Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest Foxin_mad]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Yes, let's organise all our tax rules to suit the people trying to evade taxes. Perhaps we could increase the benefit cap to £200k to stop giving recipients a reason to commit fraud?

Its absolutely not that its a common sense approach to minimise people trying to avoid paying tax and maximise tax revenues to pay for things in a sustainable way. Now the fact is there is no evidence anywhere that suggests higher taxes will result in higher revenue, there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.

 

Raising a benefit cap is pretty much what that idiot comrade Corbyn has suggested anyway so why joke about it! With the repeated unfunny Gif that wasn't funny the first time let alone the second.

 

Trouble with raising benefits and taxing those who work more is it reduces aspiration and takes away the incentive to work, why work when you can get over 26k for do **** all! Im sorry but if someone cant live off 26k then they are making some bad choices!

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

12 minutes ago, katieakita said:

Could have used either the RAC or AA disclosure of this report, neither seem to have a political agenda and what should happen and what does happen can be very different. A bit like Universal Credit looks good on paper but it will not work and as for the Post Office not sure you quite grasp what it is, do you mean the government owned business facing bankruptcy, civil court cases, criminal court cases, Criminal case reviews and various tribunals as it tries to avoid complying with government policy. Not sure you  understand why the Post Office network is in such a mess.

I know very little about the post office. All I do know is that sadly it is less and less relevant in modern life. I don't know the reasons behind the cases you mentioned but the management have clearly taken over a long period of time some very bad decisions. I can walk into a Post Office today and it has not moved on, apart from being painted red and white nothing has changed its still same as 1985 very few modernisations, its a time warp. Compared to a bank which is now full of machines or closed, you can see why sadly due to the modern era there are parts of the business that need to be reviewed. This is a failing of government and senior management over decades.  

 

There are management decisions which could have helped the post office but they needed to made years ago.

[Kopfkino]

14 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Irish PM: I will block Brexit talks unless hard border is off the table

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/17/irish-pm-brexit-backing-politicians-did-not-think-things-through?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

At one point he recognises the horrible truth:

 

We’ve been given assurances that there will be no hard border in Ireland, that there won’t be any physical infrastructure, that we won’t go back to the borders of the past,” Varadkar told reporters. “We want that written down in practical terms in the conclusions of phase one.”

The prime minister was scathing about UK politicians who he said had backed Brexit without real thought to the consequences of leaving. “It’s 18 months since the referendum. It’s 10 years since people who wanted a referendum started agitating for one,” he said. “Sometimes it doesn’t seem like they have thought all this through.

“Britain having unilaterally taken the customs union and single market off the table, before we move to phase two talks on trade we want taken off the table any suggestion that there will be a physical border, a hard border, new barriers to trade on the island of Ireland.”

 

So the UK gets it in the neck despite the EU being the ones insisting that it's either a hard border or the UK's constitutional integrity is compromised by putting a border between NI and the rest of the UK. It's not like the UK came up with trust based customs systems, similar to that used by Switzerland, but for whatever reason (punitive reasons) this isn't allowed for the UK. 

[Fox Ulike]

9 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

But when doe the point come that tax consultants, banks etc. make no money from offering that service. If the Tax bill is reasonable enough most people will just pay it to avoid the hassle. Obviously some people will engage in it I guess the only way to stop that is legislation but I expect experts will always find other loopholes, it will always exist the key is to minimise it and maximise tax collection.

 

I think the rich have more impact on the economy than you think. The rich bankers pending in London for example generate bar and restaurant jobs, hotel jobs, the money they spend nightly is taxed, they run a Porsche brought from a dealership,  sold by a salesman on commission, serviced by a mechanic, booked by a receptionist. I would think that only a small percentage of that goes away from the country, London is actually a massive pull for rich globally, I don't think they would come and spend if we were a socialist state!

 

My point is we would take more tax by encouraging more business and wealthy individuals to come here and be a success, the more tax we take in the more we can spend on nurses and teachers. By increasing tax there is absolutely no evidence that we would generate more money, infact I suspect the net effect in the long term would be a huge drop in revenue and even less to spend on Nurses.

