All the anti Brand "hypocrite" arguments make me sick... so a rich person that cares about those worse off then them is worse than a rich person who "isn't a hypocrite" and doesn't give a flying fuck?
I'm not a Brand fan but can't get my head around why some don't think a rich bloke (from humble background) can't be empathetic and use their celebrity and privileged position to raise awareness and try to assist those less fortunate. I fear the media are being too successful at brainwashing. Hilarious that Murdoch could be the one promoting the "hypocrite" argument so much.
of course, but he's the other side of the same coin.
Because he has a few quid? If that's the case why doesn't he just shut up and continue to rake in his millions?
When did i say it was because he has money? I said he's a hypocrite because he trades on fear and creating a "us and them" culture that the ukippers seem to be creating that he apparently despises.
of course, but he's the other side of the same coin.
Because he has a few quid? If that's the case why doesn't he just shut up and continue to rake in his millions?
When did i say it was because he has money? I said he's a hypocrite because he trades on fear and creating a "us and them" culture that the ukippers seem to be creating that he apparently despises.
Farage's us and them = British people against the millions of nasty Romanians and Bulgarians coming across to steal our jobs and clog up our motorways
Brand's us and them = 99% of the population compared to the 1% who own most of the land, money, resources and media.
Hmm... are they comparable do you think? Or is one scaremongering and one the unarguable truth?
Well that was a fascinating snapshot of modern Britain. Brand was better than I expected, I must say. I detest people who urge others not to vote, but I got the impression that he's capable of challenging his own beliefs. It'll be interesting to see how he develops.
of course, but he's the other side of the same coin.
Because he has a few quid? If that's the case why doesn't he just shut up and continue to rake in his millions?
When did i say it was because he has money? I said he's a hypocrite because he trades on fear and creating a "us and them" culture that the ukippers seem to be creating that he apparently despises.
Farage's us and them = British people and the millions of nasty Romanians and Bulgarians coming across to steal our jobs and clog up our motorways
Brand's us and them = 99% of the population compared to the 1% who own most of the land, money, resources and media.
Hmm... are they comparable do you think? Or is one scaremongering and one the unarguable truth?
lol.
but will all our problems be solved if "big corporations" and "the super rich" pay all their taxes? Nope. Will cutting immigration right down solve all our problems? Nope. I'm actually in agreement with both sides here, as i said, brand has some good points deep deep down amongst his "big businesses" and "the super rich" are the boogeyman rhetoric. But to pretend one side is absolutely right and the other scaremongering is ignorant, in fact arguing that farage is a bigoted racist could be classed as scaremongering, could it not? This is where my issue with brand is.
Everything is a stage act with Brand. Accusing Farage of despising disabled people was a notable low point. And of course not standing for Parliament as he is scared of becoming 'one of them' was truly pathetic.
of course, but he's the other side of the same coin.
Because he has a few quid? If that's the case why doesn't he just shut up and continue to rake in his millions?
When did i say it was because he has money? I said he's a hypocrite because he trades on fear and creating a "us and them" culture that the ukippers seem to be creating that he apparently despises.
Farage's us and them = British people and the millions of nasty Romanians and Bulgarians coming across to steal our jobs and clog up our motorways
Brand's us and them = 99% of the population compared to the 1% who own most of the land, money, resources and media.
Hmm... are they comparable do you think? Or is one scaremongering and one the unarguable truth?
lol.
but will all our problems be solved if "big corporations" and "the super rich" pay all their taxes? Nope. Will cutting immigration right down solve all our problems? Nope. I'm actually in agreement with both sides here, as i said, brand has some good points deep deep down amongst his "big businesses" and "the super rich" are the boogeyman rhetoric. But to pretend one side is absolutely right and the other scaremongering is ignorant, in fact arguing that farage is a bigoted racist could be classed as scaremongering, could it not? This is where my issue with brand is.
Apart from the fact that Farage is a bigoted racist your argument holds up well.
Everything is a stage act with Brand. Accusing Farage of despising disabled people was a notable low point. And of course not standing for Parliament as he is scared of becoming 'one of them' was truly pathetic.
I'm glad everyone is talking about whether Russell Brand is a hypocrite or not - rather than the important issues he, and some audience members, tried to raise.
There is enough tax dodged yearly by numerous big corporations that would be able to come some way to resolving the problems faced by ordinary people***. But the richest in our society are happy to continue perpetuating the lie that immigrants are to blame and I have had enough of it.
What someone in parliament needs to do is have the balls to stand up to them and close legal loopholes that allow them to shaft our country year after year.
