Some people really don't seem to realise that the U in all these means pretty much the same thing.... UK , USA, EU.
BSNo, of course not, there is truth in such a statement and to read the whole article makes the point. Essentially down to the pro's and con's of necessary government vs nanny state. Or, be careful what you wish for, to drive all these multimillionaires completely out of our jurisdiction wouldn't achieve anything good for the poor. Such people might well use these tax reduction methods (loopholes, call them what you like) but, they still pay enormous amounts of tax to the exchequer each year.
And you have a solution - let's hear it.The Capitalist sytem is driving the world into disaster, due to over exploitation .
It is too limited a concept to work on a global scale without ending calamitously in ecological and social ruin.
And world wide the poor are as numerous as ever.
Did you actually read the article - and understand it? It'sBS
Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk
You are introducing factors that are not relevant to what I posted. It is a fact that the UK is, and for a long time has been, in a far better place economically than it was in 1972. That is the essence of what I posted.Sorry flecc, they are not facts. They are your chosen interpretation of limited data presented. They are IMHO far from facts.
I am not my brother's keeper.And still no comment re the ugly direction thread was taken by certain remainers.??
Can you be united to two bodies of people? Sort of contradiction isn't it ? Mutually exclusive ? United Kingdom part of another Union ? I,m. not sure ??Some people really don't seem to realise that the U in all these means pretty much the same thing.... UK , USA, EU.
Of course you can be in multiply unions. They aren't mutually exclusive.Can you be united to two bodies of people? Sort of contradiction isn't it ? Mutually exclusive ? United Kingdom part of another Union ? I,m. not sure ??
Is UK united ? Is,EU really a Union..ask UK, Spain , Catalan and a few others.
Good rant, one of your better ones, stillWe,ve been part of EU since 73 , which protectionist laws for the poor have we seen ? Your argument about EU being this all powerful caring organisation has never made sense OG. Were it the case we wouldn't be in the mess you point us to now. ( By the way its Lewis Hamilton, but in principle I agree with that point but again its irrelevant.
Remainers have allowed the remain campaign to be hijacked by any old group with an axe to grind. The social standing of our country is actually a secondary argument. Tom,s obsession with Fascism, your view of conservatives are all superflous to remain or leave.
EU has never had social control over its members so why are we insisting on arguing about social criteria for leave or remain. We know full well any government of day can and does ignore whichever EU directives it feels like.
Remain should stick to the point and simply put forward the economic benefits staying. ( As KTM tried)
Once remain argue about social matters the debate is lost, because
A) Labour want to leave.
B) We,ve seen directives ignored by all members.
C) We are already in a social mess with rich getting richer and poor poorer.
D) EU is not a shining example anyway.
The remain campaign for most part has concentrated on telling others why they voted as they did and that they are racist, blah blah blah for doing so. Now remainers are saying leaving is/ was inevitable as a reason for not making correct argument in first place. So its leavers faults twice.
Remainers should not have gone into attacking leavers, should not have brought fascism, tory/labour class war or even tax of rich into tho debate. Its so arguable those things could go either way in or out. What is not in dispute is our access to single market and ECJ. I honestly think had remainers rallied together on indisputable criteria we would be remaining.
Remainers lost the Ref by a very small margin, they have lost the post ref arguments/ policy formation by a massive one. Nobody since Ref has offered a remain policy.. Remainers must surely be asking themselves why not. The answers are on this thread for all to see.
Could Vince Cable have actually represented Tom, OG, Flecc and Steb ? Could anyone make all four happy ? I dont think that person exists and if he does he sure as hell isn't a politician.
I just want to leave EU, dont actually care if its a Labour or Tory government, as long as its a caring middle of road one. May seems to be trying, not ideal but ...
Who called you racist and all the other things?Sorry flecc, they are not facts. They are your chosen interpretation of limited data presented. They are IMHO far from facts. Facts are we have no viable home grown car industry. The coal and steel industries were decimated whilst part of EU. Investment has for a long time been financila and London centred whilst my own home towns have spiralled down the economic ladder. Its time for change and more locally managed investment. Under EU we have seen house prices go up 20 fold in London and barely rise in many northern Cities. Yes, perhaps leaving EU will not change that but the country is crying out for real investment.
And still no comment re the ugly direction thread was taken by certain remainers.?? I think I speak for many ( apologies if not) . Had folk stuck to your economic arguments, KTM,s graphs etc I may well have changed my mind. But when folk come on and insist I,m a racist, tory scum, brexidiot, fascist , I retreat and stick to my own reasoning. I,ve yet to see a remainer criticise any of the mentioned. Its that attitude which has hijacked this thread and actually done real remainers like yourself and KTM a massive disservice. I truly believe its why remainers are not represented at Government. Powers that be do not know what remainers actually want. Many come over as anti capitalist, anti tory, anti brexit , anti fascist...but pro what.?
