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.

Exec,

I agree with much of what you have posted and it does come down to "What I have got is mine." and "What you have got I want a bit of.".

I find the argument to disadvantage oneself or "family" by not using legal "tax avoidance" is difficult as it advantages those who don't act in a similar way.

The reason for rules and laws.

I suppose it depends on what sort of society you "wish" for and the "route" you think appropriate to move to-wards it.

==========

Disagree with you conclusions on Miliband, I think in spite of playing against those with loaded dice and an uneven table is doing reasonably well at the moment and not using up his powder.

=-=-=-=


ISA's etc. I have ISA's and have used them from their conception.

But, I was in luck and earned enough "excess" income to put cash away for tax free growth. Many low earners (honest and hard working) didn't have the "excess" cash or the "ability" to earn such, and also lacked the "knowledge" do utilise the "system".

There was a plausible balance of reasons for their introduction. None appear altruistic to me.

I know this is a bit OT but , was told by my Bank that the rate of interest on an account I had was reducing from 1% down to 0.2% . So went to Bank to close account said it was a rediculous interest rate etc . The next thing they say see our Personal Banker chappie .Had honest talk with him . he said basically the Banks have vast amounts of money stashed away , and don't need savers money. They have their required reserves and that's it . I asked about future savers rates and he said they're going nowhere for a long time . I was a bit taken aback . Any one else had this happen.

this discussion has been going round and round and round for months

if you (like fred) want to pay the taxman more than you need, then feel free, though the taxman has never recognised the word "moral"

however, those who choose to pay the taxman as little as is legally possible should not be castigated for so doing
give unto caesar etc, but why a penny more is a very fair argument

2517 correct the loop holes are their for the rich and them alone , its called look after your good friends and fcuk the workers . that is why we are ditching the 3 main parties they are not for the good of the uk

Manuel.

Then don't be surprised that society also provides you less than you expect!

Fred

I found your take on things quite interesting. You say:

"I find the argument to disadvantage oneself or "family" by not using legal "tax avoidance" is difficult as it advantages those who don't act in a similar way.

The reason for rules and laws.

I suppose it depends on what sort of society you "wish" for and the "route" you think appropriate to move to-wards it."

Like you I would like an 'ideal society'.

I do think, that to some extent in the UK we have got one. The same opportunities exist for everyone.

"No they don't!" I can hear you say, almost immediately.

Let's examine why not then:

Different family backgrounds
Different family wealth
Different family parental ability
Different parental power
Different family status
Different family security
Different family geographical residence
Different personal ability
Different work ethics
Different levels of intelligence
Different peer pressures
Different attitudes to peer pressure
Different influences from peers
Different attitudes to fashion
Different attitudes to behaviour
Different experiences with drugs, sex and rock and roll
Some live in the city - others live in the country
Some like gardening - some don't
Some take to computers, science, technology - some don't

Need I go on with my list?

We are all different.

Do I suspect that you want to bring us all down to a level?

My attitude is that I want everyone to aspire to be better.

I don't like litter. So I pick some of it up even though I didn't drop it or throw it onto the street. I feel motivated to do so.

But what about those people who are not motivated or who are lazy or merely have poor levels of motivation?

The point I am trying to make, is that the opportunities (and the same tax avoidance measures) really are available to us all.

It is not therefore wrong, that because some take them up and some don't, that those who do take them up should be made not to, so as to level things down for those who don't (take them up).

(I suggest you read that last sentence aloud. :-))

IMHO, I think this latter attitude is the one that pervades in Socialism or 'Leftism'. That's why I am not and cannot really be a Socialist.

Furthermore, I do generally feel, that very affluent socialists are usually hypocrits. IMHO too, the extreme of this is exhibited in Communism and also at the top of Religions.

Exactly Exec, example:-

Guess who was first in the queue to take up Royal Mail Shares on the float?

Guess who was first to complain that they didn't receive as many as he and the rest of his family applied for.

And I may be guessing now but I wouldn't be surprised if he was the first to sell.


Don't you just love Left Whingers :0)

Exec,

The same opportunities exist for everyone.

Agreed, but the aptitude is not. You give many of the reason for it not being so.

-=-=-=-=-=

Do I suspect that you want to bring us all down to a level?


As with Secondary schools I wanted the educational levels of those to be raised, not the destruction of the grammar schools etc.

However, raising the "expectations" of one group may be at some lowering of the expectancy of more "privileged" groups.

Motivation, interesting.

It is usually down to considering consciously or unconsciously the "personal" advantage or gain for oneself, although the "advantage" may be diverse and for many not based on financial gain.

==-=-==--

I must admit I had an accountant, who I gave the responsibility of claiming or not to claiming for "expenses" etc. running my accounts and to acting as he saw fit. (He was a friend.) I was busy with other things and enjoyed what I was doing not interested in the various "fiddles" which some of my colleagues used.

Many low earners do not have the knowledge. or able to apply themselves the tax rules to avoid tax which would advantage themselves.

You personally doing so is down to your "inclinations", others consider other things are more important.

But as said before I think taxation system and rules and regulation and due for a serious investigations and simplification.

=======

Personally, I don't consider myself particularly left wing, but I do want a decent society and I am prepared to pay my share to support it.

=-=-=-==

The thing which I saw in a hospital recently was a patient needing help and "health" workers standing around and doing nothing.

I asked why the didn't assist the "patient" and was told they were not being paid to do so.

They knew the price of everything and the value of very little.

I doubt that similar would have been as apparent before ""there
is no such thing as society"".

Brilliant!!

Post Of The Year:-

"Personally I don't consider myself particularly left wing"

Priceless!!! LOL!!!

fred - i have low expectations .....
i have reasonable expectations that i'll die later rather than sooner
i have strong expectations that i'll pay rather too much tax, for it could easily be less if i took a few more fairly simple avoidance measures
i have strong expectations that any gov't will be pretty incompetent
i have strong expectations that that HMRC will be downright aggressive in chasing for money, and exceptionally shy when it comes to repaying

other than that, i don't expect much that i do not provide for myself

i have strong expectations that you will still vote for the "Con" Party.

Manuel.

Open your eyes and look around you!

If you need a MRI scan, ask how much the machine costs.

He needs more then a scan Fred... more like a canning -):

thank you for the kind suggestion fred, but i don't happen to agree with your utopian views, and indeed why on earth should i

Whatever makes you feel safer!

8-)

Is that Dodgy Dave with Slush Fund George.

Fred

Stop attacking the Tories by posting these ridiculously foul cartoons on a daily basis and then we will believe you are not a 'raving lefty'.

Rise of SNP may cost Ed Miliband the election, poll suggests
A poll finds that the SNP is poised to take 21 seats from Labour as almost half of Scottish people vote for the party

Ed Miliband may lose the General Election because of the rise of the SNP
By Steven Swinford, Deputy Political Editor, Telegraph, 9:24AM GMT, 19 Feb 2015

Ed Miliband will fail to lead his party to an outright majority at the next election because of the rise of the SNP, a poll has found.

A Daily Record/ Survation poll found that the SNP is set to win 47 seats in Scotland and Labour just 10 as almost half of Scots vote for Nicola Sturgeon's party.

Damian Lyons Lowe, chief executive of Survation, said that the results "could cost Ed Miliband the chance of a small workable majority in May". He said that the results would leave Labour 31 seats short of the 321 seats it needs to win a majority in Westminster, and that even a Coalition with the Liberal Democrats would not be enought to put Ed Miliband in office.

The poll suggests that Labour would have to form a Coalition with the SNP if it wants to go into government, which may ultimately prove to be "unworkable".

It says that if the SNP succeed in taking 21 seats from Labour another Conservative/ Liberal Democrat Coalition is the likely result.

Mr Lyons Lowe said: "A potentially fractious and unstable combination of a Labour/SNP coalition would see the parties over the line - at 326 seats - however this may prove an unworkable alliance for Labour.

"And if the Conservative Party’s support level in England and Wales enjoyed a small bounce from current levels the electoral maths could actually mean that the SNP’s success made a Conservative/Lib Dem government more likely.

"Under that scenario, a Con/Lib Dem combination would be very close to a workable majority in a combination that would be seen as having 'legitimacy' as the Conservative Party would have the most votes - something Nick Clegg has suggested would be a key factor in his choice of coalition partner."

ExecLine- 19 Feb 2015 09:56 - 56765 of 56765

Fred

Stop attacking the Tories by posting these ridiculously foul cartoons on a daily basis.

Hear Hear, unfortunately for F red the tide is turning to the Tories, unemployment, inflation, wages etc and he doesn't like it. The way the economy is going who's to say the Tories don't get back in with a majority.
2517

it's a shame that the telegraph is so unashamedly pro tory, as of course are the mail and express ..... thus, their editorial etc is bound to be badly skewed
one could say similar, though perhaps not quite so vehemently, about the guardian and indie on the other side

i get the guardian on-line every day, but i don't immediately see any election stuff there

anyway, please God we get a decent turnout to prevent the activists and loonies highjacking the result
if there is a decent turnout, then it will be public (personal) sentiment and perception of its wellbeing at the time and in the immediate future that will decide the result, as is always the case

it is undoubtedly true that employment numbers have improved greatly - except sadly among the younger generation - and even wages are now beginning to creep up ...... inflation is close to zero, with food and especially petrol prices being significantly lower than a year ago .... those two items weigh heavily on sentiment

on the other hand, nincompoop and dishonest politicians of all colours does nothing for the image of parliament as a whole

a hung parliament remains the racing certainty