The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[banjodeano 31]

7 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Yeah yeah and the poorer members of society never do any of that right? hmmmm.

 

Never see any market traders dealing in cash only - how much of that going through the books officially....

 

How many punters are out there are hiring their electricians in joiners and builders offering you a nice little discount for cash payment only.

 

Oh yes you never ever see poor people buy knock-off and stolen goods out of suitcases from Jim Bob down at number 32 who has 'contacts'.   

 

Never see them buying clearly fake designer or import specials of high value items for a third of the price and vat free

 

You never saw them a few years ago going on day trips to Calais filling their cars to the brim with cheap booze praying that they wouldn't be picked out in the customs line.

 

You never see small and sole traders scouring through their personal expenditure finances and picking out all and everything they can try it on and put through the business to get tax relief....

 

Yeah right.h  Theres no moral high ground that you seem to think. 

 

Sure the amounts may be smaller but it's still all relative.

 

are you seriously comparing someone who sells knock off fags to someone who ears billions and pays no tax? 

[ECCOnoob 1,040]

11 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

are you seriously comparing someone who sells knock off fags to someone who ears billions and pays no tax? 

Actually no I'm not.   

 

One is legal (.... albeit morally distasteful to many people) and the other is an actual criminal offence.

 

You're desperate argument has been done to death.  it's completely irrelevant how much someone has in the bank account or how much somebody earns.   If the laws state that they are legally obliged to pay x amount that is the amount they pay.   

 

Until such time as the actual written tax laws are changed there is absolutely no obligation on anyone whether they have a penny in the bank or £1000000 to pay more than they have to.

 

Where there are grey areas in the law some people utilise them others will break them and many others will be in between following whatever their lawyers and accountants will tell them to do.

 

Where there are disputes it is the job of the courts and all the HMRC to sort them out.  Sometimes the so-called rich people win the battle.  Other times the government win the battle.

 

It is a very messy and complex process.

 

However there is no court of morality and there is certainly no high horse for a poor person to jump on when they buy illegal fags.  They can be deemed just a distasteful as someone who is legally avoiding tax.

 

Like I said earlier, it matters not a jot what the amounts are it's all relative.

 

Edited November 23, 2019 by ECCOnoob

[Mister Gee 823]

23 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Actually no I'm not.   

 

One is legal (.... albeit morally distasteful to many people) and the other is an actual criminal offence.

 

You're desperate argument has been done to death.  it's completely irrelevant how much someone has in the bank account or how much somebody earns.   If the laws state that they are legally obliged to pay x amount that is the amount they pay.   

 

Until such time as the actual written tax laws are changed there is absolutely no obligation on anyone whether they have a penny in the bank or £1000000 to pay more than they have to.

 

Where there are grey areas in the law some people utilise them others will break them and many others will be in between following whatever their lawyers and accountants will tell them to do.

 

Where there are disputes it is the job of the courts and all the HMRC to sort them out.  Sometimes the so-called rich people win the battle.  Other times the government win the battle.

 

It is a very messy and complex process.

 

However there is no court of morality and there is certainly no high horse for a poor person to jump on when they buy illegal fags.  They can be deemed just a distasteful as someone who is legally avoiding tax.

 

Like I said earlier, it matters not a jot what the amounts are it's all relative.

 

No more said.

[Robin-H 11]

"When the Labour party, announced its new policy to nationalise Openreach and roll out full fibre broadband nationwide, it incorrectly said the cost of maintaining the network would be £230 million a year. This was based on a misreading of analysis and Labour has since corrected the figure to estimate operating costs would be around £580 million per year." 

 

https://fullfact.org/election-2019/labour-broadband-maintenance/

 

This is still the lowest estimate, which ranges from £580m to £1.1b a year. 

 

Still no explanation where the cost of paying the £800m in salaries on top of that is coming from. 

[carosio 186]

On 23/11/2019 at 19:25, ECCOnoob said:

Until such time as the actual written tax laws are changed there is absolutely no obligation on anyone whether they have a penny in the bank or £1000000 to pay more than they have to.

 

 

Lord Clyde (KC), the Liberal Unionist MP said in 1929: 

 

"No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

 

Wiki-

"Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so as that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax."

• Thomas Tomlin, Baron Tomlin, in the UK House of Lords case, IRC v. Duke of Westminster (1936) 19 TC 490, [1936] AC 1. In the UK in the 1930s, this quote was put on the back of business cards of those marketing tax avoidance schemes, to the consternation of the Inland Revenue; see Philip Baker QC [1].     

[alchresearch 214]

16 hours ago, Robin-H said:

"When the Labour party, announced its new policy to nationalise Openreach and roll out full fibre broadband nationwide, it incorrectly said the cost of maintaining the network would be £230 million a year. This was based on a misreading of analysis and Labour has since corrected the figure to estimate operating costs would be around £580 million per year." 

 

https://fullfact.org/election-2019/labour-broadband-maintenance/

 

This is still the lowest estimate, which ranges from £580m to £1.1b a year. 

 

Still no explanation where the cost of paying the £800m in salaries on top of that is coming from. 

Interesting how the Labour supporters on here are quiet about that one.   Maybe they're just hoping it will be quietly forgotten about.

 

The one which concerns me more is the oil industry tax:
 

Labour plans to slap oil industry with £11bn windfall tax to pay for climate harm

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/11/21/labour-plans-slap-oil-industry-11bn-windfall-tax-pay-climate/

 

Does anyone seriously believe that oil companies aren't just going to stick a few extra pence on petrol and diesel to pay for it?

[melthebell 863]

23 minutes ago, alchresearch said:

 

Does anyone seriously believe that oil companies aren't just going to stick a few extra pence on petrol and diesel to pay for it?

Of course they are, making ANY company pay more simply means their prices / services cost more to the end consumer / user

[RJRB 688]

I am not Jewish or a member of The Labour Party although I have certainly voted for them for the majority of my voting life.

Nor do I consider myself anti semitic.

Is this really a trait more evident in The Labour Party than any other, or could it being used to counter any argument against those who support,or have sympathy  for the Palestinian people ?

 

[Baron99 794]

31 minutes ago, RJRB said:

I am not Jewish or a member of The Labour Party although I have certainly voted for them for the majority of my voting life.

Nor do I consider myself anti semitic.

Is this really a trait more evident in The Labour Party than any other, or could it being used to counter any argument against those who support,or have sympathy  for the Palestinian people ?

 

Well I don't remember there being any previous mentions of anti-Semitism in the UK's mainstream politics before Corbyn was elected Labour leader unless you include the old National Front or BNP? 

[Top Cats Hat 10]

12 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

Well I don't remember there being any previous mentions of anti-Semitism in the UK's mainstream politics before Corbyn was elected Labour leader 

Don’t you find that just a little bit suspicious? 😵

[melthebell 863]

58 minutes ago, RJRB said:

I am not Jewish or a member of The Labour Party although I have certainly voted for them for the majority of my voting life.

Nor do I consider myself anti semitic.

Is this really a trait more evident in The Labour Party than any other, or could it being used to counter any argument against those who support,or have sympathy  for the Palestinian people ?

 

Do you mean this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50552068

 

but if you scroll down the article it states

Quote

South-African born Mr Mirvis became chief rabbi in 2013. In a Facebook post in July, he congratulated Boris Johnson on his election as Conservative leader, describing the new prime minister as a "long-standing friend and champion of the Jewish community".

 

so hes not exactly politically neutral then?, saw the facebook post on facebook but couldnt grab a link off google to post

 

and a tory withdrawn for antisemitism, oops

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50491208

Edited November 26, 2019 by melthebell

[apelike 10]

30 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

Well I don't remember there being any previous mentions of anti-Semitism in the UK's mainstream politics before Corbyn was elected Labour leader unless you include the old National Front or BNP? 

Blair had his share of it when PM.

 

 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/feb/18/election2005.uk