Reply to: Election 2015: Labour to raise £7.5bn from tax avoiders

[d000hg]

Of course many poor people aspire to work hard and be wealthy. But many others do not. That's not condescending, it's true.

Many poor people are not "hard working families", doing night school courses to better themselves. You don't even believe that yourself, considering you despise those on benefits.

I don't want money coerced off the rich, and am opposed to tax increases.

If you think the poor don't want to be offered a free ride, of minimal living income if they don't choose to work, then you surely believe they won't sign up to it anyway.

Being lectured by a rich selfish Tory how I hate the poor is pretty amusing though, well done for having a stab trying to appear morally superior but morality clearly isn't something you've a lot of practice at (hardly surprising given you're an agent)... you're about as convincing as Farage in that respect.

[DodgyAgent]

Breaking the law is not the way to do that.

You don't seem to be able to make up your mind. First you say I'm a liberal, then you say I'm left-wing. You say I'm condescending and deciding what's best for the poor, then you say I want them to fight my battles for me. You're just spewing right-wing rhetoric against any argument someone might give, rather than what I actually say.

Given your disdain for the poor, especially those on benefits, I very much doubt you actually know anyone like that very well in order to have insight into what they think/want. So really, to accuse me of being condescending to the poor is laughable.

You also still seem stuck on the idea that everyone wants to be part of the wealthy elite, and is looking for an opportunity to do so, That's simply not true. Lots of people are happy just to get by and live an easy life. Typical right winger, you think that everyone else is at heart right wing too.

But, just carry on calling me a leftie and answering arguments you want me to make, rather than engaging with what I actually say.

it is not a left or right issue. What I am saying is your deeply condescending attitude to the poor is typical of the left.
It would not occur to you that someone from a poor background might want to progress as far as you would it? The poor are there to remain poor and to act act as fodder for you to attack people who make you nervous or jealous. The more money can be coerced off the rich than you is all that matters to you. What happens to that money however is of little importance to you because it is the poor who should be benefitting from it and you dont give a toss about them.

[d000hg]

We should be able to hold government to ransom.

Breaking the law is not the way to do that.

It is interesting how you view the poor and less well off. You seem to think these people are incapable and that liberals like yourself can dole out favours because they "cant" do things for themselves. This is the most incredibly condescending remark I have seen: "if you don't contribute you don't deserve to be here" or "you have to pay your way" doesn't really make sense in a society where we have enough to go round
It reflects perfectly the attitude of the left to the poor. You seem to think that "paying their own way" is to be done for the benefit of the rest of us. Well it is not. "paying their own way" is what they should want to do for themselves so that like you they can become part of the wealthy elite. You seem to think that what is best for them are your handouts "making the poor do work just so the rich don't feel aggrieved" What on earth have the rich got to do with it??

You seem to want the poor to fight your battles for you. May I suggest that you go on benefits and start disrupting society to make more rich people pay more tax to pay for the higher welfare costs. Do your own dirty work.

You don't seem to be able to make up your mind. First you say I'm a liberal, then you say I'm left-wing. You say I'm condescending and deciding what's best for the poor, then you say I want them to fight my battles for me. You're just spewing right-wing rhetoric against any argument someone might give, rather than what I actually say.

Given your disdain for the poor, especially those on benefits, I very much doubt you actually know anyone like that very well in order to have insight into what they think/want. So really, to accuse me of being condescending to the poor is laughable.

You also still seem stuck on the idea that everyone wants to be part of the wealthy elite, and is looking for an opportunity to do so, That's simply not true. Lots of people are happy just to get by and live an easy life. Typical right winger, you think that everyone else is at heart right wing too.

But, just carry on calling me a leftie and answering arguments you want me to make, rather than engaging with what I actually say.

[MicrosoftBob]

Making decisions based on what might happen down the line is never going to get you anywhere, you have no idea what they will or won't decide.

But even so I think your extrapolation is ridiculous. Elaborate schemes like BN66 have NEVER been seen as common or garden, they were always pretty extreme and anyone with 2 brain cells could see they were using loop-holes in ways not intended.

Hectors attack on S660a was an attack on what accountants had told businesses was an acceptable practice going back centuries, no one had ever considered it as aggressive tax avoidance, and accountants could not forsee the revenue selectively reinterpreting the law to help patch up Gordons overspending

Always believe the revenue is out to get you, anything else is naive and will bite you back eventually

[d000hg]

Todays acceptable common or garden tax avoidance, is tommorrows to be taxed retrospectively as evasion payment mechanism

Making decisions based on what might happen down the line is never going to get you anywhere, you have no idea what they will or won't decide.

But even so I think your extrapolation is ridiculous. Elaborate schemes like BN66 have NEVER been seen as common or garden, they were always pretty extreme and anyone with 2 brain cells could see they were using loop-holes in ways not intended.

[DodgyAgent]

So what? That doesn't mean you try and hold the government to ransom "I'm not paying tax unless I agree where it goes".

You are taking for granted people want to "move up the ladder" in the first place, many have neither the ability nor the inclination to do so.

