I think good, defence is already too much of a monopoly, between the BAE tax and MoD incompetence we are already suffering from a surface fleet that couldn't invade a duck pond, a larger group with even less interest in British defence with fingers from France and Germany is not a good recipe. Just think of the Eurofighter, decades late and billions overbudget thanks to trying to satisfy several different countries, a single company cant accommodate such a area, several are needed for competition and choice.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
I think good, defence is already too much of a monopoly, between the BAE tax and MoD incompetence we are already suffering from a surface fleet that couldn't invade a duck pond, a larger group with even less interest in British defence with fingers from France and Germany is not a good recipe. Just think of the Eurofighter, decades late and billions overbudget thanks to trying to satisfy several different countries, a single company cant accommodate such a area, several are needed for competition and choice.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/table2-5.pdf
According to this chart from HMRC the top 8000 income tax payers (8000 people) pay 5.2% of all income tax. That is 0.02% of people paying 5% of total income tax generated. The "1%" pay 25% of all income tax generated. The top 10% pay 55% of total income tax.
In comparison, the bottom 27% pay just 3% of income tax generated. Progressive taxes are great for the majority but they only work by not pissing off the richest people. Punitive taxation means higher taxes for all of us as top rate players leave the country and tax take goes down.
These are not made up figures, they are from HMRC.
During that programme about India the other day there were people scrabbling around in dirt in drains to try and get the tiny amount of gold that runs off, which they then have to treat with acid.
My dad said, 'that's what the country could do with instead of benefit scroungers'.
I actually full on yelled at him for like an hour.
CyclopsRock
Member
Does that contribution include PAYE? Because doesn't Facebook make no money?
Their spokesman for energy is a climate change denier so yes.
£178 million revenue.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...branded-disingenuous-and-immoral-8206123.html
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
That's not so ridiculous given this new cabinet.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Corporation tax is paid on profit, not revenue. Facebook UK made a taxable profit of about £1.1m after striping out non-cash losses (related to employee option schemes) and paid tax of around £240k on the profit at a net rate of ~ 22% suggesting very small tax avoidance on the face of it. However, we don't know how much UK revenue was diverted through their Irish subsidiary, but that won't last for too long as the loophole is being closed in the next finance bill.
Taking the revenue figure and putting it against tax paid is not a sound way of calculating anything useful.
CyclopsRock
Member
Yes? Corporation tax isn't paid on revenue.
No, lets just close the loopholes so this is not possible, (Already being done I believe.) there's all kinds of swerves companies can take by playing off European tax rules off against one another, this needs to stop. The Facebook thing is a prime example of how just taxing anyone with some cash until the pips squeak doesn't work, all they do is set up business in a neighbouring country who charges less tax and pay them their tax bill instead, and because of EU rules and the free market this is perfectly legal.
Benefits do need better targeting too, instead of just handing them out to anyone who asks.
Why?
Psychotext
Member
I guess the trial is over then. I must have missed it.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
If downing street feels it has to have a facebook page, then it is going to attract this sort of stuff. Of course it will. It's nothing in particular to get hot about.
On the other hand, they might consider getting a few GAF mods in there to sort stuff out.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19922092
The first step on the long legal road to justice over Hillsborough.
The first step on the long legal road to justice over Hillsborough.
I am of the loony opinion that it's a good thing we don't require people to scrabble around in mud and acid to earn a subsistence living.
So it's only taken 2 years, flatlining economic activity and a double-dip for the IMF to finally realise that cutting spending during a recession is a bad idea.
Bravo, Christine Lagarde and all the rest of the lovely chaps at the IMF.
Of course, I don't expect Gideon to change course. Too damaging to his career. Poor chap :'(
Bravo, Christine Lagarde and all the rest of the lovely chaps at the IMF.
Of course, I don't expect Gideon to change course. Too damaging to his career. Poor chap :'(
Clay Davis
Member
what was even more surprising was that they apparently thought greece would growing by 1 per cent this year. I found that to be crazy, they really have no clue it seems.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Fun little article David Mitchell wrote for the Guardian yesterday, taking aim at old Gideon:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/14/workers-rights-shares-david-mitchell
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/14/workers-rights-shares-david-mitchell
Saw an advert encouraging people to vote for a police commissioner yesterday. Total scare tactics. Made it seems like the police would be disbanded we'd be swarmed by chavs and gypsies if you didn't vote. Saw it on Sky. Funnily enough haven't seen it appear on the less stupid channels.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Is it the one where they show faux CCTV footage of people on buses pretending to throw punches, and people smashing a bus stop, burglarising a home etc? I've seen that on the terrestrial channels if so.
I honestly don't see how these elections will make a difference, but I've been thinking of actually voting for the Merseyside election anyway... they're all saying pretty banal generic things to try and get themselves elected, but there's one guy (Kiron Reid) who I like the sound of. He was city councillor for Anfield for 9 years and he currently lives in Wavertree, so he's probably got a good idea of the kind of problems people face in the poorer areas of the city and a grasp on what's already been tried in terms of crime prevention... I'm happy with how we're policed here generally, but I wish some of the little scally shits were dealt with a bit more forcefully and I'm sick of seeing cars doing drug deals in broad daylight with impunity. I love Liverpool as a city, but it's brought down by a minority of horrible c**ts. I'd love to feel as safe and as positive living here as I felt in the South West.
Especially as their chief economist has came out and said that they got their calculations wrong. Instead of 1 % of cuts taking 0.5% out of GDP, they now say it is more like 1.7%.
That's a massive revision, and it's worrying because the original calculation is what governments have been using for their austerity measures - including our own.
travisbickle
Member
I'm sure a read I recent article about public opinion of capital punishment, and 70% wanted reinstatement. The country is full of reactionary blood-thirsty arseholes.
That's why I was confused about the calls for "police-state" over the arrest and charge of the geezer wearing the offensive police t-shirt. The police protect and serve the public, and the proceedings reflected public opinion so well.
Ask the public how they felt about a person with no previous convictions receiving a six month sentence for stealing a bottle of water at last years riots. Most would salivating at what they considered "true justice".
I don't even know who our candidates are. This whole PCC thing has been a complete farce. At this point it just seems like another highly-paid job for the major party stooges.
CyclopsRock
Member
If an organisation can go from a 50% multiplier to a 170% multiplier overnight, I think the only problem is that our government every listened to them. What their figure actually ends up being is more or less irrelevant now - they've had their figures thoroughly discredited.
Discredited or not, the IMF is still a very influential organisation. The problem is that the IMF is now saying that countries like the UK need to come up with a 'plan B' if growth does not pick up. George Osborne used the IMF's approval of his austerity plan to sell it to the public in 2010. Does he now heed the IMF's 'advice', or does he still stick with his 'plan A' - which makes him a hypocrite if he does.
CyclopsRock
Member
That's a purely political problem, though. And I agree, it is a problem for Osborne, for precisely the reasons you state. But it's not really a practical problem.
That said, I don't think it's quite as big a problem as you state. He used the IMF's backing to bolster his case, but his ideas weren't hinged upon the IMF's thumbs up, and never were. It's not even like the IMF have actually changed their mind, they're just saying that some cuts should slow down so as not to upset the balance of output.
gutter_trash
Banned
WTF, you guys will allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote in the Referndum?
what are you guys thinking?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19942638
what are you guys thinking?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19942638
Because they're the ones most likely to live with the consequences for the longest? I don't think there is a groundswell among the young for either opinion and there are countries with a voting age of 16 anyway.
It doesn't hinge no, but he did use the IMF's figures to formulate the governments austerity plans - the same figures that the IMF now admit are badly wrong. Also this gives Labour the ammunition they need to tell him and the public that even the IMF - who gave their blessing to the austerity program that Europe is now implementing - are now saying to ease up on the cuts and instead initiate more pro-growth policies.
I personally don't care what the IMF says, but this is just one more political problem that the coalition government could do without.
As 8bit says they are more likely to live through the consequences of the result. However, I think the real reason Salmond wants them to vote is because the SNP think they are more likely to vote for independence.
I personally think 16 year olds should be able to vote in elections, because at the moment they can pay tax but have no say what that money is spent on.
Psychotext
Member
Frankly I think if anything the interested ones would actually be more likely to read up on the issues / policies too than adults who just endlessly vote for the same party or party line.
I remember being young and not completely and utterly jaded.
I remember being young and not completely and utterly jaded.
radioheadrule83
Banned
I was politically/ideologically underdeveloped, naive and emotionally reactionary at 16. Everyone around me was too. Whenever I have ever thought I knew it all, knew what I wanted or knew what was best for me, anyone else or this country in general, I have often looked back with the benefit of age, experience and hindsight and felt differently -- but I think teenagers are particularly ignorant. You may feel jaded and world weary, but you're probably a lot more informed and invested in what happens too. I just don't feel we know enough of the world at that age.
