General Election 2015

[Sour Mash]

This guy 'educates' our next generation. Unless it's in angry judgmental hyperbolic swearing studies I'm worried.

An example of someone that has never worked in business in their life I guess. Sad to see

[Unbelievable Jeff]

An example of someone that has never worked in business in their life I guess. Sad to see ��

 

I don't think that actually makes any difference, you can spend your whole life working in the public sector without allowing it to tarnish their views against the private sector - it's all about being open-minded.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

No, where did I say that? What a way to turn me correcting what you said into an extreme opinion, that's really well done.

You said that people need to be encouraged to get jobs, within the context of a discussion about benefit sanctions. That surely means you think sanctions are necessary because otherwise people won't try hard enough to get a job?

Edited 28 March, 2015 by Ex Lion Tamer

[Unbelievable Jeff]

You said that people need to be encouraged to get jobs, within the context of a discussion about benefit sanctions. That surely means you think sanctions are necessary because otherwise people won't try hard enough to get a job?

 

I think some sanctions are needed to encourage SOME people, probably the ones that got far too comfortable during the last Labour government. You can't seriously say that everyone on benefits wants to work?

[Wade Garrett]

If labour care so much about the unemployed why is it that every single labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when they took office?

 

Because that's bullsh*t.

[Wade Garrett]

What if your next door neighbour worked double the number of hours that you work, pays more tax than you do in ££££ terms, but pays less than 40%.

 

What would you say about him?

 

I'm talking more about multi-millionaires, and c*nts like Jimmy Carr, Gary Barlow and Ray Winstone who think it's Ok to earn a fortune and not pay their fair share.

[CB Fry]

Because that's bullsh*t.

 

In fairness, when they took office unemployment was 1.4m at a rate of 5.3% and when they left office it had jumped to over two million and a rate of 7.2%. Pretty shocking stuff.

 

Oh, hang on. That data is for between 1979 and 1997.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I'm talking more about multi-millionaires, and c*nts like Jimmy Carr, Gary Barlow and Ray Winstone who think it's Ok to earn a fortune and not pay their fair share.

 

Surely your " fair share" is what the law decides you should pay. You can't have an arbitrary definition of " fairness" because that's too subjective . Personally I think using a deed of variation, which is basically changing someone's will after they've died to minimise tax is pretty " unfair" , whereas The millibands obviously think its OK.

 

If people break the law, then lock them up. If the law is unfair, then change it. But if people like Jimmy Carr , Gary Barlow and Ed Milliband want to legally avoid tax, what's wrong with that?

[Ex Lion Tamer]

I think some sanctions are needed to encourage SOME people, probably the ones that got far too comfortable during the last Labour government. You can't seriously say that everyone on benefits wants to work?

 

But how do you set up a system that punishes the idlers without accidentally hurting vulnerable people? Any rule you lay down will have unintended consequences and when you're taking away people's ability to live and eat it's a very dangerous game to play.

 

Cant you imagine how soul destroying it is for essentially well meaning people to have to make application after application, receiving rejection after rejection, in a marketplace where there simply aren't enough jobs for everyone that needs one?

 

It's inevitable that some people on benefits with barely any disposable income find they have no joy in their lives, get ground down by the enforced application treadmill, and make bad decisions like missing appointments. They then suffer sanctions that actually make it harder for them to turn things round.

 

The mistake that right wingers make again and again is thinking that because they themselves have made sensible rational decisions in their lives then everyone else can and should. The reality is more complicated - people do illogical, dumb things, often with tragic consequences, especially if they are young, haven't had a stable upbringing or have undiagnosed mental health issues

[CB Fry]

Surely your " fair share" is what the law decides you should pay. You can't have an arbitrary definition of " fairness" because that's too subjective . Personally I think using a deed of variation, which is basically changing someone's will after they've died to minimise tax is pretty " unfair" , whereas The millibands obviously think its OK.

