It's socialism for the rich, capitalism for the rest of us

[FredClogs]

LucreLout said:

FredClogs said:

Government today put £33billion (yes that's £33billion) of rail tracks debts onto the public accounts.

Yes that's £33billion of debt belonging to a company we used to own nationally that was then sold, rebought, bailed out, resold and then debt guranteed by the tax payer.

£33billion

Or they could let it default and go bang. Bye bye railworkers pensions and lucrative terms. Kinda makes you wonder who should be upset here!

So why don't the politicians of all colours offer us a tacit acceptance that some companies and service providers and by extension some people are too big to fail? I'll tell you why; because that would allow the cat out the bag and amongst the pigeons people would very quickly start to argue that the proper thing to do would be to run these services and companies as democratic institutions and not hole in the wall money machines for the wealthy and well connected.

[crankedup]

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

...He manages to hit the nail on the head in a factual (hyper) style that leaves detractors unable to respond in anything other than derisory comment...

Either you haven't read the thread, or you just typed that out of wishful thinking. It just aint so. There are substantive responses there to be read and in a relatively short thread there's no need to repeat content that can be found easily.

Sure there are plenty of detractors, and the nature of the author is diagnosed in many ways but they're making valid points around various errors - these replies are then subjected to the type of response you describe. You must have missed the irony as well, somehow.

But the comments to which you refer are peoples opinions, nothing more. The errors are journo' errors of minor detail in most cases, but not all. The guy tells it as it is and I for one wish there were others as straight talking as O.J. I stand by my original post, as you might expect of me

[crankedup]

LucreLout said:

FredClogs said:

Government today put £33billion (yes that's £33billion) of rail tracks debts onto the public accounts.

Yes that's £33billion of debt belonging to a company we used to own nationally that was then sold, rebought, bailed out, resold and then debt guranteed by the tax payer.

£33billion

Or they could let it default and go bang. Bye bye railworkers pensions and lucrative terms. Kinda makes you wonder who should be upset here!

Bit of a habit being formed by Government, private business in trouble - no sweat the tax payer, bless em', will bale you out. We should re-Nationalise our rail network.

[Murph7355]

FredClogs said:

So why don't the politicians of all colours offer us a tacit acceptance that some companies and service providers and by extension some people are too big to fail? I'll tell you why; because that would allow the cat out the bag and amongst the pigeons people would very quickly start to argue that the proper thing to do would be to run these services and companies as democratic institutions and not hole in the wall money machines for the wealthy and well connected.

Care to remind us what services and tax payer costs were like the last time rail was a national industry? Or how well run any of our nationalised industries were? Politicians are fkwits not capable of running anything.

Let it go into receivership. If the govt's the only one immediately available to take it on then do so, but only temporarily.

Perhaps a better way to address something where there is no true competition would be to outsource it instead. But then the mongs who run govt would make an even bigger hash of that sort of contract.

[Murph7355]

crankedup said:

But the comments to which you refer are peoples opinions, nothing more. The errors are journo' errors of minor detail in most cases, but not all. The guy tells it as it is and I for one wish there were others as straight talking as O.J. I stand by my original post, as you might expect of me

If he tells it as it is, why does he conflate legal activity (that even those saints amongst us such as your good self would partake in) with criminal activity?

Points are much better made when they make sense, rather than just to suit the political ideals of someone who's never had to put his money where his substantial mouth is (I wonder how much extra Mr Jones pays on top of his no doubt PAYE salary to the govt each year).

[turbobloke]

crankedup said:

turbobloke said:

crankedup said:

...He manages to hit the nail on the head in a factual (hyper) style that leaves detractors unable to respond in anything other than derisory comment...

Either you haven't read the thread, or you just typed that out of wishful thinking. It just aint so. There are substantive responses there to be read and in a relatively short thread there's no need to repeat content that can be found easily.

