They are bent, greedy, hapless....& running the country

[BLOCK F]

For me personally, MPs expenses is annoying, but not a big drain on our country. What annoys me the most is this news that companies like Starbucks, Amazon etc can write off their profit and pay no tax (same thing for Jimmy car etc). It's costing our country so much that it's going to effect our lives, and it should simply be stopped.

Don't Starbucks basically sell themselves coffee from Switzerland, and they sell it as such a price that Starbucks UK makes no profit? We could all do that - we just sell ourselves stationary at a made up rate that wipes out our profits. It's f'ing mental.

IF the Government and its citizens do not like this kind of tax avoidance going on then it is up to the Governments of the countries affected to change the laws.
Reckon it might be easier said than done though;although I am certainly no expert on taxation law!

 

[Triggaaar]

The ironic thing here is that Margaret Hodge MP who chairs the 'Public Accounts Committee', she was the one asking all the 'difficult' questions last week to Starbucks, Google & Amazon. Well it transpires that her family company called 'Stemcor' are doing exactly the same thing.

Bloody hell

They'll "get away with it" because they've done nothing illegal. Their priority is to maximise the money they make

I agree with you there. Their job is to maximise profits, the governments job is to remove the loopholes.

and every company and every individual would do the same if they could (if you say you wouldn't, I don't believe you).

You're wrong. Jimmy Carr has done it, Chris Moyles too I believe, and no doubt many many more, but that doesn't mean everyone would. Most of us would probably like to save a bit and take advantage of the odd loophole, but many of us want to pay more than 1% tax. I know that if I was earning £3m a year I would not want to be getting away with 1% tax.

The rules should be changed to stop it though, certainly.

And we agree again. That's all this is - someone found a loophole, the government should stop it (should have been stopped as soon as someone claimed it).

IF the Government and its citizens do not like this kind of tax avoidance going on then it is up to the Governments of the countries affected to change the laws.

Of course.

Reckon it might be easier said than done though;although I am certainly no expert on taxation law!

Me neither, but come on, if a government can't stop this, then what's the point in having a government. We could all do it, and suddenly the government's revenue is more than halved.

It's simple - buying stock (or any other form of expense) has to be at market rate if it's not an arms length transaction. So, buying coffee from your own company has to be at a fair price, and not an inflated price to reduce profits. HMRC has the power to adjust the figures to market rates for tax purposes. All those in favour say aye

 

[Dub-67]

Aye

 

[abc]

Well unfortunately, the public are as thick as shit. We'd rather vote for someone that we know is lying, than someone that admits their mistakes. That's how politics works. It's easier for a party to convince us not to vote for the other party if they've admitted making mistakes. It's like when if the public don't like an idea and the government do what the public want, we're not happy, we're too busy shouting U turn.

It's up to us to make more of a big deal about it. It's so easy to get our views across these days with the internet, we could have sites where people put their wish list together. Things like expenses would be easy, as none of us like it and it's not party specific. It could be law for all MPs expenses to be public, and we can have a running tab on them all.

QUOTE]

The seminal moment was when the Country re elected Tony Blair knowing he has had lied and then took us to war in Iraq. People looked at their personal finances, job prospects and decided these were more important than whether or not our PM was honest. The message has been clear every since: Politicians don't have to be honest to be elected.

We get the politicians we deserve

 

[User removed 4]

There are a few decent ones, Frank Field and David Davies spring to mind .

 

[Meade's Ball]

Complete self-interest, a feature worn most proudly by the rich, tends to be a part of the mission to depoliticise a people, a society. Once the sense of community is evaporated, once empathy and pride is replaced by acridity and jealousy and opulence, how can the will to vote and wish to be involved be a part of the majority's lives? The answer is never to drill it into people of adulthood that they ought to care, even when one might think they probably should, but just to look to have enough of politics as a subject in curriculi around the country to get enough people interested at an early enough age. English lit, english lang, economics, geography, history, philosophy, french and german as subjects all have a loose essence of politics in their midst, so there'd be nothing unholy or completely random in making politics a subject for all for a year or so the year before GCSE choices are made. Surely we don't just want schools to be the producers of worldbeating chemists or advertising executives or designers of cucumber-powered engines. I want them to give a shit a bit about those around them and those elsewhere, or to despise them completely, but at least have an education behind their viewpoints.

 

[Norman Potting]

[h=1]“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” [/h]Winston Churchill

Can you imagined a society run by the Political equivalent of NSC? Why not go the whole way and replace the courts by a tabloid sponsored phone/text system of guilty/not guilty based on what they write, with a lucky random winner getting the chance to pull the lever??

 

[Nibble]

The government (whichever one is in power) have essentially accomplished nothing in the last 64 years. Sure, they have added and subtracted bits and bobs depending whether they are right or left leaning but essentially they work within and adjust the system to their own benefit, if sections of the population benefit or lose out due to their tinkering they ignore it as they know they will only be in power for a relatively short time and as long as they live a good a life as they can while in power and set themselves up a nice retirement fund they couldn't give a tinker's f*** whether you or I prosper or perish. They work on short term, inconsequential agendas that deliver them the best return. It's abhorrant.

