suzyoo   11 #13 Posted July 8, 2012 I have just read about RBS outsorcing to India to save money, surely they mean make money for themselves. As it is mostly owned by the taxpayer should the Government tell them no they can't do this? http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/money/4416877/Royal-Bank-of-Scotland-is-axing-British-jobs-and-sending-them-to-India.html  you are allways free to withdraw your custom and take it elsewhere Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
melthebell   865 #14 Posted July 8, 2012 The owner of each company is a tax payer, the share holders are tax payer hence every comapny is owned by tax payers. i think what he means is WE bailed them out, whether WE wanted to or not, then they repay us by taking part of their business abroad, making plenty of british workers unemployed in the process, thats gratitude Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
stingray-man   10 #15 Posted July 8, 2012 But the UK government already outsource work to foreign countries, and it’s much better to send the work to them instead of importing the workers to do the work.  i imagine it would be a better idea to create some work for the people already here without jobs eh ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
MrSmith   10 #16 Posted July 8, 2012 i think what he means is WE bailed them out, whether WE wanted to or not, then they repay us by taking part of their business abroad, making plenty of british workers unemployed in the process, thats gratitude  You could argue that we didn't bail them out, unless you pay a substantial amount in tax it is unlikely that any of your tax was used or will be used in the bail out of the banks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
MrSmith   10 #17 Posted July 8, 2012 i imagine it would be a better idea to create some work for the people already here without jobs eh ?  They tried that in the past and it just encourages more people to come here and still leaves the unemployed, unemployed.  Maybe a better idea would have been to outsource to an EU country that has low living costs, lower than average population density and plenty of willing people ready to work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
WasThatWise   10 #18 Posted July 8, 2012 I felt the same outrage when Tata motors invested in this country. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Mecky   10 #19 Posted July 8, 2012 The owner of each company is a tax payer, the share holders are tax payer hence every comapny is owned by tax payers.  What company? People do not own limited companies, limited companies exist as their own entity.  Besides, shouldn't that read, "Supposed to pay tax?" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
MrSmith   10 #20 Posted July 8, 2012 What company? People do not own limited companies, limited companies exist as their own entity. Besides, shouldn't that read, "Supposed to pay tax?"  A limited company is a business that has been registered in such a manner as to ensure that its owners have limited liability.  Someone owns them and they are likely to be tax payers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
I1L2T3 Â Â 10 #21 Posted July 8, 2012 There's a difference between a private limited company and a public limited company (PLC). Â The former will be owned by very few people and shares cannot be traded on the stock exchange. Shares for PLCs are traded on the stock exchange and the company will have many owners - individuals, banks, investment funds, pension funds, other companies etc... These may be based in the UK or abroad. Â In both cases the liability of owners is limited, as the names of the company types imply. Â As for whether the owners are taxpayers in the UK that isn't necessarily the case. Many will be but some of the shares will be foreign owned. Some may be owned by UK-based businesses that aggressively avoid tax. Â Â Back to the original post about RBS it's too late. The jobs are gone. The transfer of the jobs completed about 7 weeks ago, roughly 4 weeks before the catastrophic IT glitch. Â RBS are not alone. Banks have been drastically cutting down on IT staff for a few years now. Many jobs have gone abroad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
wednesday1 Â Â 10 #22 Posted July 8, 2012 I felt the same outrage when Tata motors invested in this country. Â Â Not a valid comparison. Tata haven't moved jobs from India to the UK have they, they have invested in a totally different product to what is made in India. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Bypassblade   10 #23 Posted July 8, 2012 I have just read about RBS outsorcing to India to save money, surely they mean make money for themselves. As it is mostly owned by the taxpayer should the Government tell them no they can't do this? http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/money/4416877/Royal-Bank-of-Scotland-is-axing-British-jobs-and-sending-them-to-India.html  Don't care, but wasn't it one of their little Indians; that caused the recent meltdown, deleting files during a software update Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
truman   10 #24 Posted July 9, 2012 I felt the same outrage when Tata motors invested in this country.  Yeah they're doing a really crap job with JLR aren't they... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...