 

Just to make a point not all nurses and teachers are using food banks (yes its a travesty that some are but we don't know their budgets and backgrounds to make a full analysis of why 20k isn't enough to do a basic food shop at Lidl), I know a couple who are coping just fine. Think maybe you swallowed a Guardian whole

Probably. But that's hardly a reason to do nothing. It's an arms race and you're suggesting we just throw up the towel.

 

I get your point. I'm not actually disagreeing with it. Yes we need wealthy people in Society. I get that. But they're not a magic breed of special unicorns that we need to protect and pamper.

 

It's the demand of a wealthy nation that allows people to become rich - not the inner workings of a special few. We are a nation of intelligent, well-educated people, and we live in peaceful times and with a good public infrastructure of services and networks. If a few billionaires left then others would just step up and take their places. In fact, in might even improve our economy as young innovators would have more space to grow new business ventures.

 

 What I don't share is your sunny-side-up view of human nature. Everybody wants to minimise the amount of tax they pay - so nobody considers their own tax bill 'reasonable"!!  If you can legally avoid paying tax, then you'd be stupid not to. It's up to the Government to grow a pair of balls and stand up for itself!

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

So the UK gets it in the neck despite the EU being the ones insisting that it's either a hard border or the UK's constitutional integrity is compromised by putting a border between NI and the rest of the UK. It's not like the UK came up with trust based customs systems, similar to that used by Switzerland, but for whatever reason (punitive reasons) this isn't allowed for the UK. 

Literally nobody in the leave camp was arguing that they want to keep our current customs setup.  In fact the whole "take back control" stuff was synonymous with stiffer border regulation (let's just ignore for now the fact that it was our govt choosing not to rigorously apply the EU's movement restrictions).  Brexiters fought keenly so we could minimise immigration to the UK from the EU, once we're out of the Union the Irish border will be one of the points of contact with it so surely a hard border fits the Brexit 'control' stance?  Seems like you're arguing against it just because the EU said it.

[Fox Ulike]

33 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Irish PM: I will block Brexit talks unless hard border is off the table

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/17/irish-pm-brexit-backing-politicians-did-not-think-things-through?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

At one point he recognises the horrible truth:

 

We’ve been given assurances that there will be no hard border in Ireland, that there won’t be any physical infrastructure, that we won’t go back to the borders of the past,” Varadkar told reporters. “We want that written down in practical terms in the conclusions of phase one.”

The prime minister was scathing about UK politicians who he said had backed Brexit without real thought to the consequences of leaving. “It’s 18 months since the referendum. It’s 10 years since people who wanted a referendum started agitating for one,” he said. “Sometimes it doesn’t seem like they have thought all this through.

“Britain having unilaterally taken the customs union and single market off the table, before we move to phase two talks on trade we want taken off the table any suggestion that there will be a physical border, a hard border, new barriers to trade on the island of Ireland.”

But does he actually have any legal way that he could 'block' either Brexit or a hard border?

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Idk why as soon as certain members say anything, you feel the need to be condescending. Foxin gets it for the fact you took exception to him once, Webbo for being a decorator.

 

Foxin makes a valid point that you do everything to incentivise paying tax, which includes lowering it to make avoiding it relatively more expensive. Or companies put profits through your system a la Ireland. An equivalent might be raising minimum wage to prevent benefit fraud.

Webbo does not get it for being a decorator. I've referred to his job once in saying do I listen to an expert or a decorator from Leicester. That isn't a dig at his profession, he could have been anything other than a noted expert on international affairs or economist and I would have said the same. The same could be said of any of us in honesty.

 

Webbo and Foxin get grief because they usually provide make evidence-less arguments and refuse to even accept the existence of evidence to the contrary of their opinions. In fairness to fox he has ended up making the point the tory option is crap today.

 

What I find frustrating is the idea that every argument can be countered by the idea labour will take us back to the 70s which was all their fault. The facts of the 70s are rather different than the common belief would suggest. People use it as an argument for things it isn't actually an argument for. It does my head in.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

But does he actually have any legal way that he could 'block' either Brexit or a hard border?

Edit...ignore that I.missed the point

Edited 17 November 2017 by Guest

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

How many public sector tax inspectors do we need to employ then? Tax inspector managers? Tex inspector supervisors, Tax inspector executive managers etc. etc. etc.

