike in wages would wipe out profit.
So, is your argument that because Walmart pays low wages it should not exist at all, which is how I interpreted what you said? That being the case an awful lot of (largely) Americans would be unemployed and an awful lots of low-priced stores would close. Surely that would cause alot of suffering as there are few unskilled manufacturing jobs to take up the slack (indeed supermarkets have taken up the slack from de-indusrtrialisation).
So, you've identified a "problem", what is your solution?
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 14845 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2021 | Jul 2021 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="DaveO"It represents the ability to spend $7.6bn on a share buy back to inflate the Walton family personal fortune by driving the share price up. What bit of this did you miss?'"
See my immediately following post, wriiten simultaneously.
The Walton's set up the company to run a business and earn themselves (and others) a return. They did not establish a charity (or at least Walmart was not established as one). If someone wants to run a business for the benefit of their workers or some wider ideal then they can do and they will need to compete with Walmart et al should they wish to be retailers.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 47951 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2017 | Jul 2017 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="DaveO"... Not only is the idea of a trust fantastic the fact he owns 100% of the business is what allows him to do this. It's the same as John Caldwell and Phones 4 U when he used to run that. It was not listed on the stock exchange and as a result it made him rich but it also allowed him to pay his employees very well without the constant pressure to drive down costs (wages!) to improve profit...'"
Absolutely. I think you've hit a nail on the head about where at least part of the problem lies.
Quote ="DaveO"... This is long gone. I have a relative and a neighbour who work for them and I can assure you The Richer Way has long left the M&S building. And funnily enough they aren't considered that brilliant a retailer any more. Certainly not compared to John Lewis.'"
Spot on again.
Over the years, the quality of service – which has cost [ime[/i time and money – at a number of retailers that might appear to be cheaper than John Lewis (forgetting the 'never knowingly undersold' thing) has ensured that now, if I need household goods, say, I go straight to JL and, where I use a supermarket, it's Waitrose too. It seem that a number of retailers no longer care about customer service.
But there's also the related point that increasing numbers of businesses seem to see their employers simply as a cost – to be cut as much as possible – and not as an investment, which partly brings us back to the living wage, as mentioned earlier. Not only is it better for individual employees – it's better for business, if business is prepared to be slightly less short-sighted and short-term in thinking. I do wonder how much the pressures of the Stock Exchange/City exacerbate this.
There's also the wider point that, quite simply, the current situation is not sustainable. And why does anyone want to keep pushing an unsustainable approach?
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 14845 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2021 | Jul 2021 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Mintball"Absolutely. I think you've hit a nail on the head about where at least part of the problem lies.
Spot on again.
Over the years, the quality of service – which has cost [ime[/i time and money – at a number of retailers that might appear to be cheaper than John Lewis (forgetting the 'never knowingly undersold' thing) has ensured that now, if I need household goods, say, I go straight to JL and, where I use a supermarket, it's Waitrose too. It seem that a number of retailers no longer care about customer service.
But there's also the related point that increasing numbers of businesses seem to see their employers simply as a cost – to be cut as much as possible – and not as an investment, which partly brings us back to the living wage, as mentioned earlier. Not only is it better for individual employees – it's better for business, if business is prepared to be slightly less short-sighted and short-term in thinking. I do wonder how much the pressures of the Stock Exchange/City exacerbate this.
There's also the wider point that, quite simply, the current situation is not sustainable. And why does anyone want to keep pushing an unsustainable approach?'"
If you think JL customer service is good try ordering carpet / flooring from them and see what happens when things go a bit wrong!
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 3605 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jul 2012 | 13 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2016 | May 2016 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Kelvin's Ferret"Based on my experience of Richer Sounds (which are positive), I would strongly suspect he employs fewer but better paid and more productive employees than some of his competitors. There is actually a fairly long-standing business mantra that lots of companies pay lip-service to, but few actually genuinely follow, in that if you focus on quality rather than cutting costs your costs will drop as a result of quality. The problem is that it doesn't fit with modern "managerialist" style management popular in most large organisations where generic management lack expertise needed to bring real focus on quality whilst short-term pressure to cut costs undermines efforts to improve quality and drive down long-term costs.'"
Likewise I have also received good service from RS to the point where I may need a new main TV set before xmas and will be buying it from RS, have done the price comparisons and they are within £10 or so of the very cheapest retailer (Tesco), so the choice is, do I buy a TV set from Tescos or from a specialist retail outlet who only employ people who actually know what they are talking about ?
