Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Rogstanley]

14 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If you have to tell people you've won the argument, you haven't.

The total absence of any meaningful counter arguments is usually a good indicator. 

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Si  

[Rogstanley]

12 minutes ago, Strokes said:

You can’t see things that are small, that must make life difficult. Que gif.

Even had Buce not beat you to the punch by several minutes, the execution here is very poor. Come on you can do better.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Strokes said:

That the state doesn’t provide value for money.

So out of the amount that you play in tax you get roads, NHS, education if you have kids, defence etc etc etc. Your think you could buy all that from the private sector for less? I bet one trip to hospital would cost about ten years worth of tax.

Edited 17 December 2017 by Guest

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

Even had Buce not beat you to the punch by several minutes, the execution here is very poor. Come on you can do better.

 

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

So out of the amount that you play in tax you get roads, NHS, education off you have kids, defence etc etc etc. Your think you could buy all that from the private sector for less? I bet one trip to hospital would cost about ten years worth of tax.

The road infrastructure is already in place and road tax and fuel duty should sufficient to cover it. I haven’t personally used a GP or hospital for nearly a decade. The education in this country is sub standard and not value for money, I should be able to opt out and get a rebate towards superior private education. So no I don’t feel it’s value for money, if an accountant told me to sign a form to reduce what I give, I would.

[Buce]

13 minutes ago, Strokes said:

The road infrastructure is already in place and road tax and fuel duty should sufficient to cover it. I haven’t personally used a GP or hospital for nearly a decade. The education in this country is sub standard and not value for money, I should be able to opt out and get a rebate towards superior private education. So no I don’t feel it’s value for money, if an accountant told me to sign a form to reduce what I give, I would.

 

Road Tax was abolished in 1937; Vehicle Excise Duty, which replaced it, goes directly to the treasury, as does tax on fuel. 

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

Road Tax was abolished in 1937; Vehicle Excise Duty, which replaced it, goes directly to the treasury, as does tax on fuel. 

What they do with it when the get it is the exactly the point I’m making. Value for money from my tax spend is poor. 

 

I have a company car so the tax is about £2k per annum. 

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

What they do with it when the get it is the exactly the point I’m making. Value for money from my tax spend is poor. 

 

I have a company car so the tax is about £2k per annum. 

 

Then your beef should be with the gpvernment and how they spend taxation income, not with the taxation itself. 

[Strokes]

Just now, Buce said:

 

Then your beef should be with the gpvernment and how they spend taxation income, not with the taxation itself. 

The options in this regard are pretty limited.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

https://articulatelive.wordpress.com/2017/12/17/the-sun-shows-contempt-for-its-own-readers/

 

I couldn’t let that article stand unatested, so cobbled together my own response and plonked it in the comments below it and on the journalists twitter feed.

 

The issue for me, is not only the proposal of removing what is a sensible pragmatic workers right, but the narrow-mindedness of the article and complete disregard the journalist has shown in advancing his readerships interests on the matter.

 

Regardless of the side of the Brexit debate you fall on, it should be easy to agree that this article is an example of poor journalism and demeans the principal of a free-press.

Edited 17 December 2017 by DJ Barry Hammond

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Strokes said:

The road infrastructure is already in place and road tax and fuel duty should sufficient to cover it. I haven’t personally used a GP or hospital for nearly a decade. The education in this country is sub standard and not value for money, I should be able to opt out and get a rebate towards superior private education. So no I don’t feel it’s value for money, if an accountant told me to sign a form to reduce what I give, I would.

I'd personally be happy to drive you to another country where you can pay **** all and have none of the infrastructure. We can do without people in this country who aren't willing to pay their way when our current shower of shite government uses it as an excuse to muller public services. I pay many thousands in taxes (as, I'm sure, do you) and am happy to do so.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

53 minutes ago, Strokes said:

The road infrastructure is already in place and road tax and fuel duty should sufficient to cover it. I haven’t personally used a GP or hospital for nearly a decade. The education in this country is sub standard and not value for money, I should be able to opt out and get a rebate towards superior private education. So no I don’t feel it’s value for money, if an accountant told me to sign a form to reduce what I give, I would.

 

Looking at tax paid based on direct services you receive back is a poor way at looking at things - and doesn’t account for indirect benefits you receive but wouldn’t necessarily consider.

Edited 17 December 2017 by DJ Barry Hammond

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I'd personally be happy to drive you to another country where you can pay **** all and have none of the infrastructure. We can do without people in this country who aren't willing to pay their way when our current shower of shite government uses it as an excuse to muller public services. I pay many thousands in taxes (as, I'm sure, do you) and am happy to do so.

