UK Elections

a reply to: uncommitted

There is a reason footballers are paid as they are that does not apply to bankers or any other industry.

Slavery is illegal and wholesale 'ownership' of footballers by the clubs that can buy them (for ridiculous and obscene amounts) means they actually do 'own' the players. Players cannot hand in notice just because they wish to and must either wait for the transfer window or hope to be sacked.

I agree with the crazyewok, your comparison is poor. It was the bankers and not sportsmen and women (or indeed the disabled, the poor, the families et al) that destroyed this country's economy.

As to Russell Brand, all proceeds from his most recent publication are to be donated to a charity. It is a sad fact that in the modern age where the financial affairs of the individual are considered public domain information, making it very difficult for anyone to truly give without fanfare or applause. But in truth, none of us know the truth about the charitable giving of others. Gordon Brown was so concerned about this he introduced Gift Aid. Now the treasury knows just what % of their total expendables people are happy to donate! Voila! Win-win! Feel good factor from knowing some of your tax can now go to the causes that matter to you and the tax man can now monitor what was previously a completely private matter!

originally posted by: uncommitted
I agree with the sentiment but.... and I know I'm going to get shot down in flames here -

If someone works for a private company and makes a lot of money, why are they honour bound to redistribute that wealth over and above what their tax rate says they must? I don't see Russell Brand donating more than he needs to from his profits from tours and DVDs, and I can't remember Wayne Rooney giving away half of his wages after tax, but for the dreaded bankers it seems to be a different matter.

In my opinion there are huge problems with this, for people just over the threshold it is highly unfair but for company managers or owners them paying the right amount of tax is so that their poorer employees are allowed to have access to free healthcare, defence, law and order and education which are the core foundations required for any company to function. Without them the managers/owners would go bust overnight so the redistribution in that context is a win:win situation for both parties.

Brand is an absolute nutter with stupid 'lets all not vote because that'll change politics' tactics - however his book/dvd sale profits have all gone to charity and I'm pretty certain Rooney uses or at least used offshore banking to avoid paying UK tax.

The main problem with bankers, and this is an issue no party is addressing, is that the people who write tax legislation for the government also all sit on the boards of banks being paid millions to teach them how to exploit the very same tax loopholes they have put in place to avoid paying tens of billions in tax per year which is a clear conflict of interest and needs to be made illegal if we're to avoid yet another bank caused crash. On top of this the banks have repeatedly failed in their obligations to provide support for small businesses etc as outlined in the bailout and are still paying insane bonuses despite losing money and owing the taxpayer somewhere in the region of £500 - 800 Bn.

100% agree with your apprehension about Balls though, don't trust him as far as I could throw him and seems to have little/no grasp of economics/bean counting.

---------

Is anyone else getting the feeling even the parties themselves have become disenfranchised and aren't offering any real concrete policies? This is the first election I can remember where none of them have anything standout. Labour used to be 'education, education, education' lib dems were 'abolish tuition fees' and tories were 'lets control immigration/welfare'. As much as it pains me to say it, it seems UKIP are the only party where people actually know what they're voting for, the rest are just offering a vague 'meh' to increase their chances in a hung parliament coalition formation.



E.g the BBC are currently running this story high up - has politics really sunk so low that this is deemed news or giving people an informed vote?

'Essex also said that after the meeting he now knew the party was not called the "Liberal Democats" and the leader's surname was Clegg rather than Leg.'

www.bbc.co.uk...

How the UK government fiddles employment figures

a reply to: teapot

Sorry, the only answer I can dignify you with is being a 'slave' earning £250,000 a week is an interesting concept. You are talking about some very specific examples, not the one I plucked out as an example.

If you want to use Russel Brand (I plucked him as an example), then his latest publication is neither here nor there, it just goes to show he doesn't need the money (ETA) from this particular publication.

Gordon brown didn't introduce Gift Aid though, you might want to check. Last time I looked it was John Major (ETA it was John Major, Brown made a change, but certainly didn't introduce it).

a reply to: uncommitted

Please don't think I'm holding Russell Brand or Wayne Rooney as positive or negative examples of anything.
But as far as I'm aware they pay their tax.
Many large corporations don't.
And many very wealthy bankers and industrialists etc don't - or they avoid paying as much as they should according to UK law.

Why should the wealthy be 'honour bound to redistribute wealth'?
Why shouldn't they?
Social responsibility.
To give something back to the society and people that enabled them to amass obscene amounts of money.
I'm sure there are many other valid and moral reasons.

I certainly don't begrudge hard working, industrious, inventive and astute people earning relatively large amounts of money and enjoying the fruits of their labour - but there is only so much money one person can spend in a lifetime.

As far as I can recall no government has ever really done much for the small, hard working business men and women of this country.
I genuinely don't mind them squeezing a few coppers here and there out of the taxman.....its the big businesses and corporations who get all the grants and aid and tax breaks who constantly seek to defraud this country and bleed the wealth out of it that I dislike. It is them and their Chief Executives who should be made to pay their required taxes in full.

As for your point about the NHS etc - whose fault is it that wages are so low for nurses etc yet relatively very high for managerial staff?

And footballers?
Yeah, they get paid ridiculous amounts.
What would you do about it?
Sky and other sponsors are putting literally billions into the game - its a Catch 22, some aspects of it I like, other aspects I truly detest, but it's taking football away from the people. A topic for another thread methinks.
But why wouldn't the players expect to earn more? - they are one who actually play the game.

But its all just a reflection or manifestation of society as a whole - obsessed with profit, money and personal gain.

I fear we are digressing from the thread topic.

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: teapot

Sorry, the only answer I can dignify you with is being a 'slave' earning £250,000 a week is an interesting concept. You are talking about some very specific examples, not the one I plucked out as an example.

Historically, the high wages culture is because of the slavery element.

If you want to use Russel Brand (I plucked him as an example), then his latest publication is neither here nor there, it just goes to show he doesn't need the money (ETA) from this particular publication.

He (or any other popular commentator) could have chosen to do something more selfish with the money! Attempting to use these type figures to prove a point about how it was not only the banking industry working with sitting politicians to rip us all off was a diversion that I somehow could not ignore!

Gordon brown didn't introduce Gift Aid though, you might want to check. Last time I looked it was John Major (ETA it was John Major, Brown made a change, but certainly didn't introduce it).

I stand corrected, thank you for the info! Of course it was the Tories that devised this further intrusion into peoples' finances! I had wondered why it was that under the 'austerity' regime they have imposed upon the poorest in society, no savings have been made by abolishing Gift Aid. Not that I know exactly how it works or if it can be used to further reduce taxes paid by certain individuals.

Here's why the Conservatives don't want to tell you about the £12 billion of welfare cuts Read more: uk.businessinsider.com... p_topic=4145006#__scoop_post=41bd4ef0-d718-11e4-d9e7-842b2b775358&__scoop_topic=4145006#ixzz3Vz2XinWQ

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Here's why the Conservatives don't want to tell you about the £12 billion of welfare cuts Read more: uk.businessinsider.com... p_topic=4145006#__scoop_post=41bd4ef0-d718-11e4-d9e7-842b2b775358&__scoop_topic=4145006#ixzz3Vz2XinWQ

I honestly don't know why they don't take a knife to our £14 billion foreign aid budget.

a reply to: Soloprotocol

It's interesting how quiet IDS has been since the UN announced they're investigating him for crimes against humanity by ignoring international law and starving thousands of disabled/mentally ill people to death. Can't have the public knowing we're the first country in the world to be investigated this way now can we.

'The UN's Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which is carrying out the unprecedented inquiry, has the power to launch a formal probe if it receives "reliable information" that human rights violations have occurred in a country signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).'
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

Not enough lamposts or lengths of rope to hang the blue scum

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: uncommitted

Please don't think I'm holding Russell Brand or Wayne Rooney as positive or negative examples of anything.
But as far as I'm aware they pay their tax.
Many large corporations don't.
And many very wealthy bankers and industrialists etc don't - or they avoid paying as much as they should according to UK law.

Why should the wealthy be 'honour bound to redistribute wealth'?
Why shouldn't they?
Social responsibility.
To give something back to the society and people that enabled them to amass obscene amounts of money.
I'm sure there are many other valid and moral reasons.

I certainly don't begrudge hard working, industrious, inventive and astute people earning relatively large amounts of money and enjoying the fruits of their labour - but there is only so much money one person can spend in a lifetime.

As far as I can recall no government has ever really done much for the small, hard working business men and women of this country.
I genuinely don't mind them squeezing a few coppers here and there out of the taxman.....its the big businesses and corporations who get all the grants and aid and tax breaks who constantly seek to defraud this country and bleed the wealth out of it that I dislike. It is them and their Chief Executives who should be made to pay their required taxes in full.

As for your point about the NHS etc - whose fault is it that wages are so low for nurses etc yet relatively very high for managerial staff?

And footballers?
Yeah, they get paid ridiculous amounts.
What would you do about it?
Sky and other sponsors are putting literally billions into the game - its a Catch 22, some aspects of it I like, other aspects I truly detest, but it's taking football away from the people. A topic for another thread methinks.
But why wouldn't the players expect to earn more? - they are one who actually play the game.

But its all just a reflection or manifestation of society as a whole - obsessed with profit, money and personal gain.

I fear we are digressing from the thread topic.

This is digressing, you are right Freeborn, but I'm afraid it always comes down to this come election times doesn't it?

For what it's worth, I've no idea if Brand or Rooney (trust me, I could have picked multiple examples, they were the first that popped into my head) may or may not pay all the tax due to them on all their income - people high up the banking boardrooms who are UK domicile may or may not.... I suspect you know just as much as I do. Whatever they do or don't do, maybe redistribution of wealth starts closer to home with friends and family rather than the populace at large but maybe all of them pay their fair share.

Corporations? Totally agree, we shouldn't make this about individuals unless they have been shown to try and defraud, but do you hold Sunderland, Newcastle, any other football club to the same standards? I'm joking now to a certain extent, but they take money from the public - how much of that do they redistribute when there is a profit? That I appreciate may be for a different thread, but hopefully you see my point - shareholder is king.

For the NHS, like a lot of organisations, supply outstrips demand for many of the posts available so wages will be lower - like it or hate it, it's the way of the world. I wasn't condoning it, I was just pointing out this isn't just something that happens in one business sector.

originally posted by: teapot

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: teapot

Sorry, the only answer I can dignify you with is being a 'slave' earning £250,000 a week is an interesting concept. You are talking about some very specific examples, not the one I plucked out as an example.

Historically, the high wages culture is because of the slavery element.

If you want to use Russel Brand (I plucked him as an example), then his latest publication is neither here nor there, it just goes to show he doesn't need the money (ETA) from this particular publication.

He (or any other popular commentator) could have chosen to do something more selfish with the money! Attempting to use these type figures to prove a point about how it was not only the banking industry working with sitting politicians to rip us all off was a diversion that I somehow could not ignore!

Gordon brown didn't introduce Gift Aid though, you might want to check. Last time I looked it was John Major (ETA it was John Major, Brown made a change, but certainly didn't introduce it).

I stand corrected, thank you for the info! Of course it was the Tories that devised this further intrusion into peoples' finances! I had wondered why it was that under the 'austerity' regime they have imposed upon the poorest in society, no savings have been made by abolishing Gift Aid. Not that I know exactly how it works or if it can be used to further reduce taxes paid by certain individuals.

What on Earth are you on about? You were all for gift aid but now you see the Tories devised it you are against it??? (ETA) and it hasn't been abolished, I gave last month and pledged gift aid, the same as I do when I donate clothes/books just like I did 20 years ago. Sheesh, you might want to keep digging to find something that actually has merit.

I understand why Brand advocates not voting although I don't necessarily agree that it's the most productive way of dealing with the problem. Policies are steered around donors and special interests, election promises are just the sales pitch to the electorate to grant the power to enable them. The whole system is unfathomably corrupt and needs pulling down. It's the brazen sense of entitlement and contempt displayed towards us by the political class that sickens me the most.

I think the only way to solve it is for us to put a leash on all the parties by pressuring for the introduction of a law that allows the electorate to force a referendum on any issue given enough signatures in petition. It's not without problems but until some power is devolved from whitehall back to us we'll never have a say and they'll never be accountable.

originally posted by: bastion


Not enough lamposts or lengths of rope to hang the blue scum

There is plenty of red scum to hang to along side IDS.