Sure there are plenty of detractors, and the nature of the author is diagnosed in many ways but they're making valid points around various errors - these replies are then subjected to the type of response you describe. You must have missed the irony as well, somehow.

But the comments to which you refer are peoples opinions, nothing more.

Not so, the bailout sum was wrong, one example that comes to mind. There were also errors of omission as well as commission, both are errors.

crankedup said:

The guy tells it as it is and I for one wish there were others as straight talking as O.J. I stand by my original post, as you might expect of me

He doesn't tell it as it is. It's a biased account which is lacking in many ways.

Your original post doesn't do the thread justice. See comments in this thread from sidicks, me, Murph7355 and others.

Posts from others can be taken forward by the respective PHers as they wish; to date nothing has appeared in response to my post yesterday about errors of omission.

It's a dreadful piece, little more than propaganda, which is part of the reason why it appeals to those for whom reality offers little comfort. E-, fail.

[otolith]

Owen Jones would make a half decent Daily Mail hack if his politics fitted.

[MEC]

How much does Starbucks (UK) pay over in PAYE & VAT ever year?

[Murph7355]

MEC said:

How much does Starbucks (UK) pay over in PAYE & VAT ever year?

They don't pay tax in this country at all of course. They are evil. And should be boycotted. And have chairs thrown through their windows.

And it's not fair because Aunt Mavis' coffee emporium in town pays 99% tax to make up for big companies not paying anything. She'll go bust soon and be on the dole.

[hidetheelephants]

Perhaps OJ should do an exposé of Pearson media group's tax avoidance habits if it irks him so...

Edited by hidetheelephants on Tuesday 2nd September 07:47

[FredClogs]

MEC said:

How much does Starbucks (UK) pay over in PAYE & VAT ever year?

Nowt both vat and paye are collected by companies not prayed by them. But you highlight the power large corporates have over government as essentially free lance tax collectors, it's one of the reasons they get sweaty with so much.

[Murph7355]

FredClogs said:

Nowt both vat and paye are collected by companies not prayed by them. But you highlight the power large corporates have over government as essentially free lance tax collectors, it's one of the reasons they get sweaty with so much.

You could, rightly, say the same about any company taxes. It's one thing we get all frothy about (how much tax a company pays) without realising it's the customers paying it.

We should be doing more to attract companies than scare them off. Especially those that have an element of export about them.

[FredClogs]

Murph7355 said:

FredClogs said:

Nowt both vat and paye are collected by companies not prayed by them. But you highlight the power large corporates have over government as essentially free lance tax collectors, it's one of the reasons they get sweaty with so much.

You could, rightly, say the same about any company taxes. It's one thing we get all frothy about (how much tax a company pays) without realising it's the customers paying it.

We should be doing more to attract companies than scare them off. Especially those that have an element of export about them.

So the tax system is as flawed as my auto correcting spell checker, this is not news, but you're accepting that it takes money from the poor and puts it into the pockets of the wealthy, so I think my work here is done.

[Murph7355]

FredClogs said:

So the tax system is as flawed as my auto correcting spell checker, this is not news, but you're accepting that it takes money from the poor and puts it into the pockets of the wealthy, so I think my work here is done.

Anyone spunking 5 quid on some frothy milk with a dash of coffee in it does not fall into my definition of "poor".

So you still have work to do on your Owen Jones/Citizen Smith rhetoric as far as I'm concerned.

In any society, no matter what your political leanings, there are those who are better off than others (financially or otherwise), often at the expense of others. Life's st. The sooner you accept that and either work to improve your lot or be comfortable with it the better off you are. Trying to make everyone equally "poor" benefits no one except the jealous.

[turbobloke]

Murph7355 said:

FredClogs said:

So the tax system is as flawed as my auto correcting spell checker, this is not news, but you're accepting that it takes money from the poor and puts it into the pockets of the wealthy, so I think my work here is done.

