Putting the local government job "cuts" into perspective

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

So do we just let them get away with it? Posts like this always amaze me as people seem to willingly allow themselves to be shafted and accept it. I appreciate the role they play in wealth creation blah blah blah but the general public does not deserve to have been treated in the way it has.

 

Don't do anything and it gives them a precedent to do it again and again.

 

Why do you not celebrate the fact that company made £12billion and the subsequent added benefits and direct and indirect tax consequences. You display a very shallow and one dimensional perspective.

[Verbal]

Why do you not celebrate the fact that company made £12billion and the subsequent added benefits and direct and indirect tax consequences. You display a very shallow and one dimensional perspective.

 

Oh for god's sake! Are you really, seriously saying that 1% corporation tax for Barclays is just fine and dandy? Especially for one of the banks that had to have its entire financial structure guaranteed by the British government for it to survive?

 

And why is the tax rake so low? Because of the very bubble investments (notably in derivatives) that caused the whole banking system to wobble to the point that we were all facing the end-of-times, economic equivalent of the Cuban missile crisis. Writing the losses off from derivatives has worked wonders for Barclays' super-rich, super-clever investment employees. I'll give them this - making a profit from their own screw-ups is really taking the government and people for fools. Even more so, when some start bleating about how paying more than these derisory amounts will result in the banks runnings away to 'softer' tax regimes.

 

The banks have sent their PR battalions out and you've lapped up every word.

 

Meanwhile, Barclays tried to cover all this shenanigans up by going for a gagging order against the Guardian in the High Court. Is this one of those' added benefits'?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Oh for god's sake! Are you really, seriously saying that 1% corporation tax for Barclays is just fine and dandy? Especially for one of the banks that had to have its entire financial structure guaranteed by the British government for it to survive?

 

And why is the tax rake so low? Because of the very bubble investments (notably in derivatives) that caused the whole banking system to wobble to the point that we were all facing the end-of-times, economic equivalent of the Cuban missile crisis. Writing the losses off from derivatives has worked wonders for Barclays' super-rich, super-clever investment employees. I'll give them this - making a profit from their own screw-ups is really taking the government and people for fools. Even more so, when some start bleating about how paying more than these derisory amounts will result in the banks runnings away to 'softer' tax regimes.

 

The banks have sent their PR battalions out and you've lapped up every word.

 

Meanwhile, Barclays tried to cover all this shenanigans up by going for a gagging order against the Guardian in the High Court. Is this one of those' added benefits'?

 

Calm down Wolfie, did I say that? They played by the rules; as I asked before, do you think they would volunteer to pay more or invest in their business with the subsequent spin offs for all of us.

Barclays were not bailed out by the tax payer, so we have less of a right to dictate to them. Once again you seem to be getting into a frenzied state when somebody offers a different opinion to yourself. I am simply stating that unpalatable as it may seem we cannot clobber the banks as is the temptation but have to nurture this valuable cash cow.

[Verbal]

Calm down Wolfie, did I say that? They played by the rules; as I asked before, do you think they would volunteer to pay more or invest in their business with the subsequent spin offs for all of us.

Barclays were not bailed out by the tax payer, so we have less of a right to dictate to them. Once again you seem to be getting into a frenzied state when somebody offers a different opinion to yourself. I am simply stating that unpalatable as it may seem we cannot clobber the banks as is the temptation but have to nurture this valuable cash cow.

 

I repeat: taxing banks above 1% is not 'clobbering' them! And you're splitting hairs about the bail out. As I said earlier, Barclays' losses were guaranteed by the UK taxpayers, along with the entire banking system, in order to avoid a disastrous run on the banks. It's hardly surprising, if they're paying 1% corporation tax, that they're able to avoid actually drawing down on the Treasury loan scheme.

 

So back to the question: you approve of the idea of a British corporation whose reward for failure is to write off the huge losses from that failure in order to pay 1% corporation tax, and then 'compensate' the employees who got it into that mess by roughly the amount that should have gone to the British taxpayer?

 

And it's Mr Wolfe to you.

Edited 20 February, 2011 by Verbal

[View From The Top]

There is no way on God's green planet that the banks are going to up and leave London.

 

The banks may threaten but the bankers themselves are well set on staying.

 

It is worth remembering, that Barclays, until the Tresurey stopped them, were hellbent on buying Lehmann brothers, intact, in a deal that bordered on the criminal and WOULD have bought the financial system in the UK to its knees.

 

It's also worth remembering, I feel, that it is us, the customers, of all the banks that are paying for their mistakes with the punitive borrowing and high interst rates and savings at a next to nothing interest rate.

 

The tories won't do anything though, not with the City financing them.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I repeat: taxing banks above 1% is not 'clobbering' them! And you're splitting hairs about the bail out. As I said earlier, Barclays' losses were guaranteed by the UK taxpayers, along with the entire banking system, in order to avoid a disastrous run on the banks. It's hardly surprising, if they're paying 1% corporation tax, that they're able to avoid actually drawing down on the Treasury loan scheme.

 

So back to the question: you approve of the idea of a British corporation whose reward for failure is to write off the huge losses from that failure in order to pay 1% corporation tax, and then 'compensate' the employees who got it into that mess by roughly the amount that should have gone to the British taxpayer?

 

And it's Mr Wolfe to you.

 

Not really splitting hairs. Barclays were not bailed out; that is a very significant difference to the other banks.

 

As I stated before they played by the rules. I do not believe in changing the rules after the event. Do you think they paid more corporation tax in 2010?

 

Mr. Wolfe - very bourgeois

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

There is no way on God's green planet that the banks are going to up and leave London.

 

The banks may threaten but the bankers themselves are well set on staying.

 

It is worth remembering, that Barclays, until the Tresurey stopped them, were hellbent on buying Lehmann brothers, intact, in a deal that bordered on the criminal and WOULD have bought the financial system in the UK to its knees.

 

It's also worth remembering, I feel, that it is us, the customers, of all the banks that are paying for their mistakes with the punitive borrowing and high interst rates and savings at a next to nothing interest rate.

 

The tories won't do anything though, not with the City financing them.

 

That is quite a gamble. If you ever go into a bar in the city you will see that it is a pretty multinational set up. As I said Franfurt is waiting!

 

I firgot about Lehman Bros; that would have tipped them over.

 

I hate banks but they are a neccessary evil. They even charged me £150 for the priviledge of having a small overdraft facility on my business account!

[aintforever]

The banks can't keep holding governments to ransom for ever, when the next bail out is needed there will be little appetite in this country to splash out tax payer's money again.

 

They like to play the capitalist game when threatening to leave the UK yet conveniently forget about it when they hold out the begging bowl. Somethings got to change, they can't keep on sucking money out like they are.

[pedg]

I hate banks but they are a neccessary evil. They even charged me £150 for the priviledge of having a small overdraft facility on my business account!

 

Banks where people and businesses hold accounts and give loans and mortgages are a necessary evil. Banks that bet millions on obscure derivatives that even the person doing the trading probably does not understand could disappear completely with little effect on most people.

[corky morris]

Small point, but does anyone remember what interest rate people we were paying on credit cards when base rates were 4 or 5%????? 14/15%......is the answer.

What are we paying now when base rates are at 1/2%????? 21, 22%???

The banks have simply doubled the margin on credit cards. Most people still dont pay them off. They pay the minimum or a bit more.

If banks cant make money when base rates are so low then they should be shot!!!!

The banks dont pay the current level of corporation tax. They send profits off everywhere to tax shelters etc.

Why is it in the governments interest for this to happen NOW???

Simple, the bigger the banks profit, the sooner the banks start paying dividends, the sooner the government can sell their share back to the market for a profit. The government want to be able to raise multi billions just before the next election to bribe us with a few tax cuts to get another 5 years!!!!!

