Swiss company INEOS rips off UK,wages war against its UK employees

[chalga]

How is this company forcing the government to start throwing taxpayers' money away?

 

The government may choose to invest, or not invest. I don't see what the problem is.

 

The problem is,that nobody can find any evidence of tax that it has paid in the UK since 2008,so why would it be planning to ask for UK taxpayers money when it has allegedly avoided paying UK tax since 2008?

[L00b]

No, I do not believe the government should subsidize any business, unless it is in the public interest to do so.

So is your argument, therefore, that it is in the public interest in this case?

 

That refinery is a donkey, always has been by your own admission.

 

So what's the problem with having a pop at its non-tax paying controlling entity, if it tries on a subsidies-for-jobs blackmail?

 

There is such a thing as corporate ethics, you know

How is this company forcing the government to start throwing taxpayers' money away?

Where have I posted or even suggested that this company is "forcing" the government to do anything?

The government may choose to invest, or not invest. I don't see what the problem is.

The problems are that:

• where private industry is concerned, the Gvt has had a rather less-than-stellar record, for quite some time now, where investment choices and decisions are concerned; and
  
• splurging some more millions of taxpayers' hard earned at what clearly looks like a donkey for the sake of some votes (or at least looking good in the news for a short while) is too darn tempting to modern politicians.

I might become a bit more sanguine, once the Gvt (irrespective of political colour) starts to become more directly accountable where that particular aspect of governance/politics is concerned: i.e. when Nos 10 and 11 finally start to lop relevant mandarins' heads, after clear cases of mismanagement and turning private sector investments/tenders/contracts/etc into the (routine these days) clusterf***ks.

[Hillpig]

So is your argument, therefore, that it is in the public interest in this case?

 

That refinery is a donkey, always has been by your own admission.

 

So what's the problem with having a pop at its non-tax paying controlling entity, if it tries on a subsidies-for-jobs blackmail?

 

There is such a thing as corporate ethics, you know

Where have I posted or even suggested that this company is "forcing" the government to do anything?

The problems are that:

• where private industry is concerned, the Gvt has had a rather less-than-stellar record, for quite some time now, where investment choices and decisions are concerned; and
  
• splurging some more millions of taxpayers' hard earned at what clearly looks like a donkey for the sake of some votes (or at least looking good in the news for a short while) is too darn tempting to modern politicians.

I might become a bit more sanguine, once the Gvt (irrespective of political colour) starts to become more directly accountable where that particular aspect of governance/politics is concerned: i.e. when Nos 10 and 11 finally start to lop relevant mandarins' heads, after clear cases of mismanagement and turning private sector investments/tenders/contracts/etc into the (routine these days) clusterf***ks.

 

I do not understand why you are having difficulty understanding me. I believe that the owners of any business have the right to close or dispose of it.

 

They may, if there is no alternative, appeal for assistance to government. If the government feel there is a case to help they can do so. Alternatively they could nationalise it if it in the public interest to do so.

 

What is complicated here?

 

Regarding it not paying tax, it is governments that render taxation. Any multi national has a duty to site itself in a country that is tax efficient. It has no duty to seek to pay any more tax than it has to.

[L00b]

I do not understand why you are having difficulty understanding me.

This is the bit I'm struggling with, in light of your later comments:

It really is surprising to read the dismissive comments of some contributors,

[Hillpig]

This is the bit I'm struggling with, in light of your later comments:

 

At the start of the thread some contributors seemed, to me, to be offhand and dismissive of the issue, "let them go bust", "another case of big corporates trying to hold the country to ransom" or similar.

 

This is a serious issue, thousands of jobs at risk in a very high unemployment area, also the loss of the last refinery in the north of the Island of Britain. If we lose it the price of fuel will inevitably rise.

 

We see again on this forum the "blame" culture, no company can have a serious problem and be seen to attempt to resolve it unless they are "bent" "tax evaders" "just like the banks" "blackmailers" all typical expressions used.

