[Archived] Extra ! Extra ! Read All About It !

[onlyonetugay]

But morally reprehensible if you've spent your entire life living in a country, benefiting from it's services and more than likely made your fortune through business started here.

That doesn't mean that JW is bad like you pointed at Jim, but it does mean the system is completely flawed.

I accept what you're saying

However certain posters can't have it both ways. You're on thin ice if you're spewing out bile aimed at the Conservative party and its supporters accusing them of tax dodging and saying we're all gullible and stupid for voting for them, but at the same time supporting a club whose modern success was built by a guy, who by your own definition, was a tax dodger.

That's gross hypocrisy of the highest order and goes to the root of the types who populate the Labour metropolitan elite, the " do as i say, not as I do." brigade. The problem for them is they just don't see it or maybe they do but it doesn't suit them to admit it.

Now that's the point I'm making, nothing to do with Jack Walker being bad. In no way did I point out to anyone that Jack was bad .

He fulfilled my dreams, my kids and thousands of others and I'll be eternally grateful . He totally naffed my Dad off, a Burnley fan ! See I'm like Cameron's Mum, I have a mind of my own !

[Al]

My total earnings are mine until the government steals it off me in tax. Whether they have it or not it is my money they are using. You are spinning the facts Jim and I am not having it.

[K-Hod]

I accept what you're saying

However certain posters can't have it both ways. You're on thin ice if you're spewing out bile aimed at the Conservative party and its supporters accusing them of tax dodging and saying we're all gullible and stupid for voting for them, but at the same time supporting a club whose modern success was built by a guy, who by your own definition, was a tax dodger.

That's gross hypocrisy of the highest order and goes to the root of the types who populate the Labour metropolitan elite, the " do as i say, not as I do." brigade. The problem for them is they just don't see it or maybe they do but it doesn't suit them to admit it.

Now that's the point I'm making, nothing to do with Jack Walker being bad. In no way did I point out to anyone that Jack was bad .

He fulfilled my dreams, my kids and thousands of others and I'll be eternally grateful . He totally naffed my Dad off, a Burnley fan ! See I'm like Cameron's Mum, I have a mind of my own !

Half of what you've said about 'certain posters' could easily be swung around and applied the other way so it's all relative anyway....

I expect a lot of people from the North in particular will never vote Tory for a whole host of reasons, and frankly, given what went on under Thatcher's watch I'm amazed anyone would be surprised by that.

[Baz]

Well if it's pretty boring reading the same things about Corbyn , Abbott , etc , then don't read them. You class war people ignore the fact that your front line troops are hypocrites. It goes to the core of what the Labour party purports to represent. . I'm trying to open your eyes a little wider........it'[s obviously not working.

If you take off your red tinted glasses you'll find that other people might have different opinions than you. If you can't cope with that then so be it, you obviously need to mature a little. Just because David Cameron has a political opinion, it doesn't mean his mother has to follow blindly. My Grandad was a socialist , my Dad was a Liberal councillor, but that doesn't mean I have to share their views. My Grandad welcomed my Dad's different opinions , my Dad welcomed mine . We certainly weren't embarrassed by them.

Right with regard to the conference , you said Nigel Farage invited the doctor , there is nowhere in the article that states that , so that's why I asked you if you'd read it , because if you had, you'd have known that , and wouldn't have made such an inaccurate statement. I was pointing out that the conference, which had various speakers, wasn't some sort of right wing conspiracy as it included a well respected Labour MP Graham Stringer. When you say that the conference wasn't "neutral" , not much in politics is , that's just something you'll just have to accept .

As far as how much the good doctor thinks is spent on health tourists and what his definition of health tourists is , I think you're better off emailing him to get an answer on that one.

Cut out the personal insults please. 'Class war people', 'need to mature' etc....

Making the same points over and over again doesn't make you right.

Why? Are Cameron's relatives supposed to be robots and agree with him 100% of the time?

I'm the eldest of 7. I have many aunts, uncles, cousins. Including my parents (now deceased) we had lively political debates around the kitchen table and the back porch during family gatherings. Some agreed on somethings sometimes and disagreed on others at other times.

Reasonable intelligent minds can disagree on many different political issues. That some would consider that an embarrassment is more a reflection on them, then it is on the two family members who have a difference of opinion.