 

If people break the law, then lock them up. If the law is unfair, then change it. But if people like Jimmy Carr , Gary Barlow and Ed Milliband want to legally avoid tax, what's wrong with that?

You object to deed variation entirely and completely because it has some connection to the Milibands, giving you an nice convenient stick to beat them with.

 

If Left wingers were attacking it you'd be defending it to the freaking death.

[OldNick]

It's depressing reading this thread. Our nation has had a long period of tightening its belt to help get us back on a road of prosperity and it scares me that there are so many who are prepared to risk it again with Ed Balls Milliband and co with the backing of Salmond who despises the English.

[whelk]

It's depressing reading this thread. Our nation has had a long period of tightening its belt to help get us back on a road of prosperity and it scares me that there are so many who are prepared to risk it again with Ed Balls Milliband and co with the backing of Salmond who despises the English.

 

'Road to prosperity'. Lol

[whelk]

Surely your " fair share" is what the law decides you should pay. You can't have an arbitrary definition of " fairness" because that's too subjective . Personally I think using a deed of variation, which is basically changing someone's will after they've died to minimise tax is pretty " unfair" , whereas The millibands obviously think its OK.

 

If people break the law, then lock them up. If the law is unfair, then change it. But if people like Jimmy Carr , Gary Barlow and Ed Milliband want to legally avoid tax, what's wrong with that?

 

Spirit of the law though. Anyone who hasn't got a problem with that is an absolute fckwit

[Whitey Grandad]

Spirit of the law though. Anyone who hasn't got a problem with that is an absolute fckwit

 

Legally there is nothing such thing as 'spirit of the law'.

[whelk]

Legally there is nothing such thing as 'spirit of the law'.

 

Oh really. I thought you could be prosecuted. Every right minded person knows this. I know a very high ranking HMRC inspector who goes after these global giant corporations,. They all know they are taking the p1ss and just needs resources to stop it. Same goes for Carr

 

The fact that some tw ats on here don't have a problem doesn't surprise me.

[aintforever]

Surely your " fair share" is what the law decides you should pay. You can't have an arbitrary definition of " fairness" because that's too subjective . Personally I think using a deed of variation, which is basically changing someone's will after they've died to minimise tax is pretty " unfair" , whereas The millibands obviously think its OK.

 

If people break the law, then lock them up. If the law is unfair, then change it. But if people like Jimmy Carr , Gary Barlow and Ed Milliband want to legally avoid tax, what's wrong with that?

 

Still no different to people who play the benefits system to their advantage.

 

There is nothing illegal about having 5 kids so you get a free house and all the benefits so you don't have to work.

Edited 28 March, 2015 by aintforever

[Whitey Grandad]

Oh really. I thought you could be prosecuted. Every right minded person knows this. I know a very high ranking HMRC inspector who goes after these global giant corporations,. They all know they are taking the p1ss and just needs resources to stop it. Same goes for Carr

 

The fact that some tw ats on here don't have a problem doesn't surprise me.

 

Why the abuse? If you don't like it then change the law.

[CB Fry]

The Coalition drama on C4 tonight was pretty watchable. Those days were pretty dramatic and interesting (for political geeks, anyhow). Program rattled along nicely and seemed to capture the spirit of that week of negotiations.

[shirleysfc]

Still no different to people who play the benefits system to their advantage.

 

There is nothing illegal about having 5 kids so you get a free house and all the benefits so you don't have to work.

 

Yep, there's absolutely no difference between someone playing the 'benefit game' and a multi-millionaire 'legally' avoiding paying taxes.

[SarniaSaint]

Whoever you want to win guys...........just go and vote .......there are millions around the world that would love to be able to vote but cant.

