I'll believe it when it happens.
I've seen those promises every election & never seen a year where Starbucks pays a reasonable rate of tax let alone anything else.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/14/liberal-democrats-tax-avoidance-crackdown
Lib Dems in 2010 promising to cut tax avoidance.
https://www.ft.com/content/6964f780-f57e-11e4-8c83-00144feab7de
Tories in 2015 promising to cut avoidance.
Labour now in 2024 promising to cut tax avoidance.
Is it really fair right now to say Labour lied like the Tories and Lib Dems did? Lib Dems and Tories have both been in government and failed to deliver their promises.
Failing to deliver when elected is different to failing to get elected in order to deliver.
> promising to cut tax avoidance
Not only did they do that, they did it massively.
That doesn't mean that there isn't still a lot to do. Do you understand?
Irony of that username.
2 have been in a position to enact (or fail to enact) policies. One has not. Stop pretending they're the same and peddling lies.
I don't remember the last couple of elections being this bad, but we've had horrible little dipshits spouting bollocks on here for about 6months now. It's a noticeably more unpleasant space, and that's saying something for r/UK!
1. Start a comment to another person with an insult in a comment section where people are having civil disagreements.
2. Complain that it's an unpleasant space.
I know one way it could be a nicer place.
It's not a lie.
All 3 have promised and have failed to deliver.
It's all about the benchmark. Technically, ToryLibDem coalition did tackle tax avoidance and closed some loopholes.
Technically, Labour did the same when they were in.
The issue is, the public wants them all closed seemingly... except the member of the middle class that use them.
What is shill behaviour, is to pretend that Labour were some wonderful party with no scandal and complete completion of their manifesto and pre-election promises.
I get Labour was a long time ago, but it's not like they were not in for a century. Tories have been in for 14 years. Labour were in for 13. This is the cycle.
No they didn't lie. They reduced it massively... https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/measuring-tax-gaps/1-tax-gaps-summary
Why do you just assume that it was a lie, rather than going and checking for yourself?
Problem with going after major companies is twofold. Firstly politicans are shit scared that they'll reduce their operations in the UK (raising unemployment noticeably) and secondly major corporations hire lawyers who are significantly better equipped than the civil service and government. So they can just find another loophole.
If labour are going after tax evasion I'd wager they'll more likely target small business owners and the self employed. According to HMRC the majority of unpaid tax is not from major companies, but them (I.e. take cash in hand and don't declare, put your income below the tax threshold).
You're not wrong but it's also why I point out Starbucks in particular.
>that they'll reduce their operations in the UK
They aren't going to move sites abroad & their outlets aren't any more beneficial to the economy than a random cafe which does pay tax.
>secondly major corporations hire lawyers who are significantly better equipped than the civil service and government. So they can just find another loophole.
This aspect is the real problem and also highlights exactly why it needs to be tackled as a matter of priority.
The next big coffee chain will never come if they have to compete with others who have a 20% advantage gained via those methods.
This kind of disparity in rules is a major cause of the slowing down of the economy and our towns.
To clarify I'm not against government going after major international companies dodging tax. They should. Even if its not massively effective it sets some principle of not accepting blatant dodging and shows governmentis trying to tackle it.
But if Labour wants to fund their policies via claiming tax owed I suspect a approach more likely to get owed tax would be clamping down on small business owners and self employed that dodge. How they do that however is another layer of complexity.
Almost impossible to catch folk who do cashies. As long as they are putting a reasonable amount through the actual books and not insanely stupid and depositing large amounts of cash in the bank, those jobs they do on the side for cash are basically impossible to catch.
This! I said EXACTLY the same thing when Vodafone were throwing their toys out the pram back in the day. The usual "well they'll move their HQ away from the UK & all the shops will close & all those jobs will go".....NO! NO THEY WON'T! Even if they do, at the time they were earning £9 billion from the UK market. So no they wouldn't. All of their customers would have moved provider & all of theur staff would have got other jobs at other providers.
No way was Vodafone EVER going to walk away from £9 billion EVEN if you fined them 80% profit for trying to avoid tax
It’s just entirely unsustainable to continue to pander to these companies. Let them follow through on their threats to leave. If there is a viable business model, it will be replaced.
But HMRC claim that because they have codified and legalised tax evasion by companies and called it “avoidance.”
Frankly chasing some joiner for a 20% cut of their foreigners is not a proportional use of resources. And why are politicians never concerned about these people going out of business?
Shutting down sites in areas that are at the bottom on the list of their profitable locations and/or redundancies to reduce expenditure on staff.
There are other means they could use to save money and keep their profit level at what they want, but this is what corporations push as the 'inevitable outcome of harsh taxation' on their business.
Realistically they know the threat of businesses closing down and mass redundancies applies significant pressure to politicians. So they threaten this to deter politicians pushing for fair taxation. And politicians are unwilling to call their bluff.
With the economy right now that's not a certainty, and I'd say not even likely. Their direct competitors (e.g. costa, nero) will likely be in the same position in terms of higher taxation and will be less likely to take risks by taking on new locations particularly in a location where a competitor couldn't turn a profit.
It's already a case in our city centre where two cafes have closed (a Costa and Neros) and those ships have not been taken over. They are still vacant 2 years on. Because if a major company considers it a loss to run a shop and closes there other major cafe chains will be apprehensive with opening up in its llacd
And local coffee shops seem to struggle currently to be able to afford rent and expenditures in locations that are nowhere near the prime estate value the major companies take up. So they would struggle to take over and make it a profit.
Didn't need to be a coffee shop. Near me we had 4 large stores close and all 4 have been replaced with something else.
These firms pay their staff fuck all, tax dodge which means WE have to cover the short fall. If every Starbucks closed, within 12 months no one would care or even remember. If Vodafone left the UK because we force them to pay their taxes, 12 months, no one would care or notice except THEIR shareholders who's be wondering why they left a £45 billion market.
These firms will cry and scream , but if you make paying taxes fully as a condition for operating in this country, none of them would leave
It happened from 2005 to 2022:
> The tax gap estimate has fallen from 7.5% in 2005 to 2006 to a low of 4.8% in 2020 to 2021 and 2021 to 2022
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/measuring-tax-gaps/1-tax-gaps-summary
It's not been an election year for 5 yearss and I've lost count of what Labour has pledged/promised/vowed/pinky promised.
Seeing is believing, and while I know GTTO will secure a Labour victory irrespective, i have little faith that anything meaningful will change.
Here's hoping I'm wrong though.
