| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
That will be the rule anywhere with a tax dept. The payroll tax and social security issues with allowing a workforce to work where they like can be a nightmare- not to mention the possiblity of the company itself having a corporate tax liability in a country where their employees work. And if you don't spot that liability- in some countries that is a criminal offence, not just a matter of financial penalties.Originally Posted by The Hooded Claw
I agree it's very short sighted from these businesses. The high Street is in decline enough I think keeping people at home will further destroy another sector. Yes it will be good for emissions and road congestion but as a relatively small country we are only such a small contributor to the problem.
Ive been working from home and I'm starting to get used to it but for those younger and looking back on myself being surrounded by people in an office everyday really helped my confidence as a young adult.
The high street is in decline because online companies can charge lower costs as they don't pay tax. The high street is in decline because people don't have time to go shopping because they all have to work in the gig economy jobs for these online companies to make ends meet.
Basic income, mass automation and removal of middle management bullsh1t jobs. People will have disposable income and time, high street will be alive
It is actually the other way around: they can afford to run at a loss or at no profit, and as such don't pay tax.
The "no tax" thing is really a byproduct of the actual problem. The actual problem is the US multinationals can and do run at a loss to kill off competition, because they can afford to. And tax aside: online retail has a lower cost base than bricks and mortar retail anyway, so even if an online retailer and a traditional retailer targeted the same profit margin, the online retailer could charge a lower price and so over time you'd see the high street wither (these are all obviously very general comments!).
But the large online retailers - well, Amazon - killing off markets because they can afford it is the biggest problem. The percentage of shopping journeys that start on Amazon is frightening. The global response is a decade too late/slow. Corporate income taxes are driven by profit. How do governments respond to companies who's policy is to run parts of its business at no profit for years on end?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57693065
Asda are moving with the times.
Why should Natwest care about the highstreet?
The same highstreet where huge companies like Debenhams swallowed up independent retailers you mean? The same sector that is now crying foul because of retail evolution and bigger sharks like Amazon, you mean? The same sector that didn't adapt to on-line retail in time, you mean?
The highstreet is failing because it is expensive, unnecessary, and outdated.
Re. your 3 replies to my post, I think you're completely missing the point. Anyway. Change doesn't bother me, I've lived a full life so far, and apart from the occasional daily 15 minutes on CCMB etc., I've done things that nowadays admittedly seem 'outdated'. Like shopping for food and clothing etc., in real places, meeting real people. Talking to real people face-to-face, seeing what they look like below their shoulders. Meeting work. business colleagues, nights out, actually going out each and every day having different experiences, the same with the Missus, swapping notes. Of course, I could now do all that looking a screen no bigger than a fag packet, without leaving my bedroom - maybe my bed.
You post rude aggressive replies to a perfectly reasonable opinion, and assume that you are correct, better able to judge, and I am some sort of dinosaur. The irony is lost on you, no doubt.
I only replied twice and you were the one labelling productive people like myself slackers for being able to work from home without adult supervision. Something you obviously require.
Yes, everyone who works from home does nothing but stay at home all day. We crave a life of meeting old Mrs. Muggles in the pasta aisle in Tesco.
My opinion is perfectly reasonable, clogging roads up with cars is so last year.
There's a difference with being 'somewhere' and being available within certain stipulated hours and completing tasks that one's job entails, of course.
Eastbourne blue posted 'slackers'. You missed, and still missed completely the point I was making. Others understood and replied accordingly. Excitable little chap ain't you !
And you said
I do wonder what your job is/was. I suspect it wasn't managerial but, if it was, I suspect you were one of those managers that micro-managed everyone and treated them like kids and then felt justified when they were worn down enough to start taking the piss.Well, there must be an element of truth in that, however from what little I've gleaned from people who are WFH is that they're 'monitored' on their daily activity - not exactly my idea of fun. The extrapolation from that is my main point, ie, these are jobs that could in many cases be easily moved overseas.
You made a supposition that jobs would move abroad because people can do the jobs anywhere. You then backed up your lack of logical thought with a claim that was equally illogical. That if people went from back to the office, somehow these jobs would become protected. These people have been doing these jobs at home for 18 months. Do you really think that people going back to the office (extra real estate costs for the companies) now is going to make it less likely for companies to outsource?
Do you think that companies who have moved production to China, South East Asia and East Europe over the last 10-20 years did so because all the factory workers were working from home.
You are talking out of your arse, an habit it seems you are incapable of kicking. Clueless.
I can't see why offshoring would be a problem, you pay local taxes - so what, banks have already been doing this for years.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote