INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

2015 UK General Election

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#61 Post by Alan H » February 6th, 2015, 12:24 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Altfish wrote:Regarding companies having head quarters in foreign countries - no problem with it EXCEPT when they are doing it to avoid paying tax that helps pay for the roads, schools, hospitals, etc, etc that help this country function efficiently and ensure their business can thrive.
Indeed. And when they are dodging tax in this country and not contributing to HMRC as they would if they did have their headquarters here, it's the rest of us who have no option - and indeed who are quite happy to pay our taxes - who then have to foot the bill for all those essentials as well as for the Housing Benefit and other state aid necessary because said company is paying its workers the minimum wage - or less..
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#62 Post by Nick » February 6th, 2015, 1:11 pm

Altfish wrote:A few things here, first of all my opinion of Miliband is well publicised on here, he is useless, so you're singing to the choir when you criticise him.
Fair enough.
Secondly, I do think peoples inclinations are very relevant to any discussion; if I'm talking about religion any opinions by Dawkins or Welby are steeped in bias and I take in cautiously.
I don't blame you. But let's put it this way. If a burglar says "If you put an alarm on your door, I won't be inclined to burgle you", it's an opinion worth knowing, even if you thoroughly disapprove of burglars. He we have someone who has the means to affect our economy (in a small way), so, whether e is a bounder or not, his opinion is relevant.
Regarding companies having head quarters in foreign countries - no problem with it EXCEPT when they are doing it to avoid paying tax that helps pay for the roads, schools, hospitals, etc, etc that help this country function efficiently and ensure their business can thrive.
So, are you making an accusation here? If so, some evidence, please. There are many reasons why companies are based in different countries besides tax. If not, then it's not a problem.

And are you going to recommend that the Chancellor reverses his reduction in Corporation tax, specifically to drive companies out of the UK to some other country which you think should somehow have them? I'll let you explain the loss of UK jobs, investment, tax, hospitals etc., etc., to those hit by it.

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#63 Post by Altfish » February 6th, 2015, 1:31 pm

I don't do multiple quotes.

I like your comparison to a burglar, very apt. But what is actually being said is more along the lines of, "Leave your doors open, don't put on the alarms and I'll come and steal your money"

Do you really believe that Boots has moved its headquarters abroad to help the people of Nottingham? And that Pessina coincidently lives in Monaco because of the football team?

Read about PcW...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31147276


Also, from the BBC website...
"So, has Boots declared war on the Labour Party? There's certainly been a high profile alliance between Boots and the Conservative-led coalition. The government has put £25m in taxpayers' money into a new enterprise zone on surplus land at Boots' huge industrial campus at Beeston, on the edge of Nottingham."

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#64 Post by Nick » February 6th, 2015, 3:47 pm

Altfish wrote:I like your comparison to a burglar, very apt. But what is actually being said is more along the lines of, "Leave your doors open, don't put on the alarms and I'll come and steal your money"
That's Labour's taxation policy in a nut-shell :D
Do you really believe that Boots has moved its headquarters abroad to help the people of Nottingham?
Well, let's see now. Hmmmm.. Boots is a subsidiary of the American company Walgreens, who is looking to expand in the US, the UK and China. Why should they have their HQ in Nottingham? Because they like lace?
And that Pessina coincidently lives in Monaco because of the football team?
Whether he lives in Monaco or not, he is not liable to UK tax any more than you are liable to Greek tax, even though they could do with a bob or two.
And you really think we should listen to Hodge the Dodge? Her judgement is appalling, and she is wrong, sometimes spectacularly so, on her ideas on tax. And when she is presented with any fact she doesn't like, she just dismisses it. She is positively dangerous, but an ideal attack-dog for Miliband, who prefers rhetoric to sound policy.

Also, from the BBC website...
"So, has Boots declared war on the Labour Party? There's certainly been a high profile alliance between Boots and the Conservative-led coalition. The government has put £25m in taxpayers' money into a new enterprise zone on surplus land at Boots' huge industrial campus at Beeston, on the edge of Nottingham."
So do you now see that taxation can be a drag on job creation...? Don't you want jobs in Nottingham?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#65 Post by Alan H » February 6th, 2015, 4:43 pm

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#66 Post by Altfish » February 6th, 2015, 5:20 pm

Alan H wrote::headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
sigh

User avatar
anaconda
Posts: 219
Joined: June 18th, 2009, 11:07 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#67 Post by anaconda » February 7th, 2015, 6:48 am

