Isle of Man threatens split over Euro
Melvyn Rowing
THE Isle of Man government is being asked to
declare independence if Britain moves towards
European monetary union. The House of Keys, the
parliament, will debate the subject next month.
Ministers are sceptical about severing all ties in
what is a Crown dependency, relying on Britain for
defence and representation abroad. They believe
the proposal to be premature and ill-informed when
the island is prospering while having power to set
taxes and make laws.
Unemployment is less than one per cent and
economic growth is seven per cent in this offshore
tax haven, but calls for tax harmonisation in the
EU have raised fears that moves to a federal
Europe could damage its financial sector.
David Cannan, a former treasury minister, has
tabled a motion to be heard in 12 days calling for
contingency plans to be drawn up for independence,
including draft arrangements for the Manx pound to
be linked to the American dollar. He said: "If the
UK joins the Emu then the Isle of Man has three
years to determine its future. The finance sector
has to be protected at all costs."
Donald Gelling, Chief Minister, said independence
should be determined by the 72,000 islanders in a
referendum.
It's easy to see why the Island government should
be cautious about the possibility of being drawn
into a tax harmonised Europe. For a good many
years they have been able to make a comfortable
living sheltering citizens of Europe from their
tax hungry governments. Manx palms must rub with
glee at the prospect of the harmonisation of
British taxes with those of Europe!
It is less obvious however, as to why these
financially astute people should choose, in the
event of independance, to link the Manx pound
with the US dollar as opposed to the Euro. The UK
is by far their biggest trading partner. 90% of
tourists visiting the Isle must be British. Why
inflict upon them the need for currency exchange?
Indeed a vote of confidence in the future of the
Euro by people who are prepared to put their money
where their mouths are! Could there be a lesson
to be learned on the mainland?
Mel Rowing
Low Dalby
Pickering
North Yorkshire
UK
Alex Stanway
>Euro by people who are prepared to put their money
>where their mouths are! Could there be a lesson
>to be learned on the mainland?
That makes me so angry. That the UK is being broken up by this stupid EU
project, which most people I talk to want nothing to do with anyway. We need
to make it absolutely clear to everyone that we will not be joining the Euro
now, next year or at any time in the foreseeable future. The best way to do
this is by leaving the EU.
I can see why they would not want the Manx Ł to have anything to do with
the Euro - it will put the ECB into a stronger position to demand tax
harmonisation on the Isle of Man and let them put more pressure on it. They
like the rest of the world are waking up to the fact that the EU is not
about free trade or preventing war, but about empowering some extremely
nasty people over one of the largest and most powerful blocs in the world.
I only hope the British public realise this in time to vote the UK
Independence Party into power, or at least give them a big enough share of
the vote to scare Labour/Conservative/Liberal into withdrawing from the EU
for all time.
Alex
David Davis
<Mel.R...@btinternet.com> writes
>Euro by people who are prepared to put their money
>where their mouths are! Could there be a lesson
>to be learned on the mainland?
>
They MUST go; for their own good! (We cannot save them now; sometimes i
feel very pessimistic, and a nation often dies before it lives again;
such I fear will happen to us.)
The US Dollar is the most important currency in the world. Buy them and
buy them now, for you and we will need them in the terror-days that will
come to us. These men are not stupid, on their island!
>
--
David Davis
David Davis
<ajs....@btinternet.com> writes
>>Indeed a vote of confidence in the future of the
>>Euro by people who are prepared to put their money
>>where their mouths are! Could there be a lesson
>>to be learned on the mainland?
>
>project, which most people I talk to want nothing to do with anyway. We need
>to make it absolutely clear to everyone that we will not be joining the Euro
>now, next year or at any time in the foreseeable future. The best way to do
>this is by leaving the EU.
> I can see why they would not want the Manx Ł to have anything to do with
>the Euro - it will put the ECB into a stronger position to demand tax
>harmonisation on the Isle of Man and let them put more pressure on it. They
>like the rest of the world are waking up to the fact that the EU is not
>about free trade or preventing war, but about empowering some extremely
>nasty people over one of the largest and most powerful blocs in the world.
> I only hope the British public realise this in time to vote the UK
>Independence Party into power, or at least give them a big enough share of
>the vote to scare Labour/Conservative/Liberal into withdrawing from the EU
>for all time.
>
> Alex
>
We owe it to the Manx-Men, to let them align with the dollar and use it
(just like my company will anyway) since we have failed to do our duty
towards them and defend them from the nasties (by "we" I mean our
murdering spineless politicians of all parties. We elected them, so it's
our fault - just like the Germans who DID NOT have to elect Hitler and
could therefore have avoided the reduction of their cities to a height
of one yard. But they didn't. Well, there we are.) If, when it's all
over, we survive, but the men of Manx have "gone" away from us, we who
are left will have only ourselves to blame for failing to stop the
Euro-Geheimstatz-disaster earlier.
>
>
>
>
--
David Davis
m022...@cwcom.net
doesn't like the fact that the Isle of Man is doing very well thank you
and so wants to meddle with its taxes or rather lack of them. It's a
great shame the EU is too arrogant to learn from successes.
Vote No to the Euro
Regards Ludwig
Melvyn Rowing wrote:
> Indeed a vote of confidence in the future of the
> Euro by people who are prepared to put their money
> where their mouths are! Could there be a lesson
> to be learned on the mainland?
>
Alex Stanway
mess...Indeed we may all end up refugees there one day! I don't really
understand the dollar tie up though.
Alex
Richard Caley
as> That makes me so angry. That the UK is being broken up by this stupid EU
as> project
Well, to start with, I don't believe the IoM is part of the UK/
Secondly, they are not threatening to leave. According to the quoted
article, a vote is schedules over whether contingency plans should be
looked at. Pretty vague don't you think.
--
r...@lillith.demon.co.uk _O_
|<
Alex Stanway
QEII is head of state, and as such they and we are united under one monarch.
so in that sense they are. Although in that sense, so are Canada, Australia,
New Zealand and the West Indies. Hmmmmm. After a fasion. But the IoM's case
is different as IoM is a crown dependency, Can, Aus, NZ and WI are ? Just
good friends I suppose!
>Secondly, they are not threatening to leave. According to the quoted
>article, a vote is schedules over whether contingency plans should be
>looked at. Pretty vague don't you think.
Vague, but it could snowball quickly. IoM will not hang around while we hum
and ha over destroying their entire economy for the sake of the EU,
especially when it becomes abundantly obvious that it's going to happen
sooner or later - i.e. we aren't leaving the EU in the next year or so...
regards
Alex
Armin Forker
> The EU uses bully tactics whenever it can to get what it wants. It
> doesn't like the fact that the Isle of Man is doing very well thank you
> and so wants to meddle with its taxes or rather lack of them. It's a
> great shame the EU is too arrogant to learn from successes.
Isle of Man as model for an entire continent?
Did it ever occur to you why low tax areas are always tiny islands or
dwarf states (like Liechtenstein)?
They have almost no infrastructure to care for, no military; they scare
away poor people (Isle of Man is an expensive place to live), in short:
they attract rich people with lower taxes and leave all the problems to
the large countries which in turn have to have higher taxes.
It is a very unfair way to plunder the larger countries and I hope that EU
will build some sort of trade barriers to these territories.
No surprise that Manx people are happy the way it is and fear justice in
the form of fair taxes - very like pirates fear the cost guard.
>> Unemployment is less than one per cent and
>> economic growth is seven per cent in this offshore
>> tax haven, but calls for tax harmonisation in the
>> EU have raised fears that moves to a federal
>> Europe could damage its financial sector.
(...)
>> It's easy to see why the Island government should
>> be cautious about the possibility of being drawn
>> into a tax harmonised Europe. For a good many
>> years they have been able to make a comfortable
>> living sheltering citizens of Europe from their
>> tax hungry governments. Manx palms must rub with
>> glee at the prospect of the harmonisation of
>> British taxes with those of Europe!
--
........................................................
Armin Forker, 51580 Dorn [Rheinland]
http://members.xoom.com/afo/central.htm
........................................................
Robin
<ajs....@btinternet.com> writes
Why should it matter to us what happens to the IoM?
Hardly important to the well-being of the UK what a lot of tax-evaders
do is it?
--
Robin
Please remove 'spam' on reply.
Richard Caley
r> Why should it matter to us what happens to the IoM? Hardly
r> important to the well-being of the UK what a lot of tax-evaders do
r> is it?
Er, why do you assume people on the IoM are tax avoiders, any more
than people in (say) Canada are?
--
Mail me as rjc not s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Alex Stanway
>
>Did it ever occur to you why low tax areas are always tiny islands or
>dwarf states (like Liechtenstein)?
>
>They have almost no infrastructure to care for, no military; they scare
>away poor people (Isle of Man is an expensive place to live), in short:
>they attract rich people with lower taxes and leave all the problems to
>the large countries which in turn have to have higher taxes.
>
>It is a very unfair way to plunder the larger countries and I hope that EU
>will build some sort of trade barriers to these territories.
>
>No surprise that Manx people are happy the way it is and fear justice in
>the form of fair taxes - very like pirates fear the cost guard.
They don't have to pay for things like the Common Agricultural Policy you
mean? And nationalised/subsidised industries? That is true, but that is not
because they're pirates, but rather because they're clever enough not to be
conned by socialists.
IoM's taxes are set at the rate the electorate decides through government,
it's called democracy, and it would be a VERY good model for the entire
world, never mind continent.
Alex
Alex Stanway
>than people in (say) Canada are?
Methinks it is because he has EU disease - a loathing of anything British
in preference to something suggested by a continental European, it is a
strange condition and though mildly contagious it is limited to quite a
small and shrinking percentage of the population at the moment. The danger
is that a milder version of hit has gripped society and large, making people
see the EU as either inevitable or our only option. This is curable however
by a simple remedy known as truth, and the more of it there is out there the
faster Britain will be free of the curse of EU disease.
regards
Alex
Truth can be a obtained free of charge and without a prescription at :
http://www.freebrit.demon.co.uk/
http://www.iits.dircon.co.uk/newalliance/fasti.htm
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/stuart.n2/eurofaq.html
Lord Arthur
<a257...@uni-koeln.de> writes
>m022...@cwcom.net wrote:
>> The EU uses bully tactics whenever it can to get what it wants. It
>> doesn't like the fact that the Isle of Man is doing very well thank you
>> and so wants to meddle with its taxes or rather lack of them. It's a
>> great shame the EU is too arrogant to learn from successes.
>
>
>Did it ever occur to you why low tax areas are always tiny islands or
>dwarf states (like Liechtenstein)?
