Support NeoGAF

[Pie and Beans]

You know why I don't know what it's like to be unemployed? Because I always took whatever job I could get, my first job at university was to photocopy handouts for the lecturers, shit sucked. Before uni I worked part time in a newsagents (for less than the minimum wage no less) while I was at college, that was a terrible job but I wanted the money and it was the only job I could get at 16. My parents aren't wealthy and they couldn't afford my travel costs to college as well as my social life like my friends. Sucked for me because I would spend all of Saturday and Wednesday afternoons in a shitty newsagents earning £4.25/h (cash! ).

I don't think you really understand what shitty jobs are. Theyre certainly not office work photocopying things or even retail job. They're working in a fish factory, cleaning toilets, door to door sales work. You're from a different world, you'll never understand the otherside of the bullshit you sometimes spout.

In other news, although not terribly on topic, the Leveson Inquiry McMullan stuff from today was amazing.

He was a journalism student with Michael Gove.
"I'm quite pleased to say I finished at the top of my class and he finished at the bottom end and he's now minister for education."

I felt slightly proud that I had written something that created a riot and got a paediatrician beaten up.

He was asked to track down the woman who took John Major's virginity and found her in France.
"We found her but couldn't get picture of her with her new boyfriend. I think the cleaner was in so I blagged my way in and pinched it off the mantlepiece. Rebekah Brooks said 'No, put it back we're not allowed to nick stuff', but Piers [Morgan - former editor of the News of the World] said 'Well done'."

I absolutely loved giving chase to celebrities. Before Diana died it was such good fun. How many jobs can you have car chases in? It was great.

McMullan says he regrets the stories he did on Jennifer Elliott, the daughter of actor Denholm Elliott.

She became a drug user and started begging following the death of her father and the News of the World exposed this.

"I really regret it because I'd got to know her very well and I really quite liked her. The fact she was begging outside Chalk Farm station came from a police officer, who had been surprised when he asked her to move on.

I went too far on that story. Someone crying out for help, not crying out for a News of the World reporter.

I then took her back to her flat and took a load of pictures of her topless."

Privacy is for paedos; fundamentally nobody else needs it.

Panto villain season kicked off in style!!

 

[CHEEZMO™]

I'm almost sure he's a plant designed to bring everything down from inside.

It's truly ridiculous.

Also, even when he's dressed up for court he still looks like he just crawled out of a bin. Why/how is the dude so fucking scruffy all the time?

 

[Clay Davis]

You know why I don't know what it's like to be unemployed? Because I always took whatever job I could get, my first job at university was to photocopy handouts for the lecturers, shit sucked. Before uni I worked part time in a newsagents (for less than the minimum wage no less) while I was at college, that was a terrible job but I wanted the money and it was the only job I could get at 16. My parents aren't wealthy and they couldn't afford my travel costs to college as well as my social life like my friends. Sucked for me because I would spend all of Saturday and Wednesday afternoons in a shitty newsagents earning £4.25/h (cash! ).

Maybe I'm not a good example because I was motivated to make something of myself and worked hard to that end, but it's not like my parents helped me out with getting a job or internships/work experience at big companies that I could put on my CV at a later date.

How would you propose we increase the incentive to work? Raising the minimum wage will decrease employment in small business, it happens every time. Reducing the benefits withdrawal rate will cost billions that we as a country don't have. The logical and really only viable solution is to reduce unemployment benefits. If we had loads of money and time I would say reducing the withdrawal rate is a better way of reducing benefit dependency and getting people back into work. The problem is that we don't. Britain's situation is dire. The only reason we don't hear about how bad it actually is, is because the media and government pretty much keep it all out. The OBR report today was the first salvo and the downgrading of growth is going to continue until euro either breaks up or is saved. If it gets worse we are looking at a one way ticket to IMF town, and that means mass austerity imposed from above so worse cuts to unemployment benefits, abolition of a number of child related benefits and 2m public sector workers getting the sack overnight. Not something anyone wants to see.

isn't your dad a accountant? Someone who helps others get away with what us essentially tax evasion? That's what you claimed in the past. Also a man whose very well respected in his community and someone who very well connected.

I guess what im saying is, why lie?

 

[Meadows]

isn't your dad a accountant? Someone who helps others get away with what us essentially tax evasion? That's what you claimed in the past. Also a man whose very well respected in his community and someone who very well connected.

I guess what im saying is, why lie?

shit just got real

 

[CHEEZMO™]

 

[zomgbbqftw]

isn't your dad a accountant? Someone who helps others get away with what us essentially tax evasion? That's what you claimed in the past. Also a man whose very well respected in his community and someone who very well connected.

I guess what im saying is, why lie?

Yeah he is now. After like 20 years of being a clerk/bookkeeper he got on some government scheme to train as a chartered accountant in the early 90s. Before he got his qualification we were quite poor and for some time afterwards as well. I would say it was about 2003-2005 when our family became wealthy which was after my dad started his own accountancy practice. We moved out of the estate in about 1995 into my grandparents house so my sister and I could apply for nearby grammar schools but it wasn't until about 2002 that we had our own house and we moved out.

 

[louis89]

I don't think you really understand what shitty jobs are. Theyre certainly not office work photocopying things or even retail job. They're working in a fish factory, cleaning toilets, door to door sales work.

Sorry, but if you're unemployed and receiving benefits, you don't get to complain about having to work in a fish factory. You'd rather use taxpayer's money to live your life than earn your own? No sympathy for you.

There are jobs out there. You might not want to do them. They might be inconvenient for you and your family. But I have zero sympathy for someone who doesn't take a job that they could do and instead lives off the state. And I agree with zomgbbqftw that we should make it harder to be unemployed.

 

[frankie_baby]

Instead of trying to hurt the unemployed perhaps reform of our stupid housing benefit system that actually makes most people worse off if they get a job, as things stand for every pound someone earns over what they would've got on benefits they lose 90 pence in housing and council tax benefit, which could easily leave them only 10 or 20 pounds a week better off, then take into account their bus fares to get to work and that extra money could easily be wiped out, then take into account they'll lose the free school meals for their kids (costing them say 10 pounds a week per child) then take into account child care costs (yes they are mostly covered by tax credits but you still have to pay something) so basically why should they bother getting a job?

More help needs offering to low paid workers

 

[JonnyBrad]

On another note. We just chucked all Iranian diplomats out of the UK and closed their embassy.

 

[louis89]

On another note. We just chucked all Iranian diplomats out of the UK and closed their embassy.

Sounds about right.

 

[StealthGoblin]

I hope they are punished more severely. Cameron made it sound like he was going to fuck shit up.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

On another note. We just chucked all Iranian diplomats out of the UK and closed their embassy.

Well that's what happens when they don't ensure that British citizens and diplomats aren't under threat in their country. The Iranian government have a duty to make sure that foreign diplomats are protected from extremists and terrorists and allowing this attack to happen is not good for their international standing.

What could really hurt is the EU cutting off importations of Iran's oil. That will destroy their economy and hurt their nuclear ambitions. Britain has been campaigning for this for a while now and I think with this latest attack on the British embassies/consulates will give our argument a lot more weight and I can see it happening now.

 

[J Tourettes]

Instead of trying to hurt the unemployed perhaps reform of our stupid housing benefit system that actually makes most people worse off if they get a job, as things stand for every pound someone earns over what they would've got on benefits they lose 90 pence in housing and council tax benefit, which could easily leave them only 10 or 20 pounds a week better off, then take into account their bus fares to get to work and that extra money could easily be wiped out, then take into account they'll lose the free school meals for their kids (costing them say 10 pounds a week per child) then take into account child care costs (yes they are mostly covered by tax credits but you still have to pay something) so basically why should they bother getting a job?

More help needs offering to low paid workers

Housing benefit has already been reduced and there was outrage from many left leaning gorups.

 

[frankie_baby]

Housing benefit has already been reduced and there was outrage from many left leaning gorups.

THat was about restricting the maximum level of housing benefit that people can get and I'm not totally against that idea as there are some people in very expensive private rented properties getting housing benefit which does need reform, I'm thinking more about the people in social housing who get while on benefits all their rent paid but if they get a job they get screwed over big style and end up worse off, actually I got it slightly wrong its 85% of the extra money they'd get that they lose not 90 but that is ridiculous if say they made it only 60% (say for the first 100 a week they'd earn over benefit levels) you'd see a lot more people getting jobs (well you would if there were any jobs available)

 

[zomgbbqftw]

THat was about restricting the maximum level of housing benefit that people can get and I'm not totally against that idea as there are some people in very expensive private rented properties getting housing benefit which does need reform, I'm thinking more about the people in social housing who get while on benefits all their rent paid but if they get a job they get screwed over big style and end up worse off, actually I got it slightly wrong its 85% of the extra money they'd get that they lose not 90 but that is ridiculous if say they made it only 60% (say for the first 100 a week they'd earn over benefit levels) you'd see a lot more people getting jobs (well you would if there were any jobs available)

How do you propose to fund this reduction in withdrawal rate? This government already brought it down from about 93p to 84p and that cost about £1.5bn a year up front. Bringing it down to 50p like IDS wants is going to cost more than £7bn a year. Where is the money going to come from when we are already borrowing £127bn this year already. Either we make cuts elsewhere, raise taxes or borrow more to fund it. Raising taxes to give it to the unemployed or extra benefits for those who were recently unemployed is a non-starter. Cutting elsewhere is a possibility but it means larger cuts to public sector employment which is not going to be easy to swing with Lib Dems. Borrowing more is the worst of the options as it would mean higher interest rates and possibly losing the AAA rating that is currently keeping the nation's head above the water.

 

[frankie_baby]

How do you propose to fund this reduction in withdrawal rate? This government already brought it down from about 93p to 84p and that cost about £1.5bn a year up front. Bringing it down to 50p like IDS wants is going to cost more than £7bn a year. Where is the money going to come from when we are already borrowing £127bn this year already. Either we make cuts elsewhere, raise taxes or borrow more to fund it. Raising taxes to give it to the unemployed or extra benefits for those who were recently unemployed is a non-starter. Cutting elsewhere is a possibility but it means larger cuts to public sector employment which is not going to be easy to swing with Lib Dems. Borrowing more is the worst of the options as it would mean higher interest rates and possibly losing the AAA rating that is currently keeping the nation's head above the water.

Where could the money come from I really don't know however it does need to be done, our fucked up housing benefit system is the reason many many people don't work, if people have kids can you really blame them for staying at home when they'd be worse off and have less money for their kids by working

 

[dalin80]

Pretty rare but I actually finding myself agreeing with jeremy clarkson.... kind of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKVUIeAsbA&feature=player_embedded

 

[Dambrosi]

Pretty rare but I actually finding myself agreeing with jeremy clarkson.... kind of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEKVUIeAsbA&feature=player_embedded

Then you're a fascist. That's right, be ashamed of yourself. LOL, no, not really, but your grandparents didn't fight the Nazis during WW2 just so you could think like one.

The Beeb apologised for his comments almost immediately afterwards last night, so even they know he overstepped the boundaries this time. Even if said in jest, it still verges on hate speech, and deserves to be treated as such. I don't know about him being fired over it, though, like UNISON are demanding. He's still entitled to his opinion, even if he really should have kept it to himself - like you should have, dalin80.

Mind you, we always knew Clarkson was a massive tool, so there you go.

And frankie_baby is totally spot on. Rent/mortgage is the single biggest expense a person has to pay during his life, dwarfing taxes. Especially the low-paid; I had a call-centre job for five months, and the rent took over a third of my wages! And I live in social housing! Thank the gods I live so frugally anyway, and don't have any kids, or I'd have been royally fucked. I can definitely see where taking certain jobs at low wages just isn't worth it, no matter how much one wants to "stand on their own" and stop sucking on the government teat; for some people out there, such a thing just isn't financially feasible.

So what can be done? How about finding a way to bring down (or cap) rents, both social and private, across the board? But how could that be achieved?

 

[kharma45]

Sack Jeremy Clarkson over strike comments, Unison urges

The union said it was taking legal advice over comments made by the Top Gear presenter on The One Show.

"An apology is not enough - we are calling on the BBC to sack Jeremy Clarkson immediately.

"We are seeking urgent legal advice about what further action we can take against him and the BBC, and whether or not his comments should be referred to the police."

Typical Union bell-ends.

 

[Meadows]

going to the police is clearly a dick move

 

[J Tourettes]

As Charlie Brooker said, he's basically the rightwing version of him, nothing to see here.

