Chesterfield Online Forum
General Category => Politics => Topic started by: Pete on November 04, 2014, 08:07:49 PM
-
(http://www.ichesterfield.co.uk/images/media.jpg)
-
Who control's the media most people see. Oh yes, rich people !!
Something hit home with me whilst walking through Santa Eulalia harbour the other day.
There's probably a hundred boats, cruisers, yachts etc all moored up.
All worth well in excess of £50.000 to £500.000 each. All owned by people who might use them once a year !!
They're all so rich, the boat in the harbour is just a toy, something to use if they can be be bothered to go to it and use it.
Some might own their own jet to get to Ibiza, if they can be bothered to use it. Just another toy to them.
Do the rich rule the media and us !!
-
It makes a nice headline piece of reading for those of a more left leaning position but as with any statistics they can be manipulated to make a point. For example only 15% of the population are classed as immigrants. But how many more are first generation 'British' having been born to immigrants in the 50's and 60's. Only 3% goes to the unemployed. But how much more goes to people who are not working but claiming because they can't work? Case in point in the news today a body builder who claimed £28k in disability allowances whilst winning the Mr Wales title! Only 0.7% of benefits is claimed fraudulently. But equally only a fraction of non payment of tax is illegal as opposed to playing the system.
-
only a fraction of non payment of tax is illegal as opposed to playing the system.
Isn't a bgger portion of the non payed tax larger than the system fiddles ?
-
It makes a nice headline piece of reading for those of a more left leaning position but as with any statistics they can be manipulated to make a point. For example only 15% of the population are classed as immigrants. But how many more are first generation 'British' having been born to immigrants in the 50's and 60's. Only 3% goes to the unemployed. But how much more goes to people who are not working but claiming because they can't work?Wale Case in point in the news today a body builder who claimed £28k in disability allowances whilst winning the Mr s title! Only 0.7% of benefits is claimed fraudulently. But equally only a fraction of non payment of tax is illegal as opposed to playing the system.
and that is the type of person who has made life so difficult for the genuine people who can't work.
-
OC: Agreed
Fly: no and this is the argument. Take the case of Google Starbucks et al. Officially they broke no laws. Gary Barlow Jimmy Carr etc etc.
Broke no laws.
-
I mentioned the sums, not the legality JR
-
>> Broke no laws.
Only the spirit of the law.
Unlike us who pay up front, on time, in full.
Typical Tory arguments - workers get shit end of stick and pay their taxes - the rich and powerful get all the perks and pay no, or very little, in taxes.
Do you think that's fair? - I know it's legal, but is it fair?
-
Speaking of paying tax, has anyone had one of these?
New tax statements used to increase claimant hate
George Osborne has been criticised for sending millions of households annual tax statements that show the biggest chunk of their contribution going towards welfare, with trade unions describing it as “political propaganda masquerading as neutral information”.
The letters are due to fall on to doormats over the next few weeks but the Treasury has quietly dropped plans to provide a further breakdown of benefit spending on the document.
The annual tax statements, announced by the chancellor in March 2012, are to provide more than 24 million people with a visual illustration of how their taxes are being spent. In examples released by the Treasury, someone earning £30,000 a year would be told that £1,663 of their money goes towards welfare, £1,280 to health, £892 on education, and £822 to state pensions. Just £78 of their taxes goes towards overseas aid and £51 to the EU budget.
The letters are being sent – at a cost of £5m – after Osborne signalled that he wanted to make another £12bn of welfare cuts in the next parliament, raising suspicions that he is seeking to soften up voters in order to win political support for further reductions in the benefits budget.
Still trying to spew out hate to those on benefits >:
-
Fair? Of course it's not bloody fair.
But if you were in a position to do it, wouldn't you?
-
Personally on my current wage, no JR.
Our_Lass already pays no tax. She doesn't earn enough to pay it !!
But if you were in a position to do it, wouldn't you?
Yes !
-
Good reason to support mansion tax. Some of these that "bend the rules" on income will probably own £2M homes
-
Another attempt to stir hated towards the most in need they would make the Nazis so proud so whens the first gas chambers opening for welfare claimants well we got to save money some how? >:(
-
Mansion tax? They will just sell up and move abroad. The houses will be bought by the Russian oligarchs who don't pay arc here anyway.
-
Mansion tax? They will just sell up and move abroad. The houses will be bought by the Russian oligarchs who don't pay arc here anyway.
The way things are with Russia they might invaded instead of buying saves on lawyer fees.
-
>> They will just sell up and move abroad.
Good riddance!
-
Interesting sentiment given we would lose what tax they do pay.
Thats the argument the government also uses regarding lower business rates etc for banks businesses etc. Global companies/brands can take their corporate offices anywhere they like.
-
Sussed it. We're all doomed (y)
-
Unfortunately, they wouldn't go. They say they would, but they wouldn't.
Don't be such a defeatist Jon - they are a bunch bastards, happy to be bailed out to the tune of billions of pounds when they were in trouble.
Time for a change.
-
If they left cos they don't want to pay tax, how can we lose the tax they didn't pay?
I've heard these arguments before - it's like deja vu.
-
That's actually a very good point Pete. (y)
-
ok plucking figures out of the air,
Gary Barlow should if he played fair pay £500k in tax every year.
he gets some accountant to be cute with the rules and pays only £100k
we change the rules so that he has to pay £500k
He moves to LA and instead of being £400k up we are £100k down.
Google should have paid £218m
They paid £6m
They move their operations to Switzerland and we are £6m down.
-
Nah that behaviour is tantamount to blackmail - which, like terrorism, is something we should never give in to.
They are the financial bad guys - we dont want them.