• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Strikers are stealing from their own children

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
    So, we shouldn't pursue it then, is that what you are saying?



    Well according to their last statement, they had 7.72bn in cash.

    Even if we ignore that, Vodafone had put over £2bn aside to deal with the liability, so let's start with that.

    If you're going to make £7bn of welfare cuts, at the same time you let one company off £5bn of tax that is owed, it makes you look a tad hypocritical.
    Blaster's strong point isn't basic maths. Or logic. But he's in a band. Bet that's mediocre too.
    Hard Brexit now!
    #prayfornodeal

    Comment


      #42
      Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
      Well according to their last statement, they had 7.72bn in cash.
      Did you check their Accounts payable?

      If you actually check their balance sheet their cash and receivables match their short term liabilities ie accounts payable, remove 5bn they have a cash flow problem.
      I'm alright Jack

      Comment


        #43
        Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
        Did you check their Accounts payable?

        If you actually check their balance sheet their cash and receivables match their short term liabilities ie accounts payable, remove 5bn they have a cash flow problem.
        After they lost of Court of Appeal ruling, Vodafone set aside £2.2bn as a liability to pay for the deal, which was widely regarded as not being enough for the full liability. This does not appear in their cash on hand, because it's no longer cash - it's a liability in the accounts.

        They then got a deal from Dave Hartnett which means that they pay £800million, plus £400million over time, plus a guarantee that they won't be prosecuted / chased for any more overseas dodgy tax deal.

        At the very, very least, they were let off £1bn by a civil servant without reference to HMRC lawyers. That's comparing the maximum they will pay to the value that they set aside to pay for it.

        Of course, £1bn isn't very much, so it's not worth chasing for, really, in the grand scheme of things
        Best Forum Advisor 2014
        Work in the public sector? You can read my FAQ here
        Click here to get 15% off your first year's IPSE membership

        Comment


          #44
          Originally posted by original PM View Post
          I was watching the news last night and one thing which i did wonder was why the Public Sector workers seem to think they have a job for life and should have a great pension?
          .....
          Because that's the deal that was made with them?

          If you don't think that their employer should have made that deal, complain to the employer, not the employee who only wants the contract to be honoured.
          Job motivation: how the powerful steal from the stupid.

          Comment


            #45
            Originally posted by Ignis Fatuus View Post
            Because that's the deal that was made with them?

            If you don't think that their employer should have made that deal, complain to the employer, not the employee who only wants the contract to be honoured.
            Their employer is HM government. The public complained by means of the vote, and put in place a government that they felt would tackle their concerns; now that government are attempting to do so.
            And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

            Comment


              #46
              Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
              Their employer is HM government. The public complained by means of the vote, and put in place a government that they felt would tackle their concerns; now that government are attempting to do so.
              Actually, they didn't.

              No-one voted for the coalition of losers that formed this government.
              Best Forum Advisor 2014
              Work in the public sector? You can read my FAQ here
              Click here to get 15% off your first year's IPSE membership

              Comment


                #47
                Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
                Actually, they didn't.

                No-one voted for the coalition of losers that formed this government.
                They voted for their representatives who then formed a government. If they wanted something else, they should have voted for other representatives. They could have had Gordon again.
                And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                Comment


                  #48
                  Originally posted by TheFaQQer View Post
                  Actually, they didn't.
                  Actually they did, or nobody ever does. The system in the UK is that the Monarch (HM QE2) asks one of the party leaders to form a Government from those elected. It is normally the leader of the party with a majority, but it could be anybody who thinks they can form and keep a Government.
                  Just saying like.

                  where there's chaos, there's cash !

                  I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong!

                  Lowering the tone since 1963

                  Comment


                    #49
                    Originally posted by pjclarke
                    Proposed increase in pension contributions that triggered the strike: 2.8bn

                    Amount of tax Tamara Ecclestone's dad saves by using an offshore trust controlled by his wife : £2bn (as opposed to Philip Green, whio gains around £300m/year by the same dodge)

                    Cost of proposed top-down NHS re-organisation: £2bn.

                    Cost of Afghanistan campaign: £4.5bn / year

                    2 x aircraft carriers (aircraft optional): £6.2bn

                    Amount raised by a 'Tobin' tax at 0.05%: c £20bn

                    Cost to Government of planned cuts to corporation tax: £1bn / year by 2014.

                    Amount retrieved from Swiss tax evader amnesty (all offences waived) £5bn, Estimated amount still illegally sheltered: £20bn

                    No money ?
                    We know it's unfair. It's all unfair. But it has to be done. Agree that the other injustices should be tackled too.
                    And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                    Comment


                      #50
                      Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
                      Their employer is HM government. The public complained by means of the vote, and put in place a government that they felt would tackle their concerns; now that government are attempting to do so.
                      Changing the board of directors of an employer does not allow it to invalidate all employment contracts.

                      This government is free to offer what contracts it pleases to potential new employees; it is not morally free to break existing contracts.
                      Job motivation: how the powerful steal from the stupid.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X