The cycle to work scheme is probably the most ridiculous middle class subsidy one could imagine. Whoever came up with it must be such a joy at dinner parties...
Anyone can use it – just a cheap way of getting a bike. Keeps cars of the roads. What's the problem?
The value in the scheme is not in getting a bike to commute. It is in subsidising the purchase of bikes in at least the £500+ mark but doesn't really become worth the effort till you're up above the £1000 mark.
That's not the price range of commuter bikes.
The scheme has a limit of £1000 - ie you can't use it to buy a £3000 carbon fibre bicycle. The savings are also greater on bicycles that cost less than £500 - the final payment is lower.
Duh.
My error on the cap. But the saving in terms of Tax, NI and VAT (usually people forget the VAT) is only really substantial enough to make it worthwhile at the higher end. A £1k bike will end up costing a 40% tax payer still paying marginal NI around £300. A £200 bike will end up costing an individual on Minimum Wage around £100.
In a worst case scenario a 25 hour a week working on £10k per annum would end up paying £720 for the £1k bike.
But the main point I was making is that the Tax Incentive is completely and totally detached from the Claimed Benefit. To commute to work, it is perfectly adequate to get a very decent bike for under £100 on Gumtree. When I started cycle commuting back in 2004, the new bike I got was perfectly fine and well under £200 and was still in good nick after 6 years of well over 2500km a year.
So the Tax Incentive is unnecessary. Far better would be forcing firms to get rid of dress codes or to provide changing facilities, require secure lock up areas on premises and spend a lot more in terms of road provision for cyclists.
You are wrong again. HMRC removed the VAT saving several years ago.
Yes, obviously someone with a higher marginal rate of tax will save more on the scheme, but no-one will buy a £900 bicycle instead of a £200 bicycle just to save more tax, because they can't sell the bicycle to recoup that money. They will only buy the more expensive bicycle if the extra expenditure brings them a benefit.
Whether the tax incentive is necessary or not is a different matter entirely. The thing is you made several factual errors about the scheme, claiming as a result that it only benefited the middle classes, and you are now arguing about something else entirely to avoid having to admit your argument was wrong.
If someone buys a £200 bicycle on the scheme (and lock and helmet, etc) then they will save money and they get to pay for it over a 12 month period - which is a big help for someone with not a lot of savings.
This is an absolute no-brainer of a bet. It may or may not win, but the value in it screams out for the reasons that our host gives. Laying David Cameron for Prime Minister after the election (or, my second choice, backing Ed Miliband) is even better because it may still win even if the Conservatives get most seats.
Betfair are offering a Most Seats England market. I'm trying to work out what a good Labour odds on that would be.
On current prices, Labour are leading the Tories by about 21 in Wales and 14 in Scotland. The latter is clearly still very volatile. Yet the Tories are favoured by about 10 seats overall, implying a lead in England of 45.
So Labour need to gain around 22/23 seats that they currently aren't expected to - at the top end of that range you are looking at seats like Rossendale & Darwen, Calder Valley and Somerset North East.
They are 15/8 for each of these, suggesting that the 3.0 on betfair is approximately right.
Wales is still a tremendous resevoir of vote efficiency for Labour.
UKIP poll well in Wales. But I have never heard anyone suggest a constituency in Wales where UKIP might be in with a sniff. Has anyone got any suggestions on that front?
Erm.. Telford?!! (I have backed that at 25s... tier one of my UKIP hitlist)
This is an absolute no-brainer of a bet. It may or may not win, but the value in it screams out for the reasons that our host gives. Laying David Cameron for Prime Minister after the election (or, my second choice, backing Ed Miliband) is even better because it may still win even if the Conservatives get most seats.
Betfair are offering a Most Seats England market. I'm trying to work out what a good Labour odds on that would be.
On current prices, Labour are leading the Tories by about 21 in Wales and 14 in Scotland. The latter is clearly still very volatile. Yet the Tories are favoured by about 10 seats overall, implying a lead in England of 45.
So Labour need to gain around 22/23 seats that they currently aren't expected to - at the top end of that range you are looking at seats like Rossendale & Darwen, Calder Valley and Somerset North East.
They are 15/8 for each of these, suggesting that the 3.0 on betfair is approximately right.
Wales is still a tremendous resevoir of vote efficiency for Labour.
UKIP poll well in Wales. But I have never heard anyone suggest a constituency in Wales where UKIP might be in with a sniff. Has anyone got any suggestions on that front?
No. They are shortest in Blaenau Gwent at 12/1 [which has at least shown a willingness to vote beyond the party rosette in recent years]. Looking on UK Polling Report I found the following interesting comment from a John Chanin:
A long time ago now I promised to construct a list of the most white working class seats on the basis of the 2011 census. This list excludes Scotland because I still haven’t got round to extracting the Scottish data, which is on a different website.
1. Blaenau Gwent 2. Rhondda 3. Grimsby 4. Easington 5. Hull East 6. Aberavon 7. Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney 8. Normanton & Castleford 9. Ogmore 10. Redcar 11. Doncaster North 12. Ashfield 13. Barnsley East 14. Cynon Valley 15. Islwyn 16. Washington & W Sunderland 17. Bolsover 18. Hartlepool 19. Torfaen 20. Knowsley
This is an absolute no-brainer of a bet. It may or may not win, but the value in it screams out for the reasons that our host gives. Laying David Cameron for Prime Minister after the election (or, my second choice, backing Ed Miliband) is even better because it may still win even if the Conservatives get most seats.
Betfair are offering a Most Seats England market. I'm trying to work out what a good Labour odds on that would be.
On current prices, Labour are leading the Tories by about 21 in Wales and 14 in Scotland. The latter is clearly still very volatile. Yet the Tories are favoured by about 10 seats overall, implying a lead in England of 45.
So Labour need to gain around 22/23 seats that they currently aren't expected to - at the top end of that range you are looking at seats like Rossendale & Darwen, Calder Valley and Somerset North East.
They are 15/8 for each of these, suggesting that the 3.0 on betfair is approximately right.
Wales is still a tremendous resevoir of vote efficiency for Labour.
UKIP poll well in Wales. But I have never heard anyone suggest a constituency in Wales where UKIP might be in with a sniff. Has anyone got any suggestions on that front?
This is an absolute no-brainer of a bet. It may or may not win, but the value in it screams out for the reasons that our host gives. Laying David Cameron for Prime Minister after the election (or, my second choice, backing Ed Miliband) is even better because it may still win even if the Conservatives get most seats.
Betfair are offering a Most Seats England market. I'm trying to work out what a good Labour odds on that would be.
On current prices, Labour are leading the Tories by about 21 in Wales and 14 in Scotland. The latter is clearly still very volatile. Yet the Tories are favoured by about 10 seats overall, implying a lead in England of 45.
So Labour need to gain around 22/23 seats that they currently aren't expected to - at the top end of that range you are looking at seats like Rossendale & Darwen, Calder Valley and Somerset North East.
They are 15/8 for each of these, suggesting that the 3.0 on betfair is approximately right.
Wales is still a tremendous resevoir of vote efficiency for Labour.
UKIP poll well in Wales. But I have never heard anyone suggest a constituency in Wales where UKIP might be in with a sniff. Has anyone got any suggestions on that front?
