Jump to content

Big Boris, Our Prime Minister


shull

Recommended Posts

BJ reneges on inquiry into Islamophobia in Tory Party, surely Chancellor  Sajid Javid must resign...:whistle

 

Quote

 

Sajid Javid forces leadership rivals to pledge independent probe into Tory Islamophobia

It’s shameful that Johnson has reneged on the inquiry into Tory Islamophobia

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/23/boris-johnson-reneged-inquiry-islamophobia-british-muslims

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Guest TPAFKATS
BJ reneges on inquiry into Islamophobia in Tory Party, surely Chancellor  Sajid Javid must resign...:whistle

 

 

Sajid Javid forces leadership rivals to pledge independent probe into Tory Islamophobia

It’s shameful that Johnson has reneged on the inquiry into Tory Islamophobia

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/23/boris-johnson-reneged-inquiry-islamophobia-british-muslims
 
 
It'll be news when the compulsive liar actually follows through on a promise
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/23/2019 at 9:13 AM, oaksoft said:

How can tax avoidance be fraud if it's perfectly legal?

And anyway, who are you to tell people how much in earnings is enough?

Who are you to be making judgements about how much more tax people should pay? Hamilton can spend whatever he wants in whatever legal manner he desires. If he wants to save £3m but only get to see his plane once, that is entirely up to him. It makes no difference to any of our lives. Also, you have no idea how much the man already pays in taxes. He's probably paying a lot more than all of us on here combined. Why is that not enough for you? How much do you want to squeeze out of him?

You seem obsessed with what other people have and it all smells a bit like the politics of envy.

You have no idea how much money the country can gain by closing avoidance "loopholes" because you have no idea what lengths rich people will go to in an attempt to avoid paying more than they need. We learned all these lessons in the 70s so I am really not sure what's to be gained by pursuing the issue again. You mentioned that is millions we are missing out on and "possibly" billions. It's simply not possible to get your hands on it.

You want fairness but it's a pipe dream. Rich people will always have more options. Life isn't fair and unless you have some masterplan to prise the money out of their pockets it'll always be like that.

Honestly I would advise you to channel your energy into joining them and then you can pay all the taxes you want.

Let’s say it was the other way about, and people were claiming all sorts of benefits they shouldn’t be. But it was “legal” to do so. Any random person could go and claim unemployment benefit even though they were working, with no repercussions. Would you be okay with that?

In response to your “who are you to tell people how much in earnings is enough?”, if you can easily afford things like private jets then you can afford to pay your taxes properly. Nobody “needs” a private jet, it’s a luxury item.

“If he wants to save £3m but only get to see his plane once, that is entirely up to him” - There is a misunderstanding here. The jet has been on the IoM once, which was the day it was registered. He can use it as much as he wants, it’s not permanently located on the IoM.
 

“Also, you have no idea how much the man already pays in taxes. He's probably paying a lot more than all of us on here combined.” - I don’t know, no. However, I’m sure he lives in Monaco, which if I’m correct is the perfect tax avoiding haven to live. He may well actually be paying absolutely nothing in tax. Indeed our very own David Coulthard did the same. Apologies in advance if I’m wrong but that’s what I’ve been led to believe in regards to living in Monaco.

“You seem obsessed with what other people have and it all smells a bit like the politics of envy.” - That’s not the case oaky. My anger is down to the lack of equality in who gets chased down for money - the DWP are quick to hound down people on benefit overpayments, fraud, etc. The poor can’t screw the system (I’m not complaining about that), but the rich can (that’s where my complaint is). It literally is one rule for the rich and one for the poor. It isn’t envy, it’s the belief that all should be treated equally, and that means clamping down on the legal tax avoidance schemes.

”because you have no idea what lengths rich people will go to in an attempt to avoid paying more than they need.” and “We learned all these lessons in the 70s so I am really not sure what's to be gained by pursuing the issue again.” - A very defeatist attitude which basically says let them do what the hell they like. Imagine the backlash if Jeremy Corbyn said “ah well screw it, let the benefit cheats do it, we will never catch every one of them so what’s the point?”

I have no interest in “joining them”. As long as I’ve got enough to supply myself, keep a roof over my head and give my two boys every they could ask for, then I’m happy. Many people have ruined their lives by having too much money, I don’t need nor care for that amount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/22/2019 at 12:22 PM, oaksoft said:
On 12/21/2019 at 7:15 PM, jaybee said:

Walk in their shoes and see what you would do?

