Almost £4b more in cuts coming in the budget.

[I1L2T3]

I don't know - but you do seem to.

 

And Ricgem just refered to people who provide employment in this country as parasites.

 

I don't like aggressive tax avoidance, or evasion. Neither does George Osborne.

 

Doesn't mean I hate the people though.

 

Ricgem can say whatever he/she wants.

[Eric Arthur]

WI'm not a socialist, or a supporter of an authoritarian state.

I'm always open to having my mind changed so I'm pleased to hear it, though you do a passable impression of being generally socialist by nature. The written word can be so beguilling.

 

All states are by definition authoritarian. The trick is to have as little of it (state) as possible so that consent can be deemed instead of assumed. You'll understand that the only logical and moral position that I can hold is for everyone, personal and corporate, to give the state as little as possible and by extension for the state to cut as much as possible to provide as little as possible. Say what you like, but I'm nothing if not consistent.

[I1L2T3]

I'm always open to having my mind changed so I'm pleased to hear it, though you do a passable impression of being generally socialist by nature. The written word can be so beguilling.

 

All states are by definition authoritarian. The trick is to have as little of it (state) as possible so that consent can be deemed instead of assumed. You'll understand that the only logical and moral position that I can hold is for everyone, personal and corporate, to give the state as little as possible and by extension for the state to cut as much as possible to provide as little as possible. Say what you like, but I'm nothing if not consistent.

 

I'd describe myself as a social democrat. That is not the same as being a socialist. The party I identify most closely with is the Greens (although I still have some major issues with some policies). I fully believe in the process of devolving decision making from central government, i.e. subsidiarity.

[*_ash_*]

What drugs are you on ricgem? I want some

[banjodeano]

Those 9 million low earners could work a bit harder and pay more tax instead of leaving it to the top earners.

your logic dismays me at times Eric...............

 

---------- Post added 15-03-2016 at 09:02 ----------

 

Tax isn't meant to be fair, you only pay what's due, not what you think should be due. That even applies to politicians.

 

---------- Post added 14-03-2016 at 14:12 ----------

 

 

That is exactly what banjodeano is doing.

 

Poor poor answer Eric, but we didnt expect anything else from a serf

[Hesther]

 

That is exactly what banjodeano is doing.

 

I'm sorry because I don't like doing this, but Eric, that is an outright lie.

 

Banjodeano has put the link which proves his point....

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osborne-receives-dividend-payment-from-family-business-that-pays-no-corporation-tax-a6873151.html

[foxy lady]

I'm sorry because I don't like doing this, but Eric, that is an outright lie.

 

Banjodeano has put the link which proves his point....

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osborne-receives-dividend-payment-from-family-business-that-pays-no-corporation-tax-a6873151.html

 

I'm afraid it is absolute nonsense. There is a tax system in force and companies pay the amount they are required to pay based on the profit they make. They are not required to pay tax on newspaper stories. However if you feel really strongly about this you can go and report it to the tax man. Indeed you can obtain a copy of the aucited accounts and look for any discrepency that might exist. But as the accounts will have been fully audited by a firm of chartered accountants who have a reputation to uphold the accounts will be spot on to the penny, and the amount of tax that should be paid will have been paid. Not a penny less, and the bit that gets up your nose, not a penny more.

 

You probably missed this bit in your haste to point the finger..

 

The company, however, has reportedly not paid UK corporation tax since 2008, partly due to the business rolling over losses from previous years and deferring tax payments.

 

---------- Post added 15-03-2016 at 10:30 ----------

 

I'm afraid it is absolute nonsense. There is a tax system in force and companies pay the amount they are required to pay based on the profit they make. They are not required to pay tax on newspaper stories. However if you feel really strongly about this you can go and report it to the tax man. Indeed you can obtain a copy of the aucited accounts and look for any discrepency that might exist. But as the accounts will have been fully audited by a firm of chartered accountants who have a reputation to uphold the accounts will be spot on to the penny, and the amount of tax that should be paid will have been paid. Not a penny less, and the bit that gets up your nose, not a penny more.

 

You probably missed this bit in your haste to point the finger..

 

The company, however, has reportedly not paid UK corporation tax since 2008, partly due to the business rolling over losses from previous years and deferring tax payments.

 

Actually having taken a quick look at the accounts myself the strory you link to is total tosh. After declaring overall losses for most of the last 6 or 7 years the company actually made a profit last year. They declared a profit of £722,000, paid £179,000 tax. A post tax profit of £543,000 from which they paid £335,000 in dividends and retained £208,000.

 

It seems the bogus strory is very likely built up out of dividends paid in a different (financial) year from the ones they quoted for the tax losses. Oh dear!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited March 15, 2016 by foxy lady

[Hesther]

I'm afraid it is absolute nonsense. There is a tax system in force and companies pay the amount they are required to pay based on the profit they make. They are not required to pay tax on newspaper stories. However if you feel really strongly about this you can go and report it to the tax man. Indeed you can obtain a copy of the aucited accounts and look for any discrepency that might exist. But as the accounts will have been fully audited by a firm of chartered accountants who have a reputation to uphold the accounts will be spot on to the penny, and the amount of tax that should be paid will have been paid. Not a penny less, and the bit that gets up your nose, not a penny more.

 

You probably missed this bit in your haste to point the finger..

 

The company, however, has reportedly not paid UK corporation tax since 2008, partly due to the business rolling over losses from previous years and deferring tax payments.

 

---------- Post added 15-03-2016 at 10:30 ----------

 

 

Actually having taken a quick look at the accounts myself the strory you link to is total tosh. After declaring overall losses for most of the last 6 or 7 years the company actually made a profit last year. They declared a profit of £722,000, paid £179,000 tax. A post tax profit of £543,000 from which they paid £335,000 in dividends and retained £208,000.

 

It seems the bogus strory is very likely built up out of dividends paid in a different (financial) year from the ones they quoted for the tax losses. Oh dear!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Bogus story. :hihi: You must try harder.

 

Oh, I know, it's all 'within the law', just like IDS's £50 breakfast taxpayers pay for.

[Hesther]

It really is a total non story. The company employs 195, has a £30 million turnover, pays millions in VAT and turned in annual profits until Brown's government crashed the economy and folk stopped buying high end wallpaper. They made a loss of 7.5 million in 2009 followed by small losses in subsequent years. The top man cut his salary by over £100,000. The losses were offset against profits until last year when they one again declared taxable profits, paid £179,000 tax and paid dividents to shareholders. Jesus H Christ, what does a company have to do togeta bit of respect?

 

There's no need for blasphemy.

 

Respect? Are you for real?

 

By the way, you forgot to mention the Osbornes' use of tax havens.

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3152536/Chancellor-George-Osborne-s-family-firm-6million-property-deal-developer-based-tax-haven.html

Edited March 15, 2016 by Hesther

[the fonz]

There's no moral requirements in tax.

 

An awful lot of people seem to disagree with you (and not just on sf).