 

Your friend from Canada

[Millbrook Saint]

Fact of the matter is we all know a plumber, an electrician or someone who has been paid cash in hand, most of us have paid cash to someone ourselves knowing full well that there will be no tax paid on it, but none of us get offended, in fact we'd be happy knowing full well we've paid less, not much different than Carr et al except the quantities and I suspect some tax has been paid, plus payments to accountants who then pay tax, fact is what they're doing is legal, maybe it should be made illegal, I don't know enough about it.

 

Saying that, companies like google and starbucks who base they're business abroad to get more favourable tax rates, and pay less in countries where they have businesses should be chased, but again it's not illegal, until it is what can you do.

 

One thing they have in common though is that they have all earned their money, from the plumber, Carr or google, whereas the person who has never worked has just been a drain on society, has offered nothing to anyone and has just taken from other people, the more of them there are the more taxes are required, so that money has to come from somewhere

[whelk]

Why the abuse? If you don't like it then change the law.

 

Not as simple as that. You don't have a problem with a company with a warehouse in Swindon selling goods to a UK resident but somehow the transaction took place in Litchenstein and so exempt from paying tax?

Or Chris Moyles pretending he is a professional car dealer when clearly he is not.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Listed companies have a responsibility to their shareholders to make as much profit as possible, so you can say it's immoral all you like, but really company bosses have little choice. After all, how can any retailer compete with Amazon unless they adopt the same methods?

 

A question to you all - do you know where your pension is invested? You are probably contributing to the problem in your role as a shareholder.

 

Ultimately we need to pressure our governments to tighten the rules, but there is also personal responsibility. How many of us complain about tax avoidance but then still buy from amazon?

 

Tax avoidance by individuals is a bit different and less defensible, but unfortunately it's human nature that people will convince themselves that things that are in their personal interest are actually OK. The onus here is on us as voters to pressure governments to tighten to the rules, as human nature will never change

Edited 29 March, 2015 by Ex Lion Tamer

[saintbletch]

Still no different to people who play the benefits system to their advantage.

 

There is nothing illegal about having 5 kids so you get a free house and all the benefits so you don't have to work.

 

Like!

 

Coming late to the debate aintforever, but that's an excellent mechanism to highlight two equally legal, but perhaps equally morally questionable life strategies.

[Whitey Grandad]

Not as simple as that. You don't have a problem with a company with a warehouse in Swindon selling goods to a UK resident but somehow the transaction took place in Litchenstein and so exempt from paying tax?

Or Chris Moyles pretending he is a professional car dealer when clearly he is not.

 

I assume you're talking about transfer pricing? This is very difficult to prove but there are rules in place to regulate it. Tax on profits will have to be paid somewhere, the problems occur where our tax rates are significantly higher than other comparable countries, Eire for example. There will still be VAT on these goods. Are you thinking of a particular company?

 

I know nothing about Chris Moyles but HMRC rules on operating a business are very strictly defined and it's not up to him to decide whether or not he is bona fide. HMRC are very aggressive and unreasonable on these matters and there is no room for negotiation.

[whelk]

I assume you're talking about transfer pricing? This is very difficult to prove but there are rules in place to regulate it. Tax on profits will have to be paid somewhere, the problems occur where our tax rates are significantly higher than other comparable countries, Eire for example. There will still be VAT on these goods. Are you thinking of a particular company?

 

I know nothing about Chris Moyles but HMRC rules on operating a business are very strictly defined and it's not up to him to decide whether or not he is bona fide. HMRC are very aggressive and unreasonable on these matters and there is no room for negotiation.

 

Sounds like you know more about it than me TBH. However it is a question of greed. Of course companies have duty to shareholders but companies like Apple are so cash rich they don't know what to do with it all. Capitalism works I agree but only because those making loads put back in way of taxes to allow the Govt to meet its needs to create a fair pleasant society.

For me the best way is to shame Starbucks and the like into paying their way. Bad PR will kill companies who pretty much trade on brand image and reputation.

Although of course some see nothing wrong with Starbucks but thankfully in the minority.

