If you want change, it is the people that have power to enact change, not governments these days.
Most people can't be bothered to vote, there is no chance of them taking direct action, at least not beyond the sort of fatuous #FreeOurGirls nonsense that seems to be de rigeur at the moment.
99% of people will briefly consider an alternative company on the grounds you suggest, then notice that the original company is slightly cheaper (or whatever, possibly because it is paying less tax) and that will be the end of it. Its a very rare voter that doesnt vote primarily with their wallets, why expect them to behave any different when they buy goods and services.
I do buy books from physical bookstores even though I know I could get them cheaper on Amazon . I have a rule that I only buy on Amazon books that I know I could not easily get in a shop. I know in effect the difference in price is a donation to keep physical bookshops around but its a small price to pay imo
I really get an urge to lamp somebody who is recording the details of a book in a shop solely to buy it online later. I personally think bookshops should charge an entry of say £5 and reimburse it as a credit on the purchase of books at the counter
Except that it's really a donation to landlords who are charging excessive rent because property prices in our rainy haven are grossly (and it would appear artificially) inflated. Enormous overheads are why high street shops can't compete with their warehouse based rivals. I don't have a solution by the way, other than gradually to try and let out air of the property market without causing an overnight collapse.
Agree, same here, high rents and so high business rates are a killer - then the council does not want people to park in the town, so high parking charges and limited parking times (30 mins) is killing the town centre.
If you want change, it is the people that have power to enact change, not governments these days.
Most people can't be bothered to vote, there is no chance of them taking direct action, at least not beyond the sort of fatuous #FreeOurGirls nonsense that seems to be de rigeur at the moment.
99% of people will briefly consider an alternative company on the grounds you suggest, then notice that the original company is slightly cheaper (or whatever, possibly because it is paying less tax) and that will be the end of it. Its a very rare voter that doesnt vote primarily with their wallets, why expect them to behave any different when they buy goods and services.
I do buy books from physical bookstores even though I know I could get them cheaper on Amazon . I have a rule that I only buy on Amazon books that I know I could not easily get in a shop. I know in effect the difference in price is a donation to keep physical bookshops around but its a small price to pay imo
I really get an urge to lamp somebody who is recording the details of a book in a shop solely to buy it online later. I personally think bookshops should charge an entry of say £5 and reimburse it as a credit on the purchase of books at the counter
Except that it's really a donation to landlords who are charging excessive rent because property prices in our rainy haven are grossly (and it would appear artificially) inflated. Enormous overheads are why high street shops can't compete with their warehouse based rivals. I don't have a solution by the way, other than gradually to try and let out air of the property market without causing an overnight collapse.
maybe then the only way then to keep physical bookshops is communism!! A bit drastic but I would say, due to the nature of the trade ,landlord profits tend to be taxed (assuming its declared ) at the lawful rate -you cannot really claim 221B Baker Street is offshore for example
Fair enough but the Ramsay Principle has been with us for more than 30 years. It doesn't seemed to have stopped companies and individuals playing the system or ordering their affairs to remain compliant with the law, depending on your point of view. If the Ramsay principle was as strong as you seem to claim then surely we would not be having this discussion.
The Ramsay principle was fatally undermined in 2001 by another Law Lords ruling that went back to strict-letter-of-the-law based liability.
EDIT: People love to quote the judgements from the 1920's as if tax law was at that point frozen for all time and gloss over the Ramsey period as if it never happened.
Apparently Hoffmans 2001 Westmorland ruling (which torpedoed Ramsay) was far less quotable.
"David Cameron’s hopes of a feelgood election boost are dashed today by exclusive research showing most people feel little or no benefit from Britain’s economic recovery.
Eight in 10 say their families have seen either zero or not very much improvement in their living standards, according to pollsters Ipsos MORI.
Ipsos MORI found overall optimism about the economy is lower than it was in the summer. Some 42 per cent think things will improve over the next year, while 23 per cent think it will get worse. The net figure of plus 19 is well below the plus 32 recorded in August"
"David Cameron’s hopes of a feelgood election boost are dashed today by exclusive research showing most people feel little or no benefit from Britain’s economic recovery.
Eight in 10 say their families have seen either zero or not very much improvement in their living standards, according to pollsters Ipsos MORI.
Ipsos MORI found overall optimism about the economy is lower than it was in the summer. Some 42 per cent think things will improve over the next year, while 23 per cent think it will get worse. The net figure of plus 19 is well below the plus 32 recorded in August"
It seems increasingly meaningless as a question to me.
"Who do you think you'd be better (or worse) off with?" seems more pertinent.
I don't "feel" better off than in 2010, but logically, I know I am. How can anyone who was paying 6% mortgage rates not be better off paying 3%?
Plus who is going to say they feel better at being pushed into a pension scheme from which there are no immediate benefits (and which are also costing your employer money) even though you might well recognise it is a 'good thing'?
Working out how much more/less money you have in your pocket is complicated when you have to trade off lower mortgage repayments against lower wage rises and lower inflation. And a better pension. Or indeed actually being in a job rather than on the dole.
If you want change, it is the people that have power to enact change, not governments these days.
Most people can't be bothered to vote, there is no chance of them taking direct action, at least not beyond the sort of fatuous #FreeOurGirls nonsense that seems to be de rigeur at the moment.
99% of people will briefly consider an alternative company on the grounds you suggest, then notice that the original company is slightly cheaper (or whatever, possibly because it is paying less tax) and that will be the end of it. Its a very rare voter that doesnt vote primarily with their wallets, why expect them to behave any different when they buy goods and services.
I do buy books from physical bookstores even though I know I could get them cheaper on Amazon . I have a rule that I only buy on Amazon books that I know I could not easily get in a shop. I know in effect the difference in price is a donation to keep physical bookshops around but its a small price to pay imo
I really get an urge to lamp somebody who is recording the details of a book in a shop solely to buy it online later. I personally think bookshops should charge an entry of say £5 and reimburse it as a credit on the purchase of books at the counter
Except that it's really a donation to landlords who are charging excessive rent because property prices in our rainy haven are grossly (and it would appear artificially) inflated. Enormous overheads are why high street shops can't compete with their warehouse based rivals. I don't have a solution by the way, other than gradually to try and let out air of the property market without causing an overnight collapse.
"Excessive" rent? Surely it's the supply and demand for rent to meet the market equilibrium. If they charged lower rents, you'd have excessive demand. How would you allocate who gets it?
With Miliband obviously not going to debate Farage before the election campaign, UKIP need some big event to keep their momentum going after Rochester. Another defection is possible, but I wonder what else they could do to stay in the news..
I have nowhere defended companies taking the pi$$ over their tax. Quite the contrary. I have suggested getting rid of all reliefs and exemptions and allowances because it is precisely their proliferation which creates the loopholes which get used/abused.
Hmm
I write as a former accountant ( now doing something more exciting- retirement).. You would have some interesting Unforseen Consequences if you did that. Including the destruction of every UK based conpanywith Capital Expenditure - mainly but not solely in manufcaturing.
Published Profits are not the same as Taxable Profits due to allowances on Capital Expenditure which replace depreciation Charges. (this may appear arcane to non accountants). Your proposal would mean that no upfront expenditure could be offset against taxable profits .. so payback periods would treble and cashflows would deteriorate .
Goodbye to the UK based car industry, utility companies, nuclear powered stations,, windpower etc..
I'm sure you don't want an agricultural economy and nothing else.
If you want change, it is the people that have power to enact change, not governments these days.
Most people can't be bothered to vote, there is no chance of them taking direct action, at least not beyond the sort of fatuous #FreeOurGirls nonsense that seems to be de rigeur at the moment.
