So someone matching this definition “A term used to describe a particular type of Brexit-voting, middle-aged white male, whose meat-faced complexion suggests they are perilously close to a stroke.” would never vote Labour?
Wow - might be time you ventured into the northern powerhouse.....
#massively out of touch with northern Labour
The term was not originally for Brexit voters but for the Yorkshire nuke fanclub during that pre-election debate, I think. Not that Greenie's exactly CND either mind you
We shouldn't tax high earners more because they won't pay it so there is no point.
We shouldn't chase businesses (Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone etc) because the won't pay it as they have legal ways to not pay it.
We shouldn't increase the corporation rate to the levels of similar countries, in fact lets lower it. As lowering it will increase revenue!
No, don’t think anyone has said any of that, not that I can see.
@cafcfan has said taxing more the wealthier won’t raise enough and it would require everyone to pay more. I’d broadly agree with that hence my suggestion of 1/2p on all bands (I’d also raise further the personal allowance).
No one has said we shouldn’t chase the large tax avoiding Corps that I’ve seen.
Haven’t seen anyone talk about Corp Tax Rates as to whether remain as is, lower or increase.
OK glad I've got that straight.
And it is of course true that poorer people pay a higher % of their disposable income in taxes and this is particularly the case with regressive taxes like VAT and 'hidden' (for want of a better word) taxes like travel costs, dental costs and school stuff.
Is there anywhere in the world where this isn't the case?
It is not so much as if this is true but the level at which it occurs. One of the main functions of taxation is wealth redistribution, if wealth concentrates like it has in the last ten years, then it is failing in this.
Companies will not just sit there and take a corporation tax hit. It is not a free lunch for the rest of us. They will merely increase their prices to compensate. That means that, again, Joe Public, will be the ones to pay. This time through (yet) higher prices on the High Street - whether the virtual High Street or otherwise.
This would only be true if the product they were offering was inelastic in nature.
I don't think our general taxation system does too bad a job at redistribution. Not to say it couldn't do more/go further.
I do think if companies get a heavier tax burden they will look at ways to counter that, whether thats passing some cost onto the consumer (ala increased personal injury costs passed straight onto the consumers motor insurance premiums) or by way of cost cutting/job losses/out sourcing. We need to be competitive or slightly better than a lot of Europe with Brexit around the corner but no more.
You've trotted this one out before but CT impacts on dividends and most senior execs are more reliant on fat pay/bonuses than dividends despite shareholders trying to curb the former without any help from the Tories. Ironically it will be pension funds mostly affected but that seems a small price for decent services. The biggest challenge is getting multinationals to actually pay tax.
I haven't mentioned what senior execs may or may not be reliant on or how they are remunerated, nothing to do with how a company would react to a CT hike.
As for pension funds, then yes if the stock market tanks and dividends reduce then pension funds invested in those instruments would suffer a decrease in value and growth, but then most with a large enough pot actively manage (or have them actively managed) and therefore as is usual will move out or dilute pre an election anyway.
If you think post any CT hike companies wouldn't take some form of action to try to restore shareholder value then I believe you are mistaken. I'm not suggesting we reduce them or agreeing with the government doing so, but be careful what you wish for, as we all know it's unlikely to be the most senior execs you like so much that are effected.
I'm not even sure why the shareholders of some companies like Starbucks and Amazon are even allowing their companies to continue to operate in our market. I mean all the years and no profits to show. Maybe the government could give them charity status for the service they provide to the country. Just think of all those civil servants who would be falling asleep at their desk if it wasn't for their regular shot of caffeine.
Add that to the Hunt's job-lot flat purchase and Rees-Mogg involvement of an emerging markets investment firm, this government really does have a whiff of the sleazy 90's about it.
Let me see if I've got this right. Her husband works for a company that is producing a drug used to treat epileptic children. And you see that as a bad thing?
If someone from your mob, was doing that would it be good, bad or indifferent?
Should MPs' spouses not have employment? Is it alright for (chosen at random) Ann Coffey's husband Peter Saraga, a research scientist, to be vice-chair of the University of Sussex's University Council and a former managing director at Philips Research Labs UK?
You lefties do come up with some weird stuff sometimes. (And it's '90s, not 90's.)
We shouldn't tax high earners more because they won't pay it so there is no point.
We shouldn't chase businesses (Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone etc) because the won't pay it as they have legal ways to not pay it.
We shouldn't increase the corporation rate to the levels of similar countries, in fact lets lower it. As lowering it will increase revenue!
No, don’t think anyone has said any of that, not that I can see.
@cafcfan has said taxing more the wealthier won’t raise enough and it would require everyone to pay more. I’d broadly agree with that hence my suggestion of 1/2p on all bands (I’d also raise further the personal allowance).
No one has said we shouldn’t chase the large tax avoiding Corps that I’ve seen.
Haven’t seen anyone talk about Corp Tax Rates as to whether remain as is, lower or increase.
OK glad I've got that straight.
And it is of course true that poorer people pay a higher % of their disposable income in taxes and this is particularly the case with regressive taxes like VAT and 'hidden' (for want of a better word) taxes like travel costs, dental costs and school stuff.
Is there anywhere in the world where this isn't the case?
It is not so much as if this is true but the level at which it occurs. One of the main functions of taxation is wealth redistribution, if wealth concentrates like it has in the last ten years, then it is failing in this.
Companies will not just sit there and take a corporation tax hit. It is not a free lunch for the rest of us. They will merely increase their prices to compensate. That means that, again, Joe Public, will be the ones to pay. This time through (yet) higher prices on the High Street - whether the virtual High Street or otherwise.
This would only be true if the product they were offering was inelastic in nature.
I don't think our general taxation system does too bad a job at redistribution. Not to say it couldn't do more/go further.
I do think if companies get a heavier tax burden they will look at ways to counter that, whether thats passing some cost onto the consumer (ala increased personal injury costs passed straight onto the consumers motor insurance premiums) or by way of cost cutting/job losses/out sourcing. We need to be competitive or slightly better than a lot of Europe with Brexit around the corner but no more.
You've trotted this one out before but CT impacts on dividends and most senior execs are more reliant on fat pay/bonuses than dividends despite shareholders trying to curb the former without any help from the Tories. Ironically it will be pension funds mostly affected but that seems a small price for decent services. The biggest challenge is getting multinationals to actually pay tax.
I haven't mentioned what senior execs may or may not be reliant on or how they are remunerated, nothing to do with how a company would react to a CT hike.
As for pension funds, then yes if the stock market tanks and dividends reduce then pension funds invested in those instruments would suffer a decrease in value and growth, but then most with a large enough pot actively manage (or have them actively managed) and therefore as is usual will move out or dilute pre an election anyway.