[whelk]

Labour takes four-point lead in first major poll since TV battle between Miliband and Cameron http://t.co/SWsGyGOP52 http://t.co/YsSuMZJeCW

[Whitey Grandad]

Sounds like you know more about it than me TBH. However it is a question of greed. Of course companies have duty to shareholders but companies like Apple are so cash rich they don't know what to do with it all. Capitalism works I agree but only because those making loads put back in way of taxes to allow the Govt to meet its needs to create a fair pleasant society.

For me the best way is to shame Starbucks and the like into paying their way. Bad PR will kill companies who pretty much trade on brand image and reputation.

Although of course some see nothing wrong with Starbucks but thankfully in the minority.

 

There are big headline cases that need to be addressed, if only because it rankles with the bulk of the honest British taxpayer, but let's not kid ourselves that clamping down on these aggressive tax avoiders will make the slightest difference to what any of us pay ourselves.

 

If anybody feels badly about them the best thing is to avoid their products. For Starbucks this is easy.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

If anybody feels badly about them the best thing is to avoid their products. For Starbucks this is easy.

 

Nail on head.

 

The consumer has the power to damage companies , whether its tax avoiders like Amazon & Dyson or great hate figures like The Sun or Daily Mail. The fact they don't do so either means that they're not that bothered, put price above principles or are morons . Its not like the BBC where you can be put in jail for not buying their product.

[bridge too far]

Nail on head.

 

The consumer has the power to damage companies , whether its tax avoiders like Amazon & Dyson or great hate figures like The Sun or Daily Mail. The fact they don't do so either means that they're not that bothered, put price above principles or are morons . Its not like the BBC where you can be put in jail for not buying their product.

 

Economical with the truth there Lord D.

 

[h=3]"If you don't pay you could face a £1,000 fine[/h] Watching 'live TV' without a licence is against the law. TV Licensing has enforcement officers that carry out checks. Fee dodgers can face prosecution plus a fine of up to £1,000 if they're found to be watching 'live TV' without a licence.

You cannot be imprisoned for TV licence evasion in itself, although you can be imprisoned for non-payment of a fine imposed by the court."

 

And can you watch Sky and ITV if you don't have a licence? So it's not a BBC product you're buying in fact.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Economical with the truth there Lord D.

 

."

 

And can you watch Sky and ITV if you don't have a licence? So it's not a BBC product you're buying in fact.

 

So provided I don't watch BBC on my TV , I don't need a licence ? That's great, a real step forward . If the authorities come banging on the door , I'll let them in and show them your post and it'll save me a jail term. I'll even make them a coffee in my anti immigration Labour mug.

 

[Batman]

That mug is racist!!!

[bridge too far]

So provided I don't watch BBC on my TV , I don't need a licence ? That's great, a real step forward . If the authorities come banging on the door , I'll let them in and show them your post and it'll save me a jail term. I'll even make them a coffee in my anti immigration Labour mug.

 

 

If you re-read my post, you will maybe understand that I was asking a rhetorical question - of course you need a TV licence to watch Sky and ITV. That was the very point I was making

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Nail on head.

 

The consumer has the power to damage companies , whether its tax avoiders like Amazon & Dyson or great hate figures like The Sun or Daily Mail. The fact they don't do so either means that they're not that bothered, put price above principles or are morons . Its not like the BBC where you can be put in jail for not buying their product.

 

It is true that many on the left are pretty hypocritical when it comes to not being willing to change their buying habits, myself included to a fair degree. The trouble is that purchase decisions are so rooted in habit and routine that it's rarely a truly rational decision.

 

The info is all there if anyone wants to help make a difference:

 

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/buyersguides.aspx

[Window Cleaner]

That mug is racist!!!

 

Why ? Are you trying to suggest that immigration controls do not exist at this time?

Edited 29 March, 2015 by Window Cleaner

[Lord Duckhunter]

If you re-read my post, you will maybe understand that I was asking a rhetorical question - of course you need a TV licence to watch Sky and ITV. That was the very point I was making

 

If you think about it , it's all rather old fashioned and bizarre . The TV poll tax funds the bbc , yet you still need one regardless of whether you watch it or not . I'm sure if I purposed a Daily Mail poll tax , that you needed a licence to read any paper , but the revenue went to The Daily Mail , I think you would describe me as a swivel eyed loon . Yet I'm sure you'll be defending this particular poll tax

[Lord Duckhunter]

"We will oppose an in/out referendum on Europe," Stewart Hosie tells SNP conference to rapturous, irony-deficient cheers.

[bridge too far]

I assume you're talking about transfer pricing? This is very difficult to prove but there are rules in place to regulate it. Tax on profits will have to be paid somewhere, the problems occur where our tax rates are significantly higher than other comparable countries, Eire for example. There will still be VAT on these goods. Are you thinking of a particular company?

 

I know nothing about Chris Moyles but HMRC rules on operating a business are very strictly defined and it's not up to him to decide whether or not he is bona fide. HMRC are very aggressive and unreasonable on these matters and there is no room for negotiation.

 

So it looks like there's been a vote in the EU about tax dodging. The law went through, thank goodness but look who voted against it!

 

http://leftfootforward.org/2015/03/tory-and-ukip-meps-vote-against-proposals-to-crack-down-on-tax-dodging/

[Whitey Grandad]

So it looks like there's been a vote in the EU about tax dodging. The law went through, thank goodness but look who voted against it!

 

http://leftfootforward.org/2015/03/tory-and-ukip-meps-vote-against-proposals-to-crack-down-on-tax-dodging/

 

There has been some international activity on this, apparently:

http://www.oecd.org/ctp/beps.htm

 

The chancellor's proposed Diverted Profits Tax may cause international problems if it disrupts any concerted action.

[Lord Duckhunter]

So it looks like there's been a vote in the EU about tax dodging. The law went through, thank goodness but look who voted against it!

 

http://leftfootforward.org/2015/03/tory-and-ukip-meps-vote-against-proposals-to-crack-down-on-tax-dodging/

 

The SNP have ( or had, I don't know what they'll do next time) the principle of never voting on English only matters.Sinn fein have the principle of not sitting in the UK parliament and ukip have the principle of voting against anything that increases the scope of the EU. That's why they would have voted against. As for the pro EU Torys , I don't know why they voted the way they did.

[aintforever]

The SNP have ( or had, I don't know what they'll do next time) the principle of never voting on English only matters.Sinn fein have the principle of not sitting in the UK parliament and ukip have the principle of voting against anything that increases the scope of the EU. That's why they would have voted against. As for the pro EU Torys , I don't know why they voted the way they did.

 

Bs use they don't want to stop tax dodging? Just a guess.

[Whitey Grandad]

Bs use they don't want to stop tax dodging? Just a guess.

 

If that were true they wouldn't have produced this:

http://www.kpmg.com/uk/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/pages/budget-2015-diverted-profits-tax.aspx

[Convict Colony]

If I had and earned millions I would be trying to avoid tax likes its going out of fashion as I don't trust any government depts to allocate it correctly in their present form.

 

Want people to pay tax and stop using loopholes to evade it ? Then demonstrate value and treat the cause and not the symptom and get the public sector to have the same rigour as the private sector (headcount management, reduce costs, optimise the business for ROI, performance metrics etc).

 

Show people your spending their money effectively.

[buctootim]

If I had and earned millions I would be trying to avoid tax likes its going out of fashion as I don't trust any government depts to allocate it correctly in their present form.

 

Want people to pay tax and stop using loopholes to evade it ? Then demonstrate value and treat the cause and not the symptom and get the public sector to have the same rigour as the private sector (headcount management, reduce costs, optimise the business for ROI, performance metrics etc).

