British Billionaire equates paying more taxes to 'being raped'

[Pettytom 1]

53 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

"Attack"?! Really? Read the post again.

Well, it is an attack really. A poorly judged, inappropriate attack. Why bring her into this thread at all?

 

Maybe, instead of denigrating Diane Abbott, you might like to think about her achievements. She has a degree from Cambridge, which is almost unthinkable for a black woman from a state school. She’s the first female black mp. Ok, so numbers might not be her strong point, but lack of accuracy doesn’t seem to hold back Boris. So what has Abbott done to deserve your opprobrium?

[Mister M 1,605]

11 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

It's more her arithmetic ability rather than slurred speech which has amused me in the past.

 

She's an advocate of upping the top tax rate, which, as already discussed, is a counter productive virtue signal. Hardly economic competence.

Really? Then you're easily amused.

[WiseOwl182 10]

5 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

Well, it is an attack really. A poorly judged, inappropriate attack. Why bring her into this thread at all?

 

Maybe, instead of denigrating Diane Abbott, you might like to think about her achievements. She has a degree from Cambridge, which is almost unthinkable for a black woman from a state school. She’s the first female black mp. Ok, so numbers might not be her strong point, but lack of accuracy doesn’t seem to hold back Boris. So what has Abbott done to deserve your opprobrium?

 

We're debating economics as a sub topic of some "inappropriate" comments. Diane Abbott is a perfect candidate for a light hearted remark about the economic illiteracy of the left. Being black is completely irrelevant and does not put her beyond criticism either.

 

Going on and on about it is a great diversion tactic from the actual point though. Raising the top tax rate DECREASES the tax revenue. It has been shown as economic reality time and time again.

Edited April 26, 2019 by WiseOwl182

[Pettytom 1]

1 minute ago, WiseOwl182 said:

 

We're debating economics as a sub topic of some "inappropriate" comments. Diane Abbott is a perfect candidate for a light hearted remark about the economic illiteracy of the left. Being black is completely irrelevant and does not put her beyond criticism either.

 

 

It just comes over as a bit snidey and unpleasant really. If you think it’s ok, then fair enough. I don’t agree with you though.

 

As for taxation. We are long past the point where we can allow the super rich and big corporations to dictate how much they will pay. You’ve seen the size of the deficit. It’s time to fill that gap by taxing the rich properly. If people then run off the Monaco, that’s fine, I’m sure we can deal with that.

[WiseOwl182 10]

1 minute ago, Pettytom said:

It just comes over as a bit snidey and unpleasant really. If you think it’s ok, then fair enough. I don’t agree with you though.

 

As for taxation. We are long past the point where we can allow the super rich and big corporations to dictate how much they will pay. You’ve seen the size of the deficit. It’s time to fill that gap by taxing the rich properly. If people then run off the Monaco, that’s fine, I’m sure we can deal with that.

I have seen the size of the deficit. It's the smallest it's been for over a decade.

 

As stated before, raising the tax rate too high actually DECREASES the tax revenue taken. It's a hollow virtue signal. If that's what you call taxing the rich "properly" then fine, but personally I'd prefer their actual cash.

[Pettytom 1]

4 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

I have seen the size of the deficit. It's the smallest it's been for over a decade.

 

As stated before, raising the tax rate too high actually DECREASES the tax revenue taken. It's a hollow virtue signal. If that's what you call taxing the rich "properly" then fine, but personally I'd prefer their actual cash.

The deficit is the smallest that it has been under the last two Tory administrations, that’s true. It has come at a huge cost to public services though. Some day soon, the Government is going to have to start funding the police, schools and social services properly once more.

 

That takes money.  And that means increasing the tax take. 

 

If Caudwell doesn’t want to pay, he can clear off and not come back. I’m sure that HMRC can find a way to

tax phones 4u effectively if they try. Or Caudwell when he wants to come back.

[WiseOwl182 10]

28 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

The deficit is the smallest that it has been under the last two Tory administrations, that’s true. It has come at a huge cost to public services though. Some day soon, the Government is going to have to start funding the police, schools and social services properly once more.

 

That takes money.  And that means increasing the tax take. 

 

If Caudwell doesn’t want to pay, he can clear off and not come back. I’m sure that HMRC can find a way to

tax phones 4u effectively if they try. Or Caudwell when he wants to come back.

Actually it's now the lowest since 2002.

 

Here is a quote from page 1:

 

"When the new top rate of 50% was introduced in 2010, tax receipts went down as people left the country or hid their money. When Osbourne [sic] reduced it to 45%, receipts went up. Labour's rates will lower the tax receipts again."

 

Tax revenue from the super rich will FALL if Labour increase the top rate.

Edited April 26, 2019 by WiseOwl182

[tlangdon12 13]

John Caudwell no longer has a stake in Phones4u. Phones4u will pay UK corporation tax correctly, unlike some global corporations who use their global scale to minimise the tax they pay in the UK. 

 

John is entitled to his opinion, and to lobby for or against any political party he wishes to. He clearly has no faith that a  Labour Party Government lead by Jeremy Corbyn would implement what he would regards as a 'fair' taxation policy. John has been happy enough to live in the UK to date and to pay tax at the current levels, so we can assume that he thinks the current taxation policy is not unfair. He is probably paying £35-£50m a year in income tax at present. 

 

Even billionaires are entitled to an opinion, especially one who did what John Caudwell did. I worked for John and saw the tremendous opportunities he created for everyone who worked for him.  John's employees paid more tax per year  than he is paying now, so he has been a major creator of wealth in the country and a major creator of tax revenues.

[I1L2T3 10]

15 hours ago, WiseOwl182 said:

I've reflected, and you're piecing together bits from different jigsaws, no doubt in an attempt at faux outrage. Diane Abbott is better known for her apparently limited mathematic ability, as well as being a left wing MP. A perfect example for my tax revenue Vs percent argument.

I’m not outraged at all. I’m calling out exactly what I’m seeing. And it’s this:

 

The billionaire made a huge indefensible mistake that you are seeking to defend, while at the same time rolling in a lazy attack on the populist right wing’s favourite Labour target, who herself has been subject to rape threats.

 

Friendly advice: not a good look.

11 hours ago, tlangdon12 said:

John Caudwell no longer has a stake in Phones4u. Phones4u will pay UK corporation tax correctly, unlike some global corporations who use their global scale to minimise the tax they pay in the UK. 

 

John is entitled to his opinion, and to lobby for or against any political party he wishes to. He clearly has no faith that a  Labour Party Government lead by Jeremy Corbyn would implement what he would regards as a 'fair' taxation policy. John has been happy enough to live in the UK to date and to pay tax at the current levels, so we can assume that he thinks the current taxation policy is not unfair. He is probably paying £35-£50m a year in income tax at present. 

 

Even billionaires are entitled to an opinion, especially one who did what John Caudwell did. I worked for John and saw the tremendous opportunities he created for everyone who worked for him.  John's employees paid more tax per year  than he is paying now, so he has been a major creator of wealth in the country and a major creator of tax revenues.

He’s entitled to an opinion of course, but if he couches it in the wrong language he must expect to suffer the consequences.

 

With freedom comes responsibility. That’s something the right and left always seem to forget

[WiseOwl182 10]

43 minutes ago, I1L2T3 said:

I’m not outraged at all. I’m calling out exactly what I’m seeing. And it’s this:

 

The billionaire made a huge indefensible mistake that you are seeking to defend, while at the same time rolling in a lazy attack on the populist right wing’s favourite Labour target, who herself has been subject to rape threats.

 

Friendly advice: not a good look.

 

Whether or not you think it is a "good look" is of little concern to me. "Call out" as much as you like. A "huge indefensible mistake" is hyperbole in my opinion. I would call it a bad choice of language to use in the public domain, but I don't see anyone "calling out", for example, the use of similar language in other scenarios (murdering a song, battering a football team, etc). I myself "called out" the economic illiteracy of the left, who think raising a tax rate and reducing tax revenue is a good idea.

Edited April 27, 2019 by WiseOwl182

[I1L2T3 10]

27 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Whether or not you think it is a "good look" is of little concern to me. "Call out" as much as you like. A "huge indefensible mistake" is hyperbole in my opinion. I would call it a bad choice of language to use in the public domain, but I don't see anyone "calling out", for example, the use of similar language in other scenarios (murdering a song, battering a football team, etc). I myself "called out" the economic illiteracy of the left, who think raising a tax rate and reducing tax revenue is a good idea.

No mate. Murdering a song, battering a football team is just not the same. It just isn’t.  And unfortunately rolling in an attack on somebody who has been subject to rape threats makes it even worse.

 

Im not sure what your thinking is here, but it seems way off.

[Penistone999 10]

On 25/04/2019 at 19:07, Halibut said:

It was a crassly idiotic and insensitive comment from a deeply selfish man, who clearly has no idea about the damage rape does.

Do you not know the actual meaning of the word ? 

 

( a clue , read post 7 )