Tax heist of the century?

13»

Comments

  • dhope
    dhope Posts: 6,699
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    dhope wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    My point is - you can harp on about how it's all cushy between the tories and the City, but in this instance it was a Labour idea and Labour would have done the same thing. So are you going to have a moan about them being cushy with the City too?

    Pretty much.

    The point I guess I was making was that it's no surprise, since we definitely know the City loves the tories.

    At least, in the office I sit they do. And the people I meet in the bars round here ... etc etc

    I'd also suggest that Labour is likely to be a little more hostile to the City in future - since i think many of the Blarites, let alone those further left, feel they gave the City a good chance and they spoiled it.

    Not from my experience, as someone that works at an investment bank. Seems to be a fairly even/healthy mix of posh toffs and scummy students (naturally there's no middle ground).
    Tories love the tories certainly. If by 'the City' you mean tories that work in the City then yes.

    /Tautology


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12401049

    Told ya!

    Hrm, more than half the people that donate money to the tories work in the city. That's entirely different from saying most people that work in the city are tories. A->B =/= B->A
    Rose Xeon CW Disc
    CAAD12 Disc
    Condor Tempo
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    dhope wrote:
    Hrm, more than half the people that donate money to the tories work in the city. That's entirely different from saying most people that work in the city are tories. A->B =/= B->A

    Are you genuinely this pedantic? Or are you trying to save face?

    The point remains.

    The city gives the Tories lots of money (which, let's face is, it 'support' that matters, as opposed to the odd vote of a late 20something with no spare time), so it's no coincidence the Tories are likely to be soft on the city.
    _
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    dhope wrote:
    Hrm, more than half the people that donate money to the tories work in the city. That's entirely different from saying most people that work in the city are tories. A->B =/= B->A

    Are you genuinely this pedantic? Or are you trying to save face?

    The point remains.

    The city gives the Tories lots of money (which, let's face is, it 'support' that matters, as opposed to the odd vote of a late 20something with no spare time), so it's no coincidence the Tories are likely to be soft on the city.

    Except, again, it was a Labour idea to be "soft on the city". I wonder how much funding the Labour party receive (and why the study/report didn't seem to address all the parties...). 80% of Labour funding is of course from the Unions, who also play a role in the election of their leader. What would you say if the Tories had City representatives picking their leader?
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    W1 wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    dhope wrote:
    Hrm, more than half the people that donate money to the tories work in the city. That's entirely different from saying most people that work in the city are tories. A->B =/= B->A

    Are you genuinely this pedantic? Or are you trying to save face?

    The point remains.

    The city gives the Tories lots of money (which, let's face is, it 'support' that matters, as opposed to the odd vote of a late 20something with no spare time), so it's no coincidence the Tories are likely to be soft on the city.

    Except, again, it was a Labour idea to be "soft on the city". I wonder how much funding the Labour party receive (and why the study/report didn't seem to address all the parties...). 80% of Labour funding is of course from the Unions, who also play a role in the election of their leader. What would you say if the Tories had City representatives picking their leader?

    For those who are actually interested in the issue being discussed here, rather than just the thrill of internet conflict, this week's Analysis on Radio4 makes for very interesting listening: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/b006r4vz/console

    Big bit about Labour being "Soft on the City" in there too btw.

    "The role of credit in the build up to the global financial crisis is well known - but what has our reliance on credit been doing to the wider economy and to human behaviour?

    The expansion of consumer credit has been encouraged by social democratic as well as centre right governments. But some on the left believe that the growth of the financial sector has given birth to a novel form of capitalism and with that a new kind of worker exploitation."

    Btw, all other things being equal, I'd rather the political party in charge was funded by unions.
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • dhope
    dhope Posts: 6,699
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    dhope wrote:
    Hrm, more than half the people that donate money to the tories work in the city. That's entirely different from saying most people that work in the city are tories. A->B =/= B->A

    Are you genuinely this pedantic? Or are you trying to save face?

    The point remains.

    The city gives the Tories lots of money (which, let's face is, it 'support' that matters, as opposed to the odd vote of a late 20something with no spare time), so it's no coincidence the Tories are likely to be soft on the city.

    Only as pedantic as you are lazy when going for the easy tory/city parallel. I'm a Labour voter and Guardian reader so will quite happily accuse David Cameron and associated chums of being thoroughly out of touch etc, but picking the tory-city connection is too easily done as a knee-jerk argument.
    Rose Xeon CW Disc
    CAAD12 Disc
    Condor Tempo
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    dhope wrote:
    Only as pedantic as you are lazy when going for the easy tory/city parallel. I'm a Labour voter and Guardian reader so will quite happily accuse David Cameron and associated chums of being thoroughly out of touch etc, but picking the tory-city connection is too easily done as a knee-jerk argument.

    Well just because its an easy connection to make that doesn't mean it isn't relevant. I mean, it would be hard to argue that the effect that the tory led coalition government has been particularly bad for those in the city?
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • dhope
    dhope Posts: 6,699
    notsoblue wrote:
    dhope wrote:
    Only as pedantic as you are lazy when going for the easy tory/city parallel. I'm a Labour voter and Guardian reader so will quite happily accuse David Cameron and associated chums of being thoroughly out of touch etc, but picking the tory-city connection is too easily done as a knee-jerk argument.

    Well just because its an easy connection to make that doesn't mean it isn't relevant. I mean, it would be hard to argue that the effect that the tory led coalition government has been particularly bad for those in the city?

    Wrong day to argue that at my bank, we just lost about 15% of the front office this morning :shock:
    Rose Xeon CW Disc
    CAAD12 Disc
    Condor Tempo
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    dhope wrote:
    notsoblue wrote:
    dhope wrote:
    Only as pedantic as you are lazy when going for the easy tory/city parallel. I'm a Labour voter and Guardian reader so will quite happily accuse David Cameron and associated chums of being thoroughly out of touch etc, but picking the tory-city connection is too easily done as a knee-jerk argument.

    Well just because its an easy connection to make that doesn't mean it isn't relevant. I mean, it would be hard to argue that the effect that the tory led coalition government has been particularly bad for those in the city?

    Wrong day to argue that at my bank, we just lost about 15% of the front office this morning :shock:

    Ah, because the bank is losing public funding and big society volunteers are taking their jobs?
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,165
    notsoblue wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    As I mentioned before before - if you lower the corporate tax rate and make the tax environment more friendly, perversely it often increases the tax receipts over time as businesses come to your country. Unfortunately a lot of people just don't get it.

    Worked for Ireland.
    I suppose you're being sarcastic there? Ireland's current problems stem mainly from the asset bubble created by interest rates that were too low for their circumstances - because they are members of the single currency and could not set their own interest rates.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,165
    W1 wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    As I mentioned before before - if you lower the corporate tax rate and make the tax environment more friendly, perversely it often increases the tax receipts over time as businesses come to your country. Unfortunately a lot of people just don't get it.

    Ditto the argument for flat tax. But can you imagine the roar of lycra being twisted were the fascists to suggest such a thing!
    Tee hee. There would be a lot of people scraping the remains of exploded heads off their open-toed sandals if we started on that :lol: (Actually DDD did a thread on flat tax a while ago, must dig that one up).
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    Flat tax is the way forward. If we must all be equal then we should all pay an equal percentage of tax. When the 40% tax threshold get lowered to £35,000 more of you (in full time work) will (feel my pain) wish we all just paid 30% (for varying reasons) and be done with it. Seems fair to me.

    I don't read the Guardian and I still don't know if I'm Tory or Lib. What I am, however, is paid to look at the bigger picture strategically.

    On the surface of it and it's own this tax reduction seems unfair at a time when the public are being asked to pay more everywhere.

    However, the present Government (which I don't like - excluding their business sense) has the philosophy that society shouldn't thrive, be fuelled by and survive mainly on the public service. It is very much a believer in the private sector.

    So they're cutting public services. At the same they need to inject growth in the private sector to absorb the flak. I won't pretend to understand all the details.

    As part of the bigger picture this tax reduction/break (whatever) may be part of the plan to encourage the much needed growth in the private sector to help the reducing public sector economy.

    Or so my thought process goes.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    notsoblue wrote:
    Btw, all other things being equal, I'd rather the political party in charge was funded by unions.

    No doubt - and I can think of nothing worse, bearing in mind their blatent attempts to blackmail all and sundry by going on strike on the slimmest of grounds in order to increase the personal benefits of their members at who-knows (or cares)-what cost or impact to anyone else.

    Having the opposition party (or, even worse, the party in power) lead by someone elecected by a group of hypocritical, bullying, champagne swilling socialists is not my idea of good goverance.

    I'm sure we will disagree on this point though!
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    W1 wrote:
    notsoblue wrote:
    Btw, all other things being equal, I'd rather the political party in charge was funded by unions.

    No doubt - and I can think of nothing worse, bearing in mind their blatent attempts to blackmail all and sundry by going on strike on the slimmest of grounds in order to increase the personal benefits of their members at who-knows (or cares)-what cost or impact to anyone else.

    Having the opposition party (or, even worse, the party in power) lead by someone elecected by a group of hypocritical, bullying, champagne swilling socialists is not my idea of good goverance.

    I'm sure we will disagree on this point though!

    Well if you put it that way.... :P
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    W1 wrote:
    a group of hypocritical, bullying, champagne swilling...!

    The Tories of course are not this, right?

    :roll:
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    a group of hypocritical, bullying, champagne swilling...!

    The Tories of course are not this, right?

    :roll:

    Well I don't think anyone is really. He was exaggerating to show his bias (can you guess what it is?) :D
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    notsoblue wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    a group of hypocritical, bullying, champagne swilling...!

    The Tories of course are not this, right?

    :roll:

    Well I don't think anyone is really. He was exaggerating to show his bias (can you guess what it is?) :D

    I like to take a neutral and balanced stance, as I hope you can tell.
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    W1 wrote:
    I like to take a neutral and balanced stance, as I hope you can tell.

    Ah yes, my mistake you are balanced nicely in the middle between far right and extremists... :wink:

    [jk]
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    W1 wrote:
    I like to take a neutral and balanced stance, as I hope you can tell.

    Ah yes, my mistake you are balanced nicely in the middle between far right and extremists... :wink:

    [jk]
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    W1 wrote:
    I like to take a neutral and balanced stance, as I hope you can tell.

    I think you'll find that it is I that has the most neutral and balanced stance.
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    dhope wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    dhope wrote:
    Hrm, more than half the people that donate money to the tories work in the city. That's entirely different from saying most people that work in the city are tories. A->B =/= B->A

    Are you genuinely this pedantic? Or are you trying to save face?

    The point remains.

    The city gives the Tories lots of money (which, let's face is, it 'support' that matters, as opposed to the odd vote of a late 20something with no spare time), so it's no coincidence the Tories are likely to be soft on the city.

    Only as pedantic as you are lazy when going for the easy tory/city parallel. I'm a Labour voter and Guardian reader so will quite happily accuse David Cameron and associated chums of being thoroughly out of touch etc, but picking the tory-city connection is too easily done as a knee-jerk argument.

    It's not a pick. I'm just suggesting that there interest is there. If me and my fellow hedge fund managers had bankrolled half of the entire Tory route to power, I'd be expecting something in return!!

    Like Labour has to thow bones to the unions every so often, the tories will to the city.


    Just because labour were generous to the city doesn't mean the tories won't either. The city also knows that post recession, it's tougher for the parties to be seen to favour the city. Given that that's a hot topic, it's something that should be considered when you evaluate a party and, if applicable, its governance.
    _
  • W1
    W1 Posts: 2,636
    notsoblue wrote:
    W1 wrote:
    I like to take a neutral and balanced stance, as I hope you can tell.

    I think you'll find that it is I that has the most neutral and balanced stance.

    Maybe when you were in Fulham and could prove yourself on the Embankment. Now you're east and even further left and walk to work due to the terror of being scalped by a hybrid.

    [runs. faster]
  • Greg T
    Greg T Posts: 3,266
    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk

    see what Stalin thinks
    Fixed gear for wet weather / hairy roadie for posing in the sun.

    What would Thora Hurd do?
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,404
    I can't work out whether W1 fancies notsoblue or the other way round.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Sewinman
    Sewinman Posts: 2,131
    I think the tax payer should fund the main political parties - you would avoid all this suspicion and potential for impartiality.

    If you get more than 5% of the GE vote you qualify. £1 million for every % of national vote at last election, capped at £30 million (£40 in an election year).
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Key question there.

    Apart from pockets getting lined and returned favours, why do Parties need "support"?
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    daviesee wrote:
    Key question there.

    Apart from pockets getting lined and returned favours, why do Parties need "support"?

    They're big organisations with plenty of full time people - and elections are not cheap to campaign on.
    _
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    rjsterry wrote:
    I can't work out whether W1 fancies notsoblue or the other way round.
    Can't it be both? ;)
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • kurako
    kurako Posts: 1,098
    This is possibly vaguely off topic but its a vid I found quite informative and humorous. The Crisis of Credit Visualized:

    http://crisisofcredit.com/

    Loose monetary policy wasn't isolated to Ireland but not many people were complaining when their houses were going up 10%+ per year.
    Univega 700
    Univega Via Strato
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    daviesee wrote:
    Key question there.

    Apart from pockets getting lined and returned favours, why do Parties need "support"?

    They're big organisations with plenty of full time people - and votes are not cheap to buy.

    Fixed that for you :wink:
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.

Categories