Theres a big difference between a family difference of opinion, and the PMs family signing petitions against his political decisions. Surely you can see that?

[jim mk2]

My total earnings are mine until the government steals it off me in tax. Whether they have it or not it is my money they are using. You are spinning the facts Jim and I am not having it.

Where's the spin Al ? Government takes off tax in the form of national insurance and income tax to pay for all the public services that we all use every day of our lives, and keeps the streets and the nation safe. It's not "stealing" and it's not "your money". Your money is the money that is left once IT and NI have been deducted.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Where's the spin Al ? Government takes off tax in the form of national insurance and income tax to pay for all the public services that we all use every day of our lives, and keeps the streets and the nation safe. It's not "stealing" and it's not "your money". Your money is the money that is left once IT and NI have been deducted.

Think that's where we fundamentally disagree. Society elects the government and society funds it. It is our money and we're giving it to the government to pay for services we want/need. The government decides how much should be spent on those services but then as we collectively elect the government, in effect we decide how much we want to spend on them.

The government aren't heartless monsters withholding vast reserves of either their own money or money from some indeterminate but worry-free source. They are simply remaining consistent to the majority view that brought them into power, and how that majority wanted their hard earned and limited money that they've paid in tax spending. That view evidently from the election result being that our spiralling debt needs to be tackled and spending cuts need to be made to do that.

Its funny, when the 2008 crash occurred, the private sector started taking casualties by the bucketload immediately. Thousands of businesses went under and hundreds of thousands lost their jobs. Years later through the slow grinding of the political gears, the public sector are finally starting to take hits too and much wailing and rending of garments has ensued. Don't blame anyone, its a terrible thing to have to go through, but its worth pointing out that the junior doctors etc are by no means fighting the brave fight alone and persecuted. Its a lot more the case of welcome to the real world, this is what government overspending amongst other factors did to a heck of a lot of people quite a while ago.

[jim mk2]

Think that's where we fundamentally disagree. Society elects the government and society funds it. It is our money and we're giving it to the government to pay for services we want/need. The government decides how much should be spent on those services but then as we collectively elect the government, in effect we decide how much we want to spend on them.

The level of taxation and how that taxation money is spent is irrelevant and missing the point, which is (to repeat again) that "your" money is that which is left after government has taken off all taxes. That taxation money is no longer "your" money, but the government's to spend how it sees fit. If you think that taxation money is "your" money, try to reclaim it from HMRC or, even better, not paying it at all (Google, Starbucks et al might give you a few lessons). Good luck.

[Steve Moss]

He was asking Jim a question because Jim thinks tax avoidance is just as bad as tax evasion

Where's the spin Al ? Government takes off tax in the form of national insurance and income tax to pay for all the public services that we all use every day of our lives, and keeps the streets and the nation safe. It's not "stealing" and it's not "your money". Your money is the money that is left once IT and NI have been deducted.

The level of taxation and how that taxation money is spent is irrelevant and missing the point, which is (to repeat again) that "your" money is that which is left after government has taken off all taxes. That taxation money is no longer "your" money, but the government's to spend how it sees fit. If you think that taxation money is "your" money, try to reclaim it from HMRC or, even better, not paying it at all (Google, Starbucks et al might give you a few lessons). Good luck.

Jim, I don't think your positions can be reconciled. If the government determines what is taxable and what it not, and the taxable portion is the government's money, then tax payers who comply with the rules (what you call tax avoiders) are simply keeping their money. After all, the government made the rules which says it's the taxpayer's money if they do A, B and C.

[JBiz]

Think that's where we fundamentally disagree. Society elects the government and society funds it. It is our money and we're giving it to the government to pay for services we want/need. The government decides how much should be spent on those services but then as we collectively elect the government, in effect we decide how much we want to spend on them.

The government aren't heartless monsters withholding vast reserves of either their own money or money from some indeterminate but worry-free source. They are simply remaining consistent to the majority view that brought them into power, and how that majority wanted their hard earned and limited money that they've paid in tax spending. That view evidently from the election result being that our spiralling debt needs to be tackled and spending cuts need to be made to do that.