 

[Dambrosi]

Indeed, like I said, no reason to sack him over this.

Just fine the cunt half his salary and get it done with.

 

[Chinner]

stirring up controversy is clarksons main business outside of top gear.

 

[sohois]

Clarkson is and always has been just a massive troll, the way Unison are reacting you'd think they knew nothing about him.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

As soon as I saw heard Clarkson was going to be on the one show I figured there would be some kind of controversy because it is goes out live without any kind of delay.

Clarkson is basically a a walking, talking version of the Daily Mail, Express and Telegraph rolled into a single person. Funny as hell and makes some good points, but goes well overboard. It is to be expected. Unison, acting with all of this faux outrage, are being a bunch of cunts. The BBC aren't going to lose their biggest star for the most viewed TV show in the world. Without him Top Gear is done and with it goes millions in commercial revenue from licensing and DVD/Blu-ray sales of new seasons.

The BBC have already apologised and you can't force a person to apologise for their opinion. All Unison are trying to do now is get the most popular right wing personality off TV through a very spurious legal challenge. I hope the BBC have the balls to stand up against such threats.

 

[mclem]

As Charlie Brooker said, he's basically the rightwing version of him, nothing to see here.

Charlie Brooker's commentary on this continues to prove that he is, indeed, Right About Everything.

 

[Empty]

a legal challenge is exactly the kind of reaction clarkson loves. now he has weeks of sun columns worth of materiai to use to mock humorless lefties trying to silence free speech and political correctness gone mad etc etc

 

[zomgbbqftw]

And frankie_baby is totally spot on. Rent/mortgage is the single biggest expense a person has to pay during his life, dwarfing taxes. Especially the low-paid; I had a call-centre job for five months, and the rent took over a third of my wages! And I live in social housing! Thank the gods I live so frugally anyway, and don't have any kids, or I'd have been royally fucked. I can definitely see where taking certain jobs at low wages just isn't worth it, no matter how much one wants to "stand on their own" and stop sucking on the government teat; for some people out there, such a thing just isn't financially feasible.

So what can be done? How about finding a way to bring down (or cap) rents, both social and private, across the board? But how could that be achieved?

Do you support the housing benefit cap then? It will bring down rents across the board as unscrupulous landlords aren't able to fleece local housing associations with outrageous rents pricing out private tenants as well as basically thieving from the government.

My favoured idea for rent control is to have a high marginal rate of capital gains and income tax on all property based investments (except new builds), I have been told that the government are looking at such a tax, but given the unpopularity with the Tory voter base it's not going to be easy to pass. Really Labour should have been looking at this kind of stuff, housing benefit caps, disincentives for property investments and speculation. Making buy-to-let more difficult and less profitable through higher taxes. Instead they blew up a massive housing bubble via massive speculation and funded a massive high street boom through debt.

I completely agree though, housing is the number one cost for a person and it needs to be brought down so that it is in line with 3-4x the average earnings. Right now the average house costs £160k and the average wage is £20k after tax. That's means a house is eight times higher, even a smaller flat is still out of reach by current lending standards. This is all without having to put together a 25-30% deposit in savings which is hard for people while they are paying rent at inflated rates because landlords know these young people have no choice.

Believe me, when it comes to housing I am one for lower house prices and massively increased availability, building a new economic boom on shaky foundations like a housing bubble is destined for disaster and I'm pleased the government are staying away from such actions.

 

[radioheadrule83]

I'm sure ITV / Channel 5 or Sky would LOVE him to get sacked. He's not going to though.

I did find what he said annoying, especially as he basically re-packaged a superficial, ignorant viewpoint in a 'funny' joke. He has no idea what he is talking about... and you're right, this kind of reaction is something he'll make the most of in his other job(s).

As outspoken as he is, I don't recall him ever saying a group of people should be taken out and shot. So I have no sympathy for him if it does cost him.

I was talking to my flatmate last night about my pension, and we struck on an interesting idea... pension schemes, in general, could be doomed - they might already be an idea of the past. We're all living too long, so annuities aren't good enough or sustainable, nobody wants to contribute alongside the employee in working life... It might be better and more tax efficient to stuff some of your money into an ISA or investment - although its probably not as safe. I do think the government should ensure (ie. enforce) that everyone has pension or savings, because basically this is a ticking time bomb that people just don't think about... they don't think ahead. We're not going to get to a situation where we just let old people go homeless and die - we're talking about significant social upheaval once we find ourselves with old people who can't afford to be housed / live, and young people looking on realising that thats whats in store for them too.

