National News Official 2019 General Election Thread

Well obviously you are a racist and a fan of that Yaxley Lennon fellow. You don’t like Muslims much either, do you
. I wasn’t going to mention it but since you insist.

Billionaire tax avoiders.

Here’s an article about Britain’s richest man, the Brexit supporter Sir Jim Ratcliffe, and two of his key lieutenants at chemicals firm Ineos who

“have reportedly been planning to save up to £4bn in tax after moving to Monaco.”

Lovely Patriotic fellow- loves the U.K. so much he wants to pay (no) tax in Monaco

So you've quoted two unknown people who work for a billionaire in an attempt to support your already weak argument. Great.

That's option B then, along with the bonus additional option of calling me racist. 2/3 isn't bad I suppose.
 
So you've quoted two unknown people who work for a billionaire in an attempt to support your already weak argument. Great.

That's option B then, along with the bonus additional option of calling me racist. 2/3 isn't bad I suppose.
It took a day to come up with that too. But those evil Billionaires :LOL:
 
Does anyone actually believe that a UK government would purposely land the NHS (a tax payer funded organisation) with an additional bill of £500 million?
And this, friends, is how you end up with years and years of Tory rule, asset stripping the country. Just because they don’t “purposely” do it does mean that it is not an inevitable consequence of what they do on purpose. Everything has a sale value to these guys and nothing is off the table when it comes to political expediency. Still, when it goes tits up again, the bulk of the population can absorb the austerity can’t they? Or maybe Rhys-mogg’s Grenfell-inspired advice would be that if they were smart they should have left the country (like his investments).
 
you brought up your racism bash old chap.
How are things in the Yaxley Lennon fan club these days?

I quoted an article in The Guardian about Jim Ratcliffe

“Robert Palmer, the executive director of campaigning group Tax Justice UK, said it was “sad” that Ratcliffe had “put his own greed ahead of contributing to this country. It just reinforces the feeling that lots of people have that the economy is not geared for them. Lots of people are feeling left behind and this helps reinforce that idea that the rules are not written for them but for wealthy individuals.””

It’s is weird how many of your Brexit fans can’t wait to get their moolah out of reach of paying for British roads or British hospitals.
 
you brought up your racism bash old chap.
How are things in the Yaxley Lennon fan club these days?

I quoted an article in The Guardian about Jim Ratcliffe

“Robert Palmer, the executive director of campaigning group Tax Justice UK, said it was “sad” that Ratcliffe had “put his own greed ahead of contributing to this country. It just reinforces the feeling that lots of people have that the economy is not geared for them. Lots of people are feeling left behind and this helps reinforce that idea that the rules are not written for them but for wealthy individuals.””

It’s is weird how many of your Brexit fans can’t wait to get their moolah out of reach of paying for British roads or British hospitals.
You should read the transcript of a recent or watch the interview with Bill Gates after Elizabeth Warren's similar comment about Billionaires.

There are many unintended consequences to the "stealing" of billionaires money, but lefties don't care about that. Or have even thought about it, just jealousy and hatred and bile.
 
And... You still haven't elaborated how much more the 1% should pay, considering they pay 27-30% of the overall tax take. How much do you think they should fund? 45%, 50%, 100%? It's just sad to see people push a lack of aspiration in society and hatred of people who have done well.
 
Tax made simple...................

Suppose that once a week, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7.
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
And the tenth man (the richest) would pay £59. 
So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every week and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until, one day, the owner caused them a little problem. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your weekly beer by £20." Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free but what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that £20 divided by six is £3.33 but if they subtracted that from everybody's share then not only would the first four men still be drinking for free but the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. 

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fairer to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage. They decided to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (a 100% saving).
The sixth man now paid £2 instead of £3 (a 33% saving).
The seventh man now paid £5 instead of £7 (a 28% saving).
The eighth man now paid £9 instead of £12 (a 25% saving).
The ninth man now paid £14 instead of £18 (a 22% saving).
And the tenth man now paid £49 instead of £59 (a 16% saving). 
Each of the last six was better off than before with the first four continuing to drink for free. 

But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got £1 out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got £10!" 
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a £1 too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!" 

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I only got £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" 

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. 

The next week the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important - they didn't have enough money between all of them to pay for even half of the bill! 

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. 

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
 
And this, friends, is how you end up with years and years of Tory rule, asset stripping the country. Just because they don’t “purposely” do it does mean that it is not an inevitable consequence of what they do on purpose. Everything has a sale value to these guys and nothing is off the table when it comes to political expediency. Still, when it goes tits up again, the bulk of the population can absorb the austerity can’t they? Or maybe Rhys-mogg’s Grenfell-inspired advice would be that if they were smart they should have left the country (like his investments).
Condescending crap.