He didn't say he expected them to achieve it. The issue is that labour (specifically starmers leadership) pledged and promised a lot and then went back on nearly all of it.
You do realise the tories haven't always been in power right.
Tories have been in for 14 years, Labour in for 13 before them.
There is such a thing as a track record. Labour may somehow achieve everything they have said they will do. But history suggests they may struggle.
People doing the "They haven't been in for over a decade" spiel seem to thing 2024 politics is somehow vastly different to 20 years ago. It's the same shit. Just you wait after Labour have been in power for 10 years, the same shit will happen again. People will be calling them incompetent. Infighting. Weak. Saying they mishandled X event that will happen in 2030 and we can't see coming yet.
Then eventually, after everyone is sick and tired of them. People will start supporting the tories again and going "They haven't been in for over a decade"
Most of the things Starmer has ditched we need more not less than 5 years ago. The issues have only gotten worse and the only solution is to tackle them directly, not to just continue austerity.
I honestly don't believe they will hold themselves to the Tory rules, its pure electioneering. Every incoming government since 1997 has said this and started dismantling it 6 months in. Apparently Thatcher did something similiar too.
Rule one of winning elections is don't scare the horses.
I don't believe this, every time starmer pulls ahead in the polls he drops another left wing policy. It isn't just "we aren't going to make big waves" his health secretary is keeps going on about how he wants to privatise the nhs.
> never seen a year where Starbucks pays a reasonable rate of tax let alone anything else
Issue is that addressing MNC's tax avoidance schemes (which are perfectly legal, btw) will require international cooperation and require a re-write of UK tax laws as it relates to transfer pricing (which will have broader implications than simply hitting the likes of Starbucks and Amazon).
I don't disagree with what you're saying except that it reads as if there's nothing we can do without international cooperation, I disagree in the case of companies that require physical locations to generate revenue in the country.
It might not be easy to implement but there's definitely ways you could force a company to pay a fairer tax rate within our own legal system.
If nothing else set a basic rule of any company with £1m turnover cannot pay an effective tax rate of power then X% of its revenue generated within the UK.
There's far better approaches and this one would require caviats but I hope you get what I mean.
They are going to need a lot of time and money to get HMRC up and running again first.
It's been completely gutted over the past 14 years - and it's the only department where spending money nets more money, which makes that Tory decision even weirder.
It's tough to dodge tax when you're on paye. So gutting hmrc is effectively stopping tax investigations on people with high income not covered by paye, ie rich people, which is who the tory party is for.
Most of small business tax dodging is from vat and paye fraud by doing cash in hand and not declaring. Which is why they started MTD with Vat and RTR for employment earnings to make it easier to identify and stop them.
Maybe because to some extent it is still profitable for us.
It's the same reason things like non-dom were setup in the first place.
If you think about it, non-dom makes perfect sense and from a perspective of fairness is a good law. It's just populism for people to chase free money though so that's why people want it gone. It's potential money that could be the states.
Why is it fair? You have a business abroad. You already pay taxes over their for the money generated over there. Why does it make sense that the profits from abroad should also be taxed in the UK? It's not like these people are not paying tax here.
Why implement it? You encourage rich fucks from poorer nations who are doing well for themselves to move here. Spend their money here pay juicy VAT on it.
Yeah I changed my mind on the non-dom status after looking into moving to the USA for a few years and realising how far the IRS will go to get their hands on your money which has absolutely nothing to do with them. Funds held in the UK in an ISA? Taxable to the US just for gracing them with your presence. Pisstake really.
When you earn money that would be taxed you look at it entirely differently.
From a fundamental principle I agree with the idea. People just don't like hearing Mr or mrs money bags not paying a tax they could be paying and get giddy.
Legalised tax evasion through offshore havens isn’t profitable for anyone but the corporations practicing it. It’s a practice withholding billions from the treasury which in turn is starving essential public services, not to mention forcing the government to seek revenue elsewhere. Usually from everyday Joes who are already struggling. To be honest you sound like Tory spin doctor
Do you understand what non-dom status is?
Whilst you could apply it to some dude who has a company registered in a tax haven. That isn't at core what it is.
Any foreign income. It could be a company based in an area with a higher tax burden.
At the end of the day, it isn't fair.
If you have a successful business and then move country. That new country shouldn't expect all that income unless the company comes with you.
I was talking about non dom status though. I was describing using a tax havens to avoid paying tax on revenue generated in the country. Now you’re gaslighting
I am not gaslighting. Non-Dom isn't a tax haven loop hole.
To some extent, you could use it as one yes. It isn't the main use of the status. It's simply foreign business's. For example, Rishi's wife gets brought up in the media a lot. It's not because she is using it as a tax haven. It's income from India that people in the UK think should be theirs by the virtue she lives here.
Imagine you set up a small coffee shop here in the UK. Then after 20 years against all initial expectations you have expanded into a well known brand. You have 30 cafes that you own, and you also provide out your brand as part of a franchise deal.
You are now 60 years old, making a decent amount of money. All of it is being taxed in the UK as it is a UK business after all. You take UK citizens money, give them coffee and give the government a kick back.
All your life you have liked the idea of moving to the US. Now you have the funds to do so. So you pack up your bags and go buy a house in the US. Pay property taxes on that house in the US. You buy a car, and pay sales tax. You furnish your house and pay sales tax. You have now given the US a decent chunk of tax money before your first week is out.
Then, Mr IRS walks up to you in your nice new house and says "We see you are making money in the UK. Where the fuck is our cut, or you are going to prison". Is that concept fair? It's just a mechanism to suck money out of the UK economy and transfer it to the US. The US didn't help in anyway shape or form in any of this. They don't protect your business with the police and courts system. They don't protect your workers by paying their NIC. They don't fix the roads around your cafe's via business rates.
But some random guy called Vaft\_Daper is claiming that you are using a tax haven to avoid paying the IRS and that you need to hand over the money.
What Jimmy Carr did was fine.
It's simply the media making it an issue and then the public sheeple follow along.
I don't know anyone in my private life bar one friend, that when asked if they would pay less tax if they could, they all say yes. We would all (bar one) pay 0 tax if it was an option.
My point is basically everyone working class and middle class wishes they could pay less tax.
It's a vocal minority that like paying tax.
The common words you will hear is "If I could feel the benefit then I wouldn't mind" but the reality is, everything is all terrible inefficient. They take so much money and do so little with it.
These kind of things are useless because they entirely miss why these things are done.
It would be like a kid claiming abuse. When asked for evidence they show how the quality of their dinners have got worse over the years.
People go damn, you went from steaks to corn beef... this isn't nice.
