Jump to content

Recommended Posts

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> But if you are a freelance worker....whose work is

> contract based you CAN claim benefits between

> contracts (providing any savings you have are not

> above the allowed threshold).


But if your contracts do not individually entitle to you any work at all (I've had 5-year+ contracts of that kind; you need 10 of that kind to keep you going) you cannot. The contract has no end date. But it's not giving you any money, maybe for months on end.


You are thinking of people who do umbrella-type contracts into firms for particular periods, where you work on the premises etc etc. That it only a very particular kind of contract. Other contracts are just agreements in principle (for the lawyers, regarding IP and such) that are apart from any actual work that is offered.

zeban Wrote:

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

> Er there's making money as any business needs to,

> and there's greed and profiteering at any cost. I

> would suggest Philip Green is in the latter

> category given that he's happy to avoid paying the

> amount of taxes he should be. This is the whole

> point of this argument and why the protesters are

> choosing companies and individuals such as this.

> It isn't a protest against businesses in general

> or the minimum wage so please don't shout at me

> and read the thread properly.


I agree as far as PG is concerned. Anyone who has to use his wife's residence in Monaco as a massive tax dodge is a guy without balls in any case. B)

I don't shop at Topshop! All my clothes are vintage/second hand.


Prices might go up but I'm all for that, cheap throwaway fashion is not the only way to keep yourself clothed when you have little money. Just like shopping at Iceland isn't necessarily the answer for poorer people as some people seem to think is on this forum.


Banning Topshop is not the point, the the protesters are merely pointing out an alternative to the cuts. Maximise profits maybe but just because you are a big business it doesn't mean you're going to avoid paying taxes. If this is true what a truely sad society we live in do you not think? Wouldn't you rather see everyone paying their fair share in taxes than pushing through supposed 'necessary' savage cuts that clearly hit the poorest the most? not to mention women?

womanofdulwich Wrote:

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

> I'd rather work for Philip Green at just above min

> wage than not work. In fact I would rather anyone

> worked for him at this rate than claimed benefits,

> all sourced from taxes we pay on our earnings ( I

> think I may be a squeezed middle).


That is not the issue.

The issue is whether *PG should pay tax*.

I don't care if he's offering minimum wage rubbish jobs. He does, and so do many thousands of others.

The question is whether his *business* should pay tax, rather than avoiding tax through his wife's Monaco residence.


I think his business should pay tax here. And I think if he does not want to pay tax here, fine and dandy, he can piss off somewhere else, as there really are plenty of others offering rubbish minimum wage jobs, thank you.

Its easier to complain about other people's failings than to confront one's own. However I do agree that it's bloody annoying that these big tycoons and businesses find ways to shaft the system.

But most people legally or illegally shaft the system to a greater or lesser extent. I have a limited company which was set up in order to pay less tax. And most self employed people, I guess,file expenses that stretch the truth.

Somewhere in the middle of Toby Young and Billy Bragg

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> Its not therefore correct to say someone should

> pay more tax, if they are acting within the law.

>

> If you do make that argument, then you are being

> subjective.


No, it means I've another objective yardstick, as it were, besides the two you are using - the tax code and law as they currently stand and the logic of capital.

womanofdulwich Wrote:

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

> thanks Louisiana, I was followong the thread, but

> it was def going off on one.

> I will sit down and eat my Iceland bread

> sandwich.;-)

> back to you with the agenda..........


You mean, you were def going off on one!

reggie Wrote:

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

> Its easier to complain about other people's

> failings than to confront one's own. However I do

> agree that it's bloody annoying that these big

> tycoons and businesses find ways to shaft the

> system.

> But most people legally or illegally shaft the

> system to a greater or lesser extent. I have a

> limited company which was set up in order to pay

> less tax. And most self employed people, I

> guess,file expenses that stretch the truth.