 

1 minute ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Looking at tax paid based on direct services you receive back is a poor way at looking at things - and doesn’t account for indirect benefits you receive but wouldn’t necessarily consider.

So you are saying, if HR called you in and said, hey we’ve noticed that in this employment you can get back £300 per year for work clothes as you have provided your own. Sign this form and the HMRC will send you a rebate for the last 5 years, the cheque will be with you in 3 days. You guys would say, no thanks guys I think I pay exactly the right amount in tax cheers?

[Dr The Singh]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

 

So you are saying, if HR called you in and said, hey we’ve noticed that in this employment you can get back £300 per year for work clothes as you have provided your own. Sign this form and the HMRC will send you a rebate for the last 5 years, the cheque will be with you in 3 days. You guys would say, no thanks guys I think I pay exactly the right amount in tax cheers?

It's only fair you leave this country at once and never come back....

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Thats different Stokes - the government doesn’t provide clothing

[Dr The Singh]

1 minute ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Thats different Stokes - the government doesn’t provide clothing

That's the reason why stokes hates this country so much...

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

The road infrastructure is already in place and road tax and fuel duty should sufficient to cover it. I haven’t personally used a GP or hospital for nearly a decade. The education in this country is sub standard and not value for money, I should be able to opt out and get a rebate towards superior private education. So no I don’t feel it’s value for money, if an accountant told me to sign a form to reduce what I give, I would.

 

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

 

So you are saying, if HR called you in and said, hey we’ve noticed that in this employment you can get back £300 per year for work clothes as you have provided your own. Sign this form and the HMRC will send you a rebate for the last 5 years, the cheque will be with you in 3 days. You guys would say, no thanks guys I think I pay exactly the right amount in tax cheers?

What if a government came in and said, hey we’ve noticed people who earn thousands of times more than you pay a lower proportion of tax if you vote for us we’ll put that right, you’d go no thanks guys I’m quite happy paying more than my fair share, wouldn’t want to upset the rich people?

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Thats different Stokes - the government doesn’t provide clothing

Not really, it’s about if you could reduce your tax bill, would you? That’s where this chain started, I pay what’s required by law and if someone told me I could get tax credits, I would claim them. 

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

 

What if a government came in and said, hey we’ve noticed people who earn thousands of times more than you pay a lower proportion of tax if you vote for us we’ll put that right, you’d go no thanks guys I’m quite happy paying more than my fair share, wouldn’t want to upset the rich people?

I’d ask how they are going to achieve that, and I have. So........

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Just now, Strokes said:

Not really, it’s about if you could reduce your tax bill, would you? That’s where this chain started, I pay what’s required by law and if someone told me I could get tax credits, I would claim them. 

Well yes, but you also pointed towards universal services such as roads, health and education suggesting you don’t get direct use out of them so should get a rebate - but this ignores the fact you benefit from them, even if you don’t personally use them.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Strokes said:

 

So you are saying, if HR called you in and said, hey we’ve noticed that in this employment you can get back £300 per year for work clothes as you have provided your own. Sign this form and the HMRC will send you a rebate for the last 5 years, the cheque will be with you in 3 days. You guys would say, no thanks guys I think I pay exactly the right amount in tax cheers?

But that's within the tax code. Why would that be wrong?

I'm talking about people lying about expenses, income and family members. There's a world of difference. 

If you have to lie or build a whole charade in order to reduce your tax bill it's very obviously wrong.

That exists for those that purchase their uniform but I don't claim it as I don't have a uniform, just normal smart work clothes (suit etc).

Edited 17 December 2017 by Guest

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

But that's within the tax code. Why would that be wrong?

I'm talking about people lying about expenses, income and family members. There's a world of difference. 

If you have to lie or build a whole charade in order to reduce your tax bill it's very obviously wrong.

It would still be the same as tax avoidance.

Who is lying about expenses? And who are you to say what justifies a family member being classed as working or not? Do you even have any figures to back up how much this is? Are we talking a handful of rogue self employed or are you tarnishing everyone of them as frauds?

[Izzy]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

 

I'm talking about people lying about expenses, income and family members. There's a world of difference. 

 

You’ve mentioned this endless amounts of times Toddy.

 

First of all, I’m sure there would still be a Black economy if Labour were in charge. 

 

Secondly, I’m sure the vast majority don’t ‘lie’ about it and that’s why they employ professional accountants to make sure their books are above board.

 

Not sure why you keep banging on about it tbh

[Strokes]

10 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

Well yes, but you also pointed towards universal services such as roads, health and education suggesting you don’t get direct use out of them so should get a rebate - but this ignores the fact you benefit from them, even if you don’t personally use them.

I’m not saying I should pay nothing, just less.

So answer the question, would you pay less, if you could legally?