What Should Be The New Royal Baby's Name? (And Does Anyone Really Care?)

SirHenryLeeChaChing

Dragonpol wrote:

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Henry sounds quite regal to me.

Why thank you, I feel that way myself (even though my screen name is a play on the lead villain from Dalton's proposed 3rd film). It is nice indeed to actually have noble British (Welsh side) bloodlines :)

I honestly don't much care what Will and Kate name their boy, as long as he is happy and healthy and they are hands on parents who rely as little as possible on a nanny, that's what really counts. If I did have a say, I would have also preferred James for obvious reasons, although I am just reading George it is.

Pray tell, what was the villain's name? I know about The Property of A Lady (1991) projected third Dalton film, but not a lot else. I always wondered how you picked your name, Sir Henry!

I think that George is nice and traditional - just how I like it. @TheWizardOfIce and I are are part of the same party, I believe.

The villain's proposed name was Sir Henry Lee Ching, I just added the "cha" for a little bit of humor.

My son's name is Alexander, so I think it's pretty awesome that he has something in common with the new royal :)

Creasy47

I honestly couldn't care less. I, for one, am tired of hearing about the royal baby. It's trumping everything in the news, it seems.

forgotmyusername

Q: What do you call the MI6 Officers
overseeing security at the Royal birth?



A: On Her Majesty's Secret Cervix.

WillyGalore

forgotmyusername wrote:

Q: What do you call the MI6 Officers
overseeing security at the Royal birth?



A: On Her Majesty's Secret Cervix.

Sublime

=))

TheWizardOfIce

WillyGalore wrote:

I don't have a particular problem with the welfare state. The amount it costs the taxpayer is a mere drop in the ocean in comparison with the bloated fat cats and huge corporations who go to any lengths possible in order to avoid their fair share of tax. That's what's really hitting the pockets of the taxpayer in this country.

I'll give a good example of an article I read on monday.

Phil Mickleson, who won the Scottish Open and The Open last week, earned nearly £1.5mil for his victories and yet the US and UK governments between them will pocket nearly £900,000 in Income Tax.

Compare that if you will to the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) who made profits of approximately £300mil in the UK last year and thanks to the loopholes in our tax system, only paid £1mil in Corporation Tax.

1 man pays £900,000 in tax. 1 global corporation pays only £100,000 more.

There lies the answer to what's wrong in this country. If you're rich, you can pretty much pay what you like in tax. If you're poor and in need of the most help, people just want to stomp all over you.

Of course the current government have no interest in going after those who avoid paying their tax, as most of them and Party contributors and voters.

But I guess that's the reality and hypocrisy of life.

Don't know why people blame the fat cats - they're not doing anything illegal. Don't be sanctimonious enough to pretend you (and the stomped on poor) wouldn't take advantage of tax loopholes if you could.

Blame the government if you want for having laws that allow corporations to dodge tax but don't blame people for taking advantage of something that is perfectly legal.

WillyGalore

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

I don't have a particular problem with the welfare state. The amount it costs the taxpayer is a mere drop in the ocean in comparison with the bloated fat cats and huge corporations who go to any lengths possible in order to avoid their fair share of tax. That's what's really hitting the pockets of the taxpayer in this country.

I'll give a good example of an article I read on monday.

Phil Mickleson, who won the Scottish Open and The Open last week, earned nearly £1.5mil for his victories and yet the US and UK governments between them will pocket nearly £900,000 in Income Tax.

Compare that if you will to the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) who made profits of approximately £300mil in the UK last year and thanks to the loopholes in our tax system, only paid £1mil in Corporation Tax.

1 man pays £900,000 in tax. 1 global corporation pays only £100,000 more.

There lies the answer to what's wrong in this country. If you're rich, you can pretty much pay what you like in tax. If you're poor and in need of the most help, people just want to stomp all over you.

Of course the current government have no interest in going after those who avoid paying their tax, as most of them and Party contributors and voters.

But I guess that's the reality and hypocrisy of life.

Don't know why people blame the fat cats - they're not doing anything illegal. Don't be sanctimonious enough to pretend you (and the stomped on poor) wouldn't take advantage of tax loopholes if you could.

Blame the government if you want for having laws that allow corporations to dodge tax but don't blame people for taking advantage of something that is perfectly legal.

And you've hit the nail right on the head. It's not illegal, but it's completely immoral. The rest of us 'plebs' are unable to take advantage of these loopholes/tax avoidance schemes for this very reason: We are NOT rich. Yet we are fully expected to pay our taxes. I'm a self employed caterer and God help me if I'm even £1 out when it comes to filing my tax return. Inland Revenue would come down on me like a ton of bricks.

