{"id":14340,"date":"2012-02-28T13:37:08","date_gmt":"2012-02-28T13:37:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/?p=14340"},"modified":"2012-02-28T13:37:08","modified_gmt":"2012-02-28T13:37:08","slug":"barclays-tax-could-fund-proper-jobs-for-exploited-youth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2012\/02\/28\/barclays-tax-could-fund-proper-jobs-for-exploited-youth\/","title":{"rendered":"Barclays tax could fund proper jobs for exploited youth"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The \u00a3500 million in avoided tax that Barclays will now have to pay could fund full-time jobs above the living wage for all the young people who have been working for free under a controversial government scheme, the Public and Commercial Services union says.<\/p>\n<p>Divided between the 34,000 16 to 24-year-olds who have been put onto the government's work experience programme, the money could pay salaries of GBP 14,706 a year, or GBP 8.08 an hour for a 35-hour week.<\/p>\n<p>The UK national living wage - paid by an increasing number of employers - is GBP 7.20 an hour, and GBP 8.30 in London.<\/p>\n<p>A tax loophole that allowed Barclays to avoid paying GBP 500 million in corporation tax has been closed by HM Revenue and Customs.<\/p>\n<p>The union points out that this is a \"drop in the ocean\" compared to more than GBP 120 billion in tax revenue that is avoided, evaded or uncollected every year.<\/p>\n<p>I might add, the same \u00a3500 million would pay for 10,000 staff at HMRC \u00a0targeted on closing the tax gap.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The \u00a3500 million in avoided tax that Barclays will now have to pay could fund full-time jobs above the living wage for all the young<br \/><a class=\"moretag\" href=\"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2012\/02\/28\/barclays-tax-could-fund-proper-jobs-for-exploited-youth\/\"><em> Read the full article&#8230;<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14340","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-barclays"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14340","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14340"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14340\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14340"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14340"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14340"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}