The UK General Politics Thread Page 58

  • Page

    of 190 First / Last

  • Moot_Point 30 Nov 2012 17:53:17 3,917 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Lib Dems slump below BNP support. I am sure this will not make Nick Clegg flinch, much!

    ================================================================================

    mowgli wrote: I thought the 1 married the .2 and founded Islam?

  • TheRealBadabing 30 Nov 2012 19:09:34 1,283 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    It's almost sad to see how far the LibDems have fallen since one of the worst decisions in political history. Only almost sad though, they brought it on themselves with their Faustian Bargain. Might as well disband at this point.
  • bladdard 30 Nov 2012 19:17:40 900 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    @Moot_Point

    Nick Clegg is either in massive denial or aware being junior partner to the nasty party will wipe his party out of existence but is happy to make hay while the sun shines.

    I voted libdem at the last general election but this government in no way represents the values of the party I thought I'd voted for.
  • Clive_Dunn 30 Nov 2012 19:23:24 4,775 posts
    Seen 4 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Goodbye Nick Clegg, wasn't very nice knowing you. Going into this coalition was possibly the most arrogant political decision of the last 50 years, the Social Democrat wing of that party was always were the majority of the popular support came from - ignoring that and going with the Liberal side was always going to end in disaster.
  • Ginger 30 Nov 2012 19:28:19 6,827 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    bladdard wrote:
    I voted libdem at the last general election but this government in no way represents the values of the party I thought I'd voted for. that's because the party you and I voted for didn't win. They are a minority part of this government and hence have influence but not control over the overall government.

    London open taekwondo champion

  • DaM 30 Nov 2012 19:33:50 12,901 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    The thought of a Tory/UKIP coalition is the best argument for Scottish independence yet.
  • Ginger 30 Nov 2012 19:35:14 6,827 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    DaM wrote:
    The thought of a Tory/UKIP coalition is the best argument for Scottish independence yet.
    it's the best argument for emigration yet.

    Edited by Ginger at 19:35:30 30-11-2012

    London open taekwondo champion

  • Load_2.0 2 Dec 2012 11:22:59 18,919 posts
    Seen 26 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Watched George Osborne this morning, hardly inspires confidence.

    His attitude is infuriating, especially with regard to tax avoidance for multinationals.

    "Oh we must make sure that we are still appealing to large organisations and don't lose their business!" Of course there has to be a unified approach from multiple countries to enforce fair levels of taxation, the idea that they will shut down operations in the UK is preposterous. It is the same rhetoric bandied about a year or two back that the Banking and Finance industry wuld suddenly up-sticks and relocate to Singapore or Hong Kong if they and the bonus system was targetted. Fucking bullshit.

    Fuck Starbucks, fuck their business and their bullshit "non profit" tax dodging. They must be due to close up shop anyday now given they haven't made a single penny in profit in 14 years. So they can fuck off.

    What about the small business owner, they pay tax, they don't recieve any tax breaks, independants struggle to get financial support at all. How can you compete with a starbucks?

    When you have a business that is engaged in an activity that is IMO borderline criminal, they shouldn't be treated with kid gloves.

    Looking for a revenue source? Pension and Welfare? Yes. Multinational tax dodgers? Nope.
  • Moot_Point 2 Dec 2012 11:45:01 3,917 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    How MPs avoided expenses payback. Nice to see that MP's are still profiting, whilst those less fortunate still have to tighten their belts.

    ================================================================================

    mowgli wrote: I thought the 1 married the .2 and founded Islam?

  • Bremenacht 2 Dec 2012 12:11:06 17,613 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Yeah. The truth is that if the demand or requirement for products or services is there, then any company that fucked off abroad would find that another company took its place. That's demand and supply. That's what healthy competition does.