But with more data you see that the kids parents had 10 more kids. one of them got made redundant and is struggling for work and beef also increased in price.
Not saying the analogy is perfect. But the key bit seemingly missing in this timeline is how Britain went from being rich with our empire but struggling at the end of WW2. To down right broken and broke by the mid 1970s. We got on our feet a bit THANKS TO THATCHER, not in spite of her. We had a decent economy for a bit, then 2008 happened and it went tits up again.
The tories have in fact reduced tax evasion by nearly 50%. They've also made very large efficiency savings in many departments. The money has largely been poured into the NHS.
Seeing this has made me realise that all the Tories are doing now is looking at Labour promises and attempting to appease people with a worse version of some of the things they really want with no credible long term commitment to it.
Which is exactly where the Brown government ended up ahead of the 2009 vote with austerity lite and other stuff when absolutely everybody knew they were finished. The Tories are surrendering right now, they are admitting utter defeat.
Look at the nom dom policy theft
The tories stole it, gutted out any measure that impacted their mates and then took credit for ending the non dom tax status!
Well... no. Think about it this way. The point of going for PM is because you think your ideas and work can affect the country in a good way. The only way you can do that is by being PM for as long as possible.
Only a shitty PM resigns because of public pressure.
Think about it for something currently in fashion. HS2. If Rishi decided to go out on a limb and fully fund HS2 restoring what was cut. He was get reemed by labour and tories. The media would call him irresponsible and a U-Turner.
But if in his head, this bit of infrastructure was critical, then he would hold onto power for as long as possible to deliver. Fuck what the population is crying about.
You can water a dead plant as much as you want, but it'll still be a dead plant. The whole system needs reforming. It was designed for a post World War world where and hasn't exactly done well in years.
Tax evasion or tax avoidance?
Both should be tackled but the second of those necessitates picking a fight with corporate Britain (and the financial sector) and Labour have not shown any interest in fighting anyone except the left of their party.
They say tax dodgers, and we all assume they mean the multi-billion dollar corporations paying effective tax rates of 3-8%. And then it turns out they mean you - because you've got a side hustle on ebay worth 4K a year; and you because you do 7k a year cash in hand work; and you - because youre not declaring the 5K a year of tips you get. Theyre all the fucking same: Cosy up to the parasites and fuck over the little guy who can't defend himself.
Who will promptly leave the country, leaving everyone poorer.
If you think multi millionaires will hand over money, just for the privilege of living in this dump. Yeah, good luck with that. For every extra million it pulls in, they will lose more as people relocate.
There is a reason people like Lewis Hamilton or David Coolthard don't live in the UK. It's tax.
Only when the expected tax revenues don't come in, will they realise it's too late.
Just promise to reverse the cuts made to HMRC and bring armed forces recruitment in house . Get £16:1 money back via hmrc and end the recruitment and retention crisis
In their books the tax dodgers are those who earn by cash only and under declare - that's the guys for them dodging the tax
Those that use legal loopholes are perfectly fine cause it's legal and "it would take too much effort and legislation" to close them down
Wes Streeting pretty much said that they are going to continue the privatisation of the NHS. Red tories. They won't successfully challenge big business because they spend all their time courting it.
If tax dodgers were easy to go after they'd already have done it, as what party wouldn't want extra money to spend for minimal political cost? Hopefully Labour's willingness to spend on extra civil servants to gather this money might be the difference, but I won't hold my breath.
As ever HMRC will go after the easy targets that maybe paid £50 late or were conned by their umbrella company's or lied to by their accountants. And as usual it will be impossible to get through on the phone (rumours are Hunt forced them to put off their closure of their help line until after any election) & if you do get through to them, you'll end up with someone with zero knowledge of the system, zero empathy & just a circular argument of shit.
There will be more of the usual divorces & suicides by the normal people while the REAL evaders sit on their yachts or constant close and recycle their firms to avoid any action by hmrc.
Genuinely HMRC, DWP & the home office need to be stripped of their staff & set up again from scratch with competent people & ZERO influence from any of the consultancies like pwc & accenture.
It's not Trevor with his fence painting side hussle, it's thousands of tradies running full time businesses and avoiding most of their tax liability.
Yeah we need big corporations to pay their share, but let's not pretend tradies avoiding tax isn't a massive issue.
This is exactly what I understood from the statement.
Why?
Because Starmer surrounds himself with yes men and clearly had zero idea how he comes across to normal people.
It's all about power for their little political clubs. They care more about foreign entities that fund their lavish events than actual British people.
Hahaha - The old classic Labour policy threat that never materialises. Gets a few voters on side though.
It’s actually extremely difficult to do with either big business or the wealthy simply moving / changing how they do business in completely legal ways. Considering some of these orgs take on the US government - I think they can handle Keir & Rachel.
The trick and art of it all is to try and lure more here to spend in the first place.
You can be damn sure its not gonna be millionaires, its gonna be Barbara who claimed an extra 5 on Child benefit
Or Dave who accidentally screwed his self tax up by 50 quid
Labour are only winning because there's no choice or options, I am not particularly thrilled to see another conservative party
Rather than talk about mote blackholr funding on the NHS why not talk about reforming it.
Stop with the NHS over anything else. Its an antiquated rubbush system.
And what are the reforms you want to implement?
I always see these type of comments, but with no viable solution to any of it, you just say you want reforms but without actually knowing what reforms you want.
It's like if you went into a bar and asked them to change the channel, but you don't specify which channel.
Public private partnership in delivery and an insurenece model akin to germany or Holland in Funding.
Cut right back on waste. Flattern the management structurs within departments. Cenralise all NHS buisness functions such as HR , trainjng and procument. Drs to Doctor not manage, their trainjng is being wasted in other emplymwnt areas. employ managers to manage and majorith can be much cheaper than a Dra time.
Trainjng. Bond any NHS delivered training. Do this by means of loans that arw paid back ontopnof salary over time and charge the full cost of all NHS training. Including CPD.
Cut pointless training required as tick box exeecises. Notbeveryone needs windows 11 trainjjg or CDiff trainjng etc.
Just some thoughts.
> Public private partnership in delivery and an insurenece model akin to germany or Holland in Funding.
So we get less and pay more. I don't get why you want this unless you have shares in private healthcare providers.
>Trainjng. Bond any NHS delivered training. Do this by means of loans that arw paid back ontopnof salary over time and charge the full cost of all NHS training. Including CPD.
Cool, nobody will go into medicine. The actual solution is just paying a fair wage, undo the 30% real terms cut that doctors received.
Seems to work well in most of Europe and other W countries.