But hey, just in case, let's all vote Labour and put Corbyn in No.10. That would really solve everything. Nationalise everything, tax all the rich bastards, drop the working week to 35 hours (or less?) raise the minimum wage, scrap the military, sack the royal family, build nothing but social housing, scrap the house of lords, etc. etc.
 
Blather.......

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy and they just might not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. 

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

As I understand it then, your proposition is that the only reason investors consider is tax rate, nothing else. So the point of Brexit is to attract more 'investors' and we must comply. Project Fear.
 
As I understand it then, your proposition is that the only reason investors consider is tax rate, nothing else. So the point of Brexit is to attract more 'investors' and we must comply. Project Fear.

Nope just a thought for those who line up to "bash the rich" for ..................ermmm..... being rich!

That is how life is, it is why "a rich bloke" owns OUFC, a "rich bloke" owns the ground...... ad infinitum.
 
Here`s a thought for you......................... Comrade Corbyn is worth (roughly) £3 million..... ergo he is a "multi-millionaire". Are they exempt from "being bashed" ?
 
I created a "scenario" over a cup of tea with some suitably qualified, like minded individuals ................ same as your "source". :rolleyes: ?
I will then publish it............. #projectfear

Not 'experts' I hope?

Anyhoo, it wasn't you I was asking, it was the RT troll.
 
I think you mean Jeremy
Here`s a thought for you......................... Comrade Corbyn is worth (roughly) £3 million..... ergo he is a "multi-millionaire". Are they exempt from "being bashed" ?
I think you mean “ Jeremy Corbyn bought a small house in his constituency thirty years ago.”
 
Nope just a thought for those who line up to "bash the rich" for ..................ermmm..... being rich!

That is how life is, it is why "a rich bloke" owns OUFC, a "rich bloke" owns the ground...... ad infinitum.
"the rich man at his castle,
the poor man at his gate
God man them blah blah
and orders their estate"

Have you been sipping the spirit of Pangloss? I think it's utterly unbecoming for a grown up who walks past homeless people to believe that everything's cool; or to think the poor can get out of poverty in the UK by eating less, as you previously stated.

I haven't been in the 'tax the rich' discussion but income tax is only a small part of the problem: sales taxes (VAT) apply regressively across rich and poor, they must be counted into any consideration of tax burden, capital gains need to be taxed in line with income and an overall property tax would be beneficial to the economy as a whole (rich, poor and have you seen the state of US infrastructure?) - the principles of Social Credit were used in Italian towns to penalise 'holding on' to wealth.

Of course the reason the 'rich' appear to be paying more tax (according to the data spewed by RT Troll*), is that the figures presented only consider what is taxed. The ownership of assets (of any kind) through offshore funds should be transparent (as even David Cameron stated before he buried the idea when he discovered that as well as hampering money-laundering it would show which of the rich were owning assets and moving money through offshore entities to avoid tax) and imaginative and fair means should be found to tax that wealth - applies to corporations as well.


* whose source may well be the National Taxpayers' Union, sponsored by our old friends the Koch Brothers, ALEC and big tobacco, or one of it's clients.
 
The property tax is one that needs to be considered.
From memory council tax rates have not been reconsidered since 1991. A friend of mine in Fulham for example pays under £2000pa, for a house worth around £3million. He is a multi millionaire and has a high powered job. He also enjoys free transport into central London as he is over 60.
As I understand it, a similar house outside of Oxford would probably be around £600000 but the council taxes would be considerably more.
So I think there is scope for money to be redistributed from the higher earners. I don’t agree with a general levelling down, but think that those at the bottom end of the ladder could be given a help up a rung or two.
The Conservatives to me, have taken a step back several decades, must be something to do with JRM, of penalising the elderly by increasing the retirement age and removing the free TV licences from the over 75. We already have one of the highest retirement ages in the EU but also some of the lowest pension rates.
Equity release for example has been in fashion over the last decade or so. The reality highlighted in a documentary last night is that many people are being fleeced of their life savings.
The introduction of Universal Credit in this parliament has also caused extreme poverty especially amongst those who are newly unemployed and disabled. Where was the help from the Conservatives when it was needed?
Unfortunately this country is on its knees financially and we are stagnating. Several find themselves in zero hours contracts, savings rates are low, and of course people are stretched on their mortgages even though interest rates are low.For those that argue house prices are too high..they are in Oxford..if prices fall we are in negative equity territory then and then there is less mobility of Labour.
The economy has to grow, and it is recognised that we have to borrow money to do it.
The question is who do we trust with our money...
 
Back
Top Bottom