Demo in Brighton yesterday

[The Spanish]

Lets protest against companies that pay millions in tax but may avoid paying a few more so they can actually make a profit god forbid, so that we don't have to cut the service's that support the majority of people that pay nil in tax and try and claim more benefits than they already get.

Well that clearly makes sense.

lets increase income tax by 5% in all bands and abolish allowances and see how everyone likes it. if you have spare cash after your outgoings, why not? its always someone else who isnt pulling their weight isnt it.

 

[KneeOn]

Indeed the violence might only come from a minority but the issue is the response from student reps and often lecturers - many so called peaceful protesters appear to condone the violence by not explicitly condemning it. A good example was the lecturers after the first London protest. It makes it look like the majority quite like the minority of violent protesters as it brings some "publicity" ( I use that word guardedly ) to the campaign.

The other thing I object to is the twisting of facts - most fees will be £6k not the £9k that keeps being mentioned. Agreed some uni's will charge the £9k ( after fulfilling the criteria to allow them to do so ) but lets stop giving the impression that a majority of students will be paying the higher rate. Also the tax avoidance by Vodaphone - it keeps being stated as being between £6bn and £7bn yet even HMRC agreed that is considerably lower than that but let's not let facts get in the way of a good violent protest.

The key statement in your post is about making the campaign inventive - EXACTLY. That's how we got Falmer - not smashing up buildings. Given students are meant to be the intelligent part of society I would have thought inventive and humorous campaigns would be right up their street. Instead all we get is violent protest and calling the Tories a bunch of c**ts. Unfortunately until the students realise that all the NUS wants to be is a mouth piece for the more extreme left elements of the political spectrum then the campaign is never likely to be all that successful or well supported by the general public at large.

I'll quote a different number at you then: 60%. Thats the percentage of students which will be on average five thousand pounds worse off as a result of these fee rises. the 40% that won't be are the lowest 10% (quite rightly too) and the upper 30% who could afford it anyway. its us in the middle who are f***ed.

Of course people in education won't condem the violence because to condem the violence for some, is to condem the emotion behind it. They havn't condoned it in the most part, and people think its a shame that it has come to this but it has worked to an extent, there are still threads like this on NSC, there are still articles, analysis and debates being carried out or written about the movement. A conflict of opinion but even if we all won't openly condem the violence it doesn't mean we agree.

 

[Castello]

Indeed the violence might only come from a minority but the issue is the response from student reps and often lecturers - many so called peaceful protesters appear to condone the violence by not explicitly condemning it. A good example was the lecturers after the first London protest. It makes it look like the majority quite like the minority of violent protesters as it brings some "publicity" ( I use that word guardedly ) to the campaign.

The other thing I object to is the twisting of facts - most fees will be £6k not the £9k that keeps being mentioned. Agreed some uni's will charge the £9k ( after fulfilling the criteria to allow them to do so ) but lets stop giving the impression that a majority of students will be paying the higher rate. Also the tax avoidance by Vodaphone - it keeps being stated as being between £6bn and £7bn yet even HMRC agreed that is considerably lower than that but let's not let facts get in the way of a good violent protest.

The key statement in your post is about making the campaign inventive - EXACTLY. That's how we got Falmer - not smashing up buildings. Given students are meant to be the intelligent part of society I would have thought inventive and humorous campaigns would be right up their street. Instead all we get is violent protest and calling the Tories a bunch of c**ts. Unfortunately until the students realise that all the NUS wants to be is a mouth piece for the more extreme left elements of the political spectrum then the campaign is never likely to be all that successful or well supported by the general public at large.

This reply whilst well intentioned, is ignoring some very real facts.

You talk about how heinous a small group of protesters glueing their hands to shop windows on a busy christmas shopping day are. You talk about the so called acts of violence although ive yet to see anyone identify a deliberate act of violence against a human being. Please do not include a small child accidentally being knocked over by a protester. This isnt violence, its an accident, and one that could happen on any busy shopping day. You talk about how people like myself collude in this unidentified violence by not objecting.

I dont object because i see ourselves as living in a violent society, where violence is used by all governements both openly and illegally, by various secret services, by the police on a regular basis, both legitimately and illegitimately, by husbands against their wives, by parents against their children. This is the reality most of us live in. Some people choose to ignore illegal acts of violence by the state or by husbands and parents whilst condemning other acts of violence. I dont. I see violence as perpetuating violence.

As long as the state advocates violence against innocent individuals who are victims of viciously repressive regimes, either by selling them the weapons that causes this volence or by going on illegal war expeditions, then I will see violence by protesters as a product of this. Ill put down my weapons when you put down yours.

I'm sorry if this cold hard reality is to harsh a reality for the tender conservative ears of some posers ....i mean posters on NSC, but unfortunately i have to live with the reality of this everyday.

 

[Jimbo.GRFC]

*cringe*

PMB: Feck me who let Citizen Smith on this board.....Seems to me that Fataddick has quite clearly stated his slanted views on this thread in one sentence, thus it must be perfectly acceptable in their desire to overthrow and in doing so condones the scaring of innocent families, especially young children to reach their goal. One simple point FatAddick "YOU WERE NOT THERE" so I dont feel your in a position to talk about the actions on Saturday, although in the same light I totally respect your rights to your opinions. This argument though was started strictly down to my anger that at no time was any consideration to said families and children who were there on the day. Like others I know nothing about this protest until I found ourselves caught up in it.

 

[Castello]

Genuine question to any of the "anti ALL cuts" protestors on the board here.

Instead of cuts, WHAT do you suggest is done? Clearly something needs to be. It seems the thinking extends as far as "no cuts", and that's about it.

In answer to your question I would male this point.

The current deficit is 73% of GDP. In 1945 the deficit was 250% of GDP, the government then introduced a NHS, made education compulsory for everyone under 14 and paid for it and introduced a wholse system of welfare designed to make life fairer for those at the bottom. This was paid for over the years by the increased productivity of having a nation with low unemployment all paying taxation.

The present government proposes paying for it by throwing half a million public sector workers onto a dole queue already heading to the 3 million mark. There are few jobs to replace them. If we follow this plan we will have a smaller economy with millions excluded from society and a few paying very little tax lording it over the rest of us.

Therefore we have two real choices if we dont want this. Either tax the top 20% of income earners an extra 5% and scrap trident. The revenue raised and saved would balance out the deficit.

Alternatively we can take the route opened up in 1945 of using what money we have to expand the economy to increase the numbers working and paying tax and spending and creating tax from profits. We should also tax the banks profits as a way of taking back the money that was used to bail them out. Then as the economy grows we can pay back the debt at a more comfortable rate.

This may seem a radical solution but Keynesianism is hardly the stuff of revolutions. It is also what everyone who has a mortgage does. Borrow a large sum to have somehwere to live now and pay it back over 25 years at an affordable rate lower than private rents.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

This reply whilst well intentioned, is ignoring some very real facts.

You talk about how heinous a small group of protesters glueing their hands to shop windows on a busy christmas shopping day are. You talk about the so called acts of violence although ive yet to see anyone identify a deliberate act of violence against a human being. Please do not include a small child accidentally being knocked over by a protester. This isnt violence, its an accident, and one that could happen on any busy shopping day. You talk about how people like myself collude in this unidentified violence by not objecting.

I dont object because i see ourselves as living in a violent society, where violence is used by all governements both openly and illegally, by various secret services, by the police on a regular basis, both legitimately and illegitimately, by husbands against their wives, by parents against their children. This is the reality most of us live in. Some people choose to ignore illegal acts of violence by the state or by husbands and parents whilst condemning other acts of violence. I dont. I see violence as perpetuating violence.

As long as the state advocates violence against innocent individuals who are victims of viciously repressive regimes, either by selling them the weapons that causes this volence or by going on illegal war expeditions, then I will see violence by protesters as a product of this. Ill put down my weapons when you put down yours.

I'm sorry if this cold hard reality is to harsh a reality for the tender conservative ears of some posers ....i mean posters on NSC, but unfortunately i have to live with the reality of this everyday.

I was talking about the destruction of police vehicles ( which happen to be taxpayers property so guess who's going to have to pay to replace them ! ) and the attacks on the Tory HQ. I'm sure the 14 police officers who ended up in hospital during that demonstration will be glad to hear you don't consider them human beings.

So basically, because there is violence in the world you believe it justifies yet more ? Strangely your argument sounds like two children bickering - "well Joe started it by hitting me so I shoved my pencil up his bum. He then whacked me over the head with his trumpet so I smashed his head into the wall .... etc ..... etc .... etc ". Violence does indeed breed violence but it doesn't justify it. In the case of the London student protest the police prepared badly - probably because they fully expected it to be peaceful. So one could argue the students started the violence this time and not the "state".

 

[sten_super]

In answer to your question I would male this point.

The current deficit is 73% of GDP. In 1945 the deficit was 250% of GDP, the government then introduced a NHS, made education compulsory for everyone under 14 and paid for it and introduced a wholse system of welfare designed to make life fairer for those at the bottom. This was paid for over the years by the increased productivity of having a nation with low unemployment all paying taxation.

The present government proposes paying for it by throwing half a million public sector workers onto a dole queue already heading to the 3 million mark. There are few jobs to replace them. If we follow this plan we will have a smaller economy with millions excluded from society and a few paying very little tax lording it over the rest of us.

Therefore we have two real choices if we dont want this. Either tax the top 20% of income earners an extra 5% and scrap trident. The revenue raised and saved would balance out the deficit.

Alternatively we can take the route opened up in 1945 of using what money we have to expand the economy to increase the numbers working and paying tax and spending and creating tax from profits. We should also tax the banks profits as a way of taking back the money that was used to bail them out. Then as the economy grows we can pay back the debt at a more comfortable rate.

This may seem a radical solution but Keynesianism is hardly the stuff of revolutions. It is also what everyone who has a mortgage does. Borrow a large sum to have somehwere to live now and pay it back over 25 years at an affordable rate lower than private rents.

Sorry to piss on your bonfire, but this is exactly what has been tried in the US. And it was so successful that Obama, who rode into the White House on an unheard of wave of optimism, is now looking like being a one-term president. The criticism subsequently from those that proposed the capital injection was that the legislation passed wasn't large enough (it was $787bn) which raises the question, how much would be enough?

At the same time, across the rest of the world (where funding is more difficult to procure, and generally the public finances in more of a mess than the US), pretty much every country has been following an austerity theme, cutting public expenditure. The results have been very mixed, but the consensus has been clear.

 

[beorhthelm]

The present government proposes paying for it by throwing half a million public sector workers onto a dole queue already heading to the 3 million mark. There are few jobs to replace them. If we follow this plan we will have a smaller economy with millions excluded from society and a few paying very little tax lording it over the rest of us.

sorry to inject some reality into your myopic world view, but 490000 job *cuts* do not mean half a million workers going on the dole. many will be early retirement, many more are unfilled vacancies and more yet do not even exist beyond plans for future projects now scraped. also, the private sector is already creating hundreds of thousands of jobs each quarter as the economy grows. the reaction to the governments policy (different only from labour's in the amount of cuts) has been the £ strengthen, the IMF, credit agencies and currency speculators leave us alone and investment has increased accordingly. in short the policy has apparently worked.

we cant "use the money we have" as we did in the 40's because we dont have any and the many provider, the US, doesnt either. running off to raise more loans would have seen us go the emulate Greece, Ireland etc who have adopted exactly the policy you advocate. opps. maybe if we hadnt run up such a big debt in the good years, we could have now borrowed some, but thats not an option we were left by previous government.