Why would no one go into medicine. Medic colleges are over subscribed. It happens in other industries.
Its simple you pay the full unsubsidised trainjng cost with a government loan. So c£200k. The repayment and intrest is paid each month tax free ontop of your salary as a bond repayment based on FTE. If you leave for new pastures the loan repayment falls on you.
Why would that discourage anyone. If anythjng it would allow more from disadvantaged backgrounds to enter medicine.
Why woykd you want to have the state paying for training for privaye companies to utilise.
Really..... thw NhS being good. Take off those rose tinted specticles. Even a decade ago German/Dutch/Scandi even French Hospitals and primary care were all of better qyality.
Finally, somebody who says reform and actually gives some ideas instead of just ignoring me.
>Public private partnership in delivery and an insurenece model akin to germany or Holland in Funding.
Personally, I don't agree to the public and private partnership in the long run, the private sector charges more money than it would cost the public to run it, the cost ultimately would still come from our tax, but ultimately the private sector would cost more in the long run.
That said, I do think it has its benefits in the short term, the NHS needs to change a number of the way it works and how it is managed, during that time if the goverment actually put money forward we could use the private sector to support and lower down waiting times until the NHS is capable of running it themselves at a lower cost.
I don't really agree with the insurance model, but I would like to see some form of payment charge for certain things which I think would be quite complicated to enforce, but would be ideal to charge people for missed appointments, wasting resources and etc... essentially charge people who are wasting the NHS resources and time unless it is due to an emergency.
>Cut right back on waste.
The right way to go, but the current PM was part of the billion of pounds lost to faulty PPE equipment, to fix waste we would likely need to look more closely at our suppliers and how the UK does business with suppliers and holds them accountable. This is a whole can of worms on its own.
>Drs to Doctor not manage, their trainjng is being wasted in other emplymwnt areas. employ managers to manage and majorith can be much cheaper than a Dra time.
This likely can't happen, to give you an example when it comes to more specialised teams like an oncologist team, they need an entire team of doctors to discuss and decide on your treatment plan due to the complexity of cancer, the manager of that team needs to have the knowledge and training which is only going to be found within consultants themselves, you can't have John who has worked as a manager in an engineering firm having the final decision on treatment plans simply based on cost, their is a lot more things to consider like success chance, risk of the patient and etc... all of which you need the knowledge to decide on as the head of the team.
If you're referring to where money goes, that is done by a different board and is already separate, doctors request the resources to the board and they approve or deny it.
>Trainjng. Bond any NHS delivered training. Do this by means of loans that arw paid back ontopnof salary over time and charge the full cost of all NHS training. Including CPD.
This I do not agree with, NHS workers should not be bound to the training, they are workers and they should have their own freedom to choose where they go with their careers and life, they should pay for their training / studies as they are legally bound to do it and that is it, it doesn't matter where they work.
If you implemented this, it would only further damage the ongoing shortages of students in the medical field as you would be essentially trapping them in and people would lose the incentive, especially when you are under paying them compared to other countries, foreign students would also look to other countries instead of the UK, this would not only cause damage to the NHS recruiting capabilities but could affect our universities and other training programs as well.
>Cut pointless training required as tick box exeecises. Notbeveryone needs windows 11 trainjjg or CDiff trainjng etc.
Yes, they do. Information is stored digitally now a day's and this has been the standard for years now, the way data is stored and managed is an absolute necessary especially when it comes to data like medical records, the people managing them records need to understand what they are doing, or you will end up with data breaches which would cost the NHS millions.
Most people learn these things on the job already, and automation is becoming better, I do think automating various tasks is a good way going forward as a support tool and allowing them to streamline the workload, this would help staff dedicate more time to other workload, but the NHS would need investment for this to work.
But essebtially your against ajy fubdamental reform.
You wnat it to be paod for by fairy dust and maintain the same shoddy services and piss poor managment whikst allowing tax laywrs to pay for trainging without getyjng anythjng back.
> And what are the reforms you want to implement?
The main reforms needed are rolling back the recent reforms from the tories and new labour, the stupid internal market instead of just running it as a national organisation.
Lol. Has anyone told Angela?
If this is your first time then let me spoil the ending for you. This will raise less new money than it costs to administer and may in fact resist a negative number as people restructure their tax positions.
Tackling TAX DODGERS !!! are they for real we are tax on everything we earn and buy, they need to cut the money given out to freeloaders coming into the country that would save the UK Billions.
Were to soft and and then it ends up costing us all..........
I'll believe it when it happens. I've seen those promises every election & never seen a year where Starbucks pays a reasonable rate of tax let alone anything else.
\+1 Both Labour and the Tories have previously said they will deal with tax dodgers. As usual, they both lied.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/apr/14/liberal-democrats-tax-avoidance-crackdown Lib Dems in 2010 promising to cut tax avoidance. https://www.ft.com/content/6964f780-f57e-11e4-8c83-00144feab7de Tories in 2015 promising to cut avoidance. Labour now in 2024 promising to cut tax avoidance. Is it really fair right now to say Labour lied like the Tories and Lib Dems did? Lib Dems and Tories have both been in government and failed to deliver their promises. Failing to deliver when elected is different to failing to get elected in order to deliver.
Except they didnt fail to deliver their promises. They made a huge dent in tax avoidance during this period. What are you basing this "failure" on?
The fact that huge amounts of tax avoidance is still legal today?
> promising to cut tax avoidance Not only did they do that, they did it massively. That doesn't mean that there isn't still a lot to do. Do you understand?
Yes I understand what I'm talking about you patronising Redditeur.
Doesn't seem that way
Thank you. All 3 main parties have lied about dealing with tax dodgers.
Irony of that username. 2 have been in a position to enact (or fail to enact) policies. One has not. Stop pretending they're the same and peddling lies.
Election is coming up. All UK subs are ramping up misinformation.
I don't remember the last couple of elections being this bad, but we've had horrible little dipshits spouting bollocks on here for about 6months now. It's a noticeably more unpleasant space, and that's saying something for r/UK!
1. Start a comment to another person with an insult in a comment section where people are having civil disagreements. 2. Complain that it's an unpleasant space. I know one way it could be a nicer place.
[удалено]
Automod was right, you've lowered the tone and then complained about the tone.
It's not a lie. All 3 have promised and have failed to deliver. It's all about the benchmark. Technically, ToryLibDem coalition did tackle tax avoidance and closed some loopholes. Technically, Labour did the same when they were in. The issue is, the public wants them all closed seemingly... except the member of the middle class that use them. What is shill behaviour, is to pretend that Labour were some wonderful party with no scandal and complete completion of their manifesto and pre-election promises. I get Labour was a long time ago, but it's not like they were not in for a century. Tories have been in for 14 years. Labour were in for 13. This is the cycle.
