# Should David Cameron Resign



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/resign-david-cameron-calls-pm-7713837

*I for one have never liked him or what he stands for, it would make my day to see him go. After the recent events regarding his finances i think people are finally waking up.*
*So what do you think, should he go or stay? There is a vote in the link above.*


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

Hmmm, you could have had your say at the election @JANICE199  I sadly don't think a Mirror poll carries the same sort of weight.

He made a balls up and yes it goes against my ethics but I think it low of the media to drag out his late father and I also think Downing Street handled it badly. Should he go because of this? No.


----------



## ForestWomble (May 2, 2013)

Stand down for other reasons - Yes
Stand down due to _this _one thing - No


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

I'd love to see him go - just because he is a complete and utter slimeball with no concern whatsoever for the majority of the people he is supposed to be looking after. This latest debacle is just another in a growing list of issues against him so is not the single reason why I'd push him out the door.

HOWEVER...

The thought of sleazy Osborne stepping up in his place is even worse!!!!! 

I'd just rather we could kick the whole damn lot into touch!


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Animallover26 said:


> Stand down for other reasons - Yes
> Stand down due to _this _one thing - No


I agree with this.

To be honest this news isn't at all surprising, I don't see why anyone is, it has been discussed for years that his father and Sam's father too, does not pay their taxes. I think it's wrong, of course, but not surprising at all.

I would have thought he would have had to after he lost the vote for war, Maggie had to stand down for less, to show that your government are not behind you in a matter of life and death means you cannot lead the country, however he stuck around and then won the election (how I still do not know!), so I doubt he will ever leave!


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

Theres many reasons why he should resign, but unfortunatley he won't.
But someone has put a petion asking for him to resign on a post I did about his so called leaflet he is sending out.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*The way twitter is buzzing i think his days are numbered.*


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *The way twitter is buzzing i think his days are numbered.*


But what do we stand to get in his place? Osborne?? May? Are they really any better?? The way May did her U-turn on Europe (after all her bitchin' about not being able to deport folks because of the restrictions) it's a miracle the G-Force didn't knock her out cold!!! A career politician if ever there was one!!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

MoggyBaby said:


> But what do we stand to get in his place? Osborne?? May? Are they really any better?? The way May did her U-turn on Europe (after all her bitchin' about not being able to deport folks because of the restrictions) it's a miracle the G-Force didn't knock her out cold!!! A career politician if ever there was one!!


*Osborne will get the same treatment as Cameron is getting. As for May, i can't see that working either. To be honest, imo, the way people are responding now, i believe a call for a general election would be best.*


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

I am a bit bemused as to why suddenly the poll and the objections? Politicians have done a lot worse and remained and resigning does not mean the party go as some on Twitter seem to think! So we’re still with a Tory government and who comes in next – the alternatives are hardly inspiring. Ultimately it’s not unexpected that this may happen and too date the policies they have made are in line with what I expected from this party based on their manifesto.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *Osborne will get the same treatment as Cameron is getting. As for May, i can't see that working either. To be honest, imo, the way people are responding now, i believe a call for a general election would be best.*


Why? So the apathy party can sit at home and do some armchair protests?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

MollySmith said:


> Why? So the apathy party can sit at home and do some armchair protests?


*pmsl at your reply.. What do you want, blood?*


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *Osborne will get the same treatment as Cameron is getting. As for May, i can't see that working either. To be honest, imo, the way people are responding now, i believe a call for a general election would be best.*


A general election??? Never gonna happen!!!

I wish it would...

But it won't!


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

MollySmith said:


> Why? So the apathy party can sit at home and do some armchair protests?


Given the way Corbyn has been stirring up the Labour Party, and bringing back many of its ex-members, I don't think there would be so much apathy now. The apathy excuse was always 'all parties are the same' and, under the Blairite Labour, they were.

But not any more!!! Corbyn has brought back old-fashioned values to Labour and people have been fired up again.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *pmsl at your reply.. What do you want, blood?*


Blood, why? Still pmsl at people not voting calling for a GE!

I wonder if there are any polls that show the alleged party votes if there was a GE now...


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

MoggyBaby said:


> Given the way Corbyn has been stirring up the Labour Party, and bringing back many of its ex-members, I don't think there would be so much apathy now. The apathy excuse was always 'all parties are the same' and, under the Blairite Labour, they were.
> 
> But not any more!!! Corbyn has brought back old-fashioned values to Labour and people have been fired up again.


True, there is a clearer difference now.

I found a clear enough difference on the key areas for me last time, mind you but not everyone may have.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Breaking news....

The Prime Minister (before he actually was the Prime Minister) had a miniscule investment in an offshore commodities fund that was fully open to every member of the public over the age of eighteen. The fund carried no tax advantages because of its offshore status and the Prime Minister paid any and all taxes due, in full. Furious simpletons are calling for his resignation on the ground that he comes from a privileged background and has quite a nice accent.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Satori said:


> Breaking news....
> 
> The Prime Minister (before he actually was the Prime Minister) had a miniscule investment in an offshore commodities fund that was fully open to every member of the public over the age of eighteen. The fund carried no tax advantages because of its offshore status and the Prime Minister paid any and all taxes due, in full. Furious simpletons are calling for his resignation on the ground that he comes from a privileged background and has quite a nice accent.


*lol.. yep i believe every word..NOT. If he is so squeaky clean, why are so many people up in arms? He was not honest, and never has been.*


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Satori said:


> Breaking news....
> 
> The Prime Minister (before he actually was the Prime Minister) had a miniscule investment in an offshore commodities fund that was fully open to every member of the public over the age of eighteen. The fund carried no tax advantages because of its offshore status and the Prime Minister paid any and all taxes due, in full. * Furious simpletons are calling for his resignation on the ground that he comes from a privileged background and has quite a nice accent*.


No, it's because he's a nasty, self-serving little oik whose only concern is how much he can can squeeze out of the ordinary person that will be of benefit to his rich, sleazy cronies!!!!

The ordinary people will now use any possible excuse they can to stick the boot on him in the hope that, one day, it will be enough to get shot of him.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

Satori said:


> Breaking news....
> 
> The Prime Minister (before he actually was the Prime Minister) had a miniscule investment in an offshore commodities fund that was fully open to every member of the public over the age of eighteen. The fund carried no tax advantages because of its offshore status and the Prime Minister paid any and all taxes due, in full. Furious simpletons are calling for his resignation on the ground that he comes from a privileged background and has quite a nice accent.


This isn't the point really. He called Jimmy Carr "morally wrong"... and yet apparently the actions of Ian Cameron are "morally right" ? I don't expect him to come on national TV and slam his own father. I would prefer he hadn't commented at all rather than a bogus excuse about "invest in dollar denominated shares".


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

It would have been better if he'd just kept his mouth shut. Denying it then admitting to holdings doesn't give a good impression. That he had holdings which gave a reasonable (not fantastic) return doesn't bother me in the slightest.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *lol.. yep i believe every word..NOT. If he is so squeaky clean, why are so many people up in arms? He was not honest, and never has been.*


I don't think "squeaky clean" and "politician" go together really do they? Lots of them from all parties have been caught fiddling their expenses and feathering their own nests - you know a bit like the Blairs  I can't say as I know the ins and outs of the financial dealings of my parents but have no doubt like most people they tried to save a bob or two from their tax bills if they could.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

They had a Financial Expert on the news this morning and asked him what this was all about.

He was incredulous at all the fuss. What it would appear to boil down to is that David Cameron invested in some shares in a Commodities Company based in Dublin. When he sold the shares, he paid tax on the profit he made. It really is as simple as that.

As the FE pointed out, he has done nothing illegal, paid tax, as he should, and that really was it.

I'm sure he's not the only person to invest in shares and make some money. My Husband and I made quite a bit out of some shares a few years ago.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

His 'crime' in the eyes of many is having money to invest in the first place. It's called the politics of envy.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

havoc said:


> His 'crime' in the eyes of many is having money to invest in the first place. It's called the politics of envy.


Oh, no it's really not. I have money to invest.

It's the hypocrisy of him berating someone like Jimmy Carr, only for him to be in the same boat. He called it morally wrong himself. He chose to speak about Jimmy Carr, he didn't have to.

It's setting the tax laws for everyone in the country, but then not believing you should have to live by them, nor your family.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Jimmy Carr invested in a scheme to avoid tax. Cameron invested in a scheme and paid the correct tax on the profits. I honestly don't see any link between the two.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

Corbyn: PM 'Misled Public' Over Offshore Fund

Believe me I am no fan of J.Corbyn or Nicola Stureon, persnoally I can't stand him. but there is some sense in what they are saying.
Out of interest did anyone watch Queston Time last night.?, very interesting.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Honeys mum said:


> Corbyn: PM 'Misled Public' Over Offshore Fund
> 
> Believe me I am no fan of J.Corbyn or Nicola Stureon, persnoally I can't stand him. but there is some sense in what they are saying.
> Out of interest did anyone watch Queston Time last night.?, very interesting.


Do you mind me asking what it is about JC you cannot stand?


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

emmaviolet said:


> Do you mind me asking what it is about JC you cannot stand?


Sorry, I just think a lot of the things he come out with are rubbish, I don't agree with what he stands for. and what he believes in.
I should perhaps say. I'm not a fan of David cameron either, to be honest I think they are all as bad as each other, but that's just my opinion.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

emmaviolet said:


> Do you mind me asking what it is about JC you cannot stand?


Apart from him being a terrorist supporting, anti-Semite, neo-communist, habitual liar who wants to take away my money and re-distribute it to people who have done nothing to deserve it..... nothing really.


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

I would say it's just more bad on bad but we're all a bit daft if we think any government is perfect. The Telegraph is even having a dig
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-cameron-admits-he-profited-from-fathers-off/


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Satori said:


> Apart from him being a terrorist supporting, anti-Semite, neo-communist, habitual liar who wants to take away my money and re-distribute it to people who have done nothing to deserve it..... nothing really.


But enough about David Cameron.......


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

I'd rather he resigned over the NHS, the steel crisis, fracking...

15,000 people to lose their jobs over the steel and yet the bankers were saved.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

MollySmith said:


> I'd rather he resigned over the NHS, the steel crisis, fracking...
> 
> 15,000 people to lose their jobs over the steel and yet the bankers were saved.


Technically, the bankers were saved by Gordon Brown.... Although Scameron would most likely have done the same had it happened on his watch.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Honeys mum said:


> Sorry, I just think a lot of the things he come out with are rubbish, I don't agree with what he stands for. and what he believes in.
> I should perhaps say. I'm not a fan of David cameron either, to be honest I think they are all as bad as each other, but that's just my opinion.


Thanks, you don't need to apologise, I'm always interested in why people think like that, of course I understand the diehard blues, JC stands for everything they try to kill, other people get an impression of him from the media, which is actually controlled by people with vested interests in the tory party.

Otherwise, JC is someone who stands up for fairness in society, which I for one would always agree with and would never believe it to be rubbish.
I like that he actually cares for his constituents and for me he seems to be one of a small minority of the politicians who are not sociopath's!


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

emmaviolet said:


> Do you mind me asking what it is about JC you cannot stand?


 Everything !


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

havoc said:


> Jimmy Carr invested in a scheme to avoid tax. Cameron invested in a scheme and paid the correct tax on the profits. I honestly don't see any link between the two.


This is to confuse the operation of Blairmore Holdings with those who invested in it. From the Blairmore Holdings prospectus "the fund will not be subject to United Kingdom corporation tax or income tax". It's perfectly legal provided key business decisions are not made in the UK. This is why it's 5 UK directors flew out of the UK to hold board meetings. Companies do not operate from the Bahamas because the weather is nice there.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

diefenbaker said:


> This is to confuse the operation of Blairmore Holdings with those who invested in it. From the Blairmore Holdings prospectus "the fund will not be subject to United Kingdom corporation tax or income tax". It's perfectly legal provided key business decisions are not made in the UK. This is why it's 5 UK directors flew out of the UK to hold board meetings. Companies do not operate from the Bahamas because the weather is nice there.


So what? Why would a company based in the Bahamas pay UK tax? That would be silly.

(Last time I was in the Bahamas the weather was crap. We had to sail two days early. At least you are correct in that respect.)


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Yes he certainly should resign imo, for SO many reasons. The man is morally bankrupt, the tax saga is just more proof of his deceitfulness.

He profited from an offshore fund whilst deriding others. He has been constantly pontificating about transparency in tax affairs yet he personally lobbied the EU NOT to legislate for increased transparency in Tax Havens.

This from the Financial Times sums up the gross hypocrisy of the man. He should go!










There is to be a demonstration outside Downing Street 11am this morning. I heard they want people to wear Hawaiian shirts lol (Theres another demo on the 16th of April)

Well said Mhairi Black!










ETA Just found this very interesting article from across the pond about him. The New York Times > http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/09/w...avoidance.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

And heres Jimmy Carr's reaction to the news

*Jimmy Carr* ‏@jimmycarr  15h15 hours ago
I'm going to keep it classy. It would be 'morally wrong' and 'hypocrytical' to comment on another individual's tax affairs.

15,024 retweets 17,769 likes


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_"the fund will not be subject to United Kingdom corporation tax or income tax"._
Of course it wouldn't be, why should it? If you have savings in a bank you don't pay any tax on them, only on the interest or 'profit' you make. The moment someone brings that profit back to the UK it is subject to UK tax which is exactly what happened. The super rich don't bring it back to the UK or they become residents of a country which is 'tax efficient' so they pay the tax on it at a favourable rate but that isn't what happened with Cameron. Trust me, if he'd wanted to hide it he wouldn't have gone about it this way.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

What I still don't understand is, is why is there currently not a deputy prime minister? If Cameron resigns, will Osborne take over?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

FeelTheBern said:


> What I still don't understand is, is why is there currently not a deputy prime minister? If Cameron resigns, will Osborne take over?


"Mr Osborne will also serve as First Secretary of State - effectively the Deputy Prime Minister"


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

FeelTheBern said:


> What I still don't understand is, is why is there currently not a deputy prime minister? If Cameron resigns, will Osborne take over?


Hey I'm Feeling the Bern this side of the pond! I LOVE him! 

Cameron is the antithesis of Bernies values.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> "Mr Osborne will also serve as First Secretary of State - effectively the Deputy Prime Minister"


Most likely why his work with the budget is so poor, he's juggling two jobs!


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> Everything !


Not a big fan of equality and fairness and peace then? 
Or someone who sticks up for the weakest in society when the ones in charge keep pushing them until the eventually just give up?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Hey I'm Feeling the Bern this side of the pond! I LOVE him!
> 
> Cameron is the antithesis of Bernies values.


Yep, me too, I love him!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

The crowds gather calling for his resignation.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

Satori said:


> So what? Why would a company based in the Bahamas pay UK tax? That would be silly.


This is an accurate description of tax avoidance. Companies are run from tax havens in order to avoid paying UK taxes. But they must be able to demonstrate where the company is run from. Hence the the need to fly abroad for board meetings and the hiring of local residents. And therein lies one problem. The population of the Bahamas is only 370,000 odd. Vice President of Blairmore Holdings and Bahamas resident Solomon Humes. A very busy man by all accounts. Also President of S.L.H. & Group Inc. Also a Director of Atlantico Worldwide SA. Also a Director of Capricord Games Inc. Also a Director of Challenge Promotion Inc. Also a Director of Connepaw Inc. Also a Director of Euro Sport Promotion Inc. Also a Director of Fairmont Overseas Inc. Also a Director of Fast Line Inc. Also a Director of Floors Investments SA. Also a Director of Hollyburn Pictures (Panama) Inc. Also a Director of International Electronic Consultants Limited Inc. Also a Director of Invincible Investments Inc. Also a Director of Kwai SA. Also a Director of Mouchet Associates Inc. Also a Director of O E A International Inc. Also a Director of Oman International Consultants Inc. Also a Director of Pineoak Properties Limited. Also a Director of Race Promo Consultant Inc. Also a Director of RHU SA. Also a Director of Savee (Property) Inc. Also a Director of Standfast Inc. Also a Director of W. A. Casinos Inc. Also a Director of Walfcane SA. Also a Director of Waren SA. Also a Director of Wheel Spin Inc. You need to make your own mind up as to whether Solomon Humes was actually running all these companies or whether he was just a front to comply with the paperwork.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

HAHAHA Love this:Hilarious


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> Hey I'm Feeling the Bern this side of the pond! I LOVE him!
> 
> Cameron is the antithesis of Bernies values.


