224939 Bullies, 3716 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 21 to 30 of 99
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 123 4567 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. adskibullus is online now

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Britannia
    Posts
    402

    Posted On:
    12/27/2012 7:38pm


     Style: Lifting heavy stuff

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    The revenue from the top 1% isn't 'lost', they're just refusing to give it to you in the first place. Not giving somebody something, is not the same as taking it from them. Important moral distinction.

    Secondly, the top 1% of people even if they apply enormous effort to tax avoidance still tend to pay more in taxation than they cost the state (if they aren't bankers or making most of their income selling something to the government), and more than an employee earning the median wage.

    The idea that you're being ripped off by most of the 1% is mythical.
    From my sources ( UK uncut) if we taxed the top 1% richest like voda phone , star bucks, boots etc who don't pay tax at 29% the budget defict would be paid buy 70% in one year.
  2. judoka_uk is offline
    judoka_uk's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,619

    Posted On:
    12/27/2012 7:44pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: Judo

    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by adskibullus View Post
    we have the same sense of entitlement over hear in the UK. When I left school many other kids decided it was totally fine to leave school and go straight onto benefits. Young girls got pregnant beta cause they knew they would get free social housing if the were a single parent. But where did this mentality come from? Why do people feel the need not to better them selfs and just let the state care for them?
    Because we have a benefit system that has the state as the main provider. When it was set up one of the 5 evils that it was supposed to combat was idleness.

    However, once you involve the state in welfare the bill to the tax payer will grow exponentially and the disincentives for not working will only increase inexorable.

    This was not always the case and throught the 19th and earlier 20th centuries there were a myriad of private welfare providers. Such as the Friendly Societies, these were set up and run by working people and provided private health insurance, sickness and unemployment benefits and pensions. For small weekly sums people in some of the lowest paid jobs in the country were able to band together and provide private schemes that would look after them in times of hardship.

    Many of these still exist such as Benenden Healthcare Society, founded in 1905 to look after postal workers suffering from Tuberculosis, later expanded to all civil servants. It still to this day provides a private healthcare scheme for members from as little as 7 a month, has it's own private hospital set in leafy grounds in Kent.

    In the factory towns in the North of England and the Midlands there were factory benefit schemes. Workers banded together to form a mutual and your paid your few pennies or schillings a week into the scheme and then if you were ill, unemployed or retired the scheme would pay you until you got better, or found a job and would provide you with a pension.

    It's only since the post 1945 Labour government tried to turn Britain into a socialist country that we've fallen for this lie that without the state people and especially ordinary workers will die in the cold if they're unemployed or ill. It simply is not true.

    My Grandmother contracted polio in 1947, before the NHS existed, while she was on holiday in Western Super Mare her father a sheet metal worker in a factory in Coventry, bicycled down to her in Weston.

    While he was off work he had his wages paid from the factory mutual and the medical bills to treat my Grandmother, his daughter in a hopsital were also paid for by the workers mutual.

    This was all before the NHS which only came into existence a year later in 1948, if a sheet metal worker in a factory in Coventry could be supported out of work and in paying medical bills for a debilitating condition like polio without the state. There is absolutely no reason that people in 2012 couldn't be supported in sickness, unemployment and retirement without the state.

    Quote Originally Posted by adskibullus View Post
    same here in the UK themoney spent on welfare is tiny compared to lost tax revenue from the tip 1% richest in the UK who don't pay tax due to legal tax evasion. Yet the media only look at the poor on benifits or immigrants and blame them.
    I suspect you've been duped by some Richard Murphy bollocks here.

    The top 1% of income earners pay 26% of all income tax, the top 0.1% (30,000 people) pay 11% of all income tax. Large businesses pay 60% of all taxes in the UK.

    Those are the treasuries own figures and they ought to know: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/speech_xst_230712.htm

    Richard Murphy who is UK Uncuts/ the TUCs tame bullshit tax 'expert' is usually the source of lies about the tax gap. He has been called on his lies by HMRC and the Treasury in parliament, yet keeps on lieing, because he gets paid substantial sums of money to produce bullshit reports by the TUC and others in his role for the Tax Justice Network and others.

    The tax gap was about 32bn last year, however, about 90% of that is due to late payment or bankruptcy. It is simply untrue to say it's due to tax avoidance, by wealthy individuals or big companies.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19992942

    UK Welfare spending was 87bn in 2010, I can't find 2011 figures, http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...lition-welfare

    So given that welfare spending is 2.7 times the tax gap and that 90% of the tax gap is due to bankruptcy and late payment, it is totally untrue to say that wealthy people are avoiding tax in excess of the benefits bill or that we could plug even half of the benefits bill by cracking down on 'tax avoidance'.

    This is without even addressing the fact that the majority of the welfare bill is pension and tax credits to working people, not unemployment or disability benefits, thanks to the labour governments introduction of 'universal welfare', which sucks millions of working people into the insane situation where they're being taxed on their small income then having a small piece of that tax given back to them in a child tax credit. It's totally bonkers.

    What government should be doing is taking everyone who earns minimum wage or less out of tax and abolishing taxing people in order to then administer a payment back to them of their own money via a tax credit.
  3. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526

    Posted On:
    12/27/2012 7:54pm

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by adskibullus View Post
    From my sources ( UK uncut) if we taxed the top 1% richest like voda phone , star bucks, boots etc who don't pay tax at 29% the budget defict would be paid buy 70% in one year.
    Only if you didn't cause them to shed staff, reduce dividend payments (which would impact people's pensions and a host of other companies, like insurers) or withdraw from the UK by doing so. Which you almost certainly would.

    Another way to cut the deficit would be to spend less, but UKUncut won't give you realistic information about that because they are a left-wing campaign group dedicated to preserving the incomes of union members paid by the taxpayer.
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
  4. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526

    Posted On:
    12/27/2012 7:58pm

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by adskibullus View Post
    Exactly like I was saying about the teen mothers , it pays more to be on benifits than it does to get a part time job which is what they need there isn't enough well paid flexible hours jobs around. But what the answer cut benifits to single mums and see the children suffer or up the minimum wage that struggling business can't afford?
    One answer would be to consider some kind of citizens-income based welfare system. You wouldn't cut people's benefits for earning more, but their benefits would count against their tax bill, so people with well-paid full time jobs wouldn't in effect be getting 'free money', but nobody on the margins would ever feel like taking a part-time job was going to leave them poorer.

    Housing benefit has to be reformed more harshly than it already has been though, it's just distorting the housing-market and acting as a subsidy to landlords.
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
  5. judoka_uk is offline
    judoka_uk's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,619

    Posted On:
    12/27/2012 8:06pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: Judo

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by adskibullus View Post
    From my sources ( UK uncut) if we taxed the top 1% richest like voda phone , star bucks, boots etc who don't pay tax at 29% the budget defict would be paid buy 70% in one year.
    Yup more Richard Murphy/ UKUncut lies.

    I'll address Vodafone first because they're the most cited example by UK Uncut and the anti-capitalist tax fibbers.

    Vodafone's tax arrangements were 100% legal in fact not only were they 100% legal they were actually complying with exactly how the EU wants companies to operate in the single market i.e the letter and the spirit of the law, remember EU law trumps UK law.

    First two things tax avoidance and tax evasion are two different things. Tax avoidance is really tax compliance i.e complying with the tax code in a way that you pay the minimum amount of tax legally owed. Tax evasion is tax non-compliance where you deliberately don't comply with the tax code to pay less than the minimum amount of tax legally owed.

    Vodafone were tax compliant, however, the crux was that Vodafone were tax compliant with EU law. EU law states that you can set up in any country in the EU and then trade to and with any other country in the EU, it's what that single market thing is all about. However, UK controlled foreign companies (CFCs) is inconsistent with European law.

    Under European law Vodafone was only required to pay tax on it's EU wide profits at the rates of the EU country it's headquartered in. However, UK law was in breach of EU law and said that Vodafone had to also pay tax.

    Vodafone and HMRC thus went to the courts to decide which had priority UK or EU law, the upshot of which was what that Vodafone and HMRC settled out of court, when it became apparent to HMRC that not only would they lose, but that when they lost. Hundreds of other companies would be able to take them to court using the Vodafone case as precedent to reclaim millions and billions of pounds in illegitimate tax.

    Richard Murphy and UK uncut have willfully and consistently misrepresented this case, despite HMRC coming out and saying their figures are lies
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11658950

    This is because for UK uncut and Murphy this isn't about justice or the rule of law, this is about people ideologically opposed to capitalism trying to impose their ideology in defiance of the rule of law on companies to extort money from them that they do not owe.

    Starbucks, Boots and Facebook all fall under the same situation. They trade out of low tax EU jurisdictions i.e Ireland and Switerland and under EU law are only required to pay tax on their EU wide activities in the states they're headquartered in. HMRC know this, the companies know this and anyone even vaguely familiar with tax know this, even UK Uncut know this.

    However, because they're bizarrely both ideologically wedded to the EU and to their anti-capitalist cause they can't bring themselves to acknowledge the real cause of their angst are EU single market rules so make up stories about how various companies are breaking the law and avoiding tax, when they're not. They're simply complying with laws that UK Uncut either are too stupid to understand or are wilfully ignoring.
    Last edited by judoka_uk; 12/27/2012 8:09pm at .
  6. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526

    Posted On:
    12/27/2012 8:13pm

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    You'll also note that Vodafone the company may not be paying much corporation tax, but they are certainly paying a fucking hell of a lot of payroll tax on their UK employees. And any Vodafone shareholders in the UK are paying tax on their dividends. And all the vodafone employees in the UK are paying tax on their wages (including the top 1% of highly paid management who are resident in the UK). And all the people in the UK who sell things to vodafone pay tax on their incomes.

    It's really not vodafone's fault that we have a deficit. You might want to talk to some TUC members about exactly how generous their pension schemes are compared to the private sector workers who fund them are though. That definitely contributes to the deficit.
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
  7. Auszi is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    432

    Posted On:
    12/27/2012 8:15pm


     Style: BJJ Beginner

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I was briefly on unemployment benefits when I was in the UK, I remember some of the jobs that were available, would have meant me getting paid ridiculously low amount of money and working long hours 6-7 days a week.

    I have found that once you have a job it's much easier to then get another job but I felt the type of job above would have left me too tired and not much better off money wise to look for anything better in effect locking me into a cycle of working poor. This kind of 'job offer' felt exploitative on behalf the employer and it was one of many that I saw, an attitude that came across in few employers that I met.
  8. adskibullus is online now

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Britannia
    Posts
    402

    Posted On:
    12/28/2012 4:11am


     Style: Lifting heavy stuff

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    It's all well and good saying that private health care and mutuals can provide health care but what would be in place to protect the workers who paid in if these mutuals go bust? Like when firms who provided private pensions went bust and left many people who were due for retirement out of pocket.

    Ok so I now see that UK uncut aren't as honest as they seem and have their own agenda. But the coalition government are still cutting benifits to the most vulnerable members of society. Take for instance the budget for social services in London. The richest areas like kennisgton are having the smallest reduction in budget where's as some of the poorest and most troubled areas like hackney are having huge budget reductions, meaning less social workers doing more work and more vulnerable people suffering.

    Why not tax the super rich that bit extra? They can afford it, would they really leave the country if they had to pay more tax? The coalition government want to make the poor poorer which just leads to more desperation and more crime .
  9. Cullion is offline
    Cullion's Avatar

    Everybody was Kung Fu fighting

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    6,526

    Posted On:
    12/28/2012 5:38am

    supporting member
     Style: Tai Chi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by adskibullus View Post
    It's all well and good saying that private health care and mutuals can provide health care but what would be in place to protect the workers who paid in if these mutuals go bust? Like when firms who provided private pensions went bust and left many people who were due for retirement out of pocket.
    Some questions for you to consider:-

    i) How often did mutuals go bust historically?

    ii) What protects people when the state goes bust ?

    Ok so I now see that UK uncut aren't as honest as they seem and have their own agenda. But the coalition government are still cutting benifits to the most vulnerable members of society. Take for instance the budget for social services in London. The richest areas like kennisgton are having the smallest reduction in budget where's as some of the poorest and most troubled areas like hackney are having huge budget reductions, meaning less social workers doing more work and more vulnerable people suffering.

    Why not tax the super rich that bit extra? They can afford it, would they really leave the country if they had to pay more tax? The coalition government want to make the poor poorer which just leads to more desperation and more crime .
    Lots of super-rich people really would leave the country. Here's the thing that the left just don't get about extremely wealthy people and corporations -- They just don't have to be here. And you can't just carry on taking their money when they go overseas because our laws (including our tax laws) only apply within our borders.

    We in the UK tested this theory pretty much to destruction in the 1970s.

    I don't agree with everything the coalition are doing (especially not the subsidy that's still being given to the banks), but you have to pay attention to the fact that the cuts haven't even really started yet, we're still spending more each year than we did the year before. That should scare you.
    Having said that,
    !!RENT SPACE HERE FOR 10 VBUCKS PER LINE PER MONTH!!

    !! PM ME FOR SPEEDY SERVICE !!

    Sponsored by our first customer: Repulsive Monkey



    I <3 Sirc.
  10. adskibullus is online now

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Britannia
    Posts
    402

    Posted On:
    12/28/2012 6:04am


     Style: Lifting heavy stuff

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Cullion View Post
    Some questions for you to consider:-

    i) How often did mutuals go bust historically?

    ii) What protects people when the state goes bust ?



    Lots of super-rich people really would leave the country. Here's the thing that the left just don't get about extremely wealthy people and corporations -- They just don't have to be here. And you can't just carry on taking their money when they go overseas because our laws (including our tax laws) only apply within our borders.

    We in the UK tested this theory pretty much to destruction in the 1970s.

    I don't agree with everything the coalition are doing (especially not the subsidy that's still being given to the banks), but you have to pay attention to the fact that the cuts haven't even really started yet, we're still spending more each year than we did the year before. That should scare you.
    Having said that,
    The 70's were long before my time. Is there any actual evidence to support the claim that the super rich would leave?

    So how do we cut the deficit? Where is all the money being spent? Is the public sector really that bloated?
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 123 4567 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.