No murders were reported for 11 days in New York, the longest since 2013 as the city continues to see crime fall overall.
By 1pm on Friday GMT, no reports of murder were made to the New York police department and a spokesman for the force confirmed no murder was committed from Wednesday to that time.
The department releases crime complaint statistics weekly and the new record beats the one of nine days set in January 2013. However, there were seven murders between January 26 and February 1, one more than there were in the previous year.
Joe's wife has small feet. She needs some gym kit so buys her zero-rated girls' trainers to avoid the VAT on a similar adult version. Joe earns £18,000 as a warehouseman.
Sam sells gold around the world, sheltering his profits in tax havens to avoid up to £30m a year in taxes to HMRC.
Joe reads about Sam's tax avoidance in the newspaper and reckons he should do more to pay his way. Is he a hypocrite?
Any guesses on the tax avoidance schemes of BobaJob and Bobafett anyone?
Guess away – none of these for characters relates to me. My wife is a size 5.
The personalisation of stuff on here is creepy.
You mean like calling everyone who disagrees with you a PB Tory?
@felix If the rich don't like the tax arrangements in the UK, they will leave therefore they should be allowed to pay what they wish in tax? Some might think, "If your money means more to you than your country or fellow citizens, then you leaving might not be such a bad idea"
I kinda did - though not for the reason you ascribe. You just better hope everyone else who pays for your NHS, etc don't follow me:)) Remind us how things are going in France?
This is an absolute no-brainer of a bet. It may or may not win, but the value in it screams out for the reasons that our host gives. Laying David Cameron for Prime Minister after the election (or, my second choice, backing Ed Miliband) is even better because it may still win even if the Conservatives get most seats.
Betfair are offering a Most Seats England market. I'm trying to work out what a good Labour odds on that would be.
On current prices, Labour are leading the Tories by about 21 in Wales and 14 in Scotland. The latter is clearly still very volatile. Yet the Tories are favoured by about 10 seats overall, implying a lead in England of 45.
So Labour need to gain around 22/23 seats that they currently aren't expected to - at the top end of that range you are looking at seats like Rossendale & Darwen, Calder Valley and Somerset North East.
They are 15/8 for each of these, suggesting that the 3.0 on betfair is approximately right.
Wales is still a tremendous resevoir of vote efficiency for Labour.
UKIP poll well in Wales. But I have never heard anyone suggest a constituency in Wales where UKIP might be in with a sniff. Has anyone got any suggestions on that front?
"Some might think, "If your money means more to you than your country or fellow citizens, then you leaving might not be such a bad idea""
You're being too kind. How about "F*ck off, take the bankers with you, and join ISIS."
Oh "and don't come back."
It's easy for me to say as I don't earn enough to worry much about tax, but it does seem an extreme step to take. Remember ... money doesn't buy happiness.
Part-ELBOW so far this week - Labour lead 0.8% inc. last night's YG.
Oh, make that 1.1% inc. the latest Populus
ELBOW was so close to gold standard too ........................................................................................................................
Part-ELBOW so far this week - Labour lead 0.8% inc. last night's YG.
Oh, make that 1.1% inc. the latest Populus
ELBOW was so close to gold standard too ........................................................................................................................
Do I detect a hint of ELBOW-denial?
The full ELBOW for last week (w/e 8th) was Lab lead 1.3%.
"Some might think, "If your money means more to you than your country or fellow citizens, then you leaving might not be such a bad idea""
You're being too kind. How about "F*ck off, take the bankers with you, and join ISIS."
Oh "and don't come back."
It's easy for me to say as I don't earn enough to worry much about tax, but it does seem an extreme step to take. Remember ... money doesn't buy happiness.
Other platitudes are available.
If the bankers piss off, they can always tax the bankers to make up the shortfall. Oh wait, err...
The one caveat here is that the betting markets appear to be rather skewed towards the tories. That's great if you're placing value bets now and waiting until may 8th to collect - less good if you're wanting to trade in & out of positions during the campaign.
It's just something to consider - the market may not *rationalise* any time soon.
Remember - the Romney/Intrade price was wildly optimistic all the way through the campaign, despite all the evidence to the contrary. The market never did readjust.
This was used as evidence for a conspiracy theory -- that GOP hackers had fixed the voting machines in their favour.
In fact the conspiracy turned out to be Romney supporters deliberately and artificially driving his price down to create the impression he was more likely to win than was actually the case.
Good on them. Many of us exploited what was a clear and persistent arbitrage.
The explanation with the current GE prices is, I think, far simpler and less conspiratorial. Conservative punters are betting with their hearts more than their heads, and probably have deeper pockets.
I would do the same in their circumstances but then I wouldn't pretend to be outraged when other people take legitimate steps to avoid a tax charge. I think it's called hypocrisy.
On that basis, no [Labour] politician could ever propose a tightening of any aspect of the tax system if they have previously benefited from any aspect of the tax system.
You are wrong again. HMRC removed the VAT saving several years ago.
Yes, obviously someone with a higher marginal rate of tax will save more on the scheme, but no-one will buy a £900 bicycle instead of a £200 bicycle just to save more tax, because they can't sell the bicycle to recoup that money. They will only buy the more expensive bicycle if the extra expenditure brings them a benefit.
Whether the tax incentive is necessary or not is a different matter entirely. The thing is you made several factual errors about the scheme, claiming as a result that it only benefited the middle classes, and you are now arguing about something else entirely to avoid having to admit your argument was wrong.
If someone buys a £200 bicycle on the scheme (and lock and helmet, etc) then they will save money and they get to pay for it over a 12 month period - which is a big help for someone with not a lot of savings.
In my defence when I was considered using the scheme was some years ago when I was still on PAYE.
However, I still don't agree with your contention that it's not a middle income subsidy. The decision to have a £1k bike instead of a £200 bike is not about reselling. It's about the capability of the bike, you can do a lot more with a £1k bike than the minimum requirement of commuting on roads which can be done for a lot less than £200.
The spread payments may have some impact but really this seems like clutching at straws. The big winners from the scheme are those that want a bike for a lot more than commuting.
On Wales and Ukip it could be a very funny election. Although the Lib Dems are in big trouble I still think they may get 5%, but that might mean 6th place. Given you have a credible 6 parties fighting it out, in theory you could get some seats won on very low shares. Whether there are actually many individual seats where they are all in competition I'm not sure.
The Plaid insurgency in the Valleys died a while ago but I have a sense Ukip might do okay there.
I have a distinct feeling Wales is going to do Scotland's normal trick and be about as volatile as cold porridge this GE.
Maybe a surprise PC gain in Yns Mon (Which I've backed) or Ceredignon (Which I haven't) and the normal expected Lab gains from Lib in Cardiff North was it but for the most part its going to be as you were.
The cycle to work scheme is probably the most ridiculous middle class subsidy one could imagine. Whoever came up with it must be such a joy at dinner parties...
Anyone can use it – just a cheap way of getting a bike. Keeps cars of the roads. What's the problem?
The value in the scheme is not in getting a bike to commute. It is in subsidising the purchase of bikes in at least the £500+ mark but doesn't really become worth the effort till you're up above the £1000 mark.
That's not the price range of commuter bikes.
A Brompton is the best commuter bike and is £800 to £1200 depending on specification. I got a bike on the scheme myself, mostly used at the weekend.
My latest tax dodge is to avoid air passenger duty by taking a 24 hour stopover in a European city. This means paying only the short haul rather than long haul rate. The money saved pays for the overnight stay. Well worth it.
"Some might think, "If your money means more to you than your country or fellow citizens, then you leaving might not be such a bad idea""
You're being too kind. How about "F*ck off, take the bankers with you, and join ISIS."
Oh "and don't come back."
It's easy for me to say as I don't earn enough to worry much about tax, but it does seem an extreme step to take. Remember ... money doesn't buy happiness.
Other platitudes are available.
Just because smarmeron said it doesen't mean it's true. Oh and loving the gracious language.
30% could win in Aberconwy perhaps. Although Wales has a rainbow flavour to it most of the seats look like 2 party fights and tactical voting has probably long been factored in.
@felix If the rich don't like the tax arrangements in the UK, they will leave therefore they should be allowed to pay what they wish in tax? Some might think, "If your money means more to you than your country or fellow citizens, then you leaving might not be such a bad idea"
Why should "their" country and fellow citizens matter more or less to anyone than any other of the world's gloriously vibrant and diverse communities?
Save your Little Englander views for the Daily Mail letters page.
@TheWatcher In the case of many of our bankers and wealthy, leaving the UK is not so much "putting your money where your mouth is". But more joining it abroad.
Joe's wife has small feet. She needs some gym kit so buys her zero-rated girls' trainers to avoid the VAT on a similar adult version. Joe earns £18,000 as a warehouseman.
Sam sells gold around the world, sheltering his profits in tax havens to avoid up to £30m a year in taxes to HMRC.
Joe reads about Sam's tax avoidance in the newspaper and reckons he should do more to pay his way. Is he a hypocrite?
Any guesses on the tax avoidance schemes of BobaJob and Bobafett anyone?
Guess away – none of these for characters relates to me. My wife is a size 5.
The personalisation of stuff on here is creepy.
You mean like calling everyone who disagrees with you a PB Tory?
@felix If the rich don't like the tax arrangements in the UK, they will leave therefore they should be allowed to pay what they wish in tax? Some might think, "If your money means more to you than your country or fellow citizens, then you leaving might not be such a bad idea"
I kinda did - though not for the reason you ascribe. You just better hope everyone else who pays for your NHS, etc don't follow me:)) Remind us how things are going in France?
That's generalising, not personalising!
Personalising in the sense of making deliberate attempts to unearth biographical details about posters which wish to remain anonymous, which, I presume, is most on here. It's sinister – you are far from the worst offender but I just want to pick it up before it goes any further.
@felix If the rich don't like the tax arrangements in the UK, they will leave therefore they should be allowed to pay what they wish in tax? Some might think, "If your money means more to you than your country or fellow citizens, then you leaving might not be such a bad idea"
Indeed: and it is fine to have that point of view. But if you do you also need to live with the consequences which may be that there is less money around to pay for things that we want as a society or that those who do choose to live here will have to pay a lot more.
It's the latter which always seems to be missing whenever this argument comes around.
Personally, I think it would be better if we stopped demonising those who do live here and earn a lot and have a simple and effective tax system so that everyone pays their fair share from the top to the bottom. Currently we don't.
@TheWatcher In the case of many of our bankers and wealthy, leaving the UK is not so much "putting your money where your mouth is". But more joining it abroad.
Less so since 2010, but don't let that bother you.
A Brompton is the best commuter bike and is £800 to £1200 depending on specification. I got a bike on the scheme myself, mostly used at the weekend.
A Brompton is an utterly useless as a bike, however it does seem to be particularly valued as a fashion accessory to be talked about at dinner parties. I cannot imagine how painful it must be to ride on those scooter wheels on many a UK city road.
A low end hardtail MTB is by far the most suitable commuter bike and you'll get something excellent for about £150 these days. If you really require a folder, there are much better alternatives to Bromptons.
The one caveat here is that the betting markets appear to be rather skewed towards the tories. That's great if you're placing value bets now and waiting until may 8th to collect - less good if you're wanting to trade in & out of positions during the campaign.
It's just something to consider - the market may not *rationalise* any time soon.
Remember - the Romney/Intrade price was wildly optimistic all the way through the campaign, despite all the evidence to the contrary. The market never did readjust.
This was used as evidence for a conspiracy theory -- that GOP hackers had fixed the voting machines in their favour.
In fact the conspiracy turned out to be Romney supporters deliberately and artificially driving his price down to create the impression he was more likely to win than was actually the case.
Good on them. Many of us exploited what was a clear and persistent arbitrage.
The explanation with the current GE prices is, I think, far simpler and less conspiratorial. Conservative punters are betting with their hearts more than their heads, and probably have deeper pockets.
Good on them anyway.
The first Baron Rothschild on his deathbed reputedly said that he had spent his life making people happy because he had sold to them when they had been desperate to buy and he had bought from them when they were desperate to sell. It would seem appropriate to make Conservative punters happy.
Joe's wife has small feet. She needs some gym kit so buys her zero-rated girls' trainers to avoid the VAT on a similar adult version. Joe earns £18,000 as a warehouseman.
Sam sells gold around the world, sheltering his profits in tax havens to avoid up to £30m a year in taxes to HMRC.
Joe reads about Sam's tax avoidance in the newspaper and reckons he should do more to pay his way. Is he a hypocrite?
Any guesses on the tax avoidance schemes of BobaJob and Bobafett anyone?
Guess away – none of these for characters relates to me. My wife is a size 5.
The personalisation of stuff on here is creepy.
You mean like calling everyone who disagrees with you a PB Tory?
@felix If the rich don't like the tax arrangements in the UK, they will leave therefore they should be allowed to pay what they wish in tax? Some might think, "If your money means more to you than your country or fellow citizens, then you leaving might not be such a bad idea"
I kinda did - though not for the reason you ascribe. You just better hope everyone else who pays for your NHS, etc don't follow me:)) Remind us how things are going in France?
That's generalising, not personalising!
Personalising in the sense of making deliberate attempts to unearth biographical details about posters which wish to remain anonymous, which, I presume, is most on here. It's sinister – you are far from the worst offender but I just want to pick it up before it goes any further.
I'd be interested to know what the country gains from bankers earning a few millions in bonuses for trading money?
I understand that the great majority of "bankers" are involved in normal day to day transaction that facilitate movement of money but I'm talking about the ones involved in gambling, the ones who earn silly money?. What value-added are they contributing?
@Ishmael_X Because these are the self same people who reckon the poor should get less because the country has not enough money, while at the same time making sure that they get paid more and put less in. There are some who might question this attitude, but others deem it to be a perfectly rational way of thinking.
I would do the same in their circumstances but then I wouldn't pretend to be outraged when other people take legitimate steps to avoid a tax charge. I think it's called hypocrisy.
On that basis, no [Labour] politician could ever propose a tightening of any aspect of the tax system if they have previously benefited from any aspect of the tax system.
I think it's called partisan nonsense...
Rod... Have you considered adjusting your L&N model treating England & Wales / Scotland as 2 or 3 different entities ?
A Brompton is the best commuter bike and is £800 to £1200 depending on specification. I got a bike on the scheme myself, mostly used at the weekend.
A Brompton is an utterly useless as a bike, however it does seem to be particularly valued as a fashion accessory to be talked about at dinner parties. I cannot imagine how painful it must be to ride on those scooter wheels on many a UK city road.
A low end hardtail MTB is by far the most suitable commuter bike and you'll get something excellent for about £150 these days. If you really require a folder, there are much better alternatives to Bromptons.
I agree that a Bromptons advantages are as luggage rather than a bike, however for those of us who have to travel by train or public transport and keep the bike with them during the day then this makes up for the slight loss of functionality.
It's surprising how people on here struggle to distinguish between something unethical and something illegal. How breaking the spirit of a law needn't be the same as breaking a law yet it is no more acceptable. Most people have the moral compass to tell the difference. Others have professional bodies who demand certain ethics whatever the legality.
I have shot two commercials to my certain knowledge where the celeb stars of the ad insisted that we shot in a particular country to avoid having their fee plundered by the tax man. Now that Ed has brought the subject to all our attention perhaps we wont acquiesce quite so readily in future
"The infrastructure that his business depends on – such as transport, telecoms, water, energy – is massively subsidised by taxpayers. That he contributes nothing at all to this is rationalised by the idea that he is simply cleverer than the rest of us, so more fool us for coughing up."
I would do the same in their circumstances but then I wouldn't pretend to be outraged when other people take legitimate steps to avoid a tax charge. I think it's called hypocrisy.
On that basis, no [Labour] politician could ever propose a tightening of any aspect of the tax system if they have previously benefited from any aspect of the tax system.
I think it's called partisan nonsense...
Rod... Have you considered adjusting your L&N model treating England & Wales / Scotland as 2 or 3 different entities ?
No
i) it's not my model, as you seem to recognise ii) it can't be easily "adjusted" iii) there is probably no available data to adjust it with iv) I don't have the time or inclination
In any case, Lebo & Norpoth may have adjusted it themselves, judging by a post someone gave from the Election Forecasting conference this week.
Joe's wife has small feet. She needs some gym kit so buys her zero-rated girls' trainers to avoid the VAT on a similar adult version. Joe earns £18,000 as a warehouseman.
Sam sells gold around the world, sheltering his profits in tax havens to avoid up to £30m a year in taxes to HMRC.
Joe reads about Sam's tax avoidance in the newspaper and reckons he should do more to pay his way. Is he a hypocrite?
Any guesses on the tax avoidance schemes of BobaJob and Bobafett anyone?
Guess away – none of these for characters relates to me. My wife is a size 5.
The personalisation of stuff on here is creepy.
You mean like calling everyone who disagrees with you a PB Tory?
@felix If the rich don't like the tax arrangements in the UK, they will leave therefore they should be allowed to pay what they wish in tax? Some might think, "If your money means more to you than your country or fellow citizens, then you leaving might not be such a bad idea"
I kinda did - though not for the reason you ascribe. You just better hope everyone else who pays for your NHS, etc don't follow me:)) Remind us how things are going in France?
That's generalising, not personalising!
Personalising in the sense of making deliberate attempts to unearth biographical details about posters which wish to remain anonymous, which, I presume, is most on here. It's sinister – you are far from the worst offender but I just want to pick it up before it goes any further.
You're clearly not paranoid - we're all out to get you:)
I've just taken £100 on the 10/1 offered by Betfair Sportsbook that Labour will change the colour of the battle bus.
Decent odds IMO.
I was tempted by that.. also to get clamped at 12s!
lol
yeah - the clamping bet would have been great if it was worded in such a way that *any* campaign bus gets clamped during the campaign.
I expect something like that is quite likely, actually.
I didn't take that bet because it was too specific - I doubt that one exact bus will get clamped. Anyway, a parking ticket/exchange with a parking warden is more likely? These campaign buses are likely to be manned at all times - it would probably be difficult to get a clamp onto the vehicle before a Spad realises the likely PR implications and moves the vehicle quick flash.
I know it's an old moan, but why do bankers deserve more than a hundred surgeons, for example?
And if they cock up, why are there calls to pay them bonuses anyway, otherwise they'll take their money-losing talents elsewhere? Leicester City will be relegated this season (sorry, Fox) - should we pay them a bonus for failure too?
In casinos, for every winner, there are losers. You could demand a casino in every town and point to the tax take from the winners as a good reason for them.
It's like the left demand to spend. Employ a million people to dig holes in the road and another million people to fill them in again. GDP soars, unemployment falls, tax revenue magically increases despite the extra payments.
@Ishmael_X Because these are the self same people who reckon the poor should get less because the country has not enough money, while at the same time making sure that they get paid more and put less in. There are some who might question this attitude, but others deem it to be a perfectly rational way of thinking.
But if they live somewhere else their concern is presumably with "the poor" of that other place.
In this context you suddenly don't like economic migrants, and you think people should stay in the country they were born in. I suggest you listen to what Nigel Farage has to say on these subjects; I think you'll think he talks a lot of sense.
Joe's wife has small feet. She needs some gym kit so buys her zero-rated girls' trainers to avoid the VAT on a similar adult version. Joe earns £18,000 as a warehouseman.
Sam sells gold around the world, sheltering his profits in tax havens to avoid up to £30m a year in taxes to HMRC.
Joe reads about Sam's tax avoidance in the newspaper and reckons he should do more to pay his way. Is he a hypocrite?
Any guesses on the tax avoidance schemes of BobaJob and Bobafett anyone?
Guess away – none of these for characters relates to me. My wife is a size 5.
The personalisation of stuff on here is creepy.
You mean like calling everyone who disagrees with you a PB Tory?
@felix If the rich don't like the tax arrangements in the UK, they will leave therefore they should be allowed to pay what they wish in tax? Some might think, "If your money means more to you than your country or fellow citizens, then you leaving might not be such a bad idea"
I kinda did - though not for the reason you ascribe. You just better hope everyone else who pays for your NHS, etc don't follow me:)) Remind us how things are going in France?
That's generalising, not personalising!
Personalising in the sense of making deliberate attempts to unearth biographical details about posters which wish to remain anonymous, which, I presume, is most on here. It's sinister – you are far from the worst offender but I just want to pick it up before it goes any further.
I've just taken £100 on the 10/1 offered by Betfair Sportsbook that Labour will change the colour of the battle bus.
Decent odds IMO.
I was tempted by that.. also to get clamped at 12s!
lol
yeah - the clamping bet would have been great if it was worded in such a way that *any* campaign bus gets clamped during the campaign.
I expect that's quite likely, actually.
I didn't take that bet because it was too specific, unfortunately. I doubt that one exact bus will get clamped. Anyway, a parking ticket/exchange with a parking warden is more likely? These campaign buses are likely to be manned at all times - it would probably be difficult to get a clamp onto the vehicle before a Spad realises the likely PR implications.
"Clamped by a Sun reporter posing as a traffic warden"
Joe's wife has small feet. She needs some gym kit so buys her zero-rated girls' trainers to avoid the VAT on a similar adult version. Joe earns £18,000 as a warehouseman.
Sam sells gold around the world, sheltering his profits in tax havens to avoid up to £30m a year in taxes to HMRC.
Joe reads about Sam's tax avoidance in the newspaper and reckons he should do more to pay his way. Is he a hypocrite?
Any guesses on the tax avoidance schemes of BobaJob and Bobafett anyone?
Guess away – none of these for characters relates to me. My wife is a size 5.
The personalisation of stuff on here is creepy.
You mean like calling everyone who disagrees with you a PB Tory?
@felix If the rich don't like the tax arrangements in the UK, they will leave therefore they should be allowed to pay what they wish in tax? Some might think, "If your money means more to you than your country or fellow citizens, then you leaving might not be such a bad idea"
I kinda did - though not for the reason you ascribe. You just better hope everyone else who pays for your NHS, etc don't follow me:)) Remind us how things are going in France?
That's generalising, not personalising!
Personalising in the sense of making deliberate attempts to unearth biographical details about posters which wish to remain anonymous, which, I presume, is most on here. It's sinister – you are far from the worst offender but I just want to pick it up before it goes any further.
Lord above, what an absolute twat you are
And you are a lovely bloke, clearly. FFS.
That is not acceptable Isam. Please go back edit and take it out NOW
Not saying Harold Hill is rough or anything, but...
"Susan Ca added: “Oh blimey.... am dissappointed to hear about EVEN MORE houses been built up here in Harold Hill! I live round the corner to the Pompadours and it would have been nice if it was turned into a Wetherspoons or something."
@Ishmael_X Because these are the self same people who reckon the poor should get less because the country has not enough money, while at the same time making sure that they get paid more and put less in. There are some who might question this attitude, but others deem it to be a perfectly rational way of thinking.
I'm not sure it's worth bothering but...the poor will certainly not get more if you drive those who've worked hard and paid taxes, away in order to provide benefits for the feckless and workshy. I presume you support Labour's proposal today to withdraw benefits from those who turn down job offers?
Oh and just for the record I still pay taxes on all my UK income to the UK govt for the NHS and other UK public services, which I no longer use. And am happy to do so.
I know it's an old moan, but why do bankers deserve more than a hundred surgeons. for example?
And if they cock up, why are there calls to pay them bonuses anyway, otherwise they'll take their money-losing talents elsewhere? Leicester City will be relegated this season (sorry, Fox) - should we pay them a bonus for failure too?
In casinos, for every winner, there are losers. You could demand a casino in every town and point to the tax take from the winners as a good reason for them.
It's like the left demand to spend. Employ a million people to dig holes in the road and another million people to fill them in again. GDP soars, unemployment falls, tax revenue magically increases despite the extra payments.
Am I the ignoramus?
The British population makes up just under 1% of the global population. If we can arrange things such that a disproportionate amount of financial casino-playing occurs in the City of London, say one-quarter, or one-third, or more, and tax that activity modestly, then we gain a comparative advantage over every other country in the world.
So, while I agree with your interpretation in many respects, I can also appreciate the argument that defenders of bankers use, as it's one of the few ways in which the UK can make a living in the world. I think we'd be better off in the long run working on reducing our reliance on financial services and creating a comparative advantage in other things, but that is easier said than done.
@Ishmael_X Actually while being completely wrong about the reasons, you have hit on one of my core beliefs. Helping people in other countries to improve their conditions, thereby lessening the need to emigrate might be the rational way forward for humanity. Of course, others rightly point out that only self serving greed and mindless selfishness fulfil mankind's true destiny. (there are probably several religious tracts on the subject)
@felix Withdrawing benefits from those who can, but refuse to work is perfectly reasonable. Where I disagree with the policy, is forcing them into unsuitable and non paying work solely as a punishment.
Joe's wife has small feet. She needs some gym kit so buys her zero-rated girls' trainers to avoid the VAT on a similar adult version. Joe earns £18,000 as a warehouseman.
Sam sells gold around the world, sheltering his profits in tax havens to avoid up to £30m a year in taxes to HMRC.
Joe reads about Sam's tax avoidance in the newspaper and reckons he should do more to pay his way. Is he a hypocrite?
Any guesses on the tax avoidance schemes of BobaJob and Bobafett anyone?
Guess away – none of these for characters relates to me. My wife is a size 5.
The personalisation of stuff on here is creepy.
You mean like calling everyone who disagrees with you a PB Tory?
@felix If the rich don't like the tax arrangements in the UK, they will leave therefore they should be allowed to pay what they wish in tax? Some might think, "If your money means more to you than your country or fellow citizens, then you leaving might not be such a bad idea"
I kinda did - though not for the reason you ascribe. You just better hope everyone else who pays for your NHS, etc don't follow me:)) Remind us how things are going in France?
That's generalising, not personalising!
Personalising in the sense of making deliberate attempts to unearth biographical details about posters which wish to remain anonymous, which, I presume, is most on here. It's sinister – you are far from the worst offender but I just want to pick it up before it goes any further.
Lord above, what an absolute twat you are
And you are a lovely bloke, clearly. FFS.
That is not acceptable Isam. Please go back edit and take it out NOW
It's disappeared... I am sorry to have taken the Lords name in vain, "Heavens above" ok?
A bloke on here banging on about hypocrisy and anonymity/wanting to keep biographical details hidden tells everyone his wifes shoe size! Who asked??! Who cares?!!
Completely OT. I have just had the rather odd experience of being perhaps the only male in a fairly full cinema. I've never thought there was much difference between male and female sexuality other than possibly females being more predatory (but as I work with models who are mainly female and quite a proportion of the males are gay it might not be as simple as that). However after watching this film and understanding the things that seemed to excite the audience it's clear I need a rethink
PS. Despite being shot by one of our foremost Brit Artists '50 Shades of Grey' was rubbish
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 1m1 minute ago I have some news. I will be joining HuffingtonPost UK as their Executive Editor, Politics after the general election.
I sort of half-understood that. We're not so much producing anything as taking more than our fair share. Selfishly, I sort of approve, but when I think about it again, I feel a little guilty.
So I can feel better by having a go at the wastrels and spendthrifts that seem to inhabit the world of casino banking, and mock their inflated ideas of their own worth. A natural reaction.
Completely OT. I have just had the rather odd experience of being perhaps the only male in a fairly full cinema. I've never thought there was much difference between male and female sexuality other than possibly females being more predatory (but as I work with models who are mainly female and quite a proportion of the males are gay it might not be as simple as that). However after watching this film and understanding the things that seemed to excite the audience it's clear I need a rethink
PS. Despite being shot by one of our foremost Brit Artists '50 Shades of Grey' was rubbish
Brave. I'm surprised you left the cinema alive. Did they try and tear your clothes off?
Completely OT. I have just had the rather odd experience of being perhaps the only male in a fairly full cinema. I've never thought there was much difference between male and female sexuality other than possibly females being more predatory (but as I work with models who are mainly female and quite a proportion of the males are gay it might not be as simple as that). However after watching this film and understanding the things that seemed to excite the audience it's clear I need a rethink
PS. Despite being shot by one of our foremost Brit Artists '50 Shades of Grey' was rubbish
@felix Withdrawing benefits from those who can, but refuse to work is perfectly reasonable. Where I disagree with the policy, is forcing them into unsuitable and non paying work solely as a punishment.
Is that Labour's proposal? Has it ever been anyone's?.BTW how do you define unsuitable?
Completely OT. I have just had the rather odd experience of being perhaps the only male in a fairly full cinema. I've never thought there was much difference between male and female sexuality other than possibly females being more predatory (but as I work with models who are mainly female and quite a proportion of the males are gay it might not be as simple as that). However after watching this film and understanding the things that seemed to excite the audience it's clear I need a rethink
PS. Despite being shot by one of our foremost Brit Artists '50 Shades of Grey' was rubbish
Joe's wife has small feet. She needs some gym kit so buys her zero-rated girls' trainers to avoid the VAT on a similar adult version. Joe earns £18,000 as a warehouseman.
Sam sells gold around the world, sheltering his profits in tax havens to avoid up to £30m a year in taxes to HMRC.
Joe reads about Sam's tax avoidance in the newspaper and reckons he should do more to pay his way. Is he a hypocrite?
Anthony ensures that his substantial worldwide earnings are channelled through a limited partnership owned by another partnership, itself owned in turn by a Mayfair based company. Since this shrouds everything in secrecy, no-one knows what his tax arrangements might be.
WTF think Joes's wife, Bob and everyone else.
Alan wanted to buy a publishing company and so set up a complex structure of companies in the Cayman Islands together with Mr Evil from Evil Hedge Fund Inc.
Alan and Mr Evil structured the acquisition as a Scheme of Arrangement thus avoiding UK stamp duty on the transaction.
Alan saved himself £600,000 in so doing.
It was all entirely legal and super-duper fine because Alan commissioned his own investigators to give it a clean bill of health.
Bob had no idea about all of this but now that he realises one of his heroes and an heroic institution of the left can also act in a human way, what does he think?
Completely OT. I have just had the rather odd experience of being perhaps the only male in a fairly full cinema. I've never thought there was much difference between male and female sexuality other than possibly females being more predatory (but as I work with models who are mainly female and quite a proportion of the males are gay it might not be as simple as that). However after watching this film and understanding the things that seemed to excite the audience it's clear I need a rethink
PS. Despite being shot by one of our foremost Brit Artists '50 Shades of Grey' was rubbish
Brave. I'm surprised you left the cinema alive. Did they try and tear your clothes off?
The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported a 30% approval rating, with an rating average of 4.3/10 based on 121 reviews. The website's consensus reads: "While creatively better endowed than its print counterpart, Fifty Shades of Grey is a less than satisfying experience on the screen."[122]
@felix "Unsuitable" would entirely depend on the individuals circumstance, so it would be difficult to point to specifics. On the other hand, do you think it right that the unemployed should be compelled to work for their benefits so that the company can increase the amount of profit they can avoid paying tax on?
I see 25 men in Halifax have been charged with child sex crimes... guess their heritage.
I have no idea, but I can't help noticing many of them seem to call themselves Mohammed. Whatever their antecedents and religion, *if* they are guilty as charged, can we expect the vast majority of decent, ordinary muslims to rise up in an ecstasy of outrage at them for demeaning the name of the Prophet PBUH by carrying out these activities under that name?
It is going to be very instructive to compare Ed Miliband's response to Trinity Mirror acknowledging that they engaged in industrial-scale phone-hacking, with his reaction to NewsCorps identical offences.
Surely he can't be as shallow a person as to keep silent about his political allies, whilst enjoying his "Millie Dowler moment" when his political enemies were similiarly banged to rights? Can he?
@felix "Unsuitable" would entirely depend on the individuals circumstance, so it would be difficult to point to specifics. On the other hand, do you think it right that the unemployed should be compelled to work for their benefits so that the company can increase the amount of profit they can avoid paying tax on?
Yes. I thought we'd established that tax avoidance is legal and sensible. Besides why should those on benefits refuse available work and take my hard-earned taxes for doing nothing?. I think your use of the word 'unsuitable' is a total cop out for stealing other people's taxes.
It is going to be very instructive to compare Ed Miliband's response to Trinity Mirror acknowledging that they engaged in industrial-scale phone-hacking, with his reaction to NewsCorps identical offences.
Surely he can't be as shallow a person as to keep silent about his political allies, whilst enjoying his "Millie Dowler moment" when his political enemies were similiarly banged to rights? Can he?
@felix Right, so people pay taxes that allow benefits to be paid to people who then are forced to work for a company who avoids paying those taxes? My sense of morality must truly be warped for thinking there could possibly be anything wrong in that. Actually, I wonder when off shoring of capital to avoid taxes completely, became so mainstream among our wealthy?
@felix Right, so people pay taxes that allow benefits to be paid to people who then are forced to work for a company who avoids paying those taxes? My sense of morality must truly be warped for thinking there could possibly be anything wrong in that. Actually, I wonder when off shoring of capital to avoid taxes completely, became so mainstream among our wealthy?
I see 25 men in Halifax have been charged with child sex crimes... guess their heritage.
I have no idea, but I can't help noticing many of them seem to call themselves Mohammed. Whatever their antecedents and religion, *if* they are guilty as charged, can we expect the vast majority of decent, ordinary muslims to rise up in an ecstasy of outrage at them for demeaning the name of the Prophet PBUH by carrying out these activities under that name?
If not, why not?
Mohammad is just an Arabic name. 570AD was not the firts year when a child was named Mohammad.
Completely OT. I have just had the rather odd experience of being perhaps the only male in a fairly full cinema. I've never thought there was much difference between male and female sexuality other than possibly females being more predatory (but as I work with models who are mainly female and quite a proportion of the males are gay it might not be as simple as that). However after watching this film and understanding the things that seemed to excite the audience it's clear I need a rethink
PS. Despite being shot by one of our foremost Brit Artists '50 Shades of Grey' was rubbish
I trust you wore your best silk tie for the screening....?
Completely OT. I have just had the rather odd experience of being perhaps the only male in a fairly full cinema. I've never thought there was much difference between male and female sexuality other than possibly females being more predatory (but as I work with models who are mainly female and quite a proportion of the males are gay it might not be as simple as that). However after watching this film and understanding the things that seemed to excite the audience it's clear I need a rethink
PS. Despite being shot by one of our foremost Brit Artists '50 Shades of Grey' was rubbish
I trust you wore your best silk tie for the screening....?
Some years ago Hunchman came on here regularly with the same warning. At the time the index was touching 4000. Nowadays he comes on infrequently saying pretty much the same but it'll always happen in about six months......
@TheWatcher Thanks, I knew one of our illustrious political historians would know the answer. Do you think Dave should bring this fact to the public's attention during the coming election?
(You never read the link did you Watcher? Go to the bottom of the class, and feed there)
A Labour Chancellor could do a deal with the Banks. Pay your *ankers as much bonus as you like but the tax @50% to be paid by the employer. They can use any "avoidance" scheme they want for the employee. Even send the monies to Mars.