Anyone spunking 5 quid on some frothy milk with a dash of coffee in it does not fall into my definition of "poor".

So you still have work to do on your Owen Jones/Citizen Smith rhetoric as far as I'm concerned.

It'll be very difficult, working on a lost cause.

Even in the whine industry any cost-benefit analysis which exaggerates cost and ignores benefit has no credibility.

[MEC]

FredClogs said:

Nowt both vat and paye are collected by companies not prayed by them. But you highlight the power large corporates have over government as essentially free lance tax collectors, it's one of the reasons they get sweaty with so much.

Debatable at best as they generally sell to the public so they do produce and pay VAT. No doubt whatsoever that they will pay a large chunk of Employers NI?

[turbobloke]

MEC said:

FredClogs said:

Nowt both vat and paye are collected by companies not prayed by them. But you highlight the power large corporates have over government as essentially free lance tax collectors, it's one of the reasons they get sweaty with so much.

Debatable at best as they generally sell to the public so they do produce and pay VAT.

My clients paid VAT which I collected and handed over. I didn't pay their VAT.

[MEC]

turbobloke said:

My clients paid VAT which I collected and handed over. I didn't pay their VAT.

When Starbucks sell a coffee for £3 they actually sell for £2.50+ VAT. In 'most' cases the customer cannot reclaim this VAT and so the government keep it. If Starbucks ceased to exist then the government's VAT take would certainly reduce.

If a business buys from another business, then the net VAT effect is generally nil, as one business pays the VAT and the other business reclaims it. The government only get their mitts on VAT when something is sold to a person/business who cannot reclaim the input tax. Starbucks sales will fall into this category more often than not I should think.

[JagLover]

sidicks said:

vonuber said:

Disabled people who needed support were having their support stripped away by Atos. In one three-month period in 2012, 42% of appeals against Atos judgments were successful; but it is a process that is expensive for the taxpayer and often traumatic for the claimant. In the harsh benefit-bashing climate of austerity Britain, disability charities reported that "scrounger" rhetoric had provoked a surge in abuse towards disabled people on the streets. But the behaviour of state-funded private contractors such as Atos must surely raise the question of who the real scroungers are. It was not until April 2014 that Atos was forced to abandon the contract because of the growing backlash, but not until they had pocketed large sums of public money.

So almost 60% of claimants were previously claiming money to which they were not entitled...?

It remains a puzzling fact that as healthcare improves, and trades where there is risk of serious injury decline as a share of the workforce, the number of those "disabled" rises ever higher.

Combating those choosing to live on disability benefits must be a prime target of welfare reform.

[Prawnboy]

Murph7355 said:

In any society, no matter what your political leanings, there are those who are better off than others (financially or otherwise), often at the expense of others. Life's st. The sooner you accept that and either work to improve your lot or be comfortable with it the better off you are. Trying to make everyone equally "poor" benefits no one except the jealous.

why can you not try to work to improve everyone's lot?

if the blatant, legally allowed, but morally wrong tax avoidance schemes were cracked down upon and more money came into the exchequer a case could be made for further cutting corporation tax in order to increase investment, and boost employment. Surely striving for the best possible solutions is more worthy of human society than the life st except it line.

and is there ever a debate involving money round these parts where the 'Jealousy' card isn't played again, and again.

It's not jealousy to point out that moving your profits out of the countries they are created in via accounting tricks is not beneficial to the society you are operating in.

It is also not jealousy to point out that the bank bail-out is the opposite of capitalist ideals.

Political will is biased toward the paymasters but it doesn't hurt to point out when these things are wrong.

and you don't have to be a soap dodging jealous hippy on a kibutz to not want to live out your life with a 'life st, suck it up attitude'.

things can be better all round, and a form of well regulated free market capitalism seems to be the best way at the moment. But as we have recently found out it is neither well regulated or truly free market capitalist.

Edited by Prawnboy on Tuesday 2nd September 10:46