> Somewhere in the middle of Toby Young and Billy

> Bragg



Dear Reggie,


Would you please provide a defence of why a worldwide top 50 billionaire according to Forbes (I'm talking top 50, name recognition for you-all) should have the expenses of his marriage in some third world country written off as a business expense via some UK company? In what way would a third world country marriage certificate (translation thereof) be a business expense?


PS I provide 10p receipts for my stamps and photocopies. And provide name and address and date and time and meeting topic for every meeting that I charge ?1.20 or ?1.30 - by bus - to attend.

tomchance Wrote:

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

> Not to mention that the income and wealth of

> people like Philip Green is hardly a sacrosanct

> inevitability, a fair reward for their work. The

> market is a pretty arbitrary way of deciding how

> to reward people. Tax is one way that we can

> redistribute income and wealth to share the good

> stuff around a bit more fairly.

>

> I've just had my rent jacked up by 6% again,

> despite having my salary frozen. The tax that

> Green et al dodge could easily pay for a national

> home building programme that would solve a lot of

> the affordability problems we all face.

>

> I've no sympathy with rich and/or wealthy

> individuals or companies who pay less tax than

> they should - whether legally or otherwise - when

> we face so many problems in this country.


Absolutely (tu)

louisiana Wrote:

> The point is not that these policies exist. They

> do (at a cost).

>

> The point is that self-employed people have to pay

> for them, because they get zero state benefits.

> With the consequent point that self-employed

> people will have all sorts of expenses that the

> employed do not. I think you are going off on a

> tangent from this issue.


Well, perhaps I misunderstood, but you also seemed to be making a point that having paid for them the insurance companies would rarely pay out anyway, which I would disagree with having seen the claim stats. Wouldn't want self employed people to assume it wasn't worth investigating insurance when it can actually help if you go to the right company and get the right advice.


As for the IFAs.... hmmm, I've met some good ones... suspect they are the exception though. Any that a) seem to know what you mean when you say you are an actuary and b) then don't look nervous you are going to catch them out seem to be alright.


Returning to the point, I think the tax saved by most self employed is trivial compared to the insecurity of the income. My other half is a plasterer and his work goes from being too much at 6 days a week to nothing overnight. The Philip Greens of this world are pretty rare.

Well said Reggie. Finally had to pipe up.


Arcadia paid ?200-300m in tax last year

Somewhere between 28000 and 45000 employees (don't know how many FTEs but suspect no more than half) - paid a total of ?500m plus company benefits

No figures for sales staff but junior HQ buying and merchandising staff start on ?18.5k. Management in store and HQ on more.


Some of these companies would not be here today if not for PG (or another canny entrepreneur's) involvement.


Can anyone definitively state how much personal tax he paid?


The hypocrisy here is that ask any of those protesters if they were in his shoes how much tax would they pay and a minority would truthfully pay the full due. This is about people not of fortunate circumstance (predominantly employed by the state) bitching about their lot at the expense of the privacy of an individual. PG is prime target because he's the one tasked with shining a light on Public sector excess. They should take a good hard look in the mirror and question:


How much tax is wasted because I don't do my job in the best interests of the taxpayer?

How much am I really worth for what I'm asked to do?

How much of what I do is really worthwhile?

Should I really have bought that and expense it?

The reason the housing market is up the creek is because we wanted a house and to profit from selling a house as many times as we could.

The reason the cost of living is so high is because we choose to buy unnecessarily whilst our fellow citizens sold it to us for as much as they could (not just PG).

The reason the NHS is so overwhelmed is because too many choose to live unhealthily and we don't do anything to actually stop them

The reason the Welfare State is so poor is because too many (not PG) choose to exploit it and defraud it by claiming more than they are entitled to and we don't stop them

We choose to consume more resources more wastefully rather than efficiently and thus drive demand and price of said resources.


It's time to face the realities and responsibilities of a libertarian society and an overly permissive one at that. Beating up on a few wealthy people is so simple to do and so futile. ?120bn tax gap of which only ?25bn is down to the super wealthy entities.

PG is legally entitled to pay as little as he does. Morals have nothing to do with it. You want to do something about it? Vote for people who will change the laws so that no tax loopholes exist and no wastage takes place from the Public purse, but to do that you may have to admit that you don't deserve the job you're in.

Hey Louisiana,

I'm not defending the guy. I'm pointing out that most limited companies are set up in order to reduce tax and that means not just the high flyers. And that most self_employed enjoy the luxury of setting off a good share of their income against expenses.

In terms of tax evasion, we are all in this together...except those that aren't.

The Suburban Pirate-taking moderation to the extreme

tog_in_sox Wrote:

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

> Well said Reggie. Finally had to pipe up.

>

> Arcadia paid ?200-300m in tax last year

> Somewhere between 28000 and 45000 employees (don't

> know how many FTEs but suspect no more than half)

> - paid a total of ?500m plus company benefits

> No figures for sales staff but junior HQ buying

> and merchandising staff start on ?18.5k.

> Management in store and HQ on more.

>

> Some of these companies would not be here today if

> not for PG (or another canny entrepreneur's)

> involvement.

>

> Can anyone definitively state how much personal

> tax he paid?


I'd love to know this. This is the question.

And does he also claim VAT back on his personal UK spending, owing to his wife's Monaco residence? (i.e. does he make all purchases in his wife's name? I wouldn't be surprised.)


>

> The hypocrisy here is that ask any of those

> protesters if they were in his shoes how much tax

> would they pay and a minority would truthfully pay

> the full due. This is about people not of

> fortunate circumstance (predominantly employed by

> the state) bitching about their lot at the expense

> of the privacy of an individual. PG is prime

> target because he's the one tasked with shining a

> light on Public sector excess.


I run my own business, and have done for more than twenty years, and was only employed by the state (NHS) for a couple of years, in the early 80s. I hold no torch for the public sector, whatsoever (the opposite). And I consider myself very fortunate, and am in no way bitching about my lot.


If you're worried about privacy, take a look at several Scandinavian countries, where incomes and tax paid by all citizens is online and public, on the interweb.


I could pay less tax than I do if I wanted. It would entail me reducing my salary (and hence PAYE bills) vs dividends, adding more expenses as business expenses, making a close relative who resides in another place a main shareholder (a la P Green) etc. etc. Me, I wouldn't do it.


I just think - example that is very personally known to me - it's bizarre that a worldwide top 50 billionaire should consider the expenses of a marriage a deductible UK business expense. How different is this from the Leona Helmsley trick of billing 8m USD of works to her home to be a business expense? (for which she was - briefly - jailed). I'm sure he's not alone, but this is just one example I am personally aware of.


Reggie: many people set up companies because that's the only way their clients will trade with them, for legal reasons. While their legal reasons are I think highly questionable, without the benefit of a QC's opinion, and in need of work, the self-employed person sets up a company in order to be able to bill the big guys and have some work. It's hard enough to deal with the corporate legal/contract/billing thing in any case, without having to try fighting that particular battle with each and every potential client.

More tax than they need to? Errr no it's the tax they should be paying. And we're not talking a few quid here.


I wish I'd been born in Scandinavia- I'd be happy to pay more tax if it means I work less hours, get better services, free education, and a more equal and happier society.

The more tax a government collects, the less it has to borrow on the markets, the less exposed it is to the current madness, the less likely things are likely to blow up in my (individual or corporate) face


That?s what sanity sounds like to me


I?m aware that anyone arguing for people to pay more tax can be portrayed as enviour or jealous. But that really isn?t the case


But if greed has got us into this global mess then further displays of greed are unseemly at best

zeban Wrote:

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

> More tax than they need to? Errr no it's the tax

> they should be paying. And we're not talking a few

> quid here.

>

> I wish I'd been born in Scandinavia- I'd be happy

> to pay more tax if it means I work less hours, get

> better services, free education, and a more equal

> and happier society.



I don't want to sound like the 'well if you like it so much...' brigade, but you don't need to be born in Scandinavia to live there and enjoy that system.

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

    • 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.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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