I don't normally like leftism but l know there is something different about Bernie that makes me think that he can change America for the better. #dumptrump


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Oh for goodness sake - if you've ever bought duty free in your travels that was tax avoidance. Something completely legal.
If you've ever paid cash to get something cheaper then that was tax evasion which is illegal. I doubt very much those shouting loudest over this have completely clean hands - very few have.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

emmaviolet said:


> Not a big fan of equality and fairness and peace then?


I was thinking more along the lines of his awful hat and his coudroys . 

Sorry but I think he's a prat in a hat and Call me Dave is a dick in a pig's head !



> Or someone who sticks up for the weakest in society when the ones in charge keep pushing them until the eventually just give up?


Which is someone like me and I don't want him to speak for me , thanks . 

There's ideals and there's the real world and what's achievable , how do you achieve peace with isis , how do you keep a country safe without a nuclear deterrent. 
He's been criticized for not being tough enough on anti -semitism within the Labour party so lets hope he does more for the sake of equality .

We've had these discussion before and we're just repeating the same things The next election will be interesting, I reckon Labour would be a shoe in if it weren't for Corbyn and the Joe Public who say they support him, when it comes to reality will they still vote for him ?

Those kind people who held up posters saying refugees welcome and offered to take them into their homes , how many have done that or still will do that . I wonder how many Refugees are living in Bob Geldof's homes.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> I was thinking more along the lines of his awful hat and his coudroys .
> 
> Sorry but I think he's a prat in a hat and Call me Dave is a dick in a pig's head !
> 
> ...


See I go on the man, not the clothes, but there you go.

Without a nuclear deterrent you can keep any country safe, it's safe in many countries without one, actually safer, they have less terrorism too. What do they actually achieve? If someone used them against us, with or without them we are dead, if we set it off first, which lets face it, we never would, we would be dead as they would set theirs off too. Countries without them include Switzerland, Austrailia, NZ, last I saw they are all safe, nobody has taken them out as they have none to defend themselves.

Things are achievable if we do believe in them, but with attitudes saying it will never happen, well of course it won't.

He has been tough, this is something the MSM like to pick up on as they have no ammo on JC really in anything negative.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

yes , we should strive for peace , the same as we should strive to free the world from poverty and starvation but 
there have always been times of war and times of relative peace through our history . I think it's naive to think there will be lasting peace because its not in our nature , its not human nature , we're tribal . 


With atomic weapons , the genie is out of the bottle, they exist. I wish they didn't but they do. If every country in the world said yes, we'll get rid of them that would be great but do you trust all the countries to do that? They're useful as a deterrent , without them countries are more vulnerable from other countries that do have them , against invasion. Any country can invade another of course, but for instance I believe Russia has been kept in check by the fact that the West has nuclear weapons. 
Perhaps Australia and NZ has less terrorism because they have stricter immigration controls than Europe.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

The worrying thing about nuclear weapons is...that Donald Trump could press that red button.
I don't want to live through Fallout 4 in real life because The Trumpster got a little mad.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> yes , we should strive for peace , the same as we should strive to free the world from poverty and starvation but
> there have always been times of war and times of relative peace through our history . I think it's naive to think there will be lasting peace because its not in our nature , its not human nature , we're tribal .
> 
> With atomic weapons , the genie is out of the bottle, they exist. I wish they didn't but they do. If every country in the world said yes, we'll get rid of them that would be great but do you trust all the countries to do that? They're useful as a deterrent , without them countries are more vulnerable from other countries that do have them , against invasion. Any country can invade another of course, but for instance I believe Russia has been kept in check by the fact that the West has nuclear weapons.
> Perhaps Australia and NZ has less terrorism because they have stricter immigration controls than Europe.


How do you explain the fact that most countries do not have them and are not being attacked by nuclear weapons? Spain has none, Switzerland have none, Japan have none, Sweden, Aus, NZ, to name a few, they are not bombed by them. Why are we so worried? If someone launches at us, we are dead, if we do it first, we are dead. 
The argument for pro nuclear weapons, to me, is similar to those put forward by those in the US who want to have guns. We don't have laws where we can all carry guns as preventative, we don't need nukes.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

FeelTheBern said:


> The worrying thing about nuclear weapons is...that Donald Trump could have pressed that red button.
> I don't want to live through Fallout 4 in real life because The Trumpster got a little mad.


 Scary .

OT but why do you keep changing your name ?


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

kimthecat said:


> Scary .
> 
> OT but why do you keep changing your name ?


I have only changed my username once. It was TehSnoipah since I joined, and I changed it to FeelTheBern about a week ago.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

FeelTheBern said:


> I have only changed my username once. It was TehSnoipah since I joined, and I changed it to FeelTheBern about a week ago.


 Oh sorry , I must be muddling you up with someone else . She had a weird name too and I'm sure they had the same a photo of a young man whose name I don't know that you had. She suddenly disappeared !


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

kimthecat said:


> Oh sorry , I must be muddling you up with someone else . She had a weird name too and I'm sure they had the same a photo of a young man whose name I don't know that you had. She suddenly disappeared !


You think Bernie Sanders is a young man?? Or are you referring to the "young man" who used to be in my profile picture?


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

FeelTheBern said:


> You think Bernie Sanders is a young man??


LOL 
That wasn't the photo /film bit in your last identity . Dammit , I'll never know who he was , a film star ?


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

kimthecat said:


> LOL
> That wasn't the photo /film bit in your last identity . Dammit , I'll never know who he was , a film star ?


He was The Sniper, a playable character in the online shooter videogame Team Fortress 2. My previous username was a play on his name. If you say "Snoipah" out loud, it sounds a bit like how an Australian might say "Sniper".


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

@FeelTheBern Thank you for putting me out of my misery , I'm going to check that game out ! Bernie doesn't thave quite the same effect on me as the sniper.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

kimthecat said:


> @FeelTheBern Thank you for putting me out of my misery , I'm going to check that game out ! Bernie doesn't thave quite the same effect on me as the sniper.


Oh well, but I still recommend that you check out the game. I haven't played it in some time because I've been busy with other things. Now, I have business to take care of outside of the forum, but I should be back online later to hear what you thought of the game.
I should also add that you must have a free Steam account to play it on your PC. I suggest that you watch some gameplay videos on YouTube so you can get an idea of what the game is like.

Wait, isn't this thread supposed to be about David Cameron? I'm beginning to derail it. Let's talk politics.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

@FeelTheBern Eek , I got you muddled up with Ceiling Kitty !  :Shamefullyembarrased Sorry.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

kimthecat said:


> Oh sorry , I must be muddling you up with someone else . She had a weird name too and I'm sure they had the same a photo of a young man whose name I don't know that you had. She suddenly disappeared !


LOL

The "weird" name was Shoshana (but her Mum didn't think it was weird) and the young man is Charlie Day.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Oh blimey . I am mortified. When i said weird l meant one lm not familiar with. It is a lovely name and i would be happy for any future grand daughters to be called that.

So it appears that cameron has publicly revealed his finances so will other mps follow .


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Not bothered to read all the posts, he has done nothing wroing, illegal or immoral.

But let us not let facts get in the way of mass hysteria.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

kimthecat said:


> Oh blimey . I am mortified. When i said weird l meant one lm not familiar with. It is a lovely name and i would be happy for any future grand daughters to be called that.
> 
> So it appears that cameron has publicly revealed his finances so will other mps follow .


It was actually my dad, and the name is very common in the Middle East.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

kimthecat said:


> So it appears that cameron has publicly revealed his finances so will other mps follow .[/QUTE]
> 
> Cameron Received £200,000 Gift From His Mother
> 
> ...


----------



## MollySmith (May 7, 2012)

The reveal of his finances have illustrated to me is that he hadn't a clue how much of this country can afford to live. I would say that's true for most MP's of most parties though.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Ceiling Kitty said:


> It was actually my dad, and the name is very common in the Middle East.


I think I probably knew that , I do usually check out names on the internet. I'm also going to apologise in advance if at some time in the future we have a repeat performance of this and I ask you about your "unusual " name again. 
It is lovely name and it goes with one of my favourite names Shyla , So Shoshanna Shyla , that definitely has a ring to it .


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Honeys mum said:


> Cameron Received £200,000 Gift From His Mother


This is interesting because its to beat the inheritance tax. 
In this area, while most older people are cash poor , they are property rich so some are signing their homes over to their children to beat the tax but also I think to avoid having to sell their house if they go into a home .
The rest are selling their homes and moving to a cheaper area and spending the rest which sounds a good idea to me !


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Many parents divide their assets between children as not only avoid tax but to.let them enjoy it without waiting for anyone's death and to avoid quarrels among heirs. 
Ok. Cameron is a rich guy and his family do as they all do. Invest, profit , provide for their children.

He handled it pretty badly. True.

If every PM had to resign because of a blunder...

Not as if it was " weapons of mass destruction fiasco" and embroiling country in a war....Did Blair step down?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Actually one of the things that surprised me most is that they are not as rich as I'd assumed they were. Will be very interested to see what JC's tax returns reveal.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Something I noticed early on in this is how quiet and reasoned senior Labour MPs have been. I suspect there are a few more names to be 'outed' yet.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

havoc said:


> Something I noticed early on in this is how quiet and reasoned senior Labour MPs have been. I suspect there are a few more names to be 'outed' yet.


It is always jolly to see the " grass roots rags-to- MP" folks with stashes of shares squirrelled away in off shore...


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

FeelTheBern said:


> I don't normally like leftism but l know there is something different about Bernie that makes me think that he can change America for the better. #dumptrump


I've seen a few people on twitter saying they support Bernie when they aren't normally left of politics as well . I think this is testament to just how inspiring a speaker he is. He has given people hope. He's a honest & decent human being who has always stood for the best interests of the people & the environment. His voting record is proof of that.

I think this tweet by Shaun King speaks volumes -

Think about this.

5 presidential candidates left.
4 "claim" to be Christian.

The Vatican invited the 1 Jewish socialist to come speak.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_It is always jolly to see the " grass roots rags-to- MP" folks with stashes of shares squirrelled away in off shore..._

I'd take no particular joy from it. If there are labour MPs who also have the sense to organise their tax affairs efficiently and legally I really don't see it's any business of mine.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

cheekyscrip said:


> Not as if it was " weapons of mass destruction fiasco" and embroiling country in a war....Did Blair step down?


 What got my goat was he has never admitted he misled the country  and that poor man who said the document was sexed up , he was pilloried and his death was suspicious .


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Have to say I thought Corbyn was outstanding on Marr this morning. 'All public officials should publish their tax returns' - I could not agree more. .


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

cheekyscrip said:


> Many parents divide their assets between children as not only avoid tax but to.let them enjoy it without waiting for anyone's death and to avoid quarrels among heirs.
> Ok. Cameron is a rich guy and his family do as they all do. Invest, profit , provide for their children.
> 
> He handled it pretty badly. True.
> ...


The thing is, when others do it, they have not written the law of the land. He sets the rules, he should be expected to live by them too.


----------



## Jackie C (Feb 16, 2016)

David Cameron has to go. Just for the cruelty that him and his party are inflicting on our very poorest and most vulnerable in our society. But now THIS?! YES, he has to go. He's a crooked sociopathic lying hypocritical thief. Being the leader of a party and a country, and squireling your money in dodgy tax havens is a huge conflict of interest and certainly hypocrisy.



noushka05 said:


> Have to say I thought Corbyn was outstanding on Marr this morning. 'All public officials should publish their tax returns' - I could not agree more. .


Yes, I saw that. Corbyn was, as ever, outstanding.

No sitting on the fence with this one for me.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

emmaviolet said:


> The thing is, when others do it, they have not written the law of the land. He sets the rules, he should be expected to live by them too.


I still do not see what crime? Investing? Not that he did not pay tax or not declared his income?

Mother gave him her own.money?
Suppose it is her business?

A bit like lots of folks have boats registered and insured abroad because it is cheaper. But not illegal.

So who of the well and mighty has ni offshore stashes please, throw the first stone....

Maybe in the end we should start thinking who actually benefits from chasing the rich away to Dubai etc...
Money leaves Europe. UK inclusive.

Whatever David Cameron is..still not convinced the replacement is better.

Unless you can get Nicola.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

When is JC publishing his tax returns ?


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

I don't understand the obsession with anyone publishing their tax returns. The returns demonstrate nothing. Tax returns don't include the income that isn't declared on one's tax return. That is obvious isn't it? Much of the income that the little lefties seem to fret about wouldn't be declared anyway.

Anyhoo, if I were David Cameron I certainly would not have published my returns to satisfy the voyeuristic fantasies of grubby little peasants. Just mho of course.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Satori said:


> I don't understand the obsession with anyone publishing their tax returns. The returns demonstrate nothing. Tax returns don't include the income that isn't declared on one's tax return. That is obvious isn't it? Much of the income that the little lefties seem to fret about wouldn't be declared anyway.
> 
> Anyhoo, if I were David Cameron I certainly would not have published my returns to satisfy the voyeuristic fantasies of grubby little peasants. Just mho of course.


It was brave of him to hmm..bare all...

Disappointed though. Expected something bigger....

And @Satori pity you point blank refused. On behalf of voyeurs and peasants doubly disappointed and what worse it is Nearly Monday!!!


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> It was brave of him to hmm..bare all...
> 
> Disappointed though. Expected something bigger....
> 
> And @Satori pity you point blank refused. On behalf of voyeurs and peasants doubly disappointed and what worse it is Nearly Monday!!!


Love Monday's. They herald the end of the weekend with it's packed car parks, full restaurants and queues at the checkouts. Tried to shop for a new car yesterday and stood in a dealer's showroom for half an hour without getting attention from a salesperson. It'll be a different story tomorrow. Weekends suck sometimes.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> Disappointed though. Expected something bigger....


Sometimes best to keep the lights dimmed.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

I don't believe he should resign over this particular 'incident'. As far as I can see he hasn't actually done anything wrong. 

Now the outcome of the EU referendum... Might see a resignation from him....


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cheekyscrip said:


> Many parents divide their assets between children as not only avoid tax but to.let them enjoy it without waiting for anyone's death and to avoid quarrels among heirs.
> Ok. Cameron is a rich guy and his family do as they all do. Invest, profit , provide for their children.
> 
> He handled it pretty badly. True.
> ...


But he preaches about 'transparency' Cheeky & closing tax loopholes, yet his EU intervention on trusts set up tax loophole!. Cameron wrote to Brussels personally, requesting special treatment for inheritance planning vehicles. All this while he cuts & slashes our public services, NHS & the welfare state to shreds. He is totally unscrupulous & his hypocrisy is off the scale

The scandal is is what is LEGAL. Tax loopholes must be closed.










http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0e7c0a20-fc...fication=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app

Lynching is to good for Blair but don't forget Cameron backed him all the way on Iraq. And Cameron has learned no lessons from that fiasco. He has gone on to obliterate Libya. He has bombed Syria & god knows where else. He sells arms to Saudi. He, like Blair, is a neoliberal warmonger.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Actually one of the things that surprised me most is that they are not as rich as I'd assumed they were. Will be very interested to see what JC's tax returns reveal.


You surely aren't referring to Cameron, are you? (or Osborne et al? )


*With family wealth like David Cameron's, who needs offshore funds anyway?*
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...alth-samantha-cameron-blairmore-a6974321.html



kimthecat said:


> When is JC publishing his tax returns ?


My guess is before Cameron & Osborne publish theirs. lol


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Another funny at Cameron's expense:Hilarious (a sense of humour is all us peasants have got left! lol)


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> You surely aren't referring to Cameron, are you? (or Osborne et al? )
> 
> 
> *With family wealth like David Cameron's, who needs offshore funds anyway?*
> ...


Yes I was as you well know. So what he comes from a wealthy family? I still don't think a £300,000 inheritance is that big a deal these days. I don't practice the politics of envy either, most families want to preserve their wealth so that they can pass something down to their children. I believe even lefties buy houses and leave them to their children when they die.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> But he preaches about 'transparency' Cheeky & closing tax loopholes, yet his EU intervention on trusts set up tax loophole!. Cameron wrote to Brussels personally, requesting special treatment for inheritance planning vehicles. All this while he cuts & slashes our public services, NHS & the welfare state to shreds. He is totally unscrupulous & his hypocrisy is off the scale
> 
> The scandal is is what is LEGAL. Tax loopholes must be closed.
> 
> ...


Just to say...wish rich folk were not pushed to take money out of Europe.
Remember there always will be Dubai and so on...
All parties have donors...those donors want something back?
Tell me that Labour members do nit do the same?

I remember well swindling expenses.
No party seemed to be any better.
Again Blair being beacon of light leading the way...not as if his party friends did not know?

I do not like Tories for foxes, badgers etc ..but try not to bash them just for being richer than I or protecting their inheritance.

As a mother would have done the same if had money to give to my kids.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Yes I was as you well know. So what he comes from a wealthy family? I still don't think a £300,000 inheritance is that big a deal these days. I don't practice the politics of envy either, most families want to preserve their wealth so that they can pass something down to their children. I believe even lefties buy houses and leave them to their children when they die.


The politics of envy, invented by the rich who oppress the poor...












cheekyscrip said:


> Just to say...wish rich folk were not pushed to take money out of Europe.
> Remember there always will be Dubai and so on...
> All parties have donors...those donors want something back?
> Tell me that Labour members do nit do the same?
> ...


Read all this Cheeky - Mark Steel at his best http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...t-through-eton-on-a-paper-round-a6973161.html

*So let's leave the offshore trusts alone. Because if we start clamping down on billionaires who avoid paying tax to Britain, they might leave the country and avoid paying tax to somewhere else. And then where would we be*_*?*_.

(I believe much of the labour partys funding comes from ordinary people via Trade Unions)


----------



## Jackie C (Feb 16, 2016)

kimthecat said:


> When is JC publishing his tax returns ?


Corbyn has said, several times in interviews that he will. This is just one example, there are others out there where he says he will:


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> My guess is before Cameron & Osborne publish theirs. lol




That's my guess too.

@Jackie C Yes I know he said he will but I'm wondering when.
I'm sure he has nothing to hide but I'm interested in his income because I'm nosey !


----------



## Jackie C (Feb 16, 2016)

How can anyone say dodging taxes isn't wrong? We ALL should pay our FAIR SHARE. Us little people have to. I would love to earn £100,000 plus per year, and you know what? I would be HAPPY to pay my fair share of tax. I am happy to pay my fair share now. No, this isn't about the politics of envy, this is about the politics of hypocrisy and greed.

David Cameron has said, several times on record, that he thinks tax avoidance is morally wrong, _*but then actively and deliberately*_ _*avoids tax himself*, _it is absolutely and completely hypocritical and is morally unacceptable. A party that is actively and deliberately targeting the most vulnerable in society and cutting their support, has a leader that is the very epitome of "self, self, self" and "me, me, me" and total and utter greed.

This is just one example of the utter hypocrisy of this amoral man:






This is just the tip of the iceberg, and I think there are hundreds of MP's, both Tory and Labour, who actively rob our country of £Millions.

Nah, but obviously Cameron et al have done nothing wrong(!!) Let's just blame everyone else! Let's blame refugees, let's blame the unemployed, let's blame Muslims, let's blame single mum's, let's blame foreigners, let's blame the disabled, let's blame those on benefits.

David Cameron has to go.


----------



## Jackie C (Feb 16, 2016)

kimthecat said:


> That's my guess too.
> 
> @Jackie C Yes I know he said he will but I'm wondering when.
> I'm sure he has nothing to hide but I'm interested in his income because I'm nosey !


In another interview a few days ago on Victoria Derbyshire, he said his income was that what he earns as an MP.

Found it:




__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10153564706471547



About half-way through, he mentions how he'd happily publish his tax returns.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

@Jackie C Thanks . 
You'd think he have a savings account . I earned 37 p interest last year and the tax man took some of it.


----------



## Jackie C (Feb 16, 2016)

kimthecat said:


> @Jackie C Thanks .
> You'd think he have a savings account . I earned 37 p interest last year and the tax man took some of it.


Exactly. Don't you have an ISA? That's tax-free.
The interest is still rubbish, but blame the banks for that!


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_David Cameron has said, several times on record, that he thinks tax avoidance is morally wrong, *but then actively and deliberately* *avoids tax himself*,_

But he didn't avoid tax on the money from the offshore fund in question and it was never set up as a tax avoidance vehicle. He paid the tax due on it.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

havoc said:


> _David Cameron has said, several times on record, that he thinks tax avoidance is morally wrong, *but then actively and deliberately* *avoids tax himself*,_
> 
> But he didn't avoid tax on the money from the offshore fund in question and it was never set up as a tax avoidance vehicle. He paid the tax due on it.


Blairmore Holdings 2006 prospectus says fund *to be managed so won't become "resident in the UK for UK tax purposes" *Cameron benefited from his fathers offshore tax dodging. And its looking like the £200,000 'gift' from his mum _was _tax dodging. The man has no moral compass.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

True. Using ISA we effectively loose money...%'is below inflation rates anyhow.

So I understand you can.invest somewhere else and gain?

I am looking into shifting my 2 k to Gibraltar Saving Bank.

Oh .. Rubbish. I pay tax in Gibraltar.


----------



## Jackie C (Feb 16, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> Blairmore Holdings 2006 prospectus says fund *to be managed so won't become "resident in the UK for UK tax purposes" *Cameron benefited from his fathers offshore tax dodging. And its looking like the £200,000 'gift' from his mum _was _tax dodging. The man has no moral compass.


Couldn't have put it better myself.

How can anyone defend this? As a PM, his tax affairs should be squeaky clean.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

The fund and any money Cameron made from it are two separate things. If you have a bank account then you are putting your money into an organisation which works in much the same way but it doesn't' mean you as an individual are avoiding tax.

What tax exactly do you believe Cameron avoided or didn't pay?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Oops. Miliband and Benn

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-will-to-cut-IHT.-Should-you-do-the-same.html

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...nheritance-tax-parents-home-deed-of-variation

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-how-it-works-and-how-you-can-use-it-too.html

I'm sure I could find more if I could be bothered to look.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Rottie , you beat me to it again !

I was just going to add the link about TB.
Tony Benn , if its correct I'm very disappointed in him and his son. 

@Jackie C I dont have an ISA , I think with ISAs and also BS accounts you have to keep changing them to get the best interests rates , Its not really worth doing for the few more pence or pounds you get .

Interest rates on savings are low because interest on lending rates are low . Set by the bank of England , if rates go up people with mortgages will find it difficult and perhaps inflation will occur or something like that . 
Some generations are born at the wrong time , mortgage rates went up when they had a mortgage and then came down now they have savings , so any savings or investments aren't keeping up with inflation plus six years extra wait for some women to receive their state pension .


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Jackie C said:


> How can anyone say dodging taxes isn't wrong? We ALL should pay our FAIR SHARE. Us little people have to. I would love to earn £100,000 plus per year, and you know what? I would be HAPPY to pay my fair share of tax. I am happy to pay my fair share now. No, this isn't about the politics of envy, this is about the politics of hypocrisy and greed.
> 
> David Cameron has said, several times on record, that he thinks tax avoidance is morally wrong, _*but then actively and deliberately*_ _*avoids tax himself*, _it is absolutely and completely hypocritical and is morally unacceptable. A party that is actively and deliberately targeting the most vulnerable in society and cutting their support, has a leader that is the very epitome of "self, self, self" and "me, me, me" and total and utter greed.
> 
> ...


There's has been no information to suggest David Cameron hasn't paid his fair share of tax. Actually in 2014/15 he voluntarily overpaid. Can you show any evidence of his avoiding taxes?


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Jackie C said:


> Exactly. Don't you have an ISA?


Wouldn't that be tax avoidance by your definition, or is it only tax avoidance if a Tory does it? Double standards.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

I bet Mr and Mrs Blair wont rush to publish tax accounts


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Satori said:


> There's has been no information to suggest David Cameron hasn't paid his fair share of tax. Actually in 2014/15 he voluntarily overpaid. Can you show any evidence of his avoiding taxes?


Dont cloud the s**t stirring facts and truth, you...you......you heretic/anarchist you


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> Blairmore Holdings 2006 prospectus says fund *to be managed so won't become "resident in the UK for UK tax purposes" *Cameron benefited from his fathers offshore tax dodging. And its looking like the £200,000 'gift' from his mum _was _tax dodging. The man has no moral compass.


How actually giving money to your kids is cheating on tax?
Wish my parents made similar arrangements.
Maybe one day you yourself would like to leave your children or grandchildren a sum of money rather than make them wait till you die?
His mother did nothing illegal.

All that is nothing more than scoring points on peoples envy.

Hitting quite low....
In.comparison with bankers Cameron is a pauper .
Wasn't it Gordon Brown who bailed the bankers out?


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Im sure HMRC will check and report back


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Just wish all our MPs were guilty only of privileged origin and student's antics...
Neither Osbourne nor Johnson look a better leader...

Sorry if my gut feeling is not in favour of Corbyn ... But it seems he does not support people's rights to self-determination. Which is democracy?
Or maybe some have rights and some less so.
" All animals are equal but some are more equal than others"...Orwell"Animal farm"...

For us here Corbyn said just about enough.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

havoc said:


> What tax exactly do you believe Cameron avoided or didn't pay?


David Cameron's mother gave PM £200,000 gift - BBC News


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Oh really though. If your Mother wanted to give you a gift of £200,000, would you refuse on the grounds that it may be immoral?

I'm sure tax was paid on that £200,000 at the time it was earned or inherited.

Such a fuss about nothing when we have companies such as Amazon and Starbucks underpaying tax to the tune of millions of pounds.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Corbyn however DID get a £100 fine from HMRC for late filing of a tax return

bet he feels a numpty now


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

Honeys mum said:


> David Cameron's mother gave PM £200,000 gift - BBC News


This doesn't matter provided she survives another 7 years. There is no capital transfer tax.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

Satori said:


> Wouldn't that be tax avoidance by your definition, or is it only tax avoidance if a Tory does it? Double standards.


An ISA is tax avoidance by anyone's definition. But there is no ambiguity in the investors rules for ISAs for anyone to take advantage of.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

Sweety said:


> Oh really though. If your Mother wanted to give you a gift of £200,000, would you refuse on the grounds that it may be immoral?
> 
> I'm sure tax was paid on that £200,000 at the time it was earned or inherited.


I'm afraid that situation would have never have happened, my parents were not that wealthy.
IMO for what it's worth, he is the P.M. and surely should be squeaky clean.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Honeys mum said:


> I'm afraid that situation would have never have happened, my parents were not that wealthy.
> IMO for what it's worth, he is the P.M. and surely should be squeaky clean.


But how is receiving a gift of cash from your mother not squeaky clean?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Honeys mum said:


> I'm afraid that situation would have never have happened, my parents were not that wealthy.
> IMO for what it's worth, he is the P.M. and surely should be squeaky clean.


What is "squeaky clean"?

You know the Biblical saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?

I accept your Parents were not wealthy, but, had they been and wanted to gift you £200,000, would you have said no?

David Cameron cannot be responsible for what his Father did. It appears that he himself has done nothing wrong so far as correct and appropriate payment of tax is concerned.

I cannot help feeling that those who would love to see him out have leapt onto this, blown it out of proportion to a ludicrous degree, and demanded that he resign.

I've watched this whole thing very carefully, and, whilst I'm no great fan of his, I really fail to see what he has done wrong, other than being Prime Minister when some would rather see another in that position.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

Sweety said:


> What is "squeaky clean"?
> 
> You know the Biblical saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?
> 
> ...


Surely we are all entiled to our own opinions.I do not wish to appear rude in any way, but in your own words, I have not leapt into this,blown it all out of proportion, and demanded that he resign. Although i think it would be good for this country if he did.

I do wonder though, if all this hadn't have leaked out, would he have admitted to all this.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Honeys mum said:


> Surely we are all entiled to our own opinions.I do not wish to appear rude in any way, but in your own words, I have not leapt into this,blown it all out of proportion, and demanded that he resign. Although i think it would be good for this country if he did.
> 
> I do wonder though, if all this hadn't have leaked out, would he have admitted to all this.


Admit to what? Having well off parents? But it is not as he was ever hiding his background?
So some parents give 2k , some 200k, some 2mln.
Footballers, pop stars , bankers or even list C celebs have more income than PM and none of his responsibilities.

Ask PM to resign because his mother gave him money?

Her own money. That she could have spent on say jewellery etc. But gave it to her child. So what?


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> Ask PM to resign because his mother gave him money?


I'm sorry, but Ididn't say anywhere that he should resign because his mother gave him money.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

This thread seems to have descended into rich-bashing.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Honeys mum said:


> I'm sorry, but Ididn't say anywhere that he should resign because his mother gave him money.


This is the thread title and your post clearly mention the money ? In relation to tax avoidance?

All respect to you but I see all that as very much populist propaganda smacking of communism.

It is exactly like accusing the poor of being lazy.
Being born rich or poor does not make anyone better per se.

So I do not see what PM's mother and even father have to do with it?
Why should he resign because of his parents money?
He made some blunders in handling all that. 
But if he is to step down maybe the NHS situation etc..are better reasons?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_This thread seems to have descended into rich-bashing._
I suspect that's all it was meant to be from the start. It isn't about what people do with their money, it's about how much they've got. If his mother had handed him £200 or £2000 presumably nobody would be screaming. It's only because it was more than many people have - so envy. If it's really about the principle then those who are screaming about it would agree that every penny in pocket money given to a child should be subject to scrutiny for inheritance tax if the parent subsequently dies early. Is that really what people want?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Well i for one don't give a damn how much money any of them have. I also don't care who believes me. What i do care about is some Hypocrite telling others, Don't do as i Do, do as i say.*


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

*What i do care about is some Hypocrite telling others, Don't do as i Do, do as i say.*
How has he done that? I don't rate the man at all but in this case he has done exactly as he should and been subject to exactly the same tax rules as the rest of us.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

havoc said:


> *What i do care about is some Hypocrite telling others, Don't do as i Do, do as i say.*
> How has he done that? I don't rate the man at all but in this case he has done exactly as he should and been subject to exactly the same tax rules as the rest of us.


*Did he not say, the likes of Jimmy Carr were "morally wrong"?*


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Yes - because Jimmy Carr put his money in a scheme designed to deliberately avoid paying tax on the profit. David Cameron didn't avoid tax on the profit - which happened to be quite modest when you look at the return over the time.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jackie C said:


> Couldn't have put it better myself.
> 
> How can anyone defend this? As a PM, his tax affairs should be squeaky clean.


Its indefensible imo as well Jackie. The man is nothing more than a crook! He is rigging the tax system to benefit the rich. Whilst at the same time robbing our public assets & gifting them to private pockets. Deliberately underfunding our NHS to ensure it collapses so he can hand it all over to corporate vultures. And hes stealing benefits from the most vulnerable. His government has caused countless to suffer whilst the wealth if the richest has doubled - proof austerity is a big fat lie.

He won't do anything about dealing with tax evasion/avoidance, because his party is bankrolled by the evaders & avoiders.

All that money the greedy squirrel away in tax havens could be used to help the needy & for the things we need for society to function properly. Its immoral.












havoc said:


> The fund and any money Cameron made from it are two separate things. If you have a bank account then you are putting your money into an organisation which works in much the same way but it doesn't' mean you as an individual are avoiding tax.
> 
> What tax exactly do you believe Cameron avoided or didn't pay?


Well heres a few things hes done

He 'finally' admitted he profited from an offshore fund. He personally intervened to weaken EU crackdown on on offshore tax avoidance/evasion. His intervention to protect the secrecy of beneficiaries of trusts created a loophole that can be exploited by tax evaders






He inherited £300,000 from his dad (just below the tax threshold). Then his mother 'gifted' him another £200,000. This was clearly a Tax Avoidance trick.

Jo Maugham QC (tax specialist) https://waitingfortax.com/2016/04/10/david-cameron-and-inheritance-tax/

*DAVID CAMERON AND INHERITANCE TAX*

To avoid tax you have to do a thing which cuts your tax bill.

Fail to do that thing and your tax bill is higher. But do it and you've avoided tax compared with an alternative world - economists call it a counterfactual but you and I would call it an overdraft - in which your tax bill is higher.

If this all seems a bit, well, metaphysical, it shouldn't.

When Ian Cameron died, David Cameron received £300,000 in his will. That's just below the maximum amount you could, at the time, pass on free of inheritance tax. Most or all of the rest went to David's mother and, because she was Ian's wife, it went tax free. She promptly gifted the Prime Minister a further £200,000 by way of what Downing Street is describing as an equalisation payment (a payment to 'equalise' the money that the children received from their father).

That's the real world. If she survives the gift by seven years that will save £70,000 compared with an alternative world in which the money went straight from Ian to David.

The mere fact of making gifts whilst you're alive can - if you're wealthy at least, because only a very few people are rich enough to pay inheritance tax - avoid inheritance tax. But I wouldn't describe it, without more, as meaningful tax avoidance. It's a rule that the statutory draftsman has created and you're using it as she intended.

But what takes this little two-step into the realm of meaningful tax avoidance is that it would have been known before Ian's death what sum David needed to get in Ian's will to ensure he received the same amount from his father as his siblings.

The natural thing to do - and so to me the appropriate 'counterfactual' to what actually happened - would have been for Ian to make the gift in his will. But instead Ian gave him a sum of such a size that there would be no inheritance tax to pay. And then David's mother gave him a little bit more in such a way that, if she outlived the gift by seven years, there would have been no inheritance tax to pay.
*
Compare that counterfactual to what actually happened and there's a £70,000 inheritance tax saving.

I think this is, in a meaningful sense, tax avoidance*.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Oops. Miliband and Benn
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-will-to-cut-IHT.-Should-you-do-the-same.html
> 
> ...


I'm afraid you won't find me making apologies for anyone RPH. However, they are not in power. The tories are & THEY are the architects of this austerity con. Making the rich richer with their tax breaks & scams. Does it honestly look as though 'we're all in this together' to you RPH?

Anyhow, I'm glad you mentioned the Miliband affair. Remember how Cameron & Osborne mercilessly attacked Miliband over his Mums deed variation?

Just think on that when you hear of Camerons tax free £200k 'gift' from his mother.

.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

For heavens sake. I had a tax free gift from my mother many years ago and I'm one of the poorest people I know. It's not just the rich that can do it


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

'Dodgy Dave' :Hilarious. Dennis Skinner LEGEND!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> For heavens sake. I had a tax free gift from my mother many years ago and I'm one of the poorest people I know. It's not just the rich that can do it


Only 7% of estates are big enough for inheritance tax. ~ Of that 7%, most don't use offshore trusts to "manage" and minimise the tax bill.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Now I am completely confused. Are you suggesting the £30k invested in an offshore fund was to do with inheritance tax? I thought it was the gift from his mother which was the inheritance tax bleat.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

havoc said:


> Now I am completely confused. Are you suggesting the £30k invested in an offshore fund was to do with inheritance tax? I thought it was the gift from his mother which was the inheritance tax bleat.


No I'm not suggesting that. They are two separate issues.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

JANICE199 said:


> Well i for one don't give a damn how much money any of them have. I also don't care who believes me. What i do care about is some Hypocrite telling others, Don't do as i Do, do as i say.


Well put Janice 199, totally agree.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

_I do wonder though, if all this hadn't have leaked out, would he have admitted to all this_
Admitted what exactly? None of it was ever secret and underhand and he's paid all tax due. Just because you don't know the details of everyone else's bank accounts and investments doesn't automatically mean they're fiddling their tax.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rona said:


> For heavens sake. I had a tax free gift from my mother many years ago and I'm one of the poorest people I know. It's not just the rich that can do it


*But you don't go around telling people it's immoral, as far as i know.*


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> All that money the greedy squirrel away in tax havens could be used to help the needy & for the things we need for society to function properly.


Yeah, it's easy to be generous isn't it?.....when it is other people's money you are talking about.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

That money 'squirrelled away' as you put it is taxed income in most cases.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Satori said:


> Yeah, it's easy to be generous isn't it?.....when it is other people's money you are talking about.


Other peoples money? Most of us have no problem paying our taxes in full - even the poorest amongst us.

The money generally benefits society as goes on things like this. >>












havoc said:


> That money 'squirrelled away' as you put it is taxed income in most cases.












That lost tax in all those offshore accounts could easily pay for all this - & more! >>>


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

So are you suggesting nobody should be allowed any savings? It seems so and if so I understand your position but it holds no particular relevance to David Cameron or any individual. It's just a general viewpoint where you don't believe anyone should have anything.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

havoc said:


> So are you suggesting nobody should be allowed any savings? It seems so and if so I understand your position but it holds no particular relevance to David Cameron or any individual. It's just a general viewpoint where you don't believe anyone should have anything.


No I'm not suggesting that lol How you have drawn that conclusion from my posts I do not know.:Wideyed I am specifically talking about tax havens, tax evasion & tax avoidance. (eta & the hypocrisy of the PM)

Loopholes must be closed. Even German Politicians are now saying Britain must do more >> http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...liticians-wolfgang-schauble?CMP=twt_b-gdnnews (snippets)

Germany will announce measures to crack down on international tax havens this week, as senior figures in German politics call on David Cameron to do more to close tax loopholes in British overseas territories.

The German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, *described tax havens as "the freeloaders of the international community"* and said the government would unveil, in the coming days, "concrete steps" on how to fight tax evasion via shell companies.

While the UK is a signatory to the Berlin transparency drive, many senior figures in German politics feel that offshore companies set up in British overseas territories are at the heart of the problem with international tax evasion

"If David Cameron still wants to be taken seriously personally and politically in the fight against tax fraud and tax evasion, Britain needs to close the loopholes in its own country immediately," he told Welt am Sonntag.

More than half of the companies that Mossack Fonseca, the law firm behind the Panama Papers, acted for are registered in British-administered tax havens, as well as in the UK


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I've made the mistake of keeping the subject of the thread in mind when reading posts and this thread was about an individual's tax affairs - which happen to be above board.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Honeys mum said:


> Surely we are all entiled to our own opinions.I do not wish to appear rude in any way, but in your own words, I have not leapt into this,blown it all out of proportion, and demanded that he resign. Although i think it would be good for this country if he did.
> 
> I do wonder though, if all this hadn't have leaked out, would he have admitted to all this.


Admitted to all of what?

Investing in shares and making a profit on them? Did that myself a few years ago.

He paid tax on the small profit he made.

Inheritance Tax I do have a real issue with. We pay tax on the money when we earn it, when we spend it and sometimes, when we save it.

Should we have to pay tax on it again when we die?

When I said some have blown this out of proportion, I was really referring to the Opposition.

"Oh look, Dave invested in some shares a while back and made a few bob when he sold them ........................ we can leap all over that, try and make it into something it isn't and use it as a weapon to get him out of Office".

Anyone who has ever bought a packet of ciggies or bottle of booze abroad and brought it home has, technically, evaded paying tax.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

havoc said:


> I've made the mistake of keeping the subject of the thread in mind when reading posts and this thread was about an individual's tax affairs - which happen to be above board.


Slavery & bear baiting were once 'above board'. It didn't make them right though.

Everyone should read this.>> http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...e-wealth-terrorist-finance-perugia?CMP=twt_gu
_
As David Cameron's fiasco over the Panama Papers collides with George Osborne's over the budget, the danger is that we frame these merely as political scandals.

In fact, the Panama Papers point to a deeper sickness. Globalised capitalism has become an organised and legalised form of corruption, in which the work of the manager, the inventor and the entrepreneur come second to that of people whose wealth "works for them" - preferably in a jurisdiction nobody can see._

*If you listen to Cameron's defenders, their logic follows three contours: he did nothing illegal, nothing unparliamentary and nothing wrong.

I do not doubt his decision to invest in an offshore fund was legal.

That he failed to register his shares in Blairmore on becoming an MP, and lobbied for the protection of offshore trusts while being an undeclared beneficiary of one, does merit investigation by Parliament.

But it's the insistence by the apopleptic right that he should not be criticised over tax avoidance - that "everybody does it" - that we should register as a kind of collective Marie Antoinette moment for the UK's social elite.

If someone walked into a pub and announced they had found a way to scam the benefit system, they would face opprobrium or a swift, anonymous call to the benefit cheats hotline.

But a large part of the UK financial industry is dedicated to scamming the rules whereby both individuals and companies pay tax on income. London is home to literally hundreds of advisory companies - many of them registered professionals in finance, accountancy and the law - whose purpose is to do only this.*

The size of the missing tax take is disputed. If, as the Tax Justice Network estimates, the global wealth held offshore is $21tn, it might generate $188bn a year for cash-strapped governments.

etc etc


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

rona said:


> For heavens sake. I had a tax free gift from my mother many years ago and I'm one of the poorest people I know. It's not just the rich that can do it


Yep.

I gave my Sons a tax free gift a while back. Perhaps I should turn myself in?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> Its indefensible imo as well Jackie. The man is nothing more than a crook! He is rigging the tax system to benefit the rich. Whilst at the same time robbing our public assets & gifting them to private pockets. Deliberately underfunding our NHS to ensure it collapses so he can hand it all over to corporate vultures. And hes stealing benefits from the most vulnerable. His government has caused countless to suffer whilst the wealth if the richest has doubled - proof austerity is a big fat lie.
> 
> He won't do anything about dealing with tax evasion/avoidance, because his party is bankrolled by the evaders & avoiders.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

So, anyone who has money and saves it is "Greedy"?

If someone has worked hard all their lives and managed to put some money away, instead of leaving that for their children to inherit, they should hand it over to be given to the "Needy"?

I don't think so.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sweety said:


> So, anyone who has money and saves it is "Greedy"?
> 
> If someone has worked hard all their lives and managed to put some money away, instead of leaving that for their children to inherit, they should hand it over to be given to the "Needy"?
> 
> I don't think so.


Of course not. This is about the greed of the 1% - who are literally destroying this planet with their insatiable greed. And here have a super rich PM who vows he'll tackle these tax havens, all the whiile blocking any serious attempt to do so. http://www.theguardian.com/news/com...emocracy-political-influence?CMP=share_btn_tw

.


----------



## Sh N (Dec 2, 2015)

So, lets face it, people get rich and have money. No one in any position is supposed to ask the rich guy to 'share' his money. I don't put in loads of hours at work (and make decisions responsible for other people's lives) to share my hard earned money with people who feel entitled that they should have a slice of your pie.
I have been in this country ten years, jumping all kinds of hoops, completing mountains of paperwork every two years, and I pay all my taxes, every single penny of it- and am still not eligible for a single benefit (even the NHS these days, where I have to pay a fixed annual fee to use it)- and adding insult to injury, I'm told that as I am an immigrant, I'm not wanted here. It really isn't fair. 
There are loads of people around here like me who go through this just to have a better life and a better career. If I had enough spare cash and a bunch of legal loopholes to happily play around with, I would try and keep my money with me- what is wrong with it? I've worked hard for it and jump enough hoops anyway. The legalese should be strong enough. I hope this is a wake up call for everyone.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Stunned at how the point is being missed by a mile by some. You can't penalise someone for just having money. If they pay all the relevant taxes then they haven't done anything wrong. I'm sure 99% of people would do exactly the same in the same situation.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rona said:


> Stunned at how the point is being missed by a mile by some. You can't penalise someone for just having money. If they pay all the relevant taxes then they haven't done anything wrong. I'm sure 99% of people would do exactly the same in the same situation.


Then you are wilfully blind if you think this is penalising someone for _just _having money. Even wealthy people are disgusted by the hypocrisy, deceit - corruption.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

rona said:


> Stunned at how the point is being missed by a mile by some.


Really? It just seems par for the course to me.


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

I wonder what all those overpaid footballers are doing with the vast sums they receive. I don't suppose they have it all in bank saving accounts paying 0.01%

I'm another one who inherited some money from my dad, shock horror. It's not a huge sum, but it means we don't have to worry too much about paying bills. When he made his will he said that every thing would come to me, I'm an only child, and I was to give a percentage of it to each of my children. At the time he made his will the children were in their early teens and he didn't want a big sum of money suddenly coming their way, he wanted me to be in charge of doling it out to them. He didn't update his will and by the time he died they were in their late twenties. So I gave them all the money he wanted me to give them, so I'm one of those mothers who have gifted, perfectly legally, a sum of money to my children. It's not quite seven years since my dad died, so if should die there would be tax to pay, but that's life, it was my dads money to do with as he pleased all carefully saved throughout the years he worked.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

There are tax breaks for all sorts of things. I don't pay any road tax on my EV so I'm a wilful tax avoider


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

havoc said:


> There are tax breaks for all sorts of things. I don't pay any road tax on my EV so I'm a wilful tax avoider


Good for you


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

It's not about David Cameron's personal tax affairs ( even if they have been mentioned ). It's about a conflict of interest between implementing tax reforms and defending the operation of Blairmore Holdings. There are conflicts of interest all over the shop. Edward Troup, the executive chair of HMRC, has amongst his resume...

Troup, who described taxation as "legalised extortion" in a 1999 newspaper article, built a career advising corporations on how to reduce their tax bills before leaving Simmons & Simmons to join the civil service in 2004.

How on earth is someone with such a past the best person to head up HMRC ? No wonder Starbucks pays less UK corporation tax than I pay in VAT on a skinny latte.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

A few more funnies I spotted on my cyber travels  lol










*HaveIGotNewsForYou* ‏@haveigotnews  8h8 hours ago
David Cameron rejects claims there's one rule for the rich and another for the poor:

"There are no rules for the rich", he said.

1,713 retweets 1,259 likes


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> I
> 
> I'm afraid you won't find me making apologies for anyone RPH. *However, they are not in power.* The tories are & THEY are the architects of this austerity con. Making the rich richer with their tax breaks & scams. Does it honestly look as though 'we're all in this together' to you RPH?
> 
> ...


Amen to that. Miliband could well have been though if the election had gone differently and would have been responsible for setting laws and taxes etc and one of Tony Benn's sons is in the shadow cabinet. I still don't understand why you feel a gift from his mother should be subject to tax. If you give your son £100 for Christmas or just because you feel like it towards his holiday or something does he declare it and pay tax on it?

So some people are rich, they earn a lot of money and they pay a lot of tax. Boris Johnson has paid the best part of a million pounds in tax over the last 4 years, that is a heck of a lot of money gone to the public purse. It doesn't bother me in the least that other people have more money than me or a better house/car than me or go on exotic holidays or if people are left money when their parents die.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Amen to that. Miliband could well have been though if the election had gone differently and would have been responsible for setting laws and taxes etc and one of Tony Benn's sons is in the shadow cabinet. I still don't understand why you feel a gift from his mother should be subject to tax. If you give your son £100 for Christmas or just because you feel like it towards his holiday or something does he declare it and pay tax on it?
> 
> So some people are rich, they earn a lot of money and they pay a lot of tax. Boris Johnson has paid the best part of a million pounds in tax over the last 4 years, that is a heck of a lot of money gone to the public purse. It doesn't bother me in the least that other people have more money than me or a better house/car than me or go on exotic holidays or if people are left money when their parents die.


Well I don't see how it would be possible for Miliband & co to make a greater pigs ear of things than this shower of crooks have lol The country is going down the plughole at lightening speed with these carpetbaggers. They've sold off just about everything they can get their greedy mits on. And cut the rest! Current Tory cuts include:: 20,000 Army, 5,000 Navy, 5,000 RAF, 60,000 NHS, 36,000 Police, 730,000 Public Sector, 7,000 Firemen, massive cuts to council budgets - & they've still managed to get us the HIGHEST DEFICIT since RECORDS BEGAN. Where has all that money gone?  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...current-account-deficit-gdp-ons-a6961251.html Certainly not on those who need it! We now have he worst poverty in generations, more homelessness , an NHS on its knees............... This 'long term economic plan' doesn't seem to going too well to me.

And some people are rich not because they _earn_ a lot of money but because they _receive _a lot of money. They are _born_ into money & _inherit _a lot (often from dodgy sources. ). We know nothing about Boris's tax affairs except what he wants us to know. Like Cameron & Osborne, he didn't even produce a tax return only a summary. And even if he had it wouldn't show whether he had money stashed in tax havens. This isn't about people having a money. This is about fairness. And corruption & hypocrisy at the heart of government

The Tories are trying to change the rules to make it easier for their mates to get key jobs - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/245d20e2-fc1a-11e5-b5f5-070dca6d0a0d,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/245d20e2-fc1a-11e5-b5f5-070dca6d0a0d.html&_i_referer=&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app

I don't know if you noticed @diefenbaker's post?



diefenbaker said:


> It's not about David Cameron's personal tax affairs ( even if they have been mentioned ). It's about a conflict of interest between implementing tax reforms and defending the operation of Blairmore Holdings. There are conflicts of interest all over the shop. Edward Troup, the executive chair of HMRC, has amongst his resume...
> 
> Troup, who described taxation as "legalised extortion" in a 1999 newspaper article, built a career advising corporations on how to reduce their tax bills before leaving Simmons & Simmons to join the civil service in 2004.
> 
> How on earth is someone with such a past the best person to head up HMRC ? No wonder Starbucks pays less UK corporation tax than I pay in VAT on a skinny latte.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> Well I don't see how it would be possible for Miliband & co to make a greater pigs ear of things than this shower of crooks have lol The country is going down the plughole at lightening speed with these carpetbaggers. They've sold off just about everything they can get their greedy mits on. And cut the rest! Current Tory cuts include:: 20,000 Army, 5,000 Navy, 5,000 RAF, 60,000 NHS, 36,000 Police, 730,000 Public Sector, 7,000 Firemen, massive cuts to council budgets - & they've still managed to get us the HIGHEST DEFICIT since RECORDS BEGAN. Where has all that money gone?  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...current-account-deficit-gdp-ons-a6961251.html Certainly not on those who need it! We now have he worst poverty in generations, more homelessness , an NHS on its knees............... This 'long term economic plan' doesn't seem to going too well to me.
> 
> And some people are rich not because they _earn_ a lot of money but because they _receive _a lot of money. They are _born_ into money & _inherit _a lot (often from dodgy sources. ). We know nothing about Boris's tax affairs except what he wants us to know. Like Cameron & Osborne, he didn't even produce he tax return only a summary. And even if he had it wouldn't show whether he had money stashed in tax havens. This isn't about people having a money. This is about fairness. And corruption & hypocrisy at the heart of government
> 
> The Tories are trying to change the rules to make it easier for their mates to get key jobs - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/245d20e2-fc...fication=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-app


Excellent post noushka05, shame we don't still have reps.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> The country is going down the plughole at lightening speed with these carpetbaggers.


Can't say I've noticed. All this talk of so-called austerity and it never happened really, not to most people. Everywhere I go I see a hive of retail and leisure activity, new independent business opening, new-build houses being snapped up off plan etc, (and I live in one of the top 15 economically deprived cities apparently), can't get a builder for love nor money......

March had the highest new car registrations in history. Unemployment is collapsing, wages are rising, taxes are falling and the stock market performance means that savers have never had it so good either. The performance of this country under Cameron has been spectacular from what I see. But then I don't have my own personal rain cloud following me round,


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Honeys mum said:


> Excellent post noushka05, shame we don't still have reps.


That's very kind of you. Thank you 



Satori said:


> Can't say I've noticed. All this talk of so-called austerity and it never happened really, not to most people. Everywhere I go I see a hive of retail and leisure activity, new independent business opening, new-build houses being snapped up off plan etc, (and I live in one of the top 15 economically deprived cities apparently), can't get a builder for love nor money......
> 
> March had the highest new car registrations in history. Unemployment is collapsing, wages are rising, taxes are falling and the stock market performance means that savers have never had it so good either. The performance of this country under Cameron has been spectacular from what I see. But then I don't have my own personal rain cloud following me round,


It must be lovely living in your bubble  lol I think you'll find austerity is only meant for us 'low achievers' so you should be fine lol

Unemployment collapsing? More smoke & mirrors. This is what counts as tory employment - 1.4 million zero hours contracts, 1.4 million on Workfare , 1.4 million JSA sanctions, 0.5 million disabled people on UNPAID workfare. The tories class slave labour as 'jobs'. No its a laugh a minute for us peasants


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Satori said:


> Can't say I've noticed. All this talk of so-called austerity and it never happened really, not to most people. Everywhere I go I see a hive of retail and leisure activity, new independent business opening, new-build houses being snapped up off plan etc, (and I live in one of the top 15 economically deprived cities apparently), can't get a builder for love nor money......
> 
> March had the highest new car registrations in history. Unemployment is collapsing, wages are rising, taxes are falling and the stock market performance means that savers have never had it so good either. The performance of this country under Cameron has been spectacular from what I see. But then I don't have my own personal rain cloud following me round,


While I agree with you, it has got a lot harder for the have nots, some of which are there through no fault of their own................

There's a large rise in homelessness and those using food banks


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Sweety said:


> Inheritance Tax I do have a real issue with. We pay tax on the money when we earn it, when we spend it and sometimes, when we save it.
> 
> Should we have to pay tax on it again when we die?


I don't get this either.

My family are poor and I stand to inherit nothing from any of them. Unless I win the lottery, I can't see myself being in a position to pass on anything to any children I might have in the future either.

But it is still a pain that we get taxed multiple times on the same money. I have an ISA, but obviously I am taxed on the meagre interest my other modest savings generate. It would be nice to keep something.

That said, I do understand that taxes are necessary.


----------



## Sh N (Dec 2, 2015)

Siskin said:


> I wonder what all those overpaid footballers are doing with the vast sums they receive. I don't suppose they have it all in bank saving accounts paying 0.01%


Had a lecture from the OH yesterday about what they do, didn't pay much attention as usual, but they are paid to a limited company front they set up- and they keep borrowing from the company. Didn't really listen to the middle bit- but they seem to bend the rules quite far enough to snapping point!


----------



## Siskin (Nov 13, 2012)

Sh N said:


> Had a lecture from the OH yesterday about what they do, didn't pay much attention as usual, but they are paid to a limited company front they set up- and they keep borrowing from the company. Didn't really listen to the middle bit- but they seem to bend the rules quite far enough to snapping point!


Doesn't sound right does it, it's more then likely a tax avoidance loophole.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

Sh N said:


> Had a lecture from the OH yesterday about what they do, didn't pay much attention as usual, but they are paid to a limited company front they set up- and they keep borrowing from the company. Didn't really listen to the middle bit- but they seem to bend the rules quite far enough to snapping point!


This sounds like Jimmy C's K2 scheme. This is an interesting page. I think it falls under Spotlight 26.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tax-avoidance-schemes-currently-in-the-spotlight


----------



## Sh N (Dec 2, 2015)

Siskin said:


> Doesn't sound right does it, it's more then likely a tax avoidance loophole.


Thats what I gathered- its legit, but still not legit- if you know what I mean.
But then do we want all those footballers to stop playing? Would we all boycott games? I'm sure a lot of people will not be happy!!

If all this is outlawed, the majority of the loophole loving population won't do this. If it is still a loophole, the smart ones with access to proper financial advice will still be doing it as it is not illegal!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

So many still don't understand the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. The former is legal, the latter is not. Anyone invested into an ISA is practising tax avoidance, so that you don't pay income tax or capital gains tax. If you sell your home and make a profit you don't pay capital gains tax, because your main residence isn't liable to cgt - again that's tax avoidance. It is perfectly legal to put money offshore, its taxable when you bring the monies back into the UK which appears to be the situation with Cameron.

The Jimmy Carr investment was a different thing entirely - tax specialists constantly bring out new schemes that exploit loopholes in current legislation and they are specifically designed for tax evasion. Such schemes are often challenged by the Revenue and loopholes closed.

As to the comments about inheriting money and being born rich - pure envy. What level would you set that its ok to inherit and when it becomes distasteful?


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

DoodlesRule said:


> So many still don't understand the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. The former is legal, the latter is not.


What about tax avoision?


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

I just very much wonder who the Panama Papers whistle blower works for? Now we will have clamp on offshore etc. 
But there is Dubai and plenty other places in Middle East where the tax is even lower and no one cares who you are...
But even low taxes on huge money generate huge money too and that money will not benefit Europe but some Arab States.

While we here argue......

We can chase the rich away to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and so on...

That would really benefit us all , am I the only one who sees that?

I see wealthy families leaving Gibraltar for Asia and Middle East....

Yes..you can tax the rich as much as you please but you cannot force them to stay.

Maybe Cameron sees that? Many wealthy folks ..Russians, Indians etc .live in UK.

For how long?

And inheritance tax should be abolished. We worked, we bought or saved and should be entitled to leave it to whom we want. We already paid tax on it. So it is double taxation.


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> So many still don't understand the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.
> 
> The Jimmy Carr investment was a different thing entirely - tax specialists constantly bring out new schemes that exploit loopholes in current legislation and they are specifically designed for tax evasion. Such schemes are often challenged by the Revenue and loopholes closed.


Except that K2 is classified even by HMRC as tax avoidance and not tax evasion.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> So many still don't understand the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. The former is legal, the latter is not. Anyone invested into an ISA is practising tax avoidance, so that you don't pay income tax or capital gains tax. If you sell your home and make a profit you don't pay capital gains tax, because your main residence isn't liable to cgt - again that's tax avoidance. It is perfectly legal to put money offshore, its taxable when you bring the monies back into the UK which appears to be the situation with Cameron.
> 
> The Jimmy Carr investment was a different thing entirely - tax specialists constantly bring out new schemes that exploit loopholes in current legislation and they are specifically designed for tax evasion. Such schemes are often challenged by the Revenue and loopholes closed.
> 
> As to the comments about inheriting money and being born rich - pure envy. What level would you set that its ok to inherit and when it becomes distasteful?


Its disingenuous to claim ISAs are tax avoidance.










Pure envy? lol How wrong you are. Its not envy its disgust. Disgust that the super rich could sit on more money than they can spend while people starve - rig the system in their favour so they keep accumulating more & more at the expense of the rest & our natural world. Material wealth means nothing to me, the only people I envy are those who still have their Mums & I would give everything I own & half my life to see her again, even for a few minutes. I really wish folk with this mindset would move on from this 'politics of envy' fallacy to justify material greed acceptance. Those who justify greed & obscene wealth always play the envy card, when it couldn't be further from the truth. People just want a fairer society - some of us actually care about social & environmental justice. It seems to me the only ones who can't see that are those who dont share these values.



cheekyscrip said:


> I jusvery much wonder who the Panama Papers whistle blower works for? Now we will have clamp on offshore etc.
> But there is Dubai and plenty other places in Middle East where the tax is even lower and no one cares who you are...
> But even low taxes on huge money generate huge money too and that money will not benefit Europe but some Arab States.
> 
> ...


If they don't pay their taxes like the rest of us - let the spongers do one! lol


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

In case anyone hasn't heard yet & can go. There is going to be a big protest demo in London this Saturday. Coaches are being laid on across the country.
Here is more info

http://www.thepeoplesassembly.org.uk/hhje

This speech by Jolyon Rubenstein is so inspiring.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Satori said:


> Can't say I've noticed. All this talk of so-called austerity and it never happened really, not to most people. Everywhere I go I see a hive of retail and leisure activity, new independent business opening, new-build houses being snapped up off plan etc, (and I live in one of the top 15 economically deprived cities apparently), can't get a builder for love nor money......
> 
> March had the highest new car registrations in history. Unemployment is collapsing, *wages are rising*, taxes are falling and the stock market performance means that savers have never had it so good either. The performance of this country under Cameron has been spectacular from what I see. But then I don't have my own personal rain cloud following me round,


Really? Mine have gone down this April! Yet somehow I've got to find extra for increased bills.

I'm loving working for so little that I have no opportunity to save, no spare cash for luxuries yet I know someone on full benefits who keeps 2 horses but has never worked a day in their life.

So yeah, it's sometimes hard not to feel like I have a rain cloud following me about.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

^ yes really. Appreciate that some are on the wrong side of the equation but the answer is usually to get a better job.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Its disingenuous to claim ISAs are tax avoidance.
> 
> Pure envy? lol How wrong you are. Its not envy its disgust. Disgust that the super rich could sit on more money than they can spend while people starve - rig the system in their favour so they keep accumulating more & more at the expense of the rest & our natural world. Material wealth means nothing to me, the only people I envy are those who still have their Mums & I would give everything I own & half my life to see her again, even for a few minutes. I really wish folk with this mindset would move on from this 'politics of envy' fallacy to justify material greed acceptance. Those who justify greed & obscene wealth always play the envy card, when it couldn't be further from the truth. People just want a fairer society - some of us actually care about social & environmental justice. It seems to me the only ones who can't see that are those who dont share these values.


Why is it disingenuous, the whole point of investing in an ISA is to avoid income tax and capital gains tax.

Ok Noushka, in your world what figure would you set for leaving an inheritance to your children (or whoever) that tips it into the disgusting league? Unless you believe that all assets should go to the state on death you would have to have a figure in mind, I am intrigued as to what level you deem inheritance is obscene


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> Why is it disingenuous, the whole point of investing in an ISA is to avoid income tax and capital gains tax.
> 
> Ok Noushka, in your world what figure would you set for leaving an inheritance to your children (or whoever) that tips it into the disgusting league? Unless you believe that all assets should go to the state on death you would have to have a figure in mind, I am intrigued as to what level you deem inheritance is obscene


But *I*SAs are a government scheme to encourage saving. According to tax experts not comparable to tax avoidance.

I can't even begin to imagine the figure these 62 individuals hoard. Don't you agree this is obscene?










Oxfam report before the Panama Papers scandal >>> http://www.oxfam.org.uk/media-centr...-inequality-report-davos-world-economic-forum








Pre-Davos report shows how 1% now own more than rest of us combined

Runaway inequality has created a world where 62 people own as much as the poorest half of the world's population, according to an Oxfam report published today ahead of the annual gathering of the world's financial and political elites in Davos. This number has fallen dramatically from 388 as recently as 2010 and 80 last year.

An Economy for the 1%, shows that the wealth of the poorest half of the world's population - that's 3.6 billion people - has fallen by a trillion dollars since 2010. This 38 per cent drop has occurred despite the global population increasing by around 400 million people during that period. Meanwhile the wealth of the richest 62 has increased by more than half a trillion dollars to $1.76tr. Just nine of the '62' are women.

