Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Hays,

I don't think the present cons are doing better.

U-turns in one way streets, not watching the lights, reversing the "economy" at high speed and running out of fuel. Blaming the pedestrians for being on the pavement when they knock them down.


The government which will be remembered for corruption and tax avoidance, failure to act on Leveson and inability to govern.

This wasn't the government of yesterday's men, but the government of non-entities.

What a crew!
=====

Who are they going to blame next!

Corruption: Surely the last government were more corrupt than any other in the modern age. If I remember correctly, the number of Labour MPs and peers caught with their hands in the till for expenses fiddling and false accounting almost ran into double figures.

Tax avoidance: If it's legal, bring it on!

Leveson: The News International phone-hacking scandal occurred between 2005 and 2007 under a different watch. Leveson was a total waste of money that nobody really gave a sh!t about. But, for whatever reason, Cameron felt obliged to go through the motions. Are people really that thick that they think anything is going to change?

The economy: Looks like it's in pretty good shape to me. What's everyone moaning about?

The U-turns: A simple consequence of a coalition government. That's what the people voted for, so they shouldn't expect anything less. We live in a democracy - if people want cast iron rule, maybe they should bugger off to Zimbabwe.

Europe: It's just a shame that it'll take a few more years till we can get out. Hey ho.

hilary - fred doesn't actually believe in anything or any party as he thinks it beneath him to vote .... his posts are almost exclusively for pretentious effect and little more

more specifically, with regard to tax avoidance. you're absolutely right, much as its excesses tend to stick in the throat ..... tax collection has never been a moral issue, so if the gov't of any hue does not like the way such schemes are used, then change the rules

It depends on your morality.

Tax rules are beginning to change.

It will be interesting to see the future checks on the flow of "cash" in an out of the country.

=======

Cameron is a motion.

For Cynic,

You never know Hague may be checking your accounts.

Another 2 point increased gain for Labour........

electionista ‏@electionista 1h
UK - YouGov/Sun: CON 28%, LAB 39%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 15%

I see it predicts UKIP as not doing too well. At 15%, that's no MPs.

fred - since when did any tax law have a morality clause attaching, whether related to paying same or getting allowances? ..... sorry, but you cannot mix legality and morality ...... you can CHOOSE to pay more tax than you have to, by failing to take any legal avoidance measures, or you can CHOOSE to pay only the tax to which you are legally obligated ..... render unto Caesar etc etc

I think by the time of election the order changes to LAB, UKIP, CON, LDEM

Cameron should stimulate the economy by spending on infrastructure.

The order changes to CON,LAB,LDEM,...............UKIP

Hes more interested in history and wants to set some personal landmarks for himself (before being kicked out) like being the PM who legalised gay marriage and the PM who defied all and spent money on Foreign Aid whilst at the same time robbing the poor and disabled off his own country.

One of the things that stops us charging the likes of Google, Amazon, Starbucks corporation tax on specific UK earning is membership of the EU. Outside the EU we can charge more corporation tax. The US for instance charges people on their worldwide earnings if they are US citizens no matter where they live.

sticky - stick with something useful like your charts instead of making silly rubbish comment :-)

==============

hays - i'm sure your talking rubbish about eu tax law ...... even within eu, each country sets its own personal and corporate taxes ..... thus if there really is good reason why uk should change its tax laws to clamp down on "corporate escape" - i.e. taking good note of what really will be any knock-on effects by so doing - then it can

The knock on effects are not that serious in terms of the companies I mentioned as they would still be doing business here. Starbucks etc are not going to shut down business. They would just have to stump up.

Manuel,

"sorry, but you cannot mix legality and morality"

You do spout some rubbish.

It may have been "legally right" to put Jews in Concentration camps or Russian dissidents in gulags.

Laws have a moral basis. What that morality is, is often questionable, as is acquiescence to them.

Hiding behind an immoral law does not excuse the action if it is itself immoral.

But, one is legally entitled to have ones own personal morality.

I have been checking on the EU aspects. Any tax laws including corporation tax must be compatible with EU laws and directives and cannot treat individuals or companies in a discriminatory way.

one is legally entitled to have ones own personal morality.
quite so, and you can choose to squander by giving extra money to the exchequer if you so choose (damn stupid) or, if legally avoiding tax sticks in your moral craw, then why not give the "extra" to a genuine charity of your choice (the moral alternative)?

GF just for you have just had a phone call from the nhs and they are sending out some person to try out a new treatment for circulation problems but my wife must be their . 5pm tomorrow . its in its early days and I have agreed to try it out .

A frontal lobotomy?

Manuel,

"one is legally entitled to have one’s own personal morality.

quite so, and you can choose to squander by giving extra money to the exchequer if you so choose (damn stupid) or, if legally avoiding tax sticks in your moral craw, then why not give the "extra" to a genuine charity of your choice (the moral alternative)?"



“Squander”!



Are you being pejorative in order to justify “avoidance of tax” on income earned at the expense and support of the society in general?

(The support of which enables one to “earn” one’s income with a reasonable degree of personal “security”.)


Fortunately, one is just a speck in the society which supports one. At the end of the day, you are more dependent on it for survival, than society is on you.

But, how you support it (taxation) also effects how it supports you.

Are you the best judge of how the “tax” should be used?

Utilising charities to clean ones "soul" of a social responsibility, which “should” be accepted, does not seem a satisfactory route.


You seem to hold to the following belief:

“I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.”

― Robert A. Heinlein


There is a price for everything and anarchy is one of them.