Grendel
Well-Known Member
Michael Foot didn’t have a coup as despite his left wing views he was:
Patriotic
Intelligent
Academic
Respected
His time was too late but corbyn ticked none of the above
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (129 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
Michael Foot didn’t have a coup as despite his left wing views he was:
Patriotic
Intelligent
Academic
Respected
His time was too late but corbyn ticked none of the above
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Indeed. Tories believe voters are thick as pig shit, but are clever enough to not say as such and act like they aren't. Then laugh behind their backs at their stupidity of voting them in to do things that will be detrimental to their own well-being often just because it's familiar.
Other parties, esp left-wing parties, have to explain their ideas more because their different to what's happening now and often this comes across as condescending and in the militant types will lead to them basically saying "you're thick", which if anything shows their own stupidity cos that is not a way to get votes
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
F me. These people are or were in power.
How Dominic Cummings 'took revenge on Dilyn the dog'
Boris Johnson's dog Dilyn has become the unwitting victim of a bitter feud between the allies of Dominic Cummings and the UK Prime Minister's girlfriend Carrie Symonds.
www.dailymail.co.uk
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Maybe I’m missing a point here, but is he saying in the same interview that we shouldn’t be trying to force out Hancock (rich and privileged) whilst simultaneously saying that the criminalisation of cannabis possession (focusing generally more on poorer people) is still important?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
He’s appealing to public opinion on Hancock and he’s probably right I haven’t seen the polling though.
His take on cannabis is dumb as a box of rocks though. There’s too much crime so maybe legalise demand but not supply? Insanity. If crime is your concern then legalisation and regulation is your answer. Public health is the only reason and even that’s a fairly weak argument.
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
You get nowhere by calling for ministers to quit at the time of a a crisis. There is be a time for that to come.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
To be honest - I’ve got far more issue with his bat shit crazy idea for schools.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
some of the replies are mind boggling.
'Labour MPs calling for Hancock to resign are trying to embarrass Starmer'.
Yeah, that will be it, nothing to do with some of us wanting accountability for the mis-appropriation of our tax money at a time of crisis.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
He's absolutely petrified
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Tbh he should be making it as clear as he possibly can that Hancock is useless, short of actually saying he should resign. I think the non publication of them is bit of a red herring. It is the fact the contracts failed to deliver adequate PPE which may have led to unnecessary death and spread of infection is the more important point, which given the close links the sham companies had with the Tories really brings into question what the entire government thinks its role is in a national crisis.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
TBH I think that’s just his normal face
ccfc1234
Well-Known Member
New to thid thread and agree with your assessment. UK plc currently have a Covid sized hole in their budget and we need to consider creative solutions for increased taxation. The so called black or underworld economy is worth tens of billions and strategic licencing and supply of cannabis products could be a money spinner. There are currently hundred of thousands of people getting ripped off by illegal street dealers who are not overly bothered by the quility of their produce. Liciancing will remove this dilemma and possibily have public health upsides.
Would a 24 month trial be appropriate?
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
It does have an element of Corbyn's Brexit response.
"Say you'll support Brexit"
"But then we'll lose half the country as remainers and a lot of the more liberal left-wing"
"Well say you'll have a second referendum then"
"But then I'll risk losing half the country as Brexiteers and a lot of the Labour heartlands that voted for Brexit"
repeat ad infinitum
This time it's
"say you'll decriminalise drugs"
"that won't wash with the law-and-order lot"
"say you'll crackdown on them then"
"that'll upset the liberals"
it seems whoever gets put in charge is then advised that both options are shit and not to choose any in case you alienate a potential voter, whereas in reality having no position alienates them all.
Pick a side and live or die by it. It's called leadership.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I'm all for the control of drugs via regulation and taxes. it won't remove the black market but it will reduce it's impact. yes you'll lose those minor fines for possession etc and increase costs with bureaucracy but that'd be a drop in the ocean compared to taxes.
Not only that it could reduce public spending as you'd be spending less trying to bring down these drug cartels and dealing with minor criminals and wannabes, reducing costs and time spent policing and in the judicial system. It's a gateway into more criminal behaviour later in life for some kids that would be closed. On the other hand it could increase public spending in dealing with addiction etc. but again that link between cannabis and then going onto harder drugs could be broken somewhat as there's a clear legal barrier between the two. You don't get people saying an alcohol addict is likely to end up using cocaine or heroin despite as a drug its effects being worse than cannabis.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
And there are Starmer supports who are convinced anything negative said against Starmer is instigated by Corbyn supporters but it's bollocks.
I'm seeing an increasing amount of centrists turning against him.
Someone was defending him for his stance on Hancock yesterday but a lot of centrists were saying it's not about whether the call for him to reside is heeded, sometimes it's about putting yourself on the side of what you think is right.
As you say, pick a side and live or die by it.
He's going to frizzle out on sitting on the fence.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Legalise all drugs. They all are doing the same thing (papering over the cracks in mental health support) and all cause the same problems with the same solutions.
The black market will exist in the same way it does for alcohol today. Mostly it’ll be a bunch of people growing in their attic so they don’t have to pay inflated prices.
Every drug user I know would rather buy safe regulated stuff with a guaranteed quality than chase down hood rats in Foleshill and risk all kinds of shite. These kids aren’t there for their business and customer service skills.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Should certainly legalise cannabis so it’s sold through licenced businesses. Ending proabition played a huge part in bringing the US out of the Great Depression. Same could happen here with cannabis. VAT on sales, business taxes on the businesses selling it.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
What on earth is going on with the nominations for Labour's Liverpool Mayor candidate. Seems a complete shitshow.
www.liverpoolecho.co.uk
Labour reopens applications for Liverpool Mayor nominations
Shortlisted candidates will NOT be invited to reapply
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
What on earth is going on with the nominations for Labour's Liverpool Mayor candidate. Seems a complete shitshow.
Labour reopens applications for Liverpool Mayor nominations
Shortlisted candidates will NOT be invited to reapply
Makes you wonder.
Liverpool mayor Joe Anderson steps aside amid bribery probe
Joe Anderson was arrested by police investigating the awarding of building contracts.
www.bbc.co.uk
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Laurence Fox running for Mayor of London.
Reported in the Telegraph and trending on Twitter. Not bad for someone who's been 'cancelled'!
On one hand I hope he gets it just to show him up for the absolute roaster he is but on the other hand probably not
best not give it to a shit actor who only got a few parts because of his grandad.
Reported in the Telegraph and trending on Twitter. Not bad for someone who's been 'cancelled'!
On one hand I hope he gets it just to show him up for the absolute roaster he is but on the other hand probably not
best not give it to a shit actor who only got a few parts because of his grandad.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Surely the only person he will be taking votes from is Shaun Bailey?
He’s batshit crazy....
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
just to clarify, are you on about Fox or Bailey (obviously both!)
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Both as you say - every time Bailey says something he sounds like even more of an out of touch knobhead. This weeks diatribe was if we introduced UBI it would only get spent on drugs. Which at least a nice change from it being bought from an MP’s salary.
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
To be fair, I probably would spend my UBI on drugs
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
Good old traditional English drugs I hope. None of the foreign muck.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
It’s like the old joke “don’t give money to the homeless in case they buy drugs with it” “well that’s what I was going to with it anyway”
All that would mean is more sales for JD Sports and second hand Aldi dealerships as drug dealers get a boom.
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
Some are certainly local.
Preeching to the converted I know, but, well... legalize innit.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I've mentioned this before and as it's now a hot topic in general and being discussed elsewhere due to the planned rises in coming years, here's my outline proposal for corp tax. If you get through it fair play to you.
I know it's a radical departure from current thinking and some (one on here esp) will find it difficult to comprehend such a massive change, but the more I thought about the more sense it made.
I'll also point out this isn't aiming to increase the amount of tax companies should pay- it's replacing the method of calculation with a new one and trying to prevent those large companies avoiding it. The biggest hole in public finances is from large corporations avoiding tax and this is about them paying their fair share.
Bit of scene setting first as to how the idea came about.
Firstly, and again as I've mentioned recently somewhere on this board, I find profit to be a very arbitrary thing to base a tax on - it's just a paper figure that can be manipulated easily via bookkeeping and accounting conventions and policies. It's far too unreliable.
Secondly, we're conditioned at a young age to consider tax a 'dirty word' - something to be avoided if at all possible despite what it can provide to society as a whole through ongoing public expenditure. Dividends however suffers no such stigma and are actively encouraged despite it being in many cases a large payment to an individual purely for owning a bit of paper bought with a one-off payment, often to another individual so the company in question actually receives nothing from the transaction.
So initially my thoughts were along the lines of 'tax needs a rebrand - it's a societal dividend'.
But then I thought you've still got the constant tug of war between private and public, with one spending large amounts to avoid tax, the other spending large amounts to try and stop them avoiding it. It's incredibly wasteful for everyone.
Which is when I thought about getting everyone pulling in the same direction and basing corp tax on dividends rather than profit. When shareholders benefit the public purse benefits as well. Everyone is pulling towards the same thing.
TBC
I know it's a radical departure from current thinking and some (one on here esp) will find it difficult to comprehend such a massive change, but the more I thought about the more sense it made.
I'll also point out this isn't aiming to increase the amount of tax companies should pay- it's replacing the method of calculation with a new one and trying to prevent those large companies avoiding it. The biggest hole in public finances is from large corporations avoiding tax and this is about them paying their fair share.
Bit of scene setting first as to how the idea came about.
Firstly, and again as I've mentioned recently somewhere on this board, I find profit to be a very arbitrary thing to base a tax on - it's just a paper figure that can be manipulated easily via bookkeeping and accounting conventions and policies. It's far too unreliable.
Secondly, we're conditioned at a young age to consider tax a 'dirty word' - something to be avoided if at all possible despite what it can provide to society as a whole through ongoing public expenditure. Dividends however suffers no such stigma and are actively encouraged despite it being in many cases a large payment to an individual purely for owning a bit of paper bought with a one-off payment, often to another individual so the company in question actually receives nothing from the transaction.
So initially my thoughts were along the lines of 'tax needs a rebrand - it's a societal dividend'.
But then I thought you've still got the constant tug of war between private and public, with one spending large amounts to avoid tax, the other spending large amounts to try and stop them avoiding it. It's incredibly wasteful for everyone.
Which is when I thought about getting everyone pulling in the same direction and basing corp tax on dividends rather than profit. When shareholders benefit the public purse benefits as well. Everyone is pulling towards the same thing.
TBC
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Then other benefits started to become apparent:
1. Simplifies the system. Currently the system requires profits to be worked out, and then those profits are amended via Sch D computations to come up with taxable profit which can be entirely different to the P/L profit (but still based on some arbitrary bookkeeping and accounting conventions) and then you've potentially got carry back/forward of losses. With this you've got "you paid £x in dividends so you (owe say) £0.2x in tax/public dividend.
The desire/need to manipulate profits for tax purposes by spending a fortune on accountants/advisors/lawyers or set up subsidiaries to gain access to the tax free allowances resulting in incredibly complex groups of companies is reduced.
2. No need for rebates. Linked to the above losses claiming a tax rebate by offsetting current losses and previous profits is no longer an issue. If you pay out the dividend you pay out the tax - simple. Think about it this way - as an individual do you get to claim back tax from last year if this year you had a bad year? No - because you earned it last year you paid tax on it that year. When I had my first job I didn't get to avoid the tax on it by saying I wanted my earnings taken back over previous years I'd not worked.
3. Less onerous on cashflow. Big bugbear for many businesses is that the tax payable is a huge burden in terms of cashflow as it needs to be paid by a particular date and is a large outgoing. This links in with profit being a poor basis for tax calulations because they're not related to actual day-to-day reality.
Link it to dividends and any cashflow problems are on the business management for overpaying dividends. If you can afford to pay the dividend you can afford to pay the tax at the same time.
4. Businesses control their own tax bill. By basing it on dividends, which are decided upon by the management, they are effectively choosing their own taxation. They can choose to reduce it, but to do so they'll risk upsetting shareholders by reducing payments to them as well. Like I say, everyone pulling in the same direction.
TBC
1. Simplifies the system. Currently the system requires profits to be worked out, and then those profits are amended via Sch D computations to come up with taxable profit which can be entirely different to the P/L profit (but still based on some arbitrary bookkeeping and accounting conventions) and then you've potentially got carry back/forward of losses. With this you've got "you paid £x in dividends so you (owe say) £0.2x in tax/public dividend.
The desire/need to manipulate profits for tax purposes by spending a fortune on accountants/advisors/lawyers or set up subsidiaries to gain access to the tax free allowances resulting in incredibly complex groups of companies is reduced.
2. No need for rebates. Linked to the above losses claiming a tax rebate by offsetting current losses and previous profits is no longer an issue. If you pay out the dividend you pay out the tax - simple. Think about it this way - as an individual do you get to claim back tax from last year if this year you had a bad year? No - because you earned it last year you paid tax on it that year. When I had my first job I didn't get to avoid the tax on it by saying I wanted my earnings taken back over previous years I'd not worked.
3. Less onerous on cashflow. Big bugbear for many businesses is that the tax payable is a huge burden in terms of cashflow as it needs to be paid by a particular date and is a large outgoing. This links in with profit being a poor basis for tax calulations because they're not related to actual day-to-day reality.
Link it to dividends and any cashflow problems are on the business management for overpaying dividends. If you can afford to pay the dividend you can afford to pay the tax at the same time.
4. Businesses control their own tax bill. By basing it on dividends, which are decided upon by the management, they are effectively choosing their own taxation. They can choose to reduce it, but to do so they'll risk upsetting shareholders by reducing payments to them as well. Like I say, everyone pulling in the same direction.
TBC
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Now I know from experience there are still people out there who would try and find a loophole around this so they can get more, so it'd need more work on looking for them. For example, it'd have to make sure it included all types of shares including preference shares etc and things like share based payments and venture capital would also need to be looked at.
Similarly, in an effort to avoid the tax it could lead to a preference for 'investors' to provide finance via debt in the form of loans rather than as capital. This could have a big impact on the stock market and, although I think it's given far too much prominence and importance in our economy, that shock wouldn't be good short term. So to prevent this jump towards debt consideration would have to be considered as to imposing a similar tax on things like interest payments to even it out.
This would have the benefit of increasing the thought companies put into taking on debt and lead to more responsible borrowing.
I also realise that there are many different ways companies are used from one-man band sole-trader style set-ups to massive Plc's and the effect on them needs to be considered. This idea definitely applies best to the larger companies and Plc's, but smaller companies like local builders, plumbers etc often pay much higher dividends per share. So if necessary it could have a progressive sliding scale like income tax with lower rates for smaller payouts increasing as you get towards the massive payouts of PLC's
At the moment I've looked at about 50 odd companies, but they're all quite large due to SME's having much reduced reporting requirements so the info isn't there for smaller companies.
Of those, dividends paid equate to roughly 6 times that of tax and just over half of those companies paid no dividends, with 15% paying out more than 10 times their tax bill in dividends. One company paid out 111 times their tax liability in dividends and another paid out £500m in dividends yet received a tax rebate of £1m.
Interest payments were roughly equal to tax taken.
I know it needs further investigation to ensure it'd work for all which I don't have access to the necessary data to do and even then the manhours would be massive so it'd need to be done on a large scale such as within Whitehall, but the basic idea seems sound and it's more the research into what exact rates would be acceptable.
Similarly, in an effort to avoid the tax it could lead to a preference for 'investors' to provide finance via debt in the form of loans rather than as capital. This could have a big impact on the stock market and, although I think it's given far too much prominence and importance in our economy, that shock wouldn't be good short term. So to prevent this jump towards debt consideration would have to be considered as to imposing a similar tax on things like interest payments to even it out.
This would have the benefit of increasing the thought companies put into taking on debt and lead to more responsible borrowing.
I also realise that there are many different ways companies are used from one-man band sole-trader style set-ups to massive Plc's and the effect on them needs to be considered. This idea definitely applies best to the larger companies and Plc's, but smaller companies like local builders, plumbers etc often pay much higher dividends per share. So if necessary it could have a progressive sliding scale like income tax with lower rates for smaller payouts increasing as you get towards the massive payouts of PLC's
At the moment I've looked at about 50 odd companies, but they're all quite large due to SME's having much reduced reporting requirements so the info isn't there for smaller companies.
Of those, dividends paid equate to roughly 6 times that of tax and just over half of those companies paid no dividends, with 15% paying out more than 10 times their tax bill in dividends. One company paid out 111 times their tax liability in dividends and another paid out £500m in dividends yet received a tax rebate of £1m.
Interest payments were roughly equal to tax taken.
I know it needs further investigation to ensure it'd work for all which I don't have access to the necessary data to do and even then the manhours would be massive so it'd need to be done on a large scale such as within Whitehall, but the basic idea seems sound and it's more the research into what exact rates would be acceptable.
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
I would like to see HMRC open up a business resources department for those larger businesses which scrimped on getting the proper insurance to get themselves through the pandemic rather than everyone paying to get them out of trouble again. I guess that's socialism for you unless there's a profit to be made. Give them 60 days to pay what they have received from the Government through the time of the pandemic and if they are still in arrears then start insolvency proceedings with the company to be Government run as an ongoing concern to be auctioned off at a later date.
Would get us out of trouble in no time whatsoever.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Worked for Johnson
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Brilliant so let’s reduce the value of pensions - many of whom are going to the working classes