Although world leaders have increasingly talked about the need to tackle inequality, the gap between the richest and the rest has widened dramatically in the past 12 months. Oxfam's prediction - made ahead of last year's Davos - that the 1% would soon own more than the rest of us by 2016, actually came true in 2015, a year early.

Oxfam is calling for urgent action to tackle the inequality crisis and reverse the dramatic fall in wealth of the poorest half of the world. It is urging world leaders to adopt a three-pronged approach - cracking down on tax dodging, increased investment in public services and action to boost the income of the lowest paid. As a priority, it is calling for an end to the era of tax havens which has seen increasing use of offshore centres by rich individuals and companies to avoid paying their fair share to society. This has denied governments valuable resources needed to tackle poverty and inequality.

It is three years since David Cameron told Davos that he would lead a global effort against aggressive avoidance in the UK and in poor countries, yet promised measures to increase transparency in British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, such as the Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands, have not yet been implemented.

Mark Goldring, Oxfam GB Chief Executive, said: "It is simply unacceptable that the poorest half of the world population owns no more than a small group of the global super-rich - so few, you could fit them all on a single coach.

"World leaders' concern about the escalating inequality crisis has so far not translated into concrete action to ensure that those at the bottom get their fair share of economic growth. In a world where one in nine people go to bed hungry every night we cannot afford to carry on giving the richest an ever bigger slice of the cake.

"We need to end the era of tax havens which has allowed rich individuals and multinational companies to avoid their responsibilities to society by hiding ever increasing amounts of money offshore.

"Tackling the veil of secrecy surrounding the UK's network of tax havens would be a big step towards ending extreme inequality. Three years after he made his promise to make tax dodgers 'wake up and smell the coffee', it is time for David Cameron to deliver."

Globally, it is estimated that super-rich individuals have stashed a total of $7.6tr in offshore accounts. If tax were paid on the income that this wealth generates, an extra $190bil would be available to governments every year.

As much as 30 percent of all African financial wealth is estimated to be held offshore, costing an estimated $14billion in lost tax revenues every year. This is enough money to pay for healthcare for mothers and children that could save 4 million children's lives a year and employ enough teachers to get every African child into school.

Nine out of ten WEF corporate partners have a presence in at least one tax haven and it is estimated that tax dodging by multinational corporations costs developing countries at least $100billion every year. Corporate investment in tax havens increased almost quadrupled between 2000 and 2014.

At the G8 in 2013, David Cameron promised that both the UK and the UK's Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, would introduce public registers of companies' owners in an effort to crack down on the use of shell companies to avoid tax. The UK has fulfilled that promise but so far only one Overseas Territory, Montserrat, and not a single Crown Dependency has followed suit.

Allowing governments to collect the taxes they are owed from companies and rich individuals will be vital if world leaders are to meet their new goal, set last September, to eliminate extreme poverty by 2030. 

Although the number of people living in extreme poverty halved between 1990 and 2010, the average annual income of the poorest 10 per cent has risen by less than $3-a-year in the past quarter of a century. That equates to an increase in individuals' daily income of less than a single cent a year.

Had inequality within countries not grown between 1990 and 2010, an extra 200 million people would have escaped poverty.

One of the other key trends behind rising inequality, set out in Oxfam's report is the falling share of national income going to workers in almost all developed and most developing countries and a widening gap between pay at the top and the bottom of the income scale. This particularly affects women, who make up the majority of low paid workers around the world.

By contrast, the already wealthy have benefited from a rate of return on capital via interest payments, dividends, etc, that has been consistently higher than the rate of economic growth. This advantage has been compounded by the use of tax havens which are perhaps the most glaring example set out in the report of how the rules of the economic game have been rewritten in a manner that has supercharged the ability of the rich and powerful to entrench their wealth.

Action to recover the missing billions lost to tax havens needs to be accompanied by a commitment on the part of governments to invest in healthcare, schools and other vital public services that make such a big difference to the lives of the poorest people.

Governments should also to make sure work delivers an acceptable standard of living for those at the bottom as well as for those at the top - including moving minimum wage rates towards a living wage and tackling the pay gap between men and women.

Goldring added: added: "Ending extreme poverty requires world leaders to tackle the growing gap between the richest and the rest which has trapped hundreds of millions of people in a life of poverty, hunger and sickness.

"It is no longer good enough for the richest to pretend that their wealth benefits the rest of us when the facts show that the recent explosion in the wealth of the super-rich has come at the expense of the poorest."

*Read the full report here*


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Politicians response Noushka avoiding the question 

Google Chris Dawson, owner of The Range. Apparently he is one of the richest men in the country, is he disgusting and should have his wealth removed to give to the have nots?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> Politicians response Noushka avoiding the question
> 
> Google Chris Dawson, owner of The Range. Apparently he is one of the richest men in the country, is he disgusting and should have his wealth removed to give to the have nots?


Eh? I gave you facts. If 62 people have that much money, as I said, I cant even begin to imagine the amount. However its very telling that you couldn't even give a simple 'yes/ no answer. Now that is like politicians from a certain party behave lol


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Eh? I gave you facts. If 62 people have that much money, as I said, I cant even begin to imagine the amount. However its very telling that you couldn't even give a simple 'yes/ no answer. Now that is like politicians from a certain party behave lol


I asked a simple question, what amount do you view as wrong to leave/inherit - unless you believe no one should inherit anything you must have a figure in mind.

I'll be honest I didn't read all your post but no I don't think there is anything wrong in someone accumulating wealth through there own hard work - the Chris Dawson chap is a prime example he is a billionaire all through his own graft and talent and I would not begrudge his children inheriting it all


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

FeelTheBern said:


> He was The Sniper, a playable character in the online shooter videogame Team Fortress 2. My previous username was a play on his name. If you say "Snoipah" out loud, it sounds a bit like how an Australian might say "Sniper".


Oh, finally I can stop trying to work out the anagram of Snoipah!


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

@Catharinem LOL yeah me too.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

Catharinem said:


> Oh, finally I can stop trying to work out the anagram of Snoipah!


Did you ever find out the anagram?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Interested in hearing the answer to DoodlesRule's question as well but I know it will not be answered. Dazzle em with bull***t is a phrase I've heard before as it normally works.

Going back to the original post however my question is, is any of this really about Cameron resigning or is it about getting the tories out? If about Cameron who is going to replace him? If tories out, I guess the same people who protested and campaigned against the fact that a legally elected democratic party was in power will be marching again. Strange how for them, democracy = do what I say.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> In case anyone hasn't heard yet & can go. There is going to be a big protest demo in London this Saturday. Coaches are being laid on across the country.


 So who's paying for the police and security and whatever and how much will it cost . ?


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

FeelTheBern said:


> Did you ever find out the anagram?


 I cheated and looked on anagram solver .

Ain Soph
Hispano
hispano-
Isophan
opasnih
Ophians
Phasion
Ponisha
Poshina
Saphion
Shopian
Siphona
Sophian
Sopinha


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> But *I*SAs are a government scheme to encourage saving. According to tax experts not comparable to tax avoidance.


No this really is tax avoidance. You invest in a scheme and pay no tax on the profits. But there is a key difference. With an ISA there is no ambiguity as to what the government intended and there are caps on the amount you can invest. This is morally right tax avoidance. But it does not mean that all tax avoidance is good.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

150,000 people took to the streets of London demanding Jobs, education, housing & demanding they stop the deliberate demolition of our NHS. Demanding Cameron's resignation. Where was the BBC & MSM?  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...on-resignation-trafalgar-square-a6987276.html

Liked 2,897 times
*Edward SnowdenVerified account* ‏@Snowden  7h7 hours ago
Ever wondered how to downplay a colossal protest? Compare @BBC's #*4demands* headline to the @Independent's.










2,734 retweets2,898 likes

Here are some of the best pics I've seen (if anyones interested lol)









































































Police kettling peaceful protesters chanting 'out'.












kimthecat said:


> So who's paying for the police and security and whatever and how much will it cost . ?


Tax payers I guess. Not sure how much it will cost to police the 150,000 peaceful protesters in London. There was also a big demo in Leeds yesterday against tory destruction of our NHS. Protests are happening frequently & all over the place (I'm becoming quite an activist myself - ive been to 6 protests in the last few years). The policing costs of the badger cull, for example, has cost £millions up to now. Civil unrest is only to be expected when you implement cruel, unjust polices.

I haven't got round to looking up that chap you wanted me to google @DoodlesRule . Thats why I haven't responded to your post as yet.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> 150,000 people took to the streets of London demanding Jobs, education, housing & demanding they stop the deliberate demolition of our NHS. Demanding Cameron's resignation. Where was the BBC & MSM?  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...on-resignation-trafalgar-square-a6987276.html
> 
> Liked 2,897 times
> *Edward SnowdenVerified account* ‏@Snowden  7h7 hours ago
> ...


*I was following this yesterday on twitter, what a fantastic turnout. I was disgusted at our media blackout, how can it be right that people had to get OUR news from other countries? Now i hope people will strike and bring this country to a stand still. It seems that's the only way this government WILL take notice.*


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *I was following this yesterday on twitter, what a fantastic turnout. I was disgusted at our media blackout, how can it be right that people had to get OUR news from other countries? Now i hope people will strike and bring this country to a stand still. It seems that's the only way this government WILL take notice.*


Charming - you might want the country brought to a standstill Janice but how do you think the elderly and sick will manage? Do you remember the winter of discontent with rubbish in the streets and bodies not buried being stored it containers? Do you remember the tanker drivers strike when there was no fuel and shops ran out of food and nurses couldn't get to rural patients? 150,000 is not a fantastic turnout (tiny percentage of the population) I went on much bigger animal rights marches in the 80's - they didn't make the papers or the TV either.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Charming - you might want the country brought to a standstill Janice but how do you think the elderly and sick will manage? Do you remember the winter of discontent with rubbish in the streets and bodies not buried being stored it containers? Do you remember the tanker drivers strike when there was no fuel and shops ran out of food and nurses couldn't get to rural patients? 150,000 is not a fantastic turnout (tiny percentage of the population) I went on much bigger animal rights marches in the 80's - they didn't make the papers or the TV either.


Nah we don't want that. It would cause all sorts of problems.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Charming - you might want the country brought to a standstill Janice but how do you think the elderly and sick will manage? Do you remember the winter of discontent with rubbish in the streets and bodies not buried being stored it containers? Do you remember the tanker drivers strike when there was no fuel and shops ran out of food and nurses couldn't get to rural patients? 150,000 is not a fantastic turnout (tiny percentage of the population) I went on much bigger animal rights marches in the 80's - they didn't make the papers or the TV either.


*Yes i do remember all of the above, and guess what, we got through those times. As for the news, we pay our TV licence and i for one expect to hear about what is going on in my own country.*


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *Yes i do remember all of the above, and guess what, we got through those times. As for the news, we pay our TV licence and i for one expect to hear about what is going on in my own country.*


I know we got through those times Janice but they were terrible times that caused a great deal of distress to people who deserve better from the public services that they fund through their hard earned taxes. The day for making your opinion known was May 7 2015, that is when the government was elected. Of course they are not perfect and of course they should be challenged on unfair/poor policies but they were elected under the system we have in this country fairly and squarely. What makes those who oppose them feel they have the right to try and bring the country to a stand still and punish innocent people and businesses as a result? Every government has its opponents and when Labour were in we had to suck it up and get on with it not try and bring the whole country down. Your time would be better spent joining a political party, getting out there canvassing and working to change things not encouraging mob rule.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I know we got through those times Janice but they were terrible times that caused a great deal of distress to people who deserve better from the public services that they fund through their hard earned taxes. The day for making your opinion known was May 7 2015, that is when the government was elected. Of course they are not perfect and of course they should be challenged on unfair/poor policies but they were elected under the system we have in this country fairly and squarely. What makes those who oppose them feel they have the right to try and bring the country to a stand still and punish innocent people and businesses as a result? Every government has its opponents and when Labour were in we had to suck it up and get on with it not try and bring the whole country down. Your time would be better spent joining a political party, getting out there canvassing and working to change things not encouraging mob rule.


*I think you are over looking the fact that there are people that are up in arms with this government and yet they voted for them. If this, or any other government choose to ignore the voice of the people, then what is left, just shut up and put up? I believe the people of this country are better than that. Nobody deserves the cuts this government have made. Too many are suffering and dying.*


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *I think you are over looking the fact that there are people that are up in arms with this government and yet they voted for them. If this, or any other government choose to ignore the voice of the people, then what is left, just shut up and put up? I believe the people of this country are better than that. Nobody deserves the cuts this government have made. Too many are suffering and dying.*


No I'm not overlooking that at all Janice. I voted for them and there are things I've been mad enough to email my MP about (such as proposed changes to PIP). I haven't said anyone should shut up and put up, simply pointed out you had a chance to vote (and didn't take it along with many others) and just because you (in general) don't agree with government policies doesn't make it right for public services to be brought to a stand still bringing chaos to the country and hardship/suffering to people who depend on them not to mention risk to life if the all out junior doctors strike goes ahead with no emergency cover. Just like when Labour were in charge those of us who didn't like them/didn't want them or their phoney war could demonstrate/write letters but not try to bring the country to its knees. Seeing as you now feel so strongly about people suffering and dying due to government cuts I trust you will be voting against them at the next election.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

JANICE199 said:


> *Yes i do remember all of the above, and guess what, we got through those times.*


Yes. All thanks to Maggie.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> No I'm not overlooking that at all Janice. I voted for them and there are things I've been mad enough to email my MP about (such as proposed changes to PIP). I haven't said anyone should shut up and put up, simply pointed out you had a chance to vote (and didn't take it along with many others) and just because you (in general) don't agree with government policies doesn't make it right for public services to be brought to a stand still bringing chaos to the country and hardship/suffering to people who depend on them not to mention risk to life if the all out junior doctors strike goes ahead with no emergency cover. Just like when Labour were in charge those of us who didn't like them/didn't want them or their phoney war could demonstrate/write letters but not try to bring the country to its knees. Seeing as you now feel so strongly about people suffering and dying due to government cuts I trust you will be voting against them at the next election.


*Yes i will be voting in the next election. But to say or believe that those that don't vote don't have a say is wrong. How can you say it is wrong to bring this country to it's knees, whilst letting this government get away with murder. Because like it or not, what they are doing to some people is murder. They are being told told time and time again, people are committing suicide because of the cuts. But do they care, do they listen? No they haven't and won't. Now, please tell me, who has the wrong approach?*


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *Yes i will be voting in the next election. But to say or believe that those that don't vote don't have a say is wrong. How can you say it is wrong to bring this country to it's knees, whilst letting this government get away with murder. Because like it or not, what they are doing to some people is murder. They are being told told time and time again, people are committing suicide because of the cuts. But do they care, do they listen? No they haven't and won't. Now, please tell me, who has the wrong approach?*


Where did I say that you or anyone else who didn't vote doesn't have a say? There is a big difference between having a say as in using your democratic right to protest and trying to bring the whole country to a standstill. I'm afraid all governments have to make decisions that some people will find hard. The incumbent government do unfortunately go through a period where they think they are untouchable and don't listen to public opinion, we are only one year into their term, in a couple of years they will have one eye to the next election and suddenly be all ears again. It is far too simplistic to say people are committing suicide because of cuts therefore all cuts are wrong and therefore its OK to bring the country to a standstill because more vulnerable/sick/elderly people will suffer as a result. Do you seriously want to see all out strikes in the NHS with the resultant deaths, all out strikes of local authority staff meaning your bins won't get emptied, social services staff won't get to those who need care and meals, schools will shut and children will miss out on their lessons and possibly exams? the list goes on. By all means have your say, by all means demonstrate and write letters (do you do either of those by the way?) but don't punish innocent people.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Where did I say that you or anyone else who didn't vote doesn't have a say? There is a big difference between having a say as in using your democratic right to protest and trying to bring the whole country to a standstill. I'm afraid all governments have to make decisions that some people will find hard. The incumbent government do unfortunately go through a period where they think they are untouchable and don't listen to public opinion, we are only one year into their term, in a couple of years they will have one eye to the next election and suddenly be all ears again. It is far too simplistic to say people are committing suicide because of cuts therefore all cuts are wrong and therefore its OK to bring the country to a standstill because more vulnerable/sick/elderly people will suffer as a result. Do you seriously want to see all out strikes in the NHS with the resultant deaths, all out strikes of local authority staff meaning your bins won't get emptied, social services staff won't get to those who need care and meals, schools will shut and children will miss out on their lessons and possibly exams? the list goes on. By all means have your say, by all means demonstrate and write letters (do you do either of those by the way?) but don't punish innocent people.


*What i do is for me to know and for others to guess. You mention the innocent, does this government give a damn about them? NO they don't.*
*People from ALL walks of life turned out this weekend to show they were not happy(to say the least) with the way this country is being treated. I ask YOU once again, if the government will not listen to THEIR people when it is done peacefully, what do you suggest the people do?*
*Just a reminder, these people in government are paid buy the people, and "should" represent the people.*


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *What i do is for me to know and for others to guess. You mention the innocent, does this government give a damn about them? NO they don't.*
> *People from ALL walks of life turned out this weekend to show they were not happy(to say the least) with the way this country is being treated. I ask YOU once again, if the government will not listen to THEIR people when it is done peacefully, what do you suggest the people do?*
> *Just a reminder, these people in government are paid buy the people, and "should" represent the people.*


OK no need to shout. Like I've already said I have no problem with people demonstrating. My issue is not with the people demonstrating - they are perfectly entitled to do that. My issue was with you (or should I say YOU) saying

"*Now i hope people will strike and bring this country to a stand still."
*
I'm afraid 150,000 people do not equate to THEIR PEOPLE, that is a very small percentage of the 46,420,413 who voted. So I ask YOU again what gives that small minority a right to strike and bring the country to a standstill. Two wrongs don't make a right. Because you think the government are hurting people with cuts doesn't justify hurting even more with strikes.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> OK no need to shout. Like I've already said I have no problem with people demonstrating. My issue is not with the people demonstrating - they are perfectly entitled to do that. My issue was with you (or should I say YOU) saying
> 
> "*Now i hope people will strike and bring this country to a stand still."
> *
> I'm afraid 150,000 people do not equate to THEIR PEOPLE, that is a very small percentage of the 46,420,413 who voted. So I ask YOU again what gives that small minority a right to strike and bring the country to a standstill. Two wrongs don't make a right. Because you think the government are hurting people with cuts doesn't justify hurting even more with strikes.


*lol I see no logic in your argument. So i ask you, if more than that number decide to bring this country to it's knees, will i be right?. Still you are missing the point.*


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

The core people in this march marched against the democratic election results. No change there. Just reappear, crying how they need democracy yet when it doesn't go their way it's not democracy and only they should be able to decide. Campaign about policies fine, that's democracy in action. Campaign against an elected government, thats not democracy.

UK is as bad as the states, 2 parties electable neither of which will be good for the country long term. Real shame neither would entertain and push for proportional representation as the whole system needs an overhaul. Getting rid of whips would be an fantasy alternative. All this at a time when in a couple of months a major decision will be voted on by the public which has to make decisions on spin and gut feelings, with the government then having to make major negotiations with the rest of the EU if they decide to leave.

I'm glad I no longer live in the UK as all I see are extremes rather than practical common sense in politics.


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

He should resign so that Donald Trump can take his place.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

JANICE199 said:


> *lol I see no logic in your argument. So i ask you, if more than that number decide to bring this country to it's knees, will i be right?. Still you are missing the point.*


Obviously I am missing your point because for the life of me I can't see how you think it is democratic to bring a country to its knees. I think that is treason and you should be taken to the tower


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> I asked a simple question, what amount do you view as wrong to leave/inherit - unless you believe no one should inherit anything you must have a figure in mind.
> 
> I'll be honest I didn't read all your post but no I don't think there is anything wrong in someone accumulating wealth through there own hard work - the Chris Dawson chap is a prime example he is a billionaire all through his own graft and talent and I would not begrudge his children inheriting it all


Here is the sentence I assume you initially picked up on - _And some people are rich not because they earn a lot of money but because they receive a lot of money. They are born into money & inherit a lot (often from dodgy sources. )_.

Which is perfectly true. So, to try to answer your question. I have no problem with wealthy people leaving their children a large inheritance per se. But leaving them hundreds of millions of ££ is not only obscene - it is immoral. Plus it also has a tendency to screw them up! Much of the wealth bequeathed was never 'earned'. The system is rigged in favour of the wealthy. The 1000 richest individuals in the UK didn't double their wealth in these 'austere' times through their own hard graft. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/article1412257.ece They doubled it because the system is rigged in favour. The government is deliberately shrinking the state & to ensure the wealthiest benefit. Anyone who believes 'we're all in this together' is delusional.

https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/extreme-wealth-not-merited
Extreme wealth evokes images of both deserving entrepreneurs and fat cats. This paper explores whether the meritocracy argument stands up as a defence of extreme wealth. It uses an analytical framework - 'the ladder of demerit' - to look at several sources of extreme wealth ranging from crime and cronyism, to inheritance, monopoly, globalization and technology. The higher rungs are clearly not meritocratic. The lower ones reward talented people multiple times what can be justified based on merit. Data drawn largely from _Forbes_' list of billionaires provides a tentative indication of the relative importance of each rung. The paper concludes that fifty percent of the world's billionaire wealth is non-meritocratic owing to either inheritance or a high presumption of cronyism. Another 15 percent is not meritocratic owing to presumption of monopoly. All of it is non-meritocratic owing to globalization. By contrast, crime and technology are found to be negligible sources of extreme wealth.


I've googled Chris Dawson. Hes in the Sunday Times Rich List 

No one accumulates that much money through hard graft alone, if wealth was the inevitable result of hard graft and talent then every junior doctor would be a millionaire 

Dawson employs people on zero hours contacts, he wants to keep his staff on povertly wages. Basically ordinary tax payers are subsidising HIM! Just quoting a reply to this article - http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Bil...drops-Forbes/story-28839232-detail/story.html

_Well, another excuse for him to not give pay increase to his staff, no statutory sick pay, non compliance with HSE guidelines for workstaff!! Bare minimun pension contributions which he was against even though was goverment decision that he had to abide by!!The list is endless for the shortcuts he takes on employment/HSE guideline matters!! So long as he can keep buying his Bentleys and helicopters and ram them down hie employees throats who cares!!!_

Here's another interesting piece on him - http://blog.independencelive.net/about-chris-dawson/
Very telling -

*This clear-cut philosophy is obviously what prompted him, as a participant in Channel 4's budget coverage, to reply to an NHS worker who dared to complain that her pay has been frozen for several years: "Ah, well, the NHS… Maybe you love the job, I don't know. But have you considered doing a course related to something else and entering a different line of work?"*

*Perhaps Mr Dawson, who started his working life as an open air market trader, thinks that NHS work is so fully-marketised that, instead of a standard pay scale, NHS workers literally compete with each other for work, so that by the end of the working day, the better ones will have earned more money and will therefore have a proper measure of how successful they have been in their chosen career. Perhaps that is the basis on which people working at the Range are paid; I'm not sure, but I'll be certain to ask one of them next time I'm in there.*

He seems very proud of his greed. 

I admire success, but I feel nothing but contempt for people like Dawson. Avarice, insatiable greed & ruthlessness are not qualities I admire. They destroy lives, they are destroying our beautiful finite planet. Thanks for making me aware of him though. Because I'll ensure we never spend a single penny of our hard earned cash in The Range.

Check out billionaire Nick Hanauer -


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

So Cameron is now one of the richest 1% in the world is he now Noushka? Great argument point.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> So Cameron is now one of the richest 1% in the world is he now Noushka? Great argument point.


Oh here we go again - spinning like a top! lol Cameron is a very wealthy man but I have NEVER once said he is in the 1% bracket. He represents the 1%. Austerity is a political decision to further enrich the wealthy elite & the corporations by shrinking the state.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> Oh here we go again - spinning like a top! lol Cameron is a very wealthy man but I have NEVER once said he is in the 1% bracket. He represents the 1%. Austerity is a political decision to further enrich the wealthy elite & the corporations by shrinking the state.


Actually Cameron is most definitely in the top 1%.

To be in the top 1% in the world by wealth you need about half a million pounds. That's many retired middle class folk in this country because of housing wealth.

To be in the top 1% in the world by income you need to earn above about £22,000 per year. Yes you read that right. That's pretty much everyone posting on pet forums.

How does it feel to be one of the wealthy elite?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> No one accumulates that much money through hard graft alone, if wealth was the inevitable result of hard graft and talent then every junior doctor would be a millionaire


Really. Sure Richard Branson would agree that hard work has nothing to do with it. Used to know someone who worked for him and only had good things to say about working conditions and how the company looked after staff.



noushka05 said:


> Oh here we go again - spinning like a top! lol Cameron is a very wealthy man but I have NEVER once said he is in the 1% bracket. He represents the 1%. Austerity is a political decision to further enrich the wealthy elite & the corporations by shrinking the state.


What, as normal, I'm not simply saying you are right, therefore it's spin. Sorry isn't this thread about Cameron and if he should resign? Oh wait, you are asked a question which you don't want to answer so decide to bury people with information which has nothing to do with the topic. I get your thinking, you think taking money from people is perfectly acceptable if they have more. Doesn't matter how they got it, simply they have it therefore it's not fair.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Really. Sure Richard Branson would agree that hard work has nothing to do with it. Used to know someone who worked for him and only had good things to say about working conditions and how the company looked after staff.
> 
> What, as normal, I'm not simply saying you are right, therefore it's spin. Sorry isn't this thread about Cameron and if he should resign? Oh wait, you are asked a question which you don't want to answer so decide to bury people with information which has nothing to do with the topic. I get your thinking, you think taking money from people is perfectly acceptable if they have more.
> .


*Surely it is a fair way of doing things. Why should the rich always get richer? Let's be honest here, if it wasn't for the poor man the rich would not get richer.*


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Goblin said:


> taking money from people is perfectly acceptable if they have more. Doesn't matter how they got it, simply they have it therefore it's not fair.


 /ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Satori said:


> /ˈsəʊʃəlɪz(ə)m/


*Speak English please.*


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

JANICE199 said:


> *Surely it is a fair way of doing things. Why should the rich always get richer? Let's be honest here, if it wasn't for the poor man the rich would not get richer.*


I think you'd find that if the rich didn't get the chance of getting richer, or indeed getting rich in the first place, there would be an awful lot of things that wouldn't be done in this country.

Unless you like the idea of communism? I'm pretty sure I don't.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

JANICE199 said:


> *Surely it is a fair way of doing things. Why should the rich always get richer? Let's be honest here, if it wasn't for the poor man the rich would not get richer.*


Nooooo. The money re-distributed would just get spent on Tennents Super, ****, Chinese Takeways and Package Holidays. Much better that it be left in the hands of people with the refinement to spend it well.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Satori said:


> Nooooo. The money re-distributed would just get spent on Tennents Super, ****, Chinese Takeways and Package Holidays. Much better that it be left in the hands of people with the refinement to spend it well.


Tut, terrible stereotyping going on there. Some of them might prefer fish and chips


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Satori said:


> Actually Cameron is most definitely in the top 1%.
> 
> To be in the top 1% in the world by wealth you need about half a million pounds. That's many retired middle class folk in this country because of housing wealth.
> 
> ...


LOL Let me guess. So says a right wing think tank? 

This post is in response to Goblin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..



Goblin said:


> Really. Sure Richard Branson would agree that hard work has nothing to do with it. Used to know someone who worked for him and only had good things to say about working conditions and how the company looked after staff.
> 
> What, as normal, I'm not simply saying you are right, therefore it's spin. Sorry isn't this thread about Cameron and if he should resign? Oh wait, you are asked a question which you don't want to answer so decide to bury people with information which has nothing to do with the topic. I get your thinking, you think taking money from people is perfectly acceptable if they have more. Doesn't matter how they got it, simply they have it therefore it's not fair.


Branson is another lying, tax dodging carpet bagger stealing our NHS! http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/21/richard-branson-northern-rock











http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/21/ow-lucrative--deals-go-to-firms-that-use-tax-havens










If you're going to butt in to my replys to other people at least have the courtesy to read my posts in context instead of telling me what I mean. You always doing this with me - deliberately misconstrue everything I say. You've done it ever since you red repped me for pointing out on your NHS thread (http://www.petforums.co.uk/threads/be-grateful-for-the-nhs.345839/ ) that the Tories were dismantling our NHS (& just look how that is panning out  ). So anyway, I'm sure you'll be pleased to know I'm sticking you on ignore I always said I'd never do this, but with you I'm making an exception as its impossible to have anysort of debate with you (on any subject) - so cheerio, Goblin lol.












MilleD said:


> I think you'd find that if the rich didn't get the chance of getting richer, or indeed getting rich in the first place, there would be an awful lot of things that wouldn't be done in this country.
> 
> Unless you like the idea of communism? I'm pretty sure I don't.


Some inequality isn't a bad thing but gross inequality is one of the most destructive forces we face. There are other alternatives to neoliberalism & communism you know


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> LOL Let me guess. So says a right wing think tank?


Actually, the world bank poverty data. But maybe that does count as right wing to you? Your perception of what is the top 1% is coloured by you forgetting the billions of genuinely poor people in the developing world.

Let me save you the trouble of doing any actual research though. Just enter your total income into this simple calculator and see where you rank.

http://www.globalrichlist.net

Welcome to the top 1%.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Satori said:


> Welcome to the top 1%.


I'm nowhere near the top 1%.............not anywhere near the bottom either.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

rona said:


> I'm nowhere near the top 1%.............not anywhere near the bottom either.


It's an eye opener though isn't it. I was playing with the data and the £22000 figure I cited earlier doesn't quite make the top 1% but it is only because of recent exchange rate movements since they did the ppp conversion. About £25000 still gets you there though using this calculator. If you go by wealth instead (including equity in your house) it is a bit harder to make the top 1% but £50k puts you in the top 10% and £2100 puts you in the top half.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Satori said:


> Actually, the world bank poverty data. But maybe that does count as right wing to you? Your perception of what is the top 1% is coloured by you forgetting the billions of genuinely poor people in the developing world.
> 
> Let me save you the trouble of doing any actual research though. Just enter your total income into this simple calculator and see where you rank.
> 
> ...


Fair play. Maybe the super rich should be called the 0.01% then? Wealth pyramids give a fuller picture. http://indy100.independent.co.uk/ar...xtent-of-global-wealth-inequality--lyXAa37V1W

Oh it actually says the 1% of the 1% on here -

*This month it was reported, by Knight Frank, that there are 172,850 ultra-high net worth individuals on the planet, the one per cent of the one per cent, with fortunes of at least $30million.*

A separate report issued last year from Credit Suisse didn't break down the millionaires into such detail, but compared the amount of wealth that the 35million richest people in the world owned with the other 7.2billion people.

Our friends at *Statista* modelled both below in what we dub 'the four most depressing pyramids you are likely to see today'.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Satori said:


> It's an eye opener though isn't it. I was playing with the data and the £22000 figure I cited earlier doesn't quite make the top 1% but it is only because of recent exchange rate movements since they did the ppp conversion. About £25000 still gets you there though using this calculator. If you go by wealth instead (including equity in your house) it is a bit harder to make the top 1% but £50k puts you in the top 10% and £2100 puts you in the top half.