Look beyond the colour of the badge. There are evil MP both side of the bench,

Until people get out of this stupid American style two party mentality we are doomed.

originally posted by: crazyewok


There is plenty of red scum to hang to along side IDS.

Look beyond the colour of the badge. There are evil MP both side of the bench,

Until people get out of this stupid American style two party mentality we are doomed.

Agreed, that's why I don't support Labour, but historically the tories have always sought to kill, imprison or enslave the most vulnerable in society. At least Labour pretend to care and up until recently genuinely did fight for the disadvantaged. There's no point trying to compare the two on this particular issue as historically the two have been polar opposites.

Sadly this election is the choice of the lesser of two evils. Its like comparing Chris Eubank to Mike Tyson - both are brutal and after blood but Eubank (Labour) are entertaining, engaging and have some charisma -- meanwhile Tyson (tories) are busy punching your head, biting your ears off and raping you up the wrong 'un without any lube or lipstick.

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: crazyewok


There is plenty of red scum to hang to along side IDS.

Look beyond the colour of the badge. There are evil MP both side of the bench,

Until people get out of this stupid American style two party mentality we are doomed.

Agreed, that's why I don't support Labour, but historically the tories have always sought to kill, imprison or enslave the most vulnerable in society. At least Labour pretend to care and up until recently genuinely did fight for the disadvantaged. There's no point trying to compare the two on this particular issue as historically the two have been polar opposites.

Sadly this election is the choice of the lesser of two evils. Its like comparing Chris Eubank to Mike Tyson - both are brutal and after blood but Eubank (Labour) are entertaining, engaging and have some charisma -- meanwhile Tyson (tories) are busy punching your head, biting your ears off and raping you up the wrong 'un without any lube or lipstick.

Sorry still voting for my Conservative MP.
Being entertaining not enough.

If I lived in IDK smith or Teressa Mays constituency I would vote labour......but I don't.

If your local conservative candidate is a right nob head then please I encourage you to vote labour.

But if you labour candidate is a scum bag then your just playing into the system.

PM is only as strong as the MPs in parliament.

This is going to be one of the most historic General Elections for a various number of reasons, so I'm going to be glued to the progression and results of this election.

I think it's obvious that the SNP will clean sweep through Scotland, which is very worrying. Having a devolved government north of the border already and then holding the balance of power in Westminster aswell is very dangerous for the future stability of the union.

I can see if things play out in a certain way, the English will be rioting on the streets.

I would say though, don't be blackmailed into voting for the establishment parties, just vote for who you believe in.

I know who I'm voting for, and it's definitely not for the establishment. I'm voting for change.

It's time to shake up politics, and regardless of what follows I'm sure out of the chaos a fairer and more balanced system will prevail.

originally posted by: DAZ21

I think it's obvious that the SNP will clean sweep through Scotland, which is very worrying. Having a devolved government north of the border already and the holding the balance of power in Westminster aswell is very dangerous for the future stability of the union.

I think Westminster could do with abit of chaos.

originally posted by: DAZ21
I can see if things play out in a certain way, the English will be rioting on the streets.

Maybe we need a good riot. Show the Yanks we dont need no second amendment to say F you to the government.

originally posted by: DAZ21
I would say though, don't be blackmailed into voting for the establishment parties, just vote for who you believe in.

That I agree on.

a reply to: crazyewok

Yep, it certainly is going to be an interesting few months.

originally posted by: DAZ21


I think it's obvious that the SNP will clean sweep through Scotland, which is very worrying. Having a devolved government north of the border already and then holding the balance of power in Westminster aswell is very dangerous for the future stability of the union.

A devolved Government. ? We had to beg for permission to mitigate the bedroom tax at the cost of £50 million a year from our London pocket money. 70% of decisions on Scotland are still made in London and the 30% we have been allowed are pretty much useless...some devolution that is.

Until we have full fiscal autonomy the unicorn will always be shackled.

originally posted by: DAZ21
.

I can see if things play out in a certain way, the English will be rioting on the streets.

No they wont, they will drink tea and tut as usual, But there is the problem of the EDL (educational deficiency League) they might start a fight or two. Apart from that, nothing much will happen.