spooky3 Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 So, apart from the manufacturing part of the business, they haven't really relocated to avoid the tax man, as the OP suggests. No, they went for the grants and cheap labour. I'm still never buying their brand again though! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11716142 But... http://www.savetwiningsjobs.co.uk/ I need to catch up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 No, they went for the grants and cheap labour. I'm still never buying their brand again though! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11716142 But... http://www.savetwiningsjobs.co.uk/ I need to catch up... Exactly, it's all about the cheap labour, unfortunately. Although, you cannot blame them when everyone seems intent on buying things on the cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Exactly, it's all about the cheap labour, unfortunately. Although, you cannot blame them when everyone seems intent on buying things on the cheap. They were never cheap... I just bought because they were British. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinyl Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 So, apart from the manufacturing part of the business, they haven't really relocated to avoid the tax man, as the OP suggests. It is standard practice. They retain a UK office so the brand can claim to be British but to all intents and purposes the company has gone overseas. The company that makes Dyson vacs is (I think) in Indonesia. The only thing left here is a warehouse and a development arm. But of course the overseas company can charge the UK company whatever it wants for the vacs. So the company declares profits where ever it gets the tax breaks. I'm sure Jenson Button and Laski Mittal would pay their taxes in the UK if they got a deal. They haven't, so they don't. 20% of £10 million is £2000,000. 50% of 0 is zero. Here's a nice story. http://www.thisisguernsey.com/latest/2010/05/25/pay-50-tax-id-rather-be-in-guernsey/ CO-FOUNDER of financial services firm Hargreaves Lansdown and chairman of Bristol City FC Stephen Lansdown is the latest to turn his back on the UK to avoid the new 50% rate. A spokesman for Hargreaves Lansdown confirmed that Mr Lansdown, who is worth an estimated £452m., has bought a house in Guernsey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinyl Posted January 3, 2012 Author Share Posted January 3, 2012 Exactly, it's all about the cheap labour, unfortunately. Although, you cannot blame them when everyone seems intent on buying things on the cheap. Its about reducing your product costs. If through wage rates and taxes your product is cheaper to produce abroad you move, because if you don't people buy from your competitors who have. Not all companies are labour intensive. Pharmaceuticals and financial services would still pay key personel the same wherever they were based, but that would be based on the buying power of their take home pay. They are moving abroad because of taxation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullerboY Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Not everyone is cut out for self employment some people are driven whilst others need driving.It gets very depressing when the going gets tough and some people throw in the towel.Some people think that every thing they earn is theirs and forget to share it with the tax man etc.and dont allow for this,when the bills come in then its oh dear what am I going to do.If anyone is going to start up remember pay your taxes and sleep at night don't try to be clever with these people and you will be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 As much as I'd like to become the next Bill Gates, I don't have the capital. He didn't have any capital. When he and Paul Allen started the business, they worked in a garage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 No, they went for the grants and cheap labour. I'm still never buying their brand again though! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11716142 But... http://www.savetwiningsjobs.co.uk/ I need to catch up... I dont think that is entirely correct, Dyson said that in order for his manufacturing division to be successfull it needed to be near to component manufactureres and there were none in this country. He moved his manufacturing base to be near these others. Its not his fault that other businesses have left UK and set up elsewhere forcing him to do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 Exactly, it's all about the cheap labour, unfortunately. Although, you cannot blame them when everyone seems intent on buying things on the cheap. I'm all in favour of businesses moving to the workers instead of moving the workers to the business. If the UK as no one wanting to work in a factory but Poland has thousands ready and waiting to do the work, I think it makes more sense to move the factory to Poland. I know some from Latvia and that is what they expected when they joined the EU but instead the Latvians ended up moving to the work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I've been temping for a company for 7 months and the temp budget has been severely reduced. My boss wants to go self employed so he can pay me direct, instead of the temping agency taking a huge chunk of it. You need to be very careful getting into that sort of deal. Simply saying you are self-employed does not make you self-employed. If you hunt around there are a number of threads about this. Deals such as this are quite easy for the HMRC to find and prosecute and the consequences, particularly for the employer are expensive. Your current employer is currently paying all your employment costs plus the agencies cut. If he wants to reduce costs then all he needs to do is dump the agency and directly employ you on a temporary contract then you will be treated as a proper employee and taxed accordingly. Though of course, if he was to do this then you would gain some employment protection rather then being little better than a serf. The agency might be a bit miffed with you both too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.