>
>They have almost no infrastructure to care for, no military; they scare
>away poor people (Isle of Man is an expensive place to live), in short:
>they attract rich people with lower taxes and leave all the problems to
>the large countries which in turn have to have higher taxes.
>
>It is a very unfair way to plunder the larger countries and I hope that EU
>will build some sort of trade barriers to these territories.
>
>No surprise that Manx people are happy the way it is and fear justice in
>the form of fair taxes - very like pirates fear the cost guard.
>
>
Oops, apart from the defence aspect ...
--
Lord Arthur
Hereditary Member of the House of Lolls
Melvyn Rowing
Armin Forker wrote in message
<78hsb2$6...@news.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE>...
>Did it ever occur to you why low tax areas are
always tiny islands or
>dwarf states (like Liechtenstein)?
>
>They have almost no infrastructure to care for,
no military; they scare
>away poor people (Isle of Man is an expensive
place to live), in short:
>they attract rich people with lower taxes and
leave all the problems to
>the large countries which in turn have to have
higher taxes.
What problems of their own making do they leave to
large countries ? Small countries cannot fight
wars and so why should they contribute towards the
cost of military forces? In fact, in this case
the IoM depends upon the UK for defence, mainly
fishery protection (they get a good deal there
don't they?) and one or two other services. In
return for these services they pay a levy to the
UK government. As one of their Tynwald ( one of
the oldest parliaments in Europe) members said in
BBC interview the other day "We get nothing we
don't pay for"
>It is a very unfair way to plunder the larger
countries and I hope that EU
>will build some sort of trade barriers to these
territories.
This is a classic remark for a European Federalist
who, of course is a believer in the freedom of
movement of trade, labour and capital. We should
not be too surprised they are views expressed by
his own government themselves instrumental in
making a mess of Europe and now engaged in
dragging everyone else into the mire.
>No surprise that Manx people are happy the way it
is and fear justice in
>the form of fair taxes - very like pirates fear
the cost guard.
No they are not pirates though once upon a day,
long ago, a lot of them were smugglers which is
where and why the British came in! There are no
political parties and no career politicians to
propagate their endless nonsense. No gravy trains
either national or supra-national MP's there do a
day job and are a real part of the community.
It's the other kind that are the modern day
pirates.
By the way, why is there an inherent unfairness in
low taxation?
Regards
Robin
<s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk> writes
>In article <SYYLLDA+...@droom.demon.co.uk>, Robin (r) writes:
>
>r> Why should it matter to us what happens to the IoM? Hardly
>r> important to the well-being of the UK what a lot of tax-evaders do
>r> is it?
>
>than people in (say) Canada are?
>
allow a few plebs to live there to serve the rcih but I suspect that you
or I ( definitely I) would have great difficulty moving to there.
Now I have no axe to grind, they can do whatever they wish, but why
would it matter to me if the IoM decided to detach itself from the UK?
Richard Caley
>> Er, why do you assume people on the IoM are tax avoiders, any more
>> than people in (say) Canada are?
r> Because the IoM *is* a tax haven for the very wealthy.
It's a place where ordinary people live. You should think twice about
ranting on about people you have never met and know nothing about.
r> Of course they allow a few plebs to live there to serve the rcih
r> but I suspect that you or I ( definitely I) would have great
r> difficulty moving to there.
Crap. Appart from being a bit expensive (as is generally the case for
small islands), it's just a (rather conservative) place people live.
r> Now I have no axe to grind,
You just like to post insults about randomly selected groups. Saves
turning your brain on I suppose.
Pet...@aol.com
"Alex Stanway" <ajs....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >Indeed a vote of confidence in the future of the
> >Euro by people who are prepared to put their money
> >where their mouths are! Could there be a lesson
> >to be learned on the mainland?
>
> to make it absolutely clear to everyone that we will not be joining the Euro
> now, next year or at any time in the foreseeable future. The best way to do
> this is by leaving the EU.
> I can see why they would not want the Manx Ł to have anything to do with
> the Euro - it will put the ECB into a stronger position to demand tax
> harmonisation on the Isle of Man and let them put more pressure on it. They
> like the rest of the world are waking up to the fact that the EU is not
> about free trade or preventing war, but about empowering some extremely
> nasty people over one of the largest and most powerful blocs in the world.
> I only hope the British public realise this in time to vote the UK
> Independence Party into power, or at least give them a big enough share of
> the vote to scare Labour/Conservative/Liberal into withdrawing from the EU
> for all time.
Timeout Alex. Suggest you read what they actually have said about tax
harmonisation before you start another one of these sermons. Isle of Man,
like Channel Islands, Monaco et al are tax heavens. And it is that they want
to stop.
Peter
(getting a bit tired to keep responding to this propaganda)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Alex Stanway
>allow a few plebs to live there to serve the rcih but I suspect that you
>or I ( definitely I) would have great difficulty moving to there.
But if you became moderately well off then you would have no problem at all
in moving your savings there to avoid taxes.
>Now I have no axe to grind, they can do whatever they wish, but why
>would it matter to me if the IoM decided to detach itself from the UK?
You should certainly care if those with power over you (i.e. an unelected
government like the EC) starts throwing it's weight around and using bully
boy tactics to set the tax rates in other countries, because that means
they're setting higher ones for you. The reason they don't like IoM is
because they want to raise taxes for us, but see that we will put money on
IoM if it will be taxed here. This short term thinking tends to forget that
there is 95% of the world where we can invest money and while they chase it
around the place, other countries will be getting rich and we will be
getting poorer and poorer, while taxes rise.
Alex
Alex Stanway
>harmonisation before you start another one of these sermons. Isle of Man,
>like Channel Islands, Monaco et al are tax heavens. And it is that they
want
>to stop.
That is what makes me angry, who are they to tell other countries what their
taxes should be? They do not even have a mandate to set ours! The IoM is
part of the UK but not part of the EU, if the UK/EU push the IoM and Channel
Islands to raise their taxes then they will leave the UK.
>Peter
>(getting a bit tired to keep responding to this propaganda)
Then don't as your answers seldom address the points.
--
Alex
Britain in Europe, but NOTHING to do with the EU
rastus j smith-booth
Alex Stanway <ajs....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:78gh6v$j1t$4...@mendelevium.btinternet.com...
>Vague, but it could snowball quickly.
Have you any evidence of this?
>IoM will not hang around while we hum and ha over destroying their >entire
economy for the sake of the EU,
I know I certainly would'nt, we've been parasites for over 1000 years, it
would be entirely unreasonable to expect us to stop now.
>especially when it becomes abundantly obvious
Can you give some sort of timescale for this? apart from sooner or later.
> that it's going to happen sooner or later
Thought you'd say that.
- i.e. we aren't leaving the EU in the next year or so...
Yes,, I suppose their imaginations could stretch that far ahead.
rastus j smith-booth
Alex Stanway <alex.s...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:78lbpp$42o$4...@mendelevium.btinternet.com...
>That is what makes me angry, who are they to tell other countries what
>their taxes should be?
Thats life, how about if we just make it all fair and square. Every county
in the UK becomes a tax haven, in fact be really fair, make the whole world
a tax haven. Sound Good Alex?
Of course you would'nt have any jobs or income because you'd have no one to
put money in your tax haven. They'd keep it in their own, if they had
anything to put in it, that is. Which they would'nt.
for more vacuous information visit>http://www.freebrit.demon.co.uk/
>http://www.iits.dircon.co.uk/newalliance/fasti.htm
>http://web.ukonline.co.uk/stuart.n2/eurofaq.html
PJS
Stanway" <alex.s...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >Timeout Alex. Suggest you read what they actually have said about tax
> >harmonisation before you start another one of these sermons. Isle of Man,
> >like Channel Islands, Monaco et al are tax heavens. And it is that they
> want
> >to stop.
>
> That is what makes me angry, who are they to tell other countries what their
> taxes should be? They do not even have a mandate to set ours! The IoM is
> part of the UK
----------------------------------------------------------------
No, it is a crown dependency outside the UK, but recognising the suzerainty of
the United Kingdom.
---
No matter where you go in the World, there you are.
rastus j smith-booth
<m022...@cwcom.net> wrote in message news:36AB7902...@cwcom.net...
>The EU uses bully tactics whenever it can to get what it wants.
It should be stopped immediately.
> It doesn't like the fact that the Isle of Man is doing very well
Oh! why's that?
> thank you
thats ok
>and so wants to meddle with its taxes or rather lack of them.
What,! no taxes, can you explain why this facility is not available to more
people?
>It's a great shame the EU is too arrogant to learn from successes.
Quite true,,, The IOM would'nt rely on income from any EU countries by any
chance.? You know, people avoiding taxes, that type of thing, dodgy
Directors unofficial Pension funds etc..?
>Vote No to the Euro
When's the Vote?
>Regards Ludwig
Thats ok, no need to apologize
Alex Stanway
>Have you any evidence of this?
Scotland?
> >IoM will not hang around while we hum and ha over destroying their
>entire
>economy for the sake of the EU,
>I know I certainly would'nt, we've been parasites for over 1000 years, it
>would be entirely unreasonable to expect us to stop now.
Anti British feeling is not a good reason to destroy the country.
>>especially when it becomes abundantly obvious
>Can you give some sort of timescale for this? apart from sooner or later.
>
>> that it's going to happen sooner or later
Welllll, it all depends on the EU. As with so many of these things, it may
be that the whole thing is already done and dusted, and is just waiting for
public opinion to focus elsewhere so that they can implement it.
> Thought you'd say that.
>
> - i.e. we aren't leaving the EU in the next year or so...
>
>Yes,, I suppose their imaginations could stretch that far ahead.
???
Alex
--
Democracy, even if we vote wrong!
Alex Stanway
>in the UK becomes a tax haven, in fact be really fair, make the whole world
>a tax haven. Sound Good Alex?
Yes.
>Of course you would'nt have any jobs or income because you'd have no one to
>put money in your tax haven. They'd keep it in their own, if they had
>anything to put in it, that is. Which they would'nt.
And we would have our money to spend ourselves! Of course you would hate
that as you have no confidence in your self or your fellow man, and so you
believe bureaucrats and unelected politicians are best place to spend it for
you.
Anyway, think about what you say : Are the EU really going to behave like
this towards every bloc with lower taxes? Japan? USA? Even Switzerland I
suspect will give them short shrift if they do. By raising taxes they will
just be cheating themselves (ie us) out of revenue and investment.
Alex Stanway
>
> It should be stopped immediately.
That's why we want to leave, you see the public can't stop that sort of
thing unless we have democracy.
>> It doesn't like the fact that the Isle of Man is doing very well
>
>Oh! why's that?
