Well I'm going on my experience – and reports from a number of people I know – and I suspect we outnumber you, Dally.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I wonder how many of those FTSE 250 companies remunerate all their employees sufficiently that they do not require in-work benefits? Why should companies who do pay well be forced to subsidise their competitors through paying corporation tax and NI?

If the delinquent companies could be encouraged to remunerate their employees sufficiently that there was no requirement for in-work benefits, then taxes could reduce. I thought that wa s a major aim of the tories?

My point is entirely valid. The issue that I was leading up to is that the problem is not with the company's but with the incompetence of our legislators (effectively our politicians and more particularly our lawyers) who draft poor law.

As to your other points - I always thought "Common Law", for instance, referred to an entire body of law not?

Why do HMRC do these deals? Presumably because they consider that the law is poorly drafted and if they were to lose in Court they would potentially lose alot more revenue. So, as you say Vodafone paid the correct amount of tax under the State's own best interpretation of the law. In other words, the fault lies with the lawyers again.

See my reply. I think your statement regarding Vodafone is a dangerous one unless you have evidence that they did not comply with the law.

Companies pay the market rate for the employees they need to run their business. If they operate in a field where they need people with specific skills and there are only a handful of those people about they pay through the nose. If they need someone who has everyday skills and there are lots of those people prepared to work for them then pay will reflect that.

But the real issue comes back to global competitiveness. As many of the UKs businesses priced themselves out of the market - through not producing quality but rather mass market products inefficiently - high land costs, high relative wages, poor production practices there is too little real wealth creation. Accordingly we have a few highly profitable industries but a huge number of people employed in other mainly service industries that are either funded out of taxation or are providing services to a very price sensitive mass market (eg supermarkets). In these circumstances, it is inevitable that wages will be driven down. This process will continue until we are on a par with the emerging economies. There will be no escaping that as we are not a country that could survive prosperously by protectionism and by shunning trade.

It's not a dangerous statement at all since, firstly, I never mentioned the law therefore making it subjective and secondly they've had numerous disputes with HMRC and come to several deals with them over time. So they, at least for a time, weren't paying what they should have done.

But your reply doesn't advance us anywhere does it? Because you've adopted the tactic our resident right-wingers adopt when they don't know what else to post of swerving and avoiding the question or topic at hand. So again, what do you think to the rest of my point rather than one incredibly narrow and almost irrelevant element of it?

Quite clearly they don't though, since they rely on the taxpayer to make sure that some of their employees do not have to sleep on the streets or go without food every day, neither of which would be particularly conducive to good business.

I think you're missing the fundamental point - they pay what people are "willing" to work for not to support any particular standard of living for them. If their actions are not good for business (and I express no opinion on that) then their businesses will decline and their competitors will gain. They will then amend their practices or go into terminal decline.

Another point, if things are so awful in the UK why is net immigration so high?

I take no particular delight in people not earning enough to live on, but a major problem I have with your argument is that it suggests that it is the responsibility of an employer to take over the general management of their employees lives. I don't see it as my employer's responsibility to manage my household, feed, clothe and educate my kids, pay my mortgage etc. I sell my labour to my employer, but I don't belong to them, I'm not a chattel, we have contract for the exchange of labour not one for general ownership of my life. If you believe that the employer should effectively take on responsibilities currently provided by the state around the mimimum welfare of people's lives what rights are you going to hand over to the employers on the flip side? Remember the responsibilities of the state are not unconditional, the state reserves certain rights over those who consume it's goods.

Investor look for a rate of return on their investments, business look for a rate of return on the capital they invest (which comes from their investors), and in most cases they are looking for a normal rate of profit for their industry, that's how they should be managing themselves (whether they are any good at it, or doing it optimally or efficiently is a case by case argument not directly relevant). If actually what you think they should be doing is acting as quasi-state actors, providing some sort of benevolent management of their employees lives, then they're not really businesses and investors anymore they are just another part of the state.

No, I simply believe that an employer should pay his employees a rate of pay that doesn't require topping up by the state to enable their employees to house and feed themselves

I assume you meant net migration rather than net immigration, but either way it's not.
Immigration is lower than at any point in the last 10 years and net migration is lower in 2012 than since June 2004 bar a brief dip in late 2008/early 2009.

I'm not saying you can't believe that, you can believe what you like, but you believe in putting a responsibility on an employer to do things that lie outside of their normal sphere of operation yet you're not saying why they should bear that responsibility. Where do you draw the line and why? If we start saying that employers are responsible for stuff that in their employees life outside of work where do we stop? Or is it just some arbitrary point where the employer's responsibility for what goes on in an employee's life outside of work stops? And where there is a responsibility there is a right, it can't just be one sided.

[i"Instead of spending billons each year to buy back shares of its own stock in an effort to boost the price of shares, the company could redirect those funds to employee raises, said Amy Traub, a senior policy analyst with the self-described "progressive" Demos in New York City. She said based on the $7.6 billion Walmart spent buying back shares last year, the company could have given its low-wage employees raises of $5.83 an hour."[/i

So $7.6bn (which would not wipe out their profit) would give their low paid employees a raise of $5.83 an hour.

[urlhttp://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/11/walmart_could_raise_wages_with.html[/url

The actual report is here:

[urlhttp://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/A%20Higher%20Wage%20Is%20Possible.pdf[/url

It is also reported here but the interesting thing is just how much Walmart spends buying back shares at the end:

[urlhttp://www.salon.com/2013/11/19/wal_mart_could_pay_every_us_employee_14_89_just_by_not_buying_its_own_stock/[/url



No. My argument is they have the wherewithal to pay more by forgoing share buy backs and so should do so.

So the rest of you post is irrelevant based on a false assumption.

Paying someone a fair days pay for a fair days work is (or rather should be) an obligation and it is [inot[/i a responsibility. That obligation should equate to a minimal level wage which in this country should in my opinion be the Living Wage.

The Living Wage is linked to the cost of living so any employer paying it escapes the charge of immorality for paying poverty level wages.

Would that level of wage lift everyone out of benefits? No because things like high rents in certain areas still won't be covered.

The fact people on the living wage may still need benefits would not necessarily be a reflection on poorly paying employers but also on other factors such as rents as I said. These are different issues that also need addressing so the tax payer is not burdened with things that ought not to be their responsibility (and I do mean responsibility here).

However there is still an issue of excessive profits and pay disparity. If even though an employer is a Living Wage employer they need to realise that doesn't represent a maximum. If they can afford to pay more than that to their workers they should because that would represent an equitable distribution of wealth the workers helped generate. It would recognise the workers contribution rather than handing huge fat bonuses to a select view. The fact paying their workers more would also reduce the benefits bill is a happy coincidence.



It's nothing to do with an employers responsibility for stuff in their employees life, it's to to with pay, pure and simple.

But what were shareholders expectations when investing in Walmart? I know people invest in a number of UK companies because they have a policy of returning funds to shareholders in excess of their usual dividends.

But the problem there is increasing wages increases the cost of living which then means wages need to increase. In other words you get destructive inflation. We tried that in the past under old Labour and it practicially destroyed the country.

You cannot increas wages without increasing productivity and we have to compare ourselves here with the international labour market.