Alan H wrote:
Altfish wrote:Regarding companies having head quarters in foreign countries - no problem with it EXCEPT when they are doing it to avoid paying tax that helps pay for the roads, schools, hospitals, etc, etc that help this country function efficiently and ensure their business can thrive.
Indeed. And when they are dodging tax in this country and not contributing to HMRC as they would if they did have their headquarters here, it's the rest of us who have no option - and indeed who are quite happy to pay our taxes - who then have to foot the bill for all those essentials as well as for the Housing Benefit and other state aid necessary because said company is paying its workers the minimum wage - or less..
I thought Milliband sounded something like a labour leader yesterday in addressing the taxation issue directly. It kind of took me by surprise! Along with the mansion and 50p tax rate commitment, is this evidence of him growing a pair?


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ess-labour
John

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#68 Post by Nick » February 7th, 2015, 10:21 am

Alan H wrote: ...not contributing to HMRC as they would if they did have their headquarters here,
Ahem! Complete bollox. For example, Apple is headquartered in the USA, but doesn't pay US tax on its foreign earnings not sent to the USA.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#69 Post by Alan H » February 7th, 2015, 10:49 am

anaconda wrote:
Alan H wrote:
Altfish wrote:Regarding companies having head quarters in foreign countries - no problem with it EXCEPT when they are doing it to avoid paying tax that helps pay for the roads, schools, hospitals, etc, etc that help this country function efficiently and ensure their business can thrive.
Indeed. And when they are dodging tax in this country and not contributing to HMRC as they would if they did have their headquarters here, it's the rest of us who have no option - and indeed who are quite happy to pay our taxes - who then have to foot the bill for all those essentials as well as for the Housing Benefit and other state aid necessary because said company is paying its workers the minimum wage - or less..
I thought Milliband sounded something like a labour leader yesterday in addressing the taxation issue directly. It kind of took me by surprise! Along with the mansion and 50p tax rate commitment, is this evidence of him growing a pair?


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ess-labour
About time we had a Government that was as obsessive and bloody-minded about going after tax dodgers as it is about taking money from the already poor, disadvantaged and disabled.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#70 Post by Alan H » February 7th, 2015, 10:50 am

Nick wrote:
Alan H wrote: ...not contributing to HMRC as they would if they did have their headquarters here,
Ahem! Complete bollox. For example, Apple is headquartered in the USA, but doesn't pay US tax on its foreign earnings not sent to the USA.
:headbang:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#71 Post by Nick » February 7th, 2015, 11:23 am

In an interview with the Guardian, Miliband said he wanted to focus attention on the issue of tax. He said: “There is nothing pro-business about defending tax avoidance. Millions of British people and businesses pay their taxes and they are damaged by this behaviour.”
So are we going to send all those French tax-dodging bastards, now living in London, avoiding top rates of tax of 75%, home to pay their dues....? If not, why not? Is it because we in the UK think we should decide how much tax is due from people working in this country, not M. Hollande?

So now we appear to have Miliband the neo-colonialist..... :rolleyes:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#72 Post by Alan H » February 7th, 2015, 11:27 am

:rolleyes:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#73 Post by Nick » February 7th, 2015, 12:44 pm

Altfish wrote:I think the point Miliband was trying to make (trying being the operative word) was that it was a non-UK resident who as head of Boots plc has moved their tax affairs abroad (ie the Tory tax regime isn't good enough either)
...and which Miliband is seeking to make worse. How will that encourage him to move to Britain...?
btw Is it a coincidence that he lives in Monaco, a state that has no income tax, low business taxes, and is well known for being a tax haven? Yet he, a serial tax avoider,
Except of course, that Monaco not having a double-taxation agreement with the USA, he will be taxed in the US on any income and dividends from the US.
still feels qualified to pontificate on UK tax matters
Who would you ask for an opinion on how the leader of an international company might think it affects his business....? :shrug:

lewist
Posts: 4402
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 8:53 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#74 Post by lewist » February 7th, 2015, 12:55 pm

Shared on Fb this morning. Some of the things the naysayers come up with are completely hilarious. George Foulkes has not improved a bit.
Attachments
Foulkes.jpg
Foulkes.jpg (47.67 KiB) Viewed 1041 times
Carpe diem. Savour every moment.

lewist
Posts: 4402
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 8:53 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#75 Post by lewist » February 7th, 2015, 1:01 pm

And just to brighten your day and bring in some of the realities of politics from where I sit. Here's the latest Greg Moodie cartoon from Bella Caledonia.
Carpe diem. Savour every moment.

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#76 Post by Alan H » February 15th, 2015, 2:19 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Altfish
Posts: 1821
Joined: March 26th, 2012, 8:46 am

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#77 Post by Altfish » February 15th, 2015, 3:39 pm

I must admit, I don't know how to cast my vote this election. I have narrowed it down but I really wish we had the "None of the above" option. Spoiling ones paper is not quite the same.

I live in a true blue seat, in Blair's runaway first election victory my constituency stayed Tory with a majority of 2000; last election was about 12000 majority.

I normally vote Labour or Lib Dem but neither inspire confidence,

We have a Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, UKIP and Greens running. UKIP frightenly managed 1500 votes in 2010, Greens didn't put a candidate out.

So, in reverse order....

UKIP - I'd rather vote Nazi than this gang of chancers
Tory - Public school bullies, they haven't a clue about me, yet I should be a Tory voter and they should be trying to attract my vote.
Lib Dem - Oh dear, lost the plot.
Green - they would have my vote if they didn't oppose HS2, but I am passionately for HS2 so, the Greens have lost my vote.
Labour - My natural home but they are a shambles at the moment.

stevenw888
Posts: 694
Joined: July 16th, 2010, 12:48 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#78 Post by stevenw888 » February 16th, 2015, 12:36 pm

I've thought long and hard about it for the last two months or so, and I've finally decided I will vote tory.
I live in a marginal constituency, so I like to think that my vote will somehow help to decide the structure of a future goverment.
I have never voted Tory before, but a number of things that have happened during the last administration have helped to make my mind up.
1) Theresa May managed to get that man with a hook instead of a hand deported to America. I remember both David Blunkett and Jackie Smith tried for many years but utterly failed to get him deported. I was glad to see him go.
2) Cameron took an axe to the Legal Aid fiasco. I remember reading previously how those big fat cat solicitors and barristers in London used to lap at the "legal aid fountain" claiming fortunes in legal aid whilst pretending vaguely that they cared about some illegal immigrant or other. I've also read since about anger and upset from those self-same barristers and solicitors, now that the legal aid tap has been turned off, which delighted me. I bet this affected Cherie Blair (hope so).
3) The Tories reformed the CSA, which I always thought was in desparate need of reform. It now goes after more absent dads and also manages to bring in more revenue from them than the previous version of the CSA.
4) The headline in Saturday's Times was "Cameron proposes to limit benefits paid to obese people." I realise that this is just a "Daily Mail" statement and, in practice, this policy could never be enacted (how does someone make a decision on whether another person is obese or not, especially over a period of time) but it does really annoy me that some vast obese people claim benefits. If they are on benefits, how can they be fat? I read that Labour propose to try and hit(tax) purveyors of fattening food harder - MacDonalds, KFC and like, but this, to me, is not getting to the root of the problem. The solution lies in educating the fat people, not prohibiting them from buying fatty foods.
5) I have welcomed most of Michael Gove's reforms. Most of them have seemed sensible and intelligent. I remember Tony Blair claiming that in 1997 his main focus was "education, education, education" and then having 11 ministers for education in about as many years. Not much joined up thinking there.

In the last 8 elections I have always voted for the Liberals or Labour, but I feel the country's best interests will be served by a conservative government for the next five years. After that, who knows? Certainly a Europe referendum will be interesting.
"There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots." - From the film "Top Gun"

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 9294
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#79 Post by Maria Mac » February 16th, 2015, 12:50 pm

All terrible reasons afaic but this one leaps out:
stevenw888 wrote:
4) The headline in Saturday's Times was "Cameron proposes to limit benefits paid to obese people." I realise that this is just a "Daily Mail" statement and, in practice, this policy could never be enacted (how does someone make a decision on whether another person is obese or not, especially over a period of time) but it does really annoy me that some vast obese people claim benefits. If they are on benefits, how can they be fat? I read that Labour propose to try and hit(tax) purveyors of fattening food harder - MacDonalds, KFC and like, but this, to me, is not getting to the root of the problem. The solution lies in educating the fat people, not prohibiting them from buying fatty foods.
:shock: People are fat because they consume more calories than they use up and you can consume too many calories very cheaply. Serious question: What do you expect unemployed people to live on if you limit their benefits further or do you think they get enough? Do you think the children of obese unemployed people should be punished for the 'gluttony' of the parents?

stevenw888
Posts: 694
Joined: July 16th, 2010, 12:48 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#80 Post by stevenw888 » February 16th, 2015, 3:28 pm

"Serious question: What do you expect unemployed people to live on if you limit their benefits further or do you think they get enough? Do you think the children of obese unemployed people should be punished for the 'gluttony' of the parents?"

