The only thing that matters about debt of course is the cost of servicing it. I'd love to know what the drop in value of the pound has done to that.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
so as far as I'm concerned that's now the petard they can be hoist upon.)
Please tell me more about how you can be hoist *onto* a petard.
You can if you're 5'1" tall. 
Could be a particularly large petard. Fun fact - the literal root of petard is fart.
But yeah, the Tories have seriously fucked up with Brexit, gamble failed. There's just no getting away from that fact, pains me though it does to admit it. Gah.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the electorate, or 'bullshit baffles brains'. The Leave Campaign was vacuous yet devastatingly effective.
In any normal circumstance they'd be being ripped to shreds over this, but thank their lucky bloody stars for Corbyn and his half-empty, swivel-eyed shadow cabinet, they're ~20 points ahead in the polls.
Unbelievable times we're living in.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the electorate, or 'bullshit baffles brains'. The Leave Campaign was vacuous yet devastatingly effective.
In any normal circumstance they'd be being ripped to shreds over this, but thank their lucky bloody stars for Corbyn and his half-empty, swivel-eyed shadow cabinet, they're ~20 points ahead in the polls.
Unbelievable times we're living in. Cras wrote:
Could be a particularly large petard. Fun fact - the literal root of petard is fart.
To be fair, I've done farts so dense, one could indeed be hoisted onto them. Usually first thing on a Saturday or Sunday morning.
Cavey: 
JBR wrote:
Cavey:
Cheers bud.
I don't exactly take myself, ahem, too seriously in these debates...
Taken as read! S'why I'll argue with you but will be battling you to be first to pay if we're ever in a pub together.
Cras wrote:
The only thing that matters about debt of course is the cost of servicing it. I'd love to know what the drop in value of the pound has done to that.
This is nonsense, of course. Debt interest and repayments are paid in Sterling.
Wonkiness of currency has probably made us less attractive to overseas investors though, which would drive up rates?
Nik wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Nothing to stop rich people with socialist beliefs to voluntarily pay more taxes. Spookily enough, though, none of the buggers seem to do so, weird that.
This is an interesting point. I wouldn't say I'm rich (except in as much as compared to huge parts of the populations of developing countries, pretty much everyone who posts on here could be defined as "rich"). As well as having a relatively well-paid job, last year I started uploading designs to sell on products via Redbubble. This started as a minor hobby but has become slightly profitable, to the point where it pays me generally £100-£200 a month (sadly not enough to quit the day job, but a nice bit of extra pocket money). It would be very easy to just pocket that and, although I have no evidence either way, the cynical part of me imagines that's what most Redbubble/Zazzle/Cafepress sellers do. Instead, I registered for self-assessment and pay income tax on it.
I'm sure Trump would call me stupid for doing that, but I've never understood the apparently universal assumption that everyone pays the minimum amount of tax that they can get away with. In general, you're probably right though Cavey - not many people volunteer to pay more tax than they have to. But is it morally wrong to espouse the idea that you (and those of similar levels of income to you) should pay more tax than you actually do? Should it be up to individuals to pay more, or governments to make them pay more?
I'm sorry, how rude of me, didn't reply earlier.
I think it's commendable to pay taxes legally due - I say this without any intended irony or sarcasm. Plenty of people don't, and that's part of the problem with our country.
Ignoring the banks, the Amazons and Googles of this world, who seem to be above such trivialities as paying taxes, the law says taxes must be paid as against income, but there are various legitimate ways of reducing this tax if expenses are incurred and suchlike. Clearly there is a distinction to be made (albeit a somewhat ambiguous, and increasingly fuzzy-edged one) between making reasonable efforts to legitimately minimise taxes payable, quite legally and by employing a good accountant, and evading tax, e.g. by simply not declaring income in the first place as per your example.
I don't think it's *morally* wrong to espouse the idea that Population Group A or B should pay more tax than they do; neither myself nor anyone else here is saying that. Freedom of speech etc.
Clearly, though, there is the question as to how much weight one attaches to such remarks, or not, as the case may be, and speaking for myself, I tend to listen far more readily to those who speak either from direct experience or need, rather than "right on" types who haven't the first clue about it? For me, it's the same syndrome as when people whom I know have never spent so much as a single hour of their hitherto very comfortable existence in either a factory or mine bemoaning the supposedly "terrible" loss of "valuable" low-skilled, low paid manufacturing and mining jobs when, by any bloody yardstick these were pretty bad, quite often in a life-shortening way, and *by and large* people lead far more pleasant and safe working lives than ever they did 'in the good old days' of the 1970s. I know, I WAS there, and I DID do my time on a freezing cold, dangerous, paint-thinners infused shop floor for the princely sum of £35/week, back in the mid 80s. (Before being made redundant, because the place closed down... I was truly bereft at the time, but I found alternative work within 3 weeks and look how that turned out. Change is needed, often).
He's not the only one by any means but for me at least, Owen Jones is the epitome of the annoying twerp who hasn't got the first clue about such things, and frankly is a somewhat unlikely hero of the working masses. He's free to say whatever he likes as far as I'm concerned, but by the same token I reserve the right to think he's a little twerp who hasn't got a scooby, just as others of his ilk.
Philip Davies wrote:
I don’t accept that the public finances are going to collapse in the way the London-centric economists think, because the referendum didn’t go their way.
“Their projections are based on their personal political views rather than any independent assessment.”
“Their projections are based on their personal political views rather than any independent assessment.”
I am convinced
I think I'd have preferred the Autumn Statement if the Chancellor just stood on the despatch box and played 'Nearer, my God, to thee'.
Still, funding for a railway line as far as Grim...'s place. That could be handy for the BeexBQ.
As I'm looking for some positives amongst the general gloom, I'm interested to see what their proposals on curbing letting agent fees are, and, of course, what new charges the sector invents to get round them.
Cavey wrote:
This may come as quite a shock, Curio, but believe it or not, Socialists don't have a monopoly on caring about social inequalities. There are plenty of other people whose politics lie in the centre ground, e.g. Liberals, and quite a few progressive Tories as well ('One Nation Conservative', the clue's in the name).
Regardless, though, no-one is saying anything about being entitled or otherwise to hold one set of views, or another. I just happen to hold my view that, if you're going to be an extremely vocal, hectoring, public proponent on the hard Left, and hugely critical of those (i.e. most people) holding converse views, then by Heck, you'd better have some authenticity, legitimacy and some actual frame of reference, and life experience so to do? (Note: by 'life experience' I don't mean indulging in endless days/weeks on fucking Twitter whilst metaphorically still in shorts, or debating finer points at some Oxbridge University. I mean knowing the first fucking thing, first hand, about the very things - and people - you're talking about? Mind you, he's hardly the only offender on that score...).
You may well disagree, of course, but it's notable that many others, including here (and including from his own side of the fence as it were) seem to hold similar views.
Regardless, though, no-one is saying anything about being entitled or otherwise to hold one set of views, or another. I just happen to hold my view that, if you're going to be an extremely vocal, hectoring, public proponent on the hard Left, and hugely critical of those (i.e. most people) holding converse views, then by Heck, you'd better have some authenticity, legitimacy and some actual frame of reference, and life experience so to do? (Note: by 'life experience' I don't mean indulging in endless days/weeks on fucking Twitter whilst metaphorically still in shorts, or debating finer points at some Oxbridge University. I mean knowing the first fucking thing, first hand, about the very things - and people - you're talking about? Mind you, he's hardly the only offender on that score...).
You may well disagree, of course, but it's notable that many others, including here (and including from his own side of the fence as it were) seem to hold similar views.
I can see how people wouldn't like Owen Jones, how he can come across as smug, and that people might take against him because of that.
What I genuinely don't understand is why someone who isn't a member of the working class can't be seen to be an ally of them, and whose opinions, whatever they are, should be ridiculed?