 

[Dandyman]

protesting against Topshop is utterly futile and anyone with a brain and half an understanding would know this. if Mrs Green gets £1billion tax free, it follows that Topshop has made alot more money and has already been taxed on this to the tune of 28%. Topshop itself has not avoided tax, so why protest against it?

if you object to Mrs Green's tax arragnments protest against her/Mr Green or the treasuary that allows the practice to continue. Each and every protestor there would happily use any means legally and relativly easily available to them to save their tax bill (assuming they have a job). Why should the owners of Topshop be different? will we be seeing a protest outside the clubs next weekend where doorman dont pay tax due to using an umbrella company? or maybe boycott all IT professions, plumbers, electrictians, etc who use shell companies to avoid paying full NI and claim lots of expenses to reduce the tax owed?

of course not. these protestors are just doing so for the sake of protesting, without much understanding of the issues.

I do hope you won't apply that logic to any of those frightful poor people who get a couple of pence too much on their benefit. flogging's too good for the likes of them, I say.

 

[beorhthelm]

I do hope you won't apply that logic to any of those frightful poor people who get a couple of pence too much on their benefit. flogging's too good for the likes of them, I say.

do you mean those that get a bit more because they are rightly deserving or as the result of oversights in the processing of their claims, or those that deliberatly lie and decieve to gain benefits, like those that claim incapacity while playing football every weekend, or in fact have a cash in hand job?
theres a difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. one is illegal and fraudulent, and should be stamped out. the other is legal and playing within the system and is open to all. if there is a problem with avoidance then the system itself should be targeted to fix problems, not those working within the specified rules.

 

[attila]

Just read this thread..
Tax avoidance should be illegal.
I pay my tax, fairly and honestly, and am proud to do so; as Ian McMillan said so eloquently on Radio 4 the other day, 'paying tax is one of the things that separates us from monkeys' Major corporations should do the same. Since all three parties, and the mainstream media, are in cahoots with the people who got us into this mess - the banks and the bankers - and seem intent on scapegoating the poorest in society while letting the real culprits get off scot free, protest at all those seen to be laughing in our faces is the only option.
As it was when we were saving the Albion. The pitch invasion/breaking the goalposts did NOT 'play into the hands of Archer, Stanley and Bellotti' - it ensured that our plight became national news, and the initial reports of 'hooliganism' were soon drowned out by a realisation that this was the desperate act of supporters determined to save their club. I'm sure Mrs. Archer and her kids didn't like our visits to her house. I'm sure Bellotti's neighbours weren't too keen on our visits to his. I'm sure the people behind us when we were 'shopping' at Focus DIY, filling our trolleys up with little items, getting them checked through causing huge hold ups and then walking away were really pissed off with us. Occasionally, direct action is the ONLY way forward. We should know that more than most!

 

[attila]

Oh, and the fact that something is 'not illegal' doesn't mean it's not WRONG. If the laws are made by people with a specific vested interest, there is a long, proud tradition, in this country and elsewhere, of militant action until they are changed. And, again as we know writing letters to your MP doesn't make it happen...

 

[binky]

Just read this thread..
Tax avoidance should be illegal.
I pay my tax, fairly and honestly, and am proud to do so...

In principle I agree with you, insofar as there does seem to be a lot of avoidance going on if all the claims are to be believed, but first you need to define exactly what you mean by avoidance.
Here are a couple of examples.

a) I buy a ski jacket in the US while on holiday. I pay US state sales tax of 8% on the transaction.
On return to the UK, I have a jacket on which I have paid no VAT. I have avoided the tax.
Should I be paying VAT on this item?

b) I order some goods from ebay from a seller based in Hong Kong. They total less than £18, which is the amount below which the customs and excise office deems it necessary to charge import duty and VAT.
The goods originate abroad, are delivered, and I have paid no import duty or VAT.
I have avoided the tax.
should I be paying it?

Both of these personal examples are analagous to the way multinational companies are arranging their affairs to minimise their tax bills and maximise returns to shareholders, who are largely pension funds and other investment vehicles used by savers.

