A superb Speech and Vow by Cameron well above expectations
Discussion
CamMoreRon said:
That sharp upward trend towards the end of the graph? :P
The one below the general trend? Sounds terribly unsustainable.CamMoreRon said:
Bear in mind that is a graph of national house prices.. does not reflect the current property bubble in the south of England. Got to love statistics!
Ok... blame the Prime Minister of the south of England for that then, not the national one.CamMoreRon said:
Agreed. The recent housing bubble is undoubtedly the biggest reason for the economic "recovery". It is only a matter of time until the bubble bursts, but I fear that because this time around it is based on investment rather than toxic credit it will keep swelling until the vast majority are forced out of the market and in to permanent rentals.
I'd like to see you explain how current GDP growth is as a result of increased house prices in London.I don't know why I'm taking you seriously enough to ask this. I should just ignore you for your moronic name.
[quote=0000]The one below the general trend? Sounds terribly unsustainable.[quote]
A trendline can be utterly unrepresentative, depending on how it is created.
Never mind the fact that the Bank of England governor has warned of a housing bubble, as has the IMF, to name a few. Obviously they have no idea what they're talking about..
A trendline can be utterly unrepresentative, depending on how it is created.
Never mind the fact that the Bank of England governor has warned of a housing bubble, as has the IMF, to name a few. Obviously they have no idea what they're talking about..
CamMoreRon said:
Never mind the fact that the Bank of England governor has warned of a housing bubble, as has the IMF, to name a few. Obviously they have no idea what they're talking about..
So the Bank of England governor and the IMF don't think it's a bubble yet either. Colour me shocked.0000 said:
So the Bank of England governor and the IMF don't think it's a bubble yet either. Colour me shocked.
Denial much.Warned of a bubble - i.e. the trend in property prices is unsustainable. Just like it was on the run-up to 2008.
Or do you also deny that the global financial crisis was based on toxic credit and a property bubble?
MoreRon - You clearly have an education, but why the lies ("cooking the books"), the convenient half-truths (toxic lending & property bubble caused the worldwide recession - Do you know what a minuscule percentage of institutional lending toxic property lending is?) and the speculation. Why not actually bare your backside and show us a simple, basic fact that supports your argument?
I suspect the majority on this thread know the answer and many have attempted to enlighten you but still you spout "conspiracy"
Are you David Icke?
I suspect the majority on this thread know the answer and many have attempted to enlighten you but still you spout "conspiracy"
Are you David Icke?
CamMoreRon said:
If you had even bothered to skim the list of advisors you might have noticed they probably know what they're talking about
Can you provide a link to the bit where any of those eminent advisors accuse said companies of tax evasion and fraud? Appealing to authority only works if they agree with you.
Mrr T said:
dirty boy said:
This is all very miss-guided. It's also worth pointing out that a company doesn't have to make a profit to make a contribution to an economy.
Vodafone made massive losses once upon a time and paid no tax, yet it's clear to see that particular company has had a positive effect on the UK economy over its lifetime. Whether that be employment, infrastructure or even research and development.
Encouraging businesses in the UK through low tax rates is absolutely unfair if they're not done right, but it's also absolutely critical to maintain investment in our tiny little island, because otherwise, developing countries will (and are) catching us and taking away crucial investment.
You'd have to be a little short sighted to not realise that.
Not disagreeing with your post but another heads up to the fair tax brigade. Who also often quote Vodaphone for underpaying UK taxes. Vodafone made massive losses once upon a time and paid no tax, yet it's clear to see that particular company has had a positive effect on the UK economy over its lifetime. Whether that be employment, infrastructure or even research and development.
Encouraging businesses in the UK through low tax rates is absolutely unfair if they're not done right, but it's also absolutely critical to maintain investment in our tiny little island, because otherwise, developing countries will (and are) catching us and taking away crucial investment.
You'd have to be a little short sighted to not realise that.
The reason Vodaphone paid such low taxes for a number of years is that they vastly overpaid for 3G licences. The income for selling the 3G licence went in to the coffers of the Labour government who wasted it.
ks. They couldn't even get their story straight with the supposed tax due ranging from £1 billion to £6 billion (which was actually the entire value of the transaction).It all arose out of Vodafone buying a German company. HMRC trying to get them under the Controlled Foreign Company tax rules but Vodafone argued that the CFC rules were incompatible with EU freedom of association. The case went through the various tiers of appeal with Vodafone winning each time. It was only once the case reached the Court of Appeal that a court decided "maybe aye, maybe no, let's ask the European Court for a ruling". At that point Vodafone couldn't afford to leave the provision on their books (with continuing uncertainty) so agreed to pay up.
About a year later the EC confirmed the rules were indeed incompatible with EU law as Vodafone had previously argued and warned the UK Government to sort it out.
Basically HMRC extorted money out of a taxpayer - money they should never have been allowed near.
NormalWisdom said:
MoreRon - You clearly have an education, but why the lies ("cooking the books"), the convenient half-truths (toxic lending & property bubble caused the worldwide recession - Do you know what a minuscule percentage of institutional lending toxic property lending is?) and the speculation. Why not actually bare your backside and show us a simple, basic fact that supports your argument?
I suspect the majority on this thread know the answer and many have attempted to enlighten you but still you spout "conspiracy"
Are you David Icke?
It isn't a lie though. Ok, so I'm using an idiom to describe a complex situation because that's the best way I can see to describe it. I do not have the numbers to show you, because if I did I certainly wouldn't be limiting those revelations to a small thread on a motoring forum. There is a great deal of secrecy around the subject, naturally. However, it is clear from the behaviuour - the HQ in a tax haven, the numbers that don't add up, the trail of debt to UK and profit offshore. It's not like I'm claiming the illuminati are drugging us with vapour trails.. there is some substance to the "myths" I am talking about.I suspect the majority on this thread know the answer and many have attempted to enlighten you but still you spout "conspiracy"
Are you David Icke?