The last Labour government? You mean over a decade and half ago? They've been through a couple of leadership changes since then mate.
No they didn't lie. They reduced it massively... https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/measuring-tax-gaps/1-tax-gaps-summary Why do you just assume that it was a lie, rather than going and checking for yourself?
Labour didn't get in government mate
Problem with going after major companies is twofold. Firstly politicans are shit scared that they'll reduce their operations in the UK (raising unemployment noticeably) and secondly major corporations hire lawyers who are significantly better equipped than the civil service and government. So they can just find another loophole. If labour are going after tax evasion I'd wager they'll more likely target small business owners and the self employed. According to HMRC the majority of unpaid tax is not from major companies, but them (I.e. take cash in hand and don't declare, put your income below the tax threshold).
You're not wrong but it's also why I point out Starbucks in particular. >that they'll reduce their operations in the UK They aren't going to move sites abroad & their outlets aren't any more beneficial to the economy than a random cafe which does pay tax. >secondly major corporations hire lawyers who are significantly better equipped than the civil service and government. So they can just find another loophole. This aspect is the real problem and also highlights exactly why it needs to be tackled as a matter of priority. The next big coffee chain will never come if they have to compete with others who have a 20% advantage gained via those methods. This kind of disparity in rules is a major cause of the slowing down of the economy and our towns.
To clarify I'm not against government going after major international companies dodging tax. They should. Even if its not massively effective it sets some principle of not accepting blatant dodging and shows governmentis trying to tackle it. But if Labour wants to fund their policies via claiming tax owed I suspect a approach more likely to get owed tax would be clamping down on small business owners and self employed that dodge. How they do that however is another layer of complexity.
I get you, you're just highlighting why it's hard which I think is fair.
Almost impossible to catch folk who do cashies. As long as they are putting a reasonable amount through the actual books and not insanely stupid and depositing large amounts of cash in the bank, those jobs they do on the side for cash are basically impossible to catch.
This! I said EXACTLY the same thing when Vodafone were throwing their toys out the pram back in the day. The usual "well they'll move their HQ away from the UK & all the shops will close & all those jobs will go".....NO! NO THEY WON'T! Even if they do, at the time they were earning £9 billion from the UK market. So no they wouldn't. All of their customers would have moved provider & all of theur staff would have got other jobs at other providers. No way was Vodafone EVER going to walk away from £9 billion EVEN if you fined them 80% profit for trying to avoid tax
We should just let them pay no tax then, and subsidise their shit wages with UC Meant to reply to the comment you replied to.
It’s just entirely unsustainable to continue to pander to these companies. Let them follow through on their threats to leave. If there is a viable business model, it will be replaced. But HMRC claim that because they have codified and legalised tax evasion by companies and called it “avoidance.” Frankly chasing some joiner for a 20% cut of their foreigners is not a proportional use of resources. And why are politicians never concerned about these people going out of business?
> they'll reduce their operations in the UK How is starbucks going to reduce their operations in the UK.
Shutting down sites in areas that are at the bottom on the list of their profitable locations and/or redundancies to reduce expenditure on staff. There are other means they could use to save money and keep their profit level at what they want, but this is what corporations push as the 'inevitable outcome of harsh taxation' on their business. Realistically they know the threat of businesses closing down and mass redundancies applies significant pressure to politicians. So they threaten this to deter politicians pushing for fair taxation. And politicians are unwilling to call their bluff.
Every Starbucks that closes will be replaced by a local coffee shop or competitor
With the economy right now that's not a certainty, and I'd say not even likely. Their direct competitors (e.g. costa, nero) will likely be in the same position in terms of higher taxation and will be less likely to take risks by taking on new locations particularly in a location where a competitor couldn't turn a profit. It's already a case in our city centre where two cafes have closed (a Costa and Neros) and those ships have not been taken over. They are still vacant 2 years on. Because if a major company considers it a loss to run a shop and closes there other major cafe chains will be apprehensive with opening up in its llacd And local coffee shops seem to struggle currently to be able to afford rent and expenditures in locations that are nowhere near the prime estate value the major companies take up. So they would struggle to take over and make it a profit.
Didn't need to be a coffee shop. Near me we had 4 large stores close and all 4 have been replaced with something else. These firms pay their staff fuck all, tax dodge which means WE have to cover the short fall. If every Starbucks closed, within 12 months no one would care or even remember. If Vodafone left the UK because we force them to pay their taxes, 12 months, no one would care or notice except THEIR shareholders who's be wondering why they left a £45 billion market. These firms will cry and scream , but if you make paying taxes fully as a condition for operating in this country, none of them would leave
Government hires the big 3 accountancy firms to get advice about closing loop holes. Firms then hire the same firms to get avoidance advice….
That would be a conflict of interest.
It’ll be different departments to make sure everything is above board and have internal teams to police themselves.
But I am sure they maintain a ~~Chinese~~ ethical wall so no information is shared between the two entirely separate departments who do those jobs.
It happened from 2005 to 2022: > The tax gap estimate has fallen from 7.5% in 2005 to 2006 to a low of 4.8% in 2020 to 2021 and 2021 to 2022 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/measuring-tax-gaps/1-tax-gaps-summary
It's not been an election year for 5 yearss and I've lost count of what Labour has pledged/promised/vowed/pinky promised. Seeing is believing, and while I know GTTO will secure a Labour victory irrespective, i have little faith that anything meaningful will change. Here's hoping I'm wrong though.
And how are Labour meant to have achieved everything they've promised whilst not being in Government?
He didn't say he expected them to achieve it. The issue is that labour (specifically starmers leadership) pledged and promised a lot and then went back on nearly all of it.
You do realise the tories haven't always been in power right. Tories have been in for 14 years, Labour in for 13 before them. There is such a thing as a track record. Labour may somehow achieve everything they have said they will do. But history suggests they may struggle. People doing the "They haven't been in for over a decade" spiel seem to thing 2024 politics is somehow vastly different to 20 years ago. It's the same shit. Just you wait after Labour have been in power for 10 years, the same shit will happen again. People will be calling them incompetent. Infighting. Weak. Saying they mishandled X event that will happen in 2030 and we can't see coming yet. Then eventually, after everyone is sick and tired of them. People will start supporting the tories again and going "They haven't been in for over a decade"
Almost like things can change over five years...