    By tolerating this tax-dodging, the chancellor and HMRC are at the very least distorting competition, most probably damaging it.
  • senso-ji 2 Dec 2012 13:39:47 5,795 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Load_2.0 wrote:
    Fuck Starbucks, fuck their business and their bullshit "non profit" tax dodging. They must be due to close up shop anyday now given they haven't made a single penny in profit in 14 years. So they can fuck off.
    This x1000

    Not profitable my arse; you just need to look at the number of Starbucks in each major city to know that they are doing very well here in the UK. If McDonald's and Subway told us they were not making any profit, people would laugh in their faces.
  • Psychotext 3 Dec 2012 10:28:24 53,849 posts
    Seen 10 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Load_2.0 wrote:
    Watched George Osborne this morning, hardly inspires confidence.

    His attitude is infuriating, especially with regard to tax avoidance for multinationals.

    "Oh we must make sure that we are still appealing to large organisations and don't lose their business!" Of course there has to be a unified approach from multiple countries to enforce fair levels of taxation, the idea that they will shut down operations in the UK is preposterous. It is the same rhetoric bandied about a year or two back that the Banking and Finance industry wuld suddenly up-sticks and relocate to Singapore or Hong Kong if they and the bonus system was targetted. Fucking bullshit.
    You're talking about the guy who gave the rich a tax cut because they were using tax avoidance measures. The guy is an unmitigated fucknugget.
  • kalel 3 Dec 2012 10:30:46 86,409 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Not really sure what choice LibDems had but to go into the coalition. Circumstances fucked them really.
  • Moot_Point 3 Dec 2012 10:34:29 3,917 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    We will get you! Your credit card spending will be used to ensure you are paying the optimum amount of tax.

    ================================================================================

    mowgli wrote: I thought the 1 married the .2 and founded Islam?

  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 10:35:45 43,236 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    senso-ji wrote:
    Load_2.0 wrote:
    Fuck Starbucks, fuck their business and their bullshit "non profit" tax dodging. They must be due to close up shop anyday now given they haven't made a single penny in profit in 14 years. So they can fuck off.
    This x1000

    Not profitable my arse; you just need to look at the number of Starbucks in each major city to know that they are doing very well here in the UK. If McDonald's and Subway told us they were not making any profit, people would laugh in their faces.
    The problem with this is that paying tax isn't the only benefit Starbucks brings to the UK economy. Say they fuck off as you suggest? How many people would lose their job?

    In the wider scheme of things I'm not that fussed that a company is break even, as profit is technically a wasted opportunity to reinvest in your business.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 10:36:48 43,236 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Moot_Point wrote:
    We will get you! Your credit card spending will be used to ensure you are paying the optimum amount of tax.
    This is pretty good given how lacklustre some of Osbourne's ideas have been.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • kalel 3 Dec 2012 10:37:54 86,409 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I severely doubt the high-coveted high street spots Starbucks take up would remain empty should they fuck off. I'm sure a very similar tax-paying operation like Costa would be happy to step in. They'd make better coffee as well.
  • RedSparrows 3 Dec 2012 10:38:27 22,069 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I thought that the idea was, if one company fucks off, another would fill its place: isn't that the point of competition?
  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 10:39:16 43,236 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Why if there's a Costa next door? And do you suppose Costa doesn't avail itself of similar tax breaks? And not all Starbucks employees are baristas.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • TheSaint 3 Dec 2012 10:39:31 14,201 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Meh, Starbucks aren't breaking the law and they are filling a lot of retail units and employing a lot of people.

    The high and mighty attitude some of the media are taking when they are doing all they can to avoid tax / help their employees minimise their tax bill is pissing me off more.
  • Moot_Point 3 Dec 2012 10:39:33 3,917 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Theresa May enforces the use of the internet big brother.

    ================================================================================

    mowgli wrote: I thought the 1 married the .2 and founded Islam?

  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 10:40:33 43,236 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    RedSparrows wrote:
    I thought that the idea was, if one company fucks off, another would fill its place: isn't that the point of competition?
    Eh?

    There's is no 'point' to competition. It is certainly something you should be encouraging however, which is what everyone seems to be missing in this 'Starbucks can fuck off' tirade.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • senso-ji 3 Dec 2012 10:41:11 5,795 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    The problem with this is that paying tax isn't the only benefit Starbucks brings to the UK economy. Say they fuck off as you suggest? How many people would lose their job?
    It's not that straight forward; a lot of Starbucks' employees are on low wages, and some need Child Tax credits and Council Tax benefits to help them make ends meet. Schemes that need to be paid for with taxation that Starbucks don't contribute to.
  • TheSaint 3 Dec 2012 10:42:24 14,201 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Why if there's a Costa next door? And do you suppose Costa doesn't avail itself of similar tax breaks? And not all Starbucks employees are baristas.
    Apparently Costa don't use any of these loop holes. I'm fairly sure that if I was a Whitbread shareholder then I would be asking why at the next AGM.
  • RedSparrows 3 Dec 2012 10:43:34 22,069 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    RedSparrows wrote:
    I thought that the idea was, if one company fucks off, another would fill its place: isn't that the point of competition?
    Eh?

    There's is no 'point' to competition. It is certainly something you should be encouraging however, which is what everyone seems to be missing in this 'Starbucks can fuck off' tirade.
    I mean as a basic, fundamental principle that underpins all market economies - so if Starbucks did fuck off (voluntarily, due to an 'unfair' tax regimen), they'd be losing out enormously. The 'point' of competition being an incentive to stay in the game. If you see what I mean.*

    *Not sure what I mean.
  • TheSaint 3 Dec 2012 10:44:02 14,201 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    senso-ji wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    The problem with this is that paying tax isn't the only benefit Starbucks brings to the UK economy. Say they fuck off as you suggest? How many people would lose their job?
    It's not that straight forward; a lot of Starbucks' employees are on low wages, and some need Child Tax credits and Council Tax benefits to help them make ends meet. Schemes that need to be paid for with taxation that Starbucks don't contribute to.
    They only minimise their corporation tax bill, they still pay at lot of other taxes.
  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 10:44:17 43,236 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    senso-ji wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    The problem with this is that paying tax isn't the only benefit Starbucks brings to the UK economy. Say they fuck off as you suggest? How many people would lose their job?
    It's not that straight forward; a lot of Starbucks' employees are on low wages, and some need Child Tax credits and Council Tax benefits to help them make ends meet. Schemes that need to be paid for with taxation that Starbucks don't contribute to.
    Thank God for all those bankers earning massive bonuses and contributing 50% in tax then. Philanthropic legends to a man ;)

    Seriously, I take your point, but don't forget Starbucks have given them jobs as well.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • LeoliansBro 3 Dec 2012 10:47:26 43,236 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    RedSparrows wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    RedSparrows wrote:
    I thought that the idea was, if one company fucks off, another would fill its place: isn't that the point of competition?
    Eh?

    There's is no 'point' to competition. It is certainly something you should be encouraging however, which is what everyone seems to be missing in this 'Starbucks can fuck off' tirade.
    I mean as a basic, fundamental principle that underpins all market economies - so if Starbucks did fuck off (voluntarily, due to an 'unfair' tax regimen), they'd be losing out enormously. The 'point' of competition being an incentive to stay in the game. If you see what I mean.*

    *Not sure what I mean.
    We, as consumers, want as much competition to provide us with goods ans services as possible. It keeps suppliers honest, it drives down prices, it gies us a greater choice.

    The best way to object to Starbucks not making enough profit which is taxed in the UK is to boycott their products. If enough people do it, then they will be faced with trading issues. If not enough people do it, then it obviously isn't that important to a lot of people. If you don't do it, you're part of the problem and any ourtage is dangerously close to insincere.

    LB, you really are a massive geek.

  • RedSparrows 3 Dec 2012 10:48:35 22,069 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I don't go to them because Starbucks (and Costa, and all of them) are full of cunts reading shit books.

    Plus I don't care much for coffee.

    /rebel

    Edited by RedSparrows at 10:50:48 03-12-2012
  • RobTheBuilder 3 Dec 2012 10:49:06 6,521 posts
    Seen 8 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @senso-ji well put.
    Though not as bad as Walmart in the Us that costs the country billions in care that has to be provided because their wages are so low
  • Page

    of 190 First / Last

Log in or register to reply