99% of people will briefly consider an alternative company on the grounds you suggest, then notice that the original company is slightly cheaper (or whatever, possibly because it is paying less tax) and that will be the end of it. Its a very rare voter that doesnt vote primarily with their wallets, why expect them to behave any different when they buy goods and services.
I do buy books from physical bookstores even though I know I could get them cheaper on Amazon . I have a rule that I only buy on Amazon books that I know I could not easily get in a shop. I know in effect the difference in price is a donation to keep physical bookshops around but its a small price to pay imo
I really get an urge to lamp somebody who is recording the details of a book in a shop solely to buy it online later. I personally think bookshops should charge an entry of say £5 and reimburse it as a credit on the purchase of books at the counter
Except that it's really a donation to landlords who are charging excessive rent because property prices in our rainy haven are grossly (and it would appear artificially) inflated. Enormous overheads are why high street shops can't compete with their warehouse based rivals. I don't have a solution by the way, other than gradually to try and let out air of the property market without causing an overnight collapse.
"Excessive" rent? Surely it's the supply and demand for rent to meet the market equilibrium. If they charged lower rents, you'd have excessive demand. How would you allocate who gets it?
"Need", obviously. Which won't lead to resentment at all.
With Miliband obviously not going to debate Farage before the election campaign, UKIP need some big event to keep their momentum going after Rochester. Another defection is possible, but I wonder what else they could do to stay in the news..
How can Miliband not debate him? He's publicly called for a debate on UKIP. Is his line really going to be "We should have a public debate on UKIP, but I refuse to be involved in one with an actual representative of the party"?!
Fair enough but the Ramsay Principle has been with us for more than 30 years. It doesn't seemed to have stopped companies and individuals playing the system or ordering their affairs to remain compliant with the law, depending on your point of view. If the Ramsay principle was as strong as you seem to claim then surely we would not be having this discussion.
The Ramsay principle was fatally undermined in 2001 by another Law Lords ruling that went back to strict-letter-of-the-law based liability.
EDIT: People love to quote the judgements from the 1920's as if tax law was at that point frozen for all time and gloss over the Ramsey period as if it never happened.
Apparently Hoffmans 2001 Westmorland ruling (which torpedoed Ramsay) was far less quotable.
You don't really understand how the common law works. Nothing in Ramsay or Westmoreland undermines the general principle that a taxpayer is entitled to order his affairs lawfully so as to lawfully reduce the amount of tax payable. How he orders them and whether the steps he takes are effective or a sham, whether looked at individually or in the context of the whole transaction, is what those (and other cases) are about. In some cases, the steps taken were effective and in others not.
With Miliband obviously not going to debate Farage before the election campaign, UKIP need some big event to keep their momentum going after Rochester. Another defection is possible, but I wonder what else they could do to stay in the news..
A succession of defections would do the trick, I'd have thought. The dance of the seven veils resulted in one man's head being brought on a platter. No doubt Nigel Farage is hoping that man will be David Cameron on this occasion.
"David Cameron’s hopes of a feelgood election boost are dashed today by exclusive research showing most people feel little or no benefit from Britain’s economic recovery.
Eight in 10 say their families have seen either zero or not very much improvement in their living standards, according to pollsters Ipsos MORI.
Ipsos MORI found overall optimism about the economy is lower than it was in the summer. Some 42 per cent think things will improve over the next year, while 23 per cent think it will get worse. The net figure of plus 19 is well below the plus 32 recorded in August"
Prior to the mid term elections last week, the US enjoyed 55 consecutive months of jobs growth.
How did the governing party do at the elections ?
Who is still President? Despite his poll ratings? Which party is likely to priovide the President in 2016?
Actually the states having the elections were also disproportionately conservative. If the electorate in 2012 had consisted only of voters living in states participating in this year’s Senate elections, Romney would have won comfortably, with 165 electoral votes to Obama’s 130.
So the issue is not really quite as simple as you suggest. And Osborne has positive poll ratings as well.
Just on the comment re the number of Tweets indicating grassroots support for Ed.
I was at a presentation recently that suggested that, while over 70plc of the "media elite" used Twitter, the penetration across the general UK population was more like 10-12pc. So I am not sure that the Tweets are an indication of a general desire for Ed but more support amongst a specific part of the Labour base I.e. Metropolitan, middle-class, socially progressive. It would also tie in with the recent Guardian piece (I think) that suggested something like 50pc of Labour's active members were now in London.
That has some importance: in my area, the local Labour Party has been taken over by this type and often older / less wealthier members feel intimidated about expressing views against more articulate types. So it makes it more likely branches stay with him.
Point I am - long-windedly - making is that Ed is probably doing well amongst types who act / think / speak like him l which probably bodes well for Ed in the major cities. But amongst Labour's traditional WWC vote, support mig be more muted and I think it will be hard to inspire these people to vote Labour. This will be problematic in the non-urban Labour areas.
On personal tax avoidance, most F1 drivers live in Monaco or Switzerland, as do tennis stars or even footballers. All these are £1m+ earners.
Also well known tax avoiders include Film and TV people, athletes, Pop stars, etc. Have not named them to prevent OGH getting letters, but this info is available on line.
In USA if you have a USA passport, then the Fed taxes you wherever you live. Could adopt the same here and see how many UK passports are ditched.
But PBers, if you earned over £1m pa, how many would seek to minimise your tax exposure?
You missed out a well known Scottish Nationalist. If you live abroad then should you really pay British tax, always assuming that you abide by the rules? The plain fact is you are living in another tax jurisdiction and if you are a film/sports star working abroad then your earnings are made abroad. And it must be really boring livijng in Monaco. As for the USA, If a US citizen lives in Mexico (or China etc...) he pays Mexican tax and US tax, but the US revenue lets you offset the Mexican tax first. And it gives a foreign earnings tax allowance as well. And foreign housing allowance. And Foreign tax credit.
I have nowhere defended companies taking the pi$$ over their tax. Quite the contrary. I have suggested getting rid of all reliefs and exemptions and allowances because it is precisely their proliferation which creates the loopholes which get used/abused.
Hmm
I write as a former accountant ( now doing something more exciting- retirement).. You would have some interesting Unforseen Consequences if you did that. Including the destruction of every UK based conpanywith Capital Expenditure - mainly but not solely in manufcaturing.
Published Profits are not the same as Taxable Profits due to allowances on Capital Expenditure which replace depreciation Charges. (this may appear arcane to non accountants). Your proposal would mean that no upfront expenditure could be offset against taxable profits .. so payback periods would treble and cashflows would deteriorate .
Goodbye to the UK based car industry, utility companies, nuclear powered stations,, windpower etc..
I'm sure you don't want an agricultural economy and nothing else.
You may well be right. I'm not an accountant. I was defending myself against the wholly inaccurate charge that I was defending companies which take the pi$$. I do think that there could be very much more simplication than there is.
So EdM throws down the gauntlet, tis picked up by Farage and then Ed says.. errr no thanks I want to hide behind the other two.... What a total plank
There is an embarrassing history for Ed's family, don't forget...
"The government papers accuse Miliband’s late grandfather, Samuel, a Polish migrant, of exaggerating the antisemitism he faced in Belgium after the second world war in order to move to Britain. A hand-written Home Office report from March 8, 1949, doubts the Milibands’ honesty, stating: “Mili-band, father and son, have so misrepresented the case in the past, I am afraid we can place no reliance on their statements.” http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/Test/politics/article84115.ece
The grassroots response to Ed Miliband’s recent leadership uncertainties showed more enthusiasm for his leadership than at any other time – including at the point of his election. While certain MPs were wobbling, the party’s foot soldiers and supporters were bashing out 60,000 tweets of support.