If you think post any CT hike companies wouldn't take some form of action to try to restore shareholder value then I believe you are mistaken. I'm not suggesting we reduce them or agreeing with the government doing so, but be careful what you wish for, as we all know it's unlikely to be the most senior execs you like so much that are effected.
I'm not even sure why the shareholders of some companies like Starbucks and Amazon are even allowing their companies to continue to operate in our market. I mean all the years and no profits to show. Maybe the government could give them charity status for the service they provide to the country. Just think of all those civil servants who would be falling asleep at their desk if it wasn't for their regular shot of caffeine.
They probably let it ride at Amazon as the share price is up 60% over the last 12 months starbucks less so as very flat the last 3 years so I expect the to be closing down soon.
Add that to the Hunt's job-lot flat purchase and Rees-Mogg involvement of an emerging markets investment firm, this government really does have a whiff of the sleazy 90's about it.
Let me see if I've got this right. Her husband works for a company that is producing a drug used to treat epileptic children. And you see that as a bad thing?
If someone from your mob, was doing that would it be good, bad or indifferent?
Should MPs' spouses not have employment? Is it alright for (chosen at random) Ann Coffey's husband Peter Saraga, a research scientist, to be vice-chair of the University of Sussex's University Council and a former managing director at Philips Research Labs UK?
You lefties do come up with some weird stuff sometimes. (And it's '90s, not 90's.)
Yeah that bit where @mcgrandall says that is outrageous and it should be expunged from the thread.
Don't you think it is hypocritical that she opposes drug reforms (of cannabis) whilst her husband profits from growing it? She has recused herself from talking about cannabis so she must, but as the drugs minister she really has to. edit - really has to talk about it.
The real hypocrisy is that as her husband profits from growing cannabis to add to drugs to treat epilepsy she refuses to allow for people with multiple sclerosis, cancer or chronic pain to seek pain relief from cannabis. If I was the cynical type I would say that it seems OK for industry to make money out of the drug but not OK for an individual to by-pass the profit takers.
So to use your thinking, @mcgrandall wants to alleviate the suffering of people with multiple sclerosis, cancer and chronic pain. And you see that as a bad thing?
We shouldn't tax high earners more because they won't pay it so there is no point.
We shouldn't chase businesses (Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone etc) because the won't pay it as they have legal ways to not pay it.
We shouldn't increase the corporation rate to the levels of similar countries, in fact lets lower it. As lowering it will increase revenue!
No, don’t think anyone has said any of that, not that I can see.
@cafcfan has said taxing more the wealthier won’t raise enough and it would require everyone to pay more. I’d broadly agree with that hence my suggestion of 1/2p on all bands (I’d also raise further the personal allowance).
No one has said we shouldn’t chase the large tax avoiding Corps that I’ve seen.
Haven’t seen anyone talk about Corp Tax Rates as to whether remain as is, lower or increase.
OK glad I've got that straight.
And it is of course true that poorer people pay a higher % of their disposable income in taxes and this is particularly the case with regressive taxes like VAT and 'hidden' (for want of a better word) taxes like travel costs, dental costs and school stuff.
Is there anywhere in the world where this isn't the case?
It is not so much as if this is true but the level at which it occurs. One of the main functions of taxation is wealth redistribution, if wealth concentrates like it has in the last ten years, then it is failing in this.
Companies will not just sit there and take a corporation tax hit. It is not a free lunch for the rest of us. They will merely increase their prices to compensate. That means that, again, Joe Public, will be the ones to pay. This time through (yet) higher prices on the High Street - whether the virtual High Street or otherwise.
This would only be true if the product they were offering was inelastic in nature.
I don't think our general taxation system does too bad a job at redistribution. Not to say it couldn't do more/go further.
I do think if companies get a heavier tax burden they will look at ways to counter that, whether thats passing some cost onto the consumer (ala increased personal injury costs passed straight onto the consumers motor insurance premiums) or by way of cost cutting/job losses/out sourcing. We need to be competitive or slightly better than a lot of Europe with Brexit around the corner but no more.
You've trotted this one out before but CT impacts on dividends and most senior execs are more reliant on fat pay/bonuses than dividends despite shareholders trying to curb the former without any help from the Tories. Ironically it will be pension funds mostly affected but that seems a small price for decent services. The biggest challenge is getting multinationals to actually pay tax.
I haven't mentioned what senior execs may or may not be reliant on or how they are remunerated, nothing to do with how a company would react to a CT hike.
As for pension funds, then yes if the stock market tanks and dividends reduce then pension funds invested in those instruments would suffer a decrease in value and growth, but then most with a large enough pot actively manage (or have them actively managed) and therefore as is usual will move out or dilute pre an election anyway.
If you think post any CT hike companies wouldn't take some form of action to try to restore shareholder value then I believe you are mistaken. I'm not suggesting we reduce them or agreeing with the government doing so, but be careful what you wish for, as we all know it's unlikely to be the most senior execs you like so much that are effected.
I'm not even sure why the shareholders of some companies like Starbucks and Amazon are even allowing their companies to continue to operate in our market. I mean all the years and no profits to show. Maybe the government could give them charity status for the service they provide to the country. Just think of all those civil servants who would be falling asleep at their desk if it wasn't for their regular shot of caffeine.
They probably let it ride at Amazon as the share price is up 60% over the last 12 months starbucks less so as very flat the last 3 years so I expect the to be closing down soon.
Don't we have a "The politics of tax thread" or something like that for endless talk about how poorly treated the rich are in this country. Unless you have something to suggest that the Tories need to do with regards to tax, can you take it there.
I know I am going to be pilloried for this and be accused of being a *"tofu" but endless repeating of the same accountancy based tax percentages is really effing boring, particularly as you are stuck in defending the right (of the right) to pay as little tax as possible.
*sort of like being called a gammon but directed at lefties who remain calm and believe in equality and the redistribution of wealth.
I may have mentioned that I didn't like Cameron, but he very much 'got' that the Tories would have to at least pretend to be more liberal to have any chance of electoral success.
We shouldn't tax high earners more because they won't pay it so there is no point.
We shouldn't chase businesses (Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone etc) because the won't pay it as they have legal ways to not pay it.
We shouldn't increase the corporation rate to the levels of similar countries, in fact lets lower it. As lowering it will increase revenue!
No, don’t think anyone has said any of that, not that I can see.
@cafcfan has said taxing more the wealthier won’t raise enough and it would require everyone to pay more. I’d broadly agree with that hence my suggestion of 1/2p on all bands (I’d also raise further the personal allowance).
No one has said we shouldn’t chase the large tax avoiding Corps that I’ve seen.
Haven’t seen anyone talk about Corp Tax Rates as to whether remain as is, lower or increase.
OK glad I've got that straight.
And it is of course true that poorer people pay a higher % of their disposable income in taxes and this is particularly the case with regressive taxes like VAT and 'hidden' (for want of a better word) taxes like travel costs, dental costs and school stuff.
Is there anywhere in the world where this isn't the case?
It is not so much as if this is true but the level at which it occurs. One of the main functions of taxation is wealth redistribution, if wealth concentrates like it has in the last ten years, then it is failing in this.
Companies will not just sit there and take a corporation tax hit. It is not a free lunch for the rest of us. They will merely increase their prices to compensate. That means that, again, Joe Public, will be the ones to pay. This time through (yet) higher prices on the High Street - whether the virtual High Street or otherwise.
This would only be true if the product they were offering was inelastic in nature.
I don't think our general taxation system does too bad a job at redistribution. Not to say it couldn't do more/go further.
I do think if companies get a heavier tax burden they will look at ways to counter that, whether thats passing some cost onto the consumer (ala increased personal injury costs passed straight onto the consumers motor insurance premiums) or by way of cost cutting/job losses/out sourcing. We need to be competitive or slightly better than a lot of Europe with Brexit around the corner but no more.
You've trotted this one out before but CT impacts on dividends and most senior execs are more reliant on fat pay/bonuses than dividends despite shareholders trying to curb the former without any help from the Tories. Ironically it will be pension funds mostly affected but that seems a small price for decent services. The biggest challenge is getting multinationals to actually pay tax.
I haven't mentioned what senior execs may or may not be reliant on or how they are remunerated, nothing to do with how a company would react to a CT hike.
As for pension funds, then yes if the stock market tanks and dividends reduce then pension funds invested in those instruments would suffer a decrease in value and growth, but then most with a large enough pot actively manage (or have them actively managed) and therefore as is usual will move out or dilute pre an election anyway.
If you think post any CT hike companies wouldn't take some form of action to try to restore shareholder value then I believe you are mistaken. I'm not suggesting we reduce them or agreeing with the government doing so, but be careful what you wish for, as we all know it's unlikely to be the most senior execs you like so much that are effected.
I'm not even sure why the shareholders of some companies like Starbucks and Amazon are even allowing their companies to continue to operate in our market. I mean all the years and no profits to show. Maybe the government could give them charity status for the service they provide to the country. Just think of all those civil servants who would be falling asleep at their desk if it wasn't for their regular shot of caffeine.
They probably let it ride at Amazon as the share price is up 60% over the last 12 months starbucks less so as very flat the last 3 years so I expect the to be closing down soon.
Don't we have a "The politics of tax thread" or something like that for endless talk about how poorly treated the rich are in this country. Unless you have something to suggest that the Tories need to do with regards to tax, can you take it there.
I know I am going to be pilloried for this and be accused of being a *"tofu" but endless repeating of the same accountancy based tax percentages is really effing boring, particularly as you are stuck in defending the right (of the right) to pay as little tax as possible.
*sort of like being called a gammon but directed at lefties who remain calm and believe in equality and the redistribution of wealth.
Where have I said the rich are poorly treated or defended the right to pay as little tax as possible? There you go again much like your 'So can I just get this straight' post of trying to make out people are saying things they clearly aren't as it fits your view of that anyone who doesn't want to vote for the current Labour Party must be some tax fiddling, far right rich person.
"Unless you have something to suggest that the Tories need to do with regards to tax, can you take it there" ...... I must have missed your promote to moderator. But pop back a couple of pages, 1 or 2p on all tax bands and raise the personal allowance further, yup that's getting the rich to pay as little tax as possible clearly .
As for hypocritical MP's, we have plenty in all the parties, nothing new there, almost seems a requirement for a large proportion of our elected MP's sadly.
We shouldn't tax high earners more because they won't pay it so there is no point.
We shouldn't chase businesses (Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone etc) because the won't pay it as they have legal ways to not pay it.
We shouldn't increase the corporation rate to the levels of similar countries, in fact lets lower it. As lowering it will increase revenue!
No, don’t think anyone has said any of that, not that I can see.
@cafcfan has said taxing more the wealthier won’t raise enough and it would require everyone to pay more. I’d broadly agree with that hence my suggestion of 1/2p on all bands (I’d also raise further the personal allowance).
No one has said we shouldn’t chase the large tax avoiding Corps that I’ve seen.
Haven’t seen anyone talk about Corp Tax Rates as to whether remain as is, lower or increase.
OK glad I've got that straight.
And it is of course true that poorer people pay a higher % of their disposable income in taxes and this is particularly the case with regressive taxes like VAT and 'hidden' (for want of a better word) taxes like travel costs, dental costs and school stuff.
Is there anywhere in the world where this isn't the case?
It is not so much as if this is true but the level at which it occurs. One of the main functions of taxation is wealth redistribution, if wealth concentrates like it has in the last ten years, then it is failing in this.
Companies will not just sit there and take a corporation tax hit. It is not a free lunch for the rest of us. They will merely increase their prices to compensate. That means that, again, Joe Public, will be the ones to pay. This time through (yet) higher prices on the High Street - whether the virtual High Street or otherwise.
This would only be true if the product they were offering was inelastic in nature.
I don't think our general taxation system does too bad a job at redistribution. Not to say it couldn't do more/go further.
I do think if companies get a heavier tax burden they will look at ways to counter that, whether thats passing some cost onto the consumer (ala increased personal injury costs passed straight onto the consumers motor insurance premiums) or by way of cost cutting/job losses/out sourcing. We need to be competitive or slightly better than a lot of Europe with Brexit around the corner but no more.
You've trotted this one out before but CT impacts on dividends and most senior execs are more reliant on fat pay/bonuses than dividends despite shareholders trying to curb the former without any help from the Tories. Ironically it will be pension funds mostly affected but that seems a small price for decent services. The biggest challenge is getting multinationals to actually pay tax.
I haven't mentioned what senior execs may or may not be reliant on or how they are remunerated, nothing to do with how a company would react to a CT hike.
As for pension funds, then yes if the stock market tanks and dividends reduce then pension funds invested in those instruments would suffer a decrease in value and growth, but then most with a large enough pot actively manage (or have them actively managed) and therefore as is usual will move out or dilute pre an election anyway.
If you think post any CT hike companies wouldn't take some form of action to try to restore shareholder value then I believe you are mistaken. I'm not suggesting we reduce them or agreeing with the government doing so, but be careful what you wish for, as we all know it's unlikely to be the most senior execs you like so much that are effected.
I'm not even sure why the shareholders of some companies like Starbucks and Amazon are even allowing their companies to continue to operate in our market. I mean all the years and no profits to show. Maybe the government could give them charity status for the service they provide to the country. Just think of all those civil servants who would be falling asleep at their desk if it wasn't for their regular shot of caffeine.
They probably let it ride at Amazon as the share price is up 60% over the last 12 months starbucks less so as very flat the last 3 years so I expect the to be closing down soon.
Don't we have a "The politics of tax thread" or something like that for endless talk about how poorly treated the rich are in this country. Unless you have something to suggest that the Tories need to do with regards to tax, can you take it there.
I know I am going to be pilloried for this and be accused of being a *"tofu" but endless repeating of the same accountancy based tax percentages is really effing boring, particularly as you are stuck in defending the right (of the right) to pay as little tax as possible.
*sort of like being called a gammon but directed at lefties who remain calm and believe in equality and the redistribution of wealth.
Where have I said the rich are poorly treated or defended the right to pay as little tax as possible? There you go again much like your 'So can I just get this straight' post of trying to make out people are saying things they clearly aren't as it fits your view of that anyone who doesn't want to vote for the current Labour Party must be some tax fiddling, far right rich person.
"Unless you have something to suggest that the Tories need to do with regards to tax, can you take it there" ...... I must have missed your promote to moderator. But pop back a couple of pages, 1 or 2p on all tax bands and raise the personal allowance further, yup that's getting the rich to pay as little tax as possible clearly .
As for hypocritical MP's, we have plenty in all the parties, nothing new there, almost seems a requirement for a large proportion of our elected MP's sadly.
That's more like it @Rob7Lee get a bit of fire in your belly. I do tend to nod of when you go off on a defending legal tax avoidance rant but you do rigorously defend high earners and attack suggestions that they don't pay enough/should pay more. You also do have a tendency to disappear into selective quoting of figures and stats, as in you give one side of the argument.
You are slightly wrong on your opinion of my view, it is not my supporting anybody who votes Labour it is my incredulity with anybody who defends the Tories. My 'so can we just get this straight post' was a direct response to what I understood to what was being said, in short that it is pointless trying to tax the rich.
@i_b_b_o_r_g promoted me to moderator, he said he wanted some new blood in to help him out.
Add that to the Hunt's job-lot flat purchase and Rees-Mogg involvement of an emerging markets investment firm, this government really does have a whiff of the sleazy 90's about it.
Let me see if I've got this right. Her husband works for a company that is producing a drug used to treat epileptic children. And you see that as a bad thing?
If someone from your mob, was doing that would it be good, bad or indifferent?
Should MPs' spouses not have employment? Is it alright for (chosen at random) Ann Coffey's husband Peter Saraga, a research scientist, to be vice-chair of the University of Sussex's University Council and a former managing director at Philips Research Labs UK?
You lefties do come up with some weird stuff sometimes. (And it's '90s, not 90's.)
You are going to have to try a bit harder than correcting my grammar and a strawman argument. I said financial conflict of interest. As you seem to have similar views i can understand why you are struggling to get what that is.
I'm not aware I've defended legal tax avoidance (unless we are including things like Pension contributions). I'm of the view that everyone has the right to use the allowances in the way they were intended (i.e. Pension contributions, ISA's etc). I don't agree with the likes of Amazon or the famous and their 'film investments' at the upper end anymore than the self employed builder doing 'cash work' - all are as bad as each other in that they are defrauding the tax man.
As for my defending of the high earners already paying enough, I disagree, as I've suggested I believe consistently since before the last election I would raise taxes predominantly at the wealthier end just not as much as Labour wanted to.
What I do defend is outside of what is probably a small percentage of tax dodgers who should be caught/dealt with the wealthier have since 2010 when the Tories came in paid more tax. Probably more than each and every 13 years under the last labour Government and that is before taking into account things like Child benefit removal, Pension contribution limits or the reduction from 1.8m to 1m for the lifetime allowance - all are tax on the wealthier by the so called Tories who only give tax breaks to the wealthier individuals...........
I'm fully supportive of the Conservatives or any government taking out of income taxation the lower earners and I'd go as far to take it to a level where anyone on the minimum wage doesn't pay income tax at all (about £15k).
I personally (and appreciate many others will disagree) believe that someone in a job on PAYE should never pay more than 50% on any pound they earn regardless of their overall salary. Labours would have taken people to over 50% and in some instances towards 60%.
I don't blindly support the Tories, there are things they do I 100% agree with and others I 100% disagree with and a lot falling somewhere in-between.
I can't pretend to be able to follow the nuances of the tax discussion here there are more ins and outs than a cat's arse. What I understand about tax is that done right we all benefit from government spending. The problem I have with the Tories is they would prefer to only spend on vanity projects and military/security stuff and nothing else if they had their way. They call it small government and pretend it is about freedom, when it is about greed, exploitation, and the exercise of oppressive power. Personally I like it when workers industrial action reminds the Tories that the plebs exist.
Add that to the Hunt's job-lot flat purchase and Rees-Mogg involvement of an emerging markets investment firm, this government really does have a whiff of the sleazy 90's about it.
Let me see if I've got this right. Her husband works for a company that is producing a drug used to treat epileptic children. And you see that as a bad thing?
If someone from your mob, was doing that would it be good, bad or indifferent?
Should MPs' spouses not have employment? Is it alright for (chosen at random) Ann Coffey's husband Peter Saraga, a research scientist, to be vice-chair of the University of Sussex's University Council and a former managing director at Philips Research Labs UK?
You lefties do come up with some weird stuff sometimes. (And it's '90s, not 90's.)
Yeah that bit where @mcgrandall says that is outrageous and it should be expunged from the thread.
Don't you think it is hypocritical that she opposes drug reforms (of cannabis) whilst her husband profits from growing it? She has recused herself from talking about cannabis so she must, but as the drugs minister she really has to. edit - really has to talk about it.
The real hypocrisy is that as her husband profits from growing cannabis to add to drugs to treat epilepsy she refuses to allow for people with multiple sclerosis, cancer or chronic pain to seek pain relief from cannabis. If I was the cynical type I would say that it seems OK for industry to make money out of the drug but not OK for an individual to by-pass the profit takers.
So to use your thinking, @mcgrandall wants to alleviate the suffering of people with multiple sclerosis, cancer and chronic pain. And you see that as a bad thing?
No, I don't think it's hypocritical: they are two different people after all. She's entitled to her view. I haven't checked but British Sugar's non- psychoactive cannabis growing is still experimental is it not? Is it even available for personal growth yet? I doubt very much that either the company or her husband has seen a profit from it. I don't know but would the average dope grower even know how to refine the raw product into one with medicinal value anyway?
And then, earlier this year a Labour MP, Paul Flynn, tried to get a private member's bill through parliament on this very subject. It was talked out. This is what Mr Flynn had to say: “What’s happened here today has been a filibuster organised by one party and I’m ashamed to say I’m a member of that party.” https://thelondoneconomic.com/news/labour-mps-blame-party-robbing-parliament-medicinal-cannabis-vote/23/02/ So, those without sin and all that.
I cant see what the issue with medicinal cannabis is. The clue has to be the word medicinal. There are all sorts of medicines that are similar. If it helps people manage their conditions/pain it should be available to them on prescription!
We shouldn't tax high earners more because they won't pay it so there is no point.
We shouldn't chase businesses (Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone etc) because the won't pay it as they have legal ways to not pay it.
We shouldn't increase the corporation rate to the levels of similar countries, in fact lets lower it. As lowering it will increase revenue!
No, don’t think anyone has said any of that, not that I can see.
@cafcfan has said taxing more the wealthier won’t raise enough and it would require everyone to pay more. I’d broadly agree with that hence my suggestion of 1/2p on all bands (I’d also raise further the personal allowance).
No one has said we shouldn’t chase the large tax avoiding Corps that I’ve seen.
Haven’t seen anyone talk about Corp Tax Rates as to whether remain as is, lower or increase.
OK glad I've got that straight.
And it is of course true that poorer people pay a higher % of their disposable income in taxes and this is particularly the case with regressive taxes like VAT and 'hidden' (for want of a better word) taxes like travel costs, dental costs and school stuff.
Is there anywhere in the world where this isn't the case?
It is not so much as if this is true but the level at which it occurs. One of the main functions of taxation is wealth redistribution, if wealth concentrates like it has in the last ten years, then it is failing in this.
Companies will not just sit there and take a corporation tax hit. It is not a free lunch for the rest of us. They will merely increase their prices to compensate. That means that, again, Joe Public, will be the ones to pay. This time through (yet) higher prices on the High Street - whether the virtual High Street or otherwise.
This would only be true if the product they were offering was inelastic in nature.
I don't think our general taxation system does too bad a job at redistribution. Not to say it couldn't do more/go further.
I do think if companies get a heavier tax burden they will look at ways to counter that, whether thats passing some cost onto the consumer (ala increased personal injury costs passed straight onto the consumers motor insurance premiums) or by way of cost cutting/job losses/out sourcing. We need to be competitive or slightly better than a lot of Europe with Brexit around the corner but no more.
You've trotted this one out before but CT impacts on dividends and most senior execs are more reliant on fat pay/bonuses than dividends despite shareholders trying to curb the former without any help from the Tories. Ironically it will be pension funds mostly affected but that seems a small price for decent services. The biggest challenge is getting multinationals to actually pay tax.
I haven't mentioned what senior execs may or may not be reliant on or how they are remunerated, nothing to do with how a company would react to a CT hike.
As for pension funds, then yes if the stock market tanks and dividends reduce then pension funds invested in those instruments would suffer a decrease in value and growth, but then most with a large enough pot actively manage (or have them actively managed) and therefore as is usual will move out or dilute pre an election anyway.
If you think post any CT hike companies wouldn't take some form of action to try to restore shareholder value then I believe you are mistaken. I'm not suggesting we reduce them or agreeing with the government doing so, but be careful what you wish for, as we all know it's unlikely to be the most senior execs you like so much that are effected.
I'm not even sure why the shareholders of some companies like Starbucks and Amazon are even allowing their companies to continue to operate in our market. I mean all the years and no profits to show. Maybe the government could give them charity status for the service they provide to the country. Just think of all those civil servants who would be falling asleep at their desk if it wasn't for their regular shot of caffeine.
They probably let it ride at Amazon as the share price is up 60% over the last 12 months starbucks less so as very flat the last 3 years so I expect the to be closing down soon.
Don't we have a "The politics of tax thread" or something like that for endless talk about how poorly treated the rich are in this country. Unless you have something to suggest that the Tories need to do with regards to tax, can you take it there.
I know I am going to be pilloried for this and be accused of being a *"tofu" but endless repeating of the same accountancy based tax percentages is really effing boring, particularly as you are stuck in defending the right (of the right) to pay as little tax as possible.
*sort of like being called a gammon but directed at lefties who remain calm and believe in equality and the redistribution of wealth.
Where have I said the rich are poorly treated or defended the right to pay as little tax as possible? There you go again much like your 'So can I just get this straight' post of trying to make out people are saying things they clearly aren't as it fits your view of that anyone who doesn't want to vote for the current Labour Party must be some tax fiddling, far right rich person.
"Unless you have something to suggest that the Tories need to do with regards to tax, can you take it there" ...... I must have missed your promote to moderator. But pop back a couple of pages, 1 or 2p on all tax bands and raise the personal allowance further, yup that's getting the rich to pay as little tax as possible clearly .
As for hypocritical MP's, we have plenty in all the parties, nothing new there, almost seems a requirement for a large proportion of our elected MP's sadly.
That's more like it @Rob7Lee get a bit of fire in your belly. I do tend to nod of when you go off on a defending legal tax avoidance rant but you do rigorously defend high earners and attack suggestions that they don't pay enough/should pay more. You also do have a tendency to disappear into selective quoting of figures and stats, as in you give one side of the argument.
You are slightly wrong on your opinion of my view, it is not my supporting anybody who votes Labour it is my incredulity with anybody who defends the Tories. My 'so can we just get this straight post' was a direct response to what I understood to what was being said, in short that it is pointless trying to tax the rich.
@i_b_b_o_r_g promoted me to moderator, he said he wanted some new blood in to help him out.
Zero hours alright with you? Then you might get promoted to part-time if you keep your nose clean up
We shouldn't tax high earners more because they won't pay it so there is no point.
We shouldn't chase businesses (Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone etc) because the won't pay it as they have legal ways to not pay it.
We shouldn't increase the corporation rate to the levels of similar countries, in fact lets lower it. As lowering it will increase revenue!
No, don’t think anyone has said any of that, not that I can see.
@cafcfan has said taxing more the wealthier won’t raise enough and it would require everyone to pay more. I’d broadly agree with that hence my suggestion of 1/2p on all bands (I’d also raise further the personal allowance).
No one has said we shouldn’t chase the large tax avoiding Corps that I’ve seen.
Haven’t seen anyone talk about Corp Tax Rates as to whether remain as is, lower or increase.
OK glad I've got that straight.
And it is of course true that poorer people pay a higher % of their disposable income in taxes and this is particularly the case with regressive taxes like VAT and 'hidden' (for want of a better word) taxes like travel costs, dental costs and school stuff.