 

Sorry but that again is absolute unsubstantiated garbage. It does happen, it happened in France (under Hollande rich French moved to London) its happened here before. Business and Rich started to leave the country under the last Labour government which is why tax receipts dropped towards the end of the tenure.

 

http://www.france24.com/en/20150808-france-wealthy-flee-high-taxes-les-echos-figures

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/01/news/millionaires-fleeing-france/index.html

 

The tax system needs simplifying and modernising, at first merge PAYE and NI, that reduces the administrative burden for employers and HRMC. The savings would probably be quite large,

Employ more if that’s what is needed to get the job done. The cost of a few tax inspectors is going to be insignificant in comparison to the revenue bought in.

 

No, you’re wrong. The article you’ve cited is mere speculation and even warns within itself not to draw any conclusions because the data is incomplete.

 

By contrast various proper studies have been undertaken in the US, where taxes vary by state. It should be noted that moving from one US state to another is relatively uncomplicated, compared to a uk citizen who would either have to move very far away or to a country with a completely different language, in either case completely uprooting their lives, closing and restarting their successful businesses or restarting their careers, putting their children into expensive international schools and so on. Yet in the US, where none of those things are an issue, evidence shows that the tax rate does absolutely nothing to either attract wealthy people nor motivate them to move.

 

It’s obvious when you think about it. If you’re financially successful in one area, running a successful business or having a successful career, enjoying the business or career opportunities and lifestyle that the area presents, with family and friends around you, you’re probably not going to want to throw it all away, spend a fortune relocating and risk never getting your income back to what it is already just to avoid a small increase in taxes. It just doesn’t happen I’m afraid. 

Edited 17 November 2017 by Rogstanley

[katieakita]

7 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I know very little about the post office. All I do know is that sadly it is less and less relevant in modern life. I don't know the reasons behind the cases you mentioned but the management have clearly taken over a long period of time some very bad decisions. I can walk into a Post Office today and it has not moved on, apart from being painted red and white nothing has changed its still same as 1985 very few modernisations, its a time warp. Compared to a bank which is now full of machines or closed, you can see why sadly due to the modern era there are parts of the business that need to be reviewed. This is a failing of government and senior management over decades.  

 

There are management decisions which could have helped the post office but they needed to made years ago.

£2.34 billion of taxpayers money given by HMG sent 2012 to the Post Office to deliver exactly what you describe, as for less and less relevance there will never by a shortage of vulnerable customers nobody else wants. Indeed a network failed by consecutive governments but I can only remember David Cameron standing up in Parliament and promising to get to the bottom of the Post Office issues and the failure by the government to deal with this has led to a GLO funded to the tune of hundreds of millions by City investors, Criminal case reviews, Employment tribunals, Police investigations into senior management conduct. An absolute abomination thanks partly to HMG unable or unwilling to deal with incompetence and corruption laid before it.

[Carl the Llama]

That one fat French guy moved to Russia so obviously tax increases turn the wealthy into money-hoarding communists.

[Guest]

The other part of the problem for us lefties os the way the Tories have implemented cost cutting has hurt the worst off. The report linked to on the article proves that - I tried to link straight to the report but couldn't for some reason

 

Now it’s official: the less you have, the more austerity will take from you

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/17/austerity-minorities-women-disabled?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

9 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Webbo does not get it for being a decorator. I've referred to his job once in saying do I listen to an expert or a decorator from Leicester. That isn't a dig at his profession, he could have been anything other than a noted expert on international affairs or economist and I would have said the same. The same could be said of any of us in honesty.

 

Webbo and Foxin get grief because they usually provide make evidence-less arguments and refuse to even accept the existence of evidence to the contrary of their opinions. In fairness to fox he has ended up making the point the tory option is crap today.

 

What I find frustrating is the idea that every argument can be countered by the idea labour will take us back to the 70s which was all their fault. The facts of the 70s are rather different than the common belief would suggest. People use it as an argument for things it isn't actually an argument for. It does my head in.

I will always except when valid evidence is provided I have done this many times, it has not been and never will be because there is no successful hard left socialist country run by hard line militants of the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell. That is a fact.

