Froome - British?
Comments
-
skylark wrote:VTech wrote:I took that line of text from the collins english edition to describe British People.
I am so sorry you do not link eit but thinking before typing doesnt matter when in fact i simply copied and pasted.
So Collins is the Colonials version of Wikipedia. Just because you read something in a dictionary doesn't make it so.
You're all right but also off the mark.
Whilst the French had all of Central and North/West Africa, South Africa along with Australia were mainly Dutch descendent. Zimbabwe was a British colony. Kenya along with that East African quarter was manhandled by the British and German Colonials. I actually doubt Froome is British-British. Depends how long the subject remains isolated from the originating population. Wiggo is more British than Froome, despite, because the branching of his ancestry is only a very recent and nearby one.
The situation as to who/what Froome rides for is a political one. In my view he has significant social roots in Southern Africa so I feel that's the kind of world he should be representing. Froome is nothing like your UK cyclist. Totally different mindset and attitude.
The discussion just goes to show in part, the lengths and occupations of what Colonial forefathers were getting up to.
Froomes Mother was born in Kenya to a british couple from Tetbury, Froomes Father is British and even represented England at Hockey when he was a teenager.Life isnt like a box of chocolates, its like a bag of pic n mix.0 -
I dont actually mind, thats the thing.
If in the same position i would have done the same to access the training and cash.
I dont really know what I personally think of as british, it used to be beef and we know what happened ther"moo"e !Living MY dream.0 -
simonhead wrote:Froomes Mother was born in Kenya to a british couple from Tetbury, Froomes Father is British and even represented England at Hockey when he was a teenager.
Yah, I'm sure the papers are all in order.
And if you come from the US and think you're White/Caucasian/Red-Neck chances are you're also a "Nigger" to a fair degree.
Frankly who cares. Nationalism will be completely out of date in several decades. So much for British Team, British Rider to win/ride the TdF, blah, blah, blah..0 -
Thats the thing, I dont care, he just seems a pretty genuine bloke and I am glad he is British. What really impressed was his defence when essentially accused of doping, rather than get really angry about it he shrugged it of and said it was getting boring. If he continued to ride for Kenya thatd be cool, i admire him for what he has achieved and how he has handled himself.Life isnt like a box of chocolates, its like a bag of pic n mix.0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:random man wrote:It must be a bit weird having dual nationality.
Not really. I do.
What's weird about it?
So do I - not weird at all. Loads of people do. Dual nationality, two passports, travel on which is more convenient.
Nothing weird at all really.0 -
Froome described himself as English in the French press conference. I would describe him as minor private school Colonial English just like his dad. I used to know somebody a bit like him, Richard E. Grant before he became a well known actor.
Froome is the olde English place name for beside the river. If you want to know what his dad, who originally came from Gloucestershire, sounds like watch this clip:
http://www1.skysports.com/watch/video/s ... g/8835178/0 -
declan1 wrote:the playing mantis wrote:hes as british as KP, Trott, darren pattinson et al. actually at least trott/kp live here so hes not as british as those 2 imo.
i thought only on of his parents was british?
hes kenyan. thats it. flag of convenience, i like him either way, but am uncomfortable with him being called britains 2nd winner. wiggo is the only brit winner imo. i think in the sunday times sport article david walsh asked him what he considered home. as the paper has been consigned to the recycling i cant dig it out, but i think the response was when he get back to kenya. that just backs up my opinions i think.
Wiggo was born in Belgium - does that make him 'British' ?
Wiggo lives in Chorley. I think that is proof enough. Nobody with Wiggins wealth who wasn't British would choose to live in Chorley! Nothing more needs to be said on this!
As for Froome - I like him but....... he lives in Monaco. Which is a pretty depressing and tragic thing to choose to do. I can't really warm to the sort of person that would make that decision unless there was some very good (non tax related) reason I didn't know about. You've got the choice of anywhere to live and you go there - suggests truly terrible taste.Faster than a tent.......0 -
declan1 wrote:the playing mantis wrote:hes as british as KP, Trott, darren pattinson et al. actually at least trott/kp live here so hes not as british as those 2 imo.
i thought only on of his parents was british?
hes kenyan. thats it. flag of convenience, i like him either way, but am uncomfortable with him being called britains 2nd winner. wiggo is the only brit winner imo. i think in the sunday times sport article david walsh asked him what he considered home. as the paper has been consigned to the recycling i cant dig it out, but i think the response was when he get back to kenya. that just backs up my opinions i think.
Wiggo was born in Belgium - does that make him 'British' ?
lets not get stupid now shall we? wiggo was i beleive raised here pretty much, likewise he clearly considers this his home. froome wasnt and doesnt.0 -
Apart from tax reasons a lot of pro cyclists base themselves in Monaco for easy access to some nice hilly roads that don't get too cold.
Froome used to live and train in Italy before he became rich.
As a Londoner why does Wiggins live up north ?0 -
adamfo wrote:Apart from tax reasons a lot of pro cyclists base themselves in Monaco for easy access to some nice hilly roads that don't get too cold.
Froome used to live and train in Italy before he became rich.
As a Londoner why does Wiggins live up north ?
That's easy. Cos London is full of Londoners innit?0 -
There are little to no reasons for anyone to live here who work globally.
It is so much easier to buy a condo abroad, bank and pay tax at a much lower rate so I guess it's only down to choice and feeling towards your country.Living MY dream.0 -
Probably because for many years he needed to be close to Manchester velodrome. Also his wife Cath is a northerner.adamfo wrote:Apart from tax reasons a lot of pro cyclists base themselves in Monaco for easy access to some nice hilly roads that don't get too cold.
Froome used to live and train in Italy before he became rich.
As a Londoner why does Wiggins live up north ?You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.0 -
Well?Rick Chasey wrote:random man wrote:It must be a bit weird having dual nationality.
Not really. I do.
What's weird about it?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
Well?Rick Chasey wrote:random man wrote:It must be a bit weird having dual nationality.
Not really. I do.
What's weird about it?
Sorry Rick, I thought it was a rhetorical question
I was thinking specifically of Froome when I said that, since he's never lived in Britain.
TBH, I can see a lot of advantages of dual nationality.
*engage brain before posting in future*0 -
Remember folks, were all africans, just ask rickard dawkins! 0
-
adamfo wrote:Apart from tax reasons a lot of pro cyclists base themselves in Monaco for easy access to some nice hilly roads that don't get too cold.
Froome used to live and train in Italy before he became rich.
As a Londoner why does Wiggins live up north ?
Sorry - you're wrong. Its for tax reasons only, otherwise they would all live in France, Italy, Austria, Germany, etc: hills and nicer/cheaper to live but don't have such friendly tax laws.
Its why all the F1 drivers and Moto GP/Superbike riders live there as well: nowt to do with hills all to do with filthy lucre I am afraid........
Froome used to live and train in Italy before he became rich. Yup, before he became rich .........0 -
Yossie wrote:adamfo wrote:Apart from tax reasons a lot of pro cyclists base themselves in Monaco for easy access to some nice hilly roads that don't get too cold.
Froome used to live and train in Italy before he became rich.
As a Londoner why does Wiggins live up north ?
Sorry - you're wrong. Its for tax reasons only, otherwise they would all live in France, Italy, Austria, Germany, etc: hills and nicer/cheaper to live but don't have such friendly tax laws.
Its why all the F1 drivers and Moto GP/Superbike riders live there as well: nowt to do with hills all to do with filthy lucre I am afraid........
Froome used to live and train in Italy before he became rich. Yup, before he became rich .........
You can't blame them though.
Tax is wrong in the wy it is setup in the UK.
You should pay a base tax then it should decline in % as you earn more.
The reason for this is that it would stop people wanton o break the system of bank elsewhere.
I bank here as I like to pay my tax. It if my bill was 10m a year I'm not so sure.Living MY dream.0 -
VTech wrote:Yossie wrote:adamfo wrote:Apart from tax reasons a lot of pro cyclists base themselves in Monaco for easy access to some nice hilly roads that don't get too cold.
Froome used to live and train in Italy before he became rich.
As a Londoner why does Wiggins live up north ?
Sorry - you're wrong. Its for tax reasons only, otherwise they would all live in France, Italy, Austria, Germany, etc: hills and nicer/cheaper to live but don't have such friendly tax laws.
