Public sector still wasting money on non-jobs, jollies and needless PR

[mj.scuba]

Private donations that there is no tax on, because it is a charity. Which makes it our business.

 

Correct it is a registered charity afaik.

[RonJeremy]

No not guessing at all. Making a point about their hypocrisy.

 

We know from the limited information we have about them one of their Directors pays no tax in the UK at all.

 

We also know from the comments they make that they defend tax avoidance.

 

Where is their concern at the damage that tax avoidance does to the economy?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/feb/02/tax-gap-avoidance

 

There is none. They aren't interested in public finances or efficiency. They are a lobby group for the interests of dodgy millionaires.

 

No - your post said, and I quote-

the Taxpayer's Alliance being funded by people that avoid paying tax?

you have utterly failed to prove or even nearly prove this claim.

Once again you are stating things as fact which are not.

"disobeying" the truth this time.

[biotechpete]

There's no such thing as a non-job. There are jobs with silly titles and there are jobs that some people are ideologically opposed to, like Equality Officers.

 

Tell that to my boss, who was told yesterday that he wasn't allowed to give a satisfaction survey for his patients to fill in about his clinic, because it hadn't been 'approved'. His exact words to me were "That's a job we could all do much better without."

[Wildcat]

No - your post said, and I quote-

 

you have utterly failed to prove or even nearly prove this claim.

Once again you are stating things as fact which are not.

"disobeying" the truth this time.

 

Do you think advertising the fact you don't understand the significance of question marks makes you look clever?

[RonJeremy]

Do you think advertising the fact you don't understand the significance of question marks makes you look clever?

 

OMG you'll twist anything round rather than admit that you are wrong:loopy:

[Alien]

OMG you'll twist anything round rather than admit that you are wrong:loopy:

 

 

 

Maybe if you had read the statement as a question rather than a statement of fact you wouldn't have to resort to accusations?

 

 

Notice the ? at the end of the above statement. It wasn't an accusation or a statement of fact, but a question..

[JFKvsNixon]

I hear the PCT is issuing redundancy warnings by the sack load.

 

Isn't there a proposal to abolish all the PCTs?

[RonJeremy]

Maybe if you had read the statement as a question rather than a statement of fact you wouldn't have to resort to accusations?

 

 

Notice the ? at the end of the above statement. It wasn't an accusation or a statement of fact, but a question..

 

Now you are being disingenuous (sp?) too-the whole phrase was

Not sure how your point relates to the dishonesty of an organisation calling itself the Taxpayer's Alliance being funded by people that avoid paying tax?

 

The question mark usually, in any sense, would relate to the interogative word "how". The part I quoted (I accept that, erroneously, I should not have actually quoted the question mark). The phrase "the Taxpayer's Alliance being funded by people that avoid paying tax" itself was an attempt to state a fact within the whole question.

So I assume that you both accept that it is not true that they are funded by people who avoid tax. (any more than anyone avoids paying tax, other than those who do the lottery)

 

Thought as much