Prince Andrew buys £13m ski chalet

pblakeney

Manc33 wrote:

Its true what that guy above says about Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister.

Jeezo (if that is still allowed), the Manc is agreeing with me.
I take it all back.
Time for a large malt to steady the nerves.

ben@31

VTech wrote:

In our country we expect too much for free and we simply can't afford it.
Mix that with corrupt contracts and you have a system that will never work.

The problem is, as a country, whenever we get someone who knows what to do and tries to make the point, we (as a country but not me) argue about it and dismiss them.
We need cuts in order to pay debts, we borrow more than we can afford and spend more than we have.
We need cuts, higher tax and less waste.

Vtec, are you going to start by not using taxer payers money to fund £13m ski chalets and handouts to bankers? There is an interesting documentary on BBC iPlayer that said the amount we gave bankers would be equivalent to giving every household in the country £25,000 to spend in the economy.

Are you going to get Amazon and Starbucks to pay their tax?

As for cuts, where is your lower limit in this race to the bottom?

Manc33

The funny thing is £25,000 to every household would get frittered away by most households. Sometimes I can't blame the wealthy for not sharing it! They always come up with stuff like "Greedy tycoons, if they gave their money to Africa it would feed them" yeah for one day. Then even the wealthy people would have nothing and well, who would we b*tch about then.

VTech

ben@31 wrote:

VTech wrote:

In our country we expect too much for free and we simply can't afford it.
Mix that with corrupt contracts and you have a system that will never work.

The problem is, as a country, whenever we get someone who knows what to do and tries to make the point, we (as a country but not me) argue about it and dismiss them.
We need cuts in order to pay debts, we borrow more than we can afford and spend more than we have.
We need cuts, higher tax and less waste.

Vtec, are you going to start by not using taxer payers money to fund £13m ski chalets and handouts to bankers? There is an interesting documentary on BBC iPlayer that said the amount we gave bankers would be equivalent to giving every household in the country £25,000 to spend in the economy.

Are you going to get Amazon and Starbucks to pay their tax?

As for cuts, where is your lower limit in this race to the bottom?

I would honestly be very shocked if it were proven the millions actually came from the public bursary unless the chalet is a profit warning property.

As for Starbucks et all, I have made my point very clear on these aspects many times in the past. I wouldn't even use the place if dying of thirst, it is disgusting how the likes of these get away without paying tax and it's stupid loopholes that could be easily closed that allow it. I often think a palm is being "greased" on this subject but who knows?
If I sell abroad and then travel and make money outside of the UK I still pay tax here in the UK because that's the right thing to do. How can a coffee chain work here in entirety (UK element) and yet offset for losses elsewhere.

There is a very similar method we see on a daily basis here on the streets of Britain. It's called money laundering through drug sales.

Anonymous

I'd say the one thing which the companies DO do (although amazon less so) is open many many branches and therefore employ loads of people. Each Starbucks branch has, say 10 employees each of whom pay back into the economy. Even if they aren't paying tax, they are spending here to an eventual taxpayer.

All that said, I have no idea if the benefit of having loads more people employed offset the non tax paying.

mamba80

coriordan wrote:

I'd say the one thing which the companies DO do (although amazon less so) is open many many branches and therefore employ loads of people. Each Starbucks branch has, say 10 employees each of whom pay back into the economy. Even if they aren't paying tax, they are spending here to an eventual taxpayer.

All that said, I have no idea if the benefit of having loads more people employed offset the non tax paying.

...and? many companies employ workers across different branches of their business and still pay reasonable amounts of tax.
but the bigger point with businesses like Starbucks is that they pay low wages and often part time which also means many workers will be claiming working benefits, if these workers have children and rent, they could be getting back 100% of what they actually earn.
as for andrew, he is just a long line of royals who bring his family into disrepute, he is a hanger on and throw back to a bygone age.
But it seems his style of "public service" is another name for becoming fabulously wealthy for doing very little, a style that he isnt alone in practicing.

ben@31

coriordan wrote:

I'd say the one thing which the companies DO do (although amazon less so) is open many many branches and therefore employ loads of people. Each Starbucks branch has, say 10 employees each of whom pay back into the economy. Even if they aren't paying tax, they are spending here to an eventual taxpayer.

All that said, I have no idea if the benefit of having loads more people employed offset the non tax paying.

Employment stats are all smoke and mirrors if its minimum wage struggling to keep your head above water or zero hours contracts.

Anonymous

True. It was just another angle. I'm sure Starbacks do some pretty hardcore lobbying to ensure the loopholes aren't closed and I was scraping the barrel for some reason for them to justify their existence.

ben@31

Manc33 wrote:

The funny thing is £25,000 to every household would get frittered away by most households. Sometimes I can't blame the wealthy for not sharing it! They always come up with stuff like "Greedy tycoons, if they gave their money to Africa it would feed them" yeah for one day. Then even the wealthy people would have nothing and well, who would we b*tch about then.

Have a read of this BBC News article it's all about inequality...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30878840

Quote " poor in aggregate spend more than the rich (there are only so many motor cars and yachts a billionaire can own, so much of the super-rich's wealth sits idle. as it were), and therefore growth tends to be faster when income is more evenly distributed". Unquote.

VTech

On a purely business level we have just completed 11 Lamborghini Huracan's for a middle eastern client who didn't know which colour he wanted so bought them all which were shipped to us and worked on. They are now completed and he will pick his option, then again, he may never drive any of them.
This single job has assisted 12 jobs and a huge amount of tax for the UK government to claim yet on the flip side we will have people biatchin about these types of people etc etc and how much they DONT pay which of course is nonsense.
We need foreign money to build growth and because previous governments have not invested in manufacturing we are at a loss and so its up to companies to bring in investment for themselves.
I honestly think its gone too far and my honest opinion to anyone would now be, do what you can for you and yours, do not expect to be looked after in old age, thats long since gone.

MisterMuncher

So, as I understand it, your argument is that the secondary taxes generated by the transactions of the super-rich give them a bye on paying their own tax? Interesting. What's the soending cut-off at which you feel it becomes the case that "biatching" about tax avoidance becomes "nonsense"?

Would you consider it equally nonsensical that I would be "biatched" at If I didn't pay tax, because after all my spending means the guys working for the bike shop, supermarket and the local pub can pay their taxes.

VTech

MisterMuncher wrote:

So, as I understand it, your argument is that the secondary taxes generated by the transactions of the super-rich give them a bye on paying their own tax? Interesting. What's the soending cut-off at which you feel it becomes the case that "biatching" about tax avoidance becomes "nonsense"?

Would you consider it equally nonsensical that I would be "biatched" at If I didn't pay tax, because after all my spending means the guys working for the bike shop, supermarket and the local pub can pay their taxes.

You need to read my posts, not just on this but on other threads to understand my point. I am actually part of the pro-tax people in that I feel that if the money is either spent or generated here you MUST pay tax here.
Its a very simple method but not one that is practiced by all parties.
I earn money in the USA and Middle east and I don't have to pay UK tax on that earning which is made when I actually fly out to these countries and work in them countries. I could simply set up an account in them regions and bank there. Paying less or zero tax for my Middle eastern work.

I chose not too, I do ALL of my banking here and pay a fair amount of tax. I hate companies that use loopholes to avoid tax altogether and although I realise some create jobs, as has been said above, if this is at the price of zero hours or minimum wage contracts then whats the point because we still have to pay credits to these people to get them to a standard of living whilst the companies cream the profits and pay a pittance.

ben@31

VTech wrote:

On a purely business level we have just completed 11 Lamborghini Huracan's for a middle eastern client who didn't know which colour he wanted so bought them all which were shipped to us and worked on. They are now completed and he will pick his option, then again, he may never drive any of them.
This single job has assisted 12 jobs and a huge amount of tax for the UK government to claim yet on the flip side we will have people biatchin about these types of people etc etc and how much they DONT pay which of course is nonsense.
We need foreign money to build growth and because previous governments have not invested in manufacturing we are at a loss and so its up to companies to bring in investment for themselves.
I honestly think its gone too far and my honest opinion to anyone would now be, do what you can for you and yours, do not expect to be looked after in old age, thats long since gone.

Sounds like an interesting job you have.

However, the point I tried to make above is he has only bought 11 cars and employed 12 people. While the bottom 99%, if given the chance bought . Ford Fiesta 121,929, Ford Focus 87,350, Vauxhall Corsa 84,275, Vauxhall Astra 68,070, Volkswagen Golf 64,951, Nissan Qashqai 50,211, BMW 3 Series 43,494, Volkswagen Polo 42,609, BMW 1 Series 41,883, Peugeot 208 38,616. Employing Dagenham, Longbridge, Coventry, etc.

VTech

ben@31 wrote:

VTech wrote:

On a purely business level we have just completed 11 Lamborghini Huracan's for a middle eastern client who didn't know which colour he wanted so bought them all which were shipped to us and worked on. They are now completed and he will pick his option, then again, he may never drive any of them.
This single job has assisted 12 jobs and a huge amount of tax for the UK government to claim yet on the flip side we will have people biatchin about these types of people etc etc and how much they DONT pay which of course is nonsense.
We need foreign money to build growth and because previous governments have not invested in manufacturing we are at a loss and so its up to companies to bring in investment for themselves.
I honestly think its gone too far and my honest opinion to anyone would now be, do what you can for you and yours, do not expect to be looked after in old age, thats long since gone.

Sounds like an interesting job you have.

However, the point I tried to make above is he has only bought 11 cars and employed 12 people. While the bottom 99%, if given the chance bought . Ford Fiesta 121,929, Ford Focus 87,350, Vauxhall Corsa 84,275, Vauxhall Astra 68,070, Volkswagen Golf 64,951, Nissan Qashqai 50,211, BMW 3 Series 43,494, Volkswagen Polo 42,609, BMW 1 Series 41,883, Peugeot 208 38,616. Employing Dagenham, Longbridge, Coventry, etc.

I agree but at zero profit to the UK economy.
I grew up in Longbridge and the only winners were the stupid staff and owners until it went belly up when just the owners made.
Car manufacturing in the UK is a huge loss, the government give astonishing grants to foreign companies to open plants here and the money in outweighs the money out I assure you.

When they closed rover, who organised the sale of the plant and equipment to the chinese?
The wife of one of the phoenix 4

Ben6899

VTech wrote:

I live in stratford upon avon, one of the most beautiful places in the UK and its full of tourists throughout the year and is almost always teamed up with a london trip for people visiting our shores so I'm all for it.

I vehemently contest that accolade.

VTech

Ben6899 wrote:

VTech wrote:

I live in stratford upon avon, one of the most beautiful places in the UK and its full of tourists throughout the year and is almost always teamed up with a london trip for people visiting our shores so I'm all for it.

I vehemently contest that accolade.

You don't look out of my window on a daily basis.

Manc33

If we need tourists, build some decent theme parks that rival the ones in the US.

Thing is when would one be open, 2 weeks in August?

It would be like Wally World with reversed opening times.