I consider myself non political with no leaning to any party. However the fact is the country is broke and debts have to be paid back .Whatever party won last election with debts weve got was in a no win situation. Personaly with situation we are in I don't think Tories are doing bad job. By making unpopular decisions means they may lose next election. If Labour were in power they would also lose next election but country would be in worst state. Of course solving tax avoidance has to be a priority but as the rich contribute some 80% of total tax as well as employing a lot of people the answer is not to just go after them. To sum up what on earth is the protest about. What does where Cameron invested £30000 few years ago got to do with how he runs country. It is so easy to be in opposition and against everything and promise the earth.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,201
Don't bother with the arguing, you have got your message across and your thread may well encourage a few more to go. If other people are happy with the status quo then so be it. You are always going to encounter people critical of your point of view (especially on here
), just ignore them and get on with what you believe to be right.Job done, I say
I will be with you in spirit, I hope the protest helps to bring on the start of real system change and you get some politicians that represent the people instead of themselves, their cronies and and those that pay.
If you do could you send a few down this way.
1
1066gull
Guest
- Thread starter
- #64
The debt has doubled and the defecit has increased since Osborne became Chancellor. He promised us it would be done in five years. He now says it won't be until another seven years before he gets the surplus. Austerity is a political choice and their leadership has been about giving concessions to the few
Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk
1
1066gull
Guest
- Thread starter
- #65
When loads of millenials like myself and my friends are stuck in the rent trap while their mates are stuffing offshore accounts, that's when politics really matters and things have to change
Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk
smudge
Up the Albion!
If it was a protest like "no to war in Iraq" then fair enough, power to the people; but there will just be a load of posh yobs in black hoodies who want to smash up a Starbucks etc. Best way to protests is at the ballot box.
I'm one of these millenials and honestly the forces of the 'rent gap' are beyond any government to fix. They can build houses, that's about it. The fundamental point that there is less pie that needs to be split between more people is not an issue any single government can solve. If possible move to Berlin, good housing, affordable, global city.
1
1066gull
Guest
- Thread starter
- #68
Because we have not been meeting housing supply needs for over thirty years. Thatcher sowed the seeds of the free market but she failed to invest in building the homes. Corbyn heckled Thatcher many times about the homelessness in the eighties and now since 2010 homelessness is on the rise again. The problem is no successive government hasn't invested in the homes we need, not even Blair who built on the free markets. Basically, if you made money you are fine and by doing that he took away the fundamental services we take for granted. He reduced the numbers in the police, firefighters, began the defunding of the NHS and he'd blame the problems on Al qaeda and Iraq. And Eastern Europeans. Of all the services Thatcher sold out, the one thing she didn't touch was the NHS because she know how important it was and who would have thought a Labour Prime Minister bankrolled by Bernie Ecclestone and Alan Sugar at the time would be undermining the performance of our health service. It's got so much worse now under Cameron, but he has only continued what Blair started. Some people have been crying out for a Democratic socialist government long before I was born.
Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk
1
1066gull
Guest
- Thread starter
- #69
Now people on the right side blame Muslims and refugees.
10 years ago it was Eastern Europeans such as the Polish and romanians.
In the 80s it was the Irish.
Maybe have a look at how the system is set up before blaming the people who can't defend themselves.
Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk
10 years ago it was Eastern Europeans such as the Polish and romanians.
In the 80s it was the Irish.
Maybe have a look at how the system is set up before blaming the people who can't defend themselves.
Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk
That was on unearned income.
You don't seem to be sitting on the fence much. Firstly, I think you fall into the trap of comparing a countries economy with that of a household. A household generally has fixed income where as a country prints it's own money! When the economy grows then tax revenues grow. As for the country being broke you fell for the 'were just like the Greeks' headlines.
Finally, you need to get the facts right. Cameron invested about £12k and sold it 13 years later for £30k. How you think it has nothing to do with how he runs the country then words fail me. He has criticised other celebrities (especially those that back Labour) for the use of tax avoidance schemes that were set up in tax havens yet has used them himself. He has released careful but still ambiguous statements about the benefits he has had from this fund. HIs moral compass seems to be all over the place and this is the guy you trust to make decisions for the benefit of the rest of us.
AlastairWatts
Active member
Oh come on. The whole thing is a non-story and he is apparently going to publish his tax returns. I'd recommend buying a decent jigsaw if you have that much time on your hands...
Don't bother with the arguing, you have got your message across and your thread may well encourage a few more to go. If other people are happy with the status quo then so be it. You are always going to encounter people critical of your point of view (especially on here
Job done, I say
I will be with you in spirit, I hope the protest helps to bring on the start of real system change and you get some politicians that represent the people instead of themselves, their cronies and and those that pay.
If you do could you send a few down this way.