They are just anti and Brexit just happens to be todays crusade.
Like the Wesh Scots and Northern Irish?Can you be united to two bodies of people? Sort of contradiction isn't it ? Mutually exclusive ? United Kingdom part of another Union ? I,m. not sure ??
Is UK united ? Is,EU really a Union..ask UK, Spain , Catalan and a few others.
And due to the wide range of its powers and regulations, agreed to by members, the United Nations is also a union, of almost all the nations on earth.Of course you can be in multiply unions. They aren't mutually exclusive.
Trade Union is a union of people, County is a union of parishes, England is a union of regions, UK is a union of Countries, EU is a Union of Countries.
There are many many people who are in all those examples.
You really cant help yourself can you OG?For those who collect Porn this is the latest Boris Performance
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/news/90407/excl-emily-thornberry-says-boris-johnson-must-quit-if-nazanin
And this Imbecile wants to be Prime Minister?
apart from the fact he voted remain and said he would again.That's why Corbyn wants out.
But his policy is to leave...I ,ve said same. If there were another ref I,d vote remain to save all this argument. Corbyn and Labour are backing leave. ( they backed motions in HoC saying same)apart from the fact he voted remain and said he would again.
Jeremy Corbyn replied that he would vote Remain. He also reiterated that he voted Remain in the referendum last year.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/10/jeremy-corbyn-says-he-would-vote-remain-another-eu-referendum
He clearly wants to reform it, but who doesn't?
What reminders want is both simple and clear. To remain within the eu , to accept the compromises that membership entails. That is not to say they are ecstatic with all European Union policies or directions. What is difficult to follow in that?Sorry flecc, they are not facts. They are your chosen interpretation of limited data presented. They are IMHO far from facts. Facts are we have no viable home grown car industry. The coal and steel industries were decimated whilst part of EU. Investment has for a long time been financila and London centred whilst my own home towns have spiralled down the economic ladder. Its time for change and more locally managed investment. Under EU we have seen house prices go up 20 fold in London and barely rise in many northern Cities. Yes, perhaps leaving EU will not change that but the country is crying out for real investment.
And still no comment re the ugly direction thread was taken by certain remainers.?? I think I speak for many ( apologies if not) . Had folk stuck to your economic arguments, KTM,s graphs etc I may well have changed my mind. But when folk come on and insist I,m a racist, tory scum, brexidiot, fascist , I retreat and stick to my own reasoning. I,ve yet to see a remainer criticise any of the mentioned. Its that attitude which has hijacked this thread and actually done real remainers like yourself and KTM a massive disservice. I truly believe its why remainers are not represented at Government. Powers that be do not know what remainers actually want. Many come over as anti capitalist, anti tory, anti brexit , anti fascist...but pro what.?
They are just anti and Brexit just happens to be todays crusade.
a few basic flaws in this argument. you - nominally vote for the state. you didn't and don't vote for Murdoch, or the power he sways over public opinion. there isn't much you can do to question, challenge or control that. also, public servants are just that - servants acting in the public interest, something usually defined by a code of conduct, professional code, job description. it goes wrong, badly, but often because of what you describe, individual entitlement (which I gather features big in your life) trumping our concern for each other. tax havens don't have this, where they have some fig leave of a set of rules its easily circumvented by tax specialists. under the freedom of information act and data protection act there is relative transparency about state business. there is nothing like this for tax havens and the rich, one has to wait for a data leak. and, take it form someone who does occasionally lucrative research for an employer, the rich do precious little for what they have, mostly its inherited. we certainly don't live in a meritocracy. I get that you are more than a little preoccupied with what's in it for the individual, you, and less so with equity. but yore also co-creating a society, as we all are. create one where that is the base premise and you really have n o one to blame when you get screwed over by the self obsessed, corrupt, narcissistic.Did you actually read the article - and understand it? It's
This obsession with removing the privacy of the rich is misplaced anger
TIM STANLEY
6 NOVEMBER 2017 • 7:27PM
We're obsessed with the goings on of the rich, yet we ignore those who are truly powerful
We mistrust the rich and their power, yet while the state has far more influence over our lives, we do not held it to the same standards
When the Paradise Papers story broke on Sunday, I watched the BBC News channel engage in some flagrant editorialising. The Queen’s private estate invested a sum of money offshore in 2005, which prompted a chorus of “it doesn’t look good”. “Oh no, not good”. “Not good at all”. Well, as the nudist said to the dog walker, if you don’t like what you see, don’t look!
