| Author | Message | ||
     Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.0.114.254 |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8484955.stm "Mr Huitson's barrister said that this broke his rights under the Human Rights Act of 2008." | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.181.152.177 |
He-he! | ||
| Steveduffy (Steveduffy) Username: Steveduffy Registered: 05-2009 Posted From: 86.156.102.61 |
Stitch that, you greedy fecker. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.30.139 |
"The tax avoidance scheme, if it worked, would, therefore, appear to realise every taxpayer's dream of lawfully avoiding, or at least greatly reducing, income tax in any jurisdiction," he said. Not my dream. My dream is that I'm taxed heavily and it's well-spent. THE ECONOMIST this month is attacking - wait for it - big government. Only free-market capitalism can get us out of this mess, it seems. You know, the mess made by free-market capitalism. This is what they should be saying: http://www.diacritic.org/blog/archives/2008/10/the_economist.htm | ||
| Simon Bestwick (Simon_b) Username: Simon_b Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 86.24.167.138 |
Like it, Proto. Mind you, you surely can't expect logical behaviour from these arseheads, can you? Getting them to see the flaws in their own philosophy is like getting them to see round the back of their eyeballs. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.238.221 |
My dream is that I'm taxed heavily and it's well-spent. There's actually nothing stopping you from this dream: take ALL the extra money you would expect to lose under extra taxation, and directly administer them to organizations, causes, schemes, etc., that you most directly promote. It's a way to achieve your dreams right now, and in real time! No one's stopping you! Right?... | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Right, Craig. But that 'solution' relies on individual charity rather than democratic control of the economy by the people, for the people. EVERYONE earning more than the average needs to be heavily taxed – enough to put the exploiters and financiers out of business – and the money invested in jobs, housing, education and healthcare. Leaving it up to the individual makes charities do the work of government. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Imagine how much revenue a simple wealth tax would free up. How many hospitals, schools, public sector jobs that would pay for. | ||
| Allybird (Allybird) Username: Allybird Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 80.47.10.77 |
'EVERYONE earning more than the average needs to be heavily taxed – enough to put the exploiters and financiers out of business – and the money invested in jobs, housing, education and healthcare. Leaving it up to the individual makes charities do the work of government.' Sounds reasonable..latest index The national average wage index for 2008 is 41,334.97. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.0.114.254 |
New figures! (Same as the old figures.) http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/-/news/money-property-and-tax/content.aspx?ID =378274&re=8186&ea=236703 The entrepreneurs' comments at the foot of this report will raise either a desparing chuckle or a pitiful eyebrow: http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/-/news/money-property-and-tax/content.aspx?ID =379064&re=8233&ea=236703 | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.110.196.188 |
"The national average wage index for 2008 is 41,334.97." Which, of course, is distorted by an almost unbelievably high top 1%. The median wage is probably around £16,000. I don't think I know anyone personally who earns over £30,000 per year. And my friends are mostly middle-aged graduates. But they're not financiers. The word 'average' has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Probably no more than 10% of the population earn more than the mean average. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 95.83.205.198 |
Anyone catch Jonathan Meades new series on BBC2 this week? It's funny, insightful and excoriating of big business's effects on town planning and the fawning attitude of planners. Donald Trump is in his cross-hairs. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.181.152.177 |
I don't think I know anyone personally who earns over £30,000 per year. I know a fair few - they're all folk who've worked very hard to be earning what they are (none are millionaires, btw, just earning more than £30k). | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.0.114.254 |
I know loads. Some of them even work for it. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.127.146 |
I earn over the average. But I've worked in academia on a subsistence level for almost a decade longer than my contemporaries did when they left college. I've had two pay cuts this year and I'm fine with that. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.241.17 |
But the problem, Joel, et.al., is that you are making a very basic assumption that I simply can't: GOVERNMENTS CAN'T BE TRUSTED FOR SHIT So sure, I'll put in my own dream - I wish everyone loved each other in perfect harmony. I wish no one would ever hurt anyone ever again. Not gonna happen. But governments would love to nod their heads at your naive suggestions: "SURE, buddy, give us a whole LOT of extra $$$ and £££ and we PROMISE we'll do all SORTS of good things with it!" Fat fucking chance. Until then, let the charities do charity work, and let the governments struggle to extract money from the people.... | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.12.247 |
