Since it's confession week, I have to confess that I have invested in ETFs registered in Ireland. This clearly makes me a guilty tax-avoider in the Court of Public Opinion (along with almost any one else who has a pension fund) because ETFs choose Dublin as it is more tax-efficient than setting up in London.
Mate...the story is that ultra rich people are so greedy that they cannot face paying a penny extra even if they would never miss it. It just seems to be in the psyche of the greedy graspers who worship capital and want to protect their share at all costs.
The fact that you spend what limited time you have left on this planet researching and shifting monies between providers to make an extra buck is just a bit sad really. Unfortunately that is what many of our pensioners are reduced to...before the care home arrives, they spend their last years of useful life obsessively exploring low risk money making options/going on cruises/ or venturing out on weekend breaks at ludicrously expensive hotels.
At least I didn't move country for financial reasons.
Ouch.
Mate...I would like to see a vote where your wife was potentially cut off from all her assets and see what you felt like....
You and your ideological group of zealots are creating such damage for this country through your bonkers crusade against the EU....well done.
You said yourself that your principal reason for ensuring you were both domiciled here was to ensure that in due course, there would be an Inheritance Tax saving.
Since it's confession week, I have to confess that I have invested in ETFs registered in Ireland. This clearly makes me a guilty tax-avoider in the Court of Public Opinion (along with almost any one else who has a pension fund) because ETFs choose Dublin as it is more tax-efficient than setting up in London.
Mate...the story is that ultra rich people are so greedy that they cannot face paying a penny extra even if they would never miss it. It just seems to be in the psyche of the greedy graspers who worship capital and want to protect their share at all costs.
The fact that you spend what limited time you have left on this planet researching and shifting monies between providers to make an extra buck is just a bit sad really. Unfortunately that is what many of our pensioners are reduced to...before the care home arrives, they spend their last years of useful life obsessively exploring low risk money making options/going on cruises/ or venturing out on weekend breaks at ludicrously expensive hotels.
I'm massively in favour of those with large amounts of capital spending it.
The economy is healthy when they do that. Wealth gets redistributed.
The problem comes when they don't spend, just accumulate and pass onto their own kids to further accumulate. They're taking advantage of the economic system to buy their own kids the future financial bondage of other peoples kids.
That ain't right.
Yet we have a party in power which actively encourage this state of affairs.
Liberal Conservatism doesn't have to be like this.
There is no such thing as 'Liberal Conservatism' they are two contradictory terms.
Since it's confession week, I have to confess that I have invested in ETFs registered in Ireland. This clearly makes me a guilty tax-avoider in the Court of Public Opinion (along with almost any one else who has a pension fund) because ETFs choose Dublin as it is more tax-efficient than setting up in London.
Mate...the story is that ultra rich people are so greedy that they cannot face paying a penny extra even if they would never miss it. It just seems to be in the psyche of the greedy graspers who worship capital and want to protect their share at all costs.
The fact that you spend what limited time you have left on this planet researching and shifting monies between providers to make an extra buck is just a bit sad really. Unfortunately that is what many of our pensioners are reduced to...before the care home arrives, they spend their last years of useful life obsessively exploring low risk money making options/going on cruises/ or venturing out on weekend breaks at ludicrously expensive hotels.
I'm massively in favour of those with large amounts of capital spending it.
The economy is healthy when they do that. Wealth gets redistributed.
The problem comes when they don't spend, just accumulate and pass onto their own kids to further accumulate. They're taking advantage of the economic system to buy their own kids the future financial bondage of other peoples kids.
That ain't right.
Yet we have a party in power which actively encourage this state of affairs.
Liberal Conservatism doesn't have to be like this.
There is no such thing as 'Liberal Conservatism' they are two contradictory terms.
Conservatism has always been in favour of the family and tradition and inheritance.
Maybe once but more recently it has been all about greed and the market.
Thatcher was arguably more a Gladstonian Liberal than a traditional Conservative and Tory but if it was all about the market then the Tories would not be pursuing Brexit as the market ie the City, opposes it.
I am shocked, shocked to discover that rich people minimise their tax burdens.
When is someone going to take on Amazon, Starbucks, Apple et al? They're the real reason people are losing faith in capitalism.
I suppose it's too easy, too convenient. We like our cheap tat delivered cheaply. Amazon are happy to provide this, unlike Lord Ashcroft. So we give them a free pass.
Well just gone all Amazon Prime with fire stick and it seems a really good deal.
It's a great deal, unfortunately. I use them myself for the same reason. For me it's a convenience factor - they can have whatever I want delivered to the office, which saves me an inordinate amount of time - mostly little everyday necessities I would have to wait until the weekend to shop for, because the shops are shut by the time I leave work.
That doesn't mean they didn't just pay £15m in tax last year. On £7bn of sales.
.
.
"we might have to spend a little more on books and electronics, but we wouldn't have to pay as much in tax"
So it makes no net difference to the average consumer. Either more tax or higher prices; either way we pay.
It is like pre-revolutionary France, when the aristocracy were exempt from taxes and the laws that applied to the rest.