You speak of a lack of authenticity (which I then assume means we will cede commentary on gay issues to gay people, black issues to black peoples, Muslim issues to Muslim people, scientific issues to scientific experts, economics to economists etc) but he is the son of a trade union shop steward in the north and from a family that has been strongly left wing for generations.
I thought we were supposed to support people coming from working class backgrounds and then studying, working hard, graduating from Oxford et al and then not going on to be a banker or whatever but trying to put something back into the community? And for younger people to become politically active and cognisant? Let's not tear him down on experience or background.
As I said, you can think he's an annoying smug twat and disagree with him all you like, but to attack the concept of a family moving from a working class situation to a better one through intelligence and hard work, and then trying to use the preferential position to help those left behind, that seems madness.
Having worked in a shitty factory for years and been laid off and blah de blah etc. I can quite honestly say that it's not something which you need to experience in order to even begin to comprehend it. It's just having a shit job, not fighting in the fucking Vietnam war.
Cavey wrote:
I'm sorry, how rude of me, didn't reply earlier.
Not at all - as far as I'm concerned, replies are appreciated but not expected.
Of course you're right to distinguish between tax avoidance and tax evasion - the former being a matter of conscience and the latter being a crime. I'd say in both cases, government has some responsibility to make it less easy (and perhaps less socially acceptable) to do.
Your point about listening to the voice of direct experience is well-made, and I agree that such voices should be heard, though I'd stop short of discounting those whose "knowledge" is based on primarily on research, consultation and professional interest.
Quote:
He's free to say whatever he likes as far as I'm concerned, but by the same token I reserve the right to think he's a little twerp who hasn't got a scooby, just as others of his ilk.
Indeed, it is, for the time being, a free country.
Quote:
Of course you're right to distinguish between tax avoidance and tax evasion - the former being a matter of conscience and the latter being a crime. I'd say in both cases, government has some responsibility to make it less easy (and perhaps less socially acceptable) to do.
I have a few contactors work for me, for years they were all in offshore schemes that I don’t really know the full details off, what I do know is it was taking their gross pay and then applying a series of loans that they never repaid. The net result was 80% of more retuned to them with the company doing the service taking the rest I guess.
This year they were all freaking out as they got letters from the tax people saying that they were raising questions on 2011\2012. I think this was to extend the time limits on when they could be held accountable for tax. The letters were also saying they owed X amount of money but there was no real power behind the request.
My guys where not the only ones doing this so people got together and crowd funded experts to fight the cases. Most of them filled out tax returns and look to have got away with small amounts or nothing at all.
I don’t know why the government can’t just make a tax law that sticks and doesn’t lead to endless loopholes opening up.
asfish wrote:
Quote:
Of course you're right to distinguish between tax avoidance and tax evasion - the former being a matter of conscience and the latter being a crime. I'd say in both cases, government has some responsibility to make it less easy (and perhaps less socially acceptable) to do.
I have a few contactors work for me, for years they were all in offshore schemes that I don’t really know the full details off, what I do know is it was taking their gross pay and then applying a series of loans that they never repaid. The net result was 80% of more retuned to them with the company doing the service taking the rest I guess.
This year they were all freaking out as they got letters from the tax people saying that they were raising questions on 2011\2012. I think this was to extend the time limits on when they could be held accountable for tax. The letters were also saying they owed X amount of money but there was no real power behind the request.
My guys where not the only ones doing this so people got together and crowd funded experts to fight the cases. Most of them filled out tax returns and look to have got away with small amounts or nothing at all.
I don’t know why the government can’t just make a tax law that sticks and doesn’t lead to endless loopholes opening up.
It's because there are instances where the government finds it desirable to make concessions on tax to encourage certain behaviours (such as helping pay for childcare to get parents back into the workforce). The problem is that people are people, and will look at every possible scheme and see in what ways they can benefit from them in an unintended way.
And there are a lot of different rules.
To illustrate Curio's point.
Quote:
The problem is that people are people, and will look at every possible scheme and see in what ways they can benefit from them in an unintended way.
They're not looking to stop cycle to work. You pay tax on that don't you? And of course you ride it to work 50% of the time.