Simple economics shows us that the private sector has to be bigger than the public. If the government had not replaced the 70000 people that leave the state every year they could have made the message a lot more tolerable.

The cuts are too deep too soon & the liberals know it, but will do anything to cling to what little power they have.

And by the way, any state employee moaning about paying more into their pension is absolutely f'ing clueless...............I will happily pay into a final salary scheme given the opportunity!!!

[Joensuu]

The capitalists on this thread make a good point. Taxing banks too much will drive them away. Anything over say 35% might cause them to upsticks.

 

However, anyone who seriously believes 1% is too much is living on a different planet. 1% is tax avoidance, it involves loopholes and offshoring, it may (just) be within the law, but it certainly isn't within the spirit of the law. Barclays could (and should) be paying at least 20 times the amount of tax they did last year. This would not be anywhere near the level that would drive them away from London. Were Barclays (and other companies like Tescos) to be paying a fair amount of tax, the government's cuts would not need to be as harsh, and fledgling companies who are currently rendered uncompetitive by the unfair tax practicises of the big boys, would be able to stand on a level playing field and add to the economy.

 

In reality, all captialists should be arguing that the big companies pay the same tax that smaller companies are forced to - without which it's hardly free market economics is it?

[bridge too far]

........

 

And by the way, any state employee moaning about paying more into their pension is absolutely f'ing clueless...............I will happily pay into a final salary scheme given the opportunity!!!

 

Two points really - firstly, many public sector employees are very poorly paid (I think the average is about £15K but some are paid as little as £12K) and many, particularly women, are part time.

 

Secondly, the rules are changing anyway. New entrants won't get pensions based on years of service x final salary. It will be years of service x average salary over final (5?) years.

 

Given that many are low paid and part time and don't have many years of service (women returning to work as an example), the pension won't be that large. I had 20 years' service and was a senior manager but my pension is only about £4K a year. Hardly gold-plated and I struggled to pay 6% of my salary into the scheme.

 

So I think many of the lower paid workers will simply withdraw from the scheme and that will mean that the tax-payer will have to pick up the cost of pension credits etc in the same way as the tax payer does for private sector workers who don't / can't pay into a private scheme.

[saint1977]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358144/Labours-3m-town-hall-jobs-bonanza-employed-deliver-frontline-services.html#ixzz1EIw22soW

 

"Figures revealed in Parliament – separately from the LGA statistics – showed that town hall jobs hit 2.9million under Labour, up 179,000 from 1997.

 

That means that even if disputed trade union claims that 162,000 local government posts are now under threat are true, local government employment would still be higher than it was when Labour came to power.

 

Overall, 57 per cent of all the jobs created under Labour were state or ‘para-state’ jobs, meaning they are dependent on public spending."

 

 

Whilst I personally wouldn't recruit for some of those roles cited in the article, the Mail have got their facts wrong on at least one, perhaps two of them. The first one is the European Projects and Tourism Officer, the Two Seas Region has lot of European Regional Development Funding attached to it and the successful candidate is likely to need good project management skills, bid-writing skills and budget management experience. With Kent's international transport links and the follow-on projects that should ensue that could provide opportunities for regional businesses, that role should add a lot of value and easily pay it's way and beyond. The Climate Change Officer should also save a fair bit of money and carbon footprint.

[badgerx16]

Whilst I personally wouldn't recruit for some of those roles cited in the article, the Mail have got their facts wrong on at least one, perhaps two of them. The first one is the European Projects and Tourism Officer, the Two Seas Region has lot of European Regional Development Funding attached to it and the successful candidate is likely to need good project management skills, bid-writing skills and budget management experience. With Kent's international transport links and the follow-on projects that should ensue that could provide opportunities for regional businesses, that role should add a lot of value and easily pay it's way and beyond. The Climate Change Officer should also save a fair bit of money and carbon footprint.

Stop living in the real world. Facts don't make good newspaper stories.