They are laughing at the moment. They will not laugh forever, not when the tumbrils start rolling.
They are not 'exempt' from tax, the fact
The lowest .
The lowest earners have been taken out of income tax altogether and have seen an increase in the minimum wage.
It is the highest earners exempting themselves from the taxes that ordinary Britons pay that are the trouble.
Once the discontent crystalises and enough of the middle class aligns with the dispossessed that upheaval occurs.
Historically the British elite were astute enough to reform just enough to prevent upheaval. That skill may not last forever. I speak of metaphorical tumbrils, rather than physical ones btw.
They are not 'exempting' themselves from tax just using loopholes offered by the elected government of the day.
Perfectly legally, as it was for the French aristocracy.
No wonder the super rich are so supportive of the current government. They want their racket to continue.
Since it's confession week, I have to confess that I have invested in ETFs registered in Ireland. This clearly makes me a guilty tax-avoider in the Court of Public Opinion (along with almost any one else who has a pension fund) because ETFs choose Dublin as it is more tax-efficient than setting up in London.
Mate...the story is that ultra rich people are so greedy that they cannot face paying a penny extra even if they would never miss it. It just seems to be in the psyche of the greedy graspers who worship capital and want to protect their share at all costs.
The fact that you spend what limited time you have left on this planet researching and shifting monies between providers to make an extra buck is just a bit sad really. Unfortunately that is what many of our pensioners are reduced to...before the care home arrives, they spend their last years of useful life obsessively exploring low risk money making options/going on cruises/ or venturing out on weekend breaks at ludicrously expensive hotels.
I'm massively in favour of those with large amounts of capital spending it.
The economy is healthy when they do that. Wealth gets redistributed.
The problem comes when they don't spend, just accumulate and pass onto their own kids to further accumulate. They're taking advantage of the economic system to buy their own kids the future financial bondage of other peoples kids.
That ain't right.
Yet we have a party in power which actively encourage this state of affairs.
Liberal Conservatism doesn't have to be like this.
There is no such thing as 'Liberal Conservatism' they are two contradictory terms.
Load of gobbledeygook, you cannot be a liberal and a conservative at the same time, if you are really a liberal there is already a liberal party for you, the Liberal Democrats.
You can be a conservative who is reasonably tolerant and accepting of gradual change but that is not the same as being a liberal or a libertarian.
Since it's confession week, I have to confess that I have invested in ETFs registered in Ireland. This clearly makes me a guilty tax-avoider in the Court of Public Opinion (along with almost any one else who has a pension fund) because ETFs choose Dublin as it is more tax-efficient than setting up in London.
Mate...the story is that ultra rich people are so greedy that they cannot face paying a penny extra even if they would never miss it. It just seems to be in the psyche of the greedy graspers who worship capital and want to protect their share at all costs.
The fact that you spend what limited time you have left on this planet researching and shifting monies between providers to make an extra buck is just a bit sad really. Unfortunately that is what many of our pensioners are reduced to...before the care home arrives, they spend their last years of useful life obsessively exploring low risk money making options/going on cruises/ or venturing out on weekend breaks at ludicrously expensive hotels.
I'm massively in favour of those with large amounts of capital spending it.
The economy is healthy when they do that. Wealth gets redistributed.
The problem comes when they don't spend, just accumulate and pass onto their own kids to further accumulate. They're taking advantage of the economic system to buy their own kids the future financial bondage of other peoples kids.
That ain't right.
Yet we have a party in power which actively encourage this state of affairs.
Liberal Conservatism doesn't have to be like this.
There is no such thing as 'Liberal Conservatism' they are two contradictory terms.
Conservatism has always been in favour of the family and tradition and inheritance.
Maybe once but more recently it has been all about greed and the market.
Thatcher was arguably more a Gladstonian Liberal than a traditional Conservative and Tory but if it was all about the market then the Tories would not be pursuing Brexit as the market ie the City, opposes it.
The Tory brexiters are pursuing their Singapore vision for Britain.
Here's a great article on the nature or true conservatism - the current Conservative party is a diferent beast altogether.
I am shocked, shocked to discover that rich people minimise their tax burdens.
When is someone going to take on Amazon, Starbucks, Apple et al? They're the real reason people are losing faith in capitalism.
I suppose it's too easy, too convenient. We like our cheap tat delivered cheaply. Amazon are happy to provide this, unlike Lord Ashcroft. So we give them a free pass.
Well just gone all Amazon Prime with fire stick and it seems a really good deal.
It's a great deal, unfortunately. I use them myself for the same reason. For me it's a convenience factor - they can have whatever I want delivered to the office, which saves me an inordinate amount of time - mostly little everyday necessities I would have to wait until the weekend to shop for, because the shops are shut by the time I leave work.
That doesn't mean they didn't just pay £15m in tax last year. On £7bn of sales.
.
.
"we might have to spend a little more on books and electronics, but we wouldn't have to pay as much in tax"
So it makes no net difference to the average consumer. Either more tax or higher prices; either way we pay.
It is like pre-revolutionary France, when the aristocracy were exempt from taxes and the laws that applied to the rest.
They are laughing at the moment. They will not laugh forever, not when the tumbrils start rolling.
They are not 'exempt' from tax, the fact
The lowest .
The lowest earners have been taken out of income tax altogether and have seen an increase in the minimum wage.
It is .
They are not 'exempting' themselves from tax just using loopholes offered by the elected government of the day.
Perfectly legally, as it was for the French aristocracy.
No wonder the super rich are so supportive of the current government. They want their racket to continue.
Well if voters feel so strongly about the issue they will elect Corbyn to end the loopholes (being able to vote was not an option open to most French peasants) but in June they did not and the loopholes legally remain.
Since it's confession week, I have to confess that I have invested in ETFs registered in Ireland. This clearly makes me a guilty tax-avoider in the Court of Public Opinion (along with almost any one else who has a pension fund) because ETFs choose Dublin as it is more tax-efficient than setting up in London.
Mate...the story is that ultra rich people are so greedy that they cannot face paying a penny extra even if they would never miss it. It just seems to be in the psyche of the greedy graspers who worship capital and want to protect their share at all costs.
The fact that you spend what limited time you have left on this planet researching and shifting monies between providers to make an extra buck is just a bit sad really. Unfortunately that is what many of our pensioners are reduced to...before the care home arrives, they spend their last years of useful life obsessively exploring low risk money making options/going on cruises/ or venturing out on weekend breaks at ludicrously expensive hotels.
I'm massively in favour of those with large amounts of capital spending it.
The economy is healthy when they do that. Wealth gets redistributed.
The problem comes when they don't spend, just accumulate and pass onto their own kids to further accumulate. They're taking advantage of the economic system to buy their own kids the future financial bondage of other peoples kids.
That ain't right.
Yet we have a party in power which actively encourage this state of affairs.
Liberal Conservatism doesn't have to be like this.
There is no such thing as 'Liberal Conservatism' they are two contradictory terms.
Conservatism has always been in favour of the family and tradition and inheritance.
Maybe once but more recently it has been all about greed and the market.
Thatcher was arguably more a Gladstonian Liberal than a traditional Conservative and Tory but if it was all about the market then the Tories would not be pursuing Brexit as the market ie the City, opposes it.
The Tory brexiters are pursuing their Singapore vision for Britain.
Here's a great article on the nature or true conservatism - the current Conservative party is a diferent beast altogether.
Are they? I see no slashing of red tape and regulation as yet and if anything spending cuts have eased a little since Brexit and Osborne left the Treasury.
Since it's confession week, I have to confess that I have invested in ETFs registered in Ireland. This clearly makes me a guilty tax-avoider in the Court of Public Opinion (along with almost any one else who has a pension fund) because ETFs choose Dublin as it is more tax-efficient than setting up in London.
Mate...the story is that ultra rich people are so greedy that they cannot face paying a penny extra even if they would never miss it. It just seems to be in the psyche of the greedy graspers who worship capital and want to protect their share at all costs.
The fact that you spend what limited time you have left on this planet researching and shifting monies between providers to make an extra buck is just a bit sad really. Unfortunately that is what many of our pensioners are reduced to...before the care home arrives, they spend their last years of useful life obsessively exploring low risk money making options/going on cruises/ or venturing out on weekend breaks at ludicrously expensive hotels.
I'm massively in favour of those with large amounts of capital spending it.
The economy is healthy when they do that. Wealth gets redistributed.
The problem comes when they don't spend, just accumulate and pass onto their own kids to further accumulate. They're taking advantage of the economic system to buy their own kids the future financial bondage of other peoples kids.
That ain't right.
Yet we have a party in power which actively encourage this state of affairs.
Liberal Conservatism doesn't have to be like this.
There is no such thing as 'Liberal Conservatism' they are two contradictory terms.
Conservatism has always been in favour of the family and tradition and inheritance.
Maybe once but more recently it has been all about greed and the market.
Thatcher was arguably more a Gladstonian Liberal than a traditional Conservative and Tory but if it was all about the market then the Tories would not be pursuing Brexit as the market ie the City, opposes it.
As I have said before, Brexit is such a problem for the Tories because it destroys their USPs of managing the economy and avoiding radical change.
"A Tory whip has referred himself to the police after he was accused of making an unwanted pass at former Olympic rower and Conservative activist Alex Story while dressed in a bathrobe. "
Since it's confession week, I have to confess that I have invested in ETFs registered in Ireland. This clearly makes me a guilty tax-avoider in the Court of Public Opinion (along with almost any one else who has a pension fund) because ETFs choose Dublin as it is more tax-efficient than setting up in London.
Mate...the story is that ultra rich people are so greedy that they cannot face paying a penny extra even if they would never miss it. It just seems to be in the psyche of the greedy graspers who worship capital and want to protect their share at all costs.
The fact that you spend what limited time you have left on this planet researching and shifting monies between providers to make an extra buck is just a bit sad really. Unfortunately that is what many of our pensioners are reduced to...before the care home arrives, they spend their last years of useful life obsessively exploring low risk money making options/going on cruises/ or venturing out on weekend breaks at ludicrously expensive hotels.
I'm massively in favour of those with large amounts of capital spending it.
The economy is healthy when they do that. Wealth gets redistributed.
The problem comes when they don't spend, just accumulate and pass onto their own kids to further accumulate. They're taking advantage of the economic system to buy their own kids the future financial bondage of other peoples kids.
That ain't right.
Yet we have a party in power which actively encourage this state of affairs.
Liberal Conservatism doesn't have to be like this.
There is no such thing as 'Liberal Conservatism' they are two contradictory terms.
Conservatism has always been in favour of the family and tradition and inheritance.
Maybe once but more recently it has been all about greed and the market.
Thatcher was arguably more a Gladstonian Liberal than a traditional Conservative and Tory but if it was all about the market then the Tories would not be pursuing Brexit as the market ie the City, opposes it.
As I have said before, Brexit is such a problem for the Tories because it destroys their USPs of managing the economy and avoiding radical change.
Except it isn't as a comfortable majority of Tories voted for Brexit as they put regaining sovereignty and control of immigration first ahead of the unfettered whims of the market.
You are again confusing classically liberal economics with conservatism, they are not automatically the same just because conservatism is not socialism either.
Since it's confession week, I have to confess that I have invested in ETFs registered in Ireland. This clearly makes me a guilty tax-avoider in the Court of Public Opinion (along with almost any one else who has a pension fund) because ETFs choose Dublin as it is more tax-efficient than setting up in London.
Mate...the story is that ultra rich people are so greedy that they cannot face paying a penny extra even if they would never miss it. It just seems to be in the psyche of the greedy graspers who worship capital and want to protect their share at all costs.
The fact that you spend what limited time you have left on this planet researching and shifting monies between providers to make an extra buck is just a bit sad really. Unfortunately that is what many of our pensioners are reduced to...before the care home arrives, they spend their last years of useful life obsessively exploring low risk money making options/going on cruises/ or venturing out on weekend breaks at ludicrously expensive hotels.
At least I didn't move country for financial reasons.
Ouch.
Mate...I would like to see a vote where your wife was potentially cut off from all her assets and see what you felt like....
You and your ideological group of zealots are creating such damage for this country through your bonkers crusade against the EU....well done.
Given that you were living in Italy with your Italian wife and her family, why didn’t you transfer your UK assets to Italy?
I appreciate that this is a personal question so if you don’t wish to answer, fair enough.
Moving to be with your assets rather than with your family seems, well, some might say that it is an odd choice of priorities. And then you have the nerve to criticise others for their financial choices and what they choose to spend their money on (cruises and weekend breaks).
"A Tory whip has referred himself to the police after he was accused of making an unwanted pass at former Olympic rower and Conservative activist Alex Story while dressed in a bathrobe. "
I'm massively in favour of those with large amounts of capital spending it.
The economy is healthy when they do that. Wealth gets redistributed.
The problem comes when they don't spend, just accumulate and pass onto their own kids to further accumulate. They're taking advantage of the economic system to buy their own kids the future financial bondage of other peoples kids.
That ain't right.
Yet we have a party in power which actively encourage this state of affairs.
Liberal Conservatism doesn't have to be like this.
There is no such thing as 'Liberal Conservatism' they are two contradictory terms.
Conservatism has always been in favour of the family and tradition and inheritance.
Maybe once but more recently it has been all about greed and the market.
Thatcher was arguably more a Gladstonian Liberal than a traditional Conservative and Tory but if it was all about the market then the Tories would not be pursuing Brexit as the market ie the City, opposes it.
As I have said before, Brexit is such a problem for the Tories because it destroys their USPs of managing the economy and avoiding radical change.
Except it isn't as a comfortable majority of Tories voted for Brexit as they put regaining sovereignty and control of immigration first ahead of the unfettered whims of the market.
You are again confusing classically liberal economics with conservatism, they are not automatically the same just because conservatism is not socialism either.
With respect, I think you're confusing conservatism with a kind of neo-feudalism.
In fairness you're not alone. It's the ideology of the tory client vote;
Well just gone all Amazon Prime with fire stick and it seems a really good deal.
It's a great deal, unfortunately. I use them myself for the same reason. For me it's a convenience factor - they can have whatever I want delivered to the office, which saves me an inordinate amount of time - mostly little everyday necessities I would have to wait until the weekend to shop for, because the shops are shut by the time I leave work.
That doesn't mean they didn't just pay £15m in tax last year. On £7bn of sales.
.
.
"we might have to spend a little more on books and electronics, but we wouldn't have to pay as much in tax"
So it makes no net difference to the average consumer. Either more tax or higher prices; either way we pay.
It is like pre-revolutionary France, when the aristocracy were exempt from taxes and the laws that applied to the rest.
They are laughing at the moment. They will not laugh forever, not when the tumbrils start rolling.
They are not 'exempt' from tax, the fact
The lowest .
The lowest earners have been taken out of income tax altogether and have seen an increase in the minimum wage.
