Politics The General Election 2015

[Scouse]

OK people. Listen up!

I've found something that will settle this debate once and for all.

Take the test.

 

[Gwadien]

 

[Raven]

Meh, lad at work wanted to spend his on a big arse TV anyway.

 

[Job]

I can appreciate people disliking the privilige of Royalty, buy they are looking at it from such a personal level.
The Queen is born into a curse of servitude, OK she has doors opened, people bow and she's comfortably well off, but those billions are hardly hers, what she gonna do, buy a big yacht, like the one Labour sold off..they sold off the fucking Queens yacht, a symbol of Britain to sail around the world, visiting the frickin countries and showing off Britain to all , and they turn up in their tens of thousands to see her..and they sold it to save 60 million.
Every major trade agreement has the Royals trumped out so the people buying our shit can have a nice event and make themselves feel important, she and her family are beyond valuation, get rid of her?
We could sell her for 100 billion, the head of state all over the world and still the head of state in the minds of many in countries who have ditched her.
The Royals are 50% of why we punch above our weight in the world and measly, envious trotskies take her theatrical position as a personal insult to the fact she was born into status.
The whole charade is a crucially important farce in a world of shit.

 

[Gwadien]

I can appreciate people disliking the privilige of Royalty, buy they are looking at it from such a personal level.
The Queen is born into a curse of servitude, OK she has doors opened, people bow and she's comfortably well off, but those billions are hardly hers, what she gonna do, buy a big yacht, like the one Labour sold off..they sold off the fucking Queens yacht, a symbol of Britain to sail around the world, visiting the frickin countries and showing off Britain to all , and they turn up in their tens of thousands to see her..and they sold it to save 60 million.
Every major trade agreement has the Royals trumped out so the people buying our shit can have a nice event and make themselves feel important, she and her family are beyond valuation, get rid of her?
We could sell her for 100 billion, the head of state all over the world and still the head of state in the minds of many in countries who have ditched her.
The Royals are 50% of why we punch above our weight in the world and measly, envious trotskies take her theatrical position as a personal insult to the fact she was born into status.
The whole charade is a crucially important farce in a world of shit.

It's completely besides the point.

I couldn't give a fuck about the monarchy if they stayed or went to the honest.

The only reason why I see this is a good thing is because it shows his true character coming through - You voted for UKIP - You know, the party that complained about career politicians that lied and deceived to get to positions of power?

This guy did what UKIP wanted, and you're slating him?

The media are picking at his every flaw because they're concerned about him - they don't care about his views on the monarchy, they care about his politics.

 

[Job]

Even George Galloway said he should have sang it.
His own back benchers have attacked him...where the fuck have Labour led themselves,

 

[Scouse]

The Queen is born into a curse of servitude

No she isn't.

She can quit her amazingly privileged position and become an incredibly rich oik like the rest of the multi billionaires any time she wants.

But she fucking LOVES being the queen.

 

[Raven]

The media are picking at his every flaw because they're concerned about him - they don't care about his views on the monarchy, they care about his politics.

The media see him as a joke, that is why they are picking on him. Nobody thinks he will win the election, he won't.

Its all good and well standing by your principles but if it makes you look like a twat with the public then you aren't going to be winning any seats and right or wrong that is what mostly wins elections, not policy.

 

[Scouse]

The media see him as a joke, that is why they are picking on him.

Actually, the rich see him as a threat, which is why the rich-owned media are absolutely trashing him.

His policy positions aren't a million miles away from those in Germany. And ze Germans ain't doing that bad.

But yeah, with our population of poorly educated media led plebs I think you're correct - not looking like a twat is more important in blighty. I don't think he'll win. But coverage of alternative policies will massively increase - and that lack of political homogeneity will prove a good thing in the long run.

 

[Job]

No she isn't.

She can quit her amazingly privileged position and become an incredibly rich oik like the rest of the multi billionaires any time she wants.

But she fucking LOVES being the queen.

60 years, averaging 300 odd engagements a year, everyone had to be clock perfect to not offend the powerful all over the world, quite simply, without any doubt whatsoever, the greatest ambassador for Britain ever.
I really do think most anti Royals think she spends everyday day walking the Corgis and whipping the staff.

 

[Raven]

Actually, the rich see him as a threat, which is why the rich-owned media are absolutely trashing him.

His policy positions aren't a million miles away from those in Germany. And ze Germans ain't doing that bad.

But yeah, with our population of poorly educated media led plebs I think you're correct - not looking like a twat is more important in blighty. I don't think he'll win. But coverage of alternative policies will massively increase - and that lack of political homogeneity will prove a good thing in the long run.

A threat to who?

When you read through his ideas, one or two would be good but then it starts moving into student union territory and it becomes clear he hasn't got a clue.