@felix Right, so people pay taxes that allow benefits to be paid to people who then are forced to work for a company who avoids paying those taxes? My sense of morality must truly be warped for thinking there could possibly be anything wrong in that. Actually, I wonder when off shoring of capital to avoid taxes completely, became so mainstream among our wealthy?
Your sense of morality won't pay benefits for ex-employees of Amazon, Starbucks, Boots. Google to name just a few employers who have bases outside the UK. And you fail to understand that over 60% of the entire NHS is paid for by higher rate taxpayers. It would be funny if it wasn't so stupid.
Just returned from a few days in rural Shropshire which, even in midwinter gloom, remains one of my favourite parts of England. The delights of Much Wenlock, Church Stretton, Craven Arms (a town named after a pub or a pub named after a town) and of course Ludlow which even without a race meeting is still a delight for a foodie like me. Getting a hot roast pork sandwich from Vaughans is a personal favourite.
So to politics and a reasonable end to the polling week for Labour while the Conservatives remain seemingly becalmed around 30-32%. The LDs flounder while UKIP (Ipsos-Mori notwithstanding) seem to be holding their own. Yet, as the unmissed Audreyanne would correctly point out, the election remains a long way off for a lot of people.
Now we have tax avoidance, tax evasion or should it be tax avoision ? As Roger points out, it's down to what's clearly illegal and what is legal but a lot of people think shouldn't be. With the latter we start dragging in concepts of morality and across a range of subjects from assisted dying to speeding on the motorway it becomes one person's moral line against another's with the law caught in the crossfire.
Trying to argue the case for tax avoidance is difficult in most climates but especially so against a background of austerity and the need to maximise Government revenue. That the vast majority might like to but are in no position to be able to afford to doesn't make avoidance right but then how many of us have paid cash in hand to a tradesman ?
A Labour Chancellor could do a deal with the Banks. Pay your *ankers as much bonus as you like but the tax @50% to be paid by the employer. They can use any "avoidance" scheme they want for the employee. Even send the monies to Mars.
Completely OT. I have just had the rather odd experience of being perhaps the only male in a fairly full cinema. I've never thought there was much difference between male and female sexuality other than possibly females being more predatory (but as I work with models who are mainly female and quite a proportion of the males are gay it might not be as simple as that). However after watching this film and understanding the things that seemed to excite the audience it's clear I need a rethink
PS. Despite being shot by one of our foremost Brit Artists '50 Shades of Grey' was rubbish
I trust you wore your best silk tie for the screening....?
Comments
Yes, obviously someone with a higher marginal rate of tax will save more on the scheme, but no-one will buy a £900 bicycle instead of a £200 bicycle just to save more tax, because they can't sell the bicycle to recoup that money. They will only buy the more expensive bicycle if the extra expenditure brings them a benefit.
Whether the tax incentive is necessary or not is a different matter entirely. The thing is you made several factual errors about the scheme, claiming as a result that it only benefited the middle classes, and you are now arguing about something else entirely to avoid having to admit your argument was wrong.
If someone buys a £200 bicycle on the scheme (and lock and helmet, etc) then they will save money and they get to pay for it over a 12 month period - which is a big help for someone with not a lot of savings.
Labour votes, Conservative seats 2%
Conservative votes, Labour seats 20%
Labour votes, Labour seats 35%
Conservative votes, Conservative seats 43%
Something like that ?
Thoughts... ?
You mean like calling everyone who disagrees with you a PB Tory? I kinda did - though not for the reason you ascribe. You just better hope everyone else who pays for your NHS, etc don't follow me:)) Remind us how things are going in France?
"Some might think, "If your money means more to you than your country or fellow citizens, then you leaving might not be such a bad idea""
You're being too kind. How about "F*ck off, take the bankers with you, and join ISIS."
Oh "and don't come back."
It's easy for me to say as I don't earn enough to worry much about tax, but it does seem an extreme step to take. Remember ... money doesn't buy happiness.
Other platitudes are available.
Why should I worry?
In your case, do you think you are so absolutely amazing, that no one else could replace you?
The full ELBOW for last week (w/e 8th) was Lab lead 1.3%.
Good on them. Many of us exploited what was a clear and persistent arbitrage.
The explanation with the current GE prices is, I think, far simpler and less conspiratorial. Conservative punters are betting with their hearts more than their heads, and probably have deeper pockets.
Good on them anyway.
I think it's called partisan nonsense...
However, I still don't agree with your contention that it's not a middle income subsidy. The decision to have a £1k bike instead of a £200 bike is not about reselling. It's about the capability of the bike, you can do a lot more with a £1k bike than the minimum requirement of commuting on roads which can be done for a lot less than £200.
The spread payments may have some impact but really this seems like clutching at straws. The big winners from the scheme are those that want a bike for a lot more than commuting.
The Plaid insurgency in the Valleys died a while ago but I have a sense Ukip might do okay there.
Maybe a surprise PC gain in Yns Mon (Which I've backed) or Ceredignon (Which I haven't) and the normal expected Lab gains from Lib in Cardiff North was it but for the most part its going to be as you were.
My latest tax dodge is to avoid air passenger duty by taking a 24 hour stopover in a European city. This means paying only the short haul rather than long haul rate. The money saved pays for the overnight stay. Well worth it.
Patriotism is for the stupid and poor. the smarter people know that only profit has any relevance?
That's exactly right – and more's to the point it seems a very benign scheme to have a crack at. What the problem with it is, I do not know.
Oops - I didn't realise you were just too thick to get my point.
Save your Little Englander views for the Daily Mail letters page.
In the case of many of our bankers and wealthy, leaving the UK is not so much "putting your money where your mouth is". But more joining it abroad.
Personalising in the sense of making deliberate attempts to unearth biographical details about posters which wish to remain anonymous, which, I presume, is most on here. It's sinister – you are far from the worst offender but I just want to pick it up before it goes any further.
Decent odds IMO.
It's the latter which always seems to be missing whenever this argument comes around.
Personally, I think it would be better if we stopped demonising those who do live here and earn a lot and have a simple and effective tax system so that everyone pays their fair share from the top to the bottom. Currently we don't.
A low end hardtail MTB is by far the most suitable commuter bike and you'll get something excellent for about £150 these days. If you really require a folder, there are much better alternatives to Bromptons.
I'd be interested to know what the country gains from bankers earning a few millions in bonuses for trading money?
I understand that the great majority of "bankers" are involved in normal day to day transaction that facilitate movement of money but I'm talking about the ones involved in gambling, the ones who earn silly money?. What value-added are they contributing?
Because these are the self same people who reckon the poor should get less because the country has not enough money, while at the same time making sure that they get paid more and put less in.
There are some who might question this attitude, but others deem it to be a perfectly rational way of thinking.
Which is why they are popular as commuter bikes.
I have shot two commercials to my certain knowledge where the celeb stars of the ad insisted that we shot in a particular country to avoid having their fee plundered by the tax man. Now that Ed has brought the subject to all our attention perhaps we wont acquiesce quite so readily in future
i) it's not my model, as you seem to recognise
ii) it can't be easily "adjusted"
iii) there is probably no available data to adjust it with
iv) I don't have the time or inclination
In any case, Lebo & Norpoth may have adjusted it themselves, judging by a post someone gave from the Election Forecasting conference this week.
yeah - the clamping bet would have been great if it was worded in such a way that *any* campaign bus gets clamped during the campaign.