Its why all the F1 drivers and Moto GP/Superbike riders live there as well: nowt to do with hills all to do with filthy lucre I am afraid........
Froome used to live and train in Italy before he became rich. Yup, before he became rich .........
You can't blame them though.
Tax is wrong in the wy it is setup in the UK.
You should pay a base tax then it should decline in % as you earn more.
The reason for this is that it would stop people wanton o break the system of bank elsewhere.
I bank here as I like to pay my tax. It if my bill was 10m a year I'm not so sure.
Oh I know I'll get shot down in flames for my idealistic naivety here but...
That's just greed. If you have a £10m tax bill, you're clearly earning a salary that covers a bit of loose change. Renumeration takes into account taxation, which is why earnings increase upwards on exponential curves.
I'm all for rewarding hard work and success but at what point do you acknowledge that your income is disproportionate to any sense of real worth. The only positive I see in tax havens for super rich is if they wish to distribute some of their wealth altruistically to their own agenda rather than a governments. Otherwise it's just greed.0 -
The problem is that your idealism doesn't work (it's ideal though) !
Let's say your on £10m a year and the option is to pay £800,000 or £55,000,000 what do you pick ?
Now if you paid a flat 20% the government would make more money as there would be far less need to use avoidance systems. The government make nothing when people bank abroad as move.Living MY dream.0 -
No shooting you down but for human nature in general, greed beats idealism.morstar wrote:Oh I know I'll get shot down in flames for my idealistic naivety here but...
That's just greed. If you have a £10m tax bill, you're clearly earning a salary that covers a bit of loose change. Renumeration takes into account taxation, which is why earnings increase upwards on exponential curves.
I'm all for rewarding hard work and success but at what point do you acknowledge that your income is disproportionate to any sense of real worth. The only positive I see in tax havens for super rich is if they wish to distribute some of their wealth altruistically to their own agenda rather than a governments. Otherwise it's just greed.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
VTech wrote:Tax is wrong in the wy it is setup in the UK.
You should pay a base tax then it should decline in % as you earn more.
Lol - who'd have guessed you'd think that! Of course the poor should pay a higher proportion of income as tax than the rich! It's the only fair way! Ideally, I think that for incomes up to 20,000, tax should be 100% and decrease to zero percent once your income exceeds £500,000
Given the crap that the rich spend their money on, I'm always surprised that they are so bothered about how much tax they are prepared to pay and how happy they are to go to an inferior place for most of the year to maximise the income they don't really use.VTech wrote:Let's say your on £10m a year and the option is to pay £800,000 or £55,000,000 what do you pick ?
I'm pretty sure that even the UK wouldn't tax a £10m income at £55m.........Faster than a tent.......0 -
Rolf F wrote:VTech wrote:Tax is wrong in the wy it is setup in the UK.
You should pay a base tax then it should decline in % as you earn more.
Lol - who'd have guessed you'd think that! Of course the poor should pay a higher proportion of income as tax than the rich! It's the only fair way! Ideally, I think that for incomes up to 20,000, tax should be 100% and decrease to zero percent once your income exceeds £500,000
Given the crap that the rich spend their money on, I'm always surprised that they are so bothered about how much tax they are prepared to pay and how happy they are to go to an inferior place for most of the year to maximise the income they don't really use.VTech wrote:Let's say your on £10m a year and the option is to pay £800,000 or £55,000,000 whhat do you pick ?
I'm pretty sure that even the UK wouldn't tax a £10m income at £55m.........
That was an obvious typo, most would know I meant £5.5m.
Also, you didnt fully understand my point. If rich are forced to pay crazy tax they leave and we get nothing.
Punishing successful people doesn't work in high tax states. That's the same the world over.
Do you realise that if we had a lower initial tax for poorer and then had a scale of decline after the initial hit we would actually make more money in revenues !
The only reason they won't/can't do it this way is people dont/won't comprehend how it works.
Example (but figured guessed for example purposes)
£0 - £17k = 0% tax
£18k - £35k = 20% tax
£36k - £75k = 17.5% tax
£76k - £150k = 16% tax
£151k - £300k = 15% tax
£300k - £750k = 14% tax
£751k+ = 13% flat tax rate.
Any mathematician here can work out that this scenario would bring in billions of extra income for the government and end out problems overnight.
No more need for tax havens, an ability for hard working (and of course luck also comes into it) to keep a lot o their income without the need to bank abroad or resell shares to avoid tax etc.
It would be good if any ex accountant could reply to my comment to give it a professional validation. (Obviously not a serving accountant as they wouldn't neceseraly profit from the above as much)Living MY dream.0 -
VTech wrote:There are little to no reasons for anyone to live here who work globally.
It is so much easier to buy a condo abroad, bank and pay tax at a much lower rate so I guess it's only down to choice and feeling towards your country.
I work 8months of the year out of the country, my little to no reasons to live here are aged 7 and 5. Add to that family and friends. Sunshine doesn't add up to much after a while. Sales taxes, healthcare bills, etc., soon start adding up elsewhere.Big Red, Blue, Pete, Bill & Doug0 -
VmanF3 wrote:VTech wrote:There are little to no reasons for anyone to live here who work globally.
It is so much easier to buy a condo abroad, bank and pay tax at a much lower rate so I guess it's only down to choice and feeling towards your country.
I work 8months of the year out of the country, my little to no reasons to live here are aged 7 and 5. Add to that family and friends. Sunshine doesn't add up to much after a while. Sales taxes, healthcare bills, etc., soon start adding up elsewhere.
Like you, I have a 7 and 5 year old and my comment was based on a high earner who can work abroad and pay less tax.
I have at the same time said that it isnt what I would do but if I earned 10m a year i would have to say that i would have to consider it.
I pay healthcare in the UK so paying it abroad isnt a new concept. In fact im not sure of what I get for free as such, I 100% pay more into the pot than would ever take out.
BTW, im happy to do that.Living MY dream.0 -
VTech wrote:Like you, I have a 7 and 5 year old...
With the greatest of respect, shouldn't you be devoting your time to them?
Rather than to the Internet, especially to the Bottom Bracket thread on a forum? I fear what you'd take away from reading this forum, if anything, to show to your kids. Why call yourself Ebola?
Sorry.0 -
so no one with sprogs can post ona n internet forum when bored/nothing much to do at work?!!?0
-
Im sorry you feel that way, I do give them a few minutes a day.
Ebola comes from the way people love me.Living MY dream.0 -
VTech wrote:That was an obvious typo, most would know I meant £5.5m.
Also, you didnt fully understand my point. If rich are forced to pay crazy tax they leave and we get nothing.
Punishing successful people doesn't work in high tax states. That's the same the world over.
Do you realise that if we had a lower initial tax for poorer and then had a scale of decline after the initial hit we would actually make more money in revenues !
Yes, I know it was a typo but that's no reason for me to not take the opportunity to take the piss and I did fully understand your point. And I don't actually think that that many rich actually do leave when taxed more heavily (though they like to bleat about how they are going to leave) and I do think that your numbers are somewhat ridiculous but predictable in a self serving way as you might expect from a high earner. The problem is that the rich think that all the wealth generation is down to themselves whereas infact it is down to the workers who make things. If all the rich left, the remaining population wouldn't sit around looking confused - some bright folk would work out how to use that vast untapped asset and it would all begin again. The great rich wealth creators are all entirely expendable - if one goes, another will take their place.That's how capitalism works.
If you'd rather have a few more quid in the bank that you will never, ever use, and live in tax exile then go for it. But it takes a special form of stupidity and odd priorities to be rich and unable to afford to live in a country that the likes of I can afford to live in.
Also, you seem to think that because you are a high earner, that you paying into the pot more than you get out makes you somewhat special - it doesn't. I earn a reasonable amount but far less than I would in the private sector but I do put in more than I take out. Most people do - most people on this forum do. It's a form of insurance and that's how insurance works - of course you should be happy to pay more in than you get out. Nobody wants to have to have brain surgery or be jobless.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Why do you think that I think it makes me feel special ?
I feel good that I pay in but no better than you or anyone for that matter.
I'm glad I have a job, it doesn't however make me better or worse than any worker, of course you do realise as most do here having read my previous posts that I dislike people who dont work through choice.
So for them, I am better and feel better as all workers should.
Money isn't the issue, respect of knowing you should pay for yourself is key to me.Living MY dream.0