If he could tone down the swivel headed loonyness for a bit then he might get some traction but if every other policy is laughable then he is going nowhere and will have virtually no effect on anything. The arsehats he has stuck in his shadow cabinet aren't going to help either.

 

[Scouse]

60 years, averaging 300 odd engagements a year, everyone had to be clock perfect to not offend the powerful all over the world, quite simply, without any doubt whatsoever, the greatest ambassador for Britain ever.
I really do think most anti Royals think she spends everyday day walking the Corgis and whipping the staff.

Who thinks that? I don't disagree that she's a great ambassador in this economy - but that's not the reason to be anti-royal. The reasons are myriad and complex - but well founded.

But for some reason you seem to think we should be deferential to and thankful for a inherited billionairess who leads a charmed life and does a job she fucking loves.


I've more admiration for a minimum-wage worker who does a job she hates because it's the only thing she can do in an attempt to provide a pittance for her family.

A threat to who?

Really?

I'll give you a clue. His policies are redistributive.

If you're sitting on a mahoosive wad you make sure you protect it against even the slightest chance of a raid. And we both agree that he probably won't get anywhere near office. But the rich still act on probably...

 

[Job]

15,000 engagements since 1984...holy fuck...dress up, smile, listen to some boring git, watch some kids dance about.
It's a wonder she doesn't rip her clothes off and run amok.
370 engagements in 2011 when she was 85.

Just look it up, see what she has done for this country in 60 years, even if you ignore the enormous psychological effect of her commitment to the country after the war, bringing it together in a way the Facebook generation couldn't grasp, she has worked her ass off for 60 years, 25 of them into retirement age for most.

 

[Raven]

Really?

I'll give you a clue. His policies are redistributive.

If you're sitting on a mahoosive wad you make sure you protect it against even the slightest chance of a raid. And we both agree that he probably won't get anywhere near office. But the rich still act on probably...

yes yes, we understand that, that doesn't make him a threat though because he is un-electable, just a comedy side show. Any well planned, rounded policies are instantly drowned by the lunacy.

He is the gift that keeps on giving, making his own rope.

 

[Bodhi]

Actually, the rich see him as a threat, which is why the rich-owned media are absolutely trashing him.

His policy positions aren't a million miles away from those in Germany. And ze Germans ain't doing that bad.

But yeah, with our population of poorly educated media led plebs I think you're correct - not looking like a twat is more important in blighty. I don't think he'll win. But coverage of alternative policies will massively increase - and that lack of political homogeneity will prove a good thing in the long run.

They're actually a lot closer to policies in France. And France is pretty much fucked. I'd hardly call myself one of the "rich" but even I can see what an epic clusterfuck it would be if he got in.

 

[DaGaffer]

His policy positions aren't a million miles away from those in Germany. And ze Germans ain't doing that bad.
.

Ooh, I think you'll have to back that assertion up.

 

[Scouse]

They're actually a lot closer to policies in France. And France is pretty much fucked. I'd hardly call myself one of the "rich" but even I can see what an epic clusterfuck it would be if he got in.

Rich is 100k+ a year tbh. But I do like his policy of forcing companies to pay their fair share of tax.

 

[Bodhi]

Rich is 100k+ a year tbh. But I do like his policy of forcing companies to pay their fair share of tax.

Ah that old chestnut. I assume you've started sending HMRC more money than you are legally supposed to then? And if not, why should companies do the same?

 

[Bodhi]

 

[ECA]

I think it's hilarious watching the establishment collectively lose their shit because someone who wasn't meant to win won.

 

[Gwadien]

This reminds me of the rise of UKIP, let's not take them seriously? - u wot? - 3million votes? perhaps we should start taking them slightly more seriously.

 

[Zarjazz]

I think it's hilarious watching the establishment collectively lose their shit because someone who wasn't meant to win won.

Hardly a surprise, Labour has the same reaction to the General Election.

 

[Scouse]

I assume you've started sending HMRC more money than you are legally supposed to then? And if not, why should companies do the same?

Nope. I pay tax in full, always have. And will take the 7.5% tax rise the tories have put upon me next year without complaint. I don't think any company or individual should voluntarily pay extra tax - that would be utterly retarded.

I do, however, think the law should be changed so large corporations have to pay greater than 1 or 2 % tax. Why have you got a problem with that?

 

[Bodhi]

Nope. I pay tax in full, always have. And will take the 7.5% tax rise the tories have put upon me next year without complaint. I don't think any company or individual should voluntarily pay extra tax - that would be utterly retarded.

I do, however, think the law should be changed so large corporations have to pay greater than 1 or 2 % tax. Why have you got a problem with that?