Hmmm
They are lucky in that they have a niche market where employing generic shop assistants isn't really an option, they need to employ experts to advise the (often) geeks who shop in there, AND they also take it beyond the selling boxed TV Sets to doing full home cinema installs, and commercial installs, so they do have to know their onions.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 47951 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2017 | Jul 2017 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Dally"If you think JL customer service is good try ordering carpet / flooring from them and see what happens when things go a bit wrong!'"
Well I'm going on my experience – and reports from a number of people I know – and I suspect we outnumber you, Dally.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 47951 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2017 | Jul 2017 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="JerryChicken"... They are lucky in that they have a niche market where employing generic shop assistants isn't really an option, they need to employ experts to advise the (often) geeks who shop in there, AND they also take it beyond the selling boxed TV Sets to doing full home cinema installs, and commercial installs, so they do have to know their onions.'"
I used to love going into the Virgin Megastore on Oxford Street, to the classical music section. The staff in there really knew their stuff. They could suggest things to you that almost always worked for you. I might be able to get things cheaper from Amazon, but I miss that experience and that human interaction.
HMV at Piccadilly Circus had been like that too, before it closed.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 37704 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2018 | Aug 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| What really grates with me is the Walton family actively and aggressively employ any meaures they can to avoid or minimise paying federal and state taxes. They then expect the US and UK taxpayer to pick up their slack on behalf of their employees.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 47951 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2017 | Jul 2017 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="cod'ead"What really grates with me is the Walton family actively and aggressively employ any meaures they can to avoid or minimise paying federal and state taxes. They then expect the US and UK taxpayer to pick up their slack on behalf of their employees.'"
Frankly, on that basis alone, they're filth.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 37704 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
May 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2018 | Aug 2018 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Mintball"Frankly, on that basis alone, they're filth.'"
It surely wouldn't be that difficult to assess the total goverment support (tax credits, housing benefits etc) paid to subsidise a company's employees. HMRC could then simply present the company with an annual bill, including all costs of calculations, to reimburse the exchquer. That might be one way to concentrate a few minds away from paying less than subsistence wages
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 14845 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2021 | Jul 2021 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="cod'ead"It surely wouldn't be that difficult to assess the total goverment support (tax credits, housing benefits etc) paid to subsidise a company's employees. HMRC could then simply present the company with an annual bill, including all costs of calculations, to reimburse the exchquer. That might be one way to concentrate a few minds away from paying less than subsistence wages'"
Sheer genius.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 14970 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jun 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Nov 2021 | Nov 2021 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Dally"Sheer genius.'"
It would be interesting to work out for some companies. And see if it could be alleviated through higher wages, company provided employee benefit schemes, higher/correct amounts of tax paid etc
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 14845 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Oct 2021 | Jul 2021 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Him"It would be interesting to work out for some companies. And see if it could be alleviated through higher wages, company provided employee benefit schemes, higher/correct amounts of tax paid etc'"
Name one FTSE 250 company that does not pay the correct amount of tax in accordance with the law of the land.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 28357 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2024 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Dally"Name one FTSE 250 company that does not pay the correct amount of tax in accordance with the law of the land.'"
Except you very well know that there is not one single "law of the land" to say yea or nay to any tax dodge - every new tax dodge scheme is created on the basis that one set of expensive suits reckons either it is at least arguably within the complex provisions, or that it will still probably work out worthwhile even if it falls foul as even then the chances are a very favourable deal will be done.
Your point is entirely bogus. If a company assesses its own tax liability following such arrangements as being nil, but the taxman disagrees, then the taxman will assess the company to pay £X instead. Thus both positions are "in accordance with the law of the land". That's how it works. But if, say, Vodafone do a sweetheart deal with HMRC letting them off millions, that doesn't mean the scam couldn't be challenged in court; and a court may think differently; and Vodafone would have to pay. That payment would be also in accordance with the law. Unless they successfully appealed, and didn't have to pay after all. Which would yet again be now in accordance with the law.
Thus your challenge is pointless.
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 14970 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Jun 2002 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Nov 2021 | Nov 2021 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Dally"Name one FTSE 250 company that does not pay the correct amount of tax in accordance with the law of the land.'"
What the aardvark said.
If there was a smiley for the black American woman clicky finger thing I'd use it.
But Vodafone were not paying the correct amount of tax for long enough. Even then, what do you think to the rest of the point rather than one incredibly narrow and almost irrelevant element of it?
|
|
|
|
|