The Politics Thread

[faraway saint]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/royal-wedding-family-how-much-uk-economy-benefits-cost-meghan-markle-expense-a8345436.html

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Do you genuinely think it's zero? I have never once claimed all the income links back to having the royal family. If you think press, magazines and online content does not raise any tax income whatsoever that's your choice. It sounds absolute tinfoil hat ridiculous to me though.
It;s factual that the RF are public interest, do you genuinely disagree on this? [emoji1787]

I haven't disagreed that there is public interest in the Royal family. That's not the issue.
The original point from you was that they generate more money than they cost.

You haven't backed that up.

It's also not tin foil hat to claim that whole swathes of our media don't pay tax.

Don't know if you've noticed the outcry about social media and tech companies being based in e.g. Luxembourg or Ireland as they pay less corporation tax in these countries
The folk who own daily mail group and express group among others are based in tax havens. The express group (still?) owns those trashy celeb mags that print the royal stories.

[bazil85]

Just now, Slartibartfast said:

FFS, so much wrong in one post.

How can I be "back" on "new" points?

You referencing your evidence claim from a previous subject IMO shows you are being dishonest and are still interested in it. 

I put my hands up to what was wrong on that post. You should try it regarding your content. Takes a small man not to admit when wrong and a smaller man to lord over it IMO. 

[bazil85]

2 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

I haven't disagreed that there is public interest in the Royal family. That's not the issue.
The original point from you was that they generate more money than they cost.

Yes and you moved onto offshore antics from news outlets. It wasn't relevant to my point. 

You haven't backed that up.

Google it, many peer reviewed sources will back my point up

It's also not tin foil hat to claim that whole swathes of our media don't pay tax.

So you agree it isn't all media outlets? In other words some do and as such that tax in part will relate to public interest RF stories? One of many income sources they generate for the country. 

Don't know if you've noticed the outcry about social media and tech companies being based in e.g. Luxembourg or Ireland as they pay less corporation tax in these countries
The folk who own daily mail group and express group among others are based in tax havens. The express group (still?) owns those trashy celeb mags that print the royal stories.

Still irrelevant, I'm not denying tax havens and the likes happen, I know tax avoidance and evasion happens all the time. what I am denying is this results in zero tax income from media outlet from the RF. 

 

[bazil85]

3 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

 

 

 

Can you answer the question now? How can I be "back" on "new" points?

 

 

I did, you moving a point from a previous subject to a new thread and subject is "back" IMO. Your point on evidence from the old thread has just moved to the new subject. 

Can you answer the question on a (previously) "new point" that you cried about answering because it was a "new point" Do you agree with BTB regarding Cammy? Can you also point out where you've ever admitted to being wrong on BAWA? 

[bazil85]

13 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

How do you know that ANY of it was due to public interest in the royals? That's just another unsupported, and probably unprovable (at least by anyone on here), assertion.

Do you genuinely believe none of it will be through RF public interest or are you being purposefully pedantic and antagonistic again? It is very strong evidence that news outlets that profit through advertising/ sales continue to use the public interest in the RF and spend money to cover their content. Do you deny that is strong evidence of them being profitable for a business that relies on its stories generating interest to record profit through sales and advertising? There's also direct evidence such as shows that are only about the RF, any advertising income generated is through the watching of these shows/ programs 

And, before you answer, "common sense" and "do you really think" (or similar phrases) and not useful responses.

 

3 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

Your opinion is flawed (IMO ).

And you're entitled to it 

Just because you make the same error in numerous threads/posts does not mean that I am "back". It just means that you use the same flawed logic multiple times and I am pointing out each one individually.

I haven't made the same errors on multiple posts, you are wrong. My logic is also not flawed. 

I told you before, I am not interested in your argument with BTB, I'm not getting into it, so you're wasting your time asking.

Deflection noted, strange you'll bring up points where you think I haven't answered questions though. If you think this is true, surely you also think that's just my interest as well? 

I also told you before that I would answer that question once you answer the numerous ones I asked you and you avoided answering. If you can't remember what they were you could always Google it.

More deflection noted. And I have told you multiple times to tell me what questions haven't been answered. As for the google answer, whether you like it or not, google has many peer reviewed papers that answer many of my points. I can't google when you last admitted to being wrong... Unless of course you give me the specific words and content used. 

 

 

[BuddieinEK]

You see NO reason to live and let live?

Summed yourself up there beautifully.

Nasty, interfering person by self admission!
[emoji50]

[Guest TPAFKATS]

 

Are you seriously suggesting my point about newspapers not paying tax isn't relevant to you claiming royal family generate income for UK through newspaper tax revenues. 

