ok, lets see your post about the massive increase in foodbanks then - and I'll apologise
The false equivalence is that because I don't have a problem with non doms then ergo I don't have a problem with foodbanks.
Ok, I'm glad you have a problem with them and apologise. Just might be good to state you have a problem with them in the same way you have with a concern for fairness for non-doms.
There is an important point here. People that point out a perceived injustice that affects multi millionaires and billionaires, ought to have had a balance by pointing out a perceived injustice that affects the poor. If that is the case, there is a balance and the point deserves consideration. But if they are not bothered enough about say foodbanks, to a point where a minor but moral issue like non-doms is more important, is telling where people put their priorities.
If you care about the rich and not the poor you are a Tory. Of course that is not an insult, if you are one you should be proud to be one. Some are not, but that is another story. I am equally proud to support social justice.
Have you considered the possibility that without non doms there might be more foodbanks?
The non dom rule is relevant for 5,000 people who choose to pay the fee.
Labour - focusing on the big issues.
It's also relevant to the 60 million people who *do* pay their taxes.
They do pay their taxes, just not here.
Oh give it a rest. Where do you think Abramovic pays personal income tax?
No idea - ask his accountant.
Ok, a more temperate question. Where do we think Roman Abramovic ought to be tax resident? In which country does he spend at least 183 days/year? (or did I dream that we reduced it to 90 days)
It really does not seem to be Russia. Seems it could all be a bit uncomfortable there for him, despite Vlad's patronage.
Well he owns a football club in the UK and seems to attend most matches. Where does he go after that? Lonely nights on his "yacht" in international waters? Come on.
Have HMRC ever asked him to account for his resident status? That is the important political question.
I suspect he is resident here but not domiciled here. If he takes a dividend from Chelsea or from a UK rental building then he pays tax here like everyone else, just not on say his Siberian assets (and why instinctively should he?)
If you care about the rich and not the poor you are a Tory.
I don't agree. I believe that is far too simplistic.
I care about the poor probably more than the rich. But, I believe that without rich people creating and spending their money, then the economy as a whole will be worse off, very much including the poor being worse off.
I also care about the unfortunate poor, not the ones that have chosen it as a lifestyle choice, at the expense of the workers and the workshy who live better lives than some workers on low pay.
There is an important point here. People that point out a perceived injustice that affects multi millionaires and billionaires, ought to have had a balance by pointing out a perceived injustice that affects the poor. If that is the case, there is a balance and the point deserves consideration. But if they are not bothered enough about say foodbanks, to a point where a minor but moral issue like non-doms is more important, is telling where people put their priorities.
If you care about the rich and not the poor you are a Tory. Of course that is not an insult, if you are one you should be proud to be one. Some are not, but that is another story. I am equally proud to support social justice.
Have you considered the possibility that without non doms there might be more foodbanks?
Yes, I have. Labour's non dom policy is expected to raise an additional 1 to 4 billion. The criticism is that it is more likely to be at the bottom end of that but it shouldn't cause more foodbanks. I don't think this is a significant amount for the profile it receives - pretty much the same as Cameron using scroungers to make his benefit cut case. I hate scroungers as they are the tory's gift - but the money they cost the country is a drop in the ocean - too much, but a drop in the ocean and they provide the ammunition for the disabled and mentally ill to be penalised and punished by a heartless regime. I'd seek the scroungers out and beat the crap out of them, but that is not Labour party policy. But if they didnt exist the tory's and their press would invent them.
If you care about the rich and not the poor you are a Tory.
I don't agree. I believe that is far too simplistic.
I care about the poor probably more than the rich. But, I believe that without rich people creating and spending their money, then the economy as a whole will be worse off, very much including the poor being worse off.
I also care about the unfortunate poor, not the ones that have chosen it as a lifestyle choice, at the expense of the workers and the workshy who live better lives than some workers on low pay.
But I dont want the rich to be poor - I am a capitalist - I just want a society where those with the broadest shoulders take their fair share of the load. I wont lose out under a Tory government, but i'd rather be part of a society that cares about the poor and disadvantaged. See my post above about your last point.