Would that be the shoes they bought with money the scummy bastards stole from the pot of money supporting the most vulnerable in society?

Three words come to mind, deflecting.................... sanctimonious............................................................................. and............................... bastard.

I think your clever enough to formulate a sentence within which they all might fit,, as they relate to yourself,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2019 at 3:25 PM, antrin said:

I think my antipathy for Hamilton is that he benefited from a British education, growing up here and being rewarded by the appreciation of uk car-driving fans, but chose to avoid sharing any of his new wealth, as soon as he could.

 

I tend towards this view. I certainly don't suggest that he has acted illegally. Morally though.. Thats a different thing. Money and morality are not always compatible it seems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/24/2019 at 1:26 PM, Cornwall_Saint said:

Let’s say it was the other way about, and people were claiming all sorts of benefits they shouldn’t be. But it was “legal” to do so. Any random person could go and claim unemployment benefit even though they were working, with no repercussions. Would you be okay with that?

In response to your “who are you to tell people how much in earnings is enough?”, if you can easily afford things like private jets then you can afford to pay your taxes properly. Nobody “needs” a private jet, it’s a luxury item.

“If he wants to save £3m but only get to see his plane once, that is entirely up to him” - There is a misunderstanding here. The jet has been on the IoM once, which was the day it was registered. He can use it as much as he wants, it’s not permanently located on the IoM.
 

“Also, you have no idea how much the man already pays in taxes. He's probably paying a lot more than all of us on here combined.” - I don’t know, no. However, I’m sure he lives in Monaco, which if I’m correct is the perfect tax avoiding haven to live. He may well actually be paying absolutely nothing in tax. Indeed our very own David Coulthard did the same. Apologies in advance if I’m wrong but that’s what I’ve been led to believe in regards to living in Monaco.

“You seem obsessed with what other people have and it all smells a bit like the politics of envy.” - That’s not the case oaky. My anger is down to the lack of equality in who gets chased down for money - the DWP are quick to hound down people on benefit overpayments, fraud, etc. The poor can’t screw the system (I’m not complaining about that), but the rich can (that’s where my complaint is). It literally is one rule for the rich and one for the poor. It isn’t envy, it’s the belief that all should be treated equally, and that means clamping down on the legal tax avoidance schemes.

”because you have no idea what lengths rich people will go to in an attempt to avoid paying more than they need.” and “We learned all these lessons in the 70s so I am really not sure what's to be gained by pursuing the issue again.” - A very defeatist attitude which basically says let them do what the hell they like. Imagine the backlash if Jeremy Corbyn said “ah well screw it, let the benefit cheats do it, we will never catch every one of them so what’s the point?”

I have no interest in “joining them”. As long as I’ve got enough to supply myself, keep a roof over my head and give my two boys every they could ask for, then I’m happy. Many people have ruined their lives by having too much money, I don’t need nor care for that amount.

First paragraph, I would change "unemplyment benefit" and replace it with another title but yes I would be OK with it. I would go further. I agree with the principle of Universal Benefits which are not means tested at all such as free prescriptions and child benefit. I was against the recent cap on the latter. I would also love to see a universal income of abput £800 per month but I have no idea how to make that work without people with chaotic lives fall even further through the cracks.

 If it's legal then it geuinely doesn't matter to me. I have never been obsessed with what other people have and I have never been resentful even during the many years when I had no money at all.

I am very glad we live in a world where I don't have to ask you or anyone else what I should or should not be able to buy. You'll have a hard job finding a country which is run like that. If Hamilton wants a jet he can have a jet. None of that affects me in the slightest.

I should just declare here that I have no knowledge or interest in the legal tax avoidance schemes used by Coulthard and Hamilton. Life is just too short bud. It's up to politicians to decide whether these things matter. I have far more important things to worry about in my own life.

In that paragraph about equality of treatment you have once again attempted to equate illegal benefits fraud with legal tax avoidance. Let's move on from that because we're not going to agree.

My attitude towards tax avoidance is not defeatist at all. It's a combination of pragmitism and being OK with it providing it is legal.

People allow money to ruin their lives because they don't educate themselves enough about what it can bring them. Money may not buy happiness but it does buy freedom and freedom absolutely buys happiness. You need a lot less to achieve this than you think but people seem hellbent on spunking every penny on materialistic crap and remaining in the captivity of modern life.