Because they want to push taxes higher but they know that doing that will
chase investment away to IoM, and indeed the other 94% of the world, but
because it's going to IoM at the moment they make that the focus of their
attention, the Commission being too stupid to see that the IoM is but one of
many places with lower taxes than they would like.
>>and so wants to meddle with its taxes or rather lack of them.
>
>What,! no taxes, can you explain why this facility is not available to more
>people?
Because we have the European Commission and huge wasteful government to
spend our money for us.
>>It's a great shame the EU is too arrogant to learn from successes.
>
>Quite true,,, The IOM would'nt rely on income from any EU countries by any
>chance.? You know, people avoiding taxes, that type of thing, dodgy
>Directors unofficial Pension funds etc..?
And that's unfair tax competition I suppose? I say it is perfectly fair and
if the EU wants to avoid losing revenue that way then it should encourage
tax competition with in it's own borders. It can't do that though, as the
treaties say not, and their blinkered 70s nationalist* logic doesn't see
that.
Alex
*That is nationalist in their new nation, the EU.
Wiggy
nternet.com>, Alex Stanway (Alex Stanway <alex.s...@btinternet.com>)
writ...
>The IoM is
>part of the UK but not part of the EU,
Let's get this bit straight: The IoM is NEITHER PART OF THE UK NOR THE
EU. The Channel Islands & IoM are crown protectorates OUTSIDE THE UNITED
KINGDOM. Got it?
>if the UK/EU push the IoM and Channel
>Islands to raise their taxes then they will leave the UK.
They can't leave the UK - they're NOT IN IT in the first place!
Otherwise: is Pitcairn in the UK? :-D
mvhfm/salutations/cead mile fáilte
--
WIGGY Cardiff Wales UK EU \ This is the right hand side
************* fax: +44 1222 549878 / of my new .sig where special
email: ibthe1<AT>gerrit.demon.co.uk \ quotes, announcements and
web: http://www.gerrit.demon.co.uk/ / other info can be found.
Wiggy
PJS (PJS <P...@winwaed.demon.co.uk>) writ...
>> That is what makes me angry, who are they to tell other countries what their
>> taxes should be? They do not even have a mandate to set ours! The IoM is
>> part of the UK
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>No, it is a crown dependency outside the UK, but recognising the suzerainty of
>the United Kingdom.
Thank you. Sanity at last. But for the insane, I'll repeat it:
The Isle of Man (a/ka the Isle of Scum) is a crown dependency OUTSIDE
the United Kingdom, but recognizing the UK's sovereignty. The Scunxmen
refer to Britain as their »mother country« sometimes. The people of the
Flannel Is. also show similarly bizarre loyalty to the Joke-State.
mvhfm/salutations/cmf
Alex Stanway
>EU. The Channel Islands & IoM are crown protectorates OUTSIDE THE UNITED
>KINGDOM. Got it?
ok
>>if the UK/EU push the IoM and Channel
>>Islands to raise their taxes then they will leave the UK.
>
>They can't leave the UK - they're NOT IN IT in the first place!
Break their association with it, then?
>Otherwise: is Pitcairn in the UK? :-D
Kind of, as in united under our monarch, but I see your point. In that sense
so would be Australia, Canada, New Zealand and so on...
Alex
--
Democracy, even if we do vote wrong!
suzie&tracie
Alex Stanway <ajs....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:78gh6v$j1t$4...@mendelevium.btinternet.com...
>>Secondly, they are not threatening to leave. According to the quoted
>>article, a vote is schedules over whether contingency plans should be
>>looked at. Pretty vague don't you think.
>
Our boss jules rekons we'lxxx... wilxxxx.. we will claim indxxx... seperate
from england and rake it in.
suzie@tracie
jules hairdressin boutique
(we take euros./amex/mastercard)
13 queen victoria street
douglas
iom.
Alex Stanway
suzerainty of
>>the United Kingdom.
>
>Thank you. Sanity at last. But for the insane, I'll repeat it:
>
>The Isle of Man (a/ka the Isle of Scum) is a crown dependency OUTSIDE
>the United Kingdom, but recognizing the UK's sovereignty. The Scunxmen
>refer to Britain as their »mother country« sometimes. The people of the
>Flannel Is. also show similarly bizarre loyalty to the Joke-State.
Wiggy, why do you mess up every time? You have some good ideas, and then go
and mess up with rubbish like that, and so people don't take your good ideas
seriously.
Is it so wrong that they should wish to decide their own tax rates?
Americans call UK the "old country" and I dare say there's Australians, New
Zealanders and Canadians etc who call it their mother country too. It
doesn't mean we should set their tax rates.
Alex Stanway
>from england and rake it in.
>suzie@tracie
>
>
>jules hairdressin boutique
>(we take euros./amex/mastercard)
Eh?
Richard Caley
w> The Isle of Man (a/ka the Isle of Scum)
Thankyou for flushing your credibility down the bog in such a direct
and open manner, it means no one has to read your dribbling any more.
Armin Forker
In another article I said that low tax dwarf states resemble piracy.
Maybe I can make it clearer with an analogy:
If I would let rooms in my house to millionaires, promised them that they
would not have to pay any taxes if they gave me 999 Euro per month.
Certainly there would be many who jumped at this chance - provided that it
was legal and they could still deal with the outside world.
Well, and the outside would loose their best tax payers to me. Only those
who were too poor to pay me 999 E/month would still pay their taxes.
This whole concept of low tax areas is unjust and there has to be done
something about it.
--
........................................................
Armin Forker, 51580 Dorn [Rheinland]
http://members.xoom.com/afo/central.htm
........................................................
Alex Stanway
>
>Maybe I can make it clearer with an analogy:
>If I would let rooms in my house to millionaires, promised them that they
>would not have to pay any taxes if they gave me 999 Euro per month.
>Certainly there would be many who jumped at this chance - provided that it
>was legal and they could still deal with the outside world.
>Well, and the outside would loose their best tax payers to me. Only those
>who were too poor to pay me 999 E/month would still pay their taxes.
>
>This whole concept of low tax areas is unjust and there has to be done
>something about it.
I am at a loss for words...but it won't last long.
How is it unjust for the people in a given area to decide their tax rate,
and how is it unjust that they choose to set that tax rate to attract money
from other countries? It's perfectly fair competition, if not, how not?
Alex
oscar homolka
>I am at a loss for words...but it won't last long.
>How is it unjust for the people in a given area to decide their tax rate,
>and how is it unjust that they choose to set that tax rate to attract money
>from other countries? It's perfectly fair competition, if not, how not?
>
> Alex
Because not one of these so called free, or low tax zones is actually
independant, every one of them gets its protection from a larger state,
usually the one it feeds from.
They're a joke. Switzerland/Lichensten/Monaco/San Marino/Channel Is/IOM
All are in actual fact relying upon larger states for survival. The biggest
parasites being the Swiss. Neutral,? bollocks, it survived because the
Germans wanted it to.
Wiggy
.ed.ac.uk>, Richard Caley (Richard Caley <s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk>) writ...
>w> The Isle of Man (a/ka the Isle of Scum)
>
>Thankyou for flushing your credibility down the bog in such a direct
>and open manner, it means no one has to read your dribbling any more.
What a load of shite you write. The Flannel Is. and Isle of Scum are
suitable aliases because those islands' people have full British
citizenship rights while not paying British taxes. This is not fair. Of
course it's not those people's fault, it's that of the soft headed UK
Government who hasn't the guts to revoke their citizenship.
Ash lock.
Wiggy
>>They can't leave the UK - they're NOT IN IT in the first place!
>
>Break their association with it, then?
That would be the correct terminology. But if Iom and CI want
independence it's their choice, no one else's...
mvhfm/salutations/cmf
Joseph Otten
<alex.s...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>This whole concept of low tax areas is unjust and there has to be done
>>something about it.
>
>I am at a loss for words...but it won't last long.
>How is it unjust for the people in a given area to decide their tax rate,
>and how is it unjust that they choose to set that tax rate to attract money
>from other countries? It's perfectly fair competition, if not, how not?
Indeed it is. The conclusion, perhaps, is that there can be something
unjust about perfectly fair competition!
Joe
--
Joseph Otten
Prospective European Parliamentary Candidate
Green Party, Yorkshire and the Humber
http://freespace.virgin.net/joe.otten/
Alex Stanway
>
>That would be the correct terminology. But if Iom and CI want
>independence it's their choice, no one else's...
Yes, but it would be a shame to alienate them for the cause of getting
higher taxes, less democracy and less prosperity.
Alex Stanway
>suitable aliases because those islands' people have full British
>citizenship rights while not paying British taxes. This is not fair. Of
>course it's not those people's fault, it's that of the soft headed UK
>Government who hasn't the guts to revoke their citizenship.
>
>Ash lock.
But it is a form of federalism, isn't it? The taxes are set at local rate,
yet they enjoy the benefits of citizenship, we too enjoy the benefits of
being able to go and live there, and pay lower taxes.
Alex Stanway
>independant, every one of them gets its protection from a larger state,
>usually the one it feeds from.
>They're a joke. Switzerland/Lichensten/Monaco/San Marino/Channel Is/IOM
But they're actually paying us, and we haven't defended them since 1945.
>All are in actual fact relying upon larger states for survival. The biggest
>parasites being the Swiss. Neutral,? bollocks, it survived because the
>Germans wanted it to.
So why didn't Hitler?
Pet...@aol.com
"Alex Stanway" <alex.s...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >Timeout Alex. Suggest you read what they actually have said about tax
> >harmonisation before you start another one of these sermons. Isle of Man,
> >like Channel Islands, Monaco et al are tax heavens. And it is that they
> want
> >to stop.
>
> taxes should be? They do not even have a mandate to set ours! The IoM is
> Islands to raise their taxes then they will leave the UK.
If I understand correctly they are against companies hiding their profits
there. IMHO that is the point they are pursuing. To implement procedures that
do not allow that within the EU. Everywhere, in the UK, in France, in
Germany.....
How can they force a non EU area to raise their taxes ? That - they know they
cant. And this is why IoM are 'considering their position'.
Peter
(Hoping I have not missed the point).
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Pet...@aol.com
"Alex Stanway" <alex.s...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >Thats life, how about if we just make it all fair and square. Every county
> >in the UK becomes a tax haven, in fact be really fair, make the whole world
> >a tax haven. Sound Good Alex?
>
> Yes.
>
> >Of course you would'nt have any jobs or income because you'd have no one to
> >put money in your tax haven. They'd keep it in their own, if they had
> >anything to put in it, that is. Which they would'nt.
>
> And we would have our money to spend ourselves! Of course you would hate
> that as you have no confidence in your self or your fellow man, and so you
> believe bureaucrats and unelected politicians are best place to spend it for
> you.
