the snap general election thread

Fella

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Yes, lets think about this seriously a minute.

£100bn over the lifetime of a parliament is (ironically and actually very helpfully for my argument) just over £350m a week.

So, it's £1 a day per person in the UK. I'm pretty sure that those earning more than £80k and big businesses would make that up quite easily, and will also pay the EEA membership fees we will have under a Labour-led coalition.

So yes, I think Labours plans are realistic when the numbers are actually broken down on that level.

And the liars rejoice.

CKhalvashi

Yah_Boo_Sux wrote: »

Just a little research would have given you the answers instead of lazily relying upon others. But anyway, read on.

I have researched many things in the last few months, do let me explain.

Ireland?
Well there is a chance, admittedly remote ATM but who knows in the future, that Ireland may no longer wish to be an EU member. Much has been written since the UK's EU referendum & certainly enough to potentially dissuade serious thoughts of moving there.

There's a chance that any other country may want to leave the EU in the future. It doesn't mean we can't act the situation as it currently is, though.

Cyprus?
Again uncertainty. Of a different type perhaps; the island remains split following the illegal Turkish invasion. As a disputed island it is therefore not an ideal choice.

I have friends from the North and South of Cyprus, all of whom are really nice. As everything has become more digital can do a lot of what I need to anywhere I have an internet connection and phone, as most business files are stored online now.

Cyprus would be a nightmare for me as the business relies on the movement of vehicles (and people), as would Ireland, but there's no reason why an SME that does require access to the single market couldn't do the admin in Cyprus and the physical movement of goods in Greece (whose government would probably be very grateful) or Bulgaria/Romania. Cyprus is also trialling a new visa for entrepreneurs which allow residency and require a much lower investment than most, which may be something to consider post-Brexit.

Timisoara is a good current location for access to most of Germany/Austria/Switzerland/Eastern Europe, as it's about 6 hours by road to Vienna with cheap business rents and the availability of a hard working, cheap, qualified workforce.

On the other part of your post re: Cyprus, Georgia has 1/3 of the territories currently under Russian control. It doesn't make the country any less safe than anywhere else, and in some cases has the lowest crime rates in Europe.

I don't want to get into a debate on where to relocate a business, as while the original point (and your reply) was reasonably on the subject of what's being discussed here, my reply here could be seen as the beginning of derailing the thread.

I'm not commenting on any political aspect in more detail as I am not currently campaigning out of respect for those affected by the Manchester terrorist attack. This includes online.

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Yes, lets think about this seriously a minute.

£100bn over the lifetime of a parliament is (ironically and actually very helpfully for my argument) just over £350m a week.

So, it's £1 a day per person in the UK. I'm pretty sure that those earning more than £80k and big businesses would make that up quite easily, and will also pay the EEA membership fees we will have under a Labour-led coalition.

So yes, I think Labours plans are realistic when the numbers are actually broken down on that level.

Remove £20 billion from people pockets and you'll impact the economy. In case you've forgotten we are still running an annual £50 billion plus deficit already. With the economy running into strong headwinds looking forward. Not a great idea. A decade of resolving historic problems still to come. Yet alone creating a new set. That's the problem with politicians these days far too simplistic.

PS. Many people in this country have no earned income. The actual working population constitutes less than half.

Yah_Boo_Sux

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I have researched many things in the last few months, do let me explain.

Perhaps I should explain: I have read your posts. For quite a while. I am therefore fully-versed in both your opinions and your attitudes.

As such my post was intended to be far more tongue-in-cheek than serious; had you properly researched before posting you would know the real reason which is pretty much as Thrugelmir stated.

I would like to point out that

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I'm not commenting on any political aspect in more detail as I am not currently campaigning out of respect for those affected by the Manchester terrorist attack. This includes online.

is IMHO in very bad taste since you posted a few potentially provocative posts in a political thread.
Very bad form.

kabayiri

Who cares on the numbers.