 

You call me for not providing evidence yet I see very few things back up here. I consistently provide links which are rubbished, yet a host of guardian articles is taken as gospel. Data can often be presented to support any argument.

 

Show me evidence to suggest socialism and high tax can work, and I can investigate. Quite frankly everything on here is opinion, you are entitled to yours, myself mine, we will likely never agree but I think there are some common areas amongst everyone.

 

What I cant stand is the needless vitriol which often comes from the left. I will call Corbyn and McDonnell because I believe they are idiots, I will call momentum because they have proven themselves to be horrible nasty people but I would never call a person on here for having an opinion. I may disagree but I respect them and everyone is entitled to them.

 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

14 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Employ more if that’s what is needed to get the job done. The cost of a few tax inspectors is going to be insignificant in comparison to the revenue bought in.

 

No, you’re wrong. The article you’ve cited is mere speculation and even warns within itself not to draw any conclusions because the data is incomplete.

 

By contrast various proper studies have been undertaken in the US, where taxes vary by state. It should be noted that moving from one US state to another is relatively uncomplicated, compared to a uk citizen who would either have to move very far away or to a country with a completely different language, in either case completely uprooting their lives, closing and restarting their successful businesses or restarting their careers, putting their children into expensive international schools and so on. Yet in the US, where none of those things are an issue, evidence shows that the tax rate does absolutely nothing to either attract wealthy people nor motivate them to move.

 

It’s obvious when you think about it. If you’re financially successful in one area, running a successful business or having a successful career, enjoying the business or career opportunities and lifestyle that the area presents, with family and friends around you, you’re probably not going to want to throw it all away, spend a fortune relocating and risk never getting your income back to what it is already just to avoid a small increase in taxes. It just doesn’t happen I’m afraid. 

I know for a fact many rich French relocated to London during the Hollande years Ive spoken and worked with them. French tax revenues nose dived and they have now quietly removed their punitive tax? How do you account for that?

 

I give some data yet you give none and say I am wrong...how is that?

 

High Tax is a daft idea imo, we are obviously never going to agree . I and many others would consider moving anywhere if Corbyn got into office in the UK as we would be on the verge of financial catastrophe and unemployment like you have never seen but we will have to wait and see. I hope I am wrong and that we have a world of rainbows, unicorns and magic money trees from which we can all go and gather bundles of notes but history suggests it wouldn't work out that well.  

 

Provide some evidence to these claims then regarding the US, without doing research I am not sure on the tax rates in various states and the pros and cons of moving state.

 

Some people will leave and it is delusional to think otherwise. If 25% of the richest 1% move and business that could have quite a big impact on the economy.

 

The strange thing is you say people wouldn't move away from the UK because of high tax but they and successful businesses would because of Brexit (which I disagree with for the record, I am remain before someone has a go at me for that) How can that be? surely you cant have it both ways? Either the UK is an attractive place to be full stop even with a high tax rate and Brexit or it is not? Which is it?

[Kopfkino]

27 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Literally nobody in the leave camp was arguing that they want to keep our current customs setup.  In fact the whole "take back control" stuff was synonymous with stiffer border regulation (let's just ignore for now the fact that it was our govt choosing not to rigorously apply the EU's movement restrictions).  Brexiters fought keenly so we could minimise immigration to the UK from the EU, once we're out of the Union the Irish border will be one of the points of contact with it so surely a hard border fits the Brexit 'control' stance?  Seems like you're arguing against it just because the EU said it.

 

I was referring to whole article, predominantly about trade, rather than the attack at Leave politicians, of which it would be wrong to conflate me with them.

I'm just interpreting the Irish comment as a dig at the UK for not having it sorted. We have proposed customs arrangements that rely on trust, similar to that which the Swiss use with many land borders. For some reason the EU doesn't accept this for our situation which means compromising constitutional integrity or a hard border.

 

You don't need a border to control immigration. I anticipate we'll still have a freedom of movement arrangement with the EU in much the same way we do with the US, Brazil, Australia, Andorra etc. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

15 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The other part of the problem for us lefties os the way the Tories have implemented cost cutting has hurt the worst off. The report linked to on the article proves that - I tried to link straight to the report but couldn't for some reason

 

Now it’s official: the less you have, the more austerity will take from you

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/17/austerity-minorities-women-disabled?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

Bit of a flawed report. 10% of not very much is probably a lot less than 1% of a lot but obviously we cant report that!