 

[Twizzle]

Or maybe they just don't give a shit because nothing's gonna change and they can't be arsed to look into it too deeply?

Although that argument falls down if you bother to vote

Unfortunately the people you refer to "they" who are charged with the responsibility and power over the situation are on the same 'make' if not worse.
Thus they won't debag the sprats for nibbling while they take big chunks off the carcass.
USA dodged a thieving bastard bullet of corruption called Mitt Romney, but our rot had long set in. 'They' even manage to legalize their crimes!

 

[Icy Gull]

Unfortunately the people you refer to "they" who are charged with the responsibility and power over the situation are on the same 'make' if not worse.
Thus they won't debag the sprats for nibbling while they take big chunks off the carcass.
USA dodged a thieving bastard bullet of corruption called Mitt Romney, but our rot had long set in. 'They' even manage to legalize their crimes!

I was actually referring to "the general public" rather than the politicians, in response to Triggaar who stated that the public are thick as pig shit!

 

[GreersElbow]

Companies want to make a higher turnover, rather profit. Profit is taxed, not turnover. This is why companies put through their expenses as much as possible. Because they can withdraw dividends which up to £40,000 are not taxed personally.
Anyone to think companies want the highest amount of profit possible need to look into how tax works. It's more efficient to declare expenses and therefore write down your profit in order to avoid as much tax as possible.

 

[Nibble]

There are a few decent ones, Frank Field and David Davies spring to mind .

The same David Davies that professes to support civil liberties while opposing gay rights, calling for the death penalty to be re-introduced and happens to deny man-made climate change exists? Yes, smashing bloke.

 

[User removed 4]

The same David Davies that professes to support civil liberties while opposing gay rights, calling for the death penalty to be re-introduced and happens to deny man-made climate change exists? Yes, smashing bloke.

thats the one , top man

 

[BLOCK F]

The same David Davies that professes to support civil liberties while opposing gay rights, calling for the death penalty to be re-introduced and happens to deny man-made climate change exists? Yes, smashing bloke.

Oh no,not denying 'man made climate change'.What a terrible man he must be to use a bit of commonsense and not believe all the hysteria that has been around for the last few years.
Thought most rational people were at last realising that the effect that man has on 'climate change' has been,let us just say,rather exaggerated!

 

[BadFish]

Oh no,not denying 'man made climate change'.What a terrible man he must be to use a bit of commonsense and not believe all the hysteria that has been around for the last few years.
Thought most rational people were at last realising that the effect that man has on 'climate change' has been,let us just say,rather exaggerated!

Yes it is easier than dealing with it.

 

[sten_super]

Yes it is easier than dealing with it.

I find the dicotomy around man-made climate change interesting. Amongst suitably-qualified scientists an overwhelming majority (I've seen numbers in excess of 95%) believe that man-made climate change is a reality. Yet amongst the general population (who, let's face it, on both sides of the argument, don't understand much of the science) opinion is much more split. I'm not sure whether this is down to poor communication, poor understanding or (what you get at) that the impact on our lives is easier to ignore than really attempting significant behavioural change. Of course even strident 'believers' don't tend to do everything that they should to mitigate their impact on the environment.

 

[BadFish]

I find the dicotomy around man-made climate change interesting. Amongst suitably-qualified scientists an overwhelming majority (I've seen numbers in excess of 95%) believe that man-made climate change is a reality. Yet amongst the general population (who, let's face it, on both sides of the argument, don't understand much of the science) opinion is much more split. I'm not sure whether this is down to poor communication, poor understanding or (what you get at) that the impact on our lives is easier to ignore than really attempting significant behavioural change. Of course even strident 'believers' don't tend to do everything that they should to mitigate their impact on the environment.

Good post

Don't forget the concerted and organiseds effort by those with a vested interest to muddy the waters.

 

[Nibble]

Oh no,not denying 'man made climate change'.What a terrible man he must be to use a bit of commonsense and not believe all the hysteria that has been around for the last few years.
Thought most rational people were at last realising that the effect that man has on 'climate change' has been,let us just say,rather exaggerated!

It's a toughy because the reality is it is hard to prove either way. The effects man has likely had on the environment are hard to quantify as to attain unequivocable data one needs to study the climate for a very long time period. The notion of man made climate change has only been around for 4 or 5 decades and only studied seriously in the last 3, hence it is hard to prve categorically. However, the accelerated rate of climate change over the past 3 decades would suggest something not entirely down to natural weather patterns is occurring. From my point of view it is best to assume the worst, that we are having a detrimental impact and to act on that as it is better than doing nowt and realising too late that we could have done something. If indeed, it's not too late already.