 

This company employs thousands, pays huge amounts of tax here and abroad, it may well go bust. My point is the government has a choice. Let it die, subsidize or nationalize it.

[L00b]

At the start of the thread some contributors seemed, to me, to be offhand and dismissive of the issue, "let them go bust", "another case of big corporates trying to hold the country to ransom" or similar.

Indeed.

This is a serious issue, thousands of jobs at risk in a very high unemployment area, also the loss of the last refinery in the north of the Island of Britain.

It's not. Just like pits and steel works before, they'll retrain to do something else.

If we lose it the price of fuel will inevitably rise.

How can you be sure of this?

We see again on this forum the "blame" culture, no company can have a serious problem and be seen to attempt to resolve it unless they are "bent" "tax evaders" "just like the banks" "blackmailers" all typical expressions used.

For some, it may be so simplistic. For many of the 'blamers' in this thread, I rather suspect it's a case of visiting some karma on a deliberate tax avoider. In other words: approving the fact that you can't have your cake and eating it.

This company employs thousands, pays huge amounts of tax here and abroad, it may well go bust.

Well, that's just the crux of it: reportedly it does not.

Ineos, which is saddled with £6bn debt after an aggressive acquisition spree to buy up parts of ICI and BP, estimates the move could save it around €450m (£395m) between now and 2014.

(2nd linked article)

 

Their ball-and-chain debt is of their own making/corporate decisions, and not attributable to excessive taxation by the UK Gvt. They decided to shift their tax base to Switzerland and pay a lower rate of corporate tax there, to try and help debt repayments by lowering their tax burden/again a corporate decision. So, let them ask the Swiss for a bailout instead.

 

...Wouldn't hold my breath if I was on their Board

[Hillpig]

Indeed.

It's not. Just like pits and steel works before, they'll retrain to do something else.

How can you be sure of this?

For some, it may be so simplistic. For many of the 'blamers' in this thread, I rather suspect it's a case of visiting some karma on a deliberate tax avoider. In other words: approving the fact that you can't have your cake and eating it.

Well, that's just the crux of it: reportedly it does not.

(2nd linked article)

 

Their ball-and-chain debt is of their own making/corporate decisions, and not attributable to excessive taxation by the UK Gvt. They decided to shift their tax base to Switzerland and pay a lower rate of corporate tax there, to try and help debt repayments by lowering their tax burden/again a corporate decision. So, let them ask the Swiss for a bailout instead.

 

...Wouldn't hold my breath if I was on their Board

 

Miners and steelworkers re trained? I take it you were elsewhere during the 80s? Stop blathering and address the point. You have made serious allegations regarding local employers substantiate or withdraw them.

[Uptowngirl]

 

"Quote:

Originally Posted by Hillpig View Post

If we lose it the price of fuel will inevitably rise."

 

 

How can you be sure of this?

 

That's not exactly difficult now the government is proposing a 5p fuel duty reduction to filling stations 100 miles from a refinery. The further they transport the stuff the more it costs. Delivery trucks use fuel and the drivers get paid you see.

 

In the Hope Valley petrol is 7p/lite more expensive than Sheffield.

[Hillpig]

That's not exactly difficult now the government is proposing a 5p fuel duty reduction to filling stations 100 miles from a refinery. The further they transport the stuff the more it costs. Delivery trucks use fuel and the drivers get paid you see.

 

In the Hope Valley petrol is 7p/lite more expensive than Sheffield.

 

Thank you Madam.

[L00b]

That's not exactly difficult now the government is proposing a 5p fuel duty reduction to filling stations 100 miles from a refinery.

Have you seen the geographical scope of the proposal (which is just that, a proposal, atm)?

 

Have a look.

 

I thought we were taking about an increase, not a price cut?

 

So, losing the OP's refinery is indeed going to dramatically increase fuel costs throughout the UK

You have made serious allegations regarding local employers substantiate or withdraw them.

I stand by the comments, and choose to let the media substantiate them in due course.

 

As regards a withdrawal, the Don is that way --->