The half-truths, I must admit, are because I don't want to waste my time with an unreceptive audience. I could go round some sources and create a post with numerous citations, but what is the point when - as proved so far - nobody will pay it the blindest bit of notice. Not one of the big arguers on here show any hint of being interested in the counter-opinion, only in proving themselves right and others wrong.
CamMoreRon said:
Zod said:
I'd like to see you explain how current GDP growth is as a result of increased house prices in London.
I don't know why I'm taking you seriously enough to ask this. I should just ignore you for your moronic name.
Ok "Zod".. ignore away.I don't know why I'm taking you seriously enough to ask this. I should just ignore you for your moronic name.
ninja-lewis said:
Furthermore the Vodafone case that UK Uncut and Private Eye all focused on was complete bks. They couldn't even get their story straight with the supposed tax due ranging from £1 billion to £6 billion (which was actually the entire value of the transaction).
It all arose out of Vodafone buying a German company. HMRC trying to get them under the Controlled Foreign Company tax rules but Vodafone argued that the CFC rules were incompatible with EU freedom of association. The case went through the various tiers of appeal with Vodafone winning each time. It was only once the case reached the Court of Appeal that a court decided "maybe aye, maybe no, let's ask the European Court for a ruling". At that point Vodafone couldn't afford to leave the provision on their books (with continuing uncertainty) so agreed to pay up.
About a year later the EC confirmed the rules were indeed incompatible with EU law as Vodafone had previously argued and warned the UK Government to sort it out.
Basically HMRC extorted money out of a taxpayer - money they should never have been allowed near.
Exactly! Very old news, that some of us were already very familiar with!ks. They couldn't even get their story straight with the supposed tax due ranging from £1 billion to £6 billion (which was actually the entire value of the transaction).It all arose out of Vodafone buying a German company. HMRC trying to get them under the Controlled Foreign Company tax rules but Vodafone argued that the CFC rules were incompatible with EU freedom of association. The case went through the various tiers of appeal with Vodafone winning each time. It was only once the case reached the Court of Appeal that a court decided "maybe aye, maybe no, let's ask the European Court for a ruling". At that point Vodafone couldn't afford to leave the provision on their books (with continuing uncertainty) so agreed to pay up.
About a year later the EC confirmed the rules were indeed incompatible with EU law as Vodafone had previously argued and warned the UK Government to sort it out.
Basically HMRC extorted money out of a taxpayer - money they should never have been allowed near.
CamMoreRon said:
The half-truths, I must admit, are because I don't want to waste my time with an unreceptive audience. I could go round some sources and create a post with numerous citations, but what is the point when - as proved so far - nobody will pay it the blindest bit of notice.
Because your claims were a load of twaddle, previously discussed and refuted here and elsewhere.CamMoreRon said:
Not one of the big arguers on here show any hint of being interested in the counter-opinion, only in proving themselves right and others wrong.
You made some quote aggressive claims about tax evasion and fraud which many of us knew to be rubbish. You refused to provide any evidence to support your claims.
You started getting aggressive when we challenged your claims.
Not sure what you expected to happen?
sidicks said:
You made some quote aggressive claims about tax evasion and fraud which many of us knew to be rubbish.
You refused to provide any evidence to support your claims.
You started getting aggressive when we challenged your claims.
Not sure what you expected to happen?
Now you're just trying to alter history. You still haven't told me how you're qualified to be right and I wrong, and you still haven't given a shred of evidence to counter my claim. As usual, all you have done is attempt a character assassination and divert attention on to non-issues. I did try and keep my patience with you, and if you go back and read you will find that I did so for a long time, but I gave up when it became very clear that you are a lost cause.You refused to provide any evidence to support your claims.
You started getting aggressive when we challenged your claims.
Not sure what you expected to happen?
CamMoreRon said:
Now you're just trying to alter history.
Which of the above statements I mad in m previous post was untrue?CamMoreRon said:
You still haven't told me how you're qualified to be right and I wrong, and you still haven't given a shred of evidence to counter my claim. As usual, all you have done is attempt a character assassination and divert attention on to non-issues. I did try and keep my patience with you, and if you go back and read you will find that I did so for a long time, but I gave up when it became very clear that you are a lost cause.
I am a lost cause?
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 2nd October 22:02
CamMoreRon said:
sidicks said:
You made claims about tax evasion and fraud which many of us disagree with.
You gave evidence that I instantly dismissed without reading.
You got annoyed when I made trolling personal remarks about your credibility.
FTFY.You gave evidence that I instantly dismissed without reading.
You got annoyed when I made trolling personal remarks about your credibility.
- The tax situations of Vodafone, Starbucks and Amazon (and the false claims repeatedly made about them) are well known to many of us. Just not you it seems.
- You didn't provide 'evidence' (despite frequent requests). Then you simply linked to a blog (which many of us are already familiar with) with a list of people who you view as credible. We are still waiting for the actual contents of the blog which supports your claims about fraud and tax evasion. I fear we will be waiting some time.
- Given your refusal to discuss your source of information, I simply asked what your expertise was to make the pretty bold claims that you were making. Zero, as we now know.
I really have a presentation to finish tonight, but your posts are so amusing it's difficult to tear myself away. It's the thread that keeps on giving!
Edited by sidicks on Thursday 2nd October 22:26
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff