Off Topic Politics Thread

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Well, they had already lost me with their mad desire for Brexageddon max.

Taxing the smallest of businesses rather than the biggest is just a nice little adios to me. Our problem isn't the NI increase, it's the fact that once I'm past my tax free allowance plus £2K I'm now immediately taxed at nearly top tax rate percentage. We're limited, so the company pays corporation tax of 20% and we now pay tax on the money we take out as well as that 20%.

We've created four well-paid jobs, soon to be five, we've sunk every last pound of our savings into a business and we can finally draw some money out of it but we're being taxed at the same rate as millionaires.

Vin
 
  • Like
Reactions: thereisonlyoneno7 and tiggermaster
ChilcoSaint said:
Excellently put.
Click to expand...
I knew that would appeal to you. You banged on eloquently about the very thing he details, ie - constitutional change requiring a two-thirds majority. I agreed with you at the time and obviously still do. Dawkins however highlights the snapshot essence of the vote which already is out of focus, which was something that hugely bothered me. How can an ill-informed, and frankly ignorant and emotional electorate be responsible for such a vote. And back to your point, how can a less than plus/minus 2% majority be called, 'the people have spoken' No they haven't. It's a fudge and it's something our successors will not thank us for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: San Tejón, StJabbo, ChilcoSaint and 2 others
TheSecondStain said:
I knew that would appeal to you. You banged on eloquently about the very thing he details, ie - constitutional change requiring a two-thirds majority. I agreed with you at the time and obviously still do. Dawkins however highlights the snapshot essence of the vote which already is out of focus, which was something that hugely bothered me. How can an ill-informed, and frankly ignorant and emotional electorate be responsible for such a vote. And back to your point, how can a less than plus/minus 2% majority be called, 'the people have spoken' No they haven't. It's a fudge and it's something our successors will not thank us for.
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly!!!
 
Onionman said:
Well, they had already lost me with their mad desire for Brexageddon max.

Taxing the smallest of businesses rather than the biggest is just a nice little adios to me. Our problem isn't the NI increase, it's the fact that once I'm past my tax free allowance plus £2K I'm now immediately taxed at nearly top tax rate percentage. We're limited, so the company pays corporation tax of 20% and we now pay tax on the money we take out as well as that 20%.

We've created four well-paid jobs, soon to be five, we've sunk every last pound of our savings into a business and we can finally draw some money out of it but we're being taxed at the same rate as millionaires.

Vin
Click to expand...

"Liking" This post might send the wrong message. We need a "support" button now!
 
TheSecondStain said:
I knew that would appeal to you. You banged on eloquently about the very thing he details, ie - constitutional change requiring a two-thirds majority. I agreed with you at the time and obviously still do. Dawkins however highlights the snapshot essence of the vote which already is out of focus, which was something that hugely bothered me. How can an ill-informed, and frankly ignorant and emotional electorate be responsible for such a vote. And back to your point, how can a less than plus/minus 2% majority be called, 'the people have spoken' No they haven't. It's a fudge and it's something our successors will not thank us for.
Click to expand...

My hope, and it is a realistic one, is that once the negotiations to begin Brexit, it will hit the buffers very quicky. Day 1 of the saga is likely to follow this pattern. The British turn up at 0800, the others at 0900. At 1000, the EU delegations go for their breakfast for an hour. Meet up again at 1100. The British have their half-hour lunch break at 1230, the rest at 1330 and will not return until 1700 at which point the British go home. So in an 8 hour day they are face-to-face for 3 hours.

The following week it is Easter so no EU delegations turn up. Then in July all the EU delegations go on holiday and won't be back at their desks until the middle of September. There is bound to be a strike by one or two delegations to further disrupt matters, walk-outs, the translation mechanism breaks down, so the whole episode becomes a farce. Bring it on!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheSecondStain and Archers Road
I thought we all knew that there would be a cost for Brexit? It's the reason I voted remain. I'm just hoping now it won't be too bad but I really can't see anything stopping the process now. I just hope it's not people who voted leave who are going to jump up and down. Everyone knew it was the big unknown so I presume they were happy to take the risk. No point shouting now just because it might affect them. There was enough information out there if people bothered to look.
 
Whiteley Saint said:
I thought we all knew that there would be a cost for Brexit? It's the reason I voted remain. I'm just hoping now it won't be too bad but I really can't see anything stopping the process now. I just hope it's not people who voted leave who are going to jump up and down. Everyone knew it was the big unknown so I presume they were happy to take the risk. No point shouting now just because it might affect them. There was enough information out there if people bothered to look.
Click to expand...


I can! Read my post from earlier this morning.
 
There is no "fine" for Brexit. The EU wants an agreement on already-agreed spending commitments. If we had voted to remain in the EU this money would have to be paid in full. As it stands the amount to actually be paid is still to be negotiated. I'd be very surprised if we end up paying more than if we'd stayed in.

I find the "Shock! Horror!" reaction to the idea we may pay into the EU until 2020 a bit odd. That appears to be the "worst case" and, as we're still going to be a member until 2019, doesn't seem too bad to me.
 
Puck said:
There is no "fine" for Brexit. The EU wants an agreement on already-agreed spending commitments. If we had voted to remain in the EU this money would have to be paid in full. As it stands the amount to actually be paid is still to be negotiated. I'd be very surprised if we end up paying more than if we'd stayed in.

I find the "Shock! Horror!" reaction to the idea we may pay into the EU until 2020 a bit odd. That appears to be the "worst case" and, as we're still going to be a member until 2019, doesn't seem too bad to me.
Click to expand...

UK needs to pay for all the extra bureaucrats needed to negotiate the exit so Brexit collapses at the first hurdle because they can't agree who picks up the bill once the negotiations are done and dusted.
 
Puck said:
There is no "fine" for Brexit. The EU wants an agreement on already-agreed spending commitments. If we had voted to remain in the EU this money would have to be paid in full. As it stands the amount to actually be paid is still to be negotiated. I'd be very surprised if we end up paying more than if we'd stayed in.

I find the "Shock! Horror!" reaction to the idea we may pay into the EU until 2020 a bit odd. That appears to be the "worst case" and, as we're still going to be a member until 2019, doesn't seem too bad to me.
Click to expand...

If we have made commitments to projects I'm sure we will be expected to honour those commitments. I would expect that to be part of the agreement and so it should in my opinion. We will no doubt continue to benefit from some of these things. I really can't see that we will stop paying money to the EU the day we leave. It shouldn't be anywhere near as much though.

Who has ever come out of a divorce without having to pay something?
 
Whiteley Saint said:
If we have made commitments to projects I'm sure we will be expected to honour those commitments. I would expect that to be part of the agreement and so it should in my opinion. We will no doubt continue to benefit from some of these things. I really can't see that we will stop paying money to the EU the day we leave. It shouldn't be anywhere near as much though.

Who has ever come out of a divorce without having to pay something?
Click to expand...
Agreed. If we will continue to benefit from these things that have to be paid for then we should honour our commitments. If we won't benefit from what we're paying for, will only benefit for a limited period or the benefit reduces when we leave then there might be scope to reduce what we pay. But paying the lot doesn't particularly bother me either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back