 

Show people your spending their money effectively.

 

That's just bull****. Anyone can devise a 'morality' which justifies them not paying tax, skiving off work, thieving, beating their wives. 'They're inefficient / I worked over contract hours last year / they're just profiteering / she uses mental torture' etc.

 

A minority of people are simply happy to screw other people over. There is very little to differentiate tax dodgers, benefit cheats, muggers and general lowlife scumbags imo - except benefit cheats usually have more excuse.

[whelk]

If I had and earned millions I would be trying to avoid tax likes its going out of fashion as I don't trust any government depts to allocate it correctly in their present form.

 

Want people to pay tax and stop using loopholes to evade it ? Then demonstrate value and treat the cause and not the symptom and get the public sector to have the same rigour as the private sector (headcount management, reduce costs, optimise the business for ROI, performance metrics etc).

 

Show people your spending their money effectively.

 

Performance metrics lol. Have you just got your first team leader role?

[Hockey_saint]

I don't know, parties change their political stance all the time....

 

Remind me again, how did the last speech of that right-winger Enoch Powell go again?

 

Oh yes! "Vote Labour!" and why did he shout that at a Tory party conference? because Labour's position was that entering the common market would hurt our traditional markets and workforce (it has) and look at them now? would they even dare suggest such a thing? nup, no chance.

 

I think the moral to this is that politicians, either side are just a bunch of popularist see you next thursdays (except Nick Clegg...who's just a toad).

[Lord Duckhunter]

I don't know, parties change their political stance all the time....

 

Remind me again, how did the last speech of that right-winger Enoch Powell go again?

 

Oh yes! "Vote Labour!" and why did he shout that at a Tory party conference? because Labour's position was that entering the common market would hurt our traditional markets and workforce (it has) and look at them now? would they even dare suggest such a thing? nup, no chance.

 

I think the moral to this is that politicians, either side are just a bunch of popularist see you next thursdays (except Nick Clegg...who's just a toad).

 

The fact that Cameron will make the cabinet all vote " in' or be sacked if he calls this referendum after his fake " renegotiation says it all. Party leaders leading yes men with no principle . Wilson allowed his cabinet to vote out and remain in position.

[buctootim]

The fact that Cameron will make the cabinet all vote " in' or be sacked if he calls this referendum after his fake " renegotiation says it all. Party leaders leading yes men with no principle . Wilson allowed his cabinet to vote out and remain in position.

 

There was an interesting (and under reported) vote last week - to try to oust John Bercow as Speaker. Apparently his crime is trying with some backbenchers to reinvigorate Parliament in genuinely holding the government of the day to account. Given how the party candidate selection process favours yes men I think hes doomed to failure, but its important to try. If Parliament is just going to be a rubber stamp we might as well abolish it and save the cash.

[Lord Duckhunter]

There was an interesting (and under reported) vote last week - to try to oust John Bercow as Speaker. Apparently his crime is trying with some backbenchers to reinvigorate Parliament in genuinely holding the government of the day to account. Given how the party candidate selection process favours yes men I think hes doomed to failure, but its important to try. If Parliament is just going to be a rubber stamp we might as well abolish it and save the cash.

 

Bercow has been a pretty decent speaker , however the power of the speaker means that his election should be by secret ballot. The policy was right , but the timing of it turned it into a political act. Tory MPs get accused of all sorts, but some deserve respect for voting against the government and defeating it.

[Hockey_saint]

Plus, will he really hold the ballot? I mean, these days we've seen so many liars (Clegg being the most obvious) I would think he still may not. Remember what Ian Douglas Smith said concerning (in his mind, concerning Kissinger, Owen and Thatcher; in relation to the talks on the Tigress and Lancaster House) Politicians and how they spend about 80% of their time before signing agreements, going over them and list the best ways to explicate themselves from said written promises.

 

Now, Smith was a political amateur but I think it's pretty relevant.