• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Rupert Murdoch on Radio Five Live today"

Collapse

  • benn0
    replied
    Originally posted by Gunnery Sergeant Hartman
    Where you born a sanctimonious, holier-than-thou asshole or did you have to work on it?
    I must have picked it up from reading this board to much.

    Leave a comment:


  • wendigo100
    replied
    Originally posted by benn0
    I ... have no problem with paying the correct amount of tax.
    benn0, "the correct amount of tax" is an expression that has lost its meaning.

    It is used a lot by the Chancellor and the Paymaster General, and has come to mean "the maximum amount of tax we can get from people", and includes IR35, S660 and, worst of all, the ability to veto legal tax avoidance methods.

    Given the uncertain nature of the above, who knows what "the correct amount of tax" is, other than what individual HMRC officers decide after running roughshod over reason, or, for the lucky few with resources, what individual taxpayers can win back through the courts?

    Most of the opinion on here is because HMG and HMRC demand as much as they can, because they can, and you have to pay up. So if they are going to extremes, what is wrong with taxpayers fighting to keep every penny they can?

    I'm sure you don't pay IR35 and S660 do you?

    Leave a comment:


  • BoredBloke
    replied
    My problem with the Murdoch thing is that he is allowed to get away with paying a tiny amount of tax whereas when we try to minimise our tax exposure we are seen as tax cheats. Because he offers NL a pro NL press then his organisations tax affairs are not investigated, whereas us little guys, who are not even in a position to fight the IR, are seen as fair game.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gunnery Sergeant Hartman
    replied
    Originally posted by benn0
    I'll give you the benfit of the doubt.
    Where you born a sanctimonious, holier-than-thou asshole or did you have to work on it?

    Leave a comment:


  • benn0
    replied
    Originally posted by hyperD
    I refer my right honourable friend to my post above and ask him to show the board the sentence that criticises Murdoch.
    I'll give you the benfit of the doubt.

    Leave a comment:


  • hyperD
    replied
    Originally posted by benn0
    You lot are criticising Murdoch for minimising his tax liabilities
    I refer my right honourable friend to my post above and ask him to show the board the sentence that criticises Murdoch.

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by benn0
    I have three kids. That has nothing to do with my argument on this thread which you failed to grasp and have not responded to. Probably down to your lack of intelligence. Also, I do not support the current government anyway as you seem to think I do. I don't take the moral high ground. If anyone is doing so it is you (as usual) - Nicely summed up in the above tirade. You lot are criticising Murdoch for minimising his tax liabilities when the whole theme of this board is a constant barrage of moaning abut having to pay too much tax. Hypocritical self serving idiots.
    I think you will find that there is no hypocrisy at all. No one is claiming that they do not minimise their taxes (except you). The point that is being made is that Murdoch has been a labour supporter despite the fact that he does everything in his power to minimise the taxes he pays, whilst at the same time sucking up to government. That can be deemed somewhat hypocritical. So explain what you mean, and keep it simple so that we can understand.

    Leave a comment:


  • benn0
    replied
    Originally posted by DodgyAgent
    Because the money you pay in tax does nothing other than support a truly evil system of delivering public services. People like you support this system because you simply believe that by throwing lots of tax at the govt the social problems of this world are someone elses problems. The worst thing about people like you is that you seem to think that this somehow gives you some sort of moral integrity. People like us are little more concerned about the ils of society in that we actually question the ethics of giving money to people who effectively squander it in large quantities.

    That is what I call a champagne socialists. BTW do you have kids?
    I have three kids. That has nothing to do with my argument on this thread which you failed to grasp and have not responded to. Probably down to your lack of intelligence. Also, I do not support the current government anyway as you seem to think I do. I don't take the moral high ground. If anyone is doing so it is you (as usual) - Nicely summed up in the above tirade. You lot are criticising Murdoch for minimising his tax liabilities when the whole theme of this board is a constant barrage of moaning abut having to pay too much tax. Hypocritical self serving idiots.

    Leave a comment:


  • hyperD
    replied
    Originally posted by benn0
    At last. The penny drops. I thought you lot claimed to be intelligent.
    I think if you removed your red-tainted spectacles, you'll find that I was not in any way criticising Murdoch but making an observation why he appears to like liebour. Of course Murdoch is self-interested, hence his political neutrality. When it comes to their businesses, most owners would feel the same. It's business, not charity.

    Murdoch's criticism of liebour that is the same as pretty much everyone elses:

    Originally posted by Murdoch
    "They have... extended the nanny state, the welfare state, and destroyed, gone a long way to destroy, this idea of personal responsibility for people's lives.

    "It's up to people to get on, and it's up to the government to get out of their way, tax them less, give them more incentives."

    Leave a comment:


  • DodgyAgent
    replied
    Originally posted by benn0
    I pay my dues. Without moaning. I work hard and have no problem with paying the correct amount of tax. Like anyone else I have issues with scroungers, but I also do not expect a free lunch with regards to education, defence, transport, health etc. Can you tell me what is Champagne Socialist about that? I suggest you do it after you have developed the ability to understand my original argument. Wendigo seems to be the only one who has read and understood my point. Probably the only one not pre-judging.

    Because the money you pay in tax does nothing other than support a truly evil system of delivering public services. People like you support this system because you simply believe that by throwing lots of tax at the govt the social problems of this world are someone elses problems. The worst thing about people like you is that you seem to think that this somehow gives you some sort of moral integrity. People like us are little more concerned about the ils of society in that we actually question the ethics of giving money to people who effectively squander it in large quantities.

    That is what I call a champagne socialists. BTW do you have kids?

    Leave a comment:


  • benn0
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartacus
    Oh, I see. So it's alright for you to minimise your tax liabilities but not for anyone else. You are the stone-throwing hypocrite, my little champagne socialist friend.
    I pay my dues. Without moaning. I work hard and have no problem with paying the correct amount of tax. Like anyone else I have issues with scroungers, but I also do not expect a free lunch with regards to education, defence, transport, health etc. Can you tell me what is Champagne Socialist about that? I suggest you do it after you have developed the ability to understand my original argument. Wendigo seems to be the only one who has read and understood my point. Probably the only one not pre-judging.

    Leave a comment:


  • benn0
    replied
    Originally posted by wendigo100
    Hang on, I don't think that is where benn0 is coming from. He thinks some OTHER posters here are implicitly criticising Murdoch for pursuing his own interests, when THEY would do exactly the same.
    At last. The penny drops. I thought you lot claimed to be intelligent.

    Leave a comment:


  • wendigo100
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartacus
    But then HE says HE does it as well. Making him a "throw the first stone" hypocrite also.
    But I didn't think he was criticising the practice himself. Was he?

    If he wasn't, then he's not a hypocrite.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spartacus
    replied
    Originally posted by wendigo100
    Hang on, I don't think that is where benn0 is coming from. He thinks some OTHER posters here are implicitly criticising Murdoch for pursuing his own interests, when THEY would do exactly the same.
    But then HE says HE does it as well. Making him a "throw the first stone" hypocrite also.

    Leave a comment:


  • wendigo100
    replied
    Originally posted by Spartacus
    Oh, I see. So it's alright for you to minimise your tax liabilities but not for anyone else. You are the stone-throwing hypocrite, my little champagne socialist friend.
    Hang on, I don't think that is where benn0 is coming from. He thinks some OTHER posters here are implicitly criticising Murdoch for pursuing his own interests, when THEY would do exactly the same.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X