We were also talking about buy-to-lets and the rental game... why on earth would you invest in a house these days just to live in it? Buying property and renting it on is more lucrative, people are able to secure funding for buy-to-lets easier, people are able to have it cover the repayments AND earn them extra to cover some of their own mortgage. Stupidly high house prices are maintaining a market for lettings, and lettings are taking houses that could be sold off the market. The whole thing is ridiculous, and it engenders a way for the well-off to get richer, I don't like it - but I tell you what -- if its still this way next time I find myself with any money, I'll be doing it too.

 

[dalin80]

Then you're a fascist

thanks, I feel much more comfortable now I have a nice label.

Although I don't believe in most wars, a single party state or have any disagreements with democracy which rules out all the main tenants of facism, but please continue to throw words around even if you don't know the meaning of them.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Sack Jeremy Clarkson over strike comments, Unison urges


Typical Union bell-ends.

What could you arrest someone for who made a general non inciting joke? I know some British law, but I was unaware something like that could be a crime.

 

[phisheep]

What could you arrest someone for who made a general non inciting joke? I know some British law, but I was unaware something like that could be a crime.

Well, there's always "sending, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message of a menacing character" contrary to sub-sections 127(1)(a) and (3) of the Communications Act 2003. Paul Chambers got done for that in the infamous "twitter joke trial", though there is a further appeal coming up which I hope will overturn it.

 

[SmokyDave]

Well, there's always "sending, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message of a menacing character" contrary to sub-sections 127(1)(a) and (3) of the Communications Act 2003. Paul Chambers got done for that in the infamous "twitter joke trial", though there is a further appeal coming up which I hope will overturn it.

GAF doesn't count as 'a public electronic communications network' does it?

I may have an awful lot of posts to edit.

 

[phisheep]

GAF doesn't count as 'a public electronic communications network' does it?

I may have an awful lot of posts to edit.

As the law stands now, it probably does. But on the other hand they have to know who you are in order to find you to arrest you. Besides, what's life for if not for living on the edge a bit?

 

[CHEEZMO™]

But on the other hand they have to know who you are in order to find you to arrest you.

 

[Walshicus]

What could you arrest someone for who made a general non inciting joke? I know some British law, but I was unaware something like that could be a crime.

I'd imagine the crux would be whether it was incitement or not.

Frankly I'd be happy with any (just) outcome that saw Clarkson in gaol.

 

[SmokyDave]

^Damn my smug face

As the law stands now, it probably does. But on the other hand they have to know who you are in order to find you to arrest you. Besides, what's life for if not for living on the edge a bit?

OK. I'm going to refer to you as 'my lawyer' when this all comes down on my head.

"After advisement from my lawyer, a Mr Phi Sheep, I continued to post the messages of menacing character. The threat directed toward Mr Cheezmo was sincere and would've been carried out had your boys not arrested me first".

I'm set. Cheers!

 

[ZombieFred]

I would recommend people here to watch this, "Your Money and How They Spend It" with Nick Robinson (personally like the guy and his work). It really makes you think how insane we are with the economy.

 

[Biggzy]

I would recommend people here to watch this, "Your Money and How They Spend It" with Nick Robinson (personally like the guy and his work). It really makes you think how insane we are with the economy.

Just watched the first episode and I echo your statement that people should watch it.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

BBC just saying 20 protesters arrested outside the US embassy in London.

Might be members of Muslims Against Crusades or whatever it's called, apparently.

 

[defel]

Just watched the first episode and I echo your statement that people should watch it.

Ive watched both of these and its striking how much of what George Carlin says about voters here is true: people are generally too stupid, expect to much out of the political system or dont understand the real trade-offs that have to be made. People want a better healthcare system but arent prepared to accept higher taxes to pay for it.

Its refreshing to see politicians from the left and the right (Darling, Clarke, Lawson, Laws) speak about our financial problems with complete honesty without the political to-and-fro that we get from Osbourne, Cameron, Balls and Miliband.

