Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2019 10:26:16 GMT
Hang on, so David makes a borderline trollish direct personal attack, but it is Carlton who is lowering the standard of the conversation and making “silly insults”? Either I need new glasses or something is amiss here. You must need new glasses because Carlton chose to insult Labour MP's with the sentence "The tide went out and most of your chaps were found out on the beach not wearing bathers" and this obviously angered David. He then made the personal attack after Carlton lowered the standard of the conversation.Here's a screenshot for proof: Thank you for the screenshot, unnecessary as it is. All I can see on that screenshot is a direct insult directed towards Carlton by David. Carlton made a point about Labour MPs using imagery - not naming any names. It is a real stretch to see that as lowering the standard of the conversation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2019 10:28:25 GMT
And now we return to Local Council By-election Review for 2018 Unless you have any actual points to make on the subject, stop posting that. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 3, 2019 10:35:38 GMT
And now we return to Local Council By-election Review for 2018 Unless you have any actual points to make on the subject, stop posting that. dok is making a point on the subject....... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2019 10:41:46 GMT
Unless you have any actual points to make on the subject, stop posting that. dok is making a point on the subject....... That’s the second time he has posted something similar in the past few days. Unless he, or anyone else has a direct point on the subject of the 2018 by election review (which he doesn’t appear to) it is uncalled for. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jan 3, 2019 11:07:32 GMT
Returning to the thread topic, and looking at the tables right at the beginning, there appears generally to be a somewhat lower propensity for seats to change hands when they are contested as part of the normal May elections. I suppose this is to be expected - in stead of having one seat to focus on a challenging party will have other calls. One would expect that the common lengthy delay between the vacancy being declared and the actual election might allow more preparation on all sides. Any campaign is also likely to have a broader focus. So parties appear to be wise to use the 6 month rule space for more than just avoiding the hassle of a normal by-election.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jan 4, 2019 8:04:12 GMT
Returning to the thread topic, and looking at the tables right at the beginning, there appears generally to be a somewhat lower propensity for seats to change hands when they are contested as part of the normal May elections. I suppose this is to be expected - in stead of having one seat to focus on a challenging party will have other calls. One would expect that the common lengthy delay between the vacancy being declared and the actual election might allow more preparation on all sides. Any campaign is also likely to have a broader focus. So parties appear to be wise to use the 6 month rule space for more than just avoiding the hassle of a normal by-election. A significant number of activists of all Parties enjoy the hobby of winning elections. For the Lib Dems and Greens winning any seat requires a lot of effort. Winning a seat at national level is a rare event and a local by-election gives people in the smaller parties something to do with their spare time and a lot of satisfaction in victory rather like winning a football match for more normal members of the population. Labour and Tory activists are often more focused on parliamentary success, on running councils, or on infighting within their own Party or getting their favourite policy into statute. There are very few places where there are enough Lib Dem or Green activists living in a single ward to achieve victory, so targeting is happening both in May and in by-elections. It is much more noticeable in by-elections. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jan 4, 2019 10:37:49 GMT
your opinion is of no value, you idiot Of course it is greed. MPs see people in all walks of life lining their pockets on an industrial scale at the taxpayers expense and say "why not me" Legal tax avoidance by the rich in ways not available to the merely comfortably off is a huge reason. Tax exiles like Ashcroft are MUCH more responsible than MEPs |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Jan 4, 2019 10:44:28 GMT
your opinion is of no value, you idiot Legal tax avoidance by the rich in ways not available to the merely comfortably off is a huge reason. What is wrong with anyone taking advantage of legal tax avoidance? It is surely there for people to take advantage of. If you do not want people to take advantage of you change the rules. And who approves changes to the rules other than MPs? Envy is another deadly sin. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 4, 2019 10:48:25 GMT
your opinion is of no value, you idiot Of course it is greed. MPs see people in all walks of life lining their pockets on an industrial scale at the taxpayers expense and say "why not me" Legal tax avoidance by the rich in ways not available to the merely comfortably off is a huge reason. Tax exiles like Ashcroft are MUCH more responsible than MEPs I don't understand why tax evasion would "inspire" MPs to cheat their expenses anymore than the allowances of MEPS would. They made the decision themselves, and it is hardly as though they are badly off in the wider economic scale of things. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 4, 2019 11:12:22 GMT
Yes, but in recent years several see themselves as "badly off" compared to the types they are used to mixing with.
Apart from anything else, its another illustration of why the "professionalisation of politics" in previous decades was in significant respects a problematic thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 4, 2019 12:00:33 GMT
Yes, but in recent years several see themselves as "badly off" compared to the types they are used to mixing with. Apart from anything else, its another illustration of why the "professionalisation of politics" in previous decades was in significant respects a problematic thing. What like trade union leaders?  Again, that's their problem, nobody elses.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jan 4, 2019 19:24:47 GMT
Legal tax avoidance by the rich in ways not available to the merely comfortably off is a huge reason. What is wrong with anyone taking advantage of legal tax avoidance? It is surely there for people to take advantage of. If you do not want people to take advantage of you change the rules. And who approves changes to the rules other than MPs? Envy is another deadly sin. All but 4 or 5 MPs engaged in nothing worse than legal tax avoidance, otherwise they would have been prosecuted. Bending the rules to their advantage in some cases but mostly just following them. That is the point. Tax avoiders set them an example and they followed that example to the relatively limited extent available. The rich typically pay a smaller proportion of their real income in tax than I do. I regard that as legalised theft. Same with Amazon etc. It is not a question of envy at all. I have no desire to have more money than I have, and if anything feel uncomfortable at my own relatively secure life in my 3 bed semi in Yorkshire. But the attack on MPs was pure hypocrisy (and populism of course) |
|
|
|
Post by middleenglander on Jan 5, 2019 0:09:54 GMT
What is wrong with anyone taking advantage of legal tax avoidance? It is surely there for people to take advantage of. If you do not want people to take advantage of you change the rules. And who approves changes to the rules other than MPs? Envy is another deadly sin. All but 4 or 5 MPs engaged in nothing worse than legal tax avoidance, otherwise they would have been prosecuted. Bending the rules to their advantage in some cases but mostly just following them. That is the point. Tax avoiders set them an example and they followed that example to the relatively limited extent available. The rich typically pay a smaller proportion of their real income in tax than I do. I regard that as legalised theft. Same with Amazon etc. It is not a question of envy at all. I have no desire to have more money than I have, and if anything feel uncomfortable at my own relatively secure life in my 3 bed semi in Yorkshire. But the attack on MPs was pure hypocrisy (and populism of course) The facts are that 6 MPs were found guilty of fraud / false accounting with 5 receiving a custodial sentence and one having been found unfit to plead receiving a two year supervision and treatment order. Tax avoidance is legal whilst tax evasion is illegal. There have been attempts to define aggressive tax avoidance as being illegal but whether it is or not depends on the ultimate judgement of the courts / tribunals as to the interpretation of the rules established by Parliament. The MPs were not in the main tax avoiding, they were fiddling their expenses sometimes with the connivance of the Parliamentary Authorities. I understand that MPs were subject to the same rules as anyone else namely that expenses can only be claimed which are wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the performance of your duties. Income tax accounts for around a quarter of all taxes collected. The top 1% of earning households pay over a quarter of the income tax, the top 10% of earners some 60% of income tax whilst the top half of earners pay around 90% of the income tax. The figures for other taxes are not so precisely available but the IFS reckon that the top 10% of all household pay 30% of all personal taxes excluding capital gains tax, inheritance tax and stamp duty (slightly higher than the income tax share alone) whilst the top 50% pay 78% (somewhat lower than the proportion of income tax). Capital gains tax and inheritance tax are almost by definition payable by the wealthier, whilst stamp duty on houses (nil below £125k, 2% £125k to £250k, 5% £250k to £925k, 10% £925k to £1.5m and 12% over £1.5m) means some one buying a £250k house pays £2,500 with a £2m house costing over £150k. Without knowing your personal circumstances, it is difficult to see how the rich typically pay a smaller proportion of their real income in tax than you do, unless you are one of the very rich. So I would suggest you are wrong in your general contention of legalised theft. Corporation tax is payable on profits, not on turnover. A manufacturing type business typically aims to make around 5% pre-tax profit on sales with a service company some 12%. A service company with a £1bn turnover would therefore be expected to pay at most tax of some £20 to £25m. However, Governments around the world give various allowances to offset against tax in order to encourage various activities such as investment. For example, the UK Government allows the full value of an item that qualifies for annual investment allowance from a company's profits before tax. With multi-nationals there is a issue where the company reports its profits, generally in the most beneficial location with mechanisms such as transfer pricing playing a part. However, these are governed by international agreements so the scope for flagrant abuse is limited. I well remember former colleague questioning how a local MP could afford such a splendid house on his MPs salary given his previous employment history in the same industry as us. It all became clear when the expenses scandal came into the open. The attack at the time on the MPs involved was well justified and not hypocrisy. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 6, 2019 0:22:13 GMT
Income tax accounts for around a quarter of all taxes collected. The top 1% of earning households pay over a quarter of the income tax, the top 10% of earners some 60% of income tax whilst the top half of earners pay around 90% of the income tax. The figures for other taxes are not so precisely available but the IFS reckon that the top 10% of all household pay 30% of all personal taxes excluding capital gains tax, inheritance tax and stamp duty (slightly higher than the income tax share alone) whilst the top 50% pay 78% (somewhat lower than the proportion of income tax). Capital gains tax and inheritance tax are almost by definition payable by the wealthier, whilst stamp duty on houses (nil below £125k, 2% £125k to £250k, 5% £250k to £925k, 10% £925k to £1.5m and 12% over £1.5m) means some one buying a £250k house pays £2,500 with a £2m house costing over £150k. Without knowing your personal circumstances, it is difficult to see how the rich typically pay a smaller proportion of their real income in tax than you do, unless you are one of the very rich. So I would suggest you are wrong in your general contention of legalised theft. I feel that I ought to point out that none of the statistics you are quoting are relevant to this question, as they state "proportion of all taxes paid by a group", rather than "proportion of the group's income that is paid in taxes". I don't think anybody is suggesting that the expenses scandal was not at all justified. There have, however, been several people arguing that some of the things involved in it were not a big deal. The example of MPs being pilloried for claiming for small items of stationery, for example, was way over the top - since expenses are supposed to cover the cost of running MPs offices. |
|
Again, that's their problem, nobody elses.