This whole idea "if you don't contribute you don't deserve to be here" or "you have to pay your way" doesn't really make sense in a society where we have enough to go round... making the poor do work just so the rich don't feel aggrieved. If there's work needs doing, people should do it. But there's absolutely no reason why the supply of jobs should match or exceed the demand for them, it's entirely possible we could reach a situation where automation or changes to the type of work done in the UK mean there simply aren't [suitable] jobs available.

We should be able to hold government to ransom. The trouble is we unquestioningly allow them to waste money on public services which has the effect of removing the moral argument for raising taxes. The moral argument for raising tax should be sacrosanct. if they were run incredibly efficiently with plenty of affordable housing people would be well educated enough, aspirational enough and confident enough to move up the jobs ladder. those that get left behind would be able to live off low wages and still enjoy the services of high calibre public services. The only reason people want to move away from low wage jobs is to escape the clutches of the "sh*T" provisions afforded to them by local public services.

It is interesting how you view the poor and less well off. You seem to think these people are incapable and that liberals like yourself can dole out favours because they "cant" do things for themselves. This is the most incredibly condescending remark I have seen: "if you don't contribute you don't deserve to be here" or "you have to pay your way" doesn't really make sense in a society where we have enough to go round
It reflects perfectly the attitude of the left to the poor. You seem to think that "paying their own way" is to be done for the benefit of the rest of us. Well it is not. "paying their own way" is what they should want to do for themselves so that like you they can become part of the wealthy elite. You seem to think that what is best for them are your handouts "making the poor do work just so the rich don't feel aggrieved" What on earth have the rich got to do with it??

You seem to want the poor to fight your battles for you. May I suggest that you go on benefits and start disrupting society to make more rich people pay more tax to pay for the higher welfare costs. Do your own dirty work.

[MicrosoftBob]

You have an idealogical objection against people paying the tax they're supposed to? The vast majority of us on CUK don't employ "aggressive tax avoidance". Paying through dividends is common or garden tax avoidance.

Todays acceptable common or garden tax avoidance, is tommorrows to be taxed retrospectively as evasion payment mechanism

Or at best look at S660a to see how the revenue reinterpret the law to mean something completely different when the incumbent government overspends

[d000hg]

Why do so few people question how the tax is spent? answer: because it is viewed as a political issue not as a practical concept.

So what? That doesn't mean you try and hold the government to ransom "I'm not paying tax unless I agree where it goes".

Yes it is. they are working which is far better than not working at all. If they work hard and prove themselves they can then apply for a job more in keeping with what they want to do. It is a lot easier to move up the ladder from a position of employment. Everyone should work to eat because if they do not it obliges someone else to work for them to eat.

You are taking for granted people want to "move up the ladder" in the first place, many have neither the ability nor the inclination to do so.

This whole idea "if you don't contribute you don't deserve to be here" or "you have to pay your way" doesn't really make sense in a society where we have enough to go round... making the poor do work just so the rich don't feel aggrieved. If there's work needs doing, people should do it. But there's absolutely no reason why the supply of jobs should match or exceed the demand for them, it's entirely possible we could reach a situation where automation or changes to the type of work done in the UK mean there simply aren't [suitable] jobs available.

[DodgyAgent]

It's a pretty antiquated notion that everyone should have to work to eat. Sticking someone in a pointless job just to say "look they are working" is not solving any problem.

Yes it is. they are working which is far better than not working at all. If they work hard and prove themselves they can then apply for a job more in keeping with what they want to do. It is a lot easier to move up the ladder from a position of employment. Everyone should work to eat because if they do not it obliges someone else to work for them to eat.

[vetran]

Bullet point in the Conservative manifesto



So the misery is complete. Red team or Blue Team whoever wins intend to come after those tax evading self employed with a vengeance.

unfortunately with Red team they will need a lot more cash to splurge.

[DodgyAgent]

You have an idealogical objection against people paying the tax they're supposed to? The vast majority of us on CUK don't employ "aggressive tax avoidance". Paying through dividends is common or garden tax avoidance.

Why do so few people question how the tax is spent? answer: because it is viewed as a political issue not as a practical concept.

[d000hg]

Bullet point in the Conservative manifesto



So the misery is complete. Red team or Blue Team whoever wins intend to come after those tax evading self employed with a vengeance.

You have an idealogical objection against people paying the tax they're supposed to? The vast majority of us on CUK don't employ "aggressive tax avoidance". Paying through dividends is common or garden tax avoidance.

[Flashman]

Bullet point in the Conservative manifesto

crack down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance and ensure those who can afford to pay the most do

So the misery is complete. Red team or Blue Team whoever wins intend to come after those tax evading self employed with a vengeance.

[Zero Liability]

I suspect they think the costs of it exceed any benefit it provides, otherwise like you say it makes no real sense.

[d000hg]

It's a pretty antiquated notion that everyone should have to work to eat. Sticking someone in a pointless job just to say "look they are working" is not solving any problem.

My major issue with the CI is that it's not means-tested, as I understood it... which seems daft so I expect I understood it wrong?