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

[Randy Winkman]

pcvdriver said:

Frik said:

vonuber said:

Eh was looking for some thoughtful discussion / critiques; my mistake.

On here? Are you taking the piss?

I think he's merely a bit naive, thinking that the usual disciples on here would oblige with some actual thoughtful discussion, instead of reverting to their usual closed-minded dogmatic clinging-onto, of their outmoded hypocritical political ideals.

And strangely, some of them waffle on about the Grauniad, but seem to take the Torygraph seriously.

[sidicks]

Randy Winkman said:

And strangely, some of them waffle on about the Grauniad, but seem to take the Torygraph seriously.

Given that the majority of Owens' article is demonstrably plain biased bullst, I'm surprised the OP didn't bother producing his own critique of the article for us to respond to.

Still waiting for some comments on the areas I've highlighted...

[turbobloke]

Randy Winkman said:

pcvdriver said:

Frik said:

vonuber said:

Eh was looking for some thoughtful discussion / critiques; my mistake.

On here? Are you taking the piss?

I think he's merely a bit naive, thinking that the usual disciples on here would oblige with some actual thoughtful discussion, instead of reverting to their usual closed-minded dogmatic clinging-onto, of their outmoded hypocritical political ideals.

And strangely, some of them waffle on about the Grauniad, but seem to take the Torygraph seriously.

Reasoning by assertion is clearly as alive and well as much as 'outmoded hypocritical political ideals' is ironic. Union dinosaurs anyone?

The Guardian is what the BBC relies on for current affairs takes and storylines - nothing more needs to be said.

[vonuber]

sidicks said:

Given that the majority of Owens' article is demonstrably plain biased bullst, I'm surprised the OP didn't bother producing his own critique of the article for us to respond to.

Still waiting for some comments on the areas I've highlighted...

I have no thoughts either way to be honest. I'm no expert in economics and actually wanted a reasoned discussion for my own education (although give the abuse I got when I tried to inform people in an area I actually knew about, maybe that is a bit naive).

For example, having to pay housing benefit to working people as they cannot afford to live on the low wages they are paid seems at first glance to be odd, especially when you look at the fact we (legally) allow a company like Starbucks or Amazon to pay no tax in this country.

[sidicks]

vonuber said:

I have no thoughts either way to be honest. I'm no expert in economics and actually wanted a reasoned discussion for my own education (although give the abuse I got when I tried to inform people in an area I actually knew about, maybe that is a bit naive).

For example, having to pay housing benefit to working people as they cannot afford to live on the low wages they are paid seems at first glance to be odd, especially when you look at the fact we (legally) allow a company like Starbucks or Amazon to pay no tax in this country.

We don't require companies to pay tax if they don't make profits. That seems perfectly reasonable.

Perhaps you should question why low paid workers are taxed so heavily rather...

Perhaps you should question why housing costs are so high when government effectively controls supply of housing and had a decade of record tax receipts when they could have constructed more social housing...

etc

[vonuber]

sidicks said:

We don't require companies to pay tax if they don't make profits. That seems perfectly reasonable.

Sorry, I got stuck at your first point. Can you explain to me why Starbucks etc deign to operate their charitable enterprises in the UK just out of pure goodwill?

[sidicks]

vonuber said:

Sorry, I got stuck at your first point. Can you explain to me why Starbucks etc deign to operate their charitable enterprises in the UK just out of pure goodwill?

?

[Dr Jekyll]

vonuber said:

Sorry, I got stuck at your first point. Can you explain to me why Starbucks etc deign to operate their charitable enterprises in the UK just out of pure goodwill?

The UK arm pays a fee (approved by HMRC) for the use of the brand. Therefore the US arm makes a profit and is taxed accordingly in the US.

[sidicks]

Dr Jekyll said:

The UK arm pays a fee (approved by HMRC) for the use of the brand. Therefore the US arm makes a profit and is taxed accordingly in the US.

A commercial fee, based on transfer pricing rules.

[pteron]

XM5ER said:

Thoughts?