 

Obviously no one should be getting hit by this, but this is what happens when you have a government who spend too much money. I worry for the people who rely on the state should Corbyn and McDonnell ever get to bankrupt the country.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

41 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Probably. But that's hardly a reason to do nothing. It's an arms race and you're suggesting we just throw up the towel.

 

I get your point. I'm not actually disagreeing with it. Yes we need wealthy people in Society. I get that. But they're not a magic breed of special unicorns that we need to protect and pamper.

 

It's the demand of a wealthy nation that allows people to become rich - not the inner workings of a special few. We are a nation of intelligent, well-educated people, and we live in peaceful times and with a good public infrastructure of services and networks. If a few billionaires left then others would just step up and take their places. In fact, in might even improve our economy as young innovators would have more space to grow new business ventures.

 

 What I don't share is your sunny-side-up view of human nature. Everybody wants to minimise the amount of tax they pay - so nobody considers their own tax bill 'reasonable"!!  If you can legally avoid paying tax, then you'd be stupid not to. It's up to the Government to grow a pair of balls and stand up for itself!

We do sort of need to keep the rich here though, they will move there are plenty of countries that will take their money if not us.

 

I like you 2nd paragraph as it shows there are many good aspects of this country, rich people do move all the time. We are currently a hotspot for new business startups, this is a good place to have a business at the moment even with Brexit looming large. The UK is an attractive place, there is enough of a market here for many.

 

Sadly I don't get the sunny side up view of Socialism, I've never seen it work,  it tends to make people poorer. The natural human greed that people have generally means it never works and the riches would transfer from business to the corrupt unions and government. Kind of Animal farmish but it plays out time and time again, while its a nice idea due to humans built in survival and ambition it never works.

[Kopfkino]

8 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I know for a fact many rich French relocated to London during the Hollande years Ive spoken and worked with them. French tax revenues nose dived and they have now quietly removed their punitive tax? How do you account for that?

 

I give some data yet you give none and say I am wrong...how is that?

 

High Tax is a daft idea imo, we are obviously never going to agree . I and many others would consider moving anywhere if Corbyn got into office in the UK as we would be on the verge of financial catastrophe and unemployment like you have never seen but we will have to wait and see. I hope I am wrong and that we have a world of rainbows, unicorns and magic money trees from which we can all go and gather bundles of notes but history suggests it wouldn't work out that well.

 

No tbf, it's true, it comes from a Stanford sociology professor called Cristobal Young, he has just released a book on it.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122416639625

https://web.stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/pdf/pathways/summer_2014/Pathways_Summer_2014_YoungVarner.pdf

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Myth-Millionaire-Tax-Flight-Inequality-ebook/dp/B0755H3M4G

 

Of course, it makes sense, home is where the heart is. 

 

However, he does note they only evaluated small tax increases of 1-3% and much of the research was conducted with taxes remaining the same. It might be that movements in tax are more important for mobility rather than just the level. There's also the exception of Florida for which their explanation is because its Florida and people want to live there which is a bit flimsy. 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

We do sort of need to keep the rich here though, they will move there are plenty of countries that will take their money if not us.

 

I like you 2nd paragraph as it shows there are many good aspects of this country, rich people do move all the time. We are currently a hotspot for new business startups, this is a good place to have a business at the moment even with Brexit looming large. The UK is an attractive place, there is enough of a market here for many.

 

Sadly I don't get the sunny side up view of Socialism, I've never seen it work,  it tends to make people poorer. The natural human greed that people have generally means it never works and the riches would transfer from business to the corrupt unions and government. Kind of Animal farmish but it plays out time and time again, while its a nice idea due to humans built in survival and ambition it never works.

3

If folks think it hasn't worked yet, then fine - and maybe it hasn't. However, after all the human advancement that competitive structures have given and that greed making people push themselves to be better, richer, whatever, than the other guy - it has to be the endgame for humanity as a whole. Otherwise that natural human greed, ambition and instinct to survive as an individual or a small group will end up destroying us, as it has with countless other species in the past. The "most successful" ones will just be the last ones out the door.

Edited 17 November 2017 by leicsmac

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

We do sort of need to keep the rich here though, they will move there are plenty of countries that will take their money if not us.

 

I like you 2nd paragraph as it shows there are many good aspects of this country, rich people do move all the time. We are currently a hotspot for new business startups, this is a good place to have a business at the moment even with Brexit looming large. The UK is an attractive place, there is enough of a market here for many.

 

Sadly I don't get the sunny side up view of Socialism, I've never seen it work,  it tends to make people poorer. The natural human greed that people have generally means it never works and the riches would transfer from business to the corrupt unions and government. Kind of Animal farmish but it plays out time and time again, while its a nice idea due to humans built in survival and ambition it never works.

The tories of the 80s left the north of England an industrial wasteland, rapidly increased the share of national wealth in the hands of ever decreasing percentages of the wealthy and gave is unemployment of over 3 million. The Tory's of the 90s brought about a recession that led to huge numbers of repossessions. 

 

The tories are always good for the wealth. I fail to see where they have governed for the ordinary man.

[Rogstanley]

7 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I know for a fact many rich French relocated to London during the Hollande years Ive spoken and worked with them. French tax revenues nose dived and they have now quietly removed their punitive tax? How do you account for that?

 

I give some data yet you give none and say I am wrong...how is that?

 

High Tax is a daft idea imo, we are obviously never going to agree . I and many others would consider moving anywhere if Corbyn got into office in the UK as we would be on the verge of financial catastrophe and unemployment like you have never seen but we will have to wait and see. I hope I am wrong and that we have a world of rainbows, unicorns and magic money trees from which we can all go and gather bundles of notes but history suggests it wouldn't work out that well.  

 

Provide some evidence to these claims then regarding the US, without doing research I am not sure on the tax rates in various states and the pros and cons of moving state.

 

Some people will leave and it is delusional to think otherwise. If 25% of the richest 1% move and business that could have quite a big impact on the economy.

 

The strange thing is you say people wouldn't move away from the UK because of high tax but they and successful businesses would because of Brexit (which I disagree with for the record, I am remain before someone has a go at me for that) How can that be? surely you cant have it both ways? Either the UK is an attractive place to be full stop even with a high tax rate and Brexit or it is not? Which is it?

 

You gave me an article that speculated based on incomplete data. Here’s one of many articles looking at the US studies:

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/05/26/do-high-state-taxes-drive-away-millionaires-not-really/amp/

 

“Financial catastrophe and unemployment like you’ve never seen” would probably cause more people to leave, but a small increase in the tax rate would not.

 

Regards brexit, that’s such a significant change to the landscape that of course businesses with a base in the uk that operate internationally and businesses whose work involves the EU are going to rethink their location. That’s totally different to asking the wealthy to pay a small amount of additional tax.

 

I must admit I can’t really fathom the mindset that seeks the defend the interests of the super rich at all costs. Is there a point at all at which you would admit that inequality has gone too far? 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Bit of a flawed report. 10% of not very much is probably a lot less than 1% of a lot but obviously we cant report that!

 

Obviously no one should be getting hit by this, but this is what happens when you have a government who spend too much money. I worry for the people who rely on the state should Corbyn and McDonnell ever get to bankrupt the country.

The only thing that will save is from the impending credit crunch is attempting to alleviate the problem through expenditure. If we don't start spending we're rapidly getting to the point where we'll go over the cliff AGAIN due to personal credit.

[Buce]

3 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

I am a remain supporter  For me the EU is good for business more than bad even though they should accept they have their deficiencies and need to change. But we wont let that get in the way of calling me a tory right wing thicko racist scumbag eh?

 

Perhaps when the others stop making boring, gratuitous, tacked-on footnotes about The Tory scum, right wing bastards, thicko leavers etc. etc.

 

3 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

Er, I didn't...

 

...but if the cap fits...

[Strokes]

14 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

...but if the cap fits...

It’s a big loose for me, can I get one for a smaller mind please?

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It’s a big loose for me, can I get one for a smaller mind please?

 

No worries, Strokes: