Jump to content

Recommended Posts

But then that is a wider question as to "what the tax should be". The tax is what it is. If you try to raise it higher or restrict set offs and the like business will move away. We had that issue where I work which after a restructure left the UK worse off than if the tax regime as attractive as other European systems.


Now which would I prefer, a lower level of tax for companies but far more of them choosing the UK as their main office etc... or a higher threshold but less companies choosing the UK? I'd go for the former. Revenues are far more important not percentages and I personally think that is the hang up that too often people cite - be it the relative poverty debate or otherwsie. Absolutes are better than relatives. Better to have ?100 than 99% of 1p.


On the wider question as to what tax should be that's a question that I don't think government's have ever really resolved themselves. We all like to bleat on - no offence intended - about the profits of big companies but we at the same time want to attract and retain them in the UK for 'high vlaue' jobs. See the uproar when car plants shut down - in the American vernacular "It's the tax system stupid".


If and when they choose to go elsewhere - i.e for R&D as there aren't any decent tax breaks in the UK - we then hear the lambasting of the government who "should have done more". I am undecided as to the appropriate tax regime but working in head offices as I have for the past 6 or so years with the directors and head of functions I know that the UK will be the one to lose out should the Daily Mail, Mirror Et al get their pound of fleeting flesh.

You paint the picture of large corporations as another version of Bob Crowe and his mates


"Give us what we want or we are off"


I'm not saying you are wrong.... but it's not very edifying when he does it and the same applies to massive profit making corporations

No it's not edifying but it is the real world. Unlike the trade unions the UK is in competition with our EC brethren and the wider world. India and China have been slowing picking jobs from lower down the chain but increasinlgy it's the higher value jobs going and many 'shared services centres' springing up. It's unfortunately the way of the world and globalisation is the name of the game.


I have a friend who works for the economic arm of London and they have some real frightening projections if London and the Government don't get their proverbial in gear.

Our EC brethern seem to adopt a more co-operative approach and do fine - it is Britain that retains its special status


Now that the "higher up" jobs are going what;s the problem - those same higher up managers had no problem shipping lower-down jobs to India... tast of their own medicine. Customers in the UK want local call-centres for example - not many companies listen


Many of us have friends in the economic arm of London. Good times or bad times - they speak self-interested arse mostly. ( see passim re: how they have packaged up debt and caused problems in the derivatives market)


Anyone a year or two ago suggesting that all of that mortgage dealing in the sub-prime market was likely to be told how naive they were.


Remember - most of these boys in the city are simply young geezers. They know nothing of the world. I thought when I came to the city I would meet the brightest minds... how wrong I was


Ha

Point 1: EC brethren - that's not true. I think you'll find the Netherlands, Spain and Ireland have been taking our jobs/businesses re foreign direct investment for some years now. Their tax rate for corporations are half ours. Google the performance of Ireland over the past 20 years and you will see a direct correlation. they are now wealthier per capita than the UK.


I'm talking about the London Development Agency which is the economic arm for the Mayor. Not some birght eyed bushy tailed no nothings - I have plenty of those friends too. There's no self-interest there not with red ken at any rate.


I disagreed with the lower down jobs going and it goes for the jobs up the chain. Facts are it won't change. Admittedly call centre jobs are coming back to the UK now after so much discontentment. What is the point of saving a few million when you have a profit of hundreds of millions or billions. So they have farmed some roles back here. It is a complex area that I'm not the expert on but what I do know is that we are not set up for business. That is where wealth comes from and a distribution direct or indirect of wealth eminates.

I am loving the dialogue downsouth.. but we are unlikely to ever agree are we?


You mention other countries taking our jobs/businesses for years now - have I missed something - UK plc has being doing pretty well for some time and the impending credit collapse will hit Ireland (for example) much harder than the UK (being Irish I get to go back lots and can see the paper-thin building edifice the country is built upon) All of this regardless of tax rates for welfare mother... sorry I mean corporations


You have been the one arguing for unfettered free trade. Therefore disagreeing with the lower-down jobs going is a bit "moo" (Friends reference = moot)

Jobs are coming back (as predicted at the time of their going - business didn't listen then and won't now) But I disagree that UK is not set up for business. There is this idea that doing business in London is near impossible with the red tape and rstrictions but it isn't borne out by the number of companies investing here

Nah we won't agree... but that's what makes life that more interesting having your views challenged and having to review what it is you yourself believe.