And yes, you're right. The Government are principally to blame for this and have they taken any steps to rectify this issue? Have they boll***s!

Instead they've foxed their attention on cutting the welfare state. Why? Because poor people don't vote Conservative. That's ultimately what it boils down to. You can only make so many cuts for so long, until the inevitable happens:

Whoever wins the general election in 2015, will increase taxes. And IMO it will be a significant increase.

Ludovico

WillyGalore wrote:

forgotmyusername wrote:

Q: What do you call the MI6 Officers
overseeing security at the Royal birth?



A: On Her Majesty's Secret Cervix.

Sublime

=))

From The Daily Show, I believe.

TheWizardOfIce

WillyGalore wrote:

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

I don't have a particular problem with the welfare state. The amount it costs the taxpayer is a mere drop in the ocean in comparison with the bloated fat cats and huge corporations who go to any lengths possible in order to avoid their fair share of tax. That's what's really hitting the pockets of the taxpayer in this country.

I'll give a good example of an article I read on monday.

Phil Mickleson, who won the Scottish Open and The Open last week, earned nearly £1.5mil for his victories and yet the US and UK governments between them will pocket nearly £900,000 in Income Tax.

Compare that if you will to the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) who made profits of approximately £300mil in the UK last year and thanks to the loopholes in our tax system, only paid £1mil in Corporation Tax.

1 man pays £900,000 in tax. 1 global corporation pays only £100,000 more.

There lies the answer to what's wrong in this country. If you're rich, you can pretty much pay what you like in tax. If you're poor and in need of the most help, people just want to stomp all over you.

Of course the current government have no interest in going after those who avoid paying their tax, as most of them and Party contributors and voters.

But I guess that's the reality and hypocrisy of life.

Don't know why people blame the fat cats - they're not doing anything illegal. Don't be sanctimonious enough to pretend you (and the stomped on poor) wouldn't take advantage of tax loopholes if you could.

Blame the government if you want for having laws that allow corporations to dodge tax but don't blame people for taking advantage of something that is perfectly legal.

And you've hit the nail right on the head. It's not illegal, but it's completely immoral. The rest of us 'plebs' are unable to take advantage of these loopholes/tax avoidance schemes for this very reason: We are NOT rich. Yet we are fully expected to pay our taxes. I'm a self employed caterer and God help me if I'm even £1 out when it comes to filing my tax return. Inland Revenue would come down on me like a ton of bricks.

And yes, you're right. The Government are principally to blame for this and have they taken any steps to rectify this issue? Have they boll***s!

Instead they've foxed their attention on cutting the welfare state. Why? Because poor people don't vote Conservative. That's ultimately what it boils down to. You can only make so many cuts for so long, until the inevitable happens:

Whoever wins the general election in 2015, will increase taxes. And IMO it will be a significant increase.

Sounds like you need to rally the ranks of the unwashed into voting for you then Vladimir Ilyich Galore because if more people vote Tory than Communist again then nothing will change.

You are of course correct about the tax system favouring the rich but dont confuse that with the totally separate issue of cutting the welfare budget. Both are in need of chronic overhaul but that's unlikely to happen under the identikit spineless cretins fronting the main parties.


Vote Farrage people (I'm joking at this point - I'm not that crazy).

forgotmyusername

Ludovico wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

forgotmyusername wrote:

Q: What do you call the MI6 Officers
overseeing security at the Royal birth?



A: On Her Majesty's Secret Cervix.

Sublime

=))

From The Daily Show, I believe.

No, popbitch
.

WillyGalore

@thewizardofice the 'unwashed'? nice perception you have of the poor and vulnerable in this country. Presumably a Daily Mail reader.

Mrcoggins

WillyGalore wrote:

@thewizardofice the 'unwashed'? nice perception you have of the poor and vulnerable in this country. Presumably a Daily Mail reader.

I doubt that the Wiz would be found with the Daily Mail unless his chips were wrapped in it !

forgotmyusername

WillyGalore wrote:

@thewizardofice the 'unwashed'? nice perception you have of the poor and vulnerable in this country. Presumably a Daily Mail reader.

Wiz is actually prince Philips illigetimate child when he had a fling in darkest Africa with princess umfufu from edious murphious land.

Creasy47

forgotmyusername wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

@thewizardofice the 'unwashed'? nice perception you have of the poor and vulnerable in this country. Presumably a Daily Mail reader.

Wiz is actually prince Philips illigetimate child when he had a fling in darