Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Stevo_666

orraloon wrote:

"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes". True then, true now.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leona_Helmsley

What, like Bernie Ecclestone?

Nice generalisation - look at the facts I posted above to see how wrong you are.

Stevo_666

finchy wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

finchy wrote:

Stevo. Take a statistics course. Please. It's making my head hurt.

Finchy, you came into this with a nitpicking response about volumes vs values and then chose some internet data that supported your case about volumes. I simply went and chose data from the internet to show another view on volumes. If you don't like those facts, tough.

I can't believe this. Let's run through the chronology.

Mamba80 said that the Germans had maintained levels of steel production. This is factually correct.
You accused mamba80 of speaking "leftiebollox".
I point out that mamba80 was correct, choosing the data to which mamba80 was clearly referring in his post.
You then accuse me of nitpicking.

If you'd said "OK, production is high but revenues are down", then that's one thing, but to accuse other people of speaking bollox when they're correct and then accuse others of nitpicking when you get picked up on it makes you look like the sort of person who bangs his head against the wall in anger whenever he gets his worldview contradicted.

Not really but you have tried to make a big thing about it and it wasn't even your argument, it was me and mamba. In the process you managed to take the argument off topic. Well done, hope you're proud of yourself.

With hindsight I should have said how they kept production volumes static. Although as already mentioned that does not hide a decline over a longer period, or the fact that the omly way they have maintained volume is by making drastic price custs and slashing jobs. Anyone who thinks that is good business shouldn't be allowed out unsupervised.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

In fairness Stevo, you have no idea if these people are pilfering their money in tax havens legally or not.

Nor can you.

That's twice I can't tell then

See my post above. There will be tax evaders using these locations and I have no sympathy if they now get collared. There are however also legitimate reasons to be in these places.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

In fairness Stevo, you have no idea if these people are pilfering their money in tax havens legally or not.

Nor can you.

That's twice I can't tell then

See my post above. There will be tax evaders using these locations and I have no sympathy if they now get collared. There are however also legitimate reasons to be in these places.

why is the UK 2nd on the worlds list of countries to set up tax havens in? behind HK.
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/busi ... 17496.html

OECD say that Panama and BVI are 2 of the worst offenders in failing to implement new tax rules to try and avoid evasion.

i dont give a xxxx about money, i ve enough to buy a bike or 3 and i ve secured my families modest future, i care about the UK and getting us back to a one nation set of values and tbh i ve worked for enough companies that have been wrecked by accountants.......... who seem to know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

You seem to make out that because the rich pay the most tax, and so they should - they have the most - then that seems to give them the right to skirt the law, what legit reasons to use Panama or BVI ?

As for the German steel production V ours, you were wrong about that as well, as finchy says too, but you lack the humility to admit it.

pblakeney

Anyway. The Conservative party.
Anyone worth voting for? Boris, George, Michael, Theresa, Sajid, Stephen...?
I wouldn't trust any of them to organise a piss up in a brewery.
Actually. that isn't true. Boris would probably organise a good piss up, but I don't want him running the Country.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

In fairness Stevo, you have no idea if these people are pilfering their money in tax havens legally or not.

Nor can you.

That's twice I can't tell then

See my post above. There will be tax evaders using these locations and I have no sympathy if they now get collared. There are however also legitimate reasons to be in these places.

why is the UK 2nd on the worlds list of countries to set up tax havens in? behind HK.
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/busi ... 17496.html

OECD say that Panama and BVI are 2 of the worst offenders in failing to implement new tax rules to try and avoid evasion.

i dont give a xxxx about money, i ve enough to buy a bike or 3 and i ve secured my families modest future, i care about the UK and getting us back to a one nation set of values and tbh i ve worked for enough companies that have been wrecked by accountants.......... who seem to know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

You seem to make out that because the rich pay the most tax, and so they should - they have the most - then that seems to give them the right to skirt the law, what legit reasons to use Panama or BVI ?

As for the German steel production V ours, you were wrong about that as well, as finchy says too, but you lack the humility to admit it.

London and HK are two of the worlds largest financial centres so ststistically they are more likely to have more transactions of that type.

Panama and BVI are the classic places where people try to hide cash (tax evasion) due to the opacity and secrecy. They are not seen as cooperative territories by the international community. Nowhere have I said that I condone tax evasion because I don't. Dont confuse legitimate tax planning and tax evasion btw.

Quick example of a legitimate tax haven operation. Dubai imposes no tax so is a tax haven. Out group have a company there because we sell our products in Dubai and also use it as a distribution point for shipping product to customers in the Middle East. It is there to trade. The fact that they pay no tax on the profit is just a bonus

As for the steel production point, I stand by my comments above.

ballysmate

PBlakeney wrote:

Anyway. The Conservative party.
Anyone worth voting for? Boris, George, Michael, Theresa, Sajid, Stephen...?
I wouldn't trust any of them to organise a wee-wee up in a brewery.
Actually. that isn't true. Boris would probably organise a good wee-wee up, but I don't want him running the Country.

No problem. Vote Jezza, he'd organise a good 'un.
Trouble is it would be at his mate Len's place and he would whack the cost of the do onto the nation's credit card. Perhaps he could get his mates to 'bring a bottle'? Adams and the other Provos could bring a crate of Guinness. Been to many a do and got legless but never because someone had drilled through my knees though. Not sure what his Hamas and Iranian friends could bring to the party.
Catering? Anyone but Nigella. Can't have any dirty Zionists at the do can we?
Would be an interesting guest list judging by the friends he keeps.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... mists.html

mamba80

Ballysmate wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Anyway. The Conservative party.
Anyone worth voting for? Boris, George, Michael, Theresa, Sajid, Stephen...?
I wouldn't trust any of them to organise a wee-wee up in a brewery.
Actually. that isn't true. Boris would probably organise a good wee-wee up, but I don't want him running the Country.

No problem. Vote Jezza, he'd organise a good 'un.
Trouble is it would be at his mate Len's place and he would whack the cost of the do onto the nation's credit card. Perhaps he could get his mates to 'bring a bottle'? Adams and the other Provos could bring a crate of Guinness. Been to many a do and got legless but never because someone had drilled through my knees though. Not sure what his Hamas and Iranian friends could bring to the party.
Catering? Anyone but Nigella. Can't have any dirty Zionists at the do can we?
Would be an interesting guest list judging by the friends he keeps.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... mists.html

Dont be ridiculous, Obama has just signed a deal with Tehran and we are lining up to invest over there, John Major started the peace process with the IRA and the only way we ll solve the Israeli problems is by talking to Hamas.

Corbyn was just ahead of his time, & btw doesnt claim £3000 per suit from the tax payer either, unlike your pal Cameron but i guess ripping of the tax payer is in DC's blood.

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Anyway. The Conservative party.
Anyone worth voting for? Boris, George, Michael, Theresa, Sajid, Stephen...?
I wouldn't trust any of them to organise a wee-wee up in a brewery.
Actually. that isn't true. Boris would probably organise a good wee-wee up, but I don't want him running the Country.

No problem. Vote Jezza, he'd organise a good 'un.
Trouble is it would be at his mate Len's place and he would whack the cost of the do onto the nation's credit card. Perhaps he could get his mates to 'bring a bottle'? Adams and the other Provos could bring a crate of Guinness. Been to many a do and got legless but never because someone had drilled through my knees though. Not sure what his Hamas and Iranian friends could bring to the party.
Catering? Anyone but Nigella. Can't have any dirty Zionists at the do can we?
Would be an interesting guest list judging by the friends he keeps.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... mists.html

Dont be ridiculous, Obama has just signed a deal with Tehran and we are lining up to invest over there, John Major started the peace process with the IRA and the only way we ll solve the Israeli problems is by talking to Hamas.

Corbyn was just ahead of his time, & btw doesnt claim £3000 per suit from the tax payer either, unlike your pal Cameron but i guess ripping of the tax payer is in DC's blood.

Calm down dear! Don't worry, I'm sure you'd get an invite.

ballysmate

Corbyn wanted to remove sanctions from Iran in return for nothing. No promise of cutting back or aborting their nuclear programme - nothing. A shrewd negotiator eh?
BTW Obama's deal doesn't enjoy universal support.

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/a ... orse-start

Don't ever recall John Major paying gushing tributes to dead IRA terrorists.

And on your lighter note of Jezza's attire, you are right. I don't think he possesses a suit. Perhaps he inherited Michael Foot's donkey jacket?

rick_chasey

There are many problems with Cameron, but being given expenses for decent suits as leader of the UK is not one of them.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Anyway. The Conservative party.
Anyone worth voting for? Boris, George, Michael, Theresa, Sajid, Stephen...?
I wouldn't trust any of them to organise a wee-wee up in a brewery.
Actually. that isn't true. Boris would probably organise a good wee-wee up, but I don't want him running the Country.

No problem. Vote Jezza, he'd organise a good 'un.
Trouble is it would be at his mate Len's place and he would whack the cost of the do onto the nation's credit card. Perhaps he could get his mates to 'bring a bottle'? Adams and the other Provos could bring a crate of Guinness. Been to many a do and got legless but never because someone had drilled through my knees though. Not sure what his Hamas and Iranian friends could bring to the party.
Catering? Anyone but Nigella. Can't have any dirty Zionists at the do can we?
Would be an interesting guest list judging by the friends he keeps.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... mists.html

Dont be ridiculous, Obama has just signed a deal with Tehran and we are lining up to invest over there, John Major started the peace process with the IRA and the only way we ll solve the Israeli problems is by talking to Hamas.

Corbyn was just ahead of his time, & btw doesnt claim £3000 per suit from the tax payer either, unlike your pal Cameron but i guess ripping of the tax payer is in DC's blood.

Corbyn isn't ahead of his time, he's behind them as the 70's are long gone. If you look at Corbyns spending plans for the nation that kind of puts DC's suit allowance into perspective. Although in any event, we can't have the leader of a major nation turning up to international summits looking like a scruffy tw@t - which might be a problem for Corbyn if he ever did get the job Maybe we should also give him state funded lessons on how to tie his ****ing tie properly.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

And on your lighter note of Jezza's attire, you are right. I don't think he possesses a suit. Perhaps he inherited Michael Foot's donkey jacket?

He's very probably inherited Foot's ability to win elections.

orraloon

Stevo 666 wrote:

that kind of puts DC's suit allowance into perspective

Suit allowance? Maybe Beanie666 can advise different, but doubt HMRC allow yer standard suit as a necessary business expense. Hardly PPE is it?
Or every desk monkey forced to wear a suit to work could claim against tax.

We're all in this together remember.
(Oh BTW Sam, can you remind me again how many offshore accounts we have in your name?)

Stevo_666

orraloon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

that kind of puts DC's suit allowance into perspective

Suit allowance? Maybe Beanie666 can advise different, but doubt HMRC allow yer standard suit as a necessary business expense. Hardly PPE is it?
Or every desk monkey forced to wear a suit to work could claim against tax.

We're all in this together remember.
(Oh BTW Sam, can you remind me again how many offshore accounts we have in your name?)

You'd have to ask DC but normally an allowance like this is a taxable benefit. Like a car allowance which a lot of people get but I don't hear you moaning about that.

It's not really a big issue, especially given the level of pay for someone to run the entire country.

orraloon

Stevo 666 wrote:

You'd have to ask DC but normally an allowance like this is a taxable benefit. Like a car allowance which a lot of people get but I don't hear you moaning about that.

Self employed, me. You know, earn or don't earn by my own efforts, not subsidised by an employer. And been so for the past 13 years... Thinking about it, been self employed for 17 of the last 20 years, with only a short dalliance when I took the company shilling.

And perfectly content to minimise my tax hit. Legally. :roll: Without the artifice of offshore shell companies to hide my tracks.

Lookyhere

Stevo 666 wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

that kind of puts DC's suit allowance into perspective

Suit allowance? Maybe Beanie666 can advise different, but doubt HMRC allow yer standard suit as a necessary business expense. Hardly PPE is it?
Or every desk monkey forced to wear a suit to work could claim against tax.

We're all in this together remember.
(Oh BTW Sam, can you remind me again how many offshore accounts we have in your name?)

You'd have to ask DC but normally an allowance like this is a taxable benefit. Like a car allowance which a lot of people get but I don't hear you moaning about that.

It's not really a big issue, especially given the level of pay for someone to run the entire country.

i think if a multi millionaire is willing to claim all he can from the public purse, for amounts which lets face it, is change down the back of the sofa for him, its says something about the man..... that he also claimed DLA for his son, which was just a few pounds a month.... how fuggin money grabbing can you get?

the HMRC are very tight on what an employee can and cannot claim for and it dont include normal clothing.

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

that kind of puts DC's suit allowance into perspective

Suit allowance? Maybe Beanie666 can advise different, but doubt HMRC allow yer standard suit as a necessary business expense. Hardly PPE is it?
Or every desk monkey forced to wear a suit to work could claim against tax.

We're all in this together remember.
(Oh BTW Sam, can you remind me again how many offshore accounts we have in your name?)

You'd have to ask DC but normally an allowance like this is a taxable benefit. Like a car allowance which a lot of people get but I don't hear you moaning about that.

It's not really a big issue, especially given the level of pay for someone to run the entire country.

i think if a multi millionaire is willing to claim all he can from the public purse, for amounts which lets face it, is change down the back of the sofa for him, its says something about the man..... that he also claimed DLA for his son, which was just a few pounds a month.... how fuggin money grabbing can you get?

the HMRC are very tight on what an employee can and cannot claim for and it dont include normal clothing.

That's why it's most likely a taxable benefit, like I said before.

Given what we pay a PM to run the country, its not bad value really.

Stevo_666

orraloon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

You'd have to ask DC but normally an allowance like this is a taxable benefit. Like a car allowance which a lot of people get but I don't hear you moaning about that.

Self employed, me. You know, earn or don't earn by my own efforts, not subsidised by an employer. And been so for the past 13 years... Thinking about it, been self employed for 17 of the last 20 years, with only a short dalliance when I took the company shilling.

And perfectly content to minimise my tax hit. Legally. :roll: Without the artifice of offshore shell companies to hide my tracks.

Good for you.

And looks like we agree on something. Nothing wrong with legitimate tax planning. But you might expect me to say that given my line of work.

Lookyhere

Stevo 666 wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

that kind of puts DC's suit allowance into perspective

Suit allowance? Maybe Beanie666 can advise different, but doubt HMRC allow yer standard suit as a necessary business expense. Hardly PPE is it?
Or every desk monkey forced to wear a suit to work could claim against tax.

We're all in this together remember.
(Oh BTW Sam, can you remind me again how many offshore accounts we have in your name?)

You'd have to ask DC but normally an allowance like this is a taxable benefit. Like a car allowance which a lot of people get but I don't hear you moaning about that.

It's not really a big issue, especially given the level of pay for someone to run the entire country.

i think if a multi millionaire is willing to claim all he can from the public purse, for amounts which lets face it, is change down the back of the sofa for him, its says something about the man..... that he also claimed DLA for his son, which was just a few pounds a month.... how fuggin money grabbing can you get?

the HMRC are very tight on what an employee can and cannot claim for and it dont include normal clothing.

That's why it's most likely a taxable benefit, like I said before.

Given what we pay a PM to run the country, its not bad value really.

i dont begrudge him his grace an favour apartments or country houses, as you say, he is PM after all but he is also our leader and having his snout in the trough claiming for everything going (and he certainly did before being leader and PM) isnt very statesman like... or maybe now a days it is?

orraloon

How many are aware that former PMs, those that are still alive, can (and do) claim up to £115,000 per annum as a 'Public Duties Cost Allowance', no strings, no worries, fill yer boots. Taxable? Doubt it. On top of all their public sector pensions and that.

Another reason why that Cheshire Cat Blair is still grinning.

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

that kind of puts DC's suit allowance into perspective

Suit allowance? Maybe Beanie666 can advise different, but doubt HMRC allow yer standard suit as a necessary business expense. Hardly PPE is it?
Or every desk monkey forced to wear a suit to work could claim against tax.

We're all in this together remember.
(Oh BTW Sam, can you remind me again how many offshore accounts we have in your name?)

You'd have to ask DC but normally an allowance like this is a taxable benefit. Like a car allowance which a lot of people get but I don't hear you moaning about that.

It's not really a big issue, especially given the level of pay for someone to run the entire country.

i think if a multi millionaire is willing to claim all he can from the public purse, for amounts which lets face it, is change down the back of the sofa for him, its says something about the man..... that he also claimed DLA for his son, which was just a few pounds a month.... how fuggin money grabbing can you get?

the HMRC are very tight on what an employee can and cannot claim for and it dont include normal clothing.

That's why it's most likely a taxable benefit, like I said before.