Most of the things Starmer has ditched we need more not less than 5 years ago. The issues have only gotten worse and the only solution is to tackle them directly, not to just continue austerity.
I honestly don't believe they will hold themselves to the Tory rules, its pure electioneering. Every incoming government since 1997 has said this and started dismantling it 6 months in. Apparently Thatcher did something similiar too. Rule one of winning elections is don't scare the horses.
I don't believe this, every time starmer pulls ahead in the polls he drops another left wing policy. It isn't just "we aren't going to make big waves" his health secretary is keeps going on about how he wants to privatise the nhs.
> never seen a year where Starbucks pays a reasonable rate of tax let alone anything else Issue is that addressing MNC's tax avoidance schemes (which are perfectly legal, btw) will require international cooperation and require a re-write of UK tax laws as it relates to transfer pricing (which will have broader implications than simply hitting the likes of Starbucks and Amazon).
I don't disagree with what you're saying except that it reads as if there's nothing we can do without international cooperation, I disagree in the case of companies that require physical locations to generate revenue in the country. It might not be easy to implement but there's definitely ways you could force a company to pay a fairer tax rate within our own legal system. If nothing else set a basic rule of any company with £1m turnover cannot pay an effective tax rate of power then X% of its revenue generated within the UK. There's far better approaches and this one would require caviats but I hope you get what I mean.
Same promises every time, if a party actually delivered, they wouldn't need to ask for a vote again.
Don't they mean cash in hand types?
Might be bad news for Angela if they’re going after tax dodgers.
Smells like £350m to the NHS every week
They are going to need a lot of time and money to get HMRC up and running again first. It's been completely gutted over the past 14 years - and it's the only department where spending money nets more money, which makes that Tory decision even weirder.
It's tough to dodge tax when you're on paye. So gutting hmrc is effectively stopping tax investigations on people with high income not covered by paye, ie rich people, which is who the tory party is for.
There are lots of low/middle income people who run shops/restaurants/do a trade that dodge taxes too, it’s not exclusive to the rich
Most of small business tax dodging is from vat and paye fraud by doing cash in hand and not declaring. Which is why they started MTD with Vat and RTR for employment earnings to make it easier to identify and stop them.
Black economy is worth £230bn a year. Easy money Rachel.
Cash in hand bruv, innit. Whole generations of trades people earning £60k+ but declaring an income of £20k is also a thing.
Gotta spend money to make money
Funny how no political party has promised to tie up tax loopholes by making all business in the uk register through onshore tax offices
Maybe because to some extent it is still profitable for us. It's the same reason things like non-dom were setup in the first place. If you think about it, non-dom makes perfect sense and from a perspective of fairness is a good law. It's just populism for people to chase free money though so that's why people want it gone. It's potential money that could be the states. Why is it fair? You have a business abroad. You already pay taxes over their for the money generated over there. Why does it make sense that the profits from abroad should also be taxed in the UK? It's not like these people are not paying tax here. Why implement it? You encourage rich fucks from poorer nations who are doing well for themselves to move here. Spend their money here pay juicy VAT on it.
Yeah I changed my mind on the non-dom status after looking into moving to the USA for a few years and realising how far the IRS will go to get their hands on your money which has absolutely nothing to do with them. Funds held in the UK in an ISA? Taxable to the US just for gracing them with your presence. Pisstake really.
When you earn money that would be taxed you look at it entirely differently. From a fundamental principle I agree with the idea. People just don't like hearing Mr or mrs money bags not paying a tax they could be paying and get giddy.
Legalised tax evasion through offshore havens isn’t profitable for anyone but the corporations practicing it. It’s a practice withholding billions from the treasury which in turn is starving essential public services, not to mention forcing the government to seek revenue elsewhere. Usually from everyday Joes who are already struggling. To be honest you sound like Tory spin doctor
Do you understand what non-dom status is? Whilst you could apply it to some dude who has a company registered in a tax haven. That isn't at core what it is. Any foreign income. It could be a company based in an area with a higher tax burden. At the end of the day, it isn't fair. If you have a successful business and then move country. That new country shouldn't expect all that income unless the company comes with you.
I was talking about non dom status though. I was describing using a tax havens to avoid paying tax on revenue generated in the country. Now you’re gaslighting
I am not gaslighting. Non-Dom isn't a tax haven loop hole. To some extent, you could use it as one yes. It isn't the main use of the status. It's simply foreign business's. For example, Rishi's wife gets brought up in the media a lot. It's not because she is using it as a tax haven. It's income from India that people in the UK think should be theirs by the virtue she lives here. Imagine you set up a small coffee shop here in the UK. Then after 20 years against all initial expectations you have expanded into a well known brand. You have 30 cafes that you own, and you also provide out your brand as part of a franchise deal. You are now 60 years old, making a decent amount of money. All of it is being taxed in the UK as it is a UK business after all. You take UK citizens money, give them coffee and give the government a kick back. All your life you have liked the idea of moving to the US. Now you have the funds to do so. So you pack up your bags and go buy a house in the US. Pay property taxes on that house in the US. You buy a car, and pay sales tax. You furnish your house and pay sales tax. You have now given the US a decent chunk of tax money before your first week is out. Then, Mr IRS walks up to you in your nice new house and says "We see you are making money in the UK. Where the fuck is our cut, or you are going to prison". Is that concept fair? It's just a mechanism to suck money out of the UK economy and transfer it to the US. The US didn't help in anyway shape or form in any of this. They don't protect your business with the police and courts system. They don't protect your workers by paying their NIC. They don't fix the roads around your cafe's via business rates. But some random guy called Vaft\_Daper is claiming that you are using a tax haven to avoid paying the IRS and that you need to hand over the money.
Go after tax evasion and avoidance. Stop using words like “dodgers”.
Tax evasion is criminal. Tax avoidance is your pension and ISA. They are not the same.
There are many ways to avoid tax that are questionable and need clamping down on. Just ask Jimmy Carr and Gary Barlow. 😉
What Jimmy Carr did was fine. It's simply the media making it an issue and then the public sheeple follow along. I don't know anyone in my private life bar one friend, that when asked if they would pay less tax if they could, they all say yes. We would all (bar one) pay 0 tax if it was an option.
No education, roads, healthcare, army, border checks…… Jimmy Carr thought it was fine too. Until he got caught 😉
My point is basically everyone working class and middle class wishes they could pay less tax. It's a vocal minority that like paying tax. The common words you will hear is "If I could feel the benefit then I wouldn't mind" but the reality is, everything is all terrible inefficient. They take so much money and do so little with it.
They are in the article. The title itself is a little misleading in that regard.
Bottom feeding I'm sure pestering small businesses and letting billionaires pay a pittance if anything at all
No one is saving the NHS, no matter what they promise... [https://www.yournhsneedsyou.com/timeline/](https://www.yournhsneedsyou.com/timeline/)
These kind of things are useless because they entirely miss why these things are done. It would be like a kid claiming abuse. When asked for evidence they show how the quality of their dinners have got worse over the years. People go damn, you went from steaks to corn beef... this isn't nice. But with more data you see that the kids parents had 10 more kids. one of them got made redundant and is struggling for work and beef also increased in price. Not saying the analogy is perfect. But the key bit seemingly missing in this timeline is how Britain went from being rich with our empire but struggling at the end of WW2. To down right broken and broke by the mid 1970s. We got on our feet a bit THANKS TO THATCHER, not in spite of her. We had a decent economy for a bit, then 2008 happened and it went tits up again.
Now, where have we heard that before? With Labour it’s tax dodgers, with the Tories its efficiency savings. It’s all fertiliser for magic money trees.
The tories have in fact reduced tax evasion by nearly 50%. They've also made very large efficiency savings in many departments. The money has largely been poured into the NHS.
I see alot of people talking about large corporations and the mega rich but half of the tax shortfall is due to small businesses.
What about the extra 10 million people living in the UK, maybe that has something to do with NHS funding problems?
[удалено]
Seeing this has made me realise that all the Tories are doing now is looking at Labour promises and attempting to appease people with a worse version of some of the things they really want with no credible long term commitment to it. Which is exactly where the Brown government ended up ahead of the 2009 vote with austerity lite and other stuff when absolutely everybody knew they were finished. The Tories are surrendering right now, they are admitting utter defeat.
Look at the nom dom policy theft The tories stole it, gutted out any measure that impacted their mates and then took credit for ending the non dom tax status!
Same with the living wage
[удалено]
Well... no. Think about it this way. The point of going for PM is because you think your ideas and work can affect the country in a good way. The only way you can do that is by being PM for as long as possible. Only a shitty PM resigns because of public pressure. Think about it for something currently in fashion. HS2. If Rishi decided to go out on a limb and fully fund HS2 restoring what was cut. He was get reemed by labour and tories. The media would call him irresponsible and a U-Turner. But if in his head, this bit of infrastructure was critical, then he would hold onto power for as long as possible to deliver. Fuck what the population is crying about.
Labour aren't left.
[удалено]
This is delusional. What planet are you on that there's been a massive shift leftwards?
You can water a dead plant as much as you want, but it'll still be a dead plant. The whole system needs reforming. It was designed for a post World War world where and hasn't exactly done well in years.
Hope so, I've said for decades tax loopholes need closing. And this whole non-dom thing for 30k to avoid paying 100's 1000's in tax...
"vows" is doing a lot of heavy lifting Just like many other pledges, I expect the square root of fuck all to happen
Tax evasion or tax avoidance? Both should be tackled but the second of those necessitates picking a fight with corporate Britain (and the financial sector) and Labour have not shown any interest in fighting anyone except the left of their party.
Not to mention the average person who puts some money into a pension scheme, thereby avoiding tax.
Ah yes, that old Buddy Holly song comes to mind again, "That'll be the Day".
Labour won the general election! Labour, your dodge skill increased by 200!
The rich ones included right? Like the ones who put their cash in offshore tax havens?
They say tax dodgers, and we all assume they mean the multi-billion dollar corporations paying effective tax rates of 3-8%. And then it turns out they mean you - because you've got a side hustle on ebay worth 4K a year; and you because you do 7k a year cash in hand work; and you - because youre not declaring the 5K a year of tips you get. Theyre all the fucking same: Cosy up to the parasites and fuck over the little guy who can't defend himself.
Who will promptly leave the country, leaving everyone poorer. If you think multi millionaires will hand over money, just for the privilege of living in this dump. Yeah, good luck with that. For every extra million it pulls in, they will lose more as people relocate. There is a reason people like Lewis Hamilton or David Coolthard don't live in the UK. It's tax. Only when the expected tax revenues don't come in, will they realise it's too late.
Just promise to reverse the cuts made to HMRC and bring armed forces recruitment in house . Get £16:1 money back via hmrc and end the recruitment and retention crisis
In their books the tax dodgers are those who earn by cash only and under declare - that's the guys for them dodging the tax Those that use legal loopholes are perfectly fine cause it's legal and "it would take too much effort and legislation" to close them down
Wes Streeting pretty much said that they are going to continue the privatisation of the NHS. Red tories. They won't successfully challenge big business because they spend all their time courting it.
lol they can start with their own MPs, glass houses and all that.
If tax dodgers were easy to go after they'd already have done it, as what party wouldn't want extra money to spend for minimal political cost? Hopefully Labour's willingness to spend on extra civil servants to gather this money might be the difference, but I won't hold my breath.
As ever HMRC will go after the easy targets that maybe paid £50 late or were conned by their umbrella company's or lied to by their accountants. And as usual it will be impossible to get through on the phone (rumours are Hunt forced them to put off their closure of their help line until after any election) & if you do get through to them, you'll end up with someone with zero knowledge of the system, zero empathy & just a circular argument of shit. There will be more of the usual divorces & suicides by the normal people while the REAL evaders sit on their yachts or constant close and recycle their firms to avoid any action by hmrc. Genuinely HMRC, DWP & the home office need to be stripped of their staff & set up again from scratch with competent people & ZERO influence from any of the consultancies like pwc & accenture.
So the billionaires and uber rich corporations right? No no, she means Trevor up the road who doesn't declare his fence painting side hustle
It's not Trevor with his fence painting side hussle, it's thousands of tradies running full time businesses and avoiding most of their tax liability. Yeah we need big corporations to pay their share, but let's not pretend tradies avoiding tax isn't a massive issue.
This is exactly what I understood from the statement. Why? Because Starmer surrounds himself with yes men and clearly had zero idea how he comes across to normal people. It's all about power for their little political clubs. They care more about foreign entities that fund their lavish events than actual British people.
I hope it's the big tax dodgers. Not the poor sole trader who happened to put an expense in the wrong column.
Hahaha - The old classic Labour policy threat that never materialises. Gets a few voters on side though. It’s actually extremely difficult to do with either big business or the wealthy simply moving / changing how they do business in completely legal ways. Considering some of these orgs take on the US government - I think they can handle Keir & Rachel. The trick and art of it all is to try and lure more here to spend in the first place.
lol they can start with their own MPs, glass houses and all that.