[corky morris]

Two points really - firstly, many public sector employees are very poorly paid (I think the average is about £15K but some are paid as little as £12K) and many, particularly women, are part time.

 

Secondly, the rules are changing anyway. New entrants won't get pensions based on years of service x final salary. It will be years of service x average salary over final (5?) years.

 

Given that many are low paid and part time and don't have many years of service (women returning to work as an example), the pension won't be that large. I had 20 years' service and was a senior manager but my pension is only about £4K a year. Hardly gold-plated and I struggled to pay 6% of my salary into the scheme.

 

So I think many of the lower paid workers will simply withdraw from the scheme and that will mean that the tax-payer will have to pick up the cost of pension credits etc in the same way as the tax payer does for private sector workers who don't / can't pay into a private scheme.

 

You have some very valid points. But there are many people who earn similar amounts in the private sector who either pay into their pension or dont. They have on the whole money purchase schemes which are linked to equities or bonds or other types of fluctuating assets.

 

Personally think that pensions linked to contributions rather than service has been required in the civil service for years. Its what we have had in the private sector for many years.

 

Dont forget any pensions in payment are taxed at your marginal rate. So if you save & contribute the government is gonna get their share............AGAIN!

 

The new system looks fairer to me. Its the same for all of us.

[Special K]

It's also worth remembering, I feel, that it is us, the customers, of all the banks that are paying for their mistakes with the punitive borrowing and high interst rates and savings at a next to nothing interest rate.

 

 

And it about to get a lot worse. Banks have been propped up by the BoE in recent times, but when those mechanisms come to an end, they've got to raise their money on the open market and that will cost. Who ends up paying? Anyone who wants to borrow and anyone who owes.

 

The Banks have behaved disgracefully over the last few years and anyone who seeks to defend them is blinding themselves to the obvious. Quantitive Easing just went to repair their balance sheets (no-one except the banks saw any benefit of this) adding to the public bailout. They have proved inept time and again. They have shut down viable business on a whim and supported crap through the old boys network. **** ;em, they need to be contrite, not arrogant and aloof.

[Whitey Grandad]

However, anyone who seriously believes 1% is too much is living on a different planet. 1% is tax avoidance, it involves loopholes and offshoring, it may (just) be within the law, but it certainly isn't within the spirit of the law. Barclays could (and should) be paying at least 20 times the amount of tax they did last year. This would not be anywhere near the level that would drive them away from London. Were Barclays (and other companies like Tescos) to be paying a fair amount of tax, the government's cuts would not need to be as harsh, and fledgling companies who are currently rendered uncompetitive by the unfair tax practicises of the big boys, would be able to stand on a level playing field and add to the economy.

 

In reality, all captialists should be arguing that the big companies pay the same tax that smaller companies are forced to - without which it's hardly free market economics is it?

 

It's only 1% because of the horrendous losses in the previous years.

[pedg]

It's only 1% because of the horrendous losses in the previous years.

 

So its nothing to do with anything like project knight then...

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/18/guardian-barclays-tax-secrets

The memos – passed on to the newspaper – described how a 2007 scheme called Project Knight proposed to save tax by manipulating loans totalling more than $16bn (£9.8bn), through a web of firms in the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg and the United States.

 

The Guardian documents disclosed seven tax avoidance schemes operated by Barclays. Many of them were devised by structured capital markets boss Michael Keeley. They involved more than £20bn of loans typically shuttled between entities in Luxembourg and the Caymans, designed to generate hundreds of millions of pounds of tax reliefs

[Whitey Grandad]

So its nothing to do with anything like project knight then...

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/18/guardian-barclays-tax-secrets

 

That's different, and on the face of it, 'highly dodgy', IMHO.

 

No, all the banks are going to be paying very little corporation tax because of the hits that they have taken.

[buctootim]

That's different, and on the face of it, 'highly dodgy', IMHO.

 

No, all the banks are going to be paying very little corporation tax because of the hits that they have taken.