I don't think its fair to ask a 16 year old to pay taxes toward a system they have no say in though, and the fact a 16yo can start a family or join the forces but not vote is a strange mismatch of responsibility..
Honestly? I don't want kids having the vote. They are just kids to me. Young adults at best. I know 16 year olds who would probably vote BNP or something, 16 year olds who would just mindlessly vote the way their parents do, I suspect parties would target the naivete of youth, effectively trying to exploit them, and I suspect the well educated 16 year olds would be more likely to vote than the poor, which would risk further entrenching privilege. Having said that, it could go the other way... Kids are being asked to pay for babyboomer greed right now, whether they know that or not, and its the youth who are finding it hardest to get work...
All I know is that I know I wasn't ready myself. I'd rather fewer 16 year olds started families or joined the forces, because I don't think most teens are mature enough for irreversible, life altering decisions of that gravity and magnitude either... We might have street wise teens in this country that take every opiate available and shag each other at will, but there's value in the life experience that you still continue growing well into your twenties and beyond. I'd prefer they didn't have to pay tax when working too.
Maybe if our education performed appreciably better I'd have more confidence in them.
I don't think its fair to ask a 16 year old to pay taxes toward a system they have no say in though, and the fact a 16yo can start a family or join the forces but not vote is a strange mismatch of responsibility..
Honestly? I don't want kids having the vote. They are just kids to me. Young adults at best. I know 16 year olds who would probably vote BNP or something, 16 year olds who would just mindlessly vote the way their parents do, I suspect parties would target the naivete of youth, effectively trying to exploit them, and I suspect the well educated 16 year olds would be more likely to vote than the poor, which would risk further entrenching privilege. Having said that, it could go the other way... Kids are being asked to pay for babyboomer greed right now, whether they know that or not, and its the youth who are finding it hardest to get work...
All I know is that I know I wasn't ready myself. I'd rather fewer 16 year olds started families or joined the forces, because I don't think most teens are mature enough for irreversible, life altering decisions of that gravity and magnitude either... We might have street wise teens in this country that take every opiate available and shag each other at will, but there's value in the life experience that you still continue growing well into your twenties and beyond. I'd prefer they didn't have to pay tax when working too.
Maybe if our education performed appreciably better I'd have more confidence in them.
Yea, pretty fucking disgraceful (depending on how much of that was actual profit, though I have no doubt loopholes would have been used to reduce paper profits). Just indicative of a larger systematic issue which revolves around greed. The audacity of the government to focus in on benefits and smaller fish whilst corporations and fat cats continue to get away with fraud of an infinitely greater financial and economic value. Facebook twice lately, with this new story and the shit they pulled surrounding over valuing of the company when they went public with shares.
My understanding is it was a concession made by Cameron to Salmond in exchange for taking any kind of DevoMax option off the ballot.
Salmond probably thinks he's got a lot of potential votes his way in that age groups I guess but I think Cameron won that deal.
I am of the opinion you generalise too much....
Or you are loony enough to think there aren't thousands on benefits who are gaming the system to avoid having to contribute.
It's not fraud, it's legal, complex and probably fully investigated by HMRC.
I get that it's legal, but my point was that this stuff is the real scandal, and the diversion tactics of the government and others to draw focus away from the corporations and elites duping the system and instead focusing on the lower end up the scale that is financially far less detrimental is a cruel farce. Such things should be no less illegal than benefit fraud.
Didn't Vodafone recently just get let off £6bn worth of taxes?
As far as i'm aware the estimated fraud level in the benefit system is under £2billion which oddly enough is only a bit more than the estimated underpayment of benefits
More money has probably been spent the legal costs of all appeals against ATO's exams in the ESA system compared to the statutory requirements.
regardless most of the changes being made aren't being done to combat fraud or have processes that are less likely to result in errors
People who commit benefit fraud should be punished, so should people who find reasons not to pay their publically expected level of tax, but you'll never catch all in any category without spending loads on investigators nullifying the point. The cost/gain ratio is what's important.
My attitude is that some parts of society have never had it so good, whilst lots of people are struggling to find regular enough work so they don't struggle to pay rising bills. This is unsustainable
I wasn't talking about fraud, I was talking about the fact that not everyone on benefits is using them as a stepping stone to work and instead using them as a way of life.