But you know if it happened in NI/Scotland it would be reported by the media as "SCOTLANDS SHAME"
But you know if it happened in NI/Scotland it would be reported by the media as "SCOTLANDS SHAME"
You mean this one?
Or this one?
Are neither of those valid. Do you really believe that tax avoidance is a government idea?
I agree it's a big leap and probably a bit far so I apologise. Do you honestly believe the stuff written in that link though? Search deep down, look at the world around you. Do you really think it's true?
Right, so it was a Labour rule implemented at a time to make the Tories unpopular. I see politics hasn't changed much.
It seems I did get bad advance. Maybe the accountant we use should go back into retirement.
And that is why the country is going to the wall. It is run by idiots who couldn't get a job on the open market. Most MPs get given a job they have no idea about. The chap in charge of defence said after he was given the seat that all he knows about the military is what he has seen on the news. And he was in charge of it all now. No wonder they never have the right equipment.
You're encouraged to claim for things you shouldn't by accountants. But then that is what you pay them for. Ways to avoid tax.
Shit, my memory for numbers has got worse. Probably why I'm not an accountant.
Tax avoidance is a glaring issue that no recent government has done anything to address, simply because it isn't in their personal interests to do so.
Looking the world around you is to miss the bigger picture. World changing events can happen while the street outside looks exactly the same.
Just because this state is a supposedly free democracy today doesn't mean there are those in power who want to change that, and they prey on people's ignorance of their intrigue.
The stuff written in the link is David Cameron's speech on the unrest, its the words that actually came out his mouth, did you even look at the link? There's even a video on the BBC of him saying it if that satisfies you.
Make of this what you will. Slightly tongue in cheek so try not to get too upset.
I think that was the rule for a couple of years before the election but I haven't checked my facts on that one
Maybe it's just a misunderstanding. If you want to PM me when you have checked on the details I'll be happy to help.
Can't argue with that.
A good accountant will not encourage you to do things that are illegal. He may point out loopholes but that is not illegal.
We are all good at what we are good at. My thing happens to be numbers.
Wrong, plain and simple wrong. Read a few Budget reports. There is always plenty in them about plugging loopholes. Just because you read it in the paper doesn't mean it's true.
I spoke about you not reading everything people say earlier and you have just proved my point. How could you possibly ask if I have looked at the link if I quoted part of it in a reply to you? Unless you didn't read all I said, or your brain simply won't let you acknowledge stuff that goes against your argument.
They plug loopholes only after the media exposes them.
If I was talking to someone of any importance I might be more thorough, sorry. Just you seemed to imply that the link contained some piece of conspiracy theorist fiction when it was in fact a direct quote.
I'd say quite a large percentage of the right-wing media is totally against the bank bailouts.
Blog after blog after news item after news item in right-wing media hates the bank bailouts and continuously makes the point. Had the banks failed cuts would still have been made though. The treasury relied far too heavily on bank tax revenue. There would have been a gigantic recession, but at least we'd be in a better of place now.
Keynsian economic theory is not something indicative of right-wing media thinking.
One of those pals being Daniel Hannan who is one of the most vocal against the bank bailouts?
**sigh**
Maybe you should read more than JUST the Guardian.
No, your wrong.
What people are saying is that being not as wealthy as others (they are not poor) is not an excuse to riot and steal and kick people in.
Being right-wing or left-wing may correlate with a person's wealth, but it's by no means a certain. There are plenty right-wing libertarian types who are foaming at the mouth about billionaire bankers and corporations. The bankers rout on the public's purse is just as abhorrent and disgusting.
I know people who aren't rich who are free-market libertarian types, and their are wealthy people who are of the left. I am not sure why you have this tendency to try and put people in certain stereotyped boxes Becky.
Anyway, the rioting has gone down now. Everyone is enjoying their new Playstations while the R*E*A*L poor sleep in the slums of the world wondering where their next meal is coming from.
At first you say
Then your next post you say
1. Make your mind up, they either plug them or they don't. or grow a pair and admit when you might have been wrong. I've done it more than once in this thread. It's called being a grown up.
2. Loopholes are exposed when they are used. Details have to be given to prove to mr tax man that the avoidance is legal. It just takes time get the legislation through to fill them. This is why the big accountants hold back on using new loopholes until the old ones are filled. It has nothing to do with the media.
So now you've gone down the personal insult route? I'm not someone of importance so you don't actually read what I say you just read what you want to see and skip the rest. Thank you for confirming what I have been saying all along.
