Nick Clegg demands emergency tax on Britain's wealthiest

[Sandman]

Britain's wealthiest people should face an emergency tax to avoid a

breakdown in social cohesion as the country fights an "economic war"

caused by a longer than expected recession, Nick Clegg has said. "If

we are going to ask people for more sacrifices over a longer period of

time, a longer period of belt tightening as a country, then we just have

to make sure that people see it is being done as fairly and as

progressively as possible," Clegg said. The deputy prime minister said

that new taxes should be drawn up which go beyond the Lib Dems'

existing proposal to impose a mansion tax on properties worth more than

£2m. Clegg fears for the cohesion of Britain unless the rich do more to

help tackle the deficit. He also wants to see the bandit back, who took

tax payers for fools by misappropriating tax payers money for his lover.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/aug/28/nick-clegg-emergency-tax-britains-weathiest

 

 

[MIDGE]

You agree with this?  If so. why?

 

If the jaundiced Clegg gets his way,  The wealthy will simply opt for India,  

[ewill]

Cleggy chooses to ignore that people are mobile -the 'wealthy' pay the
largest proportion of tax , they can live anywhere it's more tax
efficient , run their businesses from anywhere it's more tax efficient
and that those already earning £100k+ a year (hardly an enormous
salary and less than some supplicants on £94k nett) receive no
personal tax allowance in the first place

45% of some is a far greater figure than 45% of nothing

On 29 Aug, 09:32, MIDGE <L1TTLEP...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> *You* agree with this?  If so. why?

> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/aug/28/nick-clegg-emergency-t...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Jonksy]

Because the rich EVADE taxes that's why, Do you think it was fair that vodafone were let off paying billions in taxes? Do you think it was fair of osbore letting all the wealthy off paying the full amount of taxes on monies they had in Swiss accounts Midge...And please don't mention the usual crap about it being envy..

[tinman]

Clegg fishing for votes thats all this is. He promised the world to
the Lib-Dem voters. and then he allied himself and his party to what
has become a disastrous coalition. He must surely know any Lib voters
out there now see him as a traitor.

[Sandman]

You know as well as I do Elaine, if we introduced a flat rate tax, the

wealthy would be paying much more. As far as "they can live anywhere"

is concerned, then let them.Wait and see if France has a mass exodus

of their wealthy, as predicted.

[Trueblue]

Total tax take is way over 50% of GDP, given the fact only a third of people are working the burden falls 100% on them, Labours deficit of £179 Billion meant it was spending 25% more than it recieved in revenue without paying a penny off the huge debt.

 

That leaves two options, burden the private sector with more taxes or cut the huge parasitic state

[jar]

Clegg will do anything to rescue his hopeless party and his position. By all means come down hard on those greedy people both in the private and public sector with their noses deep in the trough usually of poorer taxpayers contributions but socialists will never seem to understand that if would be entrepreneurs are taxed until the pips squeak its counter productive. Apart from those I have described we dont get good value for the money that we have to contribute to our gvts and its obvious that there is a huge dept given over to taking even more of our money whilst so much waste is allowed to carry on regardless.

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:48:35 AM UTC+1, Sandman wrote:

[ewill]

I agree a flat rate tax is the only fair tax , have a personal
allowance of say £12-15k (raise the state pension for full
contributors to it) then EVERYONE above that including supplicants
pays 20% of ALL income (earned and unearned) as tax. Tax take would
rocket

France is already suffering an exodus of high rate taxpayers towards
London

> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/aug/28/nick-clegg-emergency-t...quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[ewill]

There's a letter in the local paper this morning bemoaning that
apparently council tax benefit is to be restricted to houses below F
ranking which means those already on low taxpayer subsised rents
living in these houses will have to pay council tax for the first
time .

These supplicants are demanding to be rehoused in lower ranked housing
of a similar size to maintain this perk -the cheek of it - the
argument being that the council housed them in these more expensive
properties 12 years ago so the council should ensure they continue to
enjoy services they have never paid for!

> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/aug/28/nick-clegg-emergency-t...- Hide quoted text -

[Sandman]

We are both close to the same flat rate tax Elaine, I would

increase the personal allowance to the higher band of £15k

to £18k, to take more out of tax and eliminate a lot of the benefits

now being paid, I would also make flat rate 30% and possibly

reduce VAT. London has seen wealthy French coming here for

years now, it hasn't altered, Although Hollande has changed the

tax laws so that any properties they have in France is taxed.

[Affa]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:40:07 AM UTC+1, ewill wrote:

 

Cleggy chooses to ignore that people are mobile -the 'wealthy' pay the
largest proportion of tax , they can live anywhere it's more tax
efficient , run their businesses from anywhere it's more tax efficient

 

 

Which is an argument to tax the business, not the owners.

 

 

 

[Anthonychng]

Well....that would do away with incentive wouldn`t it? It would also
upset a few Labour millionnaires who did very nicley thank you under
the previous regime. The "rich" are often the very people who invest
in this country. The same people who start businesses, employ others
and take entrepreneurial risks. Smacks of killing the goose that
lays the golden eggs methinks. Shortsighted too. Truly rich people
are usually quite savvy and seldom actually suffer much no matter what
governments do. They move their money around to avoid political
nasties. The losers are likely to be the very people who seem to be
jealous of them. Instead of investing in Britain (which most of
them would prefer to do.....without undue interference) they will
invest elsewhere in places such as India, South America or even China,
where they will become even richer. They should be "cultivated"
rather than punished for having worked hard enough to become rich in
the first place.

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/aug/28/nick-clegg-emergency-t...

[Anthonychng]

I would hope that people, no matter their political views, will see
Clegg as a self-seeker and a truly disastrous negative element of the
coalition. Committees seldom work all that well or take momentous
decisions, and the coalition is really a committee. Itg satisfied no-
one when it came into being, but it did give proper thinking people a
sigh of relief to have got rid of Labour, and a little wriggle room
before the next general election. You mention "disaster", well, that
is two pronged. First prong being that it became necessary to have
anything to do with the Lib Dems in the first place and the second
prong being a Prime Minister who has too much sympathy for them!