Labour won't get a chance to test their numbers, because Corbyn is a busted flush in Wales; Scotland; Geordieland etc etc.

I don't think he even wanted to win. Why else would you pick such a motley crew for a shadow cabinet?

CKhalvashi

Fella wrote: »

And the liars rejoice.

That is not a lie. 2 seconds with a calculator will show you that.

100,000,000,000, divide 260. = £284m, as a weekly cost.

Divide that by 65 million = £4.37 per person a week. For whoever said only about half of people are taxpayers that's £8.74, which is still closer than not to £1 a person a day.

Yah_Boo_Sux wrote: »

I would like to point out that is IMHO in very bad taste since you posted a few potentially provocative posts in a political thread.
Very bad form.

Where? As you've read through my posts, you will know my attitude to this; if you have a direct allegation, please state it.

If reasonable, you will get an answer.

Enterprise_1701C

Herzlos wrote: »

If you earn more than £80k/year and/or have wealthy relative about to die, then vote Tory.

For everyone else, vote Labour.

Simples

If you care about the UK and do not want it run by the unions, do not want it to actually be destroyed by Labour, if you want to be able to defend it without having to sit down with the next people that want to destroy it, if you care about the young people just starting to buy their own houses, if you do not want the railways to cease operating properly and be worse than they are then vote Conservative.

If you want to live off the state with everything paid for by others (possibly your kids in 20 years' time), if you want to lose the Falklands because Corbyn won't defend them because he might not have enough tea, if you want Gibralter handed over to appease the Spanish, if you want to spend a fortune appeasing other countries that demand retribution for imagined slights many years ago, and if you want the UK to be unrecognisable within a year because we will all be on our knees, probably worshipping putin, then vote labour.

michaels

Thrugelmir wrote: »

UK stock exchange listing. Majority of corporations based in Eire are US. Eire provides their European head office and also their route to avoid US federal taxes by keeping the cash off shore. How much longer though. Eire is concerned that (a) the EU Commission is going to rule against their tax arrangements. (b) the UK offers a better place to operate from. Once the tax benefit is removed.

In business terms Cyprus is remote.

You missed the elephant in the room, Trump's plan to cut US corporation tax from 35% to 15%. That revenue is going to disappear pretty soon for everyone by the looks of things - certainly no chance that Labour with big increases will do anything but precipitate the loss.

The history of tax increases is littered with falls in revenue (see for example the raid on the rich and evil landlords via higher stamp duty).

A_Medium_Size_Jock

michaels wrote: »

You missed the elephant in the room, Trump's plan to cut US corporation tax from 35% to 15%. That revenue is going to disappear pretty soon for everyone by the looks of things - certainly no chance that Labour with big increases will do anything but precipitate the loss.

The history of tax increases is littered with falls in revenue (see for example the raid on the rich and evil landlords via higher stamp duty).

Yes but some can't even understand that what they've just posted may count as provocative in a political thread.
Please don't expect them to understand the finer points of tax and its implications, much less accept them in these forums.
The elephant standing on such a posters chest would not be enough to convince this poster that there even was an elephant.

CKhalvashi

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Yes but some can't even understand that what they've just posted may count as provocative in a political thread.
Please don't expect them to understand the finer points of tax and its implications, much less accept them in these forums.
The elephant standing on such a posters chest would not be enough to convince this poster that there even was an elephant.

I've said nothing unreasonable at all. I've also reiterated that if someone wants to question something, they should ask me directly rather than telling me I'm wrong/unreasonable and doing nothing to back that up.

I do agree with Michaels point, however, although I don't think with the overall Labour plan it will do so much damage. Anyone that does know me well enough (even on here) will know that I think Google, Amazon, Starbucks and etc should pay their fair share of taxes as the rest of us do, and taxing profit earned in the UK by the British government is the fairest way to do this. We have a decent ability to do so already, so the question is why we're not doing that to the extent allowed.