Is there anywhere in the world where this isn't the case?
It is not so much as if this is true but the level at which it occurs. One of the main functions of taxation is wealth redistribution, if wealth concentrates like it has in the last ten years, then it is failing in this.
Companies will not just sit there and take a corporation tax hit. It is not a free lunch for the rest of us. They will merely increase their prices to compensate. That means that, again, Joe Public, will be the ones to pay. This time through (yet) higher prices on the High Street - whether the virtual High Street or otherwise.
This would only be true if the product they were offering was inelastic in nature.
I don't think our general taxation system does too bad a job at redistribution. Not to say it couldn't do more/go further.
I do think if companies get a heavier tax burden they will look at ways to counter that, whether thats passing some cost onto the consumer (ala increased personal injury costs passed straight onto the consumers motor insurance premiums) or by way of cost cutting/job losses/out sourcing. We need to be competitive or slightly better than a lot of Europe with Brexit around the corner but no more.
You've trotted this one out before but CT impacts on dividends and most senior execs are more reliant on fat pay/bonuses than dividends despite shareholders trying to curb the former without any help from the Tories. Ironically it will be pension funds mostly affected but that seems a small price for decent services. The biggest challenge is getting multinationals to actually pay tax.
I haven't mentioned what senior execs may or may not be reliant on or how they are remunerated, nothing to do with how a company would react to a CT hike.
As for pension funds, then yes if the stock market tanks and dividends reduce then pension funds invested in those instruments would suffer a decrease in value and growth, but then most with a large enough pot actively manage (or have them actively managed) and therefore as is usual will move out or dilute pre an election anyway.
If you think post any CT hike companies wouldn't take some form of action to try to restore shareholder value then I believe you are mistaken. I'm not suggesting we reduce them or agreeing with the government doing so, but be careful what you wish for, as we all know it's unlikely to be the most senior execs you like so much that are effected.
I'm not even sure why the shareholders of some companies like Starbucks and Amazon are even allowing their companies to continue to operate in our market. I mean all the years and no profits to show. Maybe the government could give them charity status for the service they provide to the country. Just think of all those civil servants who would be falling asleep at their desk if it wasn't for their regular shot of caffeine.
They probably let it ride at Amazon as the share price is up 60% over the last 12 months starbucks less so as very flat the last 3 years so I expect the to be closing down soon.
Don't we have a "The politics of tax thread" or something like that for endless talk about how poorly treated the rich are in this country. Unless you have something to suggest that the Tories need to do with regards to tax, can you take it there.
I know I am going to be pilloried for this and be accused of being a *"tofu" but endless repeating of the same accountancy based tax percentages is really effing boring, particularly as you are stuck in defending the right (of the right) to pay as little tax as possible.
*sort of like being called a gammon but directed at lefties who remain calm and believe in equality and the redistribution of wealth.
Where have I said the rich are poorly treated or defended the right to pay as little tax as possible? There you go again much like your 'So can I just get this straight' post of trying to make out people are saying things they clearly aren't as it fits your view of that anyone who doesn't want to vote for the current Labour Party must be some tax fiddling, far right rich person.
"Unless you have something to suggest that the Tories need to do with regards to tax, can you take it there" ...... I must have missed your promote to moderator. But pop back a couple of pages, 1 or 2p on all tax bands and raise the personal allowance further, yup that's getting the rich to pay as little tax as possible clearly .
As for hypocritical MP's, we have plenty in all the parties, nothing new there, almost seems a requirement for a large proportion of our elected MP's sadly.
That's more like it @Rob7Lee get a bit of fire in your belly. I do tend to nod of when you go off on a defending legal tax avoidance rant but you do rigorously defend high earners and attack suggestions that they don't pay enough/should pay more. You also do have a tendency to disappear into selective quoting of figures and stats, as in you give one side of the argument.
You are slightly wrong on your opinion of my view, it is not my supporting anybody who votes Labour it is my incredulity with anybody who defends the Tories. My 'so can we just get this straight post' was a direct response to what I understood to what was being said, in short that it is pointless trying to tax the rich.
@i_b_b_o_r_g promoted me to moderator, he said he wanted some new blood in to help him out.
Zero hours alright with you? Then you might get promoted to part-time if you keep your nose clean up
Add that to the Hunt's job-lot flat purchase and Rees-Mogg involvement of an emerging markets investment firm, this government really does have a whiff of the sleazy 90's about it.
Let me see if I've got this right. Her husband works for a company that is producing a drug used to treat epileptic children. And you see that as a bad thing?
If someone from your mob, was doing that would it be good, bad or indifferent?
Should MPs' spouses not have employment? Is it alright for (chosen at random) Ann Coffey's husband Peter Saraga, a research scientist, to be vice-chair of the University of Sussex's University Council and a former managing director at Philips Research Labs UK?
You lefties do come up with some weird stuff sometimes. (And it's '90s, not 90's.)
Yeah that bit where @mcgrandall says that is outrageous and it should be expunged from the thread.
Don't you think it is hypocritical that she opposes drug reforms (of cannabis) whilst her husband profits from growing it? She has recused herself from talking about cannabis so she must, but as the drugs minister she really has to. edit - really has to talk about it.
The real hypocrisy is that as her husband profits from growing cannabis to add to drugs to treat epilepsy she refuses to allow for people with multiple sclerosis, cancer or chronic pain to seek pain relief from cannabis. If I was the cynical type I would say that it seems OK for industry to make money out of the drug but not OK for an individual to by-pass the profit takers.
So to use your thinking, @mcgrandall wants to alleviate the suffering of people with multiple sclerosis, cancer and chronic pain. And you see that as a bad thing?
No, I don't think it's hypocritical: they are two different people after all. She's entitled to her view. I haven't checked but British Sugar's non- psychoactive cannabis growing is still experimental is it not? Is it even available for personal growth yet? I doubt very much that either the company or her husband has seen a profit from it. I don't know but would the average dope grower even know how to refine the raw product into one with medicinal value anyway?
And then, earlier this year a Labour MP, Paul Flynn, tried to get a private member's bill through parliament on this very subject. It was talked out. This is what Mr Flynn had to say: “What’s happened here today has been a filibuster organised by one party and I’m ashamed to say I’m a member of that party.” https://thelondoneconomic.com/news/labour-mps-blame-party-robbing-parliament-medicinal-cannabis-vote/23/02/ So, those without sin and all that.
But you were digging out @mcgrandall which was the main thrust of my post. And yes Labour have some shit policies/stances that I disagree with and there are some subjects that politicians of all stripes will not touch because it is considered a vote loser. That means the country can't have a serious debate about (illegal) drug laws/use/treatment etc.
Add that to the Hunt's job-lot flat purchase and Rees-Mogg involvement of an emerging markets investment firm, this government really does have a whiff of the sleazy 90's about it.
Let me see if I've got this right. Her husband works for a company that is producing a drug used to treat epileptic children. And you see that as a bad thing?
If someone from your mob, was doing that would it be good, bad or indifferent?
Should MPs' spouses not have employment? Is it alright for (chosen at random) Ann Coffey's husband Peter Saraga, a research scientist, to be vice-chair of the University of Sussex's University Council and a former managing director at Philips Research Labs UK?
You lefties do come up with some weird stuff sometimes. (And it's '90s, not 90's.)
Yeah that bit where @mcgrandall says that is outrageous and it should be expunged from the thread.
Don't you think it is hypocritical that she opposes drug reforms (of cannabis) whilst her husband profits from growing it? She has recused herself from talking about cannabis so she must, but as the drugs minister she really has to. edit - really has to talk about it.
The real hypocrisy is that as her husband profits from growing cannabis to add to drugs to treat epilepsy she refuses to allow for people with multiple sclerosis, cancer or chronic pain to seek pain relief from cannabis. If I was the cynical type I would say that it seems OK for industry to make money out of the drug but not OK for an individual to by-pass the profit takers.
So to use your thinking, @mcgrandall wants to alleviate the suffering of people with multiple sclerosis, cancer and chronic pain. And you see that as a bad thing?
No, I don't think it's hypocritical: they are two different people after all. She's entitled to her view. I haven't checked but British Sugar's non- psychoactive cannabis growing is still experimental is it not? Is it even available for personal growth yet? I doubt very much that either the company or her husband has seen a profit from it. I don't know but would the average dope grower even know how to refine the raw product into one with medicinal value anyway?
And then, earlier this year a Labour MP, Paul Flynn, tried to get a private member's bill through parliament on this very subject. It was talked out. This is what Mr Flynn had to say: “What’s happened here today has been a filibuster organised by one party and I’m ashamed to say I’m a member of that party.” https://thelondoneconomic.com/news/labour-mps-blame-party-robbing-parliament-medicinal-cannabis-vote/23/02/ So, those without sin and all that.
But you were digging out @mcgrandall which was the main thrust of my post. And yes Labour have some shit policies/stances that I disagree with and there are some subjects that politicians of all stripes will not touch because it is considered a vote loser. That means the country can't have a serious debate about (illegal) drug laws/use/treatment etc.
Most of what you say is correct. But I was digging out @mcgrandall for linking this with Hunt's property investment company and Rees-Moog's investment company and somehow combining the whole lot into a 1990s Tory sleeze allegation. This when there is absolutely nothing wrong with what Hunt's property company has done. And as for the loathsome Moogster https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2018/02/08/2198570/jacob-rees-moggs-huge-personal-windfall-after-brexit/ provides a helpful touch of reality. Again nothing wrong with being in business. What next? Are we going to be haranguing Caroline Johnson MP for ripping off the NHS by serving as a consultant paediatrician? Where is the line drawn?
Add that to the Hunt's job-lot flat purchase and Rees-Mogg involvement of an emerging markets investment firm, this government really does have a whiff of the sleazy 90's about it.
Let me see if I've got this right. Her husband works for a company that is producing a drug used to treat epileptic children. And you see that as a bad thing?
If someone from your mob, was doing that would it be good, bad or indifferent?
Should MPs' spouses not have employment? Is it alright for (chosen at random) Ann Coffey's husband Peter Saraga, a research scientist, to be vice-chair of the University of Sussex's University Council and a former managing director at Philips Research Labs UK?
You lefties do come up with some weird stuff sometimes. (And it's '90s, not 90's.)
Yeah that bit where @mcgrandall says that is outrageous and it should be expunged from the thread.
Don't you think it is hypocritical that she opposes drug reforms (of cannabis) whilst her husband profits from growing it? She has recused herself from talking about cannabis so she must, but as the drugs minister she really has to. edit - really has to talk about it.
The real hypocrisy is that as her husband profits from growing cannabis to add to drugs to treat epilepsy she refuses to allow for people with multiple sclerosis, cancer or chronic pain to seek pain relief from cannabis. If I was the cynical type I would say that it seems OK for industry to make money out of the drug but not OK for an individual to by-pass the profit takers.
So to use your thinking, @mcgrandall wants to alleviate the suffering of people with multiple sclerosis, cancer and chronic pain. And you see that as a bad thing?
No, I don't think it's hypocritical: they are two different people after all. She's entitled to her view. I haven't checked but British Sugar's non- psychoactive cannabis growing is still experimental is it not? Is it even available for personal growth yet? I doubt very much that either the company or her husband has seen a profit from it. I don't know but would the average dope grower even know how to refine the raw product into one with medicinal value anyway?
And then, earlier this year a Labour MP, Paul Flynn, tried to get a private member's bill through parliament on this very subject. It was talked out. This is what Mr Flynn had to say: “What’s happened here today has been a filibuster organised by one party and I’m ashamed to say I’m a member of that party.” https://thelondoneconomic.com/news/labour-mps-blame-party-robbing-parliament-medicinal-cannabis-vote/23/02/ So, those without sin and all that.
But you were digging out @mcgrandall which was the main thrust of my post. And yes Labour have some shit policies/stances that I disagree with and there are some subjects that politicians of all stripes will not touch because it is considered a vote loser. That means the country can't have a serious debate about (illegal) drug laws/use/treatment etc.
Most of what you say is correct. But I was digging out @mcgrandall for linking this with Hunt's property investment company and Rees-Moog's investment company and somehow combining the whole lot into a 1990s Tory sleeze allegation. This when there is absolutely nothing wrong with what Hunt's property company has done. And as for the loathsome Moogster https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2018/02/08/2198570/jacob-rees-moggs-huge-personal-windfall-after-brexit/ provides a helpful touch of reality. Again nothing wrong with being in business. What next? Are we going to be haranguing Caroline Johnson MP for ripping off the NHS by serving as a consultant paediatrician? Where is the line drawn?
The line is clearly drawn at the Tory party, thought that was obvious.
Theresa May looked really ill on C4 news, I am genuinely worried for her health. It must sap your physical and mental health to be a 'human shield' for the Tory party.
She's got Type 1 Diabetes and has to inject herself up to five times a day. I don't know why anyone in her condition would put themselves through all this crap.
She called an election in an attempt to validate her previous coronation as leader of the Tory party. Following the local results just previously she thought she could crush Labour. Now she is carrying on knowing she won't lead the Tories into the next election. She is a lame duck leading the UK to a hard brexit. If she is now discovering it is a stressful job then there is the option to resign. I am sorry she has to deal with diabetes, and she carries that burden admirably, but it does not qualify her to be in charge.
She's got Type 1 Diabetes and has to inject herself up to five times a day. I don't know why anyone in her condition would put themselves through all this crap.
I didn't know that. Much as I don't like her she should resign for her own wellbeing, in my opinion she is only in post for the good of the Tories, not the good of the country. Let Boris have a go.
I think she got and accepted blame from within her party for the election result. It was an election that she didn't need to call. I suspect out of a sense of duty and responsibility she feels she has to carry on. She may have been asked to to fix the mess she has caused. The reason is obvious. If a firm remainer was in charge the Brexiters in the party wouldn't stand for it and visa versa. But she is going to have great difficulty in keeping both sides happy the closer we get to Brexit!
I suspect the only real focus of the party is to get past Brexit. i'm sure she will go if she manages that but there are a lot of potholes in the road before she gets there!
Theresa May looked really ill on C4 news, I am genuinely worried for her health. It must sap your physical and mental health to be a 'human shield' for the Tory party.
She’s there until Brexit goes through next March. Once that point is out of the way she will be replaced shouldering the blame for the bad deal and to give the next leader a chance to lie his way to the next general election. No doubt a nice place in the upper chamber awaits her as reward for her paltry efforts.
She’s there until Brexit goes through next March. Once that point is out of the way she will be replaced shouldering the blame for the bad deal and to give the next leader a chance to lie his way to the next general election. No doubt a nice place in the upper chamber awaits her as reward for her paltry efforts.
Lady Maidenhead. You heard it here first.
Do you think Lady Maidenhead will hook up with Lord Buckethead?
Comments
If someone from your mob, was doing that would it be good, bad or indifferent?
Should MPs' spouses not have employment? Is it alright for (chosen at random) Ann Coffey's husband Peter Saraga, a research scientist, to be vice-chair of the University of Sussex's University Council and a former managing director at Philips Research Labs UK?
You lefties do come up with some weird stuff sometimes. (And it's '90s, not 90's.)
Don't you think it is hypocritical that she opposes drug reforms (of cannabis) whilst her husband profits from growing it? She has recused herself from talking about cannabis so she must, but as the drugs minister she really has to. edit - really has to talk about it.
The real hypocrisy is that as her husband profits from growing cannabis to add to drugs to treat epilepsy she refuses to allow for people with multiple sclerosis, cancer or chronic pain to seek pain relief from cannabis. If I was the cynical type I would say that it seems OK for industry to make money out of the drug but not OK for an individual to by-pass the profit takers.
So to use your thinking, @mcgrandall wants to alleviate the suffering of people with multiple sclerosis, cancer and chronic pain. And you see that as a bad thing?
I know I am going to be pilloried for this and be accused of being a *"tofu" but endless repeating of the same accountancy based tax percentages is really effing boring, particularly as you are stuck in defending the right (of the right) to pay as little tax as possible.
*sort of like being called a gammon but directed at lefties who remain calm and believe in equality and the redistribution of wealth.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/15/warning-tories-britain-true-blue-suburbs-turned-liberal
I may have mentioned that I didn't like Cameron, but he very much 'got' that the Tories would have to at least pretend to be more liberal to have any chance of electoral success.
"Unless you have something to suggest that the Tories need to do with regards to tax, can you take it there" ...... I must have missed your promote to moderator. But pop back a couple of pages, 1 or 2p on all tax bands and raise the personal allowance further, yup that's getting the rich to pay as little tax as possible clearly
As for hypocritical MP's, we have plenty in all the parties, nothing new there, almost seems a requirement for a large proportion of our elected MP's sadly.
You are slightly wrong on your opinion of my view, it is not my supporting anybody who votes Labour it is my incredulity with anybody who defends the Tories. My 'so can we just get this straight post' was a direct response to what I understood to what was being said, in short that it is pointless trying to tax the rich.
@i_b_b_o_r_g promoted me to moderator, he said he wanted some new blood in to help him out.
The cheques in the post.
I won’t come in your mouth.
I'm not aware I've defended legal tax avoidance (unless we are including things like Pension contributions). I'm of the view that everyone has the right to use the allowances in the way they were intended (i.e. Pension contributions, ISA's etc). I don't agree with the likes of Amazon or the famous and their 'film investments' at the upper end anymore than the self employed builder doing 'cash work' - all are as bad as each other in that they are defrauding the tax man.
As for my defending of the high earners already paying enough, I disagree, as I've suggested I believe consistently since before the last election I would raise taxes predominantly at the wealthier end just not as much as Labour wanted to.
What I do defend is outside of what is probably a small percentage of tax dodgers who should be caught/dealt with the wealthier have since 2010 when the Tories came in paid more tax. Probably more than each and every 13 years under the last labour Government and that is before taking into account things like Child benefit removal, Pension contribution limits or the reduction from 1.8m to 1m for the lifetime allowance - all are tax on the wealthier by the so called Tories who only give tax breaks to the wealthier individuals...........
I'm fully supportive of the Conservatives or any government taking out of income taxation the lower earners and I'd go as far to take it to a level where anyone on the minimum wage doesn't pay income tax at all (about £15k).
I personally (and appreciate many others will disagree) believe that someone in a job on PAYE should never pay more than 50% on any pound they earn regardless of their overall salary. Labours would have taken people to over 50% and in some instances towards 60%.
I don't blindly support the Tories, there are things they do I 100% agree with and others I 100% disagree with and a lot falling somewhere in-between.
Leveson 2 is resurrected thank god. But for how long?
What I understand about tax is that done right we all benefit from government spending.
The problem I have with the Tories is they would prefer to only spend on vanity projects and military/security stuff and nothing else if they had their way.
They call it small government and pretend it is about freedom, when it is about greed, exploitation, and the exercise of oppressive power.
Personally I like it when workers industrial action reminds the Tories that the plebs exist.
And then, earlier this year a Labour MP, Paul Flynn, tried to get a private member's bill through parliament on this very subject. It was talked out. This is what Mr Flynn had to say: “What’s happened here today has been a filibuster organised by one party and I’m ashamed to say I’m a member of that party.” https://thelondoneconomic.com/news/labour-mps-blame-party-robbing-parliament-medicinal-cannabis-vote/23/02/ So, those without sin and all that.
If she is now discovering it is a stressful job then there is the option to resign.
I am sorry she has to deal with diabetes, and she carries that burden admirably, but it does not qualify her to be in charge.
I suspect the only real focus of the party is to get past Brexit. i'm sure she will go if she manages that but there are a lot of potholes in the road before she gets there!
Lady Maidenhead. You heard it here first.