You don't believe in having a government? Better start making that Thunderdome to settle your parking ticket. I'm afraid it is you who is making a huge assumption - no organisation, corporate or governmental, should be trusted. They all require monitoring from the outside. The difference is that governments are answerable to the people while corporations are not. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.230.220 |
I guess you haven't been paying attention to the massive amounts of corruption unearthed in both our countries of late. To perhaps anticipate your counter-argument, you might say that the fact they were unearthed at all proves monitoring works. Sure. And no, I didn't say I don't "believe" in government - I said they can't be trusted, not to handle money to be specific. And not to handle MORE of MY money, to be even more specific. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.230.220 |
And lest we forget, you agree with me Proto. You started out by saying: My dream is that I'm taxed heavily and it's well-spent. I can't believe you yourself believe the second part of that sentence, but only yearn for the first part. You too don't believe governments are handling money well... so perhaps, then, I agree with you, that in a "dream," it could be well spent. Time for Des's world.... | ||
| Nathaniel Tapley (Natt) Username: Natt Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 89.240.59.35 |
And, Proto, let's not forget that the eventual function of socialism (and communism according to both Marx and Lenin) is to enable the withering away of the state... | ||
| Gcw (Gcw) Username: Gcw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.156.38.66 |
People who live in London earn more for similar jobs than in Norfolk...But the expenses are ludicrous in London. I like to go to London for gigs & visiting friends...But how people can live a full life there is beyond me... gcw | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.110.140.161 |
Craig, governments can't be trusted because they are not democratic, which means they are not representative or transparent. Is it really beyond the intelligence of humanity to make them so? We can solve incredibly difficult problems in science, why can we not solve fairly simple ones in politics? Could it because the ruling class would rather make sure stupidity remains triumphant, since that's how they need it to be? And if governments don't run economies then the corporations do. You seem to have no problem with trusting them to run the world. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.157.25.171 |
Time for Des's world.... ================ I don't wish that on anyone! My world is one where human beings - fundamentally selfish - will be part of systemic problems of reality that can be governed for a while in cycles of historiacl challenge-and-response, challenge-and-response again, and again. Thankfully selfishness is often geared to selfilessness (altruism) that tha selfishness enjoys as a sense of self-satisfaction. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.79.202 |
"I can't believe you yourself believe the second part of that sentence, but only yearn for the first part." You don't have to believe it, because I don't. But I'm a realist - I'm not waiting for a government to be perfect before I give it money to function. Unless you believe in a Mad Max type existence want we're going to have to pool our resources. So when: Governments are answerable to the people while corporations are not. I know who I'd rather back. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.79.202 |
"And, Proto, let's not forget that the eventual function of socialism (and communism according to both Marx and Lenin) is to enable the withering away of the state..." Okay. I don't share those views, though, so they don't impact on my argument. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.0.114.254 |
Corporations should be answerable to government regulators, though. That's why we've all agreed to paid tax for hundreds of years - in exchange for protection from the organisations which we must by necessity seek recourse to in order to live our lives. Will Hutton is very good on this issue. | ||
| Nathaniel Tapley (Natt) Username: Natt Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 89.240.59.35 |
"But I'm a realist - I'm not waiting for a government to be perfect before I give it money to function." But, of course, the one thing you're not being is a realist. A realist would have noticed that when a British government has more money, they do not spend it on increasing access to health, education, transport, on raising the quality of life of the most needy, or enhancing that of everyone. No matter which party they represent, they spend it on wars, kickbacks to their friends, disastrously misconceived IT projects, increasing prison sizes, and on resources for the police. There isn't anyone you could vote for who would do anything you want done. The Green Party might, but there is not one of the major parties who intend to use the machinery of the state for anything other than maintaining their political careers, funneling government money to wealthy contractors, and spending as much as they can on appearing 'tough on crime'. Give me the chance to vote for a high-tax, high-spending social democracy like Denmark's and I'll do it like a shot, but a realist should realise that that is not a vote you can make in the UK. When it's the Labour Party who introduce tuition fees; the Labour Party who removed the extra benefit payments to single parents; the Labour Party who banned tobacco advertising except in those sports where their friends had significant interests; the Labour Party who raised the rate of income tax on the lowest earners from 10% to 22%; the Labour Party who launch wars across the globe without UN authorisation; the Labour Party who sell off those bits of the Royal Mail that were profit-making then for whom are you going to vote? Who do you trust to use your taxes to open schools, hospitals, clean