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?

All points that have validity but not in this argument - the point is do companies pay in more/less in tax than their employees draw in in-employment benefits. If they do then the government is subsidising big business enabling them to pay lower wages. If not then big business is actually contributing to society as whole. I don't know but I suspect the latter to be the case.

All the other stuff is just a tactic of government to encourage businesses to succeed and thrive and employ more people.

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!

We know you are and you're making a real bollox of it too

One of the most extraordinary things about this discussion is the apparent determination of some (and the 'argument' goes way beyond this forum) to, in effect, remove (some) individuals from society.

The 'social contract' becomes, instead of one between all elements of society, a re-arranged relationship between a (big) business and government, whereby it's not a social contract any more but a mere transaction in which any benefits that low-paid staff need to live because they're paid too little by said business are to be considered as a return on corporate taxes paid (if they are).

It's little different from those who like to claim that individual employees don't pay NI and income tax, but their employer does: again, it removes the individual from the social contract and reconfigures it as an arrangement between (big) business and government.

All of this presents big business as on some higher level of society than the individual as though society and the state should be beholden to them and do their bidding.

It's a reconstruction of society - and of democracy - and some people, who would also be calling for a small state and individuals - seem utterly taken in by it.

Its what happens when government becomes corrupted by business interests either on an individual basis or the party as a whole - there was a great picture on Facebook a couple of weeks ago of a random American politician standing up to give a speech and they'd photoshopped the logos of all of the companies who sponsored him or his party onto his suit as if he were wearing a football shirt - should be compulsory in the UK parliament.

That would be a good idea.

The asnswer is for individuals to organise themselves collectively and lobby governmeny=t more effectively than business - which ultmately they can do via the ballot box. We get the politicians we deserve. Apathy breeds corruption.

Big business is important stakeholder in UK PLC, just as the electorate is - someone has to generate the wealth. If you think big business is bad think back to the times when the government owned huge businesses!! I know which I would prefer.

As I said before 86% of working people earn the living wage or more so is big business really doing such a bad job in that respect? Of the remaining 14% how many actually work in the public sector?

...or are paid by companies who rely on the public sector to provide the contracts that employ the NMW workers ?

There are some very large businesses out there who rely almost 100% on government contracts, they are public sector companies hiding behind a cloak of "light government".

Agreed - however to paint big business as a bunch of baddies is a bit unfair and inaccurate.

As it is to paint all benefit claimants as scroungers or making fraudulent claims.

What remains the case however is just the illegal aspects of the "tax gap" is far in excess of what benefit fraud costs the country and most of that isn't down to individual tax avoidance and includes things like non-payment of VAT.

It is also true I think most people feel legal tax avoidance such as that undertaken by companies like IKEA pretty firmly puts them in the "baddies" corner as well simply because you don't have to be a genius to work out the avoidance measures they take were never intended to be used to garner them such big tax breaks. The fact these measures can still be used and have not been closed off is perplexing given the effort put into chasing a far smaller amount of money from benefits cheats.

Agreed - tax is a difficult one unless you have a universal system you will always find beneficial differentials between tax regimes. Whilst we might moan Ikea do you not think our multi-national companies are exploiting similar loop holes in the taxation systems of other countries? swings and roundabouts?

Encouraging business should be a government objective part of which is having a tax system that doesn't penalise whilst extracting the maximum revenue.

On the tax gap I have highlighted some areas that need to be considered before you blame the whole lot on big business e.g. business failure.

Proof the trickle down effect is not a myth:

Many years ago several successful and wealthy entrepreneurs set up a business which proved a success over the years, growing and generating more profits the owners. The owners decided to expand the business to take full advantage of demand and generate further profits for the owners. As a result they expanded the workforce. I was one of the employees they hired and because of the success of the owners, motivated by the desire for higher profits, I have a job which allows me to afford a place to live, own a car, travel around the world etc.

In addition, I am able to get free healthcare, access an excellent public transport system, drive on a fantastic road network and live in a safe society thanks to the excellent work of the police and military. All of this is thanks to the taxes paid by the rich, the 1% of the population that generate 30% of taxes.

Income inequality is meaningless. All that matters is that the poor get richer. Poor British people today are far better off than at any time in our history. When we talk of poverty today we mean that somebody only has an Iphone 4 instead of an Iphone 5.

Poland has far lower income inequality than the UK, yet that hasn't stopped hundreds of thousands of Poles moving to the UK. It seems that they are willing to trade equality for the UK minimum wage which allows them to live in their own home, own their own car, eat out regularly, go on holiday several times per year.

All those people who say that wealth is relative blah blah blah and the rising gap between the rich and poor is something that we must do something about, I ask where would you rather live:

Niger (which scores very highly for equality) or the UK (which doesn't score as well)?

Exactly. There is one party of politicians that only represents themselves and people whose lifestyles are funded by the taxpayer - welfare claimants and public sector workers. There is one party of politicians that only represents themselves and European bureaucrats. There is one party of politicians that only represents themselves and the super rich.

None of these parties represent the ordinary British people and yet the overwhelming majority of British voters still vote for them even though they know that the politicians of these parties have nothing to offer other than expenses fraud and unwavering support for the apparatus of corporate government.

If people want change and politicians that will offer something different to corruption, they should be voting Green or UKIP. Not for the same old parties of the Establishment.