 

You are also making claims that when questioned on evidence for these claims your answer is for me to find the answers as there must be peer reviewed evidence on Google.

There is no peer reviewed evidence you moron, it's purely opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

[bazil85]

5 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

Are you seriously suggesting my point about newspapers not paying tax isn't relevant to you claiming royal family generate income for UK through newspaper tax revenues. 

 

You are also making claims that when questioned on evidence for these claims your answer is for me to find the answers as there must be peer reviewed evidence on Google.

There is no peer reviewed evidence you moron, it's purely opinion.

Yes, the situation may very well limit the income from that specific source but it doesn’t invalidate that they make more money than they cost. We can talk about tax avoidance & evasion if you want as a separate subject but I feel our opinions are likely pretty close. 

As for no peer reviewed data regarding royal income online, that is beyond ridiculous. You don’t need to look up my claims if you don’t want but it won’t change the fact they are there.

let’s not forget you’re arguing that the RF don’t make the UK money when throwing around stupidity related insults 😂

Edited December 21, 2019 by bazil85

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Yes, the situation may very well limit the income from that specific source but it doesn’t invalidate that they make more money than they cost. We can talk about tax avoidance & evasion if you want as a separate subject but I feel our opinions are likely pretty close. 
As for no peer reviewed data regarding royal income online, that is beyond ridiculous. You don’t need to look up my claims if you don’t want but it won’t change the fact they are there.
let’s not forget you’re arguing that the RF don’t make the UK money when throwing around stupidity related insults [emoji23]

My point is that you can't prove the Royal family make the UK more money than it costs to have them.

You've claimed it but can't back it up.

See ye

[antrin]

My point is that you can't prove the Royal family make the UK more money than it costs to have them.

You've claimed it but can't back it up.

See ye

THAT is the undeniable simple nub of this thread.

(Out of interest... What age is Bazil? I've known similar levels of debate from spotty students. )

[Guest TPAFKATS]

THAT is the undeniable simple nub of this thread.

(Out of interest... What age is Bazil? I've known similar levels of debate from spotty students. )

I'm not sure bazil is just one person given the amount of time they spent with very long posts on here.

[Cornwall_Saint]

1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:

My point is that you can't prove the Royal family make the UK more money than it costs to have them.

You've claimed it but can't back it up.

See ye

Even if it was “profitable” to have them, it is really justifiable to pay one family millions upon millions of pounds for no real reason apart from birth line while many normal families are choosing between heating and eating?

[Buddymarvellous]

Off with their heads.....

[faraway saint]

1 minute ago, Buddymarvellous said:

Off with their heads.....

Feed THEM cake. 

[Tommy]

And I thought I took the thread off topic [emoji1786]

[shull]

18 hours ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

Even if it was “profitable” to have them, it is really justifiable to pay one family millions upon millions of pounds for no real reason apart from birth line while many normal families are choosing between heating and eating?

Keep my jaikit on and have a curry phoned in. That's my choice but only if I wasn't normal. 

Normal families don't generally have to choose. 

Normal families will generally budget correctly, work hard and not waste money on drink and drugs or even football. 

 

[BuddieinEK]

OK, good of you to admit it.

Hahahahaha...

Baz is a Rimmer!

You made my day!

[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

[shull]

 

[oaksoft]

 

On 12/21/2019 at 12:09 PM, bazil85 said:

Still irrelevant, I'm not denying tax havens and the likes happen, I know tax avoidance and evasion happens all the time. what I am denying is this results in zero tax income from media outlet from the RF. 

TPAK thingy is correct on this.

You can check the Times newspaper as an example at the Companies House website.

Check their financial results. It looks like they make about £10m but pay as close to zero tax as possible through inter-company transfers (just £28k if I read the numbers correctly).

Now see who owns the Times and check out their accounts. You might need to schedule a good hour here.

I followed them back through the Times Group through to News Corp Holdings UK and Ireland and the News Corp UK and Ireland Holdings (two separate companies - bollocks I know). The chain is pretty long and then it all disappears with News Corp which is in the US. No doubt the chain expands further back into a tax haven but I lost track of it in the US.

There is no doubt the other newspapers do the same because they wouldn't be able to compete otherwise.

Having a huge chain of holding companies is a great way to funnel profits from one part of a business to another before it all leaves the UK.

Sometimes TPAK thing does know what he's talking about. It's rare and it drips in lefty shite but he's right about this and you should be the bigger man here and simply acknowledge that.

Edited December 22, 2019 by oaksoft

[antrin]

20 hours ago, cockles1987 said:

Having seen his photo, I'd reckon about 1/3 your age.

30ish

30ish...

 

That brought to mind your final vital shot in the gripping indoors carpet match at the Viccy a week or so ago...

Your bool rolled about 30ish feet off the carpet.  
 

 

 

[bazil85]

On 12/21/2019 at 5:27 PM, TPAFKATS said:

My point is that you can't prove the Royal family make the UK more money than it costs to have them.

You've claimed it but can't back it up.

See ye

See ya

Oh and if you want to see the proof, google it. 

[bazil85]

18 hours ago, oaksoft said:

 

TPAK thingy is correct on this.

You can check the Times newspaper as an example at the Companies House website.

Check their financial results. It looks like they make about £10m but pay as close to zero tax as possible through inter-company transfers (just £28k if I read the numbers correctly).

Now see who owns the Times and check out their accounts. You might need to schedule a good hour here.

I followed them back through the Times Group through to News Corp Holdings UK and Ireland and the News Corp UK and Ireland Holdings (two separate companies - bollocks I know). The chain is pretty long and then it all disappears with News Corp which is in the US. No doubt the chain expands further back into a tax haven but I lost track of it in the US.

There is no doubt the other newspapers do the same because they wouldn't be able to compete otherwise.

Having a huge chain of holding companies is a great way to funnel profits from one part of a business to another before it all leaves the UK.

Sometimes TPAK thing does know what he's talking about. It's rare and it drips in lefty shite but he's right about this and you should be the bigger man here and simply acknowledge that.

As I have said in another post, no doubt we would agree on the issues of tax avoidance/ evasion (thin line sometimes). That tax income figure across all entertainment media is NOT zero though. It still generates income & is one of several ways the RF benefits the purse. 

[oaksoft]

 

 

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

As I have said in another post, no doubt we would agree on the issues of tax avoidance/ evasion (thin line sometimes). That tax income figure across all entertainment media is NOT zero though. It still generates income & is one of several ways the RF benefits the purse. 

Ah right I see what you have done. We were talking about newspapers and now you've moved the goalposts to "all entertainment media". I am therefore bailing. Enjoy talking to yourself.

[bazil85]

20 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

FFS, could you just answer the f**king question? 

I did answer your question, I was also pointing out your go to, pedantic and purposely antagonistic style.

Asking me if I "genuinely believe" (especially after me saying that such phrases are "not useful responses") is just avoiding answering the question.

Because I think it’s clear your post is only to be antagonistic and pedantic

An honest answer, in fact the only honest answer, would have been that you don't know. Simple to say for most people but you avoid just so you don't have to admit that what you assert as fact is really just your opinion.

I do know, the RF generate income for the UK through public interest stories and events. I know this is fact. If you genuinely don’t think it is, I would say you are very naive on the subject and would encourage you to investigate before returning to the subject.

I've already covered "royal specific" stuff, do keep up, FFS.

Is this a grudging (or maybe just deflection) way of agreeing with me on Royal specific content?

Thanks for stating the obvious. 

Sometimes it does feel necessary on here

Making unsupported assertions on numerous posts and failing to provide supporting evidence when requested is a mistake. The fact that you don't see this mistake, and even deny it is one, is a flaw in your logic. Simple.

Still on that subject you lost interest on and that I have told you I don’t care about your validation?

You must have a hell of a long list of notes with how often you use that term. Do you think it's impressive? In reality, it's like something that would be said in Red Dwarf by Rimmer.

Great show. Just the best way to describe that part of your post IMO

There is no deflection on my part. I refused to answer a question from you due to the fact that you were trying to go off topic. It had nothing to do with the topic under discussion and you were attempting to use it to, funnily enough, deflect.

Cough… See the other thread where you went off topic, I still answered questions there.

You've told me "multiple times" have you? Oh what a f**king hard life you have. I've told you the same amount of times to go and look. Why don't you?

Have, can’t find any. Hence my ask. You again seem to be getting upset.

Does Google really have peer reviewed papers to prove any points we have "discussed"? Prove it. I expect you will refuse to do so. I doubt you even know what peer reviewed means - without going and googling it. 

Does it really have peer reviewed papers for the topics we’ve discussed? Regarding the RF, certainly. I don’t for a second believe anyone genuinely doesn’t understand what can be found on google to make “prove it” anything other than an antagonistic, trivial ask.  


OK, good of you to admit it.

All I have admitted is I don’t have the words used on here for when you (supposedly) have admitted to being wrong. Feel free to share and I’ll look myself.