Yup I'd agree with this. You've made your point, dont get into an argument with people that will never agree with you anyway. Many do agree with you, and will feel encouraged by what you say. Good luck and well done.
Medwayseagull
JCB
That is a bit rich coming from an ex-pat isn't it ?
I would certainly consider joining a protest on tax avoidance, but not one that specifically calls upon Cameron to resign.
If he were to resign who would appear in Cameron's place? The place wouldn't become a socialist utopia overnight, indeed Boris Johnson would probably be voted in and because people like his bumbling fool act, he'd be harder for an opposition party to hold to account whilst keeping the public onside and Johnson is far more right-wing than people seem to expect. Be careful what you wish for, people!
On tax avoidance in general, it leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. We have a deficit fundamentally because we spend too much and our tax receipts are low, if we claimed the tax lost from corporate tax avoidance alone, we would have an extremely sizeable surplus. It grates me that us taxpayers are asked to pay for cuts in public services, effectively subsidising the lifestyles of a few very well off tax avoiders.
As someone that is fairly Liberal-minded, the other element of tax avoidance I'm not fond of is how it harms competition and the growth of small business. Not everyone has the opportunity to avoid income tax- including mugs like me on PAYE. My view on general is that everyone should be able to make the same choices, so if tax is a choice for the few, it should be a choice for all.
I'd also add my gripe isn't with those who actually avoid tax, it's the system. The real debate right now shouldn't be 'should Cameron resign?' (though there are clear conflicts of interest appearing) it should be 'how do we tackle tax avoidance'- I'm sure there is no easy answer but it is an issue we desperately need to tackle.
If he were to resign who would appear in Cameron's place? The place wouldn't become a socialist utopia overnight, indeed Boris Johnson would probably be voted in and because people like his bumbling fool act, he'd be harder for an opposition party to hold to account whilst keeping the public onside and Johnson is far more right-wing than people seem to expect. Be careful what you wish for, people!
On tax avoidance in general, it leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. We have a deficit fundamentally because we spend too much and our tax receipts are low, if we claimed the tax lost from corporate tax avoidance alone, we would have an extremely sizeable surplus. It grates me that us taxpayers are asked to pay for cuts in public services, effectively subsidising the lifestyles of a few very well off tax avoiders.
As someone that is fairly Liberal-minded, the other element of tax avoidance I'm not fond of is how it harms competition and the growth of small business. Not everyone has the opportunity to avoid income tax- including mugs like me on PAYE. My view on general is that everyone should be able to make the same choices, so if tax is a choice for the few, it should be a choice for all.
I'd also add my gripe isn't with those who actually avoid tax, it's the system. The real debate right now shouldn't be 'should Cameron resign?' (though there are clear conflicts of interest appearing) it should be 'how do we tackle tax avoidance'- I'm sure there is no easy answer but it is an issue we desperately need to tackle.
Last edited:
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
As the parent of a child on the autistic spectrum, I would love to read those articles since the proposition is illogical - why give someone a drug that heightens their senses when their senses are already on the verge of overloading? Please send links. Thanks.
A few things I'd throw in in response here:
The country does have debts and a deficit that needs to tackled, if alone for the amount we waste on interest, but we are not broke. It's not unusual to run a deficit coming out of a recession, indeed, it is often expected as Governmenrs often choose to undertake various stimulus packages. My argument would be that we are now experiencing extremely modest growth, in part thanks to the fact we haven't been able to invest. Statistics from the last Parliament seem to back me up- the deeper the spending cuts, the more growth was held back, as such we're fighting an uphill battle. Whilst there is undoubtedly savings to be made, I feel the number one priority should be growth and if that growth leads to an increase in tax receipts, we will eliminate the deficit and start to bring down the national debt. Given Cameron's potentially involvement with avoidance, a conflict of interest is appearing- how can you be serious about monetarily bringing down the deficit if you're so lax about tax revenues and the impact avoidance has.
Difficult to imagine what a Labour Government would be like- particularly with Corbyn and McDonnell at the helm, but it's worth noting that the last elected Labour Government ran a surplus and before the Recession was running a deficit lower as a percentage of GDP than what they inherited from the Conservatives. Also worth noting that the Conservatives backed Labour on the amount they were spending. The big mistake was deregulation of the financial sector- something that the Conservatives argued Labour weren't going far enough on. It's certainly arguable that certain parties may do worse jobs than others, but the narrative that the Tories are economically competent, Labour economically illiterate doesn't tell the full story. Am no longer a Labour supporter myself, for the record.
Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,319
I agree mate but know little about it. It's people posting on here with such different opinions and different 'facts' that gets me - well someone's wrong!?
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Not according to the Beatles.
Agreed. And it brings up a question.
I don't want to be unfair on him, but is Boris likely or unlikely to also be someone with offshore investments ?