If Brown had thought that a goer he could have got them to by tax / compulsion. So it's either not feasible or he preferred to have mllions of people beholden to the state - effectively to his party. The party that likes poverty - look how all the areas that have voted Labour for 50 years are still the poorer areas. No coincidence.

As causal links go, that's got to be one of the daftest you've ever come up with

Why? The USA resolved to put a man on the moon within, I think, 10 years and did it in less. Look where China was even 10 years ago and compare Shanghai now with, say, Hull or Liverpool, other old ports. In other words, governments can make a difference if they want to and are committed. How much of an Empire did we build in 50 years? The bottom line must be either Labour has no resolve or intention of significantly improving the lot of its voters or it does and is hopelessly incompetent. Make your own mind up.

If you could show that there is no poverty in the US or China ...

I've made me mind up: you're an idiot

That's not the point. The point is that people on here (mentioning no names) believe that the government can engineer by virtue of setting wage rates, tax rates, etc a lack of poverty. Given that you seem to accept that, Labour purports to aim for a "fairer" society and, I have have pointed out, when people endeavour to do things with real resolve they can achieve great things rapidly surely you must agree that either Labour either do not care or are incompetent?

And we have an early contender for the Most Spurious Argument of the Year! Well done!

The only spurious here is the inability of various posters to justify the claim big businesses are being propped up by the government.

As I've already pointed out to you, you are asking an impossible question for the data is not available, nor I doubt do the actual government departments involved measure or have knowledge of the numbers either.

What is not in doubt is that anyone earning the NMW for any number of hours is very definitely a qualifier for tax credits which are not as suggested a credit against your personal tax bill as the sums involved can be more than such an individuals combined NIS and Income Tax - what tax credits have become is a way for businesses to keep wage bills low whilst relying on the government to top up an employees pay packet to something like the living wage.

ie - subsidy.

To argue that a company then has to pay taxation back to the government so it all balances out in the long run is a spurious argument for they'd have to pay tax anyway, indeed without tax credits many would have to pay higher wages to attract the labour and would end up paying MORE in employer contributions so again they are saving, these principles are indisputable whether or not you can place a finger on the sums involved.


PS - one of your other points, the biggest tax contributor to the Revenue, private or public organisations ? You may have forgotten to factor in the public organisations are huge contributors to VAT as many of them are classed as an "end user", ie they are not selling on the product that they purchase and so are unable to claim back the VAT on the purchase - I have experienced at least a couple of government departments try and convince me that I should discount the VAT equivalent from their invoices as they couldn't claim it back !

If you feel tax credits subsidise business that' s down to Brown. Either deliberate of incompetent - make your mind (are you starting to see a pattern here with Labour)?

As to public bodies contributing to VAT - they are funded out of tax to start with so it,a just paper shuffling.

If it wasn't for tax credits (even though I had to pay them back) five years ago then I would be personally bankrupt now.

At the time it was the only thing keeping a lot of heads JUST above water.

They still generate the add-on value down the line, its just that they are ultimately the last add-on.

I'm the one arguing they are primarily for the benefit of individuals and no a subsidy to business!