Lonewolves wrote:
They're not looking to stop cycle to work. You pay tax on that don't you? And of course you ride it to work 50% of the time.
Regularly, for all or part of my commute. Don't think I pay tax on it as salary sacrifice, and got £100 extras. So £1,100 of stuff (actually £1,099.07) for £700. Also get childcare vouchers each month, too.
MaliA wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
They're not looking to stop cycle to work. You pay tax on that don't you? And of course you ride it to work 50% of the time.
Regularly, for all or part of my commute. Don't think I pay tax on it as salary sacrifice, and got £100 extras. So £1,100 of stuff (actually £1,099.07) for £700. Also get childcare vouchers each month, too.
Yeah, salary sacrifice for cycle to work is going into the list of things to be taxed, I believe.
And apparently they're also abolishing childcare vouchers! WTF? If you're already enrolled it will still exist until 2018, but then it is being replaced with something less beneficial. Bugger.
Oh. Fuck that idea then.
A bike, not kids.
Curiosity wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
They're not looking to stop cycle to work. You pay tax on that don't you? And of course you ride it to work 50% of the time.
Regularly, for all or part of my commute. Don't think I pay tax on it as salary sacrifice, and got £100 extras. So £1,100 of stuff (actually £1,099.07) for £700. Also get childcare vouchers each month, too.
Yeah, salary sacrifice for cycle to work is going into the list of things to be taxed, I believe.
And apparently they're also abolishing childcare vouchers! WTF? If you're already enrolled it will still exist until 2018, but then it is being replaced with something less beneficial. Bugger.
Doesn't seem to be. Unless I am being slow.
Cras wrote:
A bike, not kids.
Glad you cleared that up
MaliA wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
They're not looking to stop cycle to work. You pay tax on that don't you? And of course you ride it to work 50% of the time.
Regularly, for all or part of my commute. Don't think I pay tax on it as salary sacrifice, and got £100 extras. So £1,100 of stuff (actually £1,099.07) for £700. Also get childcare vouchers each month, too.
Yeah, salary sacrifice for cycle to work is going into the list of things to be taxed, I believe.
And apparently they're also abolishing childcare vouchers! WTF? If you're already enrolled it will still exist until 2018, but then it is being replaced with something less beneficial. Bugger.
Doesn't seem to be. Unless I am being slow.
Yeah the beeb seems to think Cycle to Work and Childcare Vouchers are safe. On Salary Sacrifice:
Quote:
The most popular use is for pensions, childcare vouchers and bicycles in the cycle to work scheme - all of which will be unaffected, as will employees getting an ultra-low emission company car.
However, other items bought under the scheme such as computers, gym membership, and health screening will be subject to tax from April 2017.
However, other items bought under the scheme such as computers, gym membership, and health screening will be subject to tax from April 2017.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38069554
KovacsC wrote:
Cras wrote:
A bike, not kids.
Glad you cleared that up
I'm a bit miffed, I was going to use it to lube the chain.
Findus Fop wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
They're not looking to stop cycle to work. You pay tax on that don't you? And of course you ride it to work 50% of the time.
Regularly, for all or part of my commute. Don't think I pay tax on it as salary sacrifice, and got £100 extras. So £1,100 of stuff (actually £1,099.07) for £700. Also get childcare vouchers each month, too.
Yeah, salary sacrifice for cycle to work is going into the list of things to be taxed, I believe.
And apparently they're also abolishing childcare vouchers! WTF? If you're already enrolled it will still exist until 2018, but then it is being replaced with something less beneficial. Bugger.
Doesn't seem to be. Unless I am being slow.
Yeah the beeb seems to think Cycle to Work and Childcare Vouchers are safe. On Salary Sacrifice:
Quote:
The most popular use is for pensions, childcare vouchers and bicycles in the cycle to work scheme - all of which will be unaffected, as will employees getting an ultra-low emission company car.
However, other items bought under the scheme such as computers, gym membership, and health screening will be subject to tax from April 2017.