Because I think the focus on Tax Rates is utterly utterly retarded - what we should be focused on is Tax Take, i.e trying to get as much as possible, and the way to do this is not to start raising tax rates all over the shop, but to encourage people to pay more. And what's more if you look at HMRC's own figures, that appears to be happening.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...59/Corporation_Tax_Statistics_August_2015.pdf

 

[Scouse]

Because I think the focus on Tax Rates is utterly utterly retarded - what we should be focused on is Tax Take, i.e trying to get as much as possible, and the way to do this is not to start raising tax rates all over the shop, but to encourage people to pay more. And what's more if you look at HMRC's own figures, that appears to be happening.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...59/Corporation_Tax_Statistics_August_2015.pdf

I know all about the main rates of corporation tax - I pay it in full. And I agree with you - tax take is more important than tax rate rises.

But tell me - why do you think it's OK for big corporations to pay as little as 1% through the use of artificial intermediaries and other measures? The law can and should be changed to prevent that. Then you'll see your tax take increasing. And not a tax hike in sight.



Of course you know this. And as usual you're being disingenuous - deliberately dishonest in your reasoning.

What I don't understand is why some people get so butthurt at the suggestion that big companies should contribute properly that they start acting dishonestly to protect them. You don't actually own Amazon on the sly, do you?

 

[DaGaffer]

Because I think the focus on Tax Rates is utterly utterly retarded - what we should be focused on is Tax Take, i.e trying to get as much as possible, and the way to do this is not to start raising tax rates all over the shop, but to encourage people to pay more. And what's more if you look at HMRC's own figures, that appears to be happening.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...59/Corporation_Tax_Statistics_August_2015.pdf

HMRC taking credit for PR shaming of American corporates? Having a very brief scan through that PDF, it doesn't seem to me to that tax take is up due to any particular efforts on HMRC's part.

 

[Bodhi]

I know all about the main rates of corporation tax - I pay it in full. And I agree with you - tax take is more important than tax rate rises.

But tell me - why do you think it's OK for big corporations to pay as little as 1% through the use of artificial intermediaries and other measures? The law can and should be changed to prevent that. Then you'll see your tax take increasing. And not a tax hike in sight.



Of course you know this. And as usual you're being disingenuous - deliberately dishonest in your reasoning.

What I don't understand is why some people get so butthurt at the suggestion that big companies should contribute properly that they start acting dishonestly to protect them. You don't actually own Amazon on the sly, do you?

Lol. You accuse me of being disingenuous, then bring Amazon into things? I won't patronise you by pointing out tax is paid on a company's profits, but what I will point out, is that Amazon historically make bugger all profit - any short term profits are immediately reinvested into the business for future growth. In fact they surprised the hell out of Wall Street by making a profit last quarter - $92 million on revenues of around $23 billion, which ever way you cut it, isn't very much at all.
So really not the best company to pick on. Starbucks possibly as they are quite aggressive, but then international tax treaties, including your beloved EU, have been set up to allow these kind of things. One of the biggest cheerleaders for taxing big business more, The Guardian, certainly take advantage of these.

However as ever I take each example on it's merits. Amazon, as mentioned I don't have an issue with. Vodafone neither, as they were utterly bummed for the 3G licenses at the turn of the century. Starbucks are on slightly dodgier ground, imo, but most governments seem happy with their contribution so I'm not going to get sand in my vagina about them. I am a firm believer however, that everyone, people and businesses alike, should do all they can within the law to minimise their tax liabilities. Key words there are within the law, as Tax Evasion is a different matter entirely, and organisations that are caught doing this are rightly fucked over.

But the thing is, if we do reach this supposed Utopia where big business pays their "fair share" (whatever that is), who is it do you think will end up paying these extra taxes? Slight hint - it won't be the shareholders, or the company itself - it will be you and me with higher prices. Or they'll take the lower profits and stop investing in things like job creation, new markets etc. Neither idea sounds particularly appealing to me.

 

[Bodhi]

HMRC taking credit for PR shaming of American corporates? Having a very brief scan through that PDF, it doesn't seem to me to that tax take is up due to any particular efforts on HMRC's part.

I made no comments on the cause of CT receipts going up, just that they were. However if you wanted to look for a reason, the cut in CT rates is probably a good base to start.

 

[Scouse]

You clearly don't understand what disingenuous means as your very first sentence shows.

I'm not really going to bother engaging with you on the rest - you're already ignoring the fact that, as stated, big businesses use artifical means to reduce their profit to avoid tax - and as agreed - that's perfectly legal.

It should be made illegal.

 

[Bodhi]

You clearly don't understand what disingenuous means as your very first sentence shows.

I'm not really going to bother engaging with you on the rest - you're already ignoring the fact that, as stated, big businesses use artifical means to reduce their profit to avoid tax - and as agreed - that's perfectly legal.

It should be made illegal.

To be honest, I'm guessing you're not going to engage with me on the rest as you don't actually know what you're talking about. Investing in your future growth is an artificial means to avoid tax is it? Really? Are you sure it isn't a means to, ooh I dunno, grow the business?

Because in Amazon's case, I'd say it's worked an absolute treat.