 

Corporation tax is paid (or should be paid) on profits. Barclays have consistently made profits through the crisis. One of the principal problems is that the UK, like lots of other countries has a fairly high corporation tax rate at 28% but then has lots of exemptions, allowances and offsets. Clever accountants will manipulate that to the n'th degree leaving only £2.50 profits to pay tax on. Ireland has a much lower tax rate of 12% but with almost zero exemptions - meaning they actually collect almost 12% in tax.

[Whitey Grandad]

Corporation tax is paid (or should be paid) on profits. Barclays have consistently made profits through the crisis. One of the principal problems is that the UK, like lots of other countries has a fairly high corporation tax rate at 28% but then has lots of exemptions, allowances and offsets. Clever accountants will manipulate that to the n'th degree leaving only £2.50 profits to pay tax on. Ireland has a much lower tax rate of 12% but with almost zero exemptions - meaning they actually collect almost 12% in tax.

 

The profits are reduced because they are allowed to offset against losses from previous years. This has been the arrangement under several governments. Individuals and sole traders like me are not allowed to spread good years over the bad ones.

[angelman]

Barclays apparently paid 2.4% on their 2009/10 profits. Somewhat different from the 28% rate, and somewhat different to the 12% Irish rate.

[Wade Garrett]

And it about to get a lot worse. Banks have been propped up by the BoE in recent times, but when those mechanisms come to an end, they've got to raise their money on the open market and that will cost. Who ends up paying? Anyone who wants to borrow and anyone who owes.

 

The Banks have behaved disgracefully over the last few years and anyone who seeks to defend them is blinding themselves to the obvious. Quantitive Easing just went to repair their balance sheets (no-one except the banks saw any benefit of this) adding to the public bailout. They have proved inept time and again. They have shut down viable business on a whim and supported crap through the old boys network. **** ;em, they need to be contrite, not arrogant and aloof.

 

I f*cking love this post. Superb.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Corporation tax is paid (or should be paid) on profits. Barclays have consistently made profits through the crisis. One of the principal problems is that the UK, like lots of other countries has a fairly high corporation tax rate at 28% but then has lots of exemptions, allowances and offsets. Clever accountants will manipulate that to the n'th degree leaving only £2.50 profits to pay tax on. Ireland has a much lower tax rate of 12% but with almost zero exemptions - meaning they actually collect almost 12% in tax.

 

We should follow the Irish financial model!

[Whitey Grandad]

We should follow the Irish financial model!

 

I assume your tongue was in your cheek when you typed that?

[Joensuu]

It's only 1% because of the horrendous losses in the previous years.

 

Annual profit:

 

2006 - £7.14bn

2007 - £7.1bn

2008 - £6.08bn

2009 - £11.6bn (tax only £113m)

2010 - £6.07bn

 

Sorry, but where are these 'horrendous losses'? (or do you really mean, 'reduced profit'? If so, how can a reduction in profit impact tax?)

[Whitey Grandad]

Annual profit:

 

2006 - £7.14bn

2007 - £7.1bn

2008 - £6.08bn

2009 - £11.6bn (tax only £113m)

2010 - £6.07bn

 

Sorry, but where are these 'horrendous losses'? (or do you really mean, 'reduced profit'? If so, how can a reduction in profit impact tax?)

 

What figures are these? I have seen £1.6bn in 2008, which is a pitiful return on the capital invested. Some divisions have made losses, some such as their capital investment arm have continued to give good returns. £6bn of the quoted £11bn was from the sale of BGI to Blackrock. If the company is allowed by the government to offset write-downs against tax then these companies will do so. Headline figures are always misleading.

[trousers]

I reckon the government should tell Barclays to relocate to somewhere outside the UK and take their paltry 1% tax payments with them. And the tens of thousands of jobs.

[Joensuu]

What figures are these? I have seen £1.6bn in 2008, which is a pitiful return on the capital invested.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7878250.stm

 

Some divisions have made losses, some such as their capital investment arm have continued to give good returns. £6bn of the quoted £11bn was from the sale of BGI to Blackrock. If the company is allowed by the government to offset write-downs against tax then these companies will do so. Headline figures are always misleading.