Its funny, when the 2008 crash occurred, the private sector started taking casualties by the bucketload immediately. Thousands of businesses went under and hundreds of thousands lost their jobs. Years later through the slow grinding of the political gears, the public sector are finally starting to take hits too and much wailing and rending of garments has ensued. Don't blame anyone, its a terrible thing to have to go through, but its worth pointing out that the junior doctors etc are by no means fighting the brave fight alone and persecuted. Its a lot more the case of welcome to the real world, this is what government overspending amongst other factors did to a heck of a lot of people quite a while ago.

Yes, private sector industry suffered in 2008. Not a result of public sector pay. Shouldn't we be trying to find those who'd make the wise choices to improve the "real world"?

I'd personally say it's naive to suggest that members of parliament are not completely out of touch. They may not be "heartless monsters", at least most aren't - but none represent the average existence of a person in this country.

Yes - the general voter is selecting a mandate as opposed to person. The problem is the persons or people charged with running the individual elements of the parties are ridiculously out of touch with their own responsibility. Thus mandates are made for tabloid readers and not future prospects.

Nicky Moron as I like to call her is responsible for making decisions that will impact future generations in our education system yet she is another privately educated politician, detached from the reality of her job.

I'm sick to death of the public taking sides based on past indiscretion or lean. At the end of the day, who was right or wrong means little to the future of the country.

On the other discussion;

How anybody who relies on public service of any kind, can support the selling off of public sector industry on the cheap to "friends" is beyond me. It's got nothing to do with being red or blue.

[onlyonetugay]

The personal tax allowance is £10,600 above which you pay tax at 20 per cent up to about £42,000 when the higher rate kicks in. If you are "choosing" not to pay tax, then presumably you are earning below the £10,600 level. If you are earning more than that level and not paying tax, then you are "choosing" to evade tax - which will result ultimately in nasty letters from HMRC and possibly a court appearance. It's your choice.

I think we're getting there, it is about "choosing"

Thanks for the specifying the tax thresholds, it'll make this explanation easier. For example , if I earn £20,000, I'd be taxed 20% on £9,400 income .According to you I'm not really earning that extra £9,400 , I'm earning £7520 because the 20% tax of £1880 is the government's money passed to them direct from my employer. ( if I've made a mess with the percentages please excuse my maths but hopefully you get the drift)

However that's where we differ . I could for example " salary sacrifice" that extra £9,400 ( as long as it doesn't mean I'm earning less than the NMW) into a personal pension , free of tax , so the government wouldn't get any of "their" £1,880 , because in reality it's mine, I've just found a way of not handing it over. I wouldn't get a letter from the HMRC and I wouldn't end up in court.

In reality, you could apply the same explanation to ISA's. If I save money , the tax on my interest is 20% , everyone has to pay that if they save . It's then passed directly from the bank/building society to the government , and I get my interest net of tax. According to your concept that has to be "their" money. Again in reality it's mine, if I put it in an ISA I've just found a way of not handing it over.

Now you might find the above incoherent nonsense , but that's your "choosing"

[jim mk2]

You're talking at cross purposes. Those are legitimate tax savings schemes and quite different from your original contention that the tax you pay to government is somehow "your money".

[onlyonetugay]

Well you've had perfectly rational explanations from Steve Moss and SKH , as well as from me, which I don't want to repeat in detail . It is my money, our money and the government wouldn't get a bean unless we earned it and chose to pay it . Once I've chosen to pay it , they're spending it on my behalf , on public services, debt interest, overseas development etc etc .

[jim mk2]

Jim, I don't think your positions can be reconciled. If the government determines what is taxable and what it not, and the taxable portion is the government's money, then tax payers who comply with the rules (what you call tax avoiders) are simply keeping their money. After all, the government made the rules which says it's the taxpayer's money if they do A, B and C.

There seems to be confusion here between legitimate tax savings schemes and the tax that the government eventually takes which some people say is "their money" and they seem to think they should have some sort of claim over it and how it is spent.

No one wants to pay more tax than they need to (although I don't know how tax avoidance schemes can be justified when essential public services are being slashed in the name of "austerity) but the idea that we have a "choice" and can earn as much as we like without having to pay any tax is a complete nonsense.

[onlyonetugay]

Another champagne socialist. She used to travel to the outskirts of Blackburn in a chauffeur driven government car, then hop into a Ford Anglia to drive into town.

Jim's only interested if they went to Eton, subscribing to his 'Lord Snooty' obsession.

