Peston: 'I'd be bust if I ran my business the way government does'

Cleaver

Wookster wrote: »

You call it dodgy, but is it illegal? A simple yes or no will do.

No. It's his business how he choses to avoid tax - if he's able to do it under UK law then so be it. We can then chose whether we use his shops ot not.

But who cares whether it's legal or not with regard to this issue? Once he's given a role stating how the government can save / generate more money, I think we have a right to pull him up on a few things.

Sir Phil: "You're losing loads of money here with your procurement systems. I'd change them, you'd make millions".
Government: "Thanks Sir Phil, that's great. Any ideas around tightening our tax laws so that big business pay their fair share?"
Sir Phil: "Erm, no, I didn't really look at that."
Government: "Fair enough, we didn't really want you to anyway."
Sir Phil: "Fantastic. See you in Jersey."

It's a bit like asking Wayne Rooney to write a report on how British men should behave.

Thrugelmir

carolt wrote: »

Well, it's a good thing that we now have a govt that doesn't believe in centralised govt. That'll save money. Not.

Does centralised Government work? Look at the NHS. Dept of Health. Strategic Health Authorities, PCT's, Hospital Trusts. And we still haven't spent any money on front line services.

Hospital "managers" that meet targets so they don't get fined. Causing them further loss of income.

antrobus

carolt wrote: »

And if everyone ran their businesses the way Philip Green does, the country would be bust too. Ie massive tax avoidance.

As I understand it, Philip Green's tax avoidance consists of putting a considerable chunk of his assets in his wife's name who, as a Monaco resident is not liable for UK tax for the income arising on said assets.

It would be worth reminding people who get upset about this sort of thing, that a certain Gordon Brown, formerly of No 10 Downing Street, transfered the ownership of a flat (No 42 Great Smith Street, Westminster to be precise) to his wife, thereby avoiding the tax arising on said rental income. Sorry allowing his wife "some financial independence".

If Gordon Brown can grant his wife some financial independence why can't Philip Green?

P.S. He bought the flat in 1992 from Arthur Andersen, acting as administrators of Robert Maxwell's empire, both of whom were of course crooks. None of which should be taken to imply any impropriety on Brown's part.

antrobus

olly300 wrote: »

True- Thatcher found one outsourcing company had hoodwinked and ripped off the tax payer while she was in power so banned them from doing government work.

Unfortunately Nu Labour was sweet talked into lifting the ban and giving them work before they went bust.

Ooh, Arthur Andersen again. See above.

wymondham

carolt wrote: »

That someone who personally chooses to deprive the country he lives in of £300 million in taxes by dubious avoidance schemes is not really the best person to be telling the rest of us where to save money. That if the huge companies paid the same proportion in taxes as ordinary working people did, there'd be no need for the massive austerity measures likely to hit us all soon.

Or take a look at Vodafone's £6 billion - yes, you read that right - tax avoidance:

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=in_the_back&issue=1270

Tax avoidance is not illegal, but a sign of a shrewd business head. If the Government did'nt agree with them then they will fill in the gaps and stop it. You can't blame someone for being successful?!!

CLAPTON

I would certainly agree that there is considerable scope to improve procurement and reducing costs
but I can't at the moment see how centralising procurement for say railtrack, MOD and my doctors surgery all into one place is guarenteed to save any money

drc

carolt wrote: »

And if everyone ran their businesses the way Philip Green does, the country would be bust too. Ie massive tax avoidance.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/aug/19/philip-green-liberal-democrats-tax

He's actually not doing anything illegal (and if the government doesn't like tax avoidance they should change the rules to make it illegal) and with the amount of government waste that he has uncovered, I'm not surprised he doesn't want to pay anymore tax in this country and see it go to waste on renting empty government buildings and paying for taxis for minor staff.

ILW

carolt wrote: »

That someone who personally chooses to deprive the country he lives in of £300 million in taxes by dubious avoidance schemes is not really the best person to be telling the rest of us where to save money. That if the huge companies paid the same proportion in taxes as ordinary working people did, there'd be no need for the massive austerity measures likely to hit us all soon.

Or take a look at Vodafone's £6 billion - yes, you read that right - tax avoidance:

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=in_the_back&issue=1270

It is the government that set the rules and laws regarding taxation, you cannot fault anybody for just working within them to their best advantage. Brown was keen on making thing very complicated and this tends to lead to all sorts of anomalies and loopholes.

Hauptmann

ILW wrote: »

It is the government that set the rules and laws regarding taxation, you cannot fault anybody for just working within them to their best advantage. Brown was keen on making thing very complicated and this tends to lead to all sorts of anomalies and loopholes.

Nothing to do with rules and laws introduced by Brown.
Philip Green has a pretty 'chequered' background by any standards. He has not run a quoted company since 1992 (when he was forced out by shareholders who were not keen on his 'unorthodox' financial manipulations).
Everything he's done since has been largely funded by private individuals (chiefly the Barclay brothers) and IIRC The Econimist described him as a 'front man' for the Barclays.
The 'tax avoidance' accusation came about when he borrowed money from the company to pay his wife £1.2bn and then set the loan against UK tax.
The report is only for the purposes of 'propaganda' though. He only had a couple of weeks to 'investigate' and most of the examples he cites are pretty specuous. It looks frightening stuff to the average Sun reader, but anyone with a bit of business nous would take it with a pinch of salt. I imagine if Green were to come and look at my business he would uncover similar horrors (yes, we sometimes pay widely different prices for the same product depending on time of year and which supplier can deliver quickest etc.).

JasonLVC

I'd have thought that to save public money, you would need to appoint a shrewd, savvy business person who knows every trick in the book to legally save money and reduce overheads.

Sir Philip Green fits that profile perfectly.

Blair was quite fond of taking advice off another tax dodger, Sir Richard Branson.

Lord Sugar, the business tzar, appointed by Brown, makes substantial donations to the Labour party each year - all of which are tax deductible when calculating IHT, so nearly £1m can be excluded from his estate when calculating IHT when Lord Sugar dies.

These are all legal, they are not tax dodges, they are just what the law says you can/cannot do.