The Good News Keeps On Coming

[IC1967]

Plan A is definitely working. Well done George for sticking to your guns despite all the doom mongers telling you to go to Plan B. What was it Ed balls said. If we don't change to Plan B we'll have no growth and 1 million more on the dole. He has categorically proved he hasn't a clue about the economy. Get him sacked Mr Milliband.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24668687

[wilts rover]

And here's me thinking you were referring to this story, where your hero has managed to 'loose' £2.5 billion for British taxpayers. Or to put it another way, hasn't taken £2.5 billion from his rich mates, that'll be you then.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/28/george-osborne-switzerland-tax_n_4171336.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

And on that note, how much tax do the left's beloved unions pay?  But afterall, the unions are all for the many aren't they (b*llocks they are).

[BigColSutherland]

I fully agree you work within the law and that is exactly what they have done. As for the accounting bits, well anything within the rules is fair game, outside of the rules it is not, simple as that.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP

I think you are perhaps missing the big picture of what the historical role of the unions has been.

Unions didn't appear out of nowhere in order to satisfy themselves. They grew because ordinary working people were exploited by employers, who screwed as much work out of them as possible and became stupendously rich themselves. Unions' power grew from the early 20th century onwards. The result was an epochal change in the way that proceeds of growth were distributed among the population. In particular, the growth of union power led to a society in which we really WERE all in it together, and the excesses of the very richest were kept in check. This graph shows how the amount of money going to the very richest fell dramatically between the start of the 20th century and about 1980.



Of course there were problems with the unions. Of course some wanted to wage class warfare rather than look after their members' interests. Of course some union bosses lined their own pockets. But the general picture was that whilst unions were strong, we were a fairer and more equitable society.

Since the unions were smashed in the 1980s, our economic performance has not changed in any way whatsoever. We still grow at about the same rate that we did in previous decades. But NOW, the proceeds of growth go disproportionately to the very wealthiest. Just like they did back in 1920. Because, just like then,  the working people do not have the leverage to keep the wealthy in check any longer. Look at that graph. It shows it clearly.

So criticise the excesses of the unions if you will. I would, and do. But remember, that the actual results of destroying the power of the unions has not been to transform the British economy. It has been to transform where the income of the British economy goes to.

[rtid88]

I am jumping on the Russell Brand Revolution bandwagon personally!! This country, in fact this world is screwed with the current bent/overpaid/useless pillocks that are currently in charge, who have no grasp on reality and only care about increasing their bank a/c's and looking after their spiffing chums!!

[IC1967]

And here's me thinking you were referring to this story, where your hero has managed to 'loose' £2.5 billion for British taxpayers. Or to put it another way, hasn't taken £2.5 billion from his rich mates, that'll be you then.....

You come across as a bit bitter and twisted towards the rich. Not all the rich have been born with a silver spoon in their mouth you know. How do you feel about your mates the trade union leaders? 36 of them get over £100k per annum subsidised by tax payers and other perks. Looks like we're not all in this together.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2176250/The-36-union-fat-cats-picking-100k.html

In defence of George, he did collect £440m.That's £440m more than Labour ever did in their 13 years in power.

[River Don]

Plan A is definitely working. Well done George for sticking to your guns despite all the doom mongers telling you to go to Plan B. What was it Ed balls said. If we don't change to Plan B we'll have no growth and 1 million more on the dole. He has categorically proved he hasn't a clue about the economy. Get him sacked Mr Milliband.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24668687

He has gone with Plan B, what do you think the housing boom is?

A recovery is by no means assured yet either.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10408986/New-doubts-about-recovery-as-retail-sales-stall.html

[IC1967]

He has gone with Plan B, what do you think the housing boom is?

A recovery is by no means assured yet either.

I agree he has changed Plan A. He was always going to do so. He has not gone with Balls Plan B though which has been totally discredited.
I also think that the housing boom is totally misguided. Along with Labour's wild overspending the previous 'housing boom' contributed to our current economic woes.

[BillyStubbsTears]

RD.

And talking of housing booms, look what's happening at the top end of the London real estate market. I wonder how much of the increase in overall average house prices is being driven by the investment in luxury pads in London by Russian gangsters?

http://www.businessinsider.com/whos-buying-london-property-2013-10

[River Don]

I can't open that link BST but I know what you're getting at. London property is a bolt hole for international investors looking for a safe haven.

Take a walk around the Serpentine on a Sunday, there are throngs of Arabs parading around. They all have new apartments at One Hyde Park.

[BillyStubbsTears]

RD

The link has an advert initially but if you wait a few seconds it takes you to the article.

This is the key graph, from a Deutsche Bank survey


The accompanying text in that article goes:

Deutsche Bank is out with a new report on the London housing market, and it includes this fascinating chart, which breaks down origin of purchaser by price range.

As you can see, at the low end, the dominant share of buyers is domestic UK buyers.

But at the high end, UK-based purchasers make up a tiny slice of the pie. A massive swath of the buyers is Eastern European or Russian. Chinese and Middle Eastern buyers are also quite significant. Chinese buyers actually make up a bigger purchase of the slightly cheaper ranges.

So basically, tons of Chinese buyers at the expensive levels, and then at the ultra-rich level it's a lot of Russian and Eastern European money.

[wilts rover]

And here's me thinking you were referring to this story, where your hero has managed to 'loose' £2.5 billion for British taxpayers. Or to put it another way, hasn't taken £2.5 billion from his rich mates, that'll be you then.....

You come across as a bit bitter and twisted towards the rich. Not all the rich have been born with a silver spoon in their mouth you know. How do you feel about your mates the trade union leaders? 36 of them get over £100k per annum subsidised by tax payers and other perks. Looks like we're not all in this together.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2176250/The-36-union-fat-cats-picking-100k.html

In defence of George, he did collect £440m.That's £440m more than Labour ever did in their 13 years in power.

Sorry why do you think my link to a story about people avoiding tax is bitter and twisted? I genuinely don't understand that? Compounded with the current government's failure to collect it. Guilty conscience, is bookiebasher doing that well you now have a Swiss bank account?

I don't have a problem with people being rich, I do have a problem over the way many of those people use that wealth, in particular in not paying the tax they legitimately owe on it. Whether they be union bosses or heads of international corporations.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Always nice when newspapers start commenting on the salaries that people receive.

For the record, here's is what Paul Dacre earns by shovelling lies down the throats of gullible fools.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jan/10/daily-mail-editor-paul-dacre-earns

[IC1967]

Sorry why do you think my link to a story about people avoiding tax is bitter and twisted? I genuinely don't understand that? Compounded with the current government's failure to collect it. Guilty conscience, is bookiebasher doing that well you now have a Swiss bank account?

I don't have a problem with people being rich, I do have a problem over the way many of those people use that wealth, in particular in not paying the tax they legitimately owe on it. Whether they be union bosses or heads of international corporations.

I'm not just referring to that link, but to the general tenor of your posts. If you have a problem with people paying tax you should direct your ire at the politicians who are incapable of drafting legislation properly so loopholes can't be exploited. That's where the real problem lies. 

Anyone who pays tax when it is avoidable is a fool. If you were running a business you'd soon be at a disadvantage to your competitors if you didn't play the game as well as if not better than them.

[jonrover]

And here's me thinking you were referring to this story, where your hero has managed to 'loose' £2.5 billion for British taxpayers. Or to put it another way, hasn't taken £2.5 billion from his rich mates, that'll be you then.....

You come across as a bit bitter and twisted towards the rich. Not all the rich have been born with a silver spoon in their mouth you know. How do you feel about your mates the trade union leaders? 36 of them get over £100k per annum subsidised by tax payers and other perks. Looks like we're not all in this together.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2176250/The-36-union-fat-cats-picking-100k.html

In defence of George, he did collect £440m.That's £440m more than Labour ever did in their 13 years in power.

In my union Unite, the GS salary package is agreed by the Executive Committee, a committee made up entirely of ordinary members democratically elected. If the EC want to cut the GS salary by 90% then that is what would happen, so where is the problem? Compare £122k against the salary of a CEO of a large national business and its peanuts in reality.

Nice article though, picture of Brendon Barber, narrative underneath says its Len McCluskey. Not only misleading b*llocks but incorrect b*llocks.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Sorry why do you think my link to a story about people avoiding tax is bitter and twisted? I genuinely don't understand that? Compounded with the current government's failure to collect it. Guilty conscience, is bookiebasher doing that well you now have a Swiss bank account?