I am all up for free trade where such freedom is multi or bliateral. For instance I don't believe that companies from counties which are restrictive/prescriptive re their own FDI should be allowed to own or buyout UK companies i.e Russian, Chinese, India etc... They have so many stipulations etc.. that it is not a level playing field. Also, I never agreed with the whole call centre and manufacturing thing - from first principles - give customers what they want. Customers want quality over price to a degree.


Customers expect to speak to people at the end of the phone who they believe have some degree of proximity to them in terms of location and not "John" in Mumbai. It makes people feel as though they are being poorly duped. This whole bubble has been built on China producing things we don't need. Now we are locked into this bubble and if such things were made here it would create inflation. It was made possible by greed. Better labour laws are needed. Not onerous but fairer to UK workers. See I am not all right wing!


Many businesses have gone elsewhere. We are still top for FDI in Europe due to a deep capital market and a rampant consumerism unknown in Europe.


I agree with your description of Ireland but come on, compared to where they were? Any fall will be temporary.


Re red tape, we are not as bad as some but there is far too much HSSE and all thes rest that is not needed. Cut it back to the requsite i.e. Age, Sex and Race discrimation. Some HSSE but honestly if you saw the budgets for the stuff - they've created industries and many lawyers are chewing off the fat.


But in closing, no we won't agree but that's cool. You have made me unlock my caring side and show him some daylight, albeit for a few moments to feel that breeze on his face, then he was marched back to the dungeon by callousness and gluttony.

  • 3 weeks later...

long dead this thread and I don't really want to restart it, but as Marmora Man commented on a related thread, and also happens to be an Laughing Len fan, I happened to be listening to this track today and thought it appropriate


Everybody knows that the dice are loaded

Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed

Everybody knows that the war is over

Everybody knows the good guys lost

Everybody knows the fight was fixed

The poor stay poor, the rich get rich

Thats how it goes

Everybody knows

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> long dead this thread and I don't really want to

> restart it, but as Marmora Man commented on a

> related thread, and also happens to be an Laughing

> Len fan, I happened to be listening to this track

> today and thought it appropriate

>

> Everybody knows that the dice are loaded

> Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed

> Everybody knows that the war is over

> Everybody knows the good guys lost

> Everybody knows the fight was fixed

> The poor stay poor, the rich get rich

> Thats how it goes

> Everybody knows


Have you been watching the Labour Party Conference then? Even more depressing than Mr C.

Typically optimistic Cohen lyrics! Saying that "the dice are loaded" in this context is the easy way out... so we can just sit back and be bitter about the state of the world, without thinking about how our paths are determined, or what can be done to redress the balance.

Just looking at this thread, and I haven't looked at all the posts, but I do have to say that Mr Alan Dale, you have presented yourself as the worst kind of self important idiot.


So you work in the City and earn a decent bonus. Fine. As it happens, so do I. But I wouldn't assume that this means that everyone in East Dulwich was living in abject misery until I turned up and ordered a latte.


I have to admit many of the points you make are quite true (the Guardian has made a fetish of City bonuses in the same way the Daily Mail has immigration, the idea that economics is a zero sum game is self-evidently incorrect otherwise they?d be no more money around than 3000 years ago and we?d probably have difficulty getting our round in), but you also clearly have no experience of life or the world if you think relative wealth is unimportant.


And, as *Bob* has pointed out, if you were really the ultra successful figure you seem intent on portraying, you would not be living in South East London (except possibly Dulwich Village or Blackheath), no ifs or buts. I like East Dulwich. I like my job. I'm proud of what I've achieved, through both hard work and luck. But none of that obliges me to act like a complete and utter tool. It's a question of manners, you see.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...