The Conservative Party - Part Two.

[ECCOnoob 1,016]

2 hours ago, Pettytom said:

Well, we all lose many billions of £ to tax evasion each year. Much of it tolerated by our political overlords.

Maybe we could ask Apple/Vodaphone/Google/EBAY to cough up for those meals. 
 

A gesture of goodwill, if you like.

 

Or a down payment on the money they owe all of us.

Oh really.  

 

Well you had better report all those blue chip conglomorates and their illegal tax EVASION to the police.   Let me know how you get on. 

 

🙄

 

[andyofborg 11]

12 hours ago, RJRB said:

 

This lot are in for another 3 years or so and the best that some of us can hope for is that Johnson is ousted together with his low calibre ministers.

 

The problem, of course, is are there any better alternatives?

 

 

[Pettytom 1]

5 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Oh really.  

 

Well you had better report all those blue chip conglomorates and their illegal tax EVASION to the police.   Let me know how you get on. 

 

🙄

 

There is no need to report them. The evasion is there, in plain view, for all to see. 

 

I’d say that it was time to tackle it. What do you think?

 

In any case, bleating that we can’t look after stranded drivers really isn’t good enough.

 

[Delbow 681]

4 hours ago, Pettytom said:

There is no need to report them. The evasion is there, in plain view, for all to see. 

 

I’d say that it was time to tackle it. What do you think?

 

In any case, bleating that we can’t look after stranded drivers really isn’t good enough.

 

I'm sure ECCONoob is making the distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance, but of course the outcome is the same: a country with worse services and infrastructure than we would otherwise have. It's interesting how people who defended tax avoidance only ever talk about the law, never whether it's right or wrong. It's like they're saying "I'm amoral". I assume that they never make any moral statements or arguments themselves, in that case.

[ECCOnoob 1,016]

3 hours ago, Delbow said:

I'm sure ECCONoob is making the distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance, but of course the outcome is the same: a country with worse services and infrastructure than we would otherwise have. It's interesting how people who defended tax avoidance only ever talk about the law, never whether it's right or wrong. It's like they're saying "I'm amoral". I assume that they never make any moral statements or arguments themselves, in that case.

Well because there is no court of morals "the law" is the only way things can change.

 

You are absolutely right. I am making such  distinction. It is a very important one that people need to remember before making silly generic statements such as "tax the rich" or "make Google pay to feed the homeless". 

 

Evasion is deliberate illegal acts which is a criminal offence leading to prosecution.

 

Avoidance is utilising schemes, incentives or other established methods to legally reduce ones tax liabilities.  

 

No matter how many times people try to say otherwise nobody is obliged to pay more tax than they legally have to. It is irrelevant whether someone is chucking £5000 into an ISA, gifting a property to a dependent or a large conglomerate using development grants, charitable donations or finance schemes to limit their corporation tax liabilities. But for the amounts involved the so called "morality" of what they are doing is the same

 

Of course the whole system needs an overhaul. 

I'm certainly not going to deny that it needs to be much fairer.   However people need to understand and it is not so simple.

 

This goes well beyond just the Tories looking after their friends in business. Successive governments for decades have tried to overhaul of tax system but they always have to balance that very very fine line between attracting investment in business to stay competitive in the Global market and holding companies to account to pay their due sums.

 

Irrelevant of any of the above, simply protesting "taxing the rich" will not solve any of the problems occurring over the past few days to hauliers.

 

Even if we did get double or triple the tax revenues from the big conglomerates people are not going to seriously expect the government to keep a reserve sat there just in case 3000 truckers need feeding or investing billions of pounds into a sparsely used holding ground with state-of-the-art facilities  just in the tiny chance that the border suddenly closes.   If they did can you just imagine the headlines about wasting money or how many nurses that could pay for or how many school children that could educate etc etc

 

I say again, we are in unprecedented circumstances with this global pandemic changing the positions constantly.  Everyone's an expert when they don't have to make the decisions.

[tinfoilhat 11]

28 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Well because there is no court of morals "the law" is the only way things can change.

 

You are absolutely right. I am making such  distinction. It is a very important one that people need to remember before making silly generic statements such as "tax the rich" or "make Google pay to feed the homeless". 

 

Evasion is deliberate illegal acts which is a criminal offence leading to prosecution.

 

Avoidance is utilising schemes, incentives or other established methods to legally reduce ones tax liabilities.  