1 Don't read the Grauniad.

2 Send the author a copy of Atlas Shrugged so that they can understand what capitalism actually is.

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged . One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.” ~John Rogers~

[wolves_wanderer]

Dr Jekyll said:

vonuber said:

Sorry, I got stuck at your first point. Can you explain to me why Starbucks etc deign to operate their charitable enterprises in the UK just out of pure goodwill?

The UK arm pays a fee (approved by HMRC) for the use of the brand. Therefore the US arm makes a profit and is taxed accordingly in the US.

Don't forget they buy their coffee from that well known coffee exporter, Switzerland and various other services from the Netherlands - nothing to do with their lax corporate tax laws of course.

[sidicks]

wolves_wanderer said:

Don't forget they buy their coffee from that well known coffee exporter, Switzerland and various other services from the Netherlands - nothing to do with their lax corporate tax laws of course.

Do they pay a fair (market) price for their coffee?

[wolves_wanderer]

sidicks said:

wolves_wanderer said:

Don't forget they buy their coffee from that well known coffee exporter, Switzerland and various other services from the Netherlands - nothing to do with their lax corporate tax laws of course.

Do they pay a fair (market) price for their coffee?

No idea, according to the BBC their Swiss subsidiary charges a 20% mark up on the wholesale price. I'm not a coffee expert but that looks like a very healthy margin on those volumes to me.

[sidicks]

wolves_wanderer said:

No idea, according to the BBC their Swiss subsidiary charges a 20% mark up on the wholesale price. I'm not a coffee expert but that looks like a very healthy margin on those volumes to me.

20% mark up is consistent with transfer pricing requirements.

[wolves_wanderer]

sidicks said:

wolves_wanderer said:

No idea, according to the BBC their Swiss subsidiary charges a 20% mark up on the wholesale price. I'm not a coffee expert but that looks like a very healthy margin on those volumes to me.

20% mark up is consistent with transfer pricing requirements.

That's a coincidence. Surprising that no other company would be able to supply for a smaller margin.

[sidicks]

wolves_wanderer said:

That's a coincidence. Surprising that no other company would be able to supply for a smaller margin.

What's a fair margin?

[Randy Winkman]

turbobloke said:

Randy Winkman said:

pcvdriver said:

Frik said:

vonuber said:

Eh was looking for some thoughtful discussion / critiques; my mistake.

On here? Are you taking the piss?

I think he's merely a bit naive, thinking that the usual disciples on here would oblige with some actual thoughtful discussion, instead of reverting to their usual closed-minded dogmatic clinging-onto, of their outmoded hypocritical political ideals.

And strangely, some of them waffle on about the Grauniad, but seem to take the Torygraph seriously.

Reasoning by assertion is clearly as alive and well as much as 'outmoded hypocritical political ideals' is ironic. Union dinosaurs anyone?

The Guardian is what the BBC relies on for current affairs takes and storylines - nothing more needs to be said.

I don't particularly disagree on the Guardian, it's more the links to the Telegraph that bug me. But I suppose that's all for another day.

[elster]

Randy Winkman said:

I don't particularly disagree on the Guardian, it's more the links to the Telegraph that bug me. But I suppose that's all for another day.

I am actually quite a bit fan of the Guardian, the only problem is it doesn't differentiate between journalism and columnists treating them the same. The telegraph has equally taken to this same model now. As it is popular, the days of proper journalism are dying out.

Owen Jones columns are no different to Jeremy Clarkson's column in that it is a bit of a rant and it based on opinion rather than any fact.

[lamboman100]

Not really news or new opinion.

The soap-dodging Grauniad columnist is banging on an old drum that has been known for hundreds of years.

Government taxes (inputs) and spending (outputs) work on a bell-curve.

The very poor and very rich get relatively undertaxed and overspent. Everyone else in between gets squeezed until they scream.

C'est la vie.

[LucreLout]

vonuber said:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/29/socia...

Thoughts?

Thoughts?
The Guardian is a tiresome twobit rag that consistently fails to practice what it preaches (Scott trust), and it's circulation is mow so low that its only read by champagne socialists in Islington and public sector workers looking for a new swat on the heavy train.

Your thoughts may differ.