up the environment, ensure a decent standard of living and hope for the future for all? Because none of them seem to want to use it for that... The ruling classes have used their powers in governance against the people of Britain for as long as we can remember; from the Peasant's Revolt to last year's kettling, via Peterloo. It wasn't long ago that we remembered that those who govern us do not have our best interests at heart. We tried to believe that would change in 1997. It didn't. For a brief, shining moment after the Second World War we showed what could be done through democratic socialism. We founded institutions that truly acted in the public good: comprehensive schools, the Open University (and grants for those attending other universities), unemployment insurance, the NHS, the BBC (all right, that's technically pre-WW2), free milk. From 1945-1950, and again in the late 1960s government worked for the people of the country. It never has since. Which is why I think you're dismissing Craig's initial point too readily. Our system of government is not democratic for four years out of every five. You have no say in what happens until a general election. Yes, government's are more responsive to the public interest than corporations in a democracy. If we lived in one we might benefit from that. Why not start thinking about actual ways in which we create the kind of world we'd like to see without relying on the government. There used to be lots of ways of doing that: co-operatives, housing associations, unions, just about everything mentioned in The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists can be done without the government, the way they had to do it then. We can have the same ideals, hope the same hopes as ever, but, as realists, we can acknowledge that, with our current parliamentary system and in our current climate, it isn't going to happen with the help or blessing of government. Copenhagen should have taught us something. We're going to have to reshape the world without the help of politicians and governments... Sorry, I appear to have drifted into a rant. Apologies... Something must have touched a nerve. Ignore me. Anyway, there is probably very little in the world I agree with Craig on, but he raised a question we need to think about. | ||
| Nathaniel Tapley (Natt) Username: Natt Registered: 11-2009 Posted From: 89.240.59.35 |
(Just realised that all of the above assumes that you're British, Protodroid. I have no idea if you are. Sorry for jumping to conclusions. Consider the above the reasons why I think Craig's idea worth considering, rather than why you should...) | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.108.173 |
I'm in Ireland. At the moment we have a coalition government involving a centre-right party and the Green Party (believe it or not). But everything you've said about a government unresponsive to the public applies here too (the government's current approval rating is 26%). "Copenhagen should have taught us something. We're going to have to reshape the world without the help of politicians and governments... " This is where I think I'm being realistic. I don't think it's possible (or wise) to replace a centuries-old system of government in the short or even medium term. What we can do is apply NGO pressure to the governments more efficiently. Parliamentary democracy has been arguably good for Britain since Edward Longshanks. Something as transitory as New Labour shouldn't be allowed to dismantle it. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.108.173 |
Also, a government serves the purpose of having a grand view as to where resources should be allocated. A babble of single-issue NGOs would be hopelessly inefficient. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.244.59 |
Why am I being painted as supporting a Mad Max-styled world, when I said I don't trust governments? Governments don't fucking trust ME, that's why they have all sorts of laws about, oh, TAXATION. I'm not keen on giving government more money, especially in light of the immense, sickening, repulsive, vile, awful, disgusting corruption that has been going on JUST of late, and just here in the U.S. The whole AIG thing alone is a case in point: both the corporation (AIG) and the government were evilly involved in the corruption going on there - both revealed themselves (corporation & government) as not worthy to be trusted at this time, nor in the near future. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.108.173 |
"Why am I being painted as supporting a Mad Max-styled world, when I said I don't trust governments?" Nobody here trusts governments. You said you don't want to pay tax. How will this government that you don't want eliminated run without taxes? | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.15.230 |
I said I don't want them to have MORE of my taxes - your original premise, give more taxes - sorry, but is this really THAT hard to understand? | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 109.79.10.97 |
That's only half my original premise which was more taxes, more value for your taxes. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.246.35 |
Right. And that's the half with which I was in personally in disagreement. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.246.35 |
Or whatever it is I just said.  | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 89.204.225.219 |
"let the governments struggle to extract money from the people...." In the context of a thread about tex evasion this seemst to advocate it. If not, though, there's not much to disagree about. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.0.114.254 |
Look, guys, this will resolve all issues: http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/-/video/money-property-and-tax/content.aspx?I D=379200&re=8237&ea=236703 |