It's not the unemployed I object to, its all these "disabled" people. When I started work in 1975, there were just over 600,000 people claiming disability allowance. According to gov.uk there were 3,258,440 people claiming disability allowance in May 2012. Rather a large increase, don't you think? Given that the NHS is so much efficient and better at making people better than it was in 1975, it seems ludicrous that the number of people claiming disability benefit has gone up by 2 and a half million people. It suggests to me that that a large number of these people are idle, rather than disabled. I know two people claiming disability allowance. There is nothing wrong with either of them, they just have no desire to go to work.
I don't think the children of obese parents should be punished for the gluttony of the parents. I think the parents of obese people should be punished for allowing their children to have become obese. They should teach them the benefits of healthy eating. My parents taught me that - that it was beneficial to eat healthily and not stuff myself with kentucky fried chicken and pizzas every day.
It might be nice if the children of obese parents had some money spent on them, instead of obese parents spending it on themselves. Why have some schools had to start providing breakfasts to some of their pupils? Shouldn't the onus be on parents to provide breakfast for their children?
"There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots." - From the film "Top Gun"

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: 2015 UK General Election

#81 Post by thundril » February 16th, 2015, 3:57 pm

stevenw888 wrote:I've thought long and hard about it for the last two months or so, and I've finally decided I will vote tory.
A chacun a son gout, mate.
I live in a marginal constituency, so I like to think that my vote will somehow help to decide the structure of a future goverment.
You think that? Aahh, sweet!
I have never voted Tory before, but a number of things that have happened during the last administration have helped to make my mind up.
1) Theresa May managed to get that man with a hook instead of a hand deported to America. I remember both David Blunkett and Jackie Smith tried for many years but utterly failed to get him deported. I was glad to see him go.
Hamza was deported after a legal process which started in 2004, while Labour was in power, and ended in 2014, while The Conservatives were in power. But correlation is not causation Steven, as you should know.
Some people genuinely don't understand the concept of 'the rule of law'. They really think the govt tells the lawcourts what to do. This kind of ignorance is entirely forgivable, IMO, at least in some individuals who have been poorly educated. But this ignorance is perpetuated by some politicians trying to get credit for things they didn't do. Which group do you belong to, Steven?
2) Cameron took an axe to the Legal Aid fiasco. I remember reading previously how those big fat cat solicitors and barristers in London used to lap at the "legal aid fountain" claiming fortunes in legal aid whilst pretending vaguely that they cared about some illegal immigrant or other. I've also read since about anger and upset from those self-same barristers and solicitors, now that the legal aid tap has been turned off, which delighted me. I bet this affected Cherie Blair (hope so).
I'm not quite sure what you are cross about here, Steven. Is it that lawyers get too much money, or is it that the legal aid system was helping poor people to get the same access to justice that rich people have? If it is the former, how do you suggest that we can change that, given the principles of your new Tory chums? If it is the latter, can you defend your position ethically?
. . .
4) The headline in Saturday's Times was "Cameron proposes to limit benefits paid to obese people." I realise that this is just a "Daily Mail" statement
But, but... You just said it was a Times statement, Steven ! :laughter:
and, in practice, this policy could never be enacted (how does someone make a decision on whether another person is obese or not, especially over a period of time) but it does really annoy me that some vast obese people claim benefits. If they are on benefits, how can they be fat? I read that Labour propose to try and hit(tax) purveyors of fattening food harder - MacDonalds, KFC and like, but this, to me, is not getting to the root of the problem. The solution lies in educating the fat people, not prohibiting them from buying fatty foods.
Your level of ignorance about the process whereby children become, and then remain, obese is inexcusable. You may be pleased to know that it is a lot easier these days to cure this level of ignorance (research, lad, research!) than it is to reverse the process of obesity once it has started.
5) I have welcomed most of Michael Gove's reforms. Most of them have seemed sensible and intelligent. I remember Tony Blair claiming that in 1997 his main focus was "education, education, education" and then having 11 ministers for education in about as many years. Not much joined up thinking there.
O sancta simplicitas!

Post Reply