Turn on thread page Beta

Funny how those marching today want higher taxes and less cuts?? watch

Announcements
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by isaqyi)
    HSBC wasn't bailed out by the Government. They were one of the strongest banks and Britain has driven them away.
    Did't they say that was ideal speculation and they are committed to London?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Scaremongering that hasn't materialised? Puts me in mind of the same tactics employed when the Tories criticised Labour for brings in the minimum wage...small employers will go bust, and jobs will be lost...:rolleyes:
    Actually quite a few hedge funds in the city have moved to Switzerland already, these are the ones with high net worth individuals who contribute to HMRC tax receipts.
    Also, HSBC have been rumoured to move to Hong Kong because they think the government is simply pandering to public pressure to introduce bank levies on borrowings outside the UK. They came out and said it was speculation few weeks ago but there is unlikely to be smoke without fire for rumors that have been going on for some time now.
    The use of Ireland as an example is disingenuous as the Irish property bubble had burst and the losses there were gigantic compared to the profits of low corporation tax. A better example would be WPP's chief executive talking about moving back to the UK after the cuts in corporation tax were announced.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Unions went out in the 60's. Also Francis Maude has just been on sayng "the cuts will be driven through"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Can't see over 100 billion coming from closing tax loopholes and tax avoidance
    HMR estimates it at about £121 billion, actually.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aaargh)
    HMR estimates it at about £121 billion, actually.
    And how long of this will we actually get? How long will it take? The government is trying to clamp down on it but its hardly a simple thing to do.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by london12)
    Which party caused us to go begging to the IMF in the 1970s?

    (Every time Labour have been in power, since the 1970s, we've been bankrupt after........)
    Ever heard of Black Wednesday?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by karateworm)
    Ever heard of Black Wednesday?
    Inevitable. Had Labour managed to win the 92 election they would have been removed during the 97 election as a result.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I know that our country is probably too overpopulated for this to happen, but if we were allowed to start again surely the swedish economic model would be better. Their combination of socialism and capitalism in the right areas allows their people to enjoy a high quality of life with high government spending yet are still competitive when it comes to exports.

    Back to the subject it's funny how these Tory-fanboys forget that while the Obama-administation have persued a less aggressive strategy of cutting government spending than the UK but reletively speaking have been doing better economically.

    People blame labour for the economic crisis but it was a worldwide phenomenon, Germany suffered despite having a right wing government so did Australia. One of the ways to prevent this type of thing happening would be by having a less globalised economy with more restriction, but that would screw us over too.

    This cutting strategy is just political tool, the idea being that the deficit would be down just before the next general election, so that the Conservative party after putting the country through five years of austerity could pat themselves on the back and use their propaganda machine to tell us all how they got the uk economy back on track o that they get in again.

    It was Reagan and Thatcher who promoted fiercesome levels of lending to poor people what created the toxic assets, which lead to the meltdown anyway. We bailed out the banks and rightly so actually, afterall who else actually makes money for this country anymore anyway?
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by yawn)
    Sure - here's some suggestions as to alternatives. You just need to search the web to find many others.

    [B]
    http://www.proudtoservethepublic.org...ublic-services
    All badly researched, misunderstood and poorly argued.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Orichalon)
    All badly researched, misunderstood and poorly argued.
    Can we have your research then for your conclusion, rather than just your own opinion?

    Thank you.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by yawn)
    Taxation does not need to rise if we don't go with cuts.

    Dealing effectively and determinedly with tax avoidance and tax evasion would bring in 10's of billions of pounds to the nation's purse. Simples...

    Cuts on the scale proposed, on the other hand, will cause massive lasting damage to our economy and our society.
    Tax avoidance is 100% legal. Tax evasion however is not.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aaargh)
    I was just pointing out that the money's there.
    Personally, I would even settle for them simply talking about it a bit more; we hear so much about benefit cheats, even more about how spending money on things like libraries and children's playgrounds is such a disgraceful waste of money, but not a word of opposition to Vodafone dodging their £6bn tax bill. Just for once I'd like to hear Osbourne talk without his voice being muffled by the arse cheeks of big business and the banking sector.
    Just to be clear, when you want to clamp down on "tax dodgers", that also includes people who use gift aid, charity and sending or stashing money abroad to reduce their tax bill as well yeah? How about employers who have more employers in one country but their HQs are in another to pay less tax? You want to go after them as well yeah? Lastly, could you provide a basic estimate of how much this giant operation will cost us, and how effective do you actually see it being?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by london12)
    Our debt INTEREST is 70bn a year........ you wouldnt even pay off the INTEREST with your idea!

    Get the full scope of the problem now??
    Source?

    The OBR says its £40bn

    http://cdn.budgetresponsibility.inde...k_23032011.pdf

    (page 132)
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by yawn)
    Can we have your research then for your conclusion, rather than just your own opinion?

    Thank you.
    Surely this whole thread is simply a collection of people's opinions? Besides, your research is entirely sufficient for me to reach my conclusion. I disagree with anyone closed-minded enough as to believe that simply by taxing the 'fat-cat' bankers, pursuing those 'fat-cat' tax-evaders and scrapping as much of the armed forces as possible, whilst continuing to poor money into a bloated public sector is the way for us to rebound economically.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Tax avoidance is 100% legal. Tax evasion however is not.
    I think we all know that. However, Osborne said he is going to do everything possible to close all loopholes that have consistently been exploited to ensure equanimity and to ensure that 'we are all in this together.' :rolleyes:

    Did you know that Barclays Bank paid 1% tax on their mega profits in the last accounting year?

    Barclays Bank has been forced to admit it paid just £113m in UK corporation tax in 2009 – a year when it rang up a record £11.6bn of profits.

    The admission stunned politicians and tax campaigners. It was revealed on the eve of a day of protests planned against the high street banks by activists from UK Uncut, a group set up five months ago to oppose government cuts and corporate tax avoidance.
    The Labour MP Chuka Umunna, who lobbied Barclays’ chief executive, Bob Diamond, to reveal the tax paid by the bank, described the figure – just 1% of its 2009 profits – as “shocking”.
    How obscene is that?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Orichalon)
    Surely this whole thread is simply a collection of people's opinions? Besides, your research is entirely sufficient for me to reach my conclusion. I disagree with anyone closed-minded enough as to believe that simply by taxing the 'fat-cat' bankers, pursuing those 'fat-cat' tax-evaders and scrapping as much of the armed forces as possible, whilst continuing to poor money into a bloated public sector is the way for us to rebound economically.
    You have produced no evidence for your conclusion though, basing it on your perceived faults of the writer's argument. Whilst the thread is a collection of people's opinions, the whole thrust of the forum is that one produces reasoning for their opinion. No one should expect personal opinion to go unchallenged on D&D.

    My conclusion therefore is that you have no evidence to counteract the arguments which led you to your conclusion.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Taxation does not need to rise if we don't go with cuts.

    Dealing effectively and determinedly with tax avoidance and tax evasion would bring in 10's of billions of pounds to the nation's purse. Simples...

    Cuts on the scale proposed, on the other hand, will cause massive lasting damage to our economy and our society.
    Perfectly legal?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Perfectly legal?
    See my post #56...:yawn:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    See my post #56...:yawn:
    When i looked up i did notice it, my bad .
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by london12)
    Which party caused us to go begging to the IMF in the 1970s?
    Just to tackle this point, this is argument about 'Labour going to the IMF in 1976' is slightly misleading. When they released (after the 30 year mandatory period) the classified documents in 2005, the Treasury reports from 1974 and 1975 showed what had gone on. There had been a Conservative government led by Ted Heath from 1970 to 1974. It collapsed in the midst of high inflation high unemployment and massive industrial unrest, the miners strike brought him down. In 1974 the Treasury warned the incoming Labour Chancellor Denis Healey that the country faced bankruptcy as a result of the mess they had inherited from the HEATH government. Healey didn't want to go to the IMF. They warned him again in 1975 and Healey tried to avoid going to the IMF. In 1976 he went to the IMF.

    Maybe it would have been better in hindsight if they had just gone straight to the IMF in 1974 but they obviously didn't want to start a new term of office being dictated to by the IMF.

    Now many years on, some Tories brought that up in the last election campaign "we went to the IMF under Labour in 1976" notwithstanding the fact that the course had been set under Heath's disastrous period of government before (which even many Tories now look down as a low point in Conservative governments).

    If the UK slips back into recession as a result of these cuts, and Osborne is forced into the hands of the IMF, like happened when Ireland brought in their austerity measures, then I expect history will damn the Tories as being the ones who went begging to the IMF!
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.