The poster in the window

Ilya_Ilyich

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

Wouldn't call it wealthy to be honest. Not a lot to show for 35 years in private sector employment if you look at it on an annual basis. Probably due to being overtaxed to pay for the parasitical public sector and their pensions and benefit cheats.

The problem with this narrative is that it's the capital-holders in the private sector who've ended up with your wealth, not those who work in the public sector. It's bizarre to complain about very minor issues like benefit fraud and gloss over the very real and ongoing transfer of wealth to the already-wealthy.

smartn

Going4TheDream wrote: »

Cos 'we are all in this together' right?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-2049496/Vodafone-pays-just-1-400-tax-profits-3-5bn.html

The low paid workers in Tesco probably paid more tax........

OK, But if we didn't have vodafone operating in this country how many jobs would we lose and the associated tax revenue. If it was as simple as just tax the big corporations loads it would already have been done (and probably by Labour!)

Going4TheDream

smartn wrote: »

OK, But if we didn't have vodafone operating in this country how many jobs would we lose and the associated tax revenue. If it was as simple as just tax the big corporations loads it would already have been done (and probably by Labour!)

I do see your point and they employ around 10000 many of which are in call centres and shops. But its hardly high wages in call centre, and shops are likely a very basic wage and commission. It is also possible that some staff are likely to rely on government handouts to make up their low incomes possibly even of a higher value than the tax receipts they generate?

Yes we keep 10000 people in lowish paid jobs but Vodaphone walk way with over a billion in profit and no tax paid on the back of low paid almost government/tax payer subsidized jobs? seems a bit immoral to me

grimsalve

Going4TheDream wrote: »

Yes we keep 10000 people in lowish paid jobs but Vodaphone walk way with over a billion in profit and no tax paid on the back of low paid almost government/tax payer subsidized jobs? seems a bit immoral to me

but the profits are for paying off debts, rentals, future expansion, shareholders, etc.

The alternative would be companies losing their share value, closing shops and offices, cancelling expansion work, defaulting on loans, downsizing, or even going out of business altogether which could possibly cost the country far more than the money it could gain from tax.

ILW

Going4TheDream wrote: »

I do see your point and they employ around 10000 many of which are in call centres and shops. But its hardly high wages in call centre, and shops are likely a very basic wage and commission. It is also possible that some staff are likely to rely on government handouts to make up their low incomes possibly even of a higher value than the tax receipts they generate?

Yes we keep 10000 people in lowish paid jobs but Vodaphone walk way with over a billion in profit and no tax paid on the back of low paid almost government/tax payer subsidized jobs? seems a bit immoral to me

Where do you think the profits go to?

Cleaver

ILW wrote: »

A business model that relies on a single customer is not that clever.

I agree. But the question remains, if you're a supplier of a certain size in the food industry who do you supply if it's not one of the big four supermarkets? If you have ambition to be anything other than a small supplier you have to deal with them,

ILW wrote: »

In the end it is no good blaming Tesco for being the biggest, they are just supplying what the customer demands, and tend to do it the best.

I kind of agree. Tesco are big and popular because everyone goes there, but at what point does it become a chore and a pain to go anywhere else, so Tesco (or ASDA, or Sainsbury's) becomes the default place to go out of habit and necessity because there's nothing else available. Tesco have basically cornered the market in convenient mediocrity. Nothing they do or sell is awful, but at the same time nothing they do or sell is particulary good. By that I mean that their service is average, their fruit and veg is poor to average, their meat is poor to average etc. etc.

I genuinely think we have a mass of people who have forgotten what shopping is like outside of supermarkets. Sounds a bit dramatic, but I really think that's the case. Friends of ours the other week nearly refused to eat chicken at our house because it looked, and I quote, "all weird and yellow. Is it off?". It took me a while to convince them that a normal chicken that is fed a natural diet of corn is a slightly yellow colour. Like you, I have no problem with a budget provider selling a chicken for £4 for people who want to buy that. But when our whole population is buying £4 chickens and begins to expect to buy £4 chickens? Is that really sustainable or the society that we want?

I dunno. I don't really care all that much, but it's slightly odd that our most popular national shop is one that doesn't actually sell anything that good. But you're right, I guess it's the 'best' at what it does, which is average stuff at average prices. A souless set of identikit caves of stuff for a generation that likes cheap stuff from identikit places.

TruckerT

Cleaver wrote: »

I dunno. I don't really care all that much, but it's slightly odd that our most popular national shop is one that doesn't actually sell anything that good. But you're right, I guess it's the 'best' at what it does, which is average stuff at average prices. A souless set of identikit caves of stuff for a generation that likes cheap stuff from identikit places.

Mmmmm- this thread is meant to be about the resistance to institutional stereotypes/assumptions etc etc...

The supermarket chains increasingly promote their internet prices, rather than the quality of their products

The banks also placed their faith in computer-marketing (remember liar-loans?), and failed in the attempt

The way forward is far from clear...

TruckerT