So what is it, exactly, which you are calling tax avoidance, as opposed to tax evasion, which is already illegal?

 

[attila]

The use of offshore accounts, 'dividend payments' to spouses and all the specialist methods used by such institutions (which are by their very nature so labyrinthine that most of us don't understand them fully - part of their appeal to those who use them) These companies already make ridiculous amounts of money. If they paid tax like the rest of us have to they'd STILL make ridiculous amounts of money. But they have access to financial specialists whose entire professional lives are spent working out ways by which people who are already very rich can contribute as little as possible to the public purse. That is WRONG. All tax loopholes should be closed. If the Government spent as much time and specialist resources targeting the very rich as they do the very poor, the public finances would be in a far healthier state - but they won't, because all mainstream political parties rely on the patronage of such people, the mass media is owned by them too, and we all know that the number one rule for any politician who wishes to remain so is 'don't upset Mr. Murdoch..'

 

[Dave the OAP]

In principle I agree with you, insofar as there does seem to be a lot of avoidance going on if all the claims are to be believed, but first you need to define exactly what you mean by avoidance.
Here are a couple of examples.

a) I buy a ski jacket in the US while on holiday. I pay US state sales tax of 8% on the transaction.
On return to the UK, I have a jacket on which I have paid no VAT. I have avoided the tax.
Should I be paying VAT on this item?

b) I order some goods from ebay from a seller based in Hong Kong. They total less than £18, which is the amount below which the customs and excise office deems it necessary to charge import duty and VAT.
The goods originate abroad, are delivered, and I have paid no import duty or VAT.
I have avoided the tax.
should I be paying it?

Both of these personal examples are analagous to the way multinational companies are arranging their affairs to minimise their tax bills and maximise returns to shareholders, who are largely pension funds and other investment vehicles used by savers.

So what is it, exactly, which you are calling tax avoidance, as opposed to tax evasion, which is already illegal?

It is definitly avoidance...can you please put your address on here, I wish to come around and supergue my hand to your front door and shout loudly at your cat you inhuman scum.....

 

[Hotchilidog]

The use of offshore accounts, 'dividend payments' to spouses and all the specialist methods used by such institutions (which are by their very nature so labyrinthine that most of us don't understand them fully - part of their appeal to those who use them) These companies already make ridiculous amounts of money. If they paid tax like the rest of us have to they'd STILL make ridiculous amounts of money. But they have access to financial specialists whose entire professional lives are spent working out ways by which people who are already very rich can contribute as little as possible to the public purse. That is WRONG. All tax loopholes should be closed. If the Government spent as much time and specialist resources targeting the very rich as they do the very poor, the public finances would be in a far healthier state - but they won't, because all mainstream political parties rely on the patronage of such people, the mass media is owned by them too, and we all know that the number one rule for any politician who wishes to remain so is 'don't upset Mr. Murdoch..'

Absolutely. I really cannot understand why some people, who obviously work and pay their fair whack, are quite happy to be ripped off by these corporations. It is a scandal that they are allowed to get away with it. I've been in paid employment for the last 23years and paid up every penny of tax that I owe, I do not think it unreasonable to expect others to do the same.

 

[Dave the OAP]

Absolutely. I really cannot understand why some people, who obviously work and pay their fair whack, are quite happy to be ripped off by these corporations. It is a scandal that they are allowed to get away with it. I've been in paid employment for the last 23years and paid up every penny of tax that I owe, I do not think it unreasonable to expect others to do the same.

Does that also apply to football clubs who go into administration and end up only paying a penny or so in the pound to the inland revenue?

 

[Hotchilidog]

Does that also apply to football clubs who go into administration and end up only paying a penny or so in the pound to the inland revenue?

yep, it does.

 

[Stoo82]

Is it wrong for a poor person to have an offshore account?

 

[binky]

It is definitly avoidance...can you please put your address on here, I wish to come around and supergue my hand to your front door and shout loudly at your cat you inhuman scum.....

What has my cat done? Talk about punishing the innocent