Big Boris, Our Prime Minister

[Guest TPAFKATS]

The real reason Jo Swinson lost her seat (mibees)
'Mon the boolers!

[jaybee]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

5 hours ago, FTOF said:

I'm not downplaying how scummy benefit cheating is.

I'm suggesting that a lot of people find tax avoiders equally scummy.

You really should read things more carefully.

 

Oh you know exactly what you are doing - deliberately attempting to conflate the two issues as though they were two sides of the same coin.

Magnificent display of whataboutery.

Benefits thieves are scum. End of. No need for comparison with anything else.

Walk in their shoes and see what you would do?

[jaybee]

47 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

The real reason Jo Swinson lost her seat (mibees)
'Mon the boolers!

She lost her seat because the voters realised she is a fantasist.......................like many on this forum

[Cornwall_Saint]

8 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Another one who doesn't understand the difference between benefits fraud (illegal) and tax avoidance (legal).

Those stealing benefits should be hunted down like the scum that they are.

What are your thoughts on the idea of closing the loopholes that allow the very rich to get away with paying on tax?

The quote on the bottom of this post by Slarti is what we are getting at here. We don’t support benefit fraud, we despise it just like you do. I think it is fair to think that the rich using these loopholes, while legal, is no different to those cheating the benefits system. We are currently allowing one group away with something while punishing another group for an equivalent offence.

I would like to know whether you think these legal loopholes should be closed off, or if you think they should remain open.

8 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

... the nonsense of straight bananas


That was something made up by, IIRC, the Daily Mail. The EU has no regulations on "straight bananas", that is in the power of Westminster, who I don't think made any regulations on it either.

Most of the "ridiculous" things like that stated about EU regulations tend to be made up nonsense by the right wing press.

I’m sure the racist right wing press also spouted pish about having to use less powerful kettles and hoovers.

8 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

I don't think that there is any great support for people defrauding benefits (other from those doing so), it's more that it's the "wee guy" that is constantly painted in a bad light for "stealing" while the "big guy" is painted as a pillar of society while "avoiding" paying even more and, as previously said, sometimes it's really evasion.

[Tommy]

Certainly benefit fraud is wrong and those who do it deserved to be punish.
I also feel most people who do it don't save it but will spend the extra money so shops, bars bookies etc will all gain from the extra spending, and the government will get a lot of it back through taxation.
Whereby the rich will just end up with more ££££££££ in a foreign bank account than they had before.
What is the point of hogging Billions or Millions of £ for the sake of doing it.
Why do people need more money than they can possibly spend ?

[smcc]

6 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Do you really want to get into a discussion comparing the consequences of benefits stealing with those of overstaying in a parking space?

I am not getting into any further discussions where people compare legal tax avoidance with illegal benefits stealing. It's f**king ridiculous. BTW the "wee guy" you are describing is a thieving c**t and is taking money directly out of the fund designed to help the most vulnerable în society. You leftiês really should be. be attacking him instead of excusing him or downplaying his criminality with all this "aye but...."  nonsense.

This is that left wing tendency to have a blindspot for one of your own that I accused salmonbuddie of yesterday. That is precisely what you. criticise the rich for doing.

Why do you always assume that anyone who does not agree with you must be left wing? ❔

[faraway saint]

16 minutes ago, Tommy said:

Certainly benefit fraud is wrong and those who do it deserved to be punish.
I also feel most people who do it don't save it but will spend the extra money so shops, bars bookies etc will all gain from the extra spending, and the government will get a lot of it back through taxation.
Whereby the rich will just end up with more ££££££££ in a foreign bank account than they had before.
What is the point of hogging Billions or Millions of £ for the sake of doing it.
Why do people need more money than they can possibly spend ?

So benefit cheats are putting ill gotten gains back into the economy.................................isn't that money laundering? 

Oh, so the "rich" don;t spend their money? 

[St.Ricky]

3 hours ago, Tommy said:

Why do people need more money than they can possibly spend ?

A good question. Take your pick.. A way of keeping score.. Greed.. Insecurity.. Buy a football club.. Give lots of it away to charity. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

 
 
 

 
The parking space stuff was not meant to be taken seriously.
 
Where have I ever said, or demonstrated, that I was "a leftie"?
 
Where did I say he wasn't a thieving c**t?
 
Where did I excuse him?
 
Where did I defend anyone?
 
You obviously never read my post properly, did you?

What is a "leftie" other than a term used by newspapers and media to instill fear in the general population.

[FTOF]

17 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:

What is a "leftie" other than a term used by newspapers and media to instill fear in the general population.

It also seems to be used by individuals whose grasp of politics is deplorable at best.

