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

ILW

tomterm8 wrote: »

Of course we would. However, unfortunatly normal people don't have the wealth to buy the government, and have them put in all kind of loopholes specifically designed to make rich people pay less tax than their cleaners.

Basically, people who go on tirades about how tax avoidance is legal ignore the inconvenient truth that the system is as corrupt as a casino owned by the mob.

Most of the loopholes were set up or maintained by that prudent socialist Gordon Brown.

moonrakerz

tomterm8 wrote: »

basically, people who go on tirades about how tax avoidance is legal ignore the inconvenient truth that the system is as corrupt as a casino owned by the mob.

Quad erat demonstrandum !

Generali

I was quite struck by 9-5ers having Blackberries. Money wasted on a status symbol.

Wheezy_2

moonrakerz wrote: »

Quad erat demonstrandum !

What?...............

Generali

Wheezy wrote: »

What?...............

It means 'what was required to be proved' or 'that which was to be demonstrated' depending on who you ask (QED).

Sir_Humphrey

Using a centralised purchasing system would make sense - this would be a new Quango of course.

I cannot see this as being implemented with the decentralisation agenda. For example, schools under LEA can purchse through the LEA or a purchasing organisation. That would not happen if all schools became academies or free schools as they would be in competition. And so on.

Sir_Humphrey

His idea for governments to delay payment is nuts. That would cause bankruptcies amongst the Government's smaller providers, and would discourage them applying for govt work. That would make the govt more vulnerbale to being exploited by larger corporations.

A very anti-small/medium sized business measure.

Wheezy_2

Generali wrote: »

It means 'what was required to be proved' or 'that which was to be demonstrated' depending on who you ask (QED).

Ah, he meant quod erat demonstrandum...got it now, thanks.

JasonLVC

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

His idea for governments to delay payment is nuts. That would cause bankruptcies amongst the Government's smaller providers, and would discourage them applying for govt work. That would make the govt more vulnerbale to being exploited by larger corporations.

A very anti-small/medium sized business measure.

What's wrong with the industry norm of 28 days payment terms? (arguably, that 'norm' is more like 60 or 90 days if dealing with big multi-national suppliers).

A business that cannot survive 28 days without an invoice being paid is probably a business that has other troubles.

I see countless SME's who, on a daily basis, are losing thousands of pounds as their customers go out of business leaving unpaid bills.

Better to have the assurance of knowing the government will pay your invoice in 28 days rather than seeing your customer go belly up, pre-pack and trading again sans debts.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Using a centralised purchasing system would make sense - this would be a new Quango of course.

I cannot see this as being implemented with the decentralisation agenda. For example, schools under LEA can purchse through the LEA or a purchasing organisation. That would not happen if all schools became academies or free schools as they would be in competition. And so on.

I disagree. It would be possible to insist that all Government departments chose certain commoditised items (eg computers & consumables) from a list unless they had reasons to chose otherwise.

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

His idea for governments to delay payment is nuts. That would cause bankruptcies amongst the Government's smaller providers, and would discourage them applying for govt work. That would make the govt more vulnerbale to being exploited by larger corporations.

A very anti-small/medium sized business measure.

Yup, no disagreements from me. If SMEs should pay tax on time, Govt should pay the bills on time,