I don't have a problem with people being rich, I do have a problem over the way many of those people use that wealth, in particular in not paying the tax they legitimately owe on it. Whether they be union bosses or heads of international corporations.

I'm not just referring to that link, but to the general tenor of your posts. If you have a problem with people paying tax you should direct your ire at the politicians who are incapable of drafting legislation properly so loopholes can't be exploited. That's where the real problem lies. 

Anyone who pays tax when it is avoidable is a fool. If you were running a business you'd soon be at a disadvantage to your competitors if you didn't play the game as well as if not better than them.

Mick

Just as usual, you are open your mouth and pouring out half-baked (scratch that - unbaked) drivel before engaging brain. The issue with people having money stashed in Swiss bank accounts and not paying tax on it is nothing to do with tax AVOIDANCE. It is to do with tax EVASION. The laws HAVE been passed. The people who have illegally put their money into Swiss bank accounts have flouted those laws.

Blaming politicians for that is like blaming politicians for not passing laws to prevent someone breaking into a house.

[IC1967]

I'll have you know that I am on good terms with a tax inspector and it is common knowledge within HMRC that politicians are useless at drafting proper legislation. It's no use the politicians complaining about tax avoidance if it is done legally due to their own incompetence.

If someone is avoiding tax illegally then they should be pursued and made to pay it. That is not the job of the Tories who seem to be getting the blame from you and your friend. If its not being collected then whoever is supposed to collect it should be getting the blame. Exploiting loopholes is not illegal, its common sense.

[wilts rover]

I'll have you know that I am on good terms with a tax inspector and it is common knowledge within HMRC that politicians are useless at drafting proper legislation. It's no use the politicians complaining about tax avoidance if it is done legally due to their own incompetence.

If someone is avoiding tax illegally then they should be pursued and made to pay it. That is not the job of the Tories who seem to be getting the blame from you and your friend. If its not being collected then whoever is supposed to collect it should be getting the blame. Exploiting loopholes is not illegal, its common sense.

Is there not some contradiction in those two statements dear boy, or do you only place the blame on politicians for their departments and staff inefficiency if they are from one particular colour? Btw, I am not blaming them.....the Huffington Post, a reputable independent international media outlet is.

[Glyn_Wigley]

It is the Tories who have drastically reduced not only the number of HMRC Officers but also the money and resources available for them to do the job.

And the Minister responsible for running HMRC is David Gauke, who is, surprise surprise, a Tory.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

Calm down chuckie egg. I haven't said a word about who is to blame for anything. I merely pointed out that your posts were reaching their usual quality standard.

Although, since you insist on bringing politics into the discussion, I'll merely note that it was...let's say, "convenient" for the Chancellor earlier this year that HMRC assumed it would be able to recover £3.2bn from the swindling crooks. That figure made a big dent in Osborne's deficit numbers and allowed him to reap some significant political capital in claiming that the deficit was coming down. Being the honorable chap that he is, I don't doubt that he'll be revising those figures even as we speak and issuing corrected deficit numbers immediately.

[IC1967]

Is there not some contradiction in those two statements dear boy, or do you only place the blame on politicians for their departments and staff inefficiency if they are from one particular colour? Btw, I am not blaming them.....the Huffington Post, a reputable independent international media outlet is.

There certainly is not a contradiction. I'll spell it out. Politicians make the laws. It is then the responsibility of the authorities to implement those laws. It is not the responsibility of the law makers to implement the laws. You seem to think it is.

I've not said that Labour are any worse or better than the Tories at drafting laws. If you read what I said properly you will see that I referred to 'politicians', the obvious inference being that I meant all politicians, which I do, regardless of party. It just so happens that most of the current tax avoidance is occurring under legislation drafted by the Labour party during their 13 years in power.

It's very simple. Draft proper legislation and you will eliminate tax avoidance. So if you are unhappy about tax avoidance take it up with your MP. In the meantime, I would recommend everyone avoids paying tax if at all possible as long as it is legal. Far better to have the money in your own pocket than to give it to the politicians who will try to bribe what they see as their voter base to get into or to keep power.