 

Yup £6bn of the £11bn in 2009 was indeed the sale of BGI, and yes I do recognise that some divisions made a profit, and others made losses, but it's the total figure that counts.

 

Sure £5bn is a hefty drop in profits, but it is a substantial profit nontheless. Do correct me if I'm wrong, I thought you were suggesting the 2009 tax bill was small because of a 'horrendous losses'. I don't see a single loss (there is a massive difference between reduced profit, and making a loss).

Edited 21 February, 2011 by Joensuu

[Joensuu]

I reckon the government should tell Barclays to relocate to somewhere outside the UK and take their paltry 1% tax payments with them. And the tens of thousands of jobs.

 

 

Trousers, you do know your comment is absurd don't you? Do you honestly think that either of the following statements are true?

• The government are happy to receive only 1% tax from any company.
  
• Barclay's would relocate if they had to pay the same tax rates other companies do?
  

I wish some of you would drop the politics for a second and approach these topics with an open mind. There is no way that 1% tax is acceptable for any profitable company. It's neither fair to the taxpayer, nor fair to other companies (who pay much higher rates). Sure, if they were currently paying 25%, and we were discussing whether they would relocate if we charged them 30% you might have a point, but quite simply we aren't, as such the 'relocating' argument isn't slightly relevant to the Barclay's situation.

 

The fact is Barclay's are tacking the ****, out of us, the government and other companies.

Edited 21 February, 2011 by Joensuu

[buctootim]

I reckon the government should tell Barclays to relocate to somewhere outside the UK and take their paltry 1% tax payments with them. And the tens of thousands of jobs.

 

Given that you dont want to tax companies or the rich and want to reduce tax on the middle class. Perhaps you might enlighten us as to where the money will come from. Oh and before you say 'cutting back on spongers', by far the highest costing public service is the health service, followed by pensions and education.

[trousers]

...

[trousers]

Trousers, you do know your comment is absurd don't you? Do you honestly think that either of the following statements are true?

• The government are happy to receive only 1% tax from any company.
  
• Barclay's would relocate if they had to pay the same tax rates other companies do?
  

I wish some of you would drop the politics for a second and approach these topics with an open mind. There is no way that 1% tax is acceptable for any profitable company. It's neither fair to the taxpayer, nor fair to other companies (who pay much higher rates). Sure, if they were currently paying 25%, and we were discussing whether they would relocate if we charged them 30% you might have a point, but quite simply we aren't, as such the 'relocating' argument isn't slightly relevant to the Barclay's situation.

 

The fact is Barclay's are tacking the ****, out of us, the government and other companies.

 

Why have successive governments down nothing to plug these 'loopholes'....?

 

What's the tipping point for banks like Barclays? I.e. How much tax will they pay here before upping roots to elsewhere? (genuine question)

 

P.s. My comment was 'Tongue-in-cheek with a semi-serious underbelly' rather than 'absurd'.

 

Easy mistake to make though.

[trousers]

Given that you dont want to tax companies or the rich and want to reduce tax on the middle class.

 

Saintsweb forum member puts words in other forum member's mouth shocker..... ;-)

 

Of course companies and the rich should be taxed. It's understanding where the "take our business elsewhere" tipping point is that matters. I've no idea where that tipping point is. Does anyone?

[buctootim]

What's the tipping point for banks like Barclays? I.e. How much tax will they pay here before upping roots to elsewhere? (genuine question)

 

Not all companies use complex and ultimately dishonest but legal means to avoid tax. If you allow companies like Vodafone and Barclays to get away with it all it does is put pressure on those companies who are paying the full rate of corporation tax to follow suit - otherwise it makes them seem as if they are less well managed and returning less on capital. You then have an unseemly race to the bottom. Im a shareholder in Barclays by the way.

[buctootim]

I may have used some licence but I dont think that, from memory, it completely misrepresents some of your previous posts. I apologise if that isnt your view

[trousers]

If you allow companies like Vodafone and Barclays to get away with it all it....

 

I'm not for companies such as Barclays or Vodafone "getting away with it".

 

I think they should be taxed as much as possible - right up to just before the point at which they say "sod this for a game of soldiers, we're outa here"

 

I simply have no idea where that threshold is. Do you?

[trousers]

I may have used some licence but I dont think that, from memory, it completely misrepresents some of your previous posts. I apologise if that isnt your view

 

No probs. I think I've been mistaken for Alpine and Dune in one week now.....good job I'm too simple to take it personally! ;-)

[buctootim]

I think they should be taxed as much as possible - right up to just before the point at which they say "sod this for a game of soldiers, we're outa here"

 

I simply have no idea where that threshold is. Do you?

 

No. There is a real problem of small countries like Luxembourg and Ireland undercutting major economies on corporation tax and attracting international companies to officially be domiciled there, even though they do almost none of their business in that country. Dell and Intel play that particular game.

[Joensuu]

Why have successive governments down nothing to plug these 'loopholes'....?

 

What's the tipping point for banks like Barclays? I.e. How much tax will they pay here before upping roots to elsewhere? (genuine question)

 

P.s. My comment was 'Tongue-in-cheek with a semi-serious underbelly' rather than 'absurd'.

 

Easy mistake to make though.

 

I recognised the 'underbelly' behind your post, and responded to that... not the post itself.

 

There are plenty of reasons why the loopholes haven't been filled. The one you are implying (to keep the company sweet) might indeed be one of them, but I'd argue that political lobbying, possible 'incentives' and 'sweeteners' to dissuade legislation, the general inadequacies of our large political parties (e.g. promotion only for those who toe the whip etc), and of course the legal minefield that has been left by years of legislation and counter legislation (without housekeeping), should all also be factored in.

 

In answer to your genuine question: If the company isn't corrupt, the same rate that everyone else pays. Would Barclays flee the country if they (and their rivals) were forced to pay the tax, very doubtful - I have £5 billion reasons why even in a bad year a company might be tempted to stay: there is still money to make. Even if they did cut off their nose to offshore, the market would still be there, and presumably a competitor would fill the void, (and in so doing employ similar staff numbers to make similar profit).

[bridge too far]

No. There is a real problem of small countries like Luxembourg and Ireland undercutting major economies on corporation tax and attracting international companies to officially be domiciled there, even though they do almost none of their business in that country. Dell and Intel play that particular game.

 

Don't some companies use Jersey for the same or similar purposes. I'm sure I've read that both Amazon and Tesco do this.

[Joensuu]

Perhap a solution would be to tax non-domiciled companies a higher rate of tax? Of course that would probably annoy our trade partners. So how about charge non-domiciled companies the difference in tax between the rate they pay in their registered state, and the UK corporate tax rate (i.e. make offshoring of no benefit to companies wanting to trade in the UK)?

[pap]

I'm not for companies such as Barclays or Vodafone "getting away with it".

 

I think they should be taxed as much as possible - right up to just before the point at which they say "sod this for a game of soldiers, we're outa here"

 

I simply have no idea where that threshold is. Do you?

 

How about 20% corporation tax, like the rest of us pay?

[saint1977]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12549785

 

So most of the non-jobs haven't existed for a while or actually aren't non-jobs. Nice to see British journalism at its best again! Perhaps our hacks should stay out of serious topics like this and concentrate on what they are good at - hacking into page 3 girls' mobile phones. I started my career in the public sector and did see waste and bureaucracy but no better or worse than I have subsequently experienced working with the private sector. It would acually help if we had a more intelligent Minister - Maude, Huhne, Duncan-Smith, Cable - in this post. Eric Pickles makes an idiot of himself every time he opens his oversized gob and it's time Cameron put someone in that role who can walk and chew gum at the same time.