 

No matter how many times people try to say otherwise nobody is obliged to pay more tax than they legally have to. It is irrelevant whether someone is chucking £5000 into an ISA, gifting a property to a dependent or a large conglomerate using development grants, charitable donations or finance schemes to limit their corporation tax liabilities. But for the amounts involved the so called "morality" of what they are doing is the same

 

Of course the whole system needs an overhaul. 

I'm certainly not going to deny that it needs to be much fairer.   However people need to understand and it is not so simple.

 

This goes well beyond just the Tories looking after their friends in business. Successive governments for decades have tried to overhaul of tax system but they always have to balance that very very fine line between attracting investment in business to stay competitive in the Global market and holding companies to account to pay their due sums.

 

Irrelevant of any of the above, simply protesting "taxing the rich" will not solve any of the problems occurring over the past few days to hauliers.

 

Even if we did get double or triple the tax revenues from the big conglomerates people are not going to seriously expect the government to keep a reserve sat there just in case 3000 truckers need feeding or investing billions of pounds into a sparsely used holding ground with state-of-the-art facilities  just in the tiny chance that the border suddenly closes.   If they did can you just imagine the headlines about wasting money or how many nurses that could pay for or how many school children that could educate etc etc

 

I say again, we are in unprecedented circumstances with this global pandemic changing the positions constantly.  Everyone's an expert when they don't have to make the decisions.

Oh no, I don't expect this government to have money for 3000 truckers (it's more than that but still) - ther countries do, Norway call it a sovereign fund. 

 

I expect them to siphon off money for dodgy PPE contracts to their friends and donors. £1.4bn and counting. That's a lot of portaloos! 

[andyofborg 11]

16 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

 

..... investing billions of pounds into a sparsely used holding ground with state-of-the-art facilities  just in the tiny chance that the border suddenly closes. .....

To be fair, the border closes or the number of vehicles able to get through is substantially reduced fairly regularly due for all sorts of reasons. This causes repeated traffic chaos in the area. 

 

I think we can all understand this was unexpected and done before the holding facilities were completed but in the longer term I don't think it's unrealistic to expect some minimal assistance to be provided even if it's a few portacabin type buildings and some field kitchens which are only set up when needed and taken away when finished with. 

 

How or if the costs of doing this are split between hauliers and government is something which can be discussed later.  

 

[melthebell 862]

33 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

Well because there is no court of morals "the law" is the only way things can change.

 

 

NO!!!

If people developed decent morals and understood it to be morally wrong (even though legally you could do it) then people wouldnt do it, and essentially although it exists, things would change. Its down to people that lack decent morals doing it for financial gain

[tinfoilhat 11]

Just now, andyofborg said:

To be fair, the border closes or the number of vehicles able to get through is substantially reduced fairly regularly due for all sorts of reasons. This causes repeated traffic chaos in the area. 

 

I think we can all understand this was unexpected and done before the holding facilities were completed but in the longer term I don't think it's unrealistic to expect some minimal assistance to be provided even if it's a few portacabin type buildings and some field kitchens which are only set up when needed and taken away when finished with. 

 

How or if the costs of doing this are split between hauliers and government is something which can be discussed later.  

 

Indeed, it doesnt need to be state of the art. We built umpteen nightingale hospitals (brilliantly by the way) which we couldn't staff.

 

How many marquee and event logistics companies have been sat on their hands for 9 months? It could have been roughly kitted out in less than a day - if the government could be bothered to do it. A shikh charity in coventry mobilised why couldnt the government? 

[Delbow 681]

4 hours ago, melthebell said:

NO!!!

If people developed decent morals and understood it to be morally wrong (even though legally you could do it) then people wouldnt do it, and essentially although it exists, things would change. Its down to people that lack decent morals doing it for financial gain

Yes, that's right. Not only is it easier to do the right thing in regards to tax, it's a choice not to. "I was about to pay 19% corporation tax, but suddenly found myself setting up a company with a paper director in the Cayman Islands, then making a series of "loans" to that company for "services provided" in order to write down our UK profits, and there was not a thing I could do about it!"

[melthebell 862]

39 minutes ago, Delbow said:

Yes, that's right. Not only is it easier to do the right thing in regards to tax, it's a choice not to. "I was about to pay 19% corporation tax, but suddenly found myself setting up a company with a paper director in the Cayman Islands, then making a series of "loans" to that company for "services provided" in order to write down our UK profits, and there was not a thing I could do about it!"

Its like going to the hospital with your genitalia in the vacuum cleaner hose, well i was naked and i sort of just...fell

Edited December 23, 2020 by melthebell

[melthebell 862]

Well sadly Boris only got to number 5 in the Christmas chart

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-55436050

Edited December 25, 2020 by melthebell