Stuns me how 99% of people don't seem to understand this is how UK politics work.
Off Topic General Election Special
- Thread starter Chazz Rheinhold
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Stuns me how 99% of people don't seem to understand this is how UK politics work.
But you didn't answer my question. How is it fair for Jeremy Corbyn to charge me a higher percentage of tax than others?
As a country we should spend what we get in, and everyone should pay a fair amount towards this. Every single person should pay the same percentage, that is fair!
The issue is you have misconception, that big businesses are a bad thing. Look at Amazon, they should pay more tax I agree. However, they employ 10,000 people who are therefore paying tax, who are then spending their money in local shops. There is a reason most economists believe in a free markets without nationalisation. Nationalisation doesn't work in practice.
One point I would like to make is Junior NHS staff having a poor quality of life. In my day to day job I speak to Junior doctors and a monthly basis, and half of them have bought great houses, manage their money well and working towards having a great future and they are happy.
I didn't go to Uni and had a zero hour contract and was paid £5.00 an hour, I still managed to save over £300 a month which I then put towards my first home, from there I have managed to do very well for myself. I didn't suddenly think I was on a zero hour contract because of the failings of Amazon. It was up to me to make a better life for myself.
We clearly have different views, and I appreciate that, and I want start calling you a selfish twat like some people on here! At least we are having a debate, and you aren't calling me a rich posh tory twat!
What I'm getting at here is that it doesn't matter who gets the most cheers or jeers in the house. The important thing is their policies and what they'll do for the country. The attempts by the Tories and the right wing media to turn it into a popularity contest while Labour focus firmly on their policies is very telling.
But I'd be voting for the party that has those two **** wits as potential PM and Home Secretary.
No way Jose.
Corbo is a lying weasel, any mug can see that.
May is a lying slag bag, any mug can see that.
I have no words for Abbott.
But they bring jobs, they benefit the economy just by being here (if they were). That would be better than them not being here at all.
I do not condone tax evasion whatsoever and it's grossly unfair that the big multinational companies can get away with it whilst our honest local businesses have to pay more. But from an economy point of view it's better to have them paying £47m in tax and employing hundreds/thousands of people than telling them to **** off on a point of principle. Anything is better than nothing.
In a post-Brexit Britain, targeting these businesses is exactly what we should be doing...
The contribution of multinational companies to the Irish economy is immense. Excluding the financial sector, there are about 1,000 US companies with operations in Ireland providing about 100,000 direct jobs.
Each year, these companies pay €6 billion in wages to Irish employees, spend an average of €3 billion on fixed capital investment in Ireland and contribute €2 billion in corporation tax to the Exchequer. That is €11 billion a year, every year.
There are other contributions which are difficult to quantify, such as VAT and other taxes, indirect expenditure on security, logistics, catering, cleaning and other services, as well as thousands of agency workers used by the companies.
There are also largely unseen issues like the outsourcing of manufacturing, quality control and research activities, and, of course, expenditure on professional services from legal, accountancy and tax firms here. The precise amount of these is difficult to pinpoint but figures show that IDA Ireland-supported companies spend about €4 billion a year on goods and services sourced in Ireland.
In addition, there are second-round effects when employees and suppliers of multinationals and the Government spend this money. Across all revenue sources, it is likely that Government benefits by well over €5 billion a year from the presence of US multinationals here.
And it is not just US multinationals that have operations here. There is substantial commentary that US multinational companies are in Ireland solely to avoid corporation tax. This sometimes ignores the fact the US companies pay €2 billion of corporation tax here each year. If it was so easy to avoid, how do we collect so much? About 80 per cent of corporation tax receipts come from foreign-owned companies.
Are there risks from this? Of course there are. These companies are here for commercial reasons. It is always a risk that better commercial offerings will see them move somewhere else.
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/multinationals-bring-many-benefits-1.2315003
I think it's fair that people pay what they can afford. I think it's fair that we tax companies more for paying ridiculous salaries to people who do **** all.
I can understand your argument for everyone paying the same tax, though I don't agree with it and I doubt it'd be affordable for those at the bottom.
But my question was really just that if it's unfair for the rich to subsidise the poor, how on earth is it fair for it to be the other way around as it is now?
The poor aren't subsidising the rich. The rich are paying 45% income tax, the poor are paying 20%.
And if you think company owners and directors sit around doing **** all, you really have no clue of the world outside your cushy little office job which you have because of some bodies hard work. Owning and running a business is an incredibly time consuming and stressful thing to do.
I think the point those people were making is that it shows he's honest and absolutely means what he says. He doesn't need to hide behind his friends in the media writing cringey headlines to back him. He can just turn up, say it like it is and people go nuts for it. The Tories resort to dirty tactics like clearing a building of staff and then getting some stooges in to pretend to be staff who work there and cheer for everything May says. I'd say that's absolutely something to consider when voting for who you'd trust to run the country, whereas "she's strong" absolutely isn't because it's meaningless.
I'm sure it is for some people. And then there's the people who are a director of 7 businesses and get a massive salary from each. People like that twat from BHS. The company goes under, everyone loses their jobs but he's fine. Yeah that's fair.
He's honest?
Grow up.
You really think he isn't? If anything he regularly damages his own cause by being too honest.
Being trustworthy means people believe they'll do what they promise. If they do what they promise that helps the country, assuming the manifesto actually has some promise.
Bollocks.
The system is based on you voting for your local MP, but most people don't even know who their local MP is and are simply voting for the party they support.
As Corbyn is leader of the party and Abbott is currently Shadow Home Secretary, they are voting to make them Prime Minister and Home Secretary and the people that will run the country is obviously the single most important factor that people consider when voting in a General Election.
Obviously, there's zero chance of Abbott actually being Home Secretary, if they won they have to try and find her an insignificant role somewhere out the way, as she's absolutely ****ing useless (something they probably should have considered before they made her Shadow Home Secretary, she always been a complete ****wit).
Yes they're the people I'm talking about and that's the kind of people who the fatcat tax is aimed at. Focus on policies.
- Status