“This desire to know what people do with their money is unhealthy and it has just one motivation: to squeeze them
Before we get onto the question of tax privacy, let’s shoot down this absurd idea that Her Majesty is guilty of something. First, offshore investments are legal. Second, Her Majesty pays tax on all her income. Third, the cash that generates said income is managed not by her but by the Duchy of Lancaster, which is technically run by a member of the Cabinet known as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
In 2005, that would’ve been a Labour Party appointee. So, while the Left is thrilled at the prospect that Her Majesty is the pirate queen of high finance, blame lies not with the monarch but with politicians and speculators. If blame is the right word because, as I said, none of this was actually illegal.
Is it any of our business? In the case of the Queen, maybe, as she is a figure of considerable public interest. But, on the whole, no. This desire to know what people do with their money is unhealthy and it has just one motivation: to squeeze them for every penny they’ve got.
When I was a young socialist I’d have said that was a jolly good idea. We all benefit from public spending, and the more you’ve got the more you should contribute. But as an older, greyer cynic I take the view that the rich shouldn’t have to pay unfairly for the mistakes made by the state.
The state has grown and grown, with no obvious improvement in competence, and the tax share of the wealthy has trebled since the Seventies. This is unsustainable and, in acknowledgement of that reality, moderate governments have long tolerated certain generous tax arrangements to stop the golden goose from migrating permanently abroad.
If a radical Labour government came in and closed the loopholes, investors would relocate altogether. In a roundabout way, tax havens keep pressure on politicians not to raise rates to unreasonable levels and, were the world to eradicate them, the burden here at home would probably go sky high.
If we must suffer the tax haven, why not go for full transparency? Because what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and if the super-rich have to fling open their accounts to the rest of the world, you and I will have to do the same, too.
All that will fly out of mine, I hasten to add, is a couple of moths. The only tax haven a poor man like me is ever likely to use is the spot under my mattress. But that’s not the point: privacy is a principle that’s worth losing a bit of tax income to protect.
That’s not a very politically correct thing to write in an age of populism, but I stand by it. We are led to believe that the rich have too much power and influence, but they cannot compete with a state that increasingly has both the technology and the will to examine and regulate every aspect of our lives.
“We’ve all become so used to paying Big Brother to tell us what to do that we’ve ceased to notice it
Take driving a car. To earn the right to crawl along the M25 behind a horsebox, you have to pay for and pass both a theory and practical test, purchase insurance, get an MOT, and cough up for vehicle and fuel tax. The Government not only tells you what speed to drive at but regulates it punitively with cameras – which adds insult to injury given that many of our roads are about as well maintained as the surface of the moon.
We’ve all become so used to paying Big Brother to tell us what to do that we’ve ceased to notice it. And yet the nerve of the state is breathtaking. It is the state that distributes the Queen’s taxes, a branch of the state that arguably deserves responsibility for how it managed her income and now it is the state, via the BBC, that investigates and exposes it.
A line must be drawn. It’s the historic mission of the Conservative Party to draw it. They are supposed to be the people who resist wars against business and wealth, defend due process and protect the rights of the individual.
In recent years, however, they’ve endorsed raw emotionalism, terrified by the belief that what Labour says about tax, justice or the welfare system is what the voters believe, too. Well, they need to stop reading Twitter and talk to some of their more rational constituents.
Yes, every time the Tories take a stand against tax populism, they get horrid headlines in The Guardian, but they have won elections over and over again because the voters understand the facts of life better than Labour and the many agents of the state do.
For decades we have seen the expanding power of the police, teachers, civil servants, social workers and tax collectors, all protected by deference thought due to public servants and the claim that they are acting in the public interest. Who will act in the individual’s interest? The Tories must do so fast, before we’re all forced to go and live in, oh let’s say, Bermuda – drinking piña coladas beneath a tax-free sun.
I don't see what's hard to understand about this.But his policy is to leave...I ,ve said same. If there were another ref I,d vote remain to save all this argument. Corbyn and Labour are backing leave. ( they backed motions in HoC saying same)
And report I saw said he refused to answer how he voted last time..
But even if he does now support remain why is he not getting unequivocal support from remainers ?? ( Or why didn't he say this at last election)
Its strange , so far into this we are not sure wether leader of opposition wants to remain or leave? Says it all really. Come on somebody what is Corbyn's stance ?