I expect something like that is quite likely, actually.
I didn't take that bet because it was too specific - I doubt that one exact bus will get clamped. Anyway, a parking ticket/exchange with a parking warden is more likely? These campaign buses are likely to be manned at all times - it would probably be difficult to get a clamp onto the vehicle before a Spad realises the likely PR implications and moves the vehicle quick flash.
And if they cock up, why are there calls to pay them bonuses anyway, otherwise they'll take their money-losing talents elsewhere? Leicester City will be relegated this season (sorry, Fox) - should we pay them a bonus for failure too?
In casinos, for every winner, there are losers. You could demand a casino in every town and point to the tax take from the winners as a good reason for them.
It's like the left demand to spend. Employ a million people to dig holes in the road and another million people to fill them in again. GDP soars, unemployment falls, tax revenue magically increases despite the extra payments.
Am I the ignoramus?
http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/crime-court/12_year_old_romford_girl_gang_raped_court_hears_1_3953521
In this context you suddenly don't like economic migrants, and you think people should stay in the country they were born in. I suggest you listen to what Nigel Farage has to say on these subjects; I think you'll think he talks a lot of sense.
"Susan Ca added: “Oh blimey.... am dissappointed to hear about EVEN MORE houses been built up here in Harold Hill! I live round the corner to the Pompadours and it would have been nice if it was turned into a Wetherspoons or something."
http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/last_orders_for_harold_hill_pub_the_pompadour_1_3949557
Oh and just for the record I still pay taxes on all my UK income to the UK govt for the NHS and other UK public services, which I no longer use. And am happy to do so.
So, while I agree with your interpretation in many respects, I can also appreciate the argument that defenders of bankers use, as it's one of the few ways in which the UK can make a living in the world. I think we'd be better off in the long run working on reducing our reliance on financial services and creating a comparative advantage in other things, but that is easier said than done.
Actually while being completely wrong about the reasons, you have hit on one of my core beliefs.
Helping people in other countries to improve their conditions, thereby lessening the need to emigrate might be the rational way forward for humanity.
Of course, others rightly point out that only self serving greed and mindless selfishness fulfil mankind's true destiny.
(there are probably several religious tracts on the subject)
Withdrawing benefits from those who can, but refuse to work is perfectly reasonable.
Where I disagree with the policy, is forcing them into unsuitable and non paying work solely as a punishment.
A bloke on here banging on about hypocrisy and anonymity/wanting to keep biographical details hidden tells everyone his wifes shoe size! Who asked??! Who cares?!!
Pitiful attention seeker
LOL oh dear
PS. Despite being shot by one of our foremost Brit Artists '50 Shades of Grey' was rubbish
I have some news. I will be joining HuffingtonPost UK as their Executive Editor, Politics after the general election.
Philip Michael Hunt • 43 minutes ago
Why no black lesbians?
Oh and the typo!
Thanks for the reply.
I sort of half-understood that. We're not so much producing anything as taking more than our fair share. Selfishly, I sort of approve, but when I think about it again, I feel a little guilty.
So I can feel better by having a go at the wastrels and spendthrifts that seem to inhabit the world of casino banking, and mock their inflated ideas of their own worth. A natural reaction.
https://twitter.com/50ShadesGran
Very happy in fact.
Did you really expect to see something French art house? I suspect there's more intellectual content in Paw De Deux from Existential Cat
I remain intrigued why you went to the cinema at all! You old roue ;^)
Alan and Mr Evil structured the acquisition as a Scheme of Arrangement thus avoiding UK stamp duty on the transaction.
Alan saved himself £600,000 in so doing.
It was all entirely legal and super-duper fine because Alan commissioned his own investigators to give it a clean bill of health.
Bob had no idea about all of this but now that he realises one of his heroes and an heroic institution of the left can also act in a human way, what does he think?
(Betfair 2.4)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Shades_of_Grey_(film)
"Unsuitable" would entirely depend on the individuals circumstance, so it would be difficult to point to specifics.
On the other hand, do you think it right that the unemployed should be compelled to work for their benefits so that the company can increase the amount of profit they can avoid paying tax on?
If not, why not?
Surely he can't be as shallow a person as to keep silent about his political allies, whilst enjoying his "Millie Dowler moment" when his political enemies were similiarly banged to rights? Can he?
[Note to other readers: Crispin Odey ain't stupid].
Right, so people pay taxes that allow benefits to be paid to people who then are forced to work for a company who avoids paying those taxes?
My sense of morality must truly be warped for thinking there could possibly be anything wrong in that.
Actually, I wonder when off shoring of capital to avoid taxes completely, became so mainstream among our wealthy?
"[Note to other readers: Crispin Odey ain't stupid]."
Thanks for that. I've just looked him up.
http://citywire.co.uk/money/funds-shore-up-as-odey-warns-of-devastation/a797475
Some years ago Hunchman came on here regularly with the same warning. At the time the index was touching 4000. Nowadays he comes on infrequently saying pretty much the same but it'll always happen in about six months......
Thanks, I knew one of our illustrious political historians would know the answer.
Do you think Dave should bring this fact to the public's attention during the coming election?
(You never read the link did you Watcher? Go to the bottom of the class, and feed there)
A Labour Chancellor could do a deal with the Banks. Pay your *ankers as much bonus as you like but the tax @50% to be paid by the employer. They can use any "avoidance" scheme they want for the employee. Even send the monies to Mars.
Just returned from a few days in rural Shropshire which, even in midwinter gloom, remains one of my favourite parts of England. The delights of Much Wenlock, Church Stretton, Craven Arms (a town named after a pub or a pub named after a town) and of course Ludlow which even without a race meeting is still a delight for a foodie like me. Getting a hot roast pork sandwich from Vaughans is a personal favourite.
So to politics and a reasonable end to the polling week for Labour while the Conservatives remain seemingly becalmed around 30-32%. The LDs flounder while UKIP (Ipsos-Mori notwithstanding) seem to be holding their own. Yet, as the unmissed Audreyanne would correctly point out, the election remains a long way off for a lot of people.
Now we have tax avoidance, tax evasion or should it be tax avoision ? As Roger points out, it's down to what's clearly illegal and what is legal but a lot of people think shouldn't be. With the latter we start dragging in concepts of morality and across a range of subjects from assisted dying to speeding on the motorway it becomes one person's moral line against another's with the law caught in the crossfire.
Trying to argue the case for tax avoidance is difficult in most climates but especially so against a background of austerity and the need to maximise Government revenue. That the vast majority might like to but are in no position to be able to afford to doesn't make avoidance right but then how many of us have paid cash in hand to a tradesman ?
And if what percentage would they pay if it wasn't for clever financial instruments?
Don't split your sides laughing.
F1: Red Bull bitch about rules not being perfect for them:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/31454550
That's a partial line for me to take, but Horner has form bleating about this kind of thing.
Nearly bankrupted Britain.
Hiked taxes for the low paid.
Locked up child migrants.
Middle East still in crisis after Iraq War.
Wonder what votes in Tory / LD marginals received today.