FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Public contracts but no tax
Public contracts but no tax
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
You mean the same G4 that failed to deliver the contracted security for the Olympics, beat a man to death on a plane, charged for monitoring tags on people who were in jail or even dead. But still win contract renewals and are the governments go to contractor.... Sure they must be due a tax rebate soon!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"You mean the same G4 that failed to deliver the contracted security for the Olympics, beat a man to death on a plane, charged for monitoring tags on people who were in jail or even dead. But still win contract renewals and are the governments go to contractor.... Sure they must be due a tax rebate soon!!!"
That's them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Does anyone have any idea WHY these companies seem to be tax exempt?
I don't personally know why, it is a genuine question, but if the fact that they are tax exempt is available in the public domain, surely there also has to be an explanation otherwise there could be public uproar  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"Does anyone have any idea WHY these companies seem to be tax exempt?
I don't personally know why, it is a genuine question, but if the fact that they are tax exempt is available in the public domain, surely there also has to be an explanation otherwise there could be public uproar "
They aren't supposed to be tax exempt but they have not paid corporation tax.
Atoms claims this is because of their investment and pension contributions so they didn't make enough profit to qualify.
Servo and Capita did pay tax. The four of them have £6.6bn of public sector contracts now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Most businesses make a profit, but use legal ways to avoid paying tax, including, but not limited to employees perks, investments, pension schemes, nothing illegal.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If a US or French company want to set up wholly owned subsidiaries here (G4S and ATOS) then it is perfectly legal for the parent company to charge the subsidiary interest on the money used to set up the subsidiary plus admin fees in excess of all profits earned by the UK subsidiary.
Of course if they do this the subsidiary will not pay taxes and may actually be entitled to claim government subsidies for those it employs...
Isn't privatization of public services with contracts going to foreign companies fantastic!
Thank you Mrs Thatcher... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
And contracts over a certain value have to be put out to European wide tender (military contracts can be excluded) so if a US firm has a subsidiary in France or Italy it can bid via that subsidiary.
They can then channel profits home via 'tax planning'. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
It is interesting that their investment in the country has been on their infrastructure to run the contracts here. I want to look at the supply chain and see how much has been spent here and how much to their own subdivisions to do the work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Does anyone have any idea WHY these companies seem to be tax exempt?
I don't personally know why, it is a genuine question, but if the fact that they are tax exempt is available in the public domain, surely there also has to be an explanation otherwise there could be public uproar
They aren't supposed to be tax exempt but they have not paid corporation tax.
Atoms claims this is because of their investment and pension contributions so they didn't make enough profit to qualify.
Servo and Capita did pay tax. The four of them have £6.6bn of public sector contracts now."
The range of contracts Capita have is pretty staggering - their intranet's helped many a quiet hour pass by at work.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Neither of them paid any corporation tax in this country last year because one had significant losses that they were able to off-set against their tax bill and given the public criticism of them, are you surprised that they lost money? The other made massive investments to start their business in the UK, that they were able to off-set. Those are the same rules for everyone.
Of course they employed lots of staff and employers NIC was paid on that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"It is interesting that their investment in the country has been on their infrastructure to run the contracts here. I want to look at the supply chain and see how much has been spent here and how much to their own subdivisions to do the work."
They'd probably argue that info is commercial-in-confidence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"Neither of them paid any corporation tax in this country last year because one had significant losses that they were able to off-set against their tax bill and given the public criticism of them, are you surprised that they lost money? The other made massive investments to start their business in the UK, that they were able to off-set. Those are the same rules for everyone.
Of course they employed lots of staff and employers NIC was paid on that."
The criticism was from their failures to deliver on the contracts - which they still hold! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You mean the same G4 that failed to deliver the contracted security for the Olympics, beat a man to death on a plane, charged for monitoring tags on people who were in jail or even dead. But still win contract renewals and are the governments go to contractor.... Sure they must be due a tax rebate soon!!!"
Wonder how many politicians, or ex politicians, sit on G4S board or are paid advisors  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
In April the probation service is splitting 70/30%, with 30% staying in government control, the rest is going to private bidding. G4 are bidding for it. I'm very scared that G4 could be managing some of our serious offenders given the complete balls up they've made of pretty much everything else they've touched. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplits OP Woman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"In April the probation service is splitting 70/30%, with 30% staying in government control, the rest is going to private bidding. G4 are bidding for it. I'm very scared that G4 could be managing some of our serious offenders given the complete balls up they've made of pretty much everything else they've touched. "
The problem with the contracting process is that past performance on other unrelated contracts cannot be taken into consideration.
The concept of services such as probation being profit-making makes me feel a little sick.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"In April the probation service is splitting 70/30%, with 30% staying in government control, the rest is going to private bidding. G4 are bidding for it. I'm very scared that G4 could be managing some of our serious offenders given the complete balls up they've made of pretty much everything else they've touched.
The problem with the contracting process is that past performance on other unrelated contracts cannot be taken into consideration.
......
"
That's not the case when awarding contracts via the OJEC. You're expected to ask for evidence of similar work undertaken in the past and to make 'appropriate enquiries ' before awarding the contract. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"G4S is the Governments "preferred bidder" for all "security related" contracts put to tender. So effectively if they bid they get! "
I guess if peadophile attacks and serious re-offending go up then the government will be able to say "it's not our fault, they are in charge of them".
Not that I believe that is why the government is doing this!!   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
