Current Affairs The Labour Party

Status
Not open for further replies.
spectateur said:
Fraud is rife. Uk should definitely tighten up on its ID requirements. Having official ID cards would be a start.
Click to expand...

I was talking to friends about this last week. Previously the thought of an ID card was anathema to us, but as more banks, councils etc etc, require ID , passport, driving license etc, we all seemed to agree that a one off ID card might not be such a bad idea......
 
tsubaki said:
TBF the most reliable figure to base criticism of a company on is always going to be total revenue, given that there will always be pressures to manipulate everything else (profit, sales and whatnot) to either reduce tax liabilities or qualify for bonuses and that one (revenue) is the most difficult one to manipulate (except directly, via asset sales, though if a firm was doing that then people would be able to see it). It would be misleading to compare it directly to tax paid (and even more misleading to compare sales to tax), but it would allow a much more important argument to be made about how firms and their auditors are incentivized to manipulate their financials.

After all, the routine nature of such manipulation puts investors at massive risk, and removes a lot of the justification for having independent auditors (given that they are meant to give confidence to investors by giving an accurate account of the state of a business). As we have seen with nearly all the big business collapses of the past twenty years, this is one of the most common themes and it is something that no government has apparently ever even contemplated fixing.
Click to expand...

Revenue is irrelevant. If your revenue is £8.6Bn and your costs are £8.6Bn, you have employed a lot of people but made no money. I have no idea what their business model is, and I suspect nor does anyone else in here. All large companies have a set of formally audited accounts. Money can be allocated to investment, infrastructure, development or whatever to reduce the profit figure. But unless the main accountancy groups are willing to throw away their credibility then if they say the made £72million profit, who is Corbyn or any other Labour politician to deny it......
 
peteblue said:
Revenue is irrelevant. If your revenue is £8.6Bn and your costs are £8.6Bn, you have employed a lot of people but made no money. I have no idea what their business model is, and I suspect nor does anyone else in here. All large companies have a set of formally audited accounts. Money can be allocated to investment, infrastructure, development or whatever to reduce the profit figure. But unless the main accountancy groups are willing to throw away their credibility then if they say the made £72million profit, who is Corbyn or any other Labour politician to deny it......
Click to expand...

I think you have misunderstood the point there, pete (probably deliberately so you don't have to engage with it). Yes, a firm can pay all (or more than all) of its revenue out in costs - if it is at the same time paying out bonuses for incentives met, then that is usually a sign that something is amiss. Of course firms are formally audited; the point is that there is quite a bit of evidence from the various collapses that have occured that the audits aren't really worth anything and the lack of any real competition amongst the audit firms makes credibility not really an issue.
 
peteblue said:
John Mann retires...expect Corbyn to get a bit of a kicking.....
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for Johnson and his government, John Mann won't be retiring his wild predictions of Labour MP siding with Johnson and his Brexit deal love in with America The man is equivalent to The Express weather forecast and Princess Diana conspiracy theories.

peteblue said:
gonetomorrow said:
It doesn't sound as though he should be an MP any more if this is all true.
Click to expand...

The thought police... This won't end well for many MPs across the political spectrum, I expect your finger wagging when it crosses the divide, not.

So, to all those who said that Corbyn will be up for an election as soon as an extension is granted, how’s that playing out then.....
Click to expand...
Half way, just the no deal part...
 
Last edited:
tsubaki said:
I think you have misunderstood the point there, pete (probably deliberately so you don't have to engage with it). Yes, a firm can pay all (or more than all) of its revenue out in costs - if it is at the same time paying out bonuses for incentives met, then that is usually a sign that something is amiss. Of course firms are formally audited; the point is that there is quite a bit of evidence from the various collapses that have occured that the audits aren't really worth anything and the lack of any real competition amongst the audit firms makes credibility not really an issue.
Click to expand...

That is undoubtedly a fair point. But if politicians really want to dig deep then throw HMRC and the VAT teams directly at a single company, audit it to death and then blow the whole thing open....
 
NilSatisOptimum said:
Half way, just the no deal bit...
Click to expand...

He is a coward, pure and simple. His MP’s are scared to death about fighting a GE with Corbyn at the head. Those heady summer months of ‘oh Jeremy Corbyn’ against an introverted and useless Theresa May have long gone. Now he’s up against a man who won two London Mayor elections and who led the Leave campaign to victory. Boris is no May and Corbyn and co are crapping themselves......
 
peteblue said:
That is undoubtedly a fair point. But if politicians really want to dig deep then throw HMRC and the VAT teams directly at a single company, audit it to death and then blow the whole thing open....
Click to expand...

TBH the firms are so big, so well entrenched and have so many more resources than HMRC that enforcement by itself wouldn’t work.

A better way to deal with it IMHO would be to make it much easier for investors to sue an audit firm for losses incurred if the audit gave an incorrect impression of the health of a firm. Combined with a proper honest services offence (requiring officers of a firm to only ever act in that firms interests), you’d probably clean up a lot of the City, reduce executive pay in addition to boosting investor confidence.
 
tsubaki said:
TBH the firms are so big, so well entrenched and have so many more resources than HMRC that enforcement by itself wouldn’t work.

A better way to deal with it IMHO would be to make it much easier for investors to sue an audit firm for losses incurred if the audit gave an incorrect impression of the health of a firm. Combined with a proper honest services offence (requiring officers of a firm to only ever act in that firms interests), you’d probably clean up a lot of the City, reduce executive pay in addition to boosting investor confidence.
Click to expand...

indeed......
 
peteblue said:
He is a coward, pure and simple. His MP’s are scared to death about fighting a GE with Corbyn at the head. Those heady summer months of ‘oh Jeremy Corbyn’ against an introverted and useless Theresa May have long gone. Now he’s up against a man who won two London Mayor elections and who led the Leave campaign to victory. Boris is no May and Corbyn and co are crapping themselves......
Click to expand...
Johnson Brexit bill has its second reading because of Labour plane and simple.

zzr45 said:
So we shouldn’t hold MPs up as scumbags when they are admitting to buying drugs then?

Okay.
Click to expand...
He needs to be convicted by the law then. And then I would fully endorse the key being thrown away...

Is that okay?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top