> Anyway, think about what you say : Are the EU really going to behave like
> this towards every bloc with lower taxes? Japan? USA? Even Switzerland I
> suspect will give them short shrift if they do. By raising taxes they will
> just be cheating themselves (ie us) out of revenue and investment.
A. I can understand that the EU want to make sure taxes are paid by everybody
that makes a profit within the EU. And stop evasion to tax islands.
B. I have not seen evidence that the EU force other countries to raise taxes.
Have you ? Can you provide evidence ?
C. Switzerland have long relaxed their status as a low tax heaven and are
openly cooperating with Italian and German tax authorities.
Where have you been ?
Peter
Pet...@aol.com
"Alex Stanway" <alex.s...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>No, it is a crown dependency outside the UK, but recognising the
> suzerainty of
> >>the United Kingdom.
> >
> >Thank you. Sanity at last. But for the insane, I'll repeat it:
> >
> >The Isle of Man (a/ka the Isle of Scum) is a crown dependency OUTSIDE
> >the United Kingdom, but recognizing the UK's sovereignty. The Scunxmen
> >refer to Britain as their »mother country« sometimes. The people of the
> >Flannel Is. also show similarly bizarre loyalty to the Joke-State.
>
> Wiggy, why do you mess up every time? You have some good ideas, and then go
> and mess up with rubbish like that, and so people don't take your good ideas
> seriously.
> Is it so wrong that they should wish to decide their own tax rates?
> Americans call UK the "old country" and I dare say there's Australians, New
> Zealanders and Canadians etc who call it their mother country too.
Show me more than a few. I have been called a pom out there. Mother country
matey ? My a**.
> It doesn't mean we should set their tax rates.
Of course not, and nor do the EU intend to do it on the independent crown
dependencies around the UK. They just intend to bring in rules to avoid tax
evasion to those areas, which results in those dependencies doing some
thinking about their future. I have quoted the exact text of the EU
strategies to this problem before. Scroll back in the relevant threads and
you find them. All the rest is your imagination.
Pet...@aol.com
"Alex Stanway" <alex.s...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >In another article I said that low tax dwarf states resemble piracy.
> >
> >Maybe I can make it clearer with an analogy:
> >If I would let rooms in my house to millionaires, promised them that they
> >would not have to pay any taxes if they gave me 999 Euro per month.
> >Certainly there would be many who jumped at this chance - provided that it
> >was legal and they could still deal with the outside world.
> >Well, and the outside would loose their best tax payers to me. Only those
> >who were too poor to pay me 999 E/month would still pay their taxes.
> >
> >something about it.
>
> I am at a loss for words...but it won't last long.
> How is it unjust for the people in a given area to decide their tax rate,
> and how is it unjust that they choose to set that tax rate to attract money
> from other countries? It's perfectly fair competition, if not, how not?
...may be your loss for words should have lasted longer.
Of course they can do what they like but YOU go to jail if you use such scams.
And that's what the EU is after. Got it ? New, tougher rules for you to run
away from paying your dues like anybody else.
Alex Stanway
everybody
>that makes a profit within the EU. And stop evasion to tax islands.
Yes, who wouldn't want all the money in Europe?!
>B. I have not seen evidence that the EU force other countries to raise
taxes.
>Have you ? Can you provide evidence ?
Look at the rest of this thread
>C. Switzerland have long relaxed their status as a low tax heaven and are
>openly cooperating with Italian and German tax authorities.
>
>Where have you been ?
Under my rock, believing that all was well, and then I come out and see what
a bloody mess we're in.
Alex
--
Democracy, even if we do vote wrong!
Alex Stanway
>matey ? My a**.
In Australia they have a problem with us, many of them but not all. So? Are
all Frenchmen nice? And even so, who cares? That wasn't my point/
>> It doesn't mean we should set their tax rates.
>
>Of course not, and nor do the EU intend to do it on the independent crown
>dependencies around the UK. They just intend to bring in rules to avoid tax
>evasion to those areas, which results in those dependencies doing some
>thinking about their future. I have quoted the exact text of the EU
>strategies to this problem before. Scroll back in the relevant threads and
>you find them. All the rest is your imagination.
Well the UK hasn't got a problem with them, why should the EU want to stop
tax evasion there?
A: Because it wants all of our money!!!
Will it work? Will it hell, because people will simply send their money else
where, business will move outside the EU, and we'll all be shafted. Of
course I don't expect you to see that, as you seem like one of those old 70s
types who thinks the answer to all problems is simply tax the rich, if
you're not I apologise, but that's how you come across.
Alex
Alex Stanway
>there. IMHO that is the point they are pursuing. To implement procedures
that
>do not allow that within the EU. Everywhere, in the UK, in France, in
>Germany.....
>
>How can they force a non EU area to raise their taxes ? That - they know
they
>cant. And this is why IoM are 'considering their position'.
Yes, and so get their hands on more of our money, and further harm the
economy.
>Peter
>(Hoping I have not missed the point).
No, you just accept it, when I can't. Guess we're just different?
Alex
Alex Stanway
Never!
>Of course they can do what they like but YOU go to jail if you use such
scams.
>And that's what the EU is after. Got it ? New, tougher rules for you to run
>away from paying your dues like anybody else.
>
>Peter
It's after punishing countries for having lower taxes? Or stopping people
using them as a tax haven, which is perfectly legal at the moment? Both. Yet
another thing is banned, so that the government can control yet more money.
Is this a good thing?
Alex
--
Stefane Dowet
<alex.s...@btinternet.com> a scrit:
>>In another article I said that low tax dwarf states resemble piracy.
>>
>>Maybe I can make it clearer with an analogy:
>>If I would let rooms in my house to millionaires, promised them that they
>>would not have to pay any taxes if they gave me 999 Euro per month.
>>Certainly there would be many who jumped at this chance - provided that it
>>was legal and they could still deal with the outside world.
>>Well, and the outside would loose their best tax payers to me. Only those
>>who were too poor to pay me 999 E/month would still pay their taxes.
>>
>>This whole concept of low tax areas is unjust and there has to be done
>>something about it.
>
>I am at a loss for words...but it won't last long.
>How is it unjust for the people in a given area to decide their tax rate,
>and how is it unjust that they choose to set that tax rate to attract money
>from other countries? It's perfectly fair competition, if not, how not?
the problem is that they have NO taxes, no customs duty, no VAT. I agree
with Armin that we can call that piracy.
Djuskas di Waloneye / Salutations wallonnes / Walloon greetings / Waalse groeten
--
Stéfâne Dowet, dispu 1978, Nam(e)ur, Waloneye (EU)
My European page is at http://www.ping.be/federal-europe/index2.htm
|Let's make the EU more democratic - vote YES to Amsterdam
The European Parliament consists of 214 PES, 201 EPP,
42 ELDR, 36 UE, 34 GUE, 27 Green, 20 ERA, 15 IEdN, 37 ind
--- NON au rattachisme français ---
Stefane Dowet
<alex.s...@btinternet.com> a scrit:
>>Let's get this bit straight: The IoM is NEITHER PART OF THE UK NOR THE
>>EU. The Channel Islands & IoM are crown protectorates OUTSIDE THE UNITED
>>KINGDOM. Got it?
>
>ok
>
>>>if the UK/EU push the IoM and Channel
>>>Islands to raise their taxes then they will leave the UK.
>>
>>They can't leave the UK - they're NOT IN IT in the first place!
>
>Break their association with it, then?
>
>>Otherwise: is Pitcairn in the UK? :-D
>
>Kind of, as in united under our monarch, but I see your point. In that sense
>so would be Australia, Canada, New Zealand and so on...
Hopefully, Australia will soon be a republic.
oddjob
>>Because not one of these so called free, or low tax zones is actually
>>independant, every one of them gets its protection from a larger state,
>>usually the one it feeds from.
>>They're a joke. Switzerland/Lichensten/Monaco/San Marino/Channel Is/IOM
>
>But they're actually paying us, and we haven't defended them since 1945.
They ain't paying us, unless they pay our taxes, and good defence is a
deterrent, thats why we have'nt needed to defend them.
>>All are in actual fact relying upon larger states for survival. The
biggest
>>parasites being the Swiss. Neutral,? bollocks, it survived because the
>>Germans wanted it to.
>
>So why didn't Hitler?
Hitler was bonkers, he shot himself, remember.
The gold/loot is still there. Others escaped with their loot.
Cliff Morrison
> the problem is that they have NO taxes, no customs duty, no VAT. I agree
> with Armin that we can call that piracy.
which raises the interesting point: how come they have any public
infrastructure at all then?
Alex Stanway
Hopefully for whose sake? Australians, or you so you can imagine that we're
all so upset about it, and that the last traces of our empire are sinking?
Alas that satisfaction would be misplaced, as that which is truly British
lives on in the form not of our monarch on their money but of the belief
they have in justice, liberty, democracy and all those values that the roman
empire now seeks to exorcise from their home in the UK, with the help of
treacherous puppet politicians who pay lip service to those values and then
betray them for the lure of the sexual aspect of continental Europe. Ah but
you never will, we are not stupid and we are not doomed, we will defend
ourselves to the last man, of course we will cut it fine, we always do. It
will hopefully be through the ballot box, but if that means is corrupted or
we are deprived of it then it will be by force of arms. One way or another
we will be free and we will stand for those values.
Alex
Alex Stanway
>with Armin that we can call that piracy.
Ummm, you don't really know what you're talking about, do you?
The IoM has no taxes? Wrong, it simply has a lower rate. They pay for all
that they get, the problem the EU has is that they don't pay them on the
way!
Alex
Jonathan Munday
<pin00033_r...@ping.be> writes
>
>Hopefully, Australia will soon be a republic.
Why do you hope this?
Is it because you are a republican who hates King Albert and envies the
greater success of republicans elsewhere.
Or just because you're the usual chippy continental who supposes that a
republican Australia is a snub to the hated English.
Or both?
--Non Angelus sed Anglus
Jonathan Munday
Robin
<alex.s...@btinternet.com> writes
>>Because not one of these so called free, or low tax zones is actually
>>independant, every one of them gets its protection from a larger state,
>>usually the one it feeds from.
>>They're a joke. Switzerland/Lichensten/Monaco/San Marino/Channel Is/IOM
>
>But they're actually paying us, and we haven't defended them since 1945.
>
>>parasites being the Swiss. Neutral,? bollocks, it survived because the
>>Germans wanted it to.
>
>So why didn't Hitler?
>
Why didn't Hitler what?
There is certainly some evidence that the Swiss were more involved in
looking after Nazi gold than they would care to admit. I'm sure you're
aware of the recent controversy regarding Jewish gold, stolen by
Germany. It took *fifty* years for the Swiss to own up to that and there
is strong suspicion about the laundering of 'narco-dollars'
I was in Geneva recently and was singularly unimpressed with the place.
It was easily as dirty as London and astonishingly expensive with a taxi
ride that would cost around three or four pounds costing well over
twenty!
They're welcome to the place!
--
Robin
Please remove 'spam' on reply.
Alex Stanway
>They ain't paying us, unless they pay our taxes, and good defence is a
>deterrent, thats why we have'nt needed to defend them.
A proportion of them, if I understand correctly.
Who was saying the other day??? Calling IoM experts!?
Anyway, it's better than having some nutty dictator taking them all over.
>Hitler was bonkers, he shot himself, remember.
>The gold/loot is still there. Others escaped with their loot.
But that's because the Swiss nicked it, nothing to do with Germans.
Alex
--
oddjob
>>Hopefully, Australia will soon be a republic.
>
>all so upset about it, and that the last traces of our empire are sinking?
>Alas that satisfaction would be misplaced, as that which is truly British
>lives on in the form not of our monarch on their money but of the belief
>they have in justice, liberty, democracy and all those values that the
roman
>empire now seeks to exorcise from their home in the UK, with the help of
>treacherous puppet politicians who pay lip service to those values and then
>betray them for the lure of the sexual aspect of continental Europe. Ah but
>you never will, we are not stupid and we are not doomed, we will defend
>ourselves to the last man, of course we will cut it fine, we always do. It
>will hopefully be through the ballot box, but if that means is corrupted or
>we are deprived of it then it will be by force of arms. One way or another
>we will be free and we will stand for those values.
>
> Alex
Alex, I suggest that you seek Medical Advice immediately.
>http://www.freenutters.demon.co.uk/
>http://www.iits.dircon.co.uk/newallies/fasti.htm
>http://web.ukoffline.co.uk/stuart.n2/
>http://www.kc3ltd.co.uk/noprofile/europhobias/
>http://members.aol.com/eurofobia/live.at.home.forever.html
>
>
oddjob
>>What a load of shite you write. The Flannel Is. and Isle of Scum are
>>suitable aliases because those islands' people have full British
>>citizenship rights while not paying British taxes. This is not fair. Of
>>course it's not those people's fault, it's that of the soft headed UK
>>Government who hasn't the guts to revoke their citizenship.
>>
>>Ash lock.
>
> But it is a form of federalism, isn't it? The taxes are set at local rate,
>yet they enjoy the benefits of citizenship, we too enjoy the benefits of
>being able to go and live there, and pay lower taxes.
> Alex
You'll need Half a million minimum to live on Jersey or Guernsey.
Iom is a cheapo at around £100,000 at the last count.
Sounds a wee bit selective don't you think.?
It also appears that the very people who can't live there, want to keep
them.
Could it be your fertile brain is being manipulated.
>NO Democracy, even if we do vote wrong!
>http://www.freenutters.demon.co.uk/
>http://www.iits.dircon.co.uk/newallies/fasti.htm
>http://web.notukonline.co.uk/stuart.n2/noneurofaq.html
>http://www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofobias/
>
>
Alex Stanway
Survive. If Germany (Hitler, as he was Germany's only voice then, if I
understood the original point correctly) wanted Switzerland to, and got his
way, why couldn't he ensure his own survival.
>There is certainly some evidence that the Swiss were more involved in
>looking after Nazi gold than they would care to admit. I'm sure you're
>aware of the recent controversy regarding Jewish gold, stolen by
>Germany. It took *fifty* years for the Swiss to own up to that and there
>is strong suspicion about the laundering of 'narco-dollars'
Certainly, their hands are dirty, and I don't admire that, but it doesn't
mean we should set their taxes.
>I was in Geneva recently and was singularly unimpressed with the place.
>It was easily as dirty as London and astonishingly expensive with a taxi
>ride that would cost around three or four pounds costing well over
>twenty!
>
>They're welcome to the place!
>--
>Robin
I wouldn't care to live there either, but I bare them no grudge for running
their country how they want to, and I admire their direct democracy.
regards
Alex
Stefane Dowet
<alex.s...@btinternet.com> a scrit:
>>If I understand correctly they are against companies hiding their profits
>>there. IMHO that is the point they are pursuing. To implement procedures
>that
>>do not allow that within the EU. Everywhere, in the UK, in France, in
>>Germany.....
>>
>>How can they force a non EU area to raise their taxes ? That - they know
>they
>>cant. And this is why IoM are 'considering their position'.
>
>Yes, and so get their hands on more of our money, and further harm the
>economy.
mmmh, do you mean you have hidden money overther ? Interesting !
Alex Stanway
>Iom is a cheapo at around £100,000 at the last count.
>Sounds a wee bit selective don't you think.?
>It also appears that the very people who can't live there, want to keep
>them.
>Could it be your fertile brain is being manipulated.
You need that much and more to live in Many places in the UK, and in pretty
much any city in the western world. So what? It doesn't mean that Brussels
can set their taxes.
Alex
--
Democracy, even if we do vote wrong!
http://www.freebrit.demon.co.uk/
Alex Stanway
Oddjob! You have fallen into the trap, lured away from your bangers and mash
at the dated thought of being served sexy continental food by a humble
peasant on a sunny seafront. I bet you lie in bed and fantasize about a nice
submissive French girl in a maids outfit tending your every need. Or perhaps
you are angry at the loss of smoke stack industries, with their phallic
chimneys - as my esteemed friend put it - and their mind rotting smoke
making the sheeple easier to control.
Ahh, you are gullible, but you will learn when the roman legions are
beating at your door and no amount of humble groveling will save you then,
oh you will learn.
Alex Stanway
>>economy.
>
>mmmh, do you mean you have hidden money overther ? Interesting !
Haha, I wish. But alas I am poor!! The difference is between me and a lot of
people with no money, I don't seek to take money off people who have more,
as I would rather earn it myself!
oddjob
Alex Teflon Stanway <alex.s...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:7901sf$qaq$8...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
>>You'll need Half a million minimum to live on Jersey or Guernsey.
>>Iom is a cheapo at around £100,000 at the last count.
>>Sounds a wee bit selective don't you think.?
>>It also appears that the very people who can't live there, want to keep
>>them.
>>Could it be your fertile brain is being manipulated.
>
>You need that much and more to live in Many places in the UK, and in pretty
>much any city in the western world. So what? It doesn't mean that Brussels
>can set their taxes.
> Alex
You can live anywhere you like in the UK, yes. Not anywhere in the Ch Is, or
IOM.
eg:-Move to Knightsbridge you dont pay lower taxes, you pay more.
If you have enough to move into a Tax haven, then they are making you pay
just to get in. And you have to 'prove' independant income. And you can only
buy certain property.
They do not want incommers who take anything from their 'false' economic
system.
They are no more than sponge people.
Visit the Teflon people at
Alex Stanway
>>You need that much and more to live in Many places in the UK, and in
pretty
>>much any city in the western world. So what? It doesn't mean that Brussels
>>can set their taxes.
>> Alex
>
>You can live anywhere you like in the UK, yes. Not anywhere in the Ch Is,
or
>IOM.
You can go and live in a tent. You're free to, that's my point. That you
can't afford a house there doesn't make them spongers.
>eg:-Move to Knightsbridge you dont pay lower taxes, you pay more.
Well if we had really local democracy you would.
>If you have enough to move into a Tax haven, then they are making you pay
>just to get in.
No. You're paying a fair price for a house there.
>And you have to 'prove' independant income.
>And you can only buy certain property.
>They do not want incommers who take anything from their 'false' >economic
system.
>They are no more than sponge people.
Why not just vote for lower taxes in this country, then people might not go
there.
Alex
Democracy, even if we do vote wrong!
http://www.freebrit.demon.co.uk/
Richard Caley
>> Thankyou for flushing your credibility down the bog in such a direct
>> and open manner, it means no one has to read your dribbling any more.
w> What a load of shite you write. The Flannel Is. and Isle of Scum are
w> suitable aliases because
You are a bigot and need to choose a group to hate.
--
r...@lillith.demon.co.uk _O_
|<
oddjob
I refer you to first line of post below.
Alex Teflon Stanway <alex.tefl...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:7901se$qaq$7...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
>>Alex, I suggest that you seek Medical Advice immediately.
>
>Oddjob! You have fallen into the trap, lured away from your bangers and
mash
>at the dated thought of being served sexy continental food by a humble
>peasant on a sunny seafront. I bet you lie in bed and fantasize about a
nice
>submissive French girl in a maids outfit tending your every need. Or
perhaps
>you are angry at the loss of smoke stack industries, with their phallic
>chimneys - as my esteemed friend put it - and their mind rotting smoke
>making the sheeple easier to control.
> Ahh, you are gullible, but you will learn when the roman legions are
>beating at your door and no amount of humble groveling will save you then,
>oh you will learn.
>
> Alex
>
>--
vist the teflon people at:-
>http://www.freebritnutters.dopeydemon.co.uk/
>http://www.iits.notdircon.co.uk/newallies/fasti.htm
>http://web.ukonline.co.uk/stuart.n2/eurofaq.html
>http://www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/europhobia/
>http://members.aol.com/europhobics/stayathome.html
>
>
oddjob
>You can go and live in a tent. You're free to, that's my point. That you
>can't afford a house there doesn't make them spongers.
Still has'nt sunk in has it? you cannot just go there and stay,, full stop.
Tent or otherwise. Try it on the IOM. See what happens.
Re CH Is.
You do not pay a fair price for a house there, you are not allowed to buy
certain properties in the Ch Is. They are reserved for locals. and are not
sold at market value.
If they ever were there would be no blinkin locals, would there?. Work it
out.
Alex Stanway
>
>I refer you to first line of post below.
So? I've never lived there, but have been there, I like it, but I don't to
make a big dictatorship out of our two countries. My point was that you are
blinded by 1) a dislike of this country and 2) an admiration of theirs. And
so you think the EU must naturally be a good thing, with no real
justification, only the lure of the things you like about other countries.
Alex Stanway
>certain properties in the Ch Is. They are reserved for locals. and are not
>sold at market value.
>If they ever were there would be no blinkin locals, would there?. Work it
>out.
So??? It's not our business as it's not our country
Alex
oddjob
Alex Stanway <alex.s...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:7909tk$big$1...@mendelevium.btinternet.com...
I suggest that you do some reading up. Then come back.
oddjob
>So? I've never lived there, but have been there, I like it, but I don't to
>make a big dictatorship out of our two countries. My point was that you are
>blinded by 1) a dislike of this country and 2) an admiration of theirs. And
>so you think the EU must naturally be a good thing, with no real
>justification, only the lure of the things you like about other countries.
1.)Wrong, I'm staying where I was born. Don't presume that anyone who is pro
europe is anti-british.
I just dread the thought of another Thatcher/Major ever getting to power for
any length of time, & running amok.
2.)Wrong agin, I don't have to live here, I choose to. I can move anywhere
in the world that I fancy. At little loss.
Incidentally the continentals are the ones who are making the biggest
changes, and long may it continue.
How would your Europhobes like the English language becoming almost a second
language, as they have with their own language.... Think about it.
Stefane Dowet
<je...@opinicus.demon.co.uk> a scrit:
>In article <36b2f1ce...@news.ping.be>, Stefane Dowet
><pin00033_r...@ping.be> writes
>>
>>Hopefully, Australia will soon be a republic.
>
>
>Why do you hope this?
>
>Is it because you are a republican who hates King Albert and envies the
>greater success of republicans elsewhere.
>
>Or just because you're the usual chippy continental who supposes that a
>republican Australia is a snub to the hated English.
>
>Or both?
I am republican minded and I like when Australians affirm their identity.
Alex Stanway
>
>I suggest that you do some reading up. Then come back.
So it is our country? No. It is a dependency. If you want to raise their
taxes, you will have to go there and convince the electorate that they need
their taxes changed - good luck!
Alex
--
Alex Stanway
>>make a big dictatorship out of our two countries. My point was that you
are
>>blinded by 1) a dislike of this country and 2) an admiration of theirs.
And
>>so you think the EU must naturally be a good thing, with no real
>>justification, only the lure of the things you like about other countries.
>
>1.)Wrong, I'm staying where I was born. Don't presume that anyone who is
pro
>europe is anti-british.
>I just dread the thought of another Thatcher/Major ever getting to power
for
>any length of time, & running amok.
Ahhh, but you gave your game away, you are really bitter against Britain,
you see it as a land of old-boys-network, royalists and empire, and you want
to go out of your way to prove that that isn't you.
>2.)Wrong agin, I don't have to live here, I choose to. I can move
anywhere
>in the world that I fancy. At little loss.
No, because that is not what you want. You want to change this country to
get revenge on the imaginary people you dislike.
>Incidentally the continentals are the ones who are making the biggest
>changes, and long may it continue.
>How would your Europhobes like the English language becoming almost a
second
>language, as they have with their own language.... Think about it.
If that's what they want to do then fine, I'm just saying that this country
would be better off if we left the EU. And so far I haven't seen one reason
why we wouldn't be.
Alex Stanway
When they do it *against* the British, right?
Alex
Armin Forker
>>In another article I said that low tax dwarf states resemble piracy.
>>
>>Maybe I can make it clearer with an analogy:
>>If I would let rooms in my house to millionaires, promised them that they
>>would not have to pay any taxes if they gave me 999 Euro per month.
>>Certainly there would be many who jumped at this chance - provided that it
>>was legal and they could still deal with the outside world.
>>Well, and the outside would loose their best tax payers to me. Only those
>>who were too poor to pay me 999 E/month would still pay their taxes.
>>
>>This whole concept of low tax areas is unjust and there has to be done
>>something about it.
> I am at a loss for words...but it won't last long.
> How is it unjust for the people in a given area to decide their tax rate,
> and how is it unjust that they choose to set that tax rate to attract money
> from other countries? It's perfectly fair competition, if not, how not?
If all who are well off are allowed to avoid taxes and only the poor
remain to pay for the inevitable expenses of community then the system
will collapse. Of course, some ultra-capitalists want nothing less because
it will provide cheap and disposable workforce. They will try to discredit
all protection of labourers and environment as 'overregulation' and all
means to enforce the regulations as 'bureaucracy' - even if it are
democratically backed decisions. The majority of the people are happy to
pay taxes in return for material and physical security. They merely get
angry when they realize that those who benefit most of the deregulated
competition are the very same people and companies who avoid paying taxes
at all. I understand that competition forces the companies to act this way
- that's why politics must create a situation where this 'competition in
tax-avoiding' stops: for example with the help of trade barriers to absorb
the better part of tax differences to low tax dwarf states. I do not
advocate the same tax level for all regions - a certain bandwidth of
'allowed' tax rates could be useful (and sufficient) to encourage
competition between the regions.
--
........................................................
Armin Forker, 51580 Dorn [Rheinland]
http://members.xoom.com/afo/central.htm
........................................................
Armin Forker
(Peter wrote:)
>>Of course they can do what they like but YOU go to jail if you use such
>>scams.
>>And that's what the EU is after. Got it ? New, tougher rules for you to run
>>away from paying your dues like anybody else.
>>
>>Peter
> It's after punishing countries for having lower taxes? Or stopping people
> using them as a tax haven, which is perfectly legal at the moment? Both. Yet
> another thing is banned, so that the government can control yet more money.
> Is this a good thing?
Your signature file gives the answer. Good or bad - if a democratically
elected government decides to 'control more money' then it is OK, even if
it is wrong in the opinion of some.
Most people are very well able to understand that they cannot have
security and 'low' taxes at the same time. If it was possible then it
would be in the vital interest of any government (including the Manx and
the EUropean) to pursue this way.
And if the low tax rate exists on the expense of others then it is the
duty of the governments of the latter to take measures against it - even
if the idol of globalization demands otherwise.
If Isle of Man takes the right to have low taxes on the expense of EU then
EU has the right to build trade barriers. Of course it would be better and
less damaging if Manx citizens felt responsibility for their fellow
Europeans and entered EU or tried to reach an agreement. It's their
choice.
Sadly freedom and justice are only every now and then on the same side.
That's the fundamental dilemma of mankind.
> Democracy, even if we do vote wrong!
--
Alex Stanway
>remain to pay for the inevitable expenses of community then the system
>will collapse.
Have I finally convinced a socialist that taxes are in fact bad for th poor?
>Of course, some ultra-capitalists want nothing less because
>it will provide cheap and disposable workforce.
Thought that was over optimistic.
>They will try to discredit
>all protection of labourers and environment as 'overregulation' and all
>means to enforce the regulations as 'bureaucracy' - even if it are
>democratically backed decisions. The majority of the people are happy to
>pay taxes in return for material and physical security.
So why do they move to tax havens when they have the money to? What you
really mean is that the majority of people are happy to make *other* people
pay taxes in return for...
>They merely get
>angry when they realize that those who benefit most of the deregulated
>competition are the very same people and companies who avoid paying taxes
>at all. I understand that competition forces the companies to act this way
>- that's why politics must create a situation where this 'competition in
>tax-avoiding' stops: for example with the help of trade barriers to absorb
>the better part of tax differences to low tax dwarf states. I do not
>advocate the same tax level for all regions - a certain bandwidth of
>'allowed' tax rates could be useful (and sufficient) to encourage
>competition between the regions.
Well then we just fundamentally disagree. If people don't mind paying taxes
then why aren't they voluntary?
Alex
Democracy, even if we do vote wrong!
http://www.freebrit.demon.co.uk/
Alex Stanway
>elected government decides to 'control more money' then it is OK, even if
>it is wrong in the opinion of some.
But the Commission is not democratically elected.
>Most people are very well able to understand that they cannot have
>security and 'low' taxes at the same time. If it was possible then it
>would be in the vital interest of any government (including the Manx and
>the EUropean) to pursue this way.
>And if the low tax rate exists on the expense of others then it is the
>duty of the governments of the latter to take measures against it - even
>if the idol of globalization demands otherwise.
IoM are happy with their security, why shouldn't we be?
>If Isle of Man takes the right to have low taxes on the expense of EU then
>EU has the right to build trade barriers. Of course it would be better and
>less damaging if Manx citizens felt responsibility for their fellow
>Europeans and entered EU or tried to reach an agreement. It's their
>choice.
So because they are running themselves better and undercutting us, we put up
trade barriers that hurt both of us? Good, EU logic.
>Sadly freedom and justice are only every now and then on the same side.
>That's the fundamental dilemma of mankind.
Nahh, it's only when governments get involved that it all goes wrong.
Armin Forker
>>If all who are well off are allowed to avoid taxes and only the poor
>>remain to pay for the inevitable expenses of community then the system
>>will collapse.
> Have I finally convinced a socialist that taxes are in fact bad for th poor?
You mean taxes generally speaking? The poor are even more dependend on
them than other people.
>>The majority of the people are happy to
>>pay taxes in return for material and physical security.
> So why do they move to tax havens when they have the money to?
Who has enough money to be welcome in tax havens won't have to worry for
his material safety.
> What you
> really mean is that the majority of people are happy to make *other* people
> pay taxes in return for...
This is indeed prefered by most. Nobody likes to pay taxes but reasonable
people accept that they are necessary. This I meant with 'is happy to pay
taxes' - as part of all, equal citizens who also contribute. As soon as
people sense that they are the only idiots left who pay for all they get
angry. Quite understandably.
>>They merely get
>>angry when they realize that those who benefit most of the deregulated
>>competition are the very same people and companies who avoid paying taxes
>>at all. I understand that competition forces the companies to act this way
>>- that's why politics must create a situation where this 'competition in
>>tax-avoiding' stops: for example with the help of trade barriers to absorb
>>the better part of tax differences to low tax dwarf states. I do not
>>advocate the same tax level for all regions - a certain bandwidth of
>>'allowed' tax rates could be useful (and sufficient) to encourage
>>competition between the regions.
> Well then we just fundamentally disagree. If people don't mind paying taxes
> then why aren't they voluntary?
Because the will to pay taxes depends on the knowledge that everybody
pays.
You certainly know that feeling: The lights are red, everybody waits.
Suddenly more and more people cross the street despite the lights didn't
change. If you are the last to wait you will feel like an idiot. Then you
also cross the street - and get caught by Police. You will be quite
annoyed.
Armin Forker
>>Your signature file gives the answer. Good or bad - if a democratically
>>elected government decides to 'control more money' then it is OK, even if
>>it is wrong in the opinion of some.
> But the Commission is not democratically elected.
Indirectly it is and it can be removed by parliament. This ensures that
they cannot act like they would if their jobs were under no democratic
control.
>>Most people are very well able to understand that they cannot have
>>security and 'low' taxes at the same time. If it was possible then it
>>would be in the vital interest of any government (including the Manx and
>>the EUropean) to pursue this way.
>>And if the low tax rate exists on the expense of others then it is the
>>duty of the governments of the latter to take measures against it - even
>>if the idol of globalization demands otherwise.
> IoM are happy with their security, why shouldn't we be?
Happy with Manx security? We can unless they take our tax money to make a
good living from it.
>>If Isle of Man takes the right to have low taxes on the expense of EU then
>>EU has the right to build trade barriers. Of course it would be better and
>>less damaging if Manx citizens felt responsibility for their fellow
>>Europeans and entered EU or tried to reach an agreement. It's their
>>choice.
> So because they are running themselves better and undercutting us, we put up
> trade barriers that hurt both of us? Good, EU logic.
'Running themselves better'? So you haven't understood the principle of
tax havens. Once again:
They attract rich people by granting low tax rates. This ensures that
they have a higher percentage of rich people in their population - wealth
that was acquired *outside* of the tax haven. The high percentage of
rich people allows for lower tax rates - not that they 'run themselves
better'. Without the outside world who provides them with rich people they
would be starving - or they would have to raise the tax rates, of course.
If any region that has wealth could cancel responsibility for the
regions where the wealth was produced then soon all regions would be
required to build trade barriers - like it was in the beginning of modern
Europe (16-18th century). Or the social unrest would give rise to fanatics
of all sorts (including stalinists).
>>Sadly freedom and justice are only every now and then on the same side.
>>That's the fundamental dilemma of mankind.
> Nahh, it's only when governments get involved that it all goes wrong.
Humans are not made for anarchy (= 100% freedom). They will always form
groups, tribes, nations, unions to protect themselves from those who
abuse their freedom or to abuse the freedom themselves. As soon as there
is a tribe, nation, union there will have to be a government because not
every citizen has time, knowledge and desire to care for everything. All
that remains to be settled is the form of government and the method its
ways are determined.
Alex Stanway
>they cannot act like they would if their jobs were under no democratic
>control.
Indirectly elected is not elected.
>> IoM are happy with their security, why shouldn't we be?
>
>Happy with Manx security? We can unless they take our tax money to make a
>good living from it.
We can what? They don't take "our" tax money, as the money of individuals is
not "our" property, and if they choose to move to another country we loose
the right to tax them.
>> So because they are running themselves better and undercutting us, we put
up
>> trade barriers that hurt both of us? Good, EU logic.
>
>'Running themselves better'? So you haven't understood the principle of
>tax havens.
I understand perfectly : People choose of their own free will to go and live
in an area with lower taxation. It is you who doesn't seem to understand
that if people make that choice you no longer have the right to tax them.
>Once again:
>They attract rich people by granting low tax rates. This ensures that
>they have a higher percentage of rich people in their population - wealth
>that was acquired *outside* of the tax haven. The high percentage of
>rich people allows for lower tax rates - not that they 'run themselves
>better'. Without the outside world who provides them with rich people they
>would be starving - or they would have to raise the tax rates, of course.
But Europe is not a big bowl that is leaking money, we're part of the world
which trades with each other : Nor could they survive without buying food,
cars, building materials - and in fact virtually everything as they have
little to no manufacturing there - form outside, and a good proportion of it
from Europe.
>If any region that has wealth could cancel responsibility for the
>regions where the wealth was produced then soon all regions would be
>required to build trade barriers - like it was in the beginning of modern
>Europe (16-18th century). Or the social unrest would give rise to fanatics
>of all sorts (including stalinists).
So we need to rule over other countries to prevent trouble?
>Humans are not made for anarchy (= 100% freedom). They will always form
>groups, tribes, nations, unions to protect themselves from those who
>abuse their freedom or to abuse the freedom themselves. As soon as there
>is a tribe, nation, union there will have to be a government because not
>every citizen has time, knowledge and desire to care for everything.
Wrong. Even in society each individual must look after his own affairs. Of
course they form into societies and groups to better deal with problems that
require a group to solve them, but they should do so of their own free will,
not be included by choice because of the geographical area in which they're
born. Of course this is totally impractical, but there is no reason it can't
be the philosophy for a drive behind smaller government and more individual
choice.
Alex
--
Alex Stanway
>them than other people.
Taxes hit the poorest hardest because the "rich" as in the richest few in
society will not stay around to be taxed, they will move to tax havens and
so the "poor" need to be taxed to fund the services they demand.
>Who has enough money to be welcome in tax havens won't have to worry for
>his material safety.
No, but that doesn't help the rest of us who are left in places that are not
tax havens who will have to pay the taxes that fund the services we wanted
him to pay for.
>This is indeed prefered by most. Nobody likes to pay taxes but reasonable
>people accept that they are necessary. This I meant with 'is happy to pay
>taxes' - as part of all, equal citizens who also contribute.
So the reason they are not voluntary is because if we didn't force people to
pay they wouldn't pay. Which is what I said in the first place.
>As soon as
>people sense that they are the only idiots left who pay for all they get
>angry. Quite understandably.
It's not a case of being the only one to pay - we all get hurt by taxes. The
poor more than most because taxes keep them poor, while the rich move to tax
havens and get richer. The old socialist night mare of the rich getting rich
and the poor getting poorer is never truer than when the rich move away and
pay no taxes.
>> Well then we just fundamentally disagree. If people don't mind paying
taxes
>> then why aren't they voluntary?
>
>Because the will to pay taxes depends on the knowledge that everybody
>pays.
Why? If taxes are beneficial to you why not pay anyway, and let those who
choose not to pay suffer for not paying?
Armin Forker
>>Indirectly it is and it can be removed by parliament. This ensures that
>>they cannot act like they would if their jobs were under no democratic
>>control.
> Indirectly elected is not elected.
What!? Then, according to your definition, hardly any country has an
elected prime minister.
>>> IoM are happy with their security, why shouldn't we be?
>>
>>Happy with Manx security? We can unless they take our tax money to make a
>>good living from it.
> We can what?
Be happy with their security.
> They don't take "our" tax money, as the money of individuals is
> not "our" property, and if they choose to move to another country we loose
> the right to tax them.
If they earned the money in EU they used EU infrastructure, EU workforce,
EU protection etc. - enough to pay their taxes as any EU citizen.
Commerce and industry tends to consider their profit as their own while if
they cause damages or go bancrupt then suddenly community has to take care
for the mess.
>>> So because they are running themselves better and undercutting us, we put
>>> up
>>> trade barriers that hurt both of us? Good, EU logic.
>>
>>'Running themselves better'? So you haven't understood the principle of
>>tax havens.
> I understand perfectly : People choose of their own free will to go and live
> in an area with lower taxation. It is you who doesn't seem to understand
> that if people make that choice you no longer have the right to tax them.
I understand that you promote absolute anarchy where people are allowed to
have no responsibilty for more than their own profit. That would not be
the world I want to live in.
>>Once again:
>>They attract rich people by granting low tax rates. This ensures that
>>they have a higher percentage of rich people in their population - wealth
>>that was acquired *outside* of the tax haven. The high percentage of
>>rich people allows for lower tax rates - not that they 'run themselves
>>better'. Without the outside world who provides them with rich people they
>>would be starving - or they would have to raise the tax rates, of course.
> But Europe is not a big bowl that is leaking money, we're part of the world
> which trades with each other : Nor could they survive without buying food,
> cars, building materials - and in fact virtually everything as they have
> little to no manufacturing there - form outside, and a good proportion of it
> from Europe.
Yes, that's why I suggest to impose export duties on all goods to the
island to make up for the tax difference. Hey, that's freedom, isn't
it? They do as they like and EU does at she likes.
>>If any region that has wealth could cancel responsibility for the
>>regions where the wealth was produced then soon all regions would be
>>required to build trade barriers - like it was in the beginning of modern
>>Europe (16-18th century). Or the social unrest would give rise to fanatics
>>of all sorts (including stalinists).
> So we need to rule over other countries to prevent trouble?
If they are only willing to see their own advantage then everyone has to
look for their own interests. Before EU was installed it was like that in
entire Europe.
>>Humans are not made for anarchy (= 100% freedom). They will always form
>>groups, tribes, nations, unions to protect themselves from those who
>>abuse their freedom or to abuse the freedom themselves. As soon as there
>>is a tribe, nation, union there will have to be a government because not
>>every citizen has time, knowledge and desire to care for everything.
> Wrong. Even in society each individual must look after his own affairs.
Only in parts. Maybe if roboters do all the work all humans have the time
to be politicians. That's utopian for the time being. As ideal I would
accept it. As with all ideals: implementation at the wrong time is
disastrous.
> Of
> course they form into societies and groups to better deal with problems that
> require a group to solve them, but they should do so of their own free will,
> not be included by choice because of the geographical area in which they're
> born. Of course this is totally impractical, but there is no reason it can't
> be the philosophy for a drive behind smaller government and more individual
> choice.
Some things have to be regulated in connection with territories -
otherwise we would have a sort of apartheid-system with peoples of various
levels of rights inhabiting the same land. I agree that - apart from
economy and crimes - personal freedom should be untouched: Everybody has
in fact already the right to overregulate himself as he wants to. Only a
framework of common regulations remains. Economy is to be part of these
framework because it is the only effective means to enslave people
or ruin the planet for us and our heirs. It is too powerful to be
allowed to be left unattended. History and even presence gives enough
examples of what capitalists did to people in the interest of individual
profit once they had the chance to.
Of course capitalism must not be choked off as the stalinists did. Some
regulations suffice.
Armin Forker
>>You mean taxes generally speaking? The poor are even more dependend on
>>them than other people.
> Taxes hit the poorest hardest because the "rich" as in the richest few in
> society will not stay around to be taxed, they will move to tax havens and
> so the "poor" need to be taxed to fund the services they demand.
So, as a consequence, the rich must not be allowed to take the money away
into tax havens. There is no other solution as not the whole world can be
a tax haven.
>>Who has enough money to be welcome in tax havens won't have to worry for
>>his material safety.
> No, but that doesn't help the rest of us who are left in places that are not
> tax havens who will have to pay the taxes that fund the services we wanted
> him to pay for.
Nobody wants to miss the services so we must prevent the money from being
taken into tax havens. Of course there has to be a democratic decision.
>>This is indeed prefered by most. Nobody likes to pay taxes but reasonable
>>people accept that they are necessary. This I meant with 'is happy to pay
>>taxes' - as part of all, equal citizens who also contribute.
> So the reason they are not voluntary is because if we didn't force people to
> pay they wouldn't pay. Which is what I said in the first place.
Then you have said nothing more than that communism is impossible as it
relies on the good will of all. That's no news.
>>As soon as
>>people sense that they are the only idiots left who pay for all they get
>>angry. Quite understandably.
> It's not a case of being the only one to pay - we all get hurt by taxes. The
> poor more than most because taxes keep them poor, while the rich move to tax
> havens and get richer. The old socialist night mare of the rich getting rich
> and the poor getting poorer is never truer than when the rich move away and
> pay no taxes.
I couldn't have said it more pointed why tax havens should be blocked.
>>> Well then we just fundamentally disagree. If people don't mind paying
> taxes
>>> then why aren't they voluntary?
>>
>>Because the will to pay taxes depends on the knowledge that everybody
>>pays.
> Why? If taxes are beneficial to you why not pay anyway, and let those who
> choose not to pay suffer for not paying?
You mean let them starve and die should they by some unforeseen event be
dependend on public support? And kick them of the roads should they dare
to use public pavement?
Chris Hempsall
>'Running themselves better'? So you haven't understood the principle of
>tax havens. Once again:
>They attract rich people by granting low tax rates. This ensures that
>they have a higher percentage of rich people in their population - wealth
>that was acquired *outside* of the tax haven. The high percentage of
>rich people allows for lower tax rates - not that they 'run themselves
>better'. Without the outside world who provides them with rich people they
>would be starving - or they would have to raise the tax rates, of course.
Cobblers. If you run a business you pay tax on your earnings. If you then
decide to sell the business you pay tax on the proceeds. If you then decide
to clear off to the Isle of Man with all your money that's entirely up to
you, you have paid your dues to the country in which you ran your business
and no additional tax is due.
Regards
Chris
Alex Stanway
into tax havens.
So they're not allowed to move there? Or should we just annex anywhere that
has lower taxes than we?
>There is no other solution as not the whole world can be a tax haven.
And what is wrong with that?
>Nobody wants to miss the services so we must prevent the money >from being
taken into tax havens. Of course there has to be a >democratic decision.
And what then? Same with the Bahamas? USA? And anywhere else? No, what we
need to do is set taxes at the level we need them at and no higher, so as to
minimise the value of moving away.
>> It's not a case of being the only one to pay - we all get hurt by taxes.
The
>> poor more than most because taxes keep them poor, while the rich move to
tax
>> havens and get richer. The old socialist night mare of the rich getting
rich
>> and the poor getting poorer is never truer than when the rich move away
and
>> pay no taxes.
>
>I couldn't have said it more pointed why tax havens should be blocked.
So that we can all get shafted *equally*, how noble, how socially concious,
and how bloody stupid.
>> Why? If taxes are beneficial to you why not pay anyway, and let those who
>> choose not to pay suffer for not paying?
>
>You mean let them starve and die should they by some unforeseen event be
>dependend on public support? And kick them of the roads should they dare
>to use public pavement?
So we can't allow people the choice?
Alex Stanway
>
>What!? Then, according to your definition, hardly any country has an
>elected prime minister.
Indeed
>>>Happy with Manx security? We can unless they take our tax money to make a
>>>good living from it.
>
>> We can what?
>
>Be happy with their security.
So why do we want them to raise taxes?
>If they earned the money in EU they used EU infrastructure, EU >workforce,
EU protection etc. - enough to pay their taxes as any EU >citizen.
So we tax them more because they create jobs? Good logic, I'm sure the US
won't mind them "using" thier workforce and infrastructure, and I'm sure the
_parasites_ won't mind using it, if we tax them out of the EU.
>Commerce and industry tends to consider their profit as their own while if
>they cause damages or go bancrupt then suddenly community has to take care
>for the mess.
No. If someone on the IoM loses his job he doesn't get benefits other than
those paid for by IoM taxes.
>I understand that you promote absolute anarchy where people are allowed to
>have no responsibilty for more than their own profit. That would not be
>the world I want to live in.
No, I support freedom of the individual, and free enterprise.
>Yes, that's why I suggest to impose export duties on all goods to the
>island to make up for the tax difference. Hey, that's freedom, isn't
>it? They do as they like and EU does at she likes.
Export duties?? Bwahahaha! We *want* and need to export so as to bring more
money in, why on earth would we tax exports???
>If they are only willing to see their own advantage then everyone has to
>look for their own interests. Before EU was installed it was like that in
>entire Europe.
And our interests are : cheaper imports, more exports, more capital
available to entreprenuers, more economic growth and more friends amongst
our neighbours. Your plan would royally shaft each of these objectives.
>> Wrong. Even in society each individual must look after his own affairs.
>
>Only in parts. Maybe if roboters do all the work all humans have the time
>to be politicians. That's utopian for the time being. As ideal I would
>accept it. As with all ideals: implementation at the wrong time is
>disastrous.
You don't need to be a politician to run your life, indeed most people run
their lives just fine with only hinderence from politicians.
>Some things have to be regulated in connection with territories -
>otherwise we would have a sort of apartheid-system with peoples of various
>levels of rights inhabiting the same land.
Freedom would do that? So the problem with blacks in South Africa was that
they had too much freedom?
>I agree that - apart from
>economy and crimes - personal freedom should be untouched: Everybody has
>in fact already the right to overregulate himself as he wants to. Only a
>framework of common regulations remains. Economy is to be part of these
>framework because it is the only effective means to enslave people
>or ruin the planet for us and our heirs. It is too powerful to be
>allowed to be left unattended. History and even presence gives enough
>examples of what capitalists did to people in the interest of individual
>profit once they had the chance to.
And when did they have the chance to? Never because there has always been a
king or barron or government getting in the way.
>Of course capitalism must not be choked off as the stalinists did. Some
>regulations suffice.
Some very minimal ones, which the EU does not have - it has ridiculous
regulations for everything, and they are getting worse and worse and will
continue to do so as long as the Commission is allowed to do as it likes
with out answering directly to the public.
oscar
>Export duties?? Bwahahaha! We *want* and need to export so as to bring more
>money in, why on earth would we tax exports???
And how do you work that out Einstein?.
We do not need to export to the IOM or Ch Is.
But they need our imports, particularly as they're tax reduced.
Neither do we need to import from IOM or Ch Is. They produce bugger all
worth having. Apart from fruit and Veg, which we can, and do get far more
cheaply from the Eu.
If they were such desirable places every major company in the UK/Eu would be
locating there, instead of the UK.
They're parasites, no more, no less. If they don't get wise they'll be left
out in the cold, and no doubt will come whingeing to the British taxpayer to
bail them out.
And where do you get the ridiculous idea that Tax havens create Jobs.?
total drivel.
<remaining garbage snipped>
oscar
Chris Hempsall <christophe...@virgin.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:795392$ec7$1...@nclient3-gui.server.virgin.net...
>Cobblers. If you run a business you pay tax on your earnings. If you then
>decide to sell the business you pay tax on the proceeds. If you then
>decide to clear off to the Isle of Man with all your money that's entirely
>up to you, you have paid your dues to the country in which you ran your
>business and no additional tax is due.
Its irrelevant to the argument, you might as well clear off to the
Phillipines.
Anyone with the money to buy their way in to any tax haven is free to do
so.
The abhorrent part of it is, that it is only those with the money, that're
able to the dodge taxes that everyone else has to pay.
eg:-Abnormal Wisdom and Nigel Mantlepiece.
But I notice that whenever they need decent medical treatment, they're
pretty quick to come back.
oscar
>
>>They ain't paying us, unless they pay our taxes, and good defence is a
>>deterrent, thats why we have'nt needed to defend them.
>
>A proportion of them, if I understand correctly.
>Who was saying the other day??? Calling IoM experts!?
>Anyway, it's better than having some nutty dictator taking them all over.
Is it.
>>Hitler was bonkers, he shot himself, remember.
>>The gold/loot is still there. Others escaped with their loot.
>
>But that's because the Swiss nicked it, nothing to do with Germans.
>
> Alex
First I heard of it.
oddjob
>>>So? I've never lived there, but have been there, I like it, but I don't
to
>>>make a big dictatorship out of our two countries. My point was that you
>are
>>>blinded by 1) a dislike of this country and 2) an admiration of theirs.
>And
>>>so you think the EU must naturally be a good thing, with no real
>>>justification, only the lure of the things you like about other
countries.
>>
>>1.)Wrong, I'm staying where I was born. Don't presume that anyone who is
>pro
>>europe is anti-british.
>>I just dread the thought of another Thatcher/Major ever getting to power
>for
>>any length of time, & running amok.
>
>Ahhh, but you gave your game away, you are really bitter against Britain,
>you see it as a land of old-boys-network, royalists and empire, and you
>want to go out of your way to prove that that isn't you.
Sounds more like your own childish view of the UK.
>>2.)Wrong agin, I don't have to live here, I choose to. I can move
>anywhere
>>in the world that I fancy. At little loss.
>No, because that is not what you want. You want to change this country to
>get revenge on the imaginary people you dislike.
>
>>Incidentally the continentals are the ones who are making the biggest
>>changes, and long may it continue.
>>How would your Europhobes like the English language becoming almost a
>second
>>language, as they have with their own language.... Think about it.
>If that's what they want to do then fine, I'm just saying that this country
>would be better off if we left the EU. And so far I haven't seen one
>reason why we wouldn't be.
Nor would most chimpanzees.
NO Democracy, even if we do vote wrong!
>http://www.freebritnutters.dopeydemon.co.uk/
>http://www.iits.con.co.uk/new.wallies/
oddjob
>>>So??? It's not our business as it's not our country
>>
>>I suggest that you do some reading up. Then come back.
>
>So it is our country? No. It is a dependency. If you want to raise their
>taxes, you will have to go there and convince the electorate that they need
their taxes changed - good luck!
> Alex
Their, half-wit electorate, with your own guidance, will soon change their
minds once they discover that they're the Northern Hemisphere's first two
Banana Republics.
>http://www.freebritnutters.dopeydemon.co.uk/
grundle
>So??? It's not our business as it's not our country
>
> Alex
>
The world is shrinking fast, these small states that rely on loopholes in
the laws of Larger Countries, have had their day.
People will not put up with offshore tax-havens, as they have in the past.
Their only option is to become totally independant countries, very few would
be able to survive under those circumstances.
It's not only purchased residency that's become hated, its the fact that it
is possible for certain 'non' tax haven residents to dodge taxes,, both
business and personal, within their own country. Simply by registering as a
business within a haven.
It also means that they can avoid to a large extent, the laws of their own
country, regarding fraud etc.
There are hundreds of examples of this fraud over the last few years, mainly
companies based in Lichenstein/Switzerland/Ch.Is.
Good riddance to them. The sooner they're fixed the better.
mar...@rocketmail.com
Abhorent? I hardly think so. As the franchise spread to the masses it slowly
dawned on them that they could vote to take lots of other people's money and
there was nothing those people could do about it.
It is just as easy to make a case for a *reduced* level of taxation for high
earners as it is to make one for a higher rate.
Perhaps if there was a flat rate of tax people would think twice before
voting-in high-spending governments?
Martlet
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own