I had to laugh at your last statement, 'the Huffington Post, a reputable independent international media outlet'. The fact that you believe this statement explains a lot. It's a joke. Most of their "writers" don't have a grasp on basic grammer and are left-wing extremist radicals. Here are some examples from their website today:

Military Withdrawal From Afghanistan Is Putting Programs For Women AT Risk.

How does the Tory-led government tackle the housing shortage crisis? Do the listen to housing and business experts and build more homes?

William Is the Royal PR King

Mitchell's Daugther Speaks Out On Plebgate

I could go on. I've highlighted the bad grammer just in case you couldn't spot it.

[Glyn_Wigley]

There certainly is not a contradiction. I'll spell it out. Politicians make the laws. It is then the responsibility of the authorities to implement those laws. It is not the responsibility of the law makers to implement the laws. You seem to think it is.

You're missing out one vitally important piece of the jigsaw. It is the politicians who are responsible for giving the authorities the rescources to be able to implement the laws they make. What has this government done?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I ask you a question Glyn.  On the local authorities;

Do they get the best value for money they could possibly obtain?

In Doncaster, is a political adviser something that should be paid out of public money?  I'd argue the new mayor should pay the political aspects out of her part money, not the money the taxpayer provides.

Though, that opens up another avenue, I'd give political parties funding depending on a set criteria and abolish all these donations that mean we have influence from business, individuals and unions etc.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Though, that opens up another avenue, I'd give political parties funding depending on a set criteria and abolish all these donations that mean we have influence from business, individuals and unions etc.

BFYP

I agree 100%. So do Labour and the Lib Dems. It's the Tories who are set against it, as the following article in the Daily Shit Rag by the Education Minister points out.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2401563/Militax-Ed-wants-pick-pockets-fund-party-says-Michael-Gove.html

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

There's people in all areas that agree and disagree in reality though.

Having just read the article posted, I actually can see Gove's points in some ways.  There are issues, how do you split the funding, who gets it and is it actually right for taxpayers to pay for politicians and their campaigns etc?  In my view it is, to a set limit just because it is worth removing the union influence one side and actually the business influence in others, which clearly does happen in all parties.

However, I think say Labour should be given £xM and then they have to spend that how they wish (and that is not by appointing political advisers from other budgets).  I find it scandalous that the labour mayor can spend so much time whinging about cuts (try cutting some of your inefficiencies that I know about) and that people in Doncaster will lose their jobs, yet the local authority pays for her political adviser (when her party should) - that is a clear wasteage yet again, I don't see the value for money in that at all - it's wrong.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BFYP

I genuinely don't know what the role of Political Adviser entails. As I've replied to someone else before, if it REALLY gets your goat, you can put in a Freedom of Information request to find out.

Interesting by the way that the previous Mayor also decided that he needed to emit someone in that role.

As I say regularly, I like to see the facts before I come to a conclusion. So go ahead. Put in that FoI request and let's find out what the PA does.

[IC1967]

You're missing out one vitally important piece of the jigsaw. It is the politicians who are responsible for giving the authorities the rescources to be able to implement the laws they make. What has this government done?

You're missing one vitally important piece of the jigsaw. Throwing more money (that we'd have to borrow) at a problem is not a solution. Labour doubled spending on education and we continue to fall down the international league tables.

Anyone that has anything to do with the public sector knows that a large part of it it is grossly inefficient and populated with layer upon layer of management and quangos that cost a fortune. Instead of stuffing money in the mouths of lazy, useless managers it should be directed to the front-line.

[IC1967]

I genuinely don't know what the role of Political Adviser entails. As I've replied to someone else before, if it REALLY gets your goat, you can put in a Freedom of Information request to find out.

Interesting by the way that the previous Mayor also decided that he needed to emit someone in that role.

As I say regularly, I like to see the facts before I come to a conclusion. So go ahead. Put in that FoI request and let's find out what the PA does.

You forget to mention that he also took a vastly reduced salary which compensated for his political advisor. Also as an independent not expecting to win he did actually need someone with a bit of political nous. The same shouldn't be the case for a Labour mayor with all the resources of the Labour party behind them.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Did he also forgo his large public sector pension from his teaching career?

Easy to do a job at a reduced rate when you already have a comfortable income.