[oaksoft]

16 hours ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

What are your thoughts on the idea of closing the loopholes that allow the very rich to get away with paying on tax?

The quote on the bottom of this post by Slarti is what we are getting at here. We don’t support benefit fraud, we despise it just like you do. I think it is fair to think that the rich using these loopholes, while legal, is no different to those cheating the benefits system. We are currently allowing one group away with something while punishing another group for an equivalent offence.

I would like to know whether you think these legal loopholes should be closed off, or if you think they should remain open.

I’m sure the racist right wing press also spouted pish about having to use less powerful kettles and hoovers.

In a discussion about benefits fraud scumbags, why have people raised a completely different issue?

It's almost as though people wanted to engage in whataboutery to play down benefits theft. I don't understand this at all.

If you want to discuss tax avoidance we can do that separately but you at least need to describe your problem with it. Which specific loopholes do you want closed and how mich would the country gain by closing them?

Edited December 22, 2019 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

17 hours ago, 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?

[Cornwall_Saint]

2 hours ago, oaksoft said:

In a discussion about benefits fraud scumbags, why have people raised a completely different issue?

It's almost as though people wanted to engage in whataboutery to play down benefits theft. I don't understand this at all.

If you want to discuss tax avoidance we can do that separately but you at least need to describe your problem with it. Which specific loopholes do you want closed and how mich would the country gain by closing them?

Nobody is downplaying benefit fraud here. Everyone is in agreement it is wrong and should be stopped.

The reason tax avoidance is being brought into discussion is because many of us are in agreement that the poor get targeted for financial fraud while the rich have a legal route to commit their own fraud. We are merely pointing out that both should be targeted, not just the poor.

You ask me what my problem with it is. That’s a fair enough question and I will do my best to answer it.

Ill go back to the Lewis Hamilton one that I remember best. The man in question registered a private jet in the Isle of Man. By doing this instead of registering it in the UK, he has saved £3.4m because the jet is not taxed if registered on the IoM. I’d say that’s fine, presuming he regularly visits the IoM. But that jet has been on the IoM just once - the day it was registered. This is a clear, obvious sign that the only reason he registered the jet on the IoM was down to avoiding the tax payment on the jet.

The simple fact is, the man is a multi-millionaire. If you can afford to buy your own private jet, you can afford to pay £3.4m into our treasury. In his case, he is perfectly happy and fine to represent Britain in his sport, but unwilling to pay his fair share for our services and all the government funds.

He is just one example. Many others have done similar. Many funnel their money into offshore tax havens. There is millions, probably billions of pounds worth that we have missed out on due to these legal schemes.

The problem I personally have with this is that these people can easily afford to pay that amount of tax - they are minted and loaded. Many of us have our earnings taxed before we see the money - these guys see the money, hide it and then get taxed. This is not equality. It is literally one rule for the rich, and a different rule for the rest of us peasants.

The problem with this actually being legal is that it just gives the rich a bigger incentive to avoid paying their way. There is so much money we are missing out on that could be used to fund schools, hospitals. It could fund so many tuition fees, giving the rest of the UK what Scotland has - a total right to education, not one that is based on your bank account. I think I read recently that nurses end up £35,000 in debt. It was £50,000 but the Tories have kindly offered to reduce that, ignoring the fact they ended bursaries in the first place that lead to nurses ending up with debt.

I don’t mean to stray off, but for me it is appalling that we continue to allow this legal habit just to keep the rich happy, especially when we had to endure 9 years of austerity and cuts. If the financial situation was that bad, then why the hell weren’t we clamping down on getting the masses of money we haven’t been receiving? Cuts, cuts, cuts, but yet they were allowed to continue this tax avoiding lifestyle. That’s why others and I have a problem with it.

[Bud the Baker]

Another pledge dropped...

Quote

 

Brexit: Johnson condemned for dropping pledge to replace family reunion law

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/22/brexit-johnson-condemned-for-dropping-pledge-to-replace-family-reunion-law

Edited December 22, 2019 by Bud the Baker

[shull]

 

[oaksoft]

5 hours ago, Bud the Baker said:

Another pledge dropped...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/dec/22/brexit-johnson-condemned-for-dropping-pledge-to-replace-family-reunion-law

I might be missing something here but it seems odd that a parent would leave a child behind in another EU country to come here. I can't think of anything which would make me do that. Is there something about our asylum system which forces a parent to do that?

It appears that the Tories think this is a ploy to gain sympathy from the UK and hopefully tilt the asylum claim in their favour and that they want to send a message that this won't work but the question above needs asking all the same.