Slightly irrelevant because of costs of living. Here the prices are double and housing exorbitant! ...
Communists killed more poor than anyone else and caused hunger in Ukraine..country famous for arable land!!!
For all tax dodgers on one side we have generations on benefits on the other side.
Human nature and selfishness is the same and neither poor or rich are per se better people.
As you understand if those who pay taxes and claim.nothing see those who live well of their backs that do not entice them to pay more...
Recently someone from here moved to UK. OH is invalid and here she had to work. Now they with three teen kids live of benefits. It seems they still can afford holidays we cannot..

Peeps from UK are shocked that here even in government house you have to take care of your lock or your boiler...


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

I got the teeny tiny green triangle before you circled it 

And it doesn't bother me at all. Whilst there are governments willing to spend foreign aid on guns etc, the redistribution of wealth globally will never be fair.


----------



## Bisbow (Feb 20, 2012)

I have said it before and I say it again
Take every penny in this country, divide it equally between everyone here so all get the same amount.
This time next year you will have millionaires and people begging for more from the government.

It's human nature, some can make money work for them, to others it slips though their fingers like water.
It won't matter what party is in power there will never be true equality


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Bisbow said:


> I have said it before and I say it again
> Take every penny in this country, divide it equally between everyone here so all get the same amount.
> This time next year you will have millionaires and people begging for more from the government.
> 
> ...


I have never seen anybody asking for that. Just a fairer system. http://www.oxfam.org.uk/get-involved/campaign-with-us/find-an-action/even-it-up

*Together, we can end extreme inequality*
We can even things up if we all demand that governments across the world make the right economic and political decisions.


We can change the rules on tax to make sure the richest pay their fair share.
We can demand more spending on public health and education to give poor people a fighting chance.
We can demand fair wages for everyone.
We can make sure the poorest people have a voice, and that it is heard by those in power.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> Slightly irrelevant because of costs of living. Here the prices are double and housing exorbitant! ......


Nope. "For currency conversion we use Purchasing Power Parity Dollars (PPP$) in order to take into account the difference in cost of living between countries; PPP$ are also less susceptible to short term fluctuations."


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> I have never seen anybody asking for that. Just a fairer system. http://www.oxfam.org.uk/get-involved/campaign-with-us/find-an-action/even-it-up
> 
> *Together, we can end extreme inequality*
> We can even things up if we all demand that governments across the world make the right economic and political decisions.
> ...


Don't forget foreign aid. That's the most direct government policy weapon against global poverty / inequality.

Now let's think... Which government has had the best track record in this regard??

(the answer is David Cameron's btw)


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

I've never been a higher rate tax payer, so my viewpoint isn't to protect my own money. But there is already a staggered tax system, so if person A earns 10 times person B's salary, he pays more than 10 x the tax. He is more likely to have private healthcare, if he travels more he will pay more fuel duty, and his luxurys will also incur more tax. I'm all for being fair, but this already seems weighted to take from the high earners to give to others disproportionately. If there is a legal means of not paying as much tax, who would choose to donate to a Government, both sides of which make poor decisions?Wasn't it Blair /Labour who took us to war in Iraq? Also, what they save in tax they can choose to give to causes that mean something to them. Even normal, middle class people would give more if they had it. I've bought hot chocolate and a muffin or for homeless people before now, put on my credit card in a shop because I literally had no money in my pocket at all. Not much available on my card either, but it's hard to ignore need. If I'd been rich I could have helped more than just a hot drink and a few minutes chat.
Inheritance: someone has earned a salary or made a wise investment and paid tax. Then they buy a property and pay tax. Why shouldn't their children be given things their parents have left them, without having to raise further tax money to pay to keep them? It's not fair to have to sell something left you by your parents, to pay yet more tax.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Bisbow said:


> I have said it before and I say it again
> Take every penny in this country, divide it equally between everyone here so all get the same amount.
> This time next year you will have millionaires and people begging for more from the government.
> 
> ...


The truth is were not born equal. The foundation of our abilities unfortunately is laid to some extent and we are born into existing circumstances of our families, country, religion.

Healthy, robust and smart have advantage.
But research done in UK ( quoted recently in SUnday Times) shows that bright children from poor families end up poorer than dull children from rich families.
But even if you are in kibutz some are doing better than others.
Whether you are laid back or driven is very much inborn....

Recent research also show that " the middle" is shrinking and gap between the privileged and the poor is growing...
But wake up to one thing: All main parties are sposored by the industry, by the rich and powerful. Some actually play both sides to secure contracts no matter who wins...


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2016)

Satori said:


> Your perception of what is the top 1% is coloured by you forgetting the billions of genuinely poor people in the developing world.


I have to say, whenever I listen to these type of conversations, people on a computer with wi-fi, complaining about how "poor" they are blaming whoever they choose to blame for that poverty, it's really hard for me not to get frustrated at the luxuries even the most destitute in first world countries take for granted.

When there are millions of people in the world without access to clean drinking water, it seems a little trite to be complaining about not getting your free medical care fast enough.

I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement in our system of government, there is, absolutely. However, let's not forget that much of what we complain about sounds like #firstworldproblems to those who don't have access to electricity let alone a good wi-fi connection and the free time to be on line arguing about it with total strangers.

Perspective....


----------



## diefenbaker (Jan 15, 2011)

ouesi said:


> When there are millions of people in the world without access to clean drinking water, it seems a little trite to be complaining about not getting your free medical care fast enough.


But they would be helped by reform of the global taxation system.

"developing countries lost around $100 billion per year in revenues due to tax avoidance by multinational enterprises (MNEs), and as much as $300 billion in total lost development finance"

This is more than the combined total of all the foreign aid in the Foreign Aid thread.

http://www.taxjustice.net/2015/03/2...dance-costs-developing-countries-100-billion/


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2016)

diefenbaker said:


> But they would be helped by reform of the global taxation system.
> 
> "developing countries lost around $100 billion per year in revenues due to tax avoidance by multinational enterprises (MNEs), and as much as $300 billion in total lost development finance"
> 
> ...


Absolutely!
Which is why I said "I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement" there very much is.

What I'm commenting on is someone who has been taught to read and write, with access to electricity, an electronic device and internet, with spare time to write on forums, complaining about how hard they have it.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Think about it...Cameron could have happily rest on family fortunes living the life of leisure...
Or just squander it all happily...

Think about it...Labour chose Blair as their leader...never chucked him out...even in last election Blair endorsed Miliband!!!
Well after Ed ousted his brother morality of that man was questionable too...
I might actually been persuaded to trust David Miliband but Ed is a no go.
If Corbyn is such expert on UK as he is on Gibraltar...he does not fall far from the above ..
I have read some things he wrote about getting rid of capitalism....OMG!!!
I lived under commies...so no thank you!
I doubt that Osborne or Johnson are any better...
Neither any Farage...
Wish Nicola could be the PM..more balls than the all of them...

So before we be off with DC's head lets first someone better to replace him. ...


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Satori said:


> Don't forget foreign aid. That's the most direct government policy weapon against global poverty / inequality.
> 
> Now let's think... Which government has had the best track record in this regard??
> 
> (the answer is David Cameron's btw)


You ought to know there'd be an ulterior motive lol - http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2012/sep/26/the-politics-uk-aid-explained

*Why did the coalition government insist on ringfencing the aid budget?*
The Liberal Democrats don't have a problem with the 0.7% target, but Cameron's commitment was a departure from previous Tory policy. The change can be seen as part of Cameron's attempt to "detoxify" the Tory brand, but the Conservatives do see foreign aid in pragmatic terms. They see aid as part and parcel of foreign policy, and DfID and the Foreign Office have been pushed to work closely togetherunder this government. In crude terms, the government's attitude to aid is: if it helps development, poor people will have less incentive to come to the UK and other rich countries

*Does aid promote development?*
This is a subject of much debate among development experts. Increasingly, there is a view that aid, while it accomplishes laudable goals from a reduction in child and maternal mortality to sending more girls to school, those achievements in themselves do not constitute development. John Hilary, executive director of War on Want, argues that the furore over the aid budget is a distraction from structural issues that matter more for development. He cites trade liberalisation policies that subject firms in poor countries to competition they cannot handle and tax loopholes that allow firms to minimise payments to developing countries. Dani Rodrik, the development economist, makes a similar argument. He says rich countries should pursue a "do no harm" approach with policies that include carbon taxes and other measures to ameliorate climate change; more work visas to allow larger temporary migration flows from poor countries; strict controls on arms sales to developing nations; reduced support for repressive regimes; and improved sharing of financial information to reduce money laundering and tax avoidance.



Catharinem said:


> I've never been a higher rate tax payer, so my viewpoint isn't to protect my own money. But there is already a staggered tax system, so if person A earns 10 times person B's salary, he pays more than 10 x the tax. He is more likely to have private healthcare, if he travels more he will pay more fuel duty, and his luxurys will also incur more tax. I'm all for being fair, but this already seems weighted to take from the high earners to give to others disproportionately. If there is a legal means of not paying as much tax, who would choose to donate to a Government, both sides of which make poor decisions?Wasn't it Blair /Labour who took us to war in Iraq? Also, what they save in tax they can choose to give to causes that mean something to them. Even normal, middle class people would give more if they had it. I've bought hot chocolate and a muffin or for homeless people before now, put on my credit card in a shop because I literally had no money in my pocket at all. Not much available on my card either, but it's hard to ignore need. If I'd been rich I could have helped more than just a hot drink and a few minutes chat.
> Inheritance: someone has earned a salary or made a wise investment and paid tax. Then they buy a property and pay tax. Why shouldn't their children be given things their parents have left them, without having to raise further tax money to pay to keep them? It's not fair to have to sell something left you by your parents, to pay yet more tax.


I've yet to see anyone seek to justify the Blair governments actions. New labour bought into Thatchers neoliberal ideology which is why so many socialist felt disgruntled with Labour. And incase you don't realise 139 principled Labour MPs rebelled against the Iraq war compare that with just 15 Tory MPs. Cameron voted with Blair for war & Cameron has gone on to obliterate Libya & bomb Syria - he has leanrned nothing from the

I'm talking about obscene wealth Catherine. No one can possible 'earn' that much money unless the system is rigged in their favour.



cheekyscrip said:


> The truth is were not born equal. The foundation of our abilities unfortunately is laid to some extent and we are born into existing circumstances of our families, country, religion.
> 
> Healthy, robust and smart have advantage.
> But research done in UK ( quoted recently in SUnday Times) shows that bright children from poor families end up poorer than dull children from rich families.
> ...


The tory party are bankrolled by big money. Much of Labours funding comes from ordinary working people via Trade unions. And the Green party are the most ethical of all! http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1122...e_he_is_not_full_UK_taxpayer/#comments-anchor

Cheeky, socialism isn't communism. Corbyn is a socialist like old Labour. Look at his voting history. He has a social conscience.



ouesi said:


> I have to say, whenever I listen to these type of conversations, people on a computer with wi-fi, complaining about how "poor" they are blaming whoever they choose to blame for that poverty, it's really hard for me not to get frustrated at the luxuries even the most destitute in first world countries take for granted.
> 
> When there are millions of people in the world without access to clean drinking water, it seems a little trite to be complaining about not getting your free medical care fast enough.
> 
> ...





ouesi said:


> Absolutely!
> Which is why I said "I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement" there very much is.
> 
> What I'm commenting on is someone who has been taught to read and write, with access to electricity, an electronic device and internet, with spare time to write on forums, complaining about how hard they have it.


Are these directed at me?  If so, I have never pleaded poverty (only in banter with Satori). With no debts & our mortgage paid, I consider myself very VERY fortunate compared to many. I have been speaking as someone who cares about social & environmental justice. Just because people are worse off in other countries it doesn't justify wealth inequality here or anywhere & it does not justify vulture capitalists stealing our NHS either!. Gross inequality is responsible for much of the poverty in poor countries as well as rich countries.

Bernie Sanders has got it! This is an excerpt of his brilliant speech at the Vatican of Friday.


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> Are these directed at me?


If it doesn't apply to you and your posts, then it's not directed at you is it?

But out of curiosity, does anyone on this thread have any personal experience actually living in a third world country? Maybe even a volunteering experience like the Peace Corps or Doctors Without Borders?

Just curious...


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> Are these directed at me?  If so, I have never pleaded poverty (only in banter with Satori). With no debts & our mortgage paid, I consider myself very VERY fortunate compared to many. I have been speaking as someone who cares about social & environmental justice. Just because people are worse off in other countries it doesn't justify wealth inequality here or anywhere & it does not justify vulture capitalists stealing our NHS either!. Gross inequality is responsible for much of the poverty in poor countries as well as rich countries.


And just for sake of clarity, when I earlier said that you were ignoring the billions of poor people in the developing world, I meant purely from a mathematical perspective (in the calculation of top 1%), NOT that you were unaware of their situation.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> You ought to know there'd be an ulterior motive lol - http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2012/sep/26/the-politics-uk-aid-explained
> 
> *Why did the coalition government insist on ringfencing the aid budget?*
> The Liberal Democrats don't have a problem with the 0.7% target, but Cameron's commitment was a departure from previous Tory policy. The change can be seen as part of Cameron's attempt to "detoxify" the Tory brand, but the Conservatives do see foreign aid in pragmatic terms. They see aid as part and parcel of foreign policy, and DfID and the Foreign Office have been pushed to work closely togetherunder this government. In crude terms, the government's attitude to aid is: if it helps development, poor people will have less incentive to come to the UK and other rich countries
> ...


Socialism? It was worth to risk many lives to bring it down..

Life in socialism was demoralising, depressing and dull.

Not for inner party though ...so much for equality...

Had over twenty years of that.

Even if some things were not that bad over all it was worth to go back to capitalism , worts an' all...

And I am middle- left nowadays ..

Just allergic to populist rhetorics....


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Satori said:


> And just for sake of clarity, when I earlier said that you were ignoring the billions of poor people in the developing world, I meant purely from a mathematical perspective (in the calculation of top 1%), NOT that you were unaware of their situation.


It never even crossed my mind that you meant anything else  Thank you though, Satori x



cheekyscrip said:


> Socialism? It was worth to risk many lives to bring it down..
> 
> Life in socialism was demoralising, depressing and dull.
> 
> ...


With sky-rocketting homelessness, a million now relying on foodbanks to survive & ordinary workers struggling to make ends meet - give me dull any day of the week  lol

If we want to leave a habitable planet for future generations we have to change our economic model. This is a finite planet, freemarket capitalism is destroying it.

I'm not religious but listen to the Pope, Cheeky. We have to wake up before its too late.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

The Roman Catholic church.... that bastion of caring, wealth distribution................... and religious persecution, child abuse and secret banks accounts worldwide............


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

http://www.spiegel.de/international...threatens-catholic-church-image-a-842140.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...iged-report-clerical-child-abuse-vatican-says


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Th


noushka05 said:


> It never even crossed my mind that you meant anything else  Thank you though, Satori x
> 
> With sky-rocketting homelessness, a million now relying on foodbanks to survive & ordinary workers struggling to make ends meet - give me dull any day of the week  lol
> 
> ...


But I agree... All that what our pope says.
Just that socialism was tried and failed and was actually absolutely non environment friendly...
Look at China...!!!
Greed.
Selfishness.
Lack of vision.

That defines human race at the moment.

( present company excluded)

Environment under Stalin or Mao etc.. Must be joking!

We can think maybe Scandinavian model? But they seem to have same problem there? 
Australia?

As to Trade Union led parties...oh...done that....got the T- shirt....
How many Union leaders do not see beyond their own? Even if well meaning...how many simply got there because promised more...but can they deliver?
How many miners or dockers can actually be more than loudspeakers...or how it works when a man who has no more knowledge than his work as say welder? demands? And becomes a minister?

Say that unions are
not manipulated by corporations?


----------

