Why don't you understand the difference between how much a company generates, where it keeps it and what it does with it compared to what Oxfam is complaining about?

The Oxfam report does not adopt the naive position you want to imply.

Of course large corporations generate large amounts of cash. It is what they do with it and where they keep it for tax purposes that is the issue.

As to Apple they have been criticized by numerous economists and analysts for sitting on the cash. They even had one large investor insisting they did a share buy-back so his investment would increase in value.

However, the fact Apple have a large cash reserve and this is frowned upon by many who are fully paid up members of to the capitalist system only lends weight to what Oxfam are saying. It certainly doesn't detract from it and your argument we should all stop using Apple products is pretty childish (mind you I personally only own one Apple product, an Apple TV and that will be being replaced by a non-Apple product soon).



You are deflecting the issue again and that idea won't work anyway as explained previously.

Why have you not answered the question as to why you are more bothered about £1.5bn of benefit fraud than a tax gap of £35bn?

I don't know how many yachts the owners of Wall Mart have but it has been well documented recently that their workers in the US have had to resort to food banks as has been their low pay. Given what the report says about half the worlds wealth being held by such a tiny minority, of which the Wall Mart owners are part, what more evidence do you need that their wealth isn't trickling down and the trickle down effect is a fantasy invented by the right to justify their continued control of and hoarding of Capital?

What do the owners of Wal-Mart do with the wealth they're hoarding? Is it cash stuffed in a mattress?

In [iThe Wal-Mart Effect[/i, Charles Fishman discovered – to his surprise – that five years after a new Wal-Mart tin box had landed in any area, local poverty levels had increased.

Pay their employees better – which will boost local and national economies as well.

And change a policy of driving down prices, year on year, with the concomitant effect of driving down quality of goods and/or driving companies out of business or abroad – which again will boost local economies as well as the national economy.

Deflection - coming from an expert here - not one word on BP and the trickle down benefit of the dividends and taxation they pay out!!

I asked you what these companies should do with these monies - not an answer

I asked you how these companies are supposed to pay for business disaster such as a Gulf of Mexico or a downturn in business if they haven't got these cash reserves - just like the banks didn't have sufficient reserves, simple we all suffer.

I answered your question about benefit fraud and tax avoidance about 4 post ago - you like Poloball must struggle with reading. Those who avoid tax do at least employ people and pay dividends so they do may a contribution to society as a whole, benefit fraud only takes from society as a whole - is that simple enough for you to understand?

On the minimum wage you said it would not bring the level up to the agreed living wage - that is not the same as saying give the lower paid a 14% salary increase would increase the incentive to work.

No it is your turn to answer some of the questions - start with the trickle down effect of Mr Gates boat - something you just dodged yet again.

Sal, talking of "deflection", why do you never answer any questions dealing with the ethics/philosophy of such issues?

You never, for instance, explain why you don't think that a fairer society would be a good thing and should be worked for. You simply dismiss the mere idea.

Or do you believe that it might be a good idea – but it isn't going to happen so why bother trying?

But behind your stated view of a fairer society as being simply a fact of life, there must be a philosophical basis for the apparently concomitant belief that there's no point trying; one that explains why it is not only impossible to change things, but why one should not try. What is it?

Yes. You keep repeating this. You have also stated that someone who isn't poor themselves shouldn't campaign for a fairer society. Strangely, you've yet to answer, AFAIK, the question of whether that means that, in your opinion, only slaves should have campaigned against slavery.



I what?

Are you drunk so early in the day?



If you'd been paying any attention at all, this has been discussed, more than once, on here. It has been pointed out, for instance, that you cannot simply walk into a foodbank and grab what you fancy. Checks are done first to ensure that you are in such need.

Current figures are between 5-600,000. The prediction is for this to hit the million mark this year rlStory – it's Sky News, so not something anyone could class as 'left-wing'rl. And that's without mentioning the Red Cross food parcels and the Save the Children spending.

Trying to pretend that need is only a matter of spending on the 'right' things is nothing other than the same sort of sheer nastiness of the likes of the liar IDS and his cronies. I hadn't quite placed you in that bracket before. I hope it's mere delusion on the basis of propaganda.