However, other items bought under the scheme such as computers, gym membership, and health screening will be subject to tax from April 2017.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38069554
My sister's Mum Network types believe that next year or in 2018 there is a plan to remove childcare vouchers and replace with a tax free childcare allowance or similar, that will only be useable with nurseries and only at specific times. At present they can be used from age 0-16, so someone using CC vouchers for childminders for a 5yo will be boned. But I do not know this for sure, and relying on the government to be consistent from one day to the next is a fool's errand.
MaliA wrote:
I saw Nicky Morgan on television the other day. Now she definitely fits the description of swivel-eyed.
True, very googly-eyed.
Morgan outshines Abbott.
MaliA wrote:
Morgan outshines Abbott.
No, Morgan is an awful person with awful ideals. At least Diane Abbott is passionate about social injustice.
Lonewolves wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Morgan outshines Abbott.
No, Morgan is an awful person with awful ideals. At least Diane Abbott is passionate about social injustice.
No, she blows with the wind. And sent her kid to private school.
MaliA wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Morgan outshines Abbott.
No, Morgan is an awful person with awful ideals. At least Diane Abbott is passionate about social injustice.
No, she blows with the wind. And sent her kid to private school.
MaliA wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Morgan outshines Abbott.
No, Morgan is an awful person with awful ideals. At least Diane Abbott is passionate about social injustice.
No, she blows with the wind. And sent her kid to private school.
I'm sure that she was just trying to reduce classroom overcrowding.
MaliA wrote:
Morgan outshines Abbott.
malia wrote:
I fucking hate Nicky Morgan. However, she is better than Diane Abbott whom i also hate.
Mr consistency!
Mr Twatsistency more like
Yeah, 'I'll fight tooth-and-nail to defend lousy State comprehensive education, swear black-is-white regarding the outcomes of said education and deride all those who have the temerity to fork out on private education as a result.... as long as we're talking about *other* people's kids, that is'
I know we're joking around with all this, and long may that continue - but the rank hypocrisy of the Left is absolute. Even she admitted it at the time.
I love the way the Tories' new Grammars are being derided as 'unfair', because rich kids parents can afford access to private tuition giving them an unfair advantage, as over the current system whereby rich kids don't even need to do well in an 11+ *at all*, all their parents need to do is have the cash to buy an entire fucking house in a rich/good school enclave (let alone just a few hours tuition fees), and the poor kid, no matter how intelligent and gifted, has NO chance WHATSOEVER of going to a good school. (Note: not a reduced chance, not a disadvantaged chance - NO chance AT ALL, directly because of their parent's lack of wealth).
I can forgive even Brexit for the creation of new Grammars. Bring_it_on.
I know we're joking around with all this, and long may that continue - but the rank hypocrisy of the Left is absolute. Even she admitted it at the time.
I love the way the Tories' new Grammars are being derided as 'unfair', because rich kids parents can afford access to private tuition giving them an unfair advantage, as over the current system whereby rich kids don't even need to do well in an 11+ *at all*, all their parents need to do is have the cash to buy an entire fucking house in a rich/good school enclave (let alone just a few hours tuition fees), and the poor kid, no matter how intelligent and gifted, has NO chance WHATSOEVER of going to a good school. (Note: not a reduced chance, not a disadvantaged chance - NO chance AT ALL, directly because of their parent's lack of wealth).
I can forgive even Brexit for the creation of new Grammars. Bring_it_on.
She's been awful when interviewed (see my most recent comments on the R4 Owen Smith interview), says stupid thngs about blue eyed Finns and racism and sent her son to private school, against everything she had previously said. There's the undeclared earnings,, too. She's never previously held high office and only seems to be in because the WHOLE SHADOW CABINET resigned. She likes the spotlight an the attention, but has very little of use or substance to say.
So, that is why i hate her
So, that is why i hate her
Diane Abbott once RTd me and hence clearly has excellent taste.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Diane Abbott once RTd me and hence clearly has excellent taste.
Now I'm in a quandary.
