Is that it? 1. Income tax is relative to err...income. So how do the those that earn the most, pay the least? V.A.T. is also paid on products bought. Cue some reference to a very, very, very small proportion of tax dodgers. 2. Volunteers ! Shock horror, god forbid that any work can be done by volunteers. Should we dismiss Blood Bikers, St John's Ambulance staff et al forthwith? 3. You were right there. What a load of bollocks.
One of socialisms biggest lies," those who earn the most but use it the least need to pay more." If you are super rich you are incredibly unlikely to use a single nhs service but will have some of those who use it a lot whilst paying nothing at all towards it, demanding you pay more for a service you do not use If you are super rich you are incredibly unlikely to use a single public transport vehicle but will have some that use it with discount or for no fee at all, demanding you pay more for a service you do not use Whilst all the time, even allowing for avoidance schemes, will be paying more in one year than those who pay no tax, will ever pay in their life time. It's a bit like the bloke in your road winning the lottery and everyone in that road giving up work and paying bills because the lottery winner in the road has enough to pay for everything so why shouldn't he. Funny things is those that shout the loudest about this are more likely to work for a company that gets profits as high as they can themselves, often store cash overseas and use every tax loophole to keep the company going and in profit. From this two things stand out, those who still are stupid enough to think the top 5% should pay for everything often work for companies that do the exact same thing so they turn a blind eye to it, and most of the hate is aimed at rich individuals which seems to be more about personal jealousy
He’s been on the naughty step for ages. No sense of humour,and well balanced with a massive chip on both shoulders...
Ssshh. He has a brightly-coloured hat with bells on the corners and he makes me laugh. Leave him alone.
BREXIT,we are probably in deep shit and do not have the boots to deal with it!? But lets give it a go!!!
Let me give you an example. The eu is a gated two tiered protectionist inward looking project on the destructive downward spiral Great Britain has led the world in so many things, taken calculated risks when needed even if it meant helping others at a cost our our own people. We have stood for democracy longer than others have abused it and have always looked outward and sought new challenges. Perhaps I can let my Friend Richard Ayoade explain it
"Reports out of London suggest the United Kingdom is exploring the idea of joining the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal, a long-standing goal of the erstwhile Obama administration and his failed, would-be successor Hillary Clinton. In the U.S., the TPP deal was resoundingly rejected by workers, citizens, and conservative lawmakers, but it remained a favourite of the political establishment right until the last election. Effectively, TPP is like a European Commission for Asia, replete with unelected trade commissioners, common regulatory standards, and even the prospect of open borders between the signatory nations: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. It is palpably absurd for the UK to be leaving one supranational institution — the European Union (EU) — in favour of joining another one on the other side of the world. Government minister Greg Hands semi-defended the idea in the Financial Times, stating: “Nothing is excluded in all of this… With these kind of plurilateral relationships, there doesn’t have to be any geographical restriction.” WHAT IS TPP? The Trans-Pacific Partnership basically sets up a common market for the member states listed above. It also establishes an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which lets corporations sue nation states for setting their own policies that might have an adverse impact on corporate profit. In other words, it’s a massive blowjob to big corporates. President Trump withdrew the U.S. from TPP early on in his administration, having called the deal “insanity” during the campaign, and watched as Hillary Clinton flipped back and forth over her support for it. Fundamentally, the deal became increasingly unpopular with both the left and the right in the United States, with chants of “No TPP!” heard on the floor of the Democratic National Convention back in July 2016. Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello even undertook a tour of the United States trying to raise awareness of how bad the deal was for America. HOW BAD COULD IT BE? The deal — secretive though it was — was feared to have major implications for manufacturing jobs in the West, as well as expanding executive/bureaucratic authority, regulations, and increasing immigration rates. “Two-thirds of Americans say protecting American industries and jobs by limiting imports is more important than allowing free trade so they can buy products at lower prices from any country,” reported NBC in June 2015, reflecting the fears of ordinary workers. President Obama declared TPP would be “the most progressive trade bill in history,” adding: “It will have the kinds of labor and environmental and human rights protections that have been absent in previous agreements.” This led then-presidential candidate Carly Fiorina to lament the deal’s “trap doors” on the environment and climate change: “…these extremely complicated, multi-party agreements are not in our interest, because buried in the 5,000 pages negotiated with 12 other countries, are trap doors.” Despite lawmakers pledging TPP would not impact immigration figures, the final version of the 5,000+ page document had severe implications. Rosemary Jenks, Director of Government Relations for NumbersUSA, said at the time: “When we say the TPP clearly impacts immigration, we’re saying that immigration is the entry of any foreign national into the United States whether on a visa or a visa waiver or a temporary basis or a permanent basis. Anytime a foreign national enters the United States that involves immigration. So, there is no question under my definition that TPP impacts immigration in a massive way. In terms of sovereignty and having a say, TPP is probably actually worse than being a member of the European Union, which at least maintains a pretence of democracy with the European Parliament. TPP would have no such democratic backstop. WHO SAYS WHAT? Well, Hillary Clinton once called TPP the “gold standard” of trade deals, until she realised it was massively unpopular even in her party, and ended up having to embarrassingly row back. Obama was evangelical in his support for it, and President Trump was scathing in equal measure. It’s also worth noting what then-Senator Jeff Sessions had to say about it, having been only one of a handful of legislators who read the document: “They’re not even asserting that it will create jobs in America, raise wages in America or reduce our trade deficit because these agreements in the past have been bad for all three… I think for President Obama, I do believe the driving force behind this is a belief that this is some sort of a one unified governmental structure. It creates judicial bodies. The language of it confirms what I’ve been saying.” “It’s really breathtaking and it’s an erosion of sovereignty.” He added, “particularly an erosion of congressional power.” IS IT REALLY ABOUT TRADE? In as much as the European Union is, sure. So really, only in part. As AJ Kerns laid out in the St. Cloud Times in July 2015: “According to Citizen.org, TPP isn’t only about trade. Of the 29 draft chapters, only five deal with trade”. The Citizen.org site stated: “One chapter would provide incentives to offshore jobs to low-wage countries… our federal, state and local policies would be required to comply with (international) TPP rules.” Writing in Real Clear Politics in 2015, Dick Morris stated unequivocally: “TPP is nothing but an effort by the globalists to circumvent American sovereignty, transferring a host of issues from the control of the U.S. Congress and the various state legislatures to international trade courts”. The Washington Post — previously a cheerleader for the deal — had to accept that Trump’s withdrawal from TPP would most likely hardly affect trade at all. SO WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR BRITAIN? Fundamentally, the TPP talk is about British politicians and bureaucrats once again attempting to offshore their responsibilities, and offshoring ordinary people’s jobs while mass importing more migrant labour at the same time. It’s a way to remain part of an EU-style system without being part of the European Union, although some are even claiming the EU should now join TPP. This is one of the few times I agree with Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron. In fact, probably the only time. He summed it up best in response to the UK-TPP story: “This plan smacks of desperation. These people want us to leave a market on our doorstep and join a different, smaller one on the other side of the world. It’s all pie in the sky thinking.” http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...cific-partnership-trade-deal-heres-need-know/
The only thing I would point out about that is a bit of confusion on similar terms The deal put forward by Obama to the eu was Ttip http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/index_en.htm the new group being mentioned comes under TPP http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42549541 Ttip was a very dubious peace of legislation heaviliy geared towards the Business's of the U.S, controlling countries legally TPP however is more like the eu was when it first started, a number of countries coming together with a favourable membership low or zero tariff trade agreements situation and does NOT include the U.S.
I still wasn't able to vote in the thread poll due to my option not being listed. Not disappointed, Elise, just angry.