It is .
They are not 'exempting' themselves from tax just using loopholes offered by the elected government of the day.
Perfectly legally, as it was for the French aristocracy.
No wonder the super rich are so supportive of the current government. They want their racket to continue.
Well if voters feel so strongly about the issue they will elect Corbyn to end the loopholes (being able to vote was not an option open to most French peasants) but in June they did not and the loopholes legally remain.
The anger of the squeezed middle who do pay their taxes towards the new super rich aristocracy who manage legally to dodge paying their share should not be underestimated.
I'm massively in favour of those with large amounts of capital spending it.
The economy is healthy when they do that. Wealth gets redistributed.
The problem comes when they don't spend, just accumulate and pass onto their own kids to further accumulate. They're taking advantage of the economic system to buy their own kids the future financial bondage of other peoples kids.
That ain't right.
Yet we have a party in power which actively encourage this state of affairs.
Liberal Conservatism doesn't have to be like this.
There is no such thing as 'Liberal Conservatism' they are two contradictory terms.
Conservatism has always been in favour of the family and tradition and inheritance.
Maybe once but more recently it has been all about greed and the market.
Thatcher was arguably more a Gladstonian Liberal than a traditional Conservative and Tory but if it was all about the market then the Tories would not be pursuing Brexit as the market ie the City, opposes it.
As I have said before, Brexit is such a problem for the Tories because it destroys their USPs of managing the economy and avoiding radical change.
Except it isn't as a comfortable majority of Tories voted for Brexit as they put regaining sovereignty and control of immigration first ahead of the unfettered whims of the market.
You are again confusing classically liberal economics with conservatism, they are not automatically the same just because conservatism is not socialism either.
With respect, I think you're confusing conservatism with a kind of neo-feudalism.
In fairness, you're not alone. It's the ideology of the tory client vote;
' 1 Commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation
2 The holding of political views that favour free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas'
Indeed until the rise of the Labour Party in the early 20th century after the working classes got the vote, the Conservative Party's main opponent was the Liberal Party (with the Tories, the Conservative Party's predecessor opposed by the Liberal Party predecessor, the Whigs until the mid 19th century).
The Tories were the party of monarchy, the Church of England and the Landed Gentry and occasionally protectionism, the Whigs the party of the merchants and free trade, industrialists and non conformists.
Now everyone seems to have noticed that Russia is involved in very active attempts to cause as much conflict and chaos within Western democracies, suddenly they may be responsible for the Brexit result?
I remember how people thought that the view that we needed to face down Putin's regime with immense firmness was essentially provocative
Now they get it but only in the narrow confines of their own political bias because it suits.
Yes, have no doubts things to come will show how people within UKIP aligned camp (no names but Ive been on about it for months) have some kind of associations with Moscow but there is no evidence that the Russian shadow merchants shifted opinion or votes. Maybe more will emerge but there is no case on that account right now.
Trumpton
George Papadopoulos was in Greece at the same time as Putin and his coterie were there. Luck maybe. Maybe not.
Who did George meet in London by the way?
As a note downthread. Mike Flynn has been indicted for ages, the news is that charges may be about to be brought.
I don't think one can say Russia is responsible for Trump or Brexit, even if they influenced people. At the end of the day we have to trust electors to make their own choice as to how to vote at elections.
Since it's confession week, I have to confess that I have invested in ETFs registered in Ireland. This clearly makes me a guilty tax-avoider in the Court of Public Opinion (along with almost any one else who has a pension fund) because ETFs choose Dublin as it is more tax-efficient than setting up in London.
Mate...the story is that ultra rich people are so greedy that they cannot face paying a penny extra even if they would never miss it. It just seems to be in the psyche of the greedy graspers who worship capital and want to protect their share at all costs.
The fact that you spend what limited time you have left on this planet researching and shifting monies between providers to make an extra buck is just a bit sad really. Unfortunately that is what many of our pensioners are reduced to...before the care home arrives, they spend their last years of useful life obsessively exploring low risk money making options/going on cruises/ or venturing out on weekend breaks at ludicrously expensive hotels.
I'm massively in favour of those with large amounts of capital spending it.
The economy is healthy when they do that. Wealth gets redistributed.
The problem comes when they don't spend, just accumulate and pass onto their own kids to further accumulate. They're taking advantage of the economic system to buy their own kids the future financial bondage of other peoples kids.
That ain't right.
Yet we have a party in power which actively encourage this state of affairs.
Liberal Conservatism doesn't have to be like this.
There is no such thing as 'Liberal Conservatism' they are two contradictory terms.
Conservatism has always been in favour of the family and tradition and inheritance.
Maybe once but more recently it has been all about greed and the market.
Thatcher was arguably more a Gladstonian Liberal than a traditional Conservative and Tory but if it was all about the market then the Tories would not be pursuing Brexit as the market ie the City, opposes it.
The Tory brexiters are pursuing their Singapore vision for Britain.
Here's a great article on the nature or true conservatism - the current Conservative party is a diferent beast altogether.
The current government is hardly slashing and burning the State. A government which cared exclusively about the interests of big business, would not be pursuing Brexit, either.
"A Tory whip has referred himself to the police after he was accused of making an unwanted pass at former Olympic rower and Conservative activist Alex Story while dressed in a bathrobe. "
"A Tory whip has referred himself to the police after he was accused of making an unwanted pass at former Olympic rower and Conservative activist Alex Story while dressed in a bathrobe. "
Well just gone all Amazon Prime with fire stick and it seems a really good deal.
It's a great deal, unfortunately. I use them myself for the same reason. For me it's a convenience factor - they can have whatever I want delivered to the office, which saves me an inordinate amount of time - mostly little everyday necessities I would have to wait until the weekend to shop for, because the shops are shut by the time I leave work.
That doesn't mean they didn't just pay £15m in tax last year. On £7bn of sales.
.
.
"we might have to spend a little more on books and electronics, but we wouldn't have to pay as much in tax"
So it makes no net difference to the average consumer. Either more tax or higher prices; either way we pay.
It is like pre-revolutionary France, when the aristocracy were exempt from taxes and the laws that applied to the rest.
They are laughing at the moment. They will not laugh forever, not when the tumbrils start rolling.
They are not 'exempt' from tax, the fact
The lowest .
The lowest earners have been taken out of income tax altogether and have seen an increase in the minimum wage.
It is .
They are not 'exempting' themselves from tax just using loopholes offered by the elected government of the day.
Perfectly legally, as it was for the French aristocracy.
No wonder the super rich are so supportive of the current government. They want their racket to continue.
Well if voters feel soremain.
The anger of the squeezed middle who do pay their taxes towards the new super rich aristocracy who manage legally to dodge paying their share should not be underestimated.
They don't 'dodge' paying their taxes they just use loopholes to legally reduce them where they can.
' 1 Commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation
2 The holding of political views that favour free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas'
Indeed until the rise of the Labour Party in the early 20th century after the working classes got the vote, the Conservative Party's main opponent was the Liberal Party (with the Tories, the Conservative Party's predecessor opposed by the Liberal Party predecessor, the Whigs until the mid 19th century).
The Tories were the party of monarchy, the Church of England and the Landed Gentry and occasionally protectionism, the Whigs the party of the merchants and free trade, industrialists and non conformists.
I defer to your definition of conservatism (at least as it is practiced in Britain) but the British Conservative party is less hidebound than that. Since the Libs fell apart in the 1920's British politics has been a battle between the lower working class and the upper middle class, with the battleground being the border between the upper working class and the lower middle class. If Labour capture the lower middle class it wins, if Conservatives capture the upper working class it wins, and so on. The Conservative party will adopt positions designed to effect this capture, then retrofit its principles to match. This is how it could adopt as leaders such a widely disparate group as Macmillan, Heath, Thatcher, Cameron and May.
As with sexual harassment, the claim that everyone does tax avoidance is mistaken. It's not hard to specify that investments should not be made in offshore funds - I did it when I had savings as an MP, and I was on the Parliamentary pension fund committee which had the same policy. I don't suppose it occurred to the Queen, but it's a perfectly reasonable instruction to give.
The scale of avoidance is a real problem for all governments (and an appropriate target for populist wrath), as that noted leftie Osborne recognised. Britain's position is notably hypocritical, though - Chancellors boast of taking anti-avoidance measures (we have eliminated £50 billion of avoidance", the Treasury claimed today), while fostering a City culture only too pleased to assist avoidance. If we were serious we could crack down on all the British territories and dependencies - if they wish to continue to be British, ripping us off by hosting cut-rate pseudo-offices shouldn't be part of the deal.
' 1 Commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation
2 The holding of political views that favour free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas'
Indeed until the rise of the Labour Party in the early 20th century after the working classes got the vote, the Conservative Party's main opponent was the Liberal Party (with the Tories, the Conservative Party's predecessor opposed by the Liberal Party predecessor, the Whigs until the mid 19th century).
The Tories were the party of monarchy, the Church of England and the Landed Gentry and occasionally protectionism, the Whigs the party of the merchants and free trade, industrialists and non conformists.
I defer to your definition of conservatism (at least as it is practiced in Britain) but the British Conservative party is less hidebound than that. Since the Libs fell apart in the 1920's British politics has been a battle between the lower working class and the upper middle class, with the battleground being the border between the upper working class and the lower middle class. If Labour capture the lower middle class it wins, if Conservatives capture the upper working class it wins, and so on. The Conservative party will adopt positions designed to effect this capture, then retrofit its principles to match. This is how it could adopt as leaders such a widely disparate group as Macmillan, Heath, Thatcher, Cameron and May.
Largely true but of course while the main battle is between the Tories and Labour, the heirs to the Whigs and the Liberal Party still very much exist in the form of the LDs, still the third biggest party in voteshare across the UK in June and also in seats at Westminster too, outside of Scotland. The LD commitment to the EU and the single market and opposition to Brexit is very much in their predecessors vein as was the tough measures they took on spending to cut the deficit when part of the Coalition.
"A Tory whip has referred himself to the police after he was accused of making an unwanted pass at former Olympic rower and Conservative activist Alex Story while dressed in a bathrobe. "
I've signed up for Amazon Prime and have been exploring US options. Series 1 of Casual was good fun, with some clever twists as a brother, sister and daughter struggle to keep afloat and perhaps find love in a freewheeling sexual culture (Series 2 is less good so far - embarassing raher than amusing). On a more serious note, "Z -The Beginning of Everything" (Zelda Fitzgerald growing up during WW1) is stylish and convincing so far.
' 1 Commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation
2 The holding of political views that favour free enterprise, private ownership, and socially conservative ideas'
Indeed until the rise of the Labour Party in the early 20th century after the working classes got the vote, the Conservative Party's main opponent was the Liberal Party (with the Tories, the Conservative Party's predecessor opposed by the Liberal Party predecessor, the Whigs until the mid 19th century).
The Tories were the party of monarchy, the Church of England and the Landed Gentry and occasionally protectionism, the Whigs the party of the merchants and free trade, industrialists and non conformists.
I defer to your definition of conservatism (at least as it is practiced in Britain) but the British Conservative party is less hidebound than that. Since the Libs fell apart in the 1920's British politics has been a battle between the lower working class and the upper middle class, with the battleground being the border between the upper working class and the lower middle class. If Labour capture the lower middle class it wins, if Conservatives capture the upper working class it wins, and so on. The Conservative party will adopt positions designed to effect this capture, then retrofit its principles to match. This is how it could adopt as leaders such a widely disparate group as Macmillan, Heath, Thatcher, Cameron and May.
Largely true but of course while the main battle is between the Tories and Labour, the heirs to the Whigs and the Liberal Party still very much exist in the form of the LDs, still the third biggest party in voteshare across the UK in June and also in seats at Westminster too, outside of Scotland. The LD commitment to the EU and the single market and opposition to Brexit is very much in their predecessors vein as was the tough measures they took on spending to cut the deficit when part of the Coalition.
Well just gone all Amazon Prime with fire stick and it seems a really good deal.
It's a great deal, unfortunately. I use them myself for the same reason. For me it's a convenience factor - they can have whatever I want delivered to the office, which saves me an inordinate amount of time - mostly little everyday necessities I would have to wait until the weekend to shop for, because the shops are shut by the time I leave work.
That doesn't mean they didn't just pay £15m in tax last year. On £7bn of sales.
.
.
"we might have to spend a little more on books and electronics, but we wouldn't have to pay as much in tax"
So it makes no net difference to the average consumer.
It is like pre-revolutionary France, when the aristocracy were exempt from taxes and the laws that applied to the rest.
They are laughing at the moment. They will not laugh forever, not when the tumbrils start rolling.
They are not 'exempt' from tax, the fact
The lowest .
The lowest earners have been taken out of income tax altogether and have seen an increase in the minimum wage.
It is .
They are not 'exempting' themselves from tax just using loopholes offered by the elected government of the day.
Perfectly legally, as it was for the French aristocracy.
No wonder the super rich are so supportive of the current government. They want their racket to continue.
Well if voters feel soremain.
The anger of the squeezed middle who do pay their taxes towards the new super rich aristocracy who manage legally to dodge paying their share should not be underestimated.
They don't 'dodge' paying their taxes they just use loopholes to legally reduce them where they can.
Saw a trailer for it which seemed ok. Hoping for some kind of melange of Family Guy & Galaxy Quest, both of which I like.
Let's put it this way. It's so close to a Star Trek:TNG remake it's surprising CBS haven't sued. If you can imagine a sci-fi version of MASH, it's like that. The early years of MASH at least, when the jokes were crude and Frank Burns was still in it.
I've signed up for Amazon Prime and have been exploring US options. Series 1 of Casual was good fun, with some clever twists as a brother, sister and daughter struggle to keep afloat and perhaps find love in a freewheeling sexual culture (Series 2 is less good so far - embarassing raher than amusing). On a more serious note, "Z -The Beginning of Everything" (Zelda Fitzgerald growing up during WW1) is stylish and convincing so far.
How is the latter turning out? Christina Ricci is in that awkward phase of a Hollywood actress's career: a lot of talent, no longer young, roles becoming sparse, and I hope she finds some way forward. The trailers looked good and I'd like to think it was at least a critical success.
"A Tory whip has referred himself to the police after he was accused of making an unwanted pass at former Olympic rower and Conservative activist Alex Story while dressed in a bathrobe. "
And the “victim” described it as “embarrassing” rather than threatening (a 6’ 4” rower vs a rather diminutive podgy chap) - unless it’s Bob Quick I suspect they’ll say “nothing to see here”.....
Well just gone all Amazon Prime with fire stick and it seems a really good deal.
It's a great deal, unfortunately. I use them myself for the same reason. For me it's a convenience factor - they can have whatever I want delivered to the office, which saves me an inordinate amount of time - mostly little everyday necessities I would have to wait until the weekend to shop for, because the shops are shut by the time I leave work.
That doesn't mean they didn't just pay £15m in tax last year. On £7bn of sales.
.
.
"we might have to spend a little more on books and electronics, but we wouldn't have to pay as much in tax"
So it makes no net difference to the average consumer. Either more tax or higher prices; either way we pay.
It is like pre-revolutionary France, when the aristocracy were exempt from taxes and the laws that applied to the rest.
They are laughing at the moment. They will not laugh forever, not when the tumbrils start rolling.
They are not 'exempt' from tax, the fact
The lowest .
The lowest earners have been taken out of income tax altogether and have seen an increase in the minimum wage.
It is .
They are not 'exempting' themselves from tax just using loopholes offered by the elected government of the day.
Perfectly legally, as it was for the French aristocracy.
No wonder the super rich are so supportive of the current government. They want their racket to continue.
Well if voters feel so strongly about the issue they will elect Corbyn to end the loopholes (being able to vote was not an option open to most French peasants) but in June they did not and the loopholes legally remain.
The anger of the squeezed middle who do pay their taxes towards the new super rich aristocracy who manage legally to dodge paying their share should not be underestimated.
As a historian once observed of the French Revolution - it happened not because peasants were starving (they saw that as part of their lot) but because lawyers and teachers were starving...
@Stevef "Polls whatever they show are irrelevant. Polls do not decide policy " - It should beggar belief that you've posted that on a front rank political discussion site. The idea that politicians don't change policy in response to shifts in public opinion is so demonstrably untrue as to not need rebutting.
" would lead to people being driven into the arms of extremists, and I fear, into violence." - This is crypto facistic nonsense which would be laughable if it weren't mildly disturbing. "
You think it is fascist to believe in democracy and warn of the dangers of people following more extreme remedies if they become disillusioned with democracy? Physician heal thyself.
Comments
No wonder the super rich are so supportive of the current government. They want their racket to continue.
https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/11/05/mueller-has-enough-prosecutors-to-continue-walking-and-chewing-gum-while-weve-all-been-watching-manafort/
You can be a conservative who is reasonably tolerant and accepting of gradual change but that is not the same as being a liberal or a libertarian.
Here's a great article on the nature or true conservatism - the current Conservative party is a diferent beast altogether.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/03/true-conservatives-fake-ones-destroying-britian-theresa-may-real-patriots
"A Tory whip has referred himself to the police after he was accused of making an unwanted pass at former Olympic rower and Conservative activist Alex Story while dressed in a bathrobe. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/05/tory-whip-chris-pincherrefers-police-claim-unwanted-pass-former/
Oh, wait...
https://twitter.com/reuters/status/927314630590042113
Weimar Berlin
Mysterious hijacked trains
Shell shocked police inspectors
Murderous criminal mastermind
Cannibalism
Pornography with snuff possibility
OGPU hit squads
Transvestite cabaret stars
Jazz
Great dancing
They crammed a lot into the first two episodes.
You are again confusing classically liberal economics with conservatism, they are not automatically the same just because conservatism is not socialism either.
I appreciate that this is a personal question so if you don’t wish to answer, fair enough.
Moving to be with your assets rather than with your family seems, well, some might say that it is an odd choice of priorities. And then you have the nerve to criticise others for their financial choices and what they choose to spend their money on (cruises and weekend breaks).
In fairness you're not alone. It's the ideology of the tory client vote;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/19/pay-social-care-britain-land-of-minor-aristocrats-tory-manifesto-plan
' 1 Commitment to traditional values and ideas with opposition to change or innovation
2 The holding of political views that favour free enterprise, private ownership, and socially
conservative ideas'
Indeed until the rise of the Labour Party in the early 20th century after the working classes got the vote, the Conservative Party's main opponent was the Liberal Party (with the Tories, the Conservative Party's predecessor opposed by the Liberal Party predecessor, the Whigs until the mid 19th century).
The Tories were the party of monarchy, the Church of England and the Landed Gentry and occasionally protectionism, the Whigs the party of the merchants and free trade, industrialists and non conformists.
The Independent also mentions an incident involving him and a Labour MP
https://twitter.com/SethMacFarlane/status/925047402104360960
Indeed the top 3000 earners pay more tax than the bottom 9 million.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11233686/How-top-3000-earners-pay-more-tax-than-bottom-9-million.html
The scale of avoidance is a real problem for all governments (and an appropriate target for populist wrath), as that noted leftie Osborne recognised. Britain's position is notably hypocritical, though - Chancellors boast of taking anti-avoidance measures (we have eliminated £50 billion of avoidance", the Treasury claimed today), while fostering a City culture only too pleased to assist avoidance. If we were serious we could crack down on all the British territories and dependencies - if they wish to continue to be British, ripping us off by hosting cut-rate pseudo-offices shouldn't be part of the deal.
Plain horrible but plain important.
Some interesting other programmes on BBC4 on Russia this week too.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5052241/Lord-Ashcroft-hides-toilet-asked-tax.html
http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/02/news/economy/venezuela-debt-restructuring/index.html
Новый поток