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.

...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)?

A pathetic response Jerry to some well made points.

I'm sorry that I upset you with my hurtful comment but well done anyway on rediscovering the login details for your comedy character and for taking the time to put together such a fine script in the style of your alter ego - where did you lose the login details, were they down the back of the setee ?