If there is anything that demonstrates how much the Labour Party has become a pathetic shallow vacuous vessel of no worth it is that they rate themselves on the strength of their staged Twitter responses. This is not some celebrity on some pointless reality show who has just flashed their buttocks on screen (although by the sounds of it that may have been more effective) this is someone who is aspiring to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who has given a speech aimed at demonstrating his suitability. On the strength of the above opening Miliband has failed dismally
As to that suitability Miliband has like his predecessor bottled out. Like spiritual father like spiritual son Miliband has bottled it and is seen to be running scared of the leader of a another party, in this case a party that barely saved a deposit at the last general election . He is so fwightened that he needs to hide behind and hold the hands of Clegg (who of course is no such coward) and Cameron before he will face Farage. And this 'bottler' aspires to be Prime Minister? He's not fit to be a class prefect!
What was it Cameron said? How many tweets make a tw@?
So EdM throws down the gauntlet, tis picked up by Farage and then Ed says.. errr no thanks I want to hide behind the other two.... What a total plank
There is an embarrassing history for Ed's family, don't forget...
"The government papers accuse Miliband’s late grandfather, Samuel, a Polish migrant, of exaggerating the antisemitism he faced in Belgium after the second world war in order to move to Britain. A hand-written Home Office report from March 8, 1949, doubts the Milibands’ honesty, stating: “Mili-band, father and son, have so misrepresented the case in the past, I am afraid we can place no reliance on their statements.” http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/Test/politics/article84115.ece
And, how is that relevant to Ed Miliband who wasn't even born then ?
If Ed wants to say something about banks and bankers that might resonate with the ordinary voter there is ammunition here a plenty.
As John Humphries should know 13 people have been charged with LIBOR-related offences and the first trial is happening next year. Neither he nor EdM can say anything about the facts in those cases because of contempt of court laws.
Entertained to see that when Henry writes a critical piece most people say ah, an important insight, but when he writes a positive one, most people say pooh, that's a puff piece.
I never post anything that I don't think to be true (though I often don't say something that I think would be unhelpfully interpreted), and FWIW I cheered up a lot over Ed's interview and speech. Insofar as it's been noticed (i.e. mainly by activists) I think Henry's right that it's likely to have done the job of improving morale. I don't expect any great changes in voting intention (and both the ComRes and YG polls yesterday were probably outliers around level pegging) but it's a good start on a recovery, as Henry says.
On personal tax avoidance, most F1 drivers live in Monaco or Switzerland, as do tennis stars or even footballers. All these are £1m+ earners.
Also well known tax avoiders include Film and TV people, athletes, Pop stars, etc. Have not named them to prevent OGH getting letters, but this info is available on line.
In USA if you have a USA passport, then the Fed taxes you wherever you live. Could adopt the same here and see how many UK passports are ditched.
But PBers, if you earned over £1m pa, how many would seek to minimise your tax exposure?
You missed out a well known Scottish Nationalist. If you live abroad then should you really pay British tax, always assuming that you abide by the rules? The plain fact is you are living in another tax jurisdiction and if you are a film/sports star working abroad then your earnings are made abroad. And it must be really boring livijng in Monaco. As for the USA, If a US citizen lives in Mexico (or China etc...) he pays Mexican tax and US tax, but the US revenue lets you offset the Mexican tax first. And it gives a foreign earnings tax allowance as well. And foreign housing allowance. And Foreign tax credit.
Entertained to see that when Henry writes a critical piece most people say ah, an important insight, but when he writes a positive one, most people say pooh, that's a puff piece.
I never post anything that I don't think to be true (though I often don't say something that I think would be unhelpfully interpreted), and FWIW I cheered up a lot over Ed's interview and speech. Insofar as it's been noticed (i.e. mainly by activists) I think Henry's right that it's likely to have done the job of improving morale. I don't expect any great changes in voting intention (and both the ComRes and YG polls yesterday were probably outliers around level pegging) but it's a good start on a recovery, as Henry says.
The Spectator article on the speech is quite positive.
So EdM throws down the gauntlet, tis picked up by Farage and then Ed says.. errr no thanks I want to hide behind the other two.... What a total plank
There is an embarrassing history for Ed's family, don't forget...
"The government papers accuse Miliband’s late grandfather, Samuel, a Polish migrant, of exaggerating the antisemitism he faced in Belgium after the second world war in order to move to Britain. A hand-written Home Office report from March 8, 1949, doubts the Milibands’ honesty, stating: “Mili-band, father and son, have so misrepresented the case in the past, I am afraid we can place no reliance on their statements.” http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/Test/politics/article84115.ece
And, how is that relevant to Ed Miliband who wasn't even born then ?
Not hugely. But had Milliband been the (grand)son of a Nazi intellectual would he have had the same easy ride?
Despite the fact he had not been born at the time, etc.
So EdM throws down the gauntlet, tis picked up by Farage and then Ed says.. errr no thanks I want to hide behind the other two.... What a total plank
There is an embarrassing history for Ed's family, don't forget...
"The government papers accuse Miliband’s late grandfather, Samuel, a Polish migrant, of exaggerating the antisemitism he faced in Belgium after the second world war in order to move to Britain. A hand-written Home Office report from March 8, 1949, doubts the Milibands’ honesty, stating: “Mili-band, father and son, have so misrepresented the case in the past, I am afraid we can place no reliance on their statements.” http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/Test/politics/article84115.ece
And, how is that relevant to Ed Miliband who wasn't even born then ?
It was relevant enough to warrant an article in the Sunday Times.
Perhaps if he refrained from inventing things about his family in his public speeches its relevance would fade...
I have nowhere defended companies taking the pi$$ over their tax. Quite the contrary. I have suggested getting rid of all reliefs and exemptions and allowances because it is precisely their proliferation which creates the loopholes which get used/abused.
Hmm
I write as a former accountant ( now doing something more exciting- retirement).. You would have some interesting Unforseen Consequences if you did that. Including the destruction of every UK based conpanywith Capital Expenditure - mainly but not solely in manufcaturing.
Published Profits are not the same as Taxable Profits due to allowances on Capital Expenditure which replace depreciation Charges. (this may appear arcane to non accountants). Your proposal would mean that no upfront expenditure could be offset against taxable profits .. so payback periods would treble and cashflows would deteriorate .
Goodbye to the UK based car industry, utility companies, nuclear powered stations,, windpower etc..
I'm sure you don't want an agricultural economy and nothing else.
You may well be right. I'm not an accountant. I was defending myself against the wholly inaccurate charge that I was defending companies which take the pi$$. I do think that there could be very much more simplication than there is.
I don't think any one seriously thinks using Capital Allowances is a kind of tax avoidance. After all, Cap Allowances is simply the Tax equivalent of Depreciation, which has to be allowed since the company invested the money. First Year Allowance etc. only speeds up the process, so can be used as an incentive for investment.
I think, the greatest loop-holes are in rresidency etc. How could Google claim that they have no business in the UK beats me ? Could no draftsperson be found who could write that any google click made in the UK [ i.e. where ISP is in the UK ] is a sale in the UK. If Google did not like it, they could withdraw from the UK. But the UK "allowing" them not to pay VAT is simply unpardonable when everyone knows the business they do here in the UK.
If Ed wants to say something about banks and bankers that might resonate with the ordinary voter there is ammunition here a plenty.
As John Humphries should know 13 people have been charged with LIBOR-related offences and the first trial is happening next year. Neither he nor EdM can say anything about the facts in those cases because of contempt of court laws.
He was talking about the Forex scandal not the Libor scandal. Ed can say lots about the Forex scandal, like why are the UK tax payers (i.e. the Shareholders) of RBS being fined for the activities of employees at RBS whilst the managers of that bank are being paid very large sums of money but are not held responsible for what goes on? No need to risk contempt of court, just a simple question would do for a start.
Winning over the grassroots, dyed-in-the-wool supporters is a great start for a Labour leader. Trouble is, he need to convince a much bigger slice of the population than that.
After all, kippers idolise their Dear Leader, but unless UKIP can convince much, much more of the electorate to vote for them, they're not getting anywhere near being in power.
And: first!
You seem to be saying that UKIP only appeal to UKIP voters
What was the Kipper score in 2010 and what are they polling now?
They've been extraordinarily successfull over the last 3-4 years. I don't deny it. I do think their recent back-sliding in the polls is a sign that they're close to maximising their vote share. I also think that much of their support comes from a NOTA vote, rather than voting positively for the full UKIP policy platform. I could, of course, be wrong...
What backsliding? Pollsters currently say UKIP's support is higher than it's ever been.
And if Survation did polls more often they would be even higher...
Survation are the only pollster that treat UKIP equally with the LDs/Lab/Con. All the others skew their responses by prompting for LD/Lab/Con, but not UKIP.
When ComRes included UKIP in their initial prompt they saw a 5 point jump in the UKIP VI.
"The established conventions for question design in market research would be to ask for a spontaneous response, i.e without mentioning any possible choices, or prompt with all the main alternatives. By this yardstick it becomes difficult to justify continuing to omit mention of UKIP"
There is no reason for ComRes, ICM, YouGov, Mori etc to treat UKIP differently to LD/Lab/Con. They are assuming that as UKIP fizzled in 2009-2010 they will also do so 2014-2015.
I suspect as the election approaches, if UKIP have not fizzled, most of them will change their prompts to include UKIP.
"David Cameron’s hopes of a feelgood election boost are dashed today by exclusive research showing most people feel little or no benefit from Britain’s economic recovery.
Eight in 10 say their families have seen either zero or not very much improvement in their living standards, according to pollsters Ipsos MORI.
Ipsos MORI found overall optimism about the economy is lower than it was in the summer. Some 42 per cent think things will improve over the next year, while 23 per cent think it will get worse. The net figure of plus 19 is well below the plus 32 recorded in August"
Prior to the mid term elections last week, the US enjoyed 55 consecutive months of jobs growth.
How did the governing party do at the elections ?
Who is still President? Despite his poll ratings? Which party is likely to priovide the President in 2016?
Actually the states having the elections were also disproportionately conservative. If the electorate in 2012 had consisted only of voters living in states participating in this year’s Senate elections, Romney would have won comfortably, with 165 electoral votes to Obama’s 130.
So the issue is not really quite as simple as you suggest. And Osborne has positive poll ratings as well.
The House of Representative is elected all across the USA every two years unlike Senate elections. There was still a swing to the Republicans.
If Ed wants to say something about banks and bankers that might resonate with the ordinary voter there is ammunition here a plenty.
As John Humphries should know 13 people have been charged with LIBOR-related offences and the first trial is happening next year. Neither he nor EdM can say anything about the facts in those cases because of contempt of court laws.
He was talking about the Forex scandal not the Libor scandal. Ed can say lots about the Forex scandal, like why are the UK tax payers (i.e. the Shareholders) of RBS being fined for the activities of employees at RBS whilst the managers of that bank are being paid very large sums of money but are not held responsible for what goes on? No need to risk contempt of court, just a simple question would do for a start.
Almost sounds a little like those fine upstanding mangers at Baring's, happy to rake in profits from operations in Singapore without asking too many questions about how they were made.
With Miliband obviously not going to debate Farage before the election campaign, UKIP need some big event to keep their momentum going after Rochester. Another defection is possible, but I wonder what else they could do to stay in the news..
How can Miliband not debate him? He's publicly called for a debate on UKIP. Is his line really going to be "We should have a public debate on UKIP, but I refuse to be involved in one with an actual representative of the party"?!
UKIP is a tiny pinprick of a party composed of 2 MPs !
It looks like the Labour are losing their discipline and proving themselves to be the unruly rabble that has been hinted at so often:
At the Labour leader’s eighth ‘relaunch’ speech on Thursday at Senate House, every single question from journalists was greeted by boos, hisses and tuts.
FPT Cyclefree ... ''Why OGH should think it pathetic to defend tax avoiders, such as the likes of you and I with our ISAs, is not for me to say.''
....
Govt set tax rates allowances for individuals and companies. Bogus 'brass plate' schemes are exploiting loopholes which the revenue chase and close as they find them. Its cheating its chicanery its lying its taking the pi$$ its robbery. The fact that you defend it is shameful.
I have nowhere defended companies taking the pi$$ over their tax. Quite the contrary. I have suggested getting rid of all reliefs and exemptions and allowances because it is precisely their proliferation which creates the loopholes which get used/abused.
It does not matter that you do not defend them taking the pi$$. That is, amongs other things, what they are doing - to you and me. You are saying they are doing nothing wrong. And you are comparing it with things like ISAs. Your comparison is wrong. What these companies are doing is abusing the system which in its structure is actually set up to help companies, help their shareholders help their workers and help the country pay for the services which those companies customers and workers benefit from.
With Miliband obviously not going to debate Farage before the election campaign, UKIP need some big event to keep their momentum going after Rochester. Another defection is possible, but I wonder what else they could do to stay in the news..
How can Miliband not debate him? He's publicly called for a debate on UKIP. Is his line really going to be "We should have a public debate on UKIP, but I refuse to be involved in one with an actual representative of the party"?!
UKIP is a tiny pinprick of a party composed of 2 MPs !
Which makes Bottler Milband's decision to hide behind Nick and Dave even more bizarre. If he has such a compelling message he should flatten Farage. What's the problem? What's he so scared of?
MD He said there should be a debate on UKIP and what it stands for..who better to have it than himself... maybe he wants someone else to do it for him.. seems like it..such leadership..such courage.. If he is the very best that Labour can produce then perhaps it is time to dissolve itself..
Mr. Dodd, I didn't listen to the Milispeech. Did he directly challenge Farage to a debate?
I don’t think Ed directly challenge Farage to a formal debate? - Ed spoke about UKIP, vowing to “take them apart” and “it’s time we had a debate about where they really stand”
From which I took it to mean at arm’s length, behind the scene for Ed and a Damian McBride type ‘debate’ up front and centre.
"Sir John said: “In England, which is 85 per cent of the population of the United Kingdom, opposition has reached a critical mass and now, for the first time, there is a serious possibility that our electorate could vote to leave the EU.”
“I put the chance of exit at just under 50 per cent. But if the negotiations go badly that percentage will rise. Conversely, with genuine reform, it will fall.”"
"So EdM throws down the gauntlet, tis picked up by Farage and then Ed says.. errr no thanks I want to hide behind the other two.... What a total plank"
MD.. No he didn't .. he wants someone else to do it which is the point I am making.. if he did it himself we could maybe see some substance in the man..at the momentb he is just frit..not what the UK needs as a PM.
It looks like the Labour are losing their discipline and proving themselves to be the unruly rabble that has been hinted at so often:
At the Labour leader’s eighth ‘relaunch’ speech on Thursday at Senate House, every single question from journalists was greeted by boos, hisses and tuts.
Entertained to see that when Henry writes a critical piece most people say ah, an important insight, but when he writes a positive one, most people say pooh, that's a puff piece.
I never post anything that I don't think to be true (though I often don't say something that I think would be unhelpfully interpreted), and FWIW I cheered up a lot over Ed's interview and speech. Insofar as it's been noticed (i.e. mainly by activists) I think Henry's right that it's likely to have done the job of improving morale. I don't expect any great changes in voting intention (and both the ComRes and YG polls yesterday were probably outliers around level pegging) but it's a good start on a recovery, as Henry says.
It's improved my mood a bit, and I think the "themes" are good ones and ones that much of the public would agree with (even the fabled swing/"centre-ground" voters) -- big businesses and vested interests need to take the public's interests into account more, the super-rich are taking the piss, gross inequality and food banks are never a price worth paying.
But the crucial thing now is he and the shadow cabinet need to be pushing those messages DAY IN DAY OUT. One of my real beefs with them over the past few years has been the way they just suddenly drop one of their messages before it's really sunk in with the public -- they just always seem to lose their nerve when the media starts sneering about how they're "lurching to the left" or whatever nonsense. But the problem is that even if their "left-wing" messages cause some controversy and alienate some people, the alternative of just having a complete vacuum as we've seen in recent months is a complete disaster.
Elliot Dean What will you do on your first day as Prime Minister? #6monthstowin 9 · Like · Reply · 11 minutes ago
Ed Miliband On day number one, we’ll start getting young people back to work, we’ll be putting in place our freeze on gas and electricity bills, and we’ll get ready to scrap the Bedroom Tax.
Has anyone done more than Ken Livingstone to make Labour toxic across the southern half of England ?
What an absolute prick Livingstone is... East London has practically become a Muslim caliphate thanks to the kind of divisive politics that he encourages
Can you imagine being a Ukip candidate in tower hamlets or newham? I've imagined it! And swerved it!
Elliot Dean What will you do on your first day as Prime Minister? #6monthstowin 9 · Like · Reply · 11 minutes ago
Ed Miliband On day number one, we’ll start getting young people back to work, we’ll be putting in place our freeze on gas and electricity bills, and we’ll get ready to scrap the Bedroom Tax.
Looks like he's already forgotten about the deficit and immigration again......
"I think it is time we levelled with people about UKIP. They’ve got away with it for too long. It is time we had a debate about where they really stand. They do have a vision of the past. But I say to working people in this country, let’s really examine their vision. Because when you stop and look at it, it is not really very attractive." E Miliband
WFC replies I'm having some difficulty keeping up with the nuspeak. Let me see if I've got it right:
"Levelled with" means "told better porkies to"; "Got away with it" means "the mud hasn't been sticking, we need new mud"; "It is time we had a debate" means "we have no intention of debating".
Am I right so far? ---------- I have no idea who WFC is, but his reply is so brilliant and so correct, that I had to let PBers see it.
Has anyone done more than Ken Livingstone to make Labour toxic across the southern half of England ?
What an absolute prick Livingstone is... East London has practically become a Muslim caliphate thanks to the kind of divisive politics that he encourages
Can you imagine being a Ukip candidate in tower hamlets or newham? I've imagined it! And swerved it!
Elliot Dean What will you do on your first day as Prime Minister? #6monthstowin 9 · Like · Reply · 11 minutes ago
Ed Miliband On day number one, we’ll start getting young people back to work, we’ll be putting in place our freeze on gas and electricity bills, and we’ll get ready to scrap the Bedroom Tax.
Looks like he's already forgotten about the deficit and immigration again......
Just had an email from him - very very red.
"I will raise money from tobacco companies, tax avoiders, and a mansion tax to fund doctors, nurses, careworkers and midwives for our NHS"
"I will ban the damaging zero-hours contracts that exploit British workers"
"I will scrap the Bedroom Tax, which unfairly punishes the disabled and the vulnerable"
It looks like the Labour are losing their discipline and proving themselves to be the unruly rabble that has been hinted at so often:
At the Labour leader’s eighth ‘relaunch’ speech on Thursday at Senate House, every single question from journalists was greeted by boos, hisses and tuts.
Elliot Dean What will you do on your first day as Prime Minister? #6monthstowin 9 · Like · Reply · 11 minutes ago
Ed Miliband On day number one, we’ll start getting young people back to work, we’ll be putting in place our freeze on gas and electricity bills, and we’ll get ready to scrap the Bedroom Tax.
Looks like he's already forgotten about the deficit and immigration again......
Just had an email from him - very very red.
"I will raise money from tobacco companies, tax avoiders, and a mansion tax to fund doctors, nurses, careworkers and midwives for our NHS"
"I will ban the damaging zero-hours contracts that exploit British workers"
"I will scrap the Bedroom Tax, which unfairly punishes the disabled and the vulnerable"
No wonder he was talking about 'zero zero' because that lot will have zero net positive impact and result in zero improvement for the country
"I will raise money from tobacco companies, tax avoiders, and a mansion tax to fund doctors, nurses, careworkers and midwives for our NHS"
"I will ban the damaging zero-hours contracts that exploit British workers"
"I will scrap the Bedroom Tax, which unfairly punishes the disabled and the vulnerable"
The same old, same old.
The London Tax is damaging Labour in London. Their numbers have been driftiing lower for a couple of months;
The Empty Room Handout is on the SNPs to-do list so won't help in Scotland;
Zero hours contracts are used by 19% of private businesses, 28% of public sector ones and 42% of charities/not for profit ones. So, he's primarily going after charity and insisting that the public sector payroll be increased if these staff are to keep their jobs.
"I think it is time we levelled with people about UKIP. They’ve got away with it for too long. It is time we had a debate about where they really stand. They do have a vision of the past. But I say to working people in this country, let’s really examine their vision. Because when you stop and look at it, it is not really very attractive." E Miliband
WFC replies I'm having some difficulty keeping up with the nuspeak. Let me see if I've got it right:
"Levelled with" means "told better porkies to"; "Got away with it" means "the mud hasn't been sticking, we need new mud"; "It is time we had a debate" means "we have no intention of debating".
Am I right so far? ---------- I have no idea who WFC is, but his reply is so brilliant and so correct, that I had to let PBers see it.
The more these empty-suited metropolitan careerists mouth their lies, the more votes they shed.
It looks like the Labour are losing their discipline and proving themselves to be the unruly rabble that has been hinted at so often:
At the Labour leader’s eighth ‘relaunch’ speech on Thursday at Senate House, every single question from journalists was greeted by boos, hisses and tuts.
Turning on the media in the run up to an election is a particularly dumb move
I find it quite sinister. A free press is fundamental to a functioning democracy. Maybe Ed thinks that is expendable, I don't.
Well we already know from the Leveson outrage that Miliband wants to silence the press and curtail free speech. I doubt he values democracy very much either. Labour has an awful track record when it comes to undermining our democracy and in any case how can any raving Europhiliac value democracy? The EU is the antithesis of a democratic institution.
If Ed wants to say something about banks and bankers that might resonate with the ordinary voter there is ammunition here a plenty.
As John Humphries should know 13 people have been charged with LIBOR-related offences and the first trial is happening next year. Neither he nor EdM can say anything about the facts in those cases because of contempt of court laws.
He was talking about the Forex scandal not the Libor scandal. Ed can say lots about the Forex scandal, like why are the UK tax payers (i.e. the Shareholders) of RBS being fined for the activities of employees at RBS whilst the managers of that bank are being paid very large sums of money but are not held responsible for what goes on? No need to risk contempt of court, just a simple question would do for a start.
He does mention LIBOR.
Edit: He says this - "In the case of the last rate-fixing scandal, concerning the rigging of the Libor interest rate, a benchmark interest for millions of transactions round the world, no one has gone to prison."
A Google search would have told him that trials are happening.
And Forex investigations are ongoing. But on that I can say nothing.
The bromance is over... Nige drops the Red Ed-bomb
Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) 13/11/2014 18:18 Red Ed can sling all the mud he wants. Here are the facts about UKIP's NHS policies: independent.co.uk/voices/comment…
Here are two for starters: Why does he want others to pay IHT when he didn't bother himself Why did he say his grandfather was killed by the Nazis when he seemed to have died 5 months after that area of Poland was liberated?
1. Increase costs and reduce employment within charities and the public sector - by cracking down on zero hours contracts, where these sectors employ the highest proportion on these deals;
2. Move welfare from children to empty rooms - Child benefit frozen to pay for empty space;
3. Ensure that all London property is in the hands of foreign property speculators by levying a London Mansion Tax to drive out the ordinary people fortunate enough to have bought in a property hotspot;
It looks like the Labour are losing their discipline and proving themselves to be the unruly rabble that has been hinted at so often:
At the Labour leader’s eighth ‘relaunch’ speech on Thursday at Senate House, every single question from journalists was greeted by boos, hisses and tuts.
Turning on the media in the run up to an election is a particularly dumb move
I find it quite sinister. A free press is fundamental to a functioning democracy. Maybe Ed thinks that is expendable, I don't.
Well we already know from the Leveson outrage that Miliband wants to silence the press and curtail free speech. I doubt he values democracy very much either. Labour has an awful track record when it comes to undermining our democracy and in any case how can any raving Europh iliac value democracy? The EU is the antithesis of a democratic institution.
It looks like the Labour are losing their discipline and proving themselves to be the unruly rabble that has been hinted at so often:
At the Labour leader’s eighth ‘relaunch’ speech on Thursday at Senate House, every single question from journalists was greeted by boos, hisses and tuts.
Here are two for starters: Why does he want others to pay IHT when he didn't bother himself Why did he say his grandfather was killed by the Nazis when he seemed to have died 5 months after that area of Poland was liberated?
It looks like the Labour are losing their discipline and proving themselves to be the unruly rabble that has been hinted at so often:
At the Labour leader’s eighth ‘relaunch’ speech on Thursday at Senate House, every single question from journalists was greeted by boos, hisses and tuts.
Turning on the media in the run up to an election is a particularly dumb move
I find it quite sinister. A free press is fundamental to a functioning democracy. Maybe Ed thinks that is expendable, I don't.
Unfortunately that free press self censors itself and sells out. Why were no Mohammed cartoons published? Why are they not leading the charge for a 1st Amendment style commitment to free speech in this country? Why were Tony Blair's expenses allowed to be shredded with barely a murmur. Why are they not questioning Ed on his IHT avoidance? Where is the outrage over Rotherham?
Instead it's all about Z-list celebs, trash TV and sport.
It looks like the Labour are losing their discipline and proving themselves to be the unruly rabble that has been hinted at so often:
At the Labour leader’s eighth ‘relaunch’ speech on Thursday at Senate House, every single question from journalists was greeted by boos, hisses and tuts.
Turning on the media in the run up to an election is a particularly dumb move
I find it quite sinister. A free press is fundamental to a functioning democracy. Maybe Ed thinks that is expendable, I don't.
Well we already know from the Leveson outrage that Miliband wants to silence the press and curtail free speech. I doubt he values democracy very much either. Labour has an awful track record when it comes to undermining our democracy and in any case how can any raving Europh iliac value democracy? The EU is the antithesis of a democratic institution.
What' breathtakingly stupid comment.
After reading some of the threads you have put up I'll take such a judgement with a pinch of salt.
Elliot Dean What will you do on your first day as Prime Minister? #6monthstowin 9 · Like · Reply · 11 minutes ago
Ed Miliband On day number one, we’ll start getting young people back to work, we’ll be putting in place our freeze on gas and electricity bills, and we’ll get ready to scrap the Bedroom Tax.
Looks like he's already forgotten about the deficit and immigration again......
Just had an email from him - very very red.
"I will raise money from tobacco companies, tax avoiders, and a mansion tax to fund doctors, nurses, careworkers and midwives for our NHS"
"I will ban the damaging zero-hours contracts that exploit British workers"
"I will scrap the Bedroom Tax, which unfairly punishes the disabled and the vulnerable"
No wonder he was talking about 'zero zero' because that lot will have zero net positive impact and result in zero improvement for the country
Zero-zero?
Did he mean zero on the economy and zero on immigration?
Here are two for starters: Why does he want others to pay IHT when he didn't bother himself Why did he say his grandfather was killed by the Nazis when he seemed to have died 5 months after that area of Poland was liberated?
Here are two for starters: Why does he want others to pay IHT when he didn't bother himself Why did he say his grandfather was killed by the Nazis when he seemed to have died 5 months after that area of Poland was liberated?
Oh, the 'quotes' thing went AWOL...or my fingers did. Cyclefree said... 'I have nowhere defended companies taking the pi$$ over their tax. Quite the contrary. I have suggested getting rid of all reliefs and exemptions and allowances because it is precisely their proliferation which creates the loopholes which get used/abused.'
For me It does not matter that you do not defend them taking the pi$$. That is, amongs other things, however what they are doing - to you and me. You are saying they are doing nothing wrong. And you are comparing it with things like ISAs. Your comparison is wrong. What these companies are doing is abusing the system which in its structure is actually set up to help companies, help their shareholders help their workers and help the country pay for the services which those companies customers and workers benefit from.
Here are two for starters: Why does he want others to pay IHT when he didn't bother himself Why did he say his grandfather was killed by the Nazis when he seemed to have died 5 months after that area of Poland was liberated?
Here are two for starters: Why does he want others to pay IHT when he didn't bother himself Why did he say his grandfather was killed by the Nazis when he seemed to have died 5 months after that area of Poland was liberated?
Bottled it ? I think he got rather carried away by his intellectual self-confidence. Not for the first time. In reality, I think the debate as Ed Milliband imagines it happening, and the debate as it would actually pan out, would turn out to be very different.
Here are two for starters: Why does he want others to pay IHT when he didn't bother himself Why did he say his grandfather was killed by the Nazis when he seemed to have died 5 months after that area of Poland was liberated?
It was liberated from the Nazis even if it was then delivered into the hands of an equally disgusting totalitarian government.
...which the Millipedes wholeheartedly supported...
By the 1960s, [Ralph] was a prominent member of the New Left movement in Britain, which was critical of established Socialist governments in the Soviet Union and Central Europe (the Eastern Bloc).
It looks like the Labour are losing their discipline and proving themselves to be the unruly rabble that has been hinted at so often:
At the Labour leader’s eighth ‘relaunch’ speech on Thursday at Senate House, every single question from journalists was greeted by boos, hisses and tuts.
Turning on the media in the run up to an election is a particularly dumb move
I find it quite sinister. A free press is fundamental to a functioning democracy. Maybe Ed thinks that is expendable, I don't.
Well we already know from the Leveson outrage that Miliband wants to silence the press and curtail free speech. I doubt he values democracy very much either. Labour has an awful track record when it comes to undermining our democracy and in any case how can any raving Europh iliac value democracy? The EU is the antithesis of a democratic institution.
What' breathtakingly stupid comment.
After reading some of the threads you have put up I'll take such a judgement with a pinch of salt.
That will teach him to respond to people who say preventing free speech is sinister!
Oh, the 'quotes' thing went AWOL...or my fingers did. Cyclefree said... 'I have nowhere defended companies taking the pi$$ over their tax. Quite the contrary. I have suggested getting rid of all reliefs and exemptions and allowances because it is precisely their proliferation which creates the loopholes which get used/abused.'
For me It does not matter that you do not defend them taking the pi$$. That is, amongs other things, however what they are doing - to you and me. You are saying they are doing nothing wrong. And you are comparing it with things like ISAs. Your comparison is wrong. What these companies are doing is abusing the system which in its structure is actually set up to help companies, help their shareholders help their workers and help the country pay for the services which those companies customers and workers benefit from.
I am saying that they are doing what is legal under the law as it currently is just as those individuals who save under laws which permit them to avoid tax are behaving legally. I have not commented on whether what they are doing is wrong.
You may not like the fact but a company which bases itself in a low tax jurisdiction to avoid tax is avoiding tax. A person who puts their money into an ISA is avoiding tax. Whether their motives are pure or impure, whether they are doing it for reasons you or anyone else approves of, whether they are doing what Parliament intended is irrelevant. They are both - lawfully - avoiding tax.