I will leave you with one thought. Imagine I wanted to cure all cancers. Imagine I was capable of such a thing. Imagine I had £1bn of personal wealth and could design a gene editing machine with that money which would target each human individually to cure them overnight. That's an amount of money you said no human ever needed. Still feel that way? How do you know that these billionaires are not using their wealth to directly solve some of the world's biggest problems like disease in Africa?

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine being O.K. with tax avoidance, for the purpose of making a quick buck to the detriment of millions of others, when you've just spent two years whining about a football club making a quick buck to the detriment of others.

Surely nobody could be that hypocritical.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, FTOF said:

Imagine being O.K. with tax avoidance, for the purpose of making a quick buck to the detriment of millions of others, when you've just spent two years whining about a football club making a quick buck to the detriment of others.

Surely nobody could be that hypocritical.

 

Imagine not understanding that people can care about one thing very much and not care at all about a completely different other thing.

 

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine not understanding that people can care about one thing very much and not care at all about a completely different other thing.
 
No imagination needed, oaky, most on here care about others and you only care about you, we all get that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, salmonbuddie said:
10 hours ago, oaksoft said:
Imagine not understanding that people can care about one thing very much and not care at all about a completely different other thing.
 

No imagination needed, oaky, most on here care about others and you only care about you, we all get that.

It'll be a cold day in hell when I start caring about your opinion of me bud. I honestly have no idea why you bother posting this sort of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'll be a cold day in hell when I start caring about your opinion of me bud. I honestly have no idea why you bother posting this sort of thing.
Thanks for proving my point.

You don't care, but you have to reply to tell us you don't care...

[emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, delpierro said:

An increase in billionaires is a sad reflection in the distribution of wealth.

Be careful what you wish for.

Without very rich people we'd have no angel investors in startup companies.

Without them we'd have no technical innovations.

No functioning internet, no cars, no electricity, no gas, no computers, no transport, no fuel for cars, almost no jobs, almost no taxation, no pharmaceuticals and no viable economy. The list is endless.

If you don't want to include having things like that in the phrase "distribution of wealth" then that's up to you but I would disagree.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be careful what you wish for.
Without very rich people we'd have no angel investors in startup companies.
Without them we'd have no technical innovations.
No functioning internet, no cars, no electricity, no gas, no computers, no transport, no fuel for cars, almost no jobs, almost no taxation, no pharmaceuticals and no viable economy. The list is endless.
If you don't want to include having things like that in the phrase "distribution of wealth" then that's up to you but I would disagree.
Show me a country with the most billionaires and I'll give you an unequal society.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

I would think that all that is not demonstrable.

Just because very rich people invested in those things, you cannot say that the "average man" wouldn't have invested in them if they had been better off or that governments wouldn't have invested in them instead.

You're basically saying that because that's the way it did happen then it couldn't have happened any other way, which would (probably) be impossible to prove.

Or maybe we've actually missed out on "better" things because of those things that we do have. Impossible to prove either way as it's all hypothetical.

 

You think it is not demonstrable that private wealth has brought the internet, cars, electricity, gas, computers, transport, fuel for cars, jobs, pharmaceuticals and a viable economy?

I am unaware of any major inventions which have not required private money to bring them to market.

That is not the job of government. It shouldn't be the job of government. It will never be the job of government. I honestly have no idea why you'd think that it could be.

There was nothing to stop alternative methods of bringing things to market and it didn't happen so it's reasonable to assume it wouldn't happen. Actually it's completely unreasonable to assume governments and the "average man" would pick up the slack given the paucity of evidence for it over the last few hundred years.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, delpierro said:

Show me a country with the most billionaires and I'll give you an unequal society.


 

Maybe but I'm only interested in this country and with free education, free health, democratisation of knowledge, a functioning welfare state (despite the Tories creating problems for people in how they manage it) low unemployment and few barriers to self employment there has never been a phase in our country's history where more support and help has been there for those at the bottom to improve their lives. I think that's a reasonably good place to be. We are very fortunate to live here.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe but I'm only interested in this country and with free education, free health, democratisation of knowledge, a functioning welfare state (despite the Tories creating problems for people in how they manage it) low unemployment and few barriers to self employment there has never been a phase in our country's history where more support and help has been there for those at the bottom to improve their lives. I think that's a reasonably good place to be. We are very fortunate to live here.
Full fiscal powers, then we can talk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...