the snap general election thread

sevenhills

CKhalvashi wrote: »

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.

HMRC says that it hasn’t agreed with Google any less than the full amount of tax due.
What type of tax do you think Google should pay?

CKhalvashi

sevenhills wrote: »

HMRC says that it hasn’t agreed with Google any less than the full amount of tax due.
What type of tax do you think Google should pay?

I believe that the tax laws should be changed to include Google's UK income minus their UK expenses as profit in the UK.

I've said this numerous times.

Fella

CKhalvashi wrote: »

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.



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.

I wasn't suggesting that you're a liar, my point was that Labour are lying when they say their manifesto is properly costed & they will be rejoicing that people like yourself believe them.

CKhalvashi

Fella wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting that you're a liar, my point was that Labour are lying when they say their manifesto is properly costed & they will be rejoicing that people like yourself believe them.

Just for reference, this is a very generalised post and shouldn't be seen as campaigning for (or against) any one party.

I won't be voting Labour (don't assume that every non-Conservative is), however the costs and revenues on the face of it do seem to stack up. I also get a genuine impression that Labour would try to make many decisions in the way they suggest, where the Conservatives are being very vague. Whether Labour would succeed is another matter.

The issue is though IMO that we have a choice of 2 imperfect candidates with a chance of becoming PM in difficult circumstances.

The latest polls suggest that Labour and Lib Dems combined and Conservatives are neck and neck. Obviously this depends on vote distribution, however if Labour manage to not lose a lot and the Libs manage to take some Con seats, anything could happen, especially if an area such as the one I live in goes 70+% Conservative, wiping out the potential swing factor of a few other seats in just that one. This is most likely to happen in Essex and Kent if at all.

Somewhere like Cambridge (as a Lib/Lab marginal, although this is unlikely to happen in this specific seat) could have a 10% Con swing from Labour, which would leave the Labour vote to increase 10% in other marginals where it would be necessary.

On the other hand, Labour could face losses in marginals, leaving the Cons to take seats heavily increasing their majority.

Just for those that disagree with me here, I'm not for one minute doubting the polls, however I am seriously doubting the way a uniform swing would work. Many things could happen, and this post focuses on 2 of them.

sevenhills

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I believe that the tax laws should be changed to include Google's UK income minus their UK expenses as profit in the UK.

That happens already.

https://www.gov.uk/corporation-tax/overview

Moby

Fella wrote: »

With respect their costings don't deserve the time of day. They've deliberately claimed they'll raise tens of billions from tax increases open to widely different interpretation of what they'll generate & that may well actually raise less revenue & other stuff that is plucked out of the air (the usual stuff like "clamping down on tax avoiders"). Other things aren't costed at all.

Let's be serious for a moment. Unless you're a backwards moron (& I don't believe you personally are btw) you don't NEED to scrutinize the figures. Labour are proposing spending hundreds of billions of pounds & claiming it'll have no impact except on the evil richest 5%. A child can see that is total fantasy. It deserves to be laughed at & dismissed like the utter nonsense it is.

If they want to spend hundreds of billions & actually have it costed they'd need a large income tax raise across the board and a ton of extra borrowing. Anybody who tries to tell you different is a liar hoping you're a gullible idiot.

The gullible idiots are the ones who accept a manifesto with uncosted promises!:rotfl:

Moby

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

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.

You forgot to throw in Diane Abbott as well;)

Enterprise_1701C

Moby wrote: »

You forgot to throw in Diane Abbott as well;)

I didn't need to, she throws herself in - repeatedly!

Labour supporters are getting worse

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4537978/Woman-HECKLES-police
-soldiers-Downing-Street.html

And I will NEVER go to see Rufus Hound

http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/25/rufus-hound-hit-with-backlash-over-his-manchester-terror-attack-comments-6660468/

ukcarper

The flaws in the Labour Party are obvious even to previous Labour Party voters like myself. But that doesn't alter the fact that the Tory party are far from perfect and Teresa May has obvious faults and doesn't inspire any body other than hardened Tory supporters with confidence.

martinsurrey

CKhalvashi wrote: »

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.



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.

about 1.2m people earn over £80k a year.

Run your sums with that,

100,000,000,000/260/1,200,000 = £320 a week, or almost £17k a year increase in income tax for the "rich" on average.

Still seam reasonable?