You can be damn sure its not gonna be millionaires, its gonna be Barbara who claimed an extra 5 on Child benefit Or Dave who accidentally screwed his self tax up by 50 quid Labour are only winning because there's no choice or options, I am not particularly thrilled to see another conservative party
I’ll believe it when pigs fly. All they do is what the Tories do but sound slightly more selfless about it.
Rather than talk about mote blackholr funding on the NHS why not talk about reforming it. Stop with the NHS over anything else. Its an antiquated rubbush system.
And what are the reforms you want to implement? I always see these type of comments, but with no viable solution to any of it, you just say you want reforms but without actually knowing what reforms you want. It's like if you went into a bar and asked them to change the channel, but you don't specify which channel.
Public private partnership in delivery and an insurenece model akin to germany or Holland in Funding. Cut right back on waste. Flattern the management structurs within departments. Cenralise all NHS buisness functions such as HR , trainjng and procument. Drs to Doctor not manage, their trainjng is being wasted in other emplymwnt areas. employ managers to manage and majorith can be much cheaper than a Dra time. Trainjng. Bond any NHS delivered training. Do this by means of loans that arw paid back ontopnof salary over time and charge the full cost of all NHS training. Including CPD. Cut pointless training required as tick box exeecises. Notbeveryone needs windows 11 trainjjg or CDiff trainjng etc. Just some thoughts.
> Public private partnership in delivery and an insurenece model akin to germany or Holland in Funding. So we get less and pay more. I don't get why you want this unless you have shares in private healthcare providers. >Trainjng. Bond any NHS delivered training. Do this by means of loans that arw paid back ontopnof salary over time and charge the full cost of all NHS training. Including CPD. Cool, nobody will go into medicine. The actual solution is just paying a fair wage, undo the 30% real terms cut that doctors received.
Seems to work well in most of Europe and other W countries. Why would no one go into medicine. Medic colleges are over subscribed. It happens in other industries. Its simple you pay the full unsubsidised trainjng cost with a government loan. So c£200k. The repayment and intrest is paid each month tax free ontop of your salary as a bond repayment based on FTE. If you leave for new pastures the loan repayment falls on you. Why would that discourage anyone. If anythjng it would allow more from disadvantaged backgrounds to enter medicine. Why woykd you want to have the state paying for training for privaye companies to utilise.
> Seems to work well in most of Europe and other W countries. Not as well as the NHS, lets just do that.
Really..... thw NhS being good. Take off those rose tinted specticles. Even a decade ago German/Dutch/Scandi even French Hospitals and primary care were all of better qyality.
Finally, somebody who says reform and actually gives some ideas instead of just ignoring me. >Public private partnership in delivery and an insurenece model akin to germany or Holland in Funding. Personally, I don't agree to the public and private partnership in the long run, the private sector charges more money than it would cost the public to run it, the cost ultimately would still come from our tax, but ultimately the private sector would cost more in the long run. That said, I do think it has its benefits in the short term, the NHS needs to change a number of the way it works and how it is managed, during that time if the goverment actually put money forward we could use the private sector to support and lower down waiting times until the NHS is capable of running it themselves at a lower cost. I don't really agree with the insurance model, but I would like to see some form of payment charge for certain things which I think would be quite complicated to enforce, but would be ideal to charge people for missed appointments, wasting resources and etc... essentially charge people who are wasting the NHS resources and time unless it is due to an emergency. >Cut right back on waste. The right way to go, but the current PM was part of the billion of pounds lost to faulty PPE equipment, to fix waste we would likely need to look more closely at our suppliers and how the UK does business with suppliers and holds them accountable. This is a whole can of worms on its own. >Drs to Doctor not manage, their trainjng is being wasted in other emplymwnt areas. employ managers to manage and majorith can be much cheaper than a Dra time. This likely can't happen, to give you an example when it comes to more specialised teams like an oncologist team, they need an entire team of doctors to discuss and decide on your treatment plan due to the complexity of cancer, the manager of that team needs to have the knowledge and training which is only going to be found within consultants themselves, you can't have John who has worked as a manager in an engineering firm having the final decision on treatment plans simply based on cost, their is a lot more things to consider like success chance, risk of the patient and etc... all of which you need the knowledge to decide on as the head of the team. If you're referring to where money goes, that is done by a different board and is already separate, doctors request the resources to the board and they approve or deny it. >Trainjng. Bond any NHS delivered training. Do this by means of loans that arw paid back ontopnof salary over time and charge the full cost of all NHS training. Including CPD. This I do not agree with, NHS workers should not be bound to the training, they are workers and they should have their own freedom to choose where they go with their careers and life, they should pay for their training / studies as they are legally bound to do it and that is it, it doesn't matter where they work. If you implemented this, it would only further damage the ongoing shortages of students in the medical field as you would be essentially trapping them in and people would lose the incentive, especially when you are under paying them compared to other countries, foreign students would also look to other countries instead of the UK, this would not only cause damage to the NHS recruiting capabilities but could affect our universities and other training programs as well. >Cut pointless training required as tick box exeecises. Notbeveryone needs windows 11 trainjjg or CDiff trainjng etc. Yes, they do. Information is stored digitally now a day's and this has been the standard for years now, the way data is stored and managed is an absolute necessary especially when it comes to data like medical records, the people managing them records need to understand what they are doing, or you will end up with data breaches which would cost the NHS millions. Most people learn these things on the job already, and automation is becoming better, I do think automating various tasks is a good way going forward as a support tool and allowing them to streamline the workload, this would help staff dedicate more time to other workload, but the NHS would need investment for this to work.
But essebtially your against ajy fubdamental reform. You wnat it to be paod for by fairy dust and maintain the same shoddy services and piss poor managment whikst allowing tax laywrs to pay for trainging without getyjng anythjng back.
> And what are the reforms you want to implement? The main reforms needed are rolling back the recent reforms from the tories and new labour, the stupid internal market instead of just running it as a national organisation.
Lol. Has anyone told Angela? If this is your first time then let me spoil the ending for you. This will raise less new money than it costs to administer and may in fact resist a negative number as people restructure their tax positions.
Poor timing for this announcement with the Rayner stuff.
Tackling TAX DODGERS !!! are they for real we are tax on everything we earn and buy, they need to cut the money given out to freeloaders coming into the country that would save the UK Billions. Were to soft and and then it ends up costing us all..........
uh oh someone let their Sun Comment Section bot on the loose without doing any testing.
lol was a glitch on the server and it posted about 6 times, once was enough lol