Anyway its worth watching.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Ive watched both of these and its striking how much of what George Carlin says about voters here is true: people are generally too stupid, expect to much out of the political system or dont understand the real trade-offs that have to be made. People want a better healthcare system but arent prepared to accept higher taxes to pay for it.

Its refreshing to see politicians from the left and the right (Darling, Clarke, Lawson, Laws) speak about our financial problems with complete honesty without the political to-and-fro that we get from Osbourne, Cameron, Balls and Miliband.

Anyway its worth watching.

I haven't seen the show yet, I'll try and catch it tonight, but on the first point you are absolutely correct. From 2001-2010 Labour increased spending by an average of 3% a year but taxes only increased by around 1% a year. Labour said they were spending to improve public services which is fine but they were borrowing the money to pay for it because raising taxes to pay is a massive vote loser.

That is why I think Labour's credibility is shot, their figures don't add up in a boom let alone in a bust. The Tories are pretty honest about their motivation when it comes to tax and spending, lower taxes and reduced spending growth, in line or below economic growth so that taxes go down in real terms. Many people agree with that and many don't, but it is an honest proposition. Labour's default position has been to raise spending faster than economic growth without significant tax rises while borrowing the difference from the markets. In boom years this is effectively a free lunch, but in a bust that position is not at all sustainable and continuing this policy will end in bankruptcy for sure. If Labour offered a Scandinavian style social democracy policy where extra public service spending is funded through higher taxes it would be unpopular for a while but it would at least be honest. Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Norway have high tax yield economies and it funds high government spending slight more than the UK as a proportion of GDP. Sweden's peak deficit during the recent crisis was just 4.5% of GDP while ours was 13% of GDP. The Tory line of lower taxes and lower public spending growth is the economic model preferred by Canada and Switzerland, their peak deficits during the recent crisis were just 5% and 3.5% respectively.

It is the dishonest nature of Labour's economic policy that is the problem, there is no such thing as a free lunch, and Brown justified it by saying he had "put an end to boom and bust" which in reality is impossible. All that happened was Britain ended up the most exposed nation in the world to a crisis that started in banking and is moving onto sovereign debt. Once you add in Brown's disastrous financial regulation reforms and the formation of the FSA and defanging of the Bank which allowed bad practices in Britain's banks worse than the Baring's scandal in 1995 which was just a single rogue trader with a lack of oversight. UK banks had a systematic failure in risk analysis and risk management with a failure in oversight and an even bigger failure in the criminal justice system which has not brought those responsible for these failures to justice and sent them to prison. In fact many have been promoted to keep them out of harms way and are on over £200k per year so they don't cause trouble for the next few years. In 2008 the UK government was overspent, UK banks were overstretched and none of the perpetrators have been brought to justice.

Brown was happy to take the literally billions (about £70bn a year during the boom) of tax monies pouring in from the City but when his own regulatory reforms led to oversight failures he falls back and blames everyone else. That is my biggest irritation with Brown, after 10 years as Chancellor and 3 years as PM somehow none of the economic and fiscal problems facing the UK were his fault (according to him). His 7 year "free" lunch where he borrowed money during a boom and those disaster regulations is why Britain is fucked. There is very little the new coalition can do about this in the short term. In the long term financial regulations reforms like the ones currently championed by the Chancellor will make sure the banks are never overstretched and there will be no further bail outs. On spending, my preferred solution is to pass a balanced budget bill so that any government who wishes to spend money faster than economic growth without tax rises will have to rescind the bill and signal to the public and markets that they intend to destroy the economic and fiscal foundations like Labour have done just recently.

Anyway, that was a pretty long post and I should make it look like I'm working.

 

[radioheadrule83]

Watch the program man, it covers a few dishonest and silly tax ploys perpetrated by the tories too and gives the very real sense that all politicians to some extent - are stuck between a rock and a hard place - public expectations and reality. There was an insight into disagreements between Darling and Brown that were interesting too... you have to wonder if it might have not been so bad if Darling had been allowed to do what they believed would be a vote-loser. It really highlighted how ridiculously complex our tax system is as well, and touched on a few misconceptions about who pays what in society, and how poorly implemented taxation schemes are just dodged by those who can afford to anyway. I hadn't realised that Brown's film tax relief thing had caused losses for example, because TV stations started abusing it etc.

I don't like Nick Robinson, because I think he has an agenda at times, but it was refreshingly frank, it offered no answers - and posed only questions... a good summary of what we're faced with.

 

[Subliminal]

Jeremy clarkson is a cunt. We've known that for ages.

 

[PJV3]

Watch the program man, it covers a few dishonest and silly tax ploys perpetrated by the tories too and gives the very real sense that all politicians to some extent - are stuck between a rock and a hard place - public expectations and reality. There was an insight into disagreements between Darling and Brown that were interesting too... you have to wonder if it might have not been so bad if Darling had been allowed to do what they believed would be a vote-loser. It really highlighted how ridiculously complex our tax system is as well, and touched on a few misconceptions about who pays what in society, and how poorly implemented taxation schemes are just dodged by those who can afford to anyway. I hadn't realised that Brown's film tax relief thing had caused losses for example, because TV stations started abusing it etc.

I don't like Nick Robinson, because I think he has an agenda at times, but it was refreshingly frank, it offered no answers - and posed only questions... a good summary of what we're faced with.

There are apparently 11 trillion dollars hidden in tax havens, seeing as how they are mostly British dependencies we should invade the cunts and steal it, thats how this country got rich in the first place. As a bonus we would technically be invading ourselves so we could avoid claims of imperialism.

 

[Ashes]

Brown is a bad guy.

I think you are fitting a lot of blame onto Brown. Let's be completely clear here. What has the Tory government done since then that served the public interest *more* then the private interest of Corporation?

 

[Meadows]

I think you are fitting a lot of blame onto Brown. Let's be completely clear here. What has the Tory government done since then that served the public interest *more* then the private interest of Corporation?

kept the 50p tax rate and brought up the tax threshold, although that's probably more to do with the Lib Dems.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

I think you are fitting a lot of blame onto Brown. Let's be completely clear here. What has the Tory government done since then that served the public interest *more* then the private interest of Corporation?

Implementing the Vickers reforms, the raising of the personal allowance, education reforms that allow working class and kids from poor backgrounds a chance at getting education normally only available to the wealthy and middle classes, the unilateral bank balance sheet levy (which Labour opposed when in power), bringing down the real cost of borrowing from 4% to around 2.2%. The last measure alone saves the country £11bn annually from 2013/14 onwards.

There is a lot I think the government is doing wrong, we need to have massive tax cuts on capital investment and research to get job creation in industry going again and we need to be looking at raising taxes on consumption and property speculation and buy-to-let. You are looking at the argument all wrong tbh, if the government can create conditions that allows business to thrive and grow that will create jobs which is in the public interest. Chasing business away is not in the public interest because if corporations and business go to other tax jurisdictions thousands of jobs go with them.

Making sure business grow is in the public interest, people need to have jobs and unless you actually think the state can employ everyone and just print money to pay the bills forever. Lower taxes on business, investment and production is the most important thing this government will achieve. The first is happening and I have seen a slowing down of business investment contraction over the last couple of years and we think next year and the year after business investment will start to rise as corporation taxes start to become properly competitive. I know many capital businesses (those based in production) are said to be winning their argument for the introduction of massive capital allowances for investment which will ensure that factories and high tech manufacturing starts to grow again and more jobs are created. These measures are medium to long term as all supply side reforms are, but they still need to be enacted if Britain is going to start growing again and if jobs are going to be created.

 

[Ashes]

Three paragraphs, with each paragraph getting longer.

Now how about you tell us how much help big corporations have got from the current government.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Three paragraphs, with each paragraph getting longer.

Now how about you tell us how much help big corporations have got from the current government.

A reduction in the headline corporation tax rate to 26% and a reduction in the repatriation tax rate to 3.5% (both are part of the same package really). I honestly can't think of anything else. In 2013/14 when the corporation tax rate hits 23% I think we will see big private sector growth as we will be extremely competitive tax rates, and with it will come new jobs in construction, manufacturing and services - the three major sectors of our economy. Until then I think the measures for big business have been limited.

The government should be cutting state spending faster and implementing tax cuts faster as well. Get jobs out of the public sector and into the private sector. Since 2010 there has been a net transfer of 300,000 from the public sector to the private sector. If the government are successful that figure should be more like 1.2m in 2015/16.