.................and if she came up on the train , when it got to Crewe she'd change out of her London outfit and change into clothes she thought were more appropriate for her working class voters in Blackburn .

When the textile industry was suffering colossal job losses and closures in the 60's and employers were asking for tariffs to be strengthened to protect against cheap imports from India, she was heard to say - if the closure of a Blackburn mill means one opens in India then so be it

And they named a dual carriage way after the woman !

[Al]

Where's the spin Al ? Government takes off tax in the form of national insurance and income tax to pay for all the public services that we all use every day of our lives, and keeps the streets and the nation safe. It's not "stealing" and it's not "your money". Your money is the money that is left once IT and NI have been deducted.

Of course it is my money! I earned it and it shows on my pay slip before the government do their highway robbery bit. They take it without my permission and use it as they wish. If I were self employed they wouldn't be able to do it until I declared my earnings. What part of 'earnings' do you not understand?

[onlyonetugay]

Of course it is my money! I earned it and it shows on my pay slip before the government do their highway robbery bit. They take it without my permission and use it as they wish. If I were self employed they wouldn't be able to do it until I declared my earnings. What part of 'earnings' do you not understand?

I'm guessing Jim Mk2 is a public sector employee and doesn't want to face up to the fact that it's "our money" ( the private sector taxpayer) that pays his wage and part of his pension. I think that's the motivation behind his argument. If I was in the same position I might be tempted to do the same, although I'd struggle to convince myself !

[K-Hod]

I'm guessing Jim Mk2 is a public sector employee and doesn't want to face up to the fact that it's "our money" ( the private sector taxpayer) that pays his wage and part of his pension. I think that's the motivation behind his argument. If I was in the same position I might be tempted to do the same, although I'd struggle to convince myself !

I don't know Jim personally, and I'm sure he'll speak for himself soon, but from the bits I've gathered on here I'd say that's two swings and two misses!

[Dean]

Of course it is my money! I earned it and it shows on my pay slip before the government do their highway robbery bit. They take it without my permission and use it as they wish. If I were self employed they wouldn't be able to do it until I declared my earnings. What part of 'earnings' do you not understand?

Your "earnings" wouldn't be possible without the infrastructure created by governments of this country. If you think that's wrong, go and try and earn money in a third world country without the infrastructure we have.

As for "take it without permission" and "use it as they wish"...seriously? We're a democratic country. Maybe you should learn what that means.

[yoda]

Where did the money come from to pay for the infrastructure?

[Dean]

Where did the money come from to pay for the infrastructure?

You talk about it like it's an organic, natural resource. Where do I think it came from? A bank printed it.

The infrastructure came before our capability to 'earn' money. Of course it did. How would we have the ability to develop it, distribute it, keep it, protect it, value it...I could go on and on and on, but I could also smack my head against a wall for the same result. So I won't.

[yoda]

Actually entrepreneurs created it. Governments do not do that, so I suggest you keep banging your head on the wall until you realise just how the world, especially the western world functions

[Dean]

Actually entrepreneurs created it. Governments do not do that, so I suggest you keep banging your head on the wall until you realise just how the world, especially the western world functions

Entrepreneurs created money? Right.

[yoda]

Entrepreneurs created money? Right.

Not very bright are you. To create wealth/money you have to add value. Governments do not do that. With out it no taxes are available for the government of the day to @#/? it up against a wall

[Dean]

Not very bright are you. To create wealth/money you have to add value. Governments do not do that. With out it no taxes are available for the government of the day to @#/? it up against a wall

You still seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what money actually is. Leaving that (rather important) point aside, entrepreneurs have the capability to be successful because they (and potential employees) have access to our education system, our health system, our justice system, our transport system. That's just scratching the surface. It's simply not possible to be successful without it.

And if you think the entrepreneurs are entirely self sufficient, stick them in the middle of somewhere like Aleppo or Somalia (or anywhere else where the infrastructure you seem to take for granted has broken down), and see how much money they earn there.

[ultrablue]

Well said Dean. But of course they wouldnt be trying to earn money there per se. Money without good governance is worthless. They would be bartering for protection, shelter and food.

Taxes and govt. are essential for business and business is essential for govt. The only valid point of contention is how much the govt. needs to take from each citizen in order to provide what the businesses need.