(***don't ask me on the figures, I'm being deliberately vague as I don't have them but I know that it runs into tens of billions - enough to make a sizeable dent.)
I'm glad everyone is talking about whether Russell Brand is a hypocrite or not - rather than the important issues he, and some audience members, tried to raise.
There is enough tax dodged yearly by numerous big corporations that would be able to come some way to resolving the problems faced by ordinary people. But the richest in our society are happy to continue perpetuating the lie that immigrants are to blame and I have had enough of it.
What someone in parliament needs to do is have the balls to stand up to them and close legal loopholes that allow them to shaft our country year after year.
i think everyone agrees they should pay their tax. Doesn't stop brand being a holier than thou prick though does it? And doesn't stop us from talking about russell brand... in a russell brand thread. Maybe make a new thread for this week's QT paulie- i mean callum
Everyone agrees they should, I'm sure. But not enough people are talking about it because it's not in the mainstream media's interest to shine a spotlight on it.
I'm also thinking back to the first question posed during tonight's programme. Are we not maintaining this "punch and judy" culture surrounding politics when we are more concerned in debating the pros and cons of Brand as a person, rather than the points he is trying to make?
Everyone agrees they should, I'm sure. But not enough people are talking about it because it's not in the mainstream media's interest to shine a spotlight on it.
I'm also thinking back to the first question posed during tonight's programme. Are we not maintaining this "punch and judy" culture surrounding politics when we are more concerned in debating the pros and cons of Brand as a person, rather than the points he is trying to make?
Politics has always been Punch and Judy and always will be. Poster boy of Nu politics Russell brand didn't do much to stop it with his attacks on farage.
I also loved the irony when Russell said that because he was from a particular background and was rich he knew where the power was. Doesn't sound like the politicians you claim to despise does it Russell? He's already "one of them" and doesn't know it yet. Or realises he is and won't stand because he realises his policies would create mass unemployment and poverty and doesn't want to be proven wrong.
The only person that has been on Question Time more than Nigel Farage since 2009 is David Dimbleby. That seems like fair representation from a state broadcaster to me......
I agree that there are many more people who are more important to UK politics who should have more opportunity to address the nation and be publicly challenged. But to be fair to the BBC, I suspect the fact that the narcissist Nigel Farage tops the appearance rankings possibly says more about him his lack of a public role outside of craving publicity for his own party, than it does about the Beeb.
I'm glad everyone is talking about whether Russell Brand is a hypocrite or not - rather than the important issues he, and some audience members, tried to raise.
There is enough tax dodged yearly by numerous big corporations that would be able to come some way to resolving the problems faced by ordinary people***. But the richest in our society are happy to continue perpetuating the lie that immigrants are to blame and I have had enough of it.
What someone in parliament needs to do is have the balls to stand up to them and close legal loopholes that allow them to shaft our country year after year.
(***don't ask me on the figures, I'm being deliberately vague as I don't have them but I know that it runs into tens of billions - enough to make a sizeable dent.)
I'm just wondering what you think might happen to the money that doesn't go straight to the tax man.
Let's look at the options:
1. (Probably the most likely) It goes to the shareholders. In which case tax is paid on it, first by the company and then again by the shareholder if they are higher rate payers. Or it goes to investment companies that help to run asset management businesses which will go towards financing things like personal pensions. Then when these mature they have tax paid on them as people take income from their pension pot.
2. It goes to the directors of the company by way of bonus. In which case, tax will be paid on it. What doesn't go in income tax will enable people to buy things. A new Range Rover perhaps, which will have 20% VAT on it but will also keep somebody in employment bolting the thing together.
3. It goes towards growing the business by financing R&D and employing more staff. Guess what, those staff will pay tax on their earnings.
5. It buys a football club.
4. (Probably the least likely) It goes into some super rich equivalent of a black hole never to be seen again by anybody.
I'm actually struggling to think of anything that might happen to such money that will mean that tax won't be paid on it, many times over, whether in this country or somewhere else. If it's somewhere else they might go off and buy something made in the UK which will keep people in work.
Here's a diagram which probably explains it more eloquently than I could. I think economists call it something like the "circular flow of income".
The one thing that is sure is that if wealth was distributed evenly, there would be no incentive to work hard (or at all?) and nobody would actually have enough money to buy anything expensive, so millions would be made redundant, making the situation worse. The Chinese realised this some while ago and look at the changes to their economy. It is sad that there are haves and have nots but life's not fair and never will be.
I'm not personally advocating the use of "distributing" wealth willy-nilly and I understand that without some sort of disparity between the rich and the poor, there would be little to no incentive to work hard. What I am in favour of is our government claiming the tens of billions of tax money it is owed by big corporations to flow into new hospitals, schools and housing - the new infrastructure that is needed to deal with our growing population.
Philip Green (the owner of Topshop and various other businesses on most UK high streets) recently gave himself a £1.2b bonus but paid absolutely no tax on said bonus because he argued that his companies were in fact owned by his wife based in Monaco. Now how is that in any way fair? Philip Green is not doing anything illegal and that's where the problem lies. The system needs changing so it benefits everyone equally.
Brand made good points, but he tried too hard mugging Farage off. The same goes as that Labour numpty, who tried at the beginning. Desperate times, desperate measures. Did make me laugh.
Another thing that made me laugh, was that woman labelling Farage racist. I fail to see how introducing a points based, work permit, controlled immigration system is racist. If I look at Australia, it seems to benefit them in many ways, are they a massively racist country then?
Brand said nothing very much last night, he looked stupid about why he wouldn't stand for Parliament because 'he is scared he would become like them'. No Russell, it's because if you stood in any constituency in the UK you simply wouldn't get enough votes to get in. I hope the people of Thanet have the good sense to reject the other empty vessel Farage.
Brand said nothing very much last night, he looked stupid about why he wouldn't stand for Parliament because 'he is scared he would become like them'. No Russell, it's because if you stood in any constituency in the UK you simply wouldn't get enough votes to get in. I hope the people of Thanet have the good sense to reject the other empty vessel Farage.
Not sure I agree, I think - such is the disillusionment with politics that there are many constituencies that, if Brand were to stand, he'd get a decent vote and possibly win.
I think his reluctance is down to the fact that if he was to win he'd actually have to turn some of his rhetoric into action.
The kind of things @Callumcafc is asking about are exactly those that are now bringing Jean Claude Juncker under scrutiny from across Europe. Let's remind ourselves what is happening.
My little business mainly makes money by finding talented Czechs to fill roles in jobs based in Prague. Imagine that my sister has moved to Dublin. Inspired by Google, I get my sister to send all my invoices from Dublin "where the deal is concluded" and save a lot of money on corporation tax. Oh yes, the money I save on tax goes to the shareholders (me) in dividends, and oh yes I may spend the money in Prague and pay VAT. However when the Czech tax office find out, they will invite me to inspect the local prison. When they calm down they will say, look Mr Prague, you want to live here and you are constantly complaining about the state of the roads, and indeed our inability to pursue Google and co., and in order to do these things we need money and that is why you pay the agreed amount of tax according to our laws.
Google, Facebook and Amazon are basically doing the same thing. You may also recall that our brave HMRC did a 'deal" with Vodafone where they agreed they would pay around 15% of the CIT the Revenue calculated VF were liable for. 15% of the amount. Who here would not like to cut their tax bill by 85%?
This is a massively important issue, ignored last night until someone from the audience chucked it in. I have feeling that when someone explains how it all works to Russell Brand, he will pick it up and run with it.
And as for Brand himself, I agree with @colthe3rd. If he's just a rich bloke promoting his career, there are easier ways than what he was doing last night. I'm not convinced by him yet,by any stretch, but that takes some balls, and I think he's a man who is learning fast. When he was told "Stand" by that angry man, I thought that hit home last night. Good. I'm going to watch his next moves with interest.
Brand made good points, but he tried too hard mugging Farage off. The same goes as that Labour numpty, who tried at the beginning. Desperate times, desperate measures. Did make me laugh.
Another thing that made me laugh, was that woman labelling Farage racist. I fail to see how introducing a points based, work permit, controlled immigration system is racist. If I look at Australia, it seems to benefit them in many ways, are they a massively racist country then?
The difference being that Australians are not free to go and live and work anywhere they like in Asia Pacific - Britons can do so in Europe, and many have done so.
Watched QT last night. Was the old girl at the back with the blue dyed hair, shouting out, one of Russell's conquests or did he bring her there especially to slag off Farage?
When someone stands for Parliament they are scrutinised by the press and anything in their past that can cause embarrassment is bought up. That's why Brand couldn't stand. The fact a member of UKIP went to a UKIP wedding and had to drag his wife out of Farages bedroom at 3am hasn't been bought to the attention of the media yet. I suspect someone will eventually tip them off and they will start digging. Unfortunately given the quality of UKiP voters this would probably increase his standing.
Watched QT last night. Was the old girl at the back with the blue dyed hair, shouting out, one of Russell's conquests or did he bring her there especially to slag off Farage?
She goes by the name of Bunny La Roche and is an 'organiser' for the SWP.
That would explain why the only word she knows is 'racist'.
She had nothing to add to the debate other than screaming at Farage for highlighting the pitfalls of an open door immigration policy.
Trouble is that Farage has never blamed migrants for the troubles in this country. He blames the system that allows people to exploit it. Big difference and one that a lot of people need to take on board instead of bandying about everyones favourite buzzword of the last 10 years whenever the issue of immigration is raised.
Brand made good points, but he tried too hard mugging Farage off. The same goes as that Labour numpty, who tried at the beginning. Desperate times, desperate measures. Did make me laugh.
Another thing that made me laugh, was that woman labelling Farage racist. I fail to see how introducing a points based, work permit, controlled immigration system is racist. If I look at Australia, it seems to benefit them in many ways, are they a massively racist country then?
That woman was as deluded as a Britain First voter. I think most people don't think Farage's policies are racist (I can't comment on the man himself as I don't know him). On Australia, I'm sure there are many who would argue that there is a deep underlying racist attitude in that country but that is a separate issue.
Many seem to forget we do have a points based immigration system, just not for those from the EU.
Do you have examples where it has benefitted Australia? I'm not a expert on the country but I was of the impression that it isn't doing that great economically, inflation continues as their commodities market has hit the brakes. I wonder if there is a downturn would they look to cheap labour through just as we did?
Finally, for all those slagging off the purple haired lady, yes I agree she was a bit of a loon but interesting that the lady that talked about Canterbury prison being full of immigrants. This is completely 100% untrue. How do I know this? Canterbury prison closed last year. This is the sort of scare mongering and flat out lies that are told that frightens me, not some loon shouting out at politicians. I wonder how many people heard that woman and thought "that's shocking, just another reason we need to stop immigration"?
Comments
I'm not a Brand fan but can't get my head around why some don't think a rich bloke (from humble background) can't be empathetic and use their celebrity and privileged position to raise awareness and try to assist those less fortunate. I fear the media are being too successful at brainwashing. Hilarious that Murdoch could be the one promoting the "hypocrite" argument so much.
Brand's us and them = 99% of the population compared to the 1% who own most of the land, money, resources and media.
Hmm... are they comparable do you think? Or is one scaremongering and one the unarguable truth?
but will all our problems be solved if "big corporations" and "the super rich" pay all their taxes? Nope. Will cutting immigration right down solve all our problems? Nope. I'm actually in agreement with both sides here, as i said, brand has some good points deep deep down amongst his "big businesses" and "the super rich" are the boogeyman rhetoric. But to pretend one side is absolutely right and the other scaremongering is ignorant, in fact arguing that farage is a bigoted racist could be classed as scaremongering, could it not? This is where my issue with brand is.
There is enough tax dodged yearly by numerous big corporations that would be able to come some way to resolving the problems faced by ordinary people***. But the richest in our society are happy to continue perpetuating the lie that immigrants are to blame and I have had enough of it.
What someone in parliament needs to do is have the balls to stand up to them and close legal loopholes that allow them to shaft our country year after year.
(***don't ask me on the figures, I'm being deliberately vague as I don't have them but I know that it runs into tens of billions - enough to make a sizeable dent.)
I'm also thinking back to the first question posed during tonight's programme. Are we not maintaining this "punch and judy" culture surrounding politics when we are more concerned in debating the pros and cons of Brand as a person, rather than the points he is trying to make?
I also loved the irony when Russell said that because he was from a particular background and was rich he knew where the power was. Doesn't sound like the politicians you claim to despise does it Russell? He's already "one of them" and doesn't know it yet. Or realises he is and won't stand because he realises his policies would create mass unemployment and poverty and doesn't want to be proven wrong.
Thought he just didn't fit on the show tonight though and t'was like he was trying to reign in his inner dandy.
Let's look at the options:
1. (Probably the most likely) It goes to the shareholders. In which case tax is paid on it, first by the company and then again by the shareholder if they are higher rate payers. Or it goes to investment companies that help to run asset management businesses which will go towards financing things like personal pensions. Then when these mature they have tax paid on them as people take income from their pension pot.
2. It goes to the directors of the company by way of bonus. In which case, tax will be paid on it. What doesn't go in income tax will enable people to buy things. A new Range Rover perhaps, which will have 20% VAT on it but will also keep somebody in employment bolting the thing together.
3. It goes towards growing the business by financing R&D and employing more staff. Guess what, those staff will pay tax on their earnings.
5. It buys a football club.
4. (Probably the least likely) It goes into some super rich equivalent of a black hole never to be seen again by anybody.
I'm actually struggling to think of anything that might happen to such money that will mean that tax won't be paid on it, many times over, whether in this country or somewhere else. If it's somewhere else they might go off and buy something made in the UK which will keep people in work.
Here's a diagram which probably explains it more eloquently than I could. I think economists call it something like the "circular flow of income".
The one thing that is sure is that if wealth was distributed evenly, there would be no incentive to work hard (or at all?) and nobody would actually have enough money to buy anything expensive, so millions would be made redundant, making the situation worse. The Chinese realised this some while ago and look at the changes to their economy. It is sad that there are haves and have nots but life's not fair and never will be.
#sunlogic
Philip Green (the owner of Topshop and various other businesses on most UK high streets) recently gave himself a £1.2b bonus but paid absolutely no tax on said bonus because he argued that his companies were in fact owned by his wife based in Monaco. Now how is that in any way fair? Philip Green is not doing anything illegal and that's where the problem lies. The system needs changing so it benefits everyone equally.
newstatesman.com/blogs/voices/2012/06/tax-avoidance-isnt-left-or-right-issue-its-cancer-eating-our-democracy
Did make me laugh.
Another thing that made me laugh, was that woman labelling Farage racist. I fail to see how introducing a points based, work permit, controlled immigration system is racist. If I look at Australia, it seems to benefit them in many ways, are they a massively racist country then?
I hope the people of Thanet have the good sense to reject the other empty vessel Farage.
I think his reluctance is down to the fact that if he was to win he'd actually have to turn some of his rhetoric into action.
The kind of things @Callumcafc is asking about are exactly those that are now bringing Jean Claude Juncker under scrutiny from across Europe. Let's remind ourselves what is happening.
My little business mainly makes money by finding talented Czechs to fill roles in jobs based in Prague. Imagine that my sister has moved to Dublin. Inspired by Google, I get my sister to send all my invoices from Dublin "where the deal is concluded" and save a lot of money on corporation tax. Oh yes, the money I save on tax goes to the shareholders (me) in dividends, and oh yes I may spend the money in Prague and pay VAT. However when the Czech tax office find out, they will invite me to inspect the local prison. When they calm down they will say, look Mr Prague, you want to live here and you are constantly complaining about the state of the roads, and indeed our inability to pursue Google and co., and in order to do these things we need money and that is why you pay the agreed amount of tax according to our laws.
Google, Facebook and Amazon are basically doing the same thing. You may also recall that our brave HMRC did a 'deal" with Vodafone where they agreed they would pay around 15% of the CIT the Revenue calculated VF were liable for. 15% of the amount. Who here would not like to cut their tax bill by 85%?
This is a massively important issue, ignored last night until someone from the audience chucked it in. I have feeling that when someone explains how it all works to Russell Brand, he will pick it up and run with it.
And as for Brand himself, I agree with @colthe3rd. If he's just a rich bloke promoting his career, there are easier ways than what he was doing last night. I'm not convinced by him yet,by any stretch, but that takes some balls, and I think he's a man who is learning fast. When he was told "Stand" by that angry man, I thought that hit home last night. Good. I'm going to watch his next moves with interest.
one of Russell's conquests or did he bring her there especially to slag off Farage?
The fact a member of UKIP went to a UKIP wedding and had to drag his wife out of Farages bedroom at 3am hasn't been bought to the attention of the media yet. I suspect someone will eventually tip them off and they will start digging. Unfortunately given the quality of UKiP voters this would probably increase his standing.
That would explain why the only word she knows is 'racist'.
She had nothing to add to the debate other than screaming at Farage for highlighting the pitfalls of an open door immigration policy.
Trouble is that Farage has never blamed migrants for the troubles in this country. He blames the system that allows people to exploit it. Big difference and one that a lot of people need to take on board instead of bandying about everyones favourite buzzword of the last 10 years whenever the issue of immigration is raised.
Many seem to forget we do have a points based immigration system, just not for those from the EU.
Do you have examples where it has benefitted Australia? I'm not a expert on the country but I was of the impression that it isn't doing that great economically, inflation continues as their commodities market has hit the brakes. I wonder if there is a downturn would they look to cheap labour through just as we did?
Finally, for all those slagging off the purple haired lady, yes I agree she was a bit of a loon but interesting that the lady that talked about Canterbury prison being full of immigrants. This is completely 100% untrue. How do I know this? Canterbury prison closed last year. This is the sort of scare mongering and flat out lies that are told that frightens me, not some loon shouting out at politicians. I wonder how many people heard that woman and thought "that's shocking, just another reason we need to stop immigration"?