You could just as easily say that someone who puts the full amount into an ISA every year and then takes all the money out and moves overseas is abusing a system. I don't.
But I do wish people would stop pretending that tax avoidance is something wicked only done by big bad companies when in fact lots and lots of us are busy doing the same.
Comments
EDIT: People love to quote the judgements from the 1920's as if tax law was at that point frozen for all time and gloss over the Ramsey period as if it never happened.
Apparently Hoffmans 2001 Westmorland ruling (which torpedoed Ramsay) was far less quotable.
Working out how much more/less money you have in your pocket is complicated when you have to trade off lower mortgage repayments against lower wage rises and lower inflation. And a better pension.
Or indeed actually being in a job rather than on the dole.
Bet there was a thread about that!!!
Reckless will remain a complete irrelevance - thankfully.
I have nowhere defended companies taking the pi$$ over their tax. Quite the contrary. I have suggested getting rid of all reliefs and exemptions and allowances because it is precisely their proliferation which creates the loopholes which get used/abused.
Hmm
I write as a former accountant ( now doing something more exciting- retirement)..
You would have some interesting Unforseen Consequences if you did that. Including the destruction of every UK based conpanywith Capital Expenditure - mainly but not solely in manufcaturing.
Published Profits are not the same as Taxable Profits due to allowances on Capital Expenditure which replace depreciation Charges. (this may appear arcane to non accountants). Your proposal would mean that no upfront expenditure could be offset against taxable profits .. so payback periods would treble and cashflows would deteriorate .
Goodbye to the UK based car industry, utility companies, nuclear powered stations,, windpower etc..
I'm sure you don't want an agricultural economy and nothing else.
'Value of house inherited, £2m (or was it £5m?). IHT paid. Zero.'
I'm sure in the interests of transparency and being in touch with the public we would be told.
A tip that gets paid out a week early is worth mentioning no matter what it is, although to be fair Obama was a slightly bigger price.
The Racing Post don't have the main sporting headlines as their front page, its the gambling news that makes the headlines
Which party is likely to priovide the President in 2016?
Actually the states having the elections were also disproportionately conservative. If the electorate in 2012 had consisted only of voters living in states participating in this year’s Senate elections, Romney would have won comfortably, with 165 electoral votes to Obama’s 130.
So the issue is not really quite as simple as you suggest. And Osborne has positive poll ratings as well.
I was at a presentation recently that suggested that, while over 70plc of the "media elite" used Twitter, the penetration across the general UK population was more like 10-12pc. So I am not sure that the Tweets are an indication of a general desire for Ed but more support amongst a specific part of the Labour base I.e. Metropolitan, middle-class, socially progressive. It would also tie in with the recent Guardian piece (I think) that suggested something like 50pc of Labour's active members were now in London.
That has some importance: in my area, the local Labour Party has been taken over by this type and often older / less wealthier members feel intimidated about expressing views against more articulate types. So it makes it more likely branches stay with him.
Point I am - long-windedly - making is that Ed is probably doing well amongst types who act / think / speak like him l which probably bodes well for Ed in the major cities. But amongst Labour's traditional WWC vote, support mig be more muted and I think it will be hard to inspire these people to vote Labour. This will be problematic in the non-urban Labour areas.
Ed turns down debate.
I am put in mind of Sir Robin's minstrels from Holy Grail...
Welcome to the site, Mr. Ed.
F1: Mercedes and Renault don't want an engine war:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/30039736
Someone should tell hissyfit Horner.
If you live abroad then should you really pay British tax, always assuming that you abide by the rules? The plain fact is you are living in another tax jurisdiction and if you are a film/sports star working abroad then your earnings are made abroad. And it must be really boring livijng in Monaco.
As for the USA,
If a US citizen lives in Mexico (or China etc...) he pays Mexican tax and US tax, but the US revenue lets you offset the Mexican tax first. And it gives a foreign earnings tax allowance as well. And foreign housing allowance. And Foreign tax credit.
So... ??
Hmm
I write as a former accountant ( now doing something more exciting- retirement)..
You would have some interesting Unforseen Consequences if you did that. Including the destruction of every UK based conpanywith Capital Expenditure - mainly but not solely in manufcaturing.
Published Profits are not the same as Taxable Profits due to allowances on Capital Expenditure which replace depreciation Charges. (this may appear arcane to non accountants). Your proposal would mean that no upfront expenditure could be offset against taxable profits .. so payback periods would treble and cashflows would deteriorate .
Goodbye to the UK based car industry, utility companies, nuclear powered stations,, windpower etc..
I'm sure you don't want an agricultural economy and nothing else.
You may well be right. I'm not an accountant. I was defending myself against the wholly inaccurate charge that I was defending companies which take the pi$$. I do think that there could be very much more simplication than there is.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/11/13/banks-are-fined-what-about-bankers/
If Ed wants to say something about banks and bankers that might resonate with the ordinary voter there is ammunition here a plenty.
"The government papers accuse Miliband’s late grandfather, Samuel, a Polish migrant, of exaggerating the antisemitism he faced in Belgium after the second world war in order to move to Britain. A hand-written Home Office report from March 8, 1949, doubts the Milibands’ honesty, stating: “Mili-band, father and son, have so misrepresented the case in the past, I am afraid we can place no reliance on their statements.”
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/Test/politics/article84115.ece
If there is anything that demonstrates how much the Labour Party has become a pathetic shallow vacuous vessel of no worth it is that they rate themselves on the strength of their staged Twitter responses. This is not some celebrity on some pointless reality show who has just flashed their buttocks on screen (although by the sounds of it that may have been more effective) this is someone who is aspiring to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who has given a speech aimed at demonstrating his suitability. On the strength of the above opening Miliband has failed dismally
As to that suitability Miliband has like his predecessor bottled out. Like spiritual father like spiritual son Miliband has bottled it and is seen to be running scared of the leader of a another party, in this case a party that barely saved a deposit at the last general election . He is so fwightened that he needs to hide behind and hold the hands of Clegg (who of course is no such coward) and Cameron before he will face Farage. And this 'bottler' aspires to be Prime Minister? He's not fit to be a class prefect!
What was it Cameron said? How many tweets make a tw@?
On this evidence 60,000
I never post anything that I don't think to be true (though I often don't say something that I think would be unhelpfully interpreted), and FWIW I cheered up a lot over Ed's interview and speech. Insofar as it's been noticed (i.e. mainly by activists) I think Henry's right that it's likely to have done the job of improving morale. I don't expect any great changes in voting intention (and both the ComRes and YG polls yesterday were probably outliers around level pegging) but it's a good start on a recovery, as Henry says.
And it kicks in at nearly $100k
Not hugely.
But had Milliband been the (grand)son of a Nazi intellectual would he have had the same easy ride?
Despite the fact he had not been born at the time, etc.
Has anyone done more than Ken Livingstone to make Labour toxic across the southern half of England ?
Perhaps if he refrained from inventing things about his family in his public speeches its relevance would fade...
I write as a former accountant ( now doing something more exciting- retirement)..
You would have some interesting Unforseen Consequences if you did that. Including the destruction of every UK based conpanywith Capital Expenditure - mainly but not solely in manufcaturing.
Published Profits are not the same as Taxable Profits due to allowances on Capital Expenditure which replace depreciation Charges. (this may appear arcane to non accountants). Your proposal would mean that no upfront expenditure could be offset against taxable profits .. so payback periods would treble and cashflows would deteriorate .
Goodbye to the UK based car industry, utility companies, nuclear powered stations,, windpower etc..
I'm sure you don't want an agricultural economy and nothing else.
You may well be right. I'm not an accountant. I was defending myself against the wholly inaccurate charge that I was defending companies which take the pi$$. I do think that there could be very much more simplication than there is.
I don't think any one seriously thinks using Capital Allowances is a kind of tax avoidance. After all, Cap Allowances is simply the Tax equivalent of Depreciation, which has to be allowed since the company invested the money. First Year Allowance etc. only speeds up the process, so can be used as an incentive for investment.
I think, the greatest loop-holes are in rresidency etc. How could Google claim that they have no business in the UK beats me ? Could no draftsperson be found who could write that any google click made in the UK [ i.e. where ISP is in the UK ] is a sale in the UK. If Google did not like it, they could withdraw from the UK. But the UK "allowing" them not to pay VAT is simply unpardonable when everyone knows the business they do here in the UK.
"The established conventions for question design in market research would be to ask for a spontaneous response, i.e without mentioning any possible choices, or prompt with all the main alternatives. By this yardstick it becomes difficult to justify continuing to omit mention of UKIP"
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/08/07/take-polls-with-large-pinch-of-salt-do-not-consume-in-excess/
There is no reason for ComRes, ICM, YouGov, Mori etc to treat UKIP differently to LD/Lab/Con. They are assuming that as UKIP fizzled in 2009-2010 they will also do so 2014-2015.
I suspect as the election approaches, if UKIP have not fizzled, most of them will change their prompts to include UKIP.
At the Labour leader’s eighth ‘relaunch’ speech on Thursday at Senate House, every single question from journalists was greeted by boos, hisses and tuts.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/labours-war-on-the-media-is-working-as-activists-turn-on-hacks/
Turning on the media in the run up to an election is a particularly dumb move
Got a question for Ed Miliband?
Ask it here (from 6pm - 7pm)
https://www.facebook.com/edmiliband
One of the "questions"...
Laura Marcus: How can we fight the incredibly biased media that have it in for you in particular and Labour in general? Thanks. Keep up the good work.
If he is the very best that Labour can produce then perhaps it is time to dissolve itself..
From which I took it to mean at arm’s length, behind the scene for Ed and a Damian McBride type ‘debate’ up front and centre.
"Sir John said: “In England, which is 85 per cent of the population of the United Kingdom, opposition has reached a critical mass and now, for the first time, there is a serious possibility that our electorate could vote to leave the EU.”
“I put the chance of exit at just under 50 per cent. But if the negotiations go badly that percentage will rise. Conversely, with genuine reform, it will fall.”"
Oh, Ed ...
But the crucial thing now is he and the shadow cabinet need to be pushing those messages DAY IN DAY OUT. One of my real beefs with them over the past few years has been the way they just suddenly drop one of their messages before it's really sunk in with the public -- they just always seem to lose their nerve when the media starts sneering about how they're "lurching to the left" or whatever nonsense. But the problem is that even if their "left-wing" messages cause some controversy and alienate some people, the alternative of just having a complete vacuum as we've seen in recent months is a complete disaster.
Elliot Dean What will you do on your first day as Prime Minister? #6monthstowin
9 · Like · Reply · 11 minutes ago
Ed Miliband On day number one, we’ll start getting young people back to work, we’ll be putting in place our freeze on gas and electricity bills, and we’ll get ready to scrap the Bedroom Tax.
Can you imagine being a Ukip candidate in tower hamlets or newham? I've imagined it! And swerved it!
E Miliband
WFC replies
I'm having some difficulty keeping up with the nuspeak. Let me see if I've got it right:
"Levelled with" means "told better porkies to";
"Got away with it" means "the mud hasn't been sticking, we need new mud";
"It is time we had a debate" means "we have no intention of debating".
Am I right so far?
----------
I have no idea who WFC is, but his reply is so brilliant and so correct, that I had to let PBers see it.
"I will raise money from tobacco companies, tax avoiders, and a mansion tax to fund doctors, nurses, careworkers and midwives for our NHS"
"I will ban the damaging zero-hours contracts that exploit British workers"
"I will scrap the Bedroom Tax, which unfairly punishes the disabled and the vulnerable"
The London Tax is damaging Labour in London. Their numbers have been driftiing lower for a couple of months;
The Empty Room Handout is on the SNPs to-do list so won't help in Scotland;
Zero hours contracts are used by 19% of private businesses, 28% of public sector ones and 42% of charities/not for profit ones. So, he's primarily going after charity and insisting that the public sector payroll be increased if these staff are to keep their jobs.
Ed M apparently wants a debate with Farage. For pure political soap-opera , I really hope that happens.
Miliband should keep it up!
Wasn't that the hilariously titled book by Jonah Brown?
Edit: He says this - "In the case of the last rate-fixing scandal, concerning the rigging of the Libor interest rate, a benchmark interest for millions of transactions round the world, no one has gone to prison."
A Google search would have told him that trials are happening.
And Forex investigations are ongoing. But on that I can say nothing.
Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage)
13/11/2014 18:18
Red Ed can sling all the mud he wants. Here are the facts about UKIP's NHS policies: independent.co.uk/voices/comment…
Here are two for starters:
Why does he want others to pay IHT when he didn't bother himself
Why did he say his grandfather was killed by the Nazis when he seemed to have died 5 months after that area of Poland was liberated?
Pretty sure he won't bother answering these.
1. Increase costs and reduce employment within charities and the public sector - by cracking down on zero hours contracts, where these sectors employ the highest proportion on these deals;
2. Move welfare from children to empty rooms - Child benefit frozen to pay for empty space;
3. Ensure that all London property is in the hands of foreign property speculators by levying a London Mansion Tax to drive out the ordinary people fortunate enough to have bought in a property hotspot;
Ed Miliband turns down head-to-head debate with Nigel Farage
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/11/ed-miliband-turns-down-head-to-head-debate-with-nigel-farage/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal
Ed - do you think your supporters should rant at the press?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SGCZNmJY9k
Unfortunately that free press self censors itself and sells out.
Why were no Mohammed cartoons published?
Why are they not leading the charge for a 1st Amendment style commitment to free speech in this country?
Why were Tony Blair's expenses allowed to be shredded with barely a murmur.
Why are they not questioning Ed on his IHT avoidance?
Where is the outrage over Rotherham?
Instead it's all about Z-list celebs, trash TV and sport.
Did he mean zero on the economy and zero on immigration?
Did he drone on about the NHS today? Don't recall
The Reds that the Millipedes supported only took over in 1947.
By the same token Auschwitz was not liberated, as this was done by the Red Army.
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/photos/RV1.htm
Cyclefree said...
'I have nowhere defended companies taking the pi$$ over their tax. Quite the contrary. I have suggested getting rid of all reliefs and exemptions and allowances because it is precisely their proliferation which creates the loopholes which get used/abused.'
For me It does not matter that you do not defend them taking the pi$$. That is, amongs other things, however what they are doing - to you and me. You are saying they are doing nothing wrong. And you are comparing it with things like ISAs.
Your comparison is wrong.
What these companies are doing is abusing the system which in its structure is actually set up to help companies, help their shareholders help their workers and help the country pay for the services which those companies customers and workers benefit from.
self-confidence. Not for the first time.
In reality, I think the debate as Ed Milliband imagines it happening, and the debate as it would actually pan out, would turn out to be very different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Miliband
You may not like the fact but a company which bases itself in a low tax jurisdiction to avoid tax is avoiding tax. A person who puts their money into an ISA is avoiding tax. Whether their motives are pure or impure, whether they are doing it for reasons you or anyone else approves of, whether they are doing what Parliament intended is irrelevant. They are both - lawfully - avoiding tax.
You could just as easily say that someone who puts the full amount into an ISA every year and then takes all the money out and moves overseas is abusing a system. I don't.
But I do wish people would stop pretending that tax avoidance is something wicked only done by big bad companies when in fact lots and lots of us are busy doing the same.