Edited December 22, 2019 by oaksoft

[antrin]

Sigh...

father leaves an impoverished, war-torn country that UK is supposed to be policing., in order to set up something decent for mum and son.

(perhaps he was an army interpreter)

mum gets killed either in Afghanistan or travelling with son to reunite with husband?

there are a million possible reasons.

i feel no need to judge the child without knowing the circumstances.

We are (always used to be) a country which accepted refugees.

[FTOF]

7 hours ago, antrin said:

Sigh...

father leaves an impoverished, war-torn country that UK is supposed to be policing., in order to set up something decent for mum and son.

(perhaps he was an army interpreter)

mum gets killed either in Afghanistan or travelling with son to reunite with husband?

there are a million possible reasons.

i feel no need to judge the child without knowing the circumstances.

We are (always used to be) a country which accepted refugees.

You've out thought him again.

Prepare to be called a leftie.

Edited December 23, 2019 by FTOF

[shull]

[windae cleaner]

1 hour ago, FTOF said:

You've out thought him again.

Prepare to be called a leftie.

Don't forget Snowflake as well

[oaksoft]

17 hours ago, Cornwall_Saint said:

Nobody is downplaying benefit fraud here. Everyone is in agreement it is wrong and should be stopped.

The reason tax avoidance is being brought into discussion is because many of us are in agreement that the poor get targeted for financial fraud while the rich have a legal route to commit their own fraud. We are merely pointing out that both should be targeted, not just the poor.

You ask me what my problem with it is. That’s a fair enough question and I will do my best to answer it.

Ill go back to the Lewis Hamilton one that I remember best. The man in question registered a private jet in the Isle of Man. By doing this instead of registering it in the UK, he has saved £3.4m because the jet is not taxed if registered on the IoM. I’d say that’s fine, presuming he regularly visits the IoM. But that jet has been on the IoM just once - the day it was registered. This is a clear, obvious sign that the only reason he registered the jet on the IoM was down to avoiding the tax payment on the jet.

The simple fact is, the man is a multi-millionaire. If you can afford to buy your own private jet, you can afford to pay £3.4m into our treasury. In his case, he is perfectly happy and fine to represent Britain in his sport, but unwilling to pay his fair share for our services and all the government funds.

He is just one example. Many others have done similar. Many funnel their money into offshore tax havens. There is millions, probably billions of pounds worth that we have missed out on due to these legal schemes.

The problem I personally have with this is that these people can easily afford to pay that amount of tax - they are minted and loaded. Many of us have our earnings taxed before we see the money - these guys see the money, hide it and then get taxed. This is not equality. It is literally one rule for the rich, and a different rule for the rest of us peasants.

The problem with this actually being legal is that it just gives the rich a bigger incentive to avoid paying their way. There is so much money we are missing out on that could be used to fund schools, hospitals. It could fund so many tuition fees, giving the rest of the UK what Scotland has - a total right to education, not one that is based on your bank account. I think I read recently that nurses end up £35,000 in debt. It was £50,000 but the Tories have kindly offered to reduce that, ignoring the fact they ended bursaries in the first place that lead to nurses ending up with debt.

I don’t mean to stray off, but for me it is appalling that we continue to allow this legal habit just to keep the rich happy, especially when we had to endure 9 years of austerity and cuts. If the financial situation was that bad, then why the hell weren’t we clamping down on getting the masses of money we haven’t been receiving? Cuts, cuts, cuts, but yet they were allowed to continue this tax avoiding lifestyle. That’s why others and I have a problem with it.

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.

Edited December 23, 2019 by oaksoft

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Sigh...
father leaves an impoverished, war-torn country that UK is supposed to be policing., in order to set up something decent for mum and son.
(perhaps he was an army interpreter)
mum gets killed either in Afghanistan or travelling with son to reunite with husband?
there are a million possible reasons.
i feel no need to judge the child without knowing the circumstances.
We are (always used to be) a country which accepted refugees.

I discovered last week that UK only accepted the kinder transport of Jewish children after first refusing to accept the adults and complete families.
So, not always accepting of refugees, but I take your other points.

[shull]

A lot of hate coming from that female. 

 

[antrin]

7 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:

I discovered last week that UK only accepted the kinder transport of Jewish children after first refusing to accept the adults and complete families.
So, not always accepting of refugees, but I take your other points.

I knew of that time of racism that was eventually defeated by morality.

there has always been naysayers and oaksofts.

 

if we can afford a foreign royal family, we can afford refugees.

[shull]

https://unherd.com/2019/12/how-does-labour-come-back-from-this-toxic-mess/?tl_inbound=1&tl_groups[0]=18743&tl_period_type=3