[Anthonychng]

"Let them," says you. Taken to its extremes, who will be left to
invest in new businesses? Who will employ people? As I said in my
previous posting.....short term thinking!

> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/aug/28/nick-clegg-emergency-t...quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Affa]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 5:13:11 PM UTC+1, Anthonychng wrote:

 

    Instead of investing in Britain (which most of them would prefer to do.....without undue 

interference) they will invest elsewhere in places such as India, South America or even China,
where they will become even richer.   They should be "cultivated"
rather than punished for having worked hard enough to become rich in
the first place.

 

Why would they prefer to invest here rather than in China or India?

There is a simple answer, but I doubt you know it.

 

And how on earth do you conclude that paying taxes on profits is a 'punishment'?

 

 

 

[Anthonychng]

Why? Possibly because they are British, though that may not seem
much of a reason to you. Of course, they also expect to make profits
(and why shouldn`t they?) and when their own country makes that more
and more impossible to achieve, they will look elsewhere. As for the
snide "though I doubt you know it".....I do. Very well. Tax on
profits is , of course, perfectly acceptable, just so long as those
taxes are fair and achieve what they set out to do. Far better if
the civil servantgs (and tghere are more than enough of them) set
their sights on getting in taxes from those......by no means always
the rich....who have done very nicely for themselves by avoiding them.

[Sandman]

Still preaching from the tory hymn book Anthony, we have had

first past the post elections for 100yrs, and look where it got us,

if by committees you mean coalitions, how do you think Germany

works, France, Holland, and many others. Clegg has an opinion,

like all MP's, not all are wrong, no one party has ever had the right

answers to everything. This country has a crisis with the economy,

a crisis that Osborne cannot sort out, in a sensible country, members

of all parties would put their best men forward to sort it out, this is a

national problem not one political parties problem, and certainly not

a political football, for the stupid in each party to kick around.  

[jar]

tax business? not a good idea AFFA . You cant moan about there being no jobs and then continue to starve (tax) the goose that lays the golden egg. Mind you that is socialism 

[Affa]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 5:28:24 PM UTC+1, Anthonychng wrote:

 

Why?   Possibly because they are British, though that may not seem
much of a reason to you.   Of course, they also expect to make profits
(and why shouldn`t they?) and when their own country makes that more
and more impossible to achieve, they will look elsewhere.  

 

Explain to me how a tax on profits makes it impossible to make a profit?

 

 

 

As for the snide "though I doubt you know it".....I do.   Very well.   Tax on
profits is , of course, perfectly acceptable, just so long as those
taxes are fair and achieve what they set out to do.  

 

 

Fair enough, but what you say about fairness here does not fit with your original post - in which

being 'fair' played no part. As for 'snide' (it wasn't btw) the answer should have been that business resides

here because here is where the Market for business exists.

Taking business away will leave a business oportunity for someone else to fill.

 

I put it to you that if ANY business believed it could make more money by reloctaing to China or India they are probably have already done so.

This notion that regulating business, taxing business, drives them away is utter BS. Used to excuse political

ineptitude ......... a consequence of Politicians having their personal fortune above those they supposedly serve.

 

I in no way foster an argument to overburden business with regulations or tax. I argue that those regulations and taxes be 'fair'. When a business profits by £mls it isn't punishment to demand they pay more than 1% or even 10% in taxes ........ and close the loopholes in regulations that assist business to avoid paying even the low rates demanded of them. The accusation is that it is greed that caused this crisis ......... all I argue is that there is less greed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Affa]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 6:48:22 PM UTC+1, jar wrote:

 

tax business? not a good idea AFFA . You cant moan about there being no jobs and then continue to starve (tax) the goose that lays the golden egg. Mind you that is socialism 

 

 

Where does it get the gold from Jar?

From the corn of society ......... the society it feeds off.

 

 

 

[jar]

no need to reply you must surely know. Private sector IS the engine that drives the economy from the taxes they pay and the people they employ and on and on.

[Affa]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 7:23:45 PM UTC+1, jar wrote:

 

no need to reply you must surely know. Private sector IS the engine that drives the economy from the taxes they pay and the people they employ and on and on.

 

 

Yet another brick in the foundation stones of Conservatism that is crumbling.

Business is as reliant on society as society has become reliant on business.

The two are indispensable (today), with business assuming as you say it's vital contribution.

But business only exists to make a profit and does not have a social conscience. We rely on Government to make sure it does have one.

That responsibility i(of government) s to do two things - to ensure workers are not exploited. To ensure business contributes towards the establishment and maintenance of the infrastructure it needs and uses in order to operate.

 It used to be that business did both of these things for itself, including providing workers accommodation, schooling and training, road a rail networks, and the continuation of energy supplies - today it does hardly any of that. The State does it all.

 

Where once workers were content to be provided with a home, a medic to heal them, a school for their children, and enough money to live on, now theymust fund it themselves or fund the State to privide it for them. And they do .......... but business doesn't, or doesn't hand over proportionally as much as it once did.

There has been only one really big winner in this SOCIALIST change in the role of the State, and that is corporate business, Capitalists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Trueblue]

On Wednesday, 29 August 2012 20:49:59 UTC+1, Affa wrote:

 

Where once workers were content to be provided with a home, a medic to heal them, a school for their children, and enough money to live on, now theymust fund it themselves or fund the State to privide it for them. And they do ..........

 

Either way it has to paid for by earnings, paying the state to provide services is the most inneficient method as it takes an army of self serving  beaurocrats to provide a service you may or may not need and could provide forourself at a fraction of the cost.

 

The State now accounts for way over 55% of all GDP spending, that needs slashing back to 20% at least

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hedgehog]

What you want will hurt the wealthy far more then the workers. Bring
it on those that work and pay the bills won't shed any tears.when the
privileged are out of work and living on benefits.

[Trueblue]

On Wednesday, 29 August 2012 21:08:01 UTC+1, hedgehog wrote:

What you want will hurt the wealthy far more then the workers.

 

How so.? do explain in detail

[hedgehog]

You really don't understand. LMAO. Really you think want you want
wouldn't mean thousands of those in grey suits losing their jobs.

[Affa]

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:01:33 PM UTC+1, Trueblue wrote:

 

 

The State now accounts for way over 55% of all GDP spending, that needs slashing back to 20% at least

 

 

Do you know where the other 45% is spent, and by whome?

 

This is a useless statistic - it means next to nothing.

State Spending as a percentage of GDP :-

UK = 47.3% ...... USA = 38.9% .......... Uruguay = 28% ....... Sweden = 52% ...... Russia = 34.1%

Pakistan = 19.3% ......... Norway = 40.2% ......... Holland 45.9% ......... Italy = 48.8% ........

Germany = 43.7% .......... Denmark = 51.8% ........ France = 53.8%

 

 

 

 

[Trueblue]

On Wednesday, 29 August 2012 21:20:35 UTC+1, hedgehog wrote:

You really don't understand. LMAO.

 

 

Thats why I asked you to explain but like Plonksy you'll never get around to it because you haven't a clue yourself

[hedgehog]

Oh TB you do make your self such an easy target, Just go back to
21.20

[Trueblue]

On Wednesday, 29 August 2012 21:23:35 UTC+1, hedgehog wrote:

Oh TB you do make your self such an easy target,  Just go back to
21.20

 

That would be the post you made which you can't explain.!

[hedgehog]

And you wonder why the Tories are in so much trouble. You think what
you want won't hurt the middle class so bad that they would never vote
Tory again. Do you really want a picture drawn for you before it
sinks in.

[Jonksy]

Same old crap from jar...Do you actually know how many billions this country loses in tax on corporations each year OLD man?

[Trueblue]

On Wednesday, 29 August 2012 21:41:17 UTC+1, hedgehog wrote:

And you wonder why the Tories are in so much trouble.   You think what
you want won't hurt the middle class

 

Explain if you can.?

[Anthonychng]

Sandman.....have a peep into today`s Daily Mail (you might as well,
everybody else quotes from it) and you will be hard put to find anyone
who feels Clegg`s soak-the-rich dri vel is anything but that.
Stephen glover writes a very good article on the subject, saying much
the same as I did yesterday. That the likely effect of doing a
downer on rich people will mean that they will take their
entrepreneurial gifts ....and their money elsewhere. Incidentally,
one does not "preach" from a hymn book, Tory or otherwise. One sings
from it. Germany does not have a committee. It has a Merkel.
France hasn`t had much of a committee since they formed one to
guillotine the nobility......then set about doing away with the
various leaders of that "committee." They have always followed
"leaders", even strutting ones like De Gaulle who sat out the war in
safety then led the victory parade through Paris as though he had had
something to do with it. Of course Clegg has opinions, mainly ones
that are formed around the question "how am I going to stay in charge
of the useless Lib Dems?" Any committee you feel we should have to
sort out the inherited demise of our once healthy economy, should be
formed by businessmen.....those that recognise that investment and
profitablility are key to any national recovery. An economy that,
unlike Labour`s, MAKES money rather than just spends it.

> > > out there now see him as a traitor.- Hide quoted text -

[Anthonychng]

Not sure whether it is distance that causes it, but you constantly
show you haven`t a clue about British politics or Britain`s economy
and how to improve it You just know how to mouth-off.....and even
that not very succesfully.

> > How so.? do explain in detail- Hide quoted text -

[Anthonychng]

Nothing you have to say will "sink in" as you put it because it floats
on the surface of commonsense, like scum on a pond.

> > That would be the post you made which you can't explain.!- Hide quoted text -

[Affa]

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:42:13 PM UTC+1, Anthonychng wrote:

 

   That the likely effect of doing a downer on rich people will mean that they will take their
entrepreneurial gifts ....and their money elsewhere.  

 

 

 Fuck 'em! Let the greedy bastards leave the country, it would be a better place without them. .........

they got rich here, avoid paying taxes, and the scarper ....... who values these opportunists - the Tories do!

How they imagine they can continue earning their fortunes elsewhere might come as a shock - but I'm sure that when they're gone there will be someone else to fill their boots and have a go at making another fortune for themselves ........ and if they pay their taxes they're welcome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jar]

lol the mask slips AFFA you really do dream of Russia and its 5 year plans. Have you seen all those houses and yachts etc Putin has at his disposal. The Socialist head honchos have it a lot better than ours  and yes we can tell them to fuck off without fear of spending a long time with the pussies in the gulags.

If they have made their fortunes they wont have to bother about money will they and they wont have the greedy and envious socialists trying to take it off them like Harold Wilson and his Super tax in order to fund socialist welfare ponces

[Affa]

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 5:58:16 PM UTC+1, jar wrote:

 

If they have made their fortunes they wont have to bother .........

 

 

So they pass up a business opportunity, and leave. But the business opportunity remains - for someone else to

take on. Someone who isn't going to balk at having to pay out a small increase in taxes on the huge profits available.

"It's the Market stupid", the money that was made can still be made while ever the Market remains

 

 

 

 

[ewill]

When will lefties realise that higher taxes are a positive
disincentive to business expanding and/or making more profit?

[ewill]

They'll simply close up/sell up and take their money with them to a
tax regieme that has realised that a lower percentage of lots is a
much larger figure than a higher percentage of nothing

> > themselves ........ and if they pay their taxes they're welcome.- Hide quoted text -

[Affa]

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 7:01:44 PM UTC+1, ewill wrote:

 

When will lefties realise that higher taxes are a positive
disincentive to business expanding and/or making more profit?

 

 

More profit from whom? People already made less wealthy due to austerity?

"We are ALL in it together" should mean that everyone should accept less, not more.

More taxes means less borrowing - are you in favour of more borrowing?

 

A higher tax on earnings does not reduce those earnings, it merely reduces the profit.

When everyone else is asked to take a wage freeze, in effect a wage cut when inflation is rampant, why is

it wrong to expect business to cream off less?

Can't they do their bit, can't they pull their weight, or is it only the poor guy made to?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Affa]

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 7:03:57 PM UTC+1, ewill wrote:

 

They'll simply close up/sell up and take their money with them to a
tax regieme that has realised that a lower percentage of lots is a
much larger figure than a higher percentage of nothing

 

 

They are here, doing business, making money.

If they leave that opens the door for someone else to do business, to make money.

There is not reduced earnings capability from a higher tax on profits ..... if they don't make a profit the don't

pay any taxes.

 

In time you will mention 'investment' ...........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ewill]

Doors are open all the time to those who choose to take the risk and
do the work

Someone with a successful shop or two they've started from scratch
might look to expanding to others and employing more workers if they
are not heavily taxed and the extra work and risk involved in
successful expansion programs is made worthwhile to them

Tax their efforts more heavily and they stay put , satisfied with the
good living they already make and with the staff (probably relatives
or friends)they know are reliable.

<<There is not reduced earnings capability from a higher tax on
profits >>

Which of the supermodels was it who said it's not worth getting out of
bed for less than $10k a day?

Why are international sports stars relunctant to perform in the UK?

Why take on extra work and risk unecessarily just to pay more to the
taxman?

[ewill]

<<More taxes means less borrowing - are you in favour of more
borrowing? <<

I'm in favour of less public sector spending .

[Affa]

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 7:37:11 PM UTC+1, ewill wrote:

Someone with a successful shop or two they've started from scratch
might look to expanding to others and employing more workers if they
are not heavily taxed and the extra work and risk involved in
successful expansion programs is made worthwhile to them

 

And they still will expand if there is a profit to be made. It makes no difference, the

bottom line remains exactly the same . If there is a business opportunity there - 'is it worth it'.

<<There is not reduced earnings capability from a higher tax on
profits >>

Which of the supermodels was it who said it's not worth getting out of
bed for less than $10k a day?

Why are international sports stars relunctant to perform in the UK?

Why take on extra work and risk unecessarily just to pay more to  the
taxman?

 

But it's not 'just to pay more to the tax man'. They still retain the bulk of the profits!

The rest is only in support of greed, corporate or not  ......... which is what caused this mess.

 

 

 

 

 

[Trueblue]

On Thursday, 30 August 2012 19:19:52 UTC+1, Affa wrote:

 

 

More profit from whom? People already made less wealthy due to austerity?

 

Wouldn't be any Austerity if Labour had lived within its means

[ewill]

And they still will expand if there is a profit to be made>>

Not if the taxman is disproportionately profiting from their efforts
and risk taking and they can see that the state merely wastes their
efforts on useless projects, IT that doesn't work,welfare scroungers,
immigrants, diversity and equality training,too many public sector
staff , big government , quangos, the pointless creation of a Supreme
Court , etc etc etc

What's the point in undetaking further work , more admin, taking on
loans, recruiting, paying more business rates and taking even more
risk to ''earn'' an extra £10000 only to hand over £5000 of that to
the taxman

The rest is only in support of greed<<

You public sector lefties really have no clue about incentive
whatsoever

[Affa]

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:36:47 PM UTC+1, ewill wrote:

 

And they still will expand if there is a profit to be made>>

Not if the taxman is disproportionately profiting from their efforts

 

 

 'Disproportionately'?

Let's take a theorhetical figure for the tax increase, say 5% or 5p in the £.

If this new venture makes a profit the investor still retains 95% of what it would prior

to the increase, and the tax man 5% more. That is not disproportionate, it hardly affects the

value assessment at all ......... nowhere near as much inflation and interest rate increases have

if you borrow the investment money in the first instance. Those two have done far more to deter investment!

 

 

 

 

 

[Trueblue]

On Thursday, 30 August 2012 21:02:11 UTC+1, Affa wrote:

 

 'Disproportionately'?

Let's take a theorhetical figure for the tax increase, say 5% or 5p in the £.

If this new venture makes a profit the investor still retains 95%

 

You forgetting the tax rate before the 5%

 

 

[ewill]

<<'Disproportionately'?
Let's take a theorhetical figure for the tax increase, say 5% or 5p
in
the £.
If this new venture makes a profit the investor still retains 95% of
what
it would prior
to the increase, and the tax man 5% more. That is not
disproportionate, it
hardly affects the
value assessment at all >>

ROFL

I marvel at the sheer hypocrisy of the lefty who screamed anti Tory
blue murder about an (obviously) proportionate decrease in the top
rate of income tax from 50% to 45% which << is not disproportionate,

it
hardly affects the value assessment at all >>

[Affa]

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:11:26 PM UTC+1, Trueblue wrote:

On Thursday, 30 August 2012 21:02:11 UTC+1, Affa wrote:

 

 'Disproportionately'?

Let's take a theorhetical figure for the tax increase, say 5% or 5p in the £.

If this new venture makes a profit the investor still retains 95% of what it would prior

to the increase,

You forgetting the tax rate before the 5%

 

 

No I didn't!  I've added what you try to ignore - red.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Trueblue]

On Thursday, 30 August 2012 21:30:09 UTC+1, Affa wrote:

 

No I didn't!  I've added what you try to ignore - red.

 

ROTFLMHO, you clearly state a 5% INCREASE on the tax allready imposed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Affa]

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:12:02 PM UTC+1, ewill wrote:

ROFL

I marvel at the sheer hypocrisy of the lefty who screamed anti Tory
blue murder about an (obviously) proportionate decrease in the top
rate of income tax from 50% to 45% which << is not disproportionate,
it hardly affects the value assessment at all >>

 I defy you to find where I have 'screamed' anything at all about the tax cut to top earners.

I know your talent for research ........ I have not made any damning remarks about it at all.

 

In any case the two are not camparable ........ my point was that if a venture is determined to

have a fair chance of making a profit, putting a 5% extra tax on those profits isn't likely to alter the assessment at all. Whereas a 5% increase in borrowing on the capital investment, due regardless of profit or indeed loss, would and does.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Trueblue]

On Thursday, 30 August 2012 21:40:13 UTC+1, Affa wrote:

 ........ my point was that if a venture is determined to

have a fair chance of making a profit, putting a 5% extra tax on those profits isn't likely to alter the assessment at all. 

 

Just look at what Enron Browns extra tax did to the Pension industry

 

 

 

 

 

[ewill]

When you are in a hole , stop digging

(Don't pretend you're having another craft moment - your lefty posts
about Tory tax cuts for the ''rich'' have been all over this board )

[ewill]

exactly

[Affa]

 Then demand the Tories put the tax break back. The Stock market crash lost the pensions funds more (est £250bl) as has extended life expectency. Brown does take the blame for these too. If the companies hadn't fiddled the books, given pensions holidays, and invested more wisely, they wouldn't have been targeted by Lamont .......... oops.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Affa]

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:54:12 PM UTC+1, ewill wrote:

 

When you are in a hole , stop digging

(Don't pretend you're having another craft moment -  your lefty posts
about Tory tax cuts for the ''rich'' have been all over this board )

 

 

Liar!

I'll force you to show where ......... you shouldn't make false claims Elaine, I regret having to call your bluff.

 

 

 

 

[Trueblue]

On Thursday, 30 August 2012 22:38:36 UTC+1, Affa wrote:

 Then demand the Tories put the tax break back.

 

 

They will when they have sorted out the enormous mess Labour left

 

The Stock market crash lost the pensions funds more (est £250bl) as has extended life expectency. Brown does take the blame for these too. If the companies hadn't fiddled the books, given pensions holidays, and invested more wisely, they wouldn't have been targeted by Lamont .......... oops.

 

Yes Affa, fucking whoops, the largest and longest ever stock market collapse started in 2000/2001 and pension holidays as they are wrongly termed were ENFORCED by Labour to stop companies avoiding taxes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ewill]

You really do have some nerve

My memory is sound , unlike yours

[ewill]

Your posts are littered with calls for tax rises on your perceived
''wealthy'' instead of your perceived tax rises for the poor

An example of one of your comments on the budget

<< How far does he have to look Tony? He isn't looking at corporations
who
pay virtually no tax, he isn't looking at bankers who use off-shore
investments as a means to avoid paying taxes, he isn't raising VAT on
luxury items and reducing it on essential purchases ......... there's
lots
of ways he can raise more in taxation, but he instead focuses on
robbing
the poorest and keeping the wealthy happy. His problem as you will be
well
aware is that there's only so much of the tax burden the public can
take
before it impacts on the economy, political popularity, and the
eventual
demise of the government ........ and George is hastening that
demise.*>>

> > Elaine, I regret having to call your bluff.- Hide quoted text -

[Affa]

On Friday, August 31, 2012 12:20:30 AM UTC+1, ewill wrote:

 

You really do have some nerve

My memory is sound , unlike yours

 

 

Go for it Elaine!

You know you can, the record is there, find a post of mine where

I have a go at the Chancellor for cutting the top rate of tax.

 

This seems to be a new tactic of you Tories. You're not the first to

accuse me of having posted an opinion I have not expressed.

It isn't a 'memory' failure you all have, but something far more sinister.

 

I've just read the result of your first effort ......... You're pathetic is the word that came to

mind. Unsurprisingly you do not have the decency to retract your allegation.

And you wonder why you Tories are described in such awful terms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ewill]

You enjoy calling people liars - it speaks reams about your mindset
when your hypocrisy is pointed out

Perhaps you should list where you have stated that reducing income tax
from 50% to 45% is a great idea, if , as you claim you really haven't
criticised it?

I've given you one example of one of your comments on the budget-
that's sufficient

I really can't be bothered looking further , I have a life - others
have and can read your myopic posts

[Anthonychng]

I am not sure whether you can still buy soap-boxes Affa, but if you
can, I would invest in one if I were you. Can you prove that all
people with money avoid paying taxes? I thought not! How do you
make them out to be opportunists? How would the country be better
off without them? At this point I lost interest in you frothy-
mouthed blather. You speak like someone who is jealous in the
extreme of ANYONE who, by their own endeavours, has managed to do a
little better than you......and who should be punished for it. Chip
on shoulder?

[Anthonychng]

Absolute schoolboy garbage Affa. You speak of "a small increase in
taxes on huge profits available." And who are these people waiting
in the wings who will not baulk etc.,etc., etc? If they are so keen
why are they not in the market place now? And your throw-away line
"so they pass up a business opportunity and leave" THEY being the
people with a few bob who might just decide Clegg is a fool who wants
to tax them out of existence, it seems that, if you had your way,
there would be no businesses, no employment, no entrepreneurs, no
financial riskj takers.....just grey faced, little red book
clutching , boring socialists, waiting for their weekly portion of
rice and a cabbage leaf supplied by equally grey-faced, red book
clutching officials from some central politbureau. well, good luck
to you with that.

On Aug 30, 6:56 pm, Affa <Affajee...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 5:58:16 PM UTC+1, jar wrote:
> > If they have made their fortunes they wont have to bother .........
>
> So they pass up a business opportunity, and leave. But the business
> opportunity remains - for someone else to
> take on. Someone who isn't going to balk at having to pay out a small
> increase in taxes on the huge profits available.
> "It's the Market stupid", the money that was made can still be made while
> ever the Market remains

[Anthonychng]

People are made less wealthy because the wealth they thought they
enjoyed under Labour was all based on credit.....or debt and economic
lies. Reality is with us now and that does indeed mean a measure of
austerity, although neither you nor anyone else is really suffering at
a level which older people well remember from the war years and those
immediately following. Nowadays the austerity you refer to is quite
gentle. You might not be able to spend as much on luxuries, or might
have to cut back on a holiday abroad. That is about the strength of
it so far. so stop whingeing or come up with a workable alternative
to that which the government is saddled with.

[jar]

EW is correct and I can prove it. When Wilson was charging his super tax I was selling these wealthy people properties as they had sold up and retired early being fed up having to donate an excessive amount to the tax man. Under a fairer tax scheme these people would have used their skills and contacts to expand their businesses to the benefit of all. Socialists are blind to this concept which inevitably leads to the country being in financial difficulties

[Affa]

On Friday, August 31, 2012 12:43:47 PM UTC+1, ewill wrote:

 

You enjoy calling people liars - it speaks reams about your mindset
when your hypocrisy is pointed out

 

 

No; I didn't enjoy using 'liar' as a prompt, I did so because, and not for the first time,

I've been accused of having posted things I know I have not.

The word was used as an imperative to make you justify your accusation (knowing you could not) or

retract it.

I failed ...... because you still insist you were correct. I should have known that the

 expected integrity was lacking in you. Nevertheless, I apologise for the

slur first given ........ but not this last one, which imo you do deserve.

That's enough, but I must mention that there are others with this same problem - at

least I see it as a problem simply because to base an argument on a falsity means there ican be no debate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

[Affa]

On Friday, August 31, 2012 11:18:26 PM UTC+1, jar wrote:

 

EW is correct and I can prove it. When Wilson was charging his super tax  .......

 

 

But we are not talking of excessive rates, only comparable rates to what PAYE people pay.

Business has had its rates cut, with more cuts on the way, ..... we are not all in this together.

I argue that a modest tax on PROFITS does not prevent business forming - I base my

assertion on the MARKET. If the Market is there, business will exploit it regardless of taxation

as long as there is a profit to be made.

This is no different from the CONSUMERISM argument which I think you do agree can

stimulate an economy, indeed does so now.

Consider ...... if taxes were lower on workers, consumerism would rise creating more business, more jobs.

But lower taxes on business does not revitalise the Market, does not add to Consumerism, does

not create jobs.

 

 

 

 

 

[jar]

I am talking about overheads that are pitched too high that prevent business expansion and encourage people not to spend their time and expertise in order for the gvt to waste.

Just as well as we arnt all OUT together AFFA which we were until Mrs T allowed business to be competetive. Yup Ive heard what Sosialists call modest tax but they are a tax and spend party by tradition and unless they are trying to get elected they think like you and do not like a success story. But AFFA if the private sector engine does do well consumers do well and as you know the less there are out of work the stronger they get as far as getting a fair deal is concerned

[Affa]

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 11:57:27 AM UTC+1, jar wrote:

 

I am talking about overheads that are pitched too high that prevent business expansion and encourage people not to spend their time and expertise in order for the gvt to waste.

 

 

 And I'm not talking about operational costs ........ I'm looking at how much PROFIT is made and saying that they should

pay as the earn like everyone else ......... not be given lenient tax breaks when the Chancellor is having to borrow so much.

What I dispute is the argument that business will uproot and vanish - it won't while ever there is PROFIT to be made. A slightly

 less PROFIT is still a PROFIT in anyones language.

 

 

Just as well as we arnt all OUT together AFFA which we were until Mrs T allowed business to be competetive.

 

 

I think you have a cheek to mention 'competition', and 'Thatcher' in the same sentence .......... that argument is well

discredited already. We only have to look at her Financial Sector Reforms that freed the Industry to become more

competative ....... or we can look at the PRIVATISATION surge which promised competition would deliver cheaper and better services.

 Those bricks in the foundation wall of Conservatives have crumbled.

 

 

.

 

 

 

[jar]

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 12:31:58 PM UTC+1, Affa wrote:

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 11:57:27 AM UTC+1, jar wrote:

 

I am talking about overheads that are pitched too high that prevent business expansion and encourage people not to spend their time and expertise in order for the gvt to waste.

 

 

 And I'm not talking about operational costs ........ I'm looking at how much PROFIT is made and saying that they should

pay as the earn like everyone else ......... not be given lenient tax breaks when the Chancellor is having to borrow so much.

What I dispute is the argument that business will uproot and vanish - it won't while ever there is PROFIT to be made. A slightly

 less PROFIT is still a PROFIT in anyones language.

It comes down to the same thing AFFA you are talking Socialist speak. If a person takes the risk of running a business and it becomes successful he want to enjoy the fruits of his success . Too much taxation and you should be clear what that means destroys incentive , What the left dont seem to realise that the better the boss does the better it is for them and the general emplyment structure which of cours gives them more bargaining power. But unlike the US where the workers see that theres something about the left here that looks on someone else doing well as a target for abuse. I know why and have said so. 

 

 

Just as well as we arnt all OUT together AFFA which we were until Mrs T allowed business to be competetive.

 

 

I think you have a cheek to mention 'competition', and 'Thatcher' in the same sentence .......... that argument is well

discredited already. We only have to look at her Financial Sector Reforms that freed the Industry to become more

competative ....... or we can look at the PRIVATISATION surge which promised competition would deliver cheaper and better services.

 Those bricks in the foundation wall of Conservatives have crumbled.

 

 Oh no I dont its you that has the usual blind spot . It was Thatcher that got us out of the mire by making us more competetive dispite the efforts of the left and the personal ambitions of the union barons. You are welcome to look at it from your perspective but if a firm is not competetive it goes under If that firm works for the gvt and isnt properly overseen like the PFI deals that is when you see its unacceptable side. Lifes rough out there and the fittest survive and are the engine that keeps the economy thriving before a Socialst gvt come in and spend it on their pet scemes and spend it wastefully which doles away with the built up wealth the country once had. Its happened twice now. I dont fanvy giving them another chance

.

 

 

 

[ewill]

It all comes down to the politics of envy. Have you noticed how the
lefty imputes their own odd views onto their perception of the
decision making process of wealth creators in the private sector?

Lefties don't understand the cost, effort and risks involved in
employing staff and trying to expand with the house in hock to the
bank whilst still sleeping at night. Lefties think business just
happens and have no such worries like in the public sector where its a
case of ''the taxpayer will pay irrespective.

There used to be a plethora of ''pick your own'' strawberries/
gooseberries etc on farms where people could go and enjoy an odd hour
or two picking fruit directly from the plant rather than buying from
Tesco , families could go , much fruit was eaten and the fruit that
reached the entrance , weighed , paid for and taken home. The previous
administration changed the rules for h&s escalating costs for the
farmers - most did a value judgement and simply decided that enough
and closed down their operation. The lefty simply thinks that
''someone'' will open another pyo.

It doesn't work like that.

There's a value judgement involved for employers , a business closes
down because the tax rises make the extra work, time , admin,
oversight ,effort and risk unnecessary additions to the current
lifestyle of the business owner - the lefty simply thinks ''someone''
will re-open it/start another and the business owner who got out
merely a greedy git for resting on their laurels . Anyway the lefty
''modest'' rise in taxation is generally considered enormous by those
who would be targetted

> > .- Hide quoted text -
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Affa]

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 4:26:45 PM UTC+1, jar wrote:

 

. Too much taxation and you should be clear what that means destroys incentive ,

 

 

Since coming to office Osborne has cut the main Corporation tax rate each year with another cut promised for next year.

Has it increased business investment, has business flourished?

 Has it in fact done anything other than put a few more £mls into businessmen's pockets?

Compare to how much less is in the pockets of the rest .........

 

It is easy to say that those who fund the Tory party are rewarded, the majority of those that elect the Tory party get stung.

 

 

 

 

[Trueblue]

On Saturday, 1 September 2012 19:36:17 UTC+1, Affa wrote:

 

 

Since coming to office Osborne has cut the main Corporation tax rate each year with another cut promised for next year.

Has it increased business investment, has business flourished?

 

 

Its helped create 800.000 private sector jobs which would never have happened under Labour

[Affa]

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 7:45:09 PM UTC+1, Trueblue wrote:

 

 

Since coming to office Osborne has cut the main Corporation tax rate each year with another cut promised for next year.

Has it increased business investment, has business flourished?

 

 

Its helped create 800.000 private sector jobs which would never have happened under Labour

 

 

OK TB, if the cutting of Corporation tax is such a wonderful method of encouraging business investmrnt, then why didn't

Osborne cut the 6p off the rate from day one instead of phasing it in bit by bit, and provide a real boost to the flagging economy?

Why waste these years, why not cut it even further?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Trueblue]

On Saturday, 1 September 2012 20:02:32 UTC+1, Affa wrote:

 

OK TB, if the cutting of Corporation tax is such a wonderful method of encouraging business investmrnt, then why didn't

Osborne cut the 6p off the rate from day one instead of phasing it in bit by bit, and provide a real boost to the flagging economy?

 

 

Something to do with Labours £179 Billion per year DEFICIT

 

 

 

 

[Affa]

But you argue that cutting Corporation tax is what the economy needs to reduce the deficit, surely if it's true then  it was urgent .

 

 

 

 

 

[Affa]

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 7:45:09 PM UTC+1, Trueblue wrote:

 

Since coming to office Osborne has cut the main Corporation tax rate each year with another cut promised for next year.

Has it increased business investment, has business flourished?

 

 

Its helped create 800.000 private sector jobs which would never have happened under Labour

 

 

From the Telegraph June 20th 2012 .........

 

The 679 UK projects funded by foreign direct investment (FDI) in 2011 represent a 7pc decline on the previous year, according to Ernst & Young.

Germany’s share of inward investment rose by 15pc over the same period and it now trails the UK by just 2pc in terms of European countries’ share of FDI.

It also secured more manufacturing projects from overseas investors than the UK for the first time in 15 years and won twice as many projects from Chinese businesses.

Ernst & Young said “the level of domestic demand is the single most important factor” in investment decisions.

Britain "the best place to do business", eh? So Ernst thinks that 'domestic demand' is the 'most important factor', something I personally have some consideration for. But what does it mean? Well I guess it means that austerity measures reduce domestic demand and put off investors developing their business here. Logical really!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Trueblue]

On Saturday, 1 September 2012 20:24:46 UTC+1, Affa wrote:

 

But you argue that cutting Corporation tax is what the economy needs to reduce the deficit, surely if it's true then  it was urgent .

 

Saving the country from the oblivion of Labour was the most urgent 

 

 

 

[Affa]

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 8:50:58 PM UTC+1, Trueblue wrote:

 

Saving the country from the oblivion of Labour was the most urgent 

 

 

But we haven't been saved!

We're now deeper in the mire than before, and in recession.

 

We can start the 'would have been' argument again if you like .... we do now know what is in regard to the Tories, and it most certainly isn't what they said it 'would' be.

They're not very good at predicting what life will be like in the future - predictions of Doom & Gloom under Labour turn into the reality of Doom & Gloom under Tories.

 

Mrs T started it when she promised to cut unemployment and then proceeded to increase it by over two million.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonksy]

Do you tory aresholes know any other excuse than envy? Do you think everyone envies this croc of shit you support for stealing another million pound per week from the tax payers in the form of expenses ewill? And as for your precious private sector they are very content to pay shit wages and seeing the tax payers pick-up the shortfall whilst the bosses and their companies are fiddling their taxes for all they can, and your bunch of wankers allow the arseholes to do it..

[jar]

The answer to your claim about Mrs T has been given many times but it appears that your socialist filter has blocked the reasons why. You see it in the necessary thinning down of an overgrown pubkic sector from big gvt Labour practices. In Mrs Ts time The country could not afford to continue subsidising overmanned and inefficient industry and the deadwood had to be cut out to make us competetive once more. Argue with fact as long as you like but thats the explanation.

 Of course the country isnt saved in 30months it wasnt last time and it was even worse this time except that the induc

trial relations legislation was wisely left untampered with but the Unions have found an even more effective way of influencing the gvt if Labour get in by buying them.

Of course its doom and gloom before the fever breaks AFFA

[Trueblue]

On Saturday, 1 September 2012 21:13:54 UTC+1, Affa wrote:

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 8:50:58 PM UTC+1, Trueblue wrote:

 

Saving the country from the oblivion of Labour was the most urgent 

 

 

But we haven't been saved!

 

SAVING

[ewill]

<<this croc of shit you support for stealing another million
pound per week from the tax payers in the form of expenses ewill?>>

Are you claiming this is just conservative MP expenses ? or just
Coalition MPs ? or all MP's?

I'd only 'favour' one of those groups to keep a labour administration
out , support is a difficult word because the current Conservative
cabinet members in the coalition are much to far to the left of my
opinions

I'd vote conservative to keep labour out rather than because I support
their centre left stance

[jar]

Many think that way EW but I havnt entirely given up on Cameron because I can understand the position he finds himself in. Clegg who probably is less left wing inclined than his fellow MPs is very vulnerable to the likes of Cable God help us. Cameron  has to pander to the Lib Dems for obvious reasons and then there are those Tory MPs that for a change refuse to be rubber stamp MPs .So it could be said that the man is between a rock and a hard place. Now if he does weather this storm I hope he will have learnt a few lessons especially in regards to the relationship between the  executive and  MPs.

 Whether its propaganda or not we are told that he is very elitist and wants his own type around him at the expense of obvious other available talent.

Having said that we are starting to hear of schisms between the two Eds . Balls again shows no respect for the Labour leader and it will be interesting if Milliband will stand up to him. If I were Millieband Id wonder why Balls is spending so much time on his personal ratings. He is a man with an unquenchable ambition coupled with the fact that he considers all around him to be his inferiors.

[Jonksy]

It is ALL MP's expenses Ewill,,,Do remind us ALL who it was who stated that he would put a stop to the abuse of MP's perks and that he would also bring transparency into politics.? A little help for you the wankers name begins with "C". But then supporting that lot as you do, lying and broken promises are the norm..

[ewill]

Just as I thought

It's ALL Mps from ALL parties

Your assertion <<this croc of shit you support for stealing another

million
pound per week from the tax payers in the form of expenses ewill?>>

was incorrect for I do not support ALL parties , I favour but one

[Affa]

On Sunday, September 2, 2012 11:36:32 PM UTC+1, Jonksy wrote:

 

It is ALL MP's expenses Ewill,,,Do remind us ALL who it was who stated that he would put a stop to the abuse of MP's perks and that he would also bring transparency into politics.? A little help for you the wankers name begins with "C". But then supporting that lot as you do, lying and broken promises are the norm..

 

 I don't understand why these folk insist they'd vote to keep Labour out after over a decade during which they saw their fortunes rise as never before.

It is some sort of masochism to insist that a Conservative government is better for them after two decades in which unless you were in Financial Services you were ripped off continually.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonksy]

Now reiterate what croc of shit are in power Ewill and yet again I see you never had the balls to mention who said they were going to clean UP politics? But then the wanker did put ONE of the worst offenders in charge of the non existent so called clean up so we couldn't expect too much from the lying arsehole..

[ewill]

Yes I agree he is in a difficult position but imo far too much
attention is being paid to the sandal wearing bearded Guardianistas
led by Cleggy who should be the junior partners in the coalition

Clegg should be pulling rank against his left wing , led by Cable who
should simply be put out to grass. The man has never been more than an
egotistical fool and the Lord no-one's heard of before , who is
currently liking the sound of his lefty voice should be put firmly
back in his cupboard.

Cameron should be listening to his traditional electorate who want
government expenditure to be slashed , to his MP base who want their
electorate to be represented and he should be taking views from
outside his tight circle - in short he needs to take the earplugs out
when dealing with his own MPs and put them back in when Cleggy and his
mates come whinging about something completely irrelevant

[Affa]

On Sunday, September 2, 2012 11:56:19 PM UTC+1, ewill wrote:

 

Yes I agree he is in a difficult position .........  

Cameron should be listening to his traditional electorate

 

 

Missing the important aspect that he sold out the traditional Tory voter to

persuade the floating voter he and his party were electable.

On their own the core Tory vote is not enough ........ He's only PM because

he ditched Tory values. If he hadn't then it would still be Brown.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonksy]

Funny enough Affa not one of them can come up with anything which is NOW better under their chosen croc..

[Jonksy]

Oh that old bullshit locky...We are still waiting for a link to this bullshit from the last time you used the same old lie..

[ewill]

<<over a decade during which they saw their fortunes rise as never
before. >>

Another craft moment

The last labour administration led by your heros must rank as one of
the disasterous administrations ever in this country

[Jonksy]

Nah that has been overtaken by your wankers Ewill..

[ewill]

On their own the core Tory vote is not enough>>

It would be if he stuck to his guns but Cameron isn't a true Tory in
the same way as Cleggy isn't a lefty liberal and Cable is even further
to the left of the labour party than many labour MPs

[Affa]

On Monday, September 3, 2012 12:07:02 AM UTC+1, Jonksy wrote:

 

Oh that old bullshit locky...We are still waiting for a link to this bullshit from the last time you used the same old lie..

 

 

Read an American analyst's version of how well (not) the coalition is doing

on the UK economy.

He called it The Shrinking UK Economy!

His take on 'deficit reduction' was equally scathing - he accused the Chancellor

of cooking the books. By his estimate the deficit has widened in the first six months

of this year by some £6-7bn.