Given what we pay a PM to run the country, its not bad value really.

i dont begrudge him his grace an favour apartments or country houses, as you say, he is PM after all but he is also our leader and having his snout in the trough claiming for everything going (and he certainly did before being leader and PM) isnt very statesman like... or maybe now a days it is?

TBH I don't care. It's one person and the amounts are insignificant.

Stevo_666

orraloon wrote:

How many are aware that former PMs, those that are still alive, can (and do) claim up to £115,000 per annum as a 'Public Duties Cost Allowance', no strings, no worries, fill yer boots. Taxable? Doubt it. On top of all their public sector pensions and that.

Another reason why that Cheshire Cat Blair is still grinning.

I do now, but the give a tossometer isnt really flickering on this one either. Its not as if there are hordes of former PM's. And they do fulfil public duties after they cease to get paid as PM.

mamba80

Going back to Panama and tax havens, the problem is that wealthy individuals operate in a Global environment, pretty much without borders, where as tax authorities operate within national boundaries.

Comes down to the morals or otherwise of individuals and the more money you have, the more people seem to want to hang on to, very sad really, life is very fragile and money can be meaningless really.

i would nt expect you to care about DC and his expense claims, though if it were Corbyn, you d no doubt have more to say.

rick_chasey

I'd like to see a weigh up between the broader social benefits of having tax haven and the social cost of them.

I'm pretty sceptical that they weigh up positive.

pblakeney

orraloon wrote:

How many are aware that former PMs, those that are still alive, can (and do) claim up to £115,000 per annum as a 'Public Duties Cost Allowance', no strings, no worries, fill yer boots. Taxable? Doubt it. On top of all their public sector pensions and that.

Another reason why that Cheshire Cat Blair is still grinning.

Simply more examples of - do as we say, not as we do.
DC is simply filling his boots while he serves his notice.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

orraloon wrote:

How many are aware that former PMs, those that are still alive, can (and do) claim up to £115,000 per annum as a 'Public Duties Cost Allowance', no strings, no worries, fill yer boots. Taxable? Doubt it. On top of all their public sector pensions and that.

Another reason why that Cheshire Cat Blair is still grinning.

Simply more examples of - do as we say, not as we do.
DC is simply filling his boots while he serves his notice.

Oh come on, he's Prime Minister of the UK.

And in the grand scheme of things £115,000 isn't a vast amount, especially in the context of world leaders.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

orraloon wrote:

How many are aware that former PMs, those that are still alive, can (and do) claim up to £115,000 per annum as a 'Public Duties Cost Allowance', no strings, no worries, fill yer boots. Taxable? Doubt it. On top of all their public sector pensions and that.

Another reason why that Cheshire Cat Blair is still grinning.

Simply more examples of - do as we say, not as we do.
DC is simply filling his boots while he serves his notice.

Oh come on, he's Prime Minister of the UK.

And in the grand scheme of things £115,000 isn't a vast amount, especially in the context of world leaders.

The "do as we say, not as we do" is not exclusive to DC. Unfortunately. Blair being a prime example.
And I specifically referred to "more examples", i.e. there is a lot of things they do that Joe Public cannot.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Going back to Panama and tax havens, the problem is that wealthy individuals operate in a Global environment, pretty much without borders, where as tax authorities operate within national boundaries.

Comes down to the morals or otherwise of individuals and the more money you have, the more people seem to want to hang on to, very sad really, life is very fragile and money can be meaningless really.

i would nt expect you to care about DC and his expense claims, though if it were Corbyn, you d no doubt have more to say.

The global environment point is true for many of the wealthy. However the anti- tax haven legislation the most countries have operate across border. Basically, whichever country you are tax resident in can apply this to income earned in any deemed tax haven (even if this a separate company owned by the person) unless specific exemptions apply.

What it boils down to is where the person is tax resident. Applies to companies also in similar forms. This is why many of the super rich take care to get their tax residence sorted. F1 drivers and Monaco spring to mind. That said, many also are happy to live in places like the UK because the tax regime is not punitive and they want to live in a particular place for other reasons than just tax.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

What it boils down to is where the person is tax resident. Applies to companies also in similar forms. This is why many of the super rich take care to get their tax residence sorted. F1 drivers and Monaco spring to mind. That said, many also are happy to live in places like the UK because the tax regime is not punitive and they want to live in a particular place for other reasons than just tax.

This is true.
But, where a person lives, and where they keep their money are not necessarily the same. As shown.