I suspect he is resident here but not domiciled here. If he takes a dividend from Chelsea or from a UK rental building then he pays tax here like everyone else, just not on say his Siberian assets (and why instinctively should he?)
So as to make sure that he pays tax somewhere. A more modest Russian who pitches up here would be required to declare his income in Russia to HMRC and either be taxed on them in the UK, or demonstrate that he is paying tax in Russia on the relevant income (not sure if we have a double taxation agreement with Russia)
I have to pay personal income tax in two countries, why shouldn't he?
If you care about the rich and not the poor you are a Tory.
I don't agree. I believe that is far too simplistic.
I care about the poor probably more than the rich. But, I believe that without rich people creating and spending their money, then the economy as a whole will be worse off, very much including the poor being worse off.
I also care about the unfortunate poor, not the ones that have chosen it as a lifestyle choice, at the expense of the workers and the workshy who live better lives than some workers on low pay.
Trickle down? Thatcherite shite. Undeserving poor? - Bring back cholera and the workhouse - should never have given them clean water, lazy bastards don't appreciate you're paying for it.
In pre war Germany there were some jews that fitted some of the stereotypes the nazis applied to them. A very small, insignificant number that would apply to any race and population. But this was used and exagerated to create a hatred that led to the extermination of around 6 million innocent people. Ok, the Tory's proposed benefit cuts is not the same as this act of genocide, but there is an anology in that some of the British people allow the stereotype of a minority apply to all claimants and people will die as a result of these cuts. Maybe only a handful so not a significant number in Tory government terms. But many more will endure poverty/suffering and a lot of these will be the sick and disabled. This bothers me and I find it incredible that I have to explain why to some people.
If you care about the rich and not the poor you are a Tory.
I don't agree. I believe that is far too simplistic.
I care about the poor probably more than the rich. But, I believe that without rich people creating and spending their money, then the economy as a whole will be worse off, very much including the poor being worse off.
I also care about the unfortunate poor, not the ones that have chosen it as a lifestyle choice, at the expense of the workers and the workshy who live better lives than some workers on low pay.
But I dont want the rich to be poor - I am a capitalist - I just want a society where those with the broadest shoulders take their fair share of the load. I wont lose out under a Tory government, but i'd rather be part of a society that cares about the poor and disadvantaged. See my post above about your last point.
We agree, hurrah.
NB whether the Tories or Labour win, won't effect me personally either. My views are based on what I feel is best for the country. As are yours. We just see it differently.
If you care about the rich and not the poor you are a Tory.
I don't agree. I believe that is far too simplistic.
I care about the poor probably more than the rich. But, I believe that without rich people creating and spending their money, then the economy as a whole will be worse off, very much including the poor being worse off.
I also care about the unfortunate poor, not the ones that have chosen it as a lifestyle choice, at the expense of the workers and the workshy who live better lives than some workers on low pay.
Trickle down? Thatcherite shite. Undeserving poor? - Bring back cholera and the workhouse - should never have given them clean water, lazy bastards don't appreciate you're paying for it.
Nope, you've lost me there.
We need wealth creators to provide us with jobs. I think sometimes we forget how well off we are.
Let's look at Nepal today and their poverty.
Bring back fatal diseases and the workhouse. What are you going on about ?
The undeserving poor I refer to, are the people who choose not to work, as they are too lazy and would rather claim benefits and yes I am personally aware of many.
CE - Many? You could build a new town on the land owned by parasites like the Duke of Buccleuch and give all your indolent acquaintances a job. Wealth creator? No, wealth hoarder to ensure that nothing really changes. Glibly announcing the result will not really affect you and Nepalese poverty in a few taps of a keyboard. Unfortunately for some people the result does matter, glad you're not one of them. Apologies for the tone of my post been dealing with shoeless kids and dv households all day. Get a bit tetchy.
Today sees the publication of probably the most important opinion poll since the election campaign began. The YouAddick poll to see who's posting most on this thread. The thinking behind this study is the belief that the Offical Election Thread is becoming dominated by a few posters desperately trying to push their own point of view at the expense of having a genuine discussion. YouAddick performed a count of all posts for the three day period 28th to 30th April. We found that just five posters shared 37% of all posts. Based on this, their likely share of the seats at election are as follows:
Of course making dozens of posts doesn't guarantee that people will pay attention to the poster. In fact, it probably makes them seem a bit desperate. Thankfully the pattern of posting does even out amongst the majority of posters, as can be seen here:
The chart below shows that some posters have been so keen to ensure that their voice is heard above the melee, that they have resorted to posting twice before anyone else has even responded. One poster even tried quoting themselves, though this did not appear to be a good strategy, and other than one insult, was ignored.
Overall figures for the period were as follows: Number of Posters 63, Number of Posts 420, Most Posts by single Poster 44, Least Posts by single Poster 1, Median number of Posts 3, Mean number of Posts 6.67.
The study has been criticised for not considering the content of posts, not undertaking a time series analysis and not addressing the founding proposition. A spokesman for YouAddick said, 'bugger that, I've wasted enough time on this already'.
"What's your name?" "Stig" "Thanks for your point Stig. Let me tell you this - I could work with Covered End or Fiish as a coalition partner but I won't partner with Muttley or Prague, it's simply not going to happen."
In pre war Germany there were some jews that fitted some of the stereotypes the nazis applied to them. A very small, insignificant number that would apply to any race and population. But this was used and exagerated to create a hatred that led to the extermination of around 6 million innocent people. Ok, the Tory's proposed benefit cuts is not the same as this act of genocide, but there is an anology in that some of the British people allow the stereotype of a minority apply to all claimants and people will die as a result of these cuts. Maybe only a handful so not a significant number in Tory government terms. But many more will endure poverty/suffering and a lot of these will be the sick and disabled. This bothers me and I find it incredible that I have to explain why to some people.
Today sees the publication of probably the most important opinion poll since the election campaign began. The YouAddick poll to see who's posting most on this thread. The thinking behind this study is the belief that the Offical Election Thread is becoming dominated by a few posters desperately trying to push their own point of view at the expense of having a genuine discussion. YouAddick performed a count of all posts for the three day period 28th to 30th April. We found that just five posters shared 37% of all posts. Based on this, their likely share of the seats at election are as follows:
Of course making dozens of posts doesn't guarantee that people will pay attention to the poster. In fact, it probably makes them seem a bit desperate. Thankfully the pattern of posting does even out amongst the majority of posters, as can be seen here:
The chart below shows that some posters have been so keen to ensure that their voice is heard above the melee, that they have resorted to posting twice before anyone else has even responded. One poster even tried quoting themselves, though this did not appear to be a good strategy, and other than one insult, was ignored.
Overall figures for the period were as follows: Number of Posters 63, Number of Posts 420, Most Posts by single Poster 44, Least Posts by single Poster 1, Median number of Posts 3, Mean number of Posts 6.67.
The study has been criticised for not considering the content of posts, not undertaking a time series analysis and not addressing the founding proposition. A spokesman for YouAddick said, 'bugger that, I've wasted enough time on this already'.
Ha, ha great work Stig, I salute you sir.
Just goes to show it's only ever about the quality of my own posts, you lot should pay more attention :-)
If you care about the rich and not the poor you are a Tory.
I don't agree. I believe that is far too simplistic.
I care about the poor probably more than the rich. But, I believe that without rich people creating and spending their money, then the economy as a whole will be worse off, very much including the poor being worse off.
I also care about the unfortunate poor, not the ones that have chosen it as a lifestyle choice, at the expense of the workers and the workshy who live better lives than some workers on low pay.
But I dont want the rich to be poor - I am a capitalist - I just want a society where those with the broadest shoulders take their fair share of the load. I wont lose out under a Tory government, but i'd rather be part of a society that cares about the poor and disadvantaged. See my post above about your last point.
Broad shoulders eh?
2010: Percentage of total income tax take from each bracket:
Top 1%: 26% Bottom 50%: 12%
2015:
Top 1%: 30% Bottom 50%: 9%
So over the course of this coalition Government, the top earners have taken on 4% more of the tax burden, whereas 3% of the total burden has been lifted off the poorest 50%.
If you care about the rich and not the poor you are a Tory.
I don't agree. I believe that is far too simplistic.
I care about the poor probably more than the rich. But, I believe that without rich people creating and spending their money, then the economy as a whole will be worse off, very much including the poor being worse off.
I also care about the unfortunate poor, not the ones that have chosen it as a lifestyle choice, at the expense of the workers and the workshy who live better lives than some workers on low pay.
But I dont want the rich to be poor - I am a capitalist - I just want a society where those with the broadest shoulders take their fair share of the load. I wont lose out under a Tory government, but i'd rather be part of a society that cares about the poor and disadvantaged. See my post above about your last point.
Broad shoulders eh?
2010: Percentage of total income tax take from each bracket:
Top 1%: 26% Bottom 50%: 12%
2015:
Top 1%: 30% Bottom 50%: 9%
So over the course of this coalition Government, the top earners have taken on 4% more of the tax burden, whereas 3% of the total burden has been lifted off the poorest 50%.
Sorry to briefly cross the proverbial floor of the Commons, but that is probably due to the huge rises in asset prices over that period and a continued disproportionate share of national income flowing to the top 1%.
The non dom rule is relevant for 5,000 people who choose to pay the fee.
Labour - focusing on the big issues.
It's also relevant to the 60 million people who *do* pay their taxes.
Just for the sake of clarity, there are approx 29mn income tax payers in the UK.
...but around 60 million tax payers.
But no one is suggesting that the likes of Chelsea's owner, is somehow managing to avoid the payment of VAT, road fund tax, fuel duty, air passenger tax, excise duty, insurance premia tax or any of the other 150-odd different stealth taxes introduced/raised by the previous administration, are they? You never know he might even pay the Dartford Crossing tax every now and again...
If you care about the rich and not the poor you are a Tory.
I don't agree. I believe that is far too simplistic.
I care about the poor probably more than the rich. But, I believe that without rich people creating and spending their money, then the economy as a whole will be worse off, very much including the poor being worse off.
I also care about the unfortunate poor, not the ones that have chosen it as a lifestyle choice, at the expense of the workers and the workshy who live better lives than some workers on low pay.
But I dont want the rich to be poor - I am a capitalist - I just want a society where those with the broadest shoulders take their fair share of the load. I wont lose out under a Tory government, but i'd rather be part of a society that cares about the poor and disadvantaged. See my post above about your last point.
Broad shoulders eh?
2010: Percentage of total income tax take from each bracket:
Top 1%: 26% Bottom 50%: 12%
2015:
Top 1%: 30% Bottom 50%: 9%
So over the course of this coalition Government, the top earners have taken on 4% more of the tax burden, whereas 3% of the total burden has been lifted off the poorest 50%.
Sorry to briefly cross the proverbial floor of the Commons, but that is probably due to the huge rises in asset prices over that period and a continued disproportionate share of national income flowing to the top 1%.
I realise that is probably a factor, although we can point at policies over the last few years that have taken the poorest out of tax and more and more rich people paying more tax thanks to fiscal drag. I mainly put it out there to dispel the myth that the poor are shouldering more of the tax burden than previously and the rich are shouldering less.
The non dom rule is relevant for 5,000 people who choose to pay the fee.
Labour - focusing on the big issues.
It's also relevant to the 60 million people who *do* pay their taxes.
Just for the sake of clarity, there are approx 29mn income tax payers in the UK.
...but around 60 million tax payers.
But no one is suggesting that the likes of Chelsea's owner, is somehow managing to avoid the payment of VAT, road fund tax, fuel duty, air passenger tax, excise duty, insurance premia tax or any of the other 150-odd different stealth taxes introduced/raised by the previous administration, are they? You never know he might even pay the Dartford Crossing tax every now and again...
The last time he drove through the Blackwall Tunnel he spent ten million quid
I went to my local hustings last night, so watched question time on catch up. David Cameron has upped his game and Ed Miliband was less on form than he has been. Nick Clegg continues to suffer because of events in 2010, but Cameron was unconvincing on where he is going to cut, and Miliband was unsettled by the past Labour record questions. In my local hustings for Lewisham East (incidentally five women and two men) three of the women were 'good'. One was the UKIP woman because she presented well was crystal clear but I disagreed with her, and found her a bit humourless, the People Before Profit woman was also crystal clear and presented well, idealistic but hard to disagree with,, the incumbent, Heidi Alexandra was very good, assured without being complacent who presented well. Lib Dem was flustered, Green nervous and lacking humour, Christian Alliance was a nice lady, and Conservative was good humoured but made little effort to convince as it seems he has given up in this seat already. On the basis of which individual person who I would like to be my MP I have now ruled some of them out.
Comments
It really does not seem to be Russia. Seems it could all be a bit uncomfortable there for him, despite Vlad's patronage.
Well he owns a football club in the UK and seems to attend most matches. Where does he go after that? Lonely nights on his "yacht" in international waters? Come on.
Have HMRC ever asked him to account for his resident status? That is the important political question.
I care about the poor probably more than the rich.
But, I believe that without rich people creating and spending their money, then the economy as a whole will be worse off, very much including the poor being worse off.
I also care about the unfortunate poor, not the ones that have chosen it as a lifestyle choice, at the expense of the workers and the workshy who live better lives than some workers on low pay.
I have to pay personal income tax in two countries, why shouldn't he?
Undeserving poor? - Bring back cholera and the workhouse - should never have given them clean water, lazy bastards don't appreciate you're paying for it.
NB whether the Tories or Labour win, won't effect me personally either.
My views are based on what I feel is best for the country. As are yours.
We just see it differently.
We need wealth creators to provide us with jobs. I think sometimes we forget how well off we are.
Let's look at Nepal today and their poverty.
Bring back fatal diseases and the workhouse. What are you going on about ?
The undeserving poor I refer to, are the people who choose not to work, as they are too lazy and would rather claim benefits and yes I am personally aware of many.
Glibly announcing the result will not really affect you and Nepalese poverty in a few taps of a keyboard. Unfortunately for some people the result does matter,
glad you're not one of them. Apologies for the tone of my post been dealing with shoeless kids and dv households all day. Get a bit tetchy.
Of course making dozens of posts doesn't guarantee that people will pay attention to the poster. In fact, it probably makes them seem a bit desperate. Thankfully the pattern of posting does even out amongst the majority of posters, as can be seen here:
The chart below shows that some posters have been so keen to ensure that their voice is heard above the melee, that they have resorted to posting twice before anyone else has even responded. One poster even tried quoting themselves, though this did not appear to be a good strategy, and other than one insult, was ignored.
Overall figures for the period were as follows: Number of Posters 63, Number of Posts 420, Most Posts by single Poster 44, Least Posts by single Poster 1, Median number of Posts 3, Mean number of Posts 6.67.
The study has been criticised for not considering the content of posts, not undertaking a time series analysis and not addressing the founding proposition. A spokesman for YouAddick said, 'bugger that, I've wasted enough time on this already'.
"Stig"
"Thanks for your point Stig. Let me tell you this - I could work with Covered End or Fiish as a coalition partner but I won't partner with Muttley or Prague, it's simply not going to happen."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Just goes to show it's only ever about the quality of my own posts, you lot should pay more attention :-)
2010: Percentage of total income tax take from each bracket:
Top 1%: 26%
Bottom 50%: 12%
2015:
Top 1%: 30%
Bottom 50%: 9%
So over the course of this coalition Government, the top earners have taken on 4% more of the tax burden, whereas 3% of the total burden has been lifted off the poorest 50%.
David Cameron has upped his game and Ed Miliband was less on form than he has been. Nick Clegg continues to suffer because of events in 2010, but Cameron was unconvincing on where he is going to cut, and Miliband was unsettled by the past Labour record questions.
In my local hustings for Lewisham East (incidentally five women and two men) three of the women were 'good'. One was the UKIP woman because she presented well was crystal clear but I disagreed with her, and found her a bit humourless, the People Before Profit woman was also crystal clear and presented well, idealistic but hard to disagree with,, the incumbent, Heidi Alexandra was very good, assured without being complacent who presented well. Lib Dem was flustered, Green nervous and lacking humour, Christian Alliance was a nice lady, and Conservative was good humoured but made little effort to convince as it seems he has given up in this seat already.
On the basis of which individual person who I would like to be my MP I have now ruled some of them out.