Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

2015 post UK election discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Mighty Quint said:
You ever spent 6 months on the dole lad, I have, because Of lack of work in the industry I was skilled in.

It's no fun living on the state, some don't know any different, but the vast majority have pride and it's the last place they want to be in.
Click to expand...
It's even less fun in places like Greece, Italy or Spain.
 
The Mighty Quint said:
Don't take the piss you sh!thouse, that's exactly what I would expect from you, we all have your number.

That reply is pathetic, truly pathetic.
Click to expand...
I warned against this sort of thing in the OP, regardless of political view.

I want an adult debate, not a slanging match. You could've argued your point rather than resort to name calling.

You will not be contributing further.
 
Woolly Blue said:
That's not hoarding in my dictionary though.

I'm not just being pedantic here. There's a difference between investing your money abroad to avoid tax and hoarding. Hoarding suggests you're hiding or storing something away and doing nothing with it. To be fair, they're "hiding" the money and assets, but to suggest that it's being hoarded as opposed to being invested is misleading.

Should something be done to make sure that can be taxed ? Yes, it should, but don't try and suggest that rich people just have a stash of cash sat somewhere which they count for countings sake, because that just isn't the case.
Click to expand...

You're describing hoarding but for some reason don't allocate the word hoarding to it.

Is "hidden assets" any better? It's exactly the same thing but cloaked in nicer language?

It's literally being invested for the purpose of retaining away from taxation. It is hidden; hoarded. It is left alone.

I mean seriously:

hoard
hɔːd/
verb
past tense: hoarded; past participle: hoarded
  1. accumulate (money or valued objects) and hide or store away.

I'm not even criticising them for it; but it is what happens.
 
Bruce Wayne said:
Hang on, you earn the money (say sum A), then tax is taken out of that (sum B). Reducing the amount in sum B doesn't mean you didn't earn all of sum A.
Click to expand...

Who has a problem with Sum A? I have absolutely no problem with people earning money - the more the merrier - but taking from Sum B what you should be fairly paying to supplement Sum A is greed.

Earn money fairly.
 

Woolly Blue said:
That's not hoarding in my dictionary though.

I'm not just being pedantic here. There's a difference between investing your money abroad to avoid tax and hoarding. Hoarding suggests you're hiding or storing something away and doing nothing with it. To be fair, they're "hiding" the money and assets, but to suggest that it's being hoarded as opposed to being invested is misleading.

Should something be done to make sure that can be taxed ? Yes, it should, but don't try and suggest that rich people just have a stash of cash sat somewhere which they count for countings sake, because that just isn't the case.
Click to expand...

I think you are wrong. This is exactly what the rich have/do. They don't 'invest' their money abroad. They aren't investing it, they are effectively putting it there for safekeeping because they aren't taxes on it. It's a way of boosting your profits.
 

roydo said:
Now the usual suspects will jump on that, but the truth of the matter is, the winners of an election in the UK usually has to appeal to the mass, centre ground. They [Labour] didnt.
Click to expand...

The thing is, that's simply not true. They very much did appeal to the centre ground if polling about the most important issues is to be believed - and yet they didn't get in. Sadly, the Right owns so much of the mass media these days (in particular Sky News, The Sun, The Times, The Telegraph and the Daily Mail) that appealing to the centre ground isn't enough. You can have pretty popular policies and yet still be characterised as "Loony Left."
 
daylightrobber said:
What do you do whilst waiting for this good economy?

What you don't seem to understand is that poverty is in the here and now for many people. The reality is that there are families who do not know where the next meal is coming from. It's far more tangible. Basic necessities that most of us take for granted are not attainable by some. At any time, that could be you, or me. And yet those people have to wait for the economy to be good. It's bull.

In regards to investing in growth, with all due respect you're talking twaddle. Not least because investment in education was significant. If you want to grow a country and sustain it, the best thing you can do is invest in the next generation of innovators, entrepreneurs and business people etc.

In regards to taxing the super rich.
The super rich often get rich off the back of the average Joe (refer to my posts in the other thread). We are needed to be workers and consumers etc. If the super rich are asked to pay extra to subsidise the poor and choose to leave the country instead, then quite simply society is better off without them. They are admitting that they were only here to exploit anyway.

Evaluate your life, why are you here? Is it not to be a part of society, to contribute your bit and to benefit from the actions and deeds of others? Are you comfortable with how that's panning out for you compared to others?

The true measure of a society is how it treats it's weakest members.
Click to expand...
The super rich don't get rich of the back of anyone. Bill Gates didn't get rich of the back of anyone. Neither did Steve Jobs etc

The super rich get rich of their own ability. Granted not everyone is capable of that and the super rich should be doing more but neither party is going to go after them. They simply can't but if it did the money would instead go into our economy rather than internationally meaning the world would never improve and we would continue to live of the backs of the really poor in the world - just like during the colonial days.

However you also don't improve the economy by creating a load of new university places to give people degrees that are worthless because the students aren't capable to do those jobs when they come out or the degree is pointless.

If Labour where practically driven and not idelogically driven they would have invested in apprentiships.

Why instead of trying to shame people actually open yourself up to the arguments and practical global results and stop trying to assume everyone who is rich or supports those policies is evil.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top