The UK General Politics Thread Page 62

  • Page

    of 289 First / Last

  • Deleted user 3 December 2012 12:58:49
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    snip
    thanks
  • disusedgenius 3 Dec 2012 13:03:52 5,864 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    260 people enjoying themselves for a week apiece is exactly as obnoxious as one person enjoying it for 5 years.
    ...so you're claiming that that one person is 260 times more obnoxious than a standard tourist? Seems extreme, but ok!
  • Deleted user 3 December 2012 13:06:53
    disusedgenius wrote:
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    260 people enjoying themselves for a week apiece is exactly as obnoxious as one person enjoying it for 5 years.
    ...so you're claiming that that one person is 260 times more obnoxious than a standard tourist? Seems extreme, but ok!
    It's totally different behaviours. It's not about being obnoxious and it's not even specifically about spending money. It's about where any how they spend money. Tourist attractions bring in lots of money and provide lots of jobs. Tourists feed the economy in a very different way to the rich.
  • chopsen 3 Dec 2012 13:07:19 16,546 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Also, OK say he does nothing but stand in his drawing room. He's still paying UK rent to stand there, is it better he stands in a large drawing room in another country instead? Why?

    The problem is that everyone compares what the super rich pay with what they could pay, without realising that what they could pay is most likely zero.
    There is a lot of research that the differential between rich and poor is associated with all kinds of Bad Things [citation needed]. Does the loss of tax revenue matter in the face of the nuanced effect of more equal wealth distribution? Is it actually better to have rich people around? They just raise the prices of commodities like land, and consumer goods. A trickle of taxation does help that. And unless they're actively investing their money, having a pile of wealth stockpiled drives up inflation due to reduced supply of money.

    Edited by Chopsen at 13:07:34 03-12-2012
  • RobTheBuilder 3 Dec 2012 13:08:20 6,521 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Also fellow gamers. If we want to clamp down on dodgy tax avoidance we should remember it should make us pay more for games because play/amazon/etc have to pay proper tax on their channel island operations.
  • Moot_Point 3 Dec 2012 13:12:13 4,672 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    b_t_z_n:

    Say a company is globally headed in the US. It has a UK branch. It makes money from sales in the UK branch. It pays tax on that money. It then repatriates the money to the US (where the shareholders who want the money are). This is an income stream which also attracts tax in the US. Is it fair to pay tax twice?
    What? lol

    So you advocate that any company which is set up in one country, but trades in second country, should be exempt from tax in the second country?

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

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

  • MetalDog 3 Dec 2012 13:15:41 23,939 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Wouldn't that just drain money out of some countries and make the distribution of wealth even more criminally unbalanced than it already is?

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • Moot_Point 3 Dec 2012 13:19:21 4,672 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    MetalDog wrote:
    Wouldn't that just drain money out of some countries and make the distribution of wealth even more criminally unbalanced than it already is?
    Nah, its the future your overlords have planned for you. Economic inequality to the extreme.

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

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

  • MetalDog 3 Dec 2012 13:24:45 23,939 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Yeah, but what would happen with first world countries selling to third world countries? There's already one heck of an imbalance there, I can't see making selling stuff to them tax free as an improvement.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • Inertia 3 Dec 2012 13:26:42 677 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    @LeoliansBro

    And to see if you understand the argument in a rational way. What are some of the disadvantages of doing this? And some ways this could be used to advantage the bigger corporations in an anti-competitive manner.
  • Moot_Point 3 Dec 2012 13:33:02 4,672 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Moot_Point wrote:
    MetalDog wrote:
    Wouldn't that just drain money out of some countries and make the distribution of wealth even more criminally unbalanced than it already is?
    Nah, its the future your overlords have planned for you. Economic inequality to the extreme.
    You know that bit in Layer Cake where Daniel Craig is negotiating with the Duke, and he doesn't understand that his million pills with a street value of 5 a pop aren't going to net him 5m? You're like that, to be frank. Actually, you're more like Sasha, coked up and fidget-squawking over Duke's shoulder: 'FIVE ... POUND ... EACH yeah'.

    I think I speak for the forum when I say 'Sasha shut the fuck up!'
    Ooh, such lovely venom from a true capitalist. What are you doing here, mixing with the chaff of the world? We're all plebs, right?

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

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

  • Psychotext 3 Dec 2012 14:05:53 56,319 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    Also quality control will be much higher (due to both a homogenised model and the importance of eg Starbucks as a customer guaranteeing the best coffee beans go to them). If you don't like it, you should buy the more expensive, inferior coffee from smaller shops.
    I wouldn't use "Starbucks Quality" in the argument. It's been a long, long time since they were considered anywhere near the top of that particular tree.
  • Deleted user 3 December 2012 14:08:09
    Starbucks don't even position themselves as a coffee shop anymore. They're moving into being a general eatery and their compeition is defined as places like Pret and EAT.
  • Deleted user 3 December 2012 15:05:17
    The utopia is that the rich trickle down their wealth by paying for menial goods and services within the population off of which they made their money originally.

    If they can circumvent this then there is a systemic disconnect that needs to be fixed IMO.

    If I were cynical, I would guess that the system is as complex as it is for a reason.

    2 cents from a layman tbh.

    Edited by bitch_tits_zero_nine at 15:07:14 03-12-2012
  • whatfruit 3 Dec 2012 15:12:34 1,775 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    @LeoliansBro because the hole is too big and needs filling now is how I read it.

    bobomb wrote:
    so it's not really on her terms, it's on his terms, because she isn't real.

  • Page

    of 289 First / Last

Log in or register to reply