I too quoted it directly with the subtle difference of putting in bold the part that you seemed to be ignoring. But at least now I know why. I'm not someone of importance so you don't read all I write. Go you!
Then your next post you say
1. Make your mind up, they either plug them or they don't. or grow a pair and admit when you might have been wrong. I've done it more than once in this thread. It's called being a grown up.
2. Loopholes are exposed when they are used. Details have to be given to prove to mr tax man that the avoidance is legal. It just takes time get the legislation through to fill them. This is why the big accountants hold back on using new loopholes until the old ones are filled. It has nothing to do with the media.
So now you've gone down the personal insult route? I'm not someone of importance so you don't actually read what I say you just read what you want to see and skip the rest. Thank you for confirming what I have been saying all along.
I too quoted it directly with the subtle difference of putting in bold the part that you seemed to be ignoring. But at least now I know why. I'm not someone of importance so you don't read all I write. Go you!
That's beside the point I was making, the point being that the right wing media rails against all your tax money supposedly going into letting benefit claimants live like kings, when in fact the reality is a significant portion of our tax has gone into bailing out wealthy people, I wasn't talking about the right wing media's position on the bailouts.[/QUOTE]
Please refrain from reading what you want to hear as opposed to the actual words.
Regardless of what he says, the way things stand we're not in it together.
Maybe you should drop your prejudice that every person who has opposing views to you somehow reads the Guardian.
The irony is strong in this one.
Much of the avoidance isn't legal, and under the radar. The point being that much of this tax avoidance goes on completely unabated until someone bothers to pull them up for it.
Considering you've just added several posts filled with unnecessary and thoroughly corny sarcastic laughter (a poor attempt at sharp cynicism perhaps?), then just instructed me to 'grow a pair' as well as called me a 'looney', you're in no position to criticise me over personal insults. Don't dish out what you can't take.
And I'm sorry, but I must be honest, you really aren't that important to me, and I'm sure the feelings mutual, but that's fine by me.
I understand the subtle difference, I also understand that politicians use these subtle differences to sweeten what they are saying, a concept you apparently fail to grasp.
If you must know, I skip parts of what you type because they are of little importance to the actual debate, I've already explained to you that just because a politician says something doesn't necessarily mean his actions will follow his words, its not my problem if you're unable to take in anything at more than face value.
Tax avoidance is 100% legal, tax evasion is not.
Carry on...
With the amount of tax people have to pay in the UK - up to 60-70% of total income when you calculate overall tax burden - it's no surprise many people try to legally avoid tax.
Indeed.
Govt. even introduced schemes to help people avoid tax.
I can't recall the exact name, but there was one where employees could get bicycles through their employer and save on the VAT.
Not to mention your ridicolouss car insurance and registration prices.. i would go GTA too.
It'd be fine if it was spent where it was supposed to be. Rather than plundered by a government that called itself left wing.
That's called tax evasion and is a very different thing.
The laughter wasn't an insult. It was me laughing at what you said. The "looney" part I have to give you. My bad, I insulted you first. Sorry.
Thats fine by me but remember it was you that wanted an "intelligent debate". I mistaking tried to have one. Only for you to "read(ing) what you want(ed) to hear as opposed to the actual words "
I like to listen to the words then wait for the actions. You and many people in that link have become judge and jury and changed his words to "I'm gonna block all these sites" Do you see that I did read it now?
Actually that raises a point there 5Haz. I hope none of the sponsors on that race car of yours are using it to avoid paying tax?
I would assume you'd automatically reject any sponsor who looked as if they were using it to get tax relief?
Car insurance is jacked up due to the ambulance chasing lawyer types and no-win-no-fee claims for imaginary whiplash injuries and the like.
Oh you're so sharp! Not sharp enough to know we don't have any sponsors though.
That's some advance course english right there, didn't exactly got you, but anyway, how much would it cost me to have Golf MKII there annually? (i'm 27).
... but I assume some of your competitors do have sponsors looking for tax relief.
Without competitors you would have no one to race, and thus you yourself 5Haz are a direct beneficiary of a tax loophole and a tax avoidance technique. Thus making you a hypocrite unless you report them all to the HMRC for investigation, which you haven't
BOOM - Here endeth the debate. In the words of ace Ventura - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVoKlqbz1l4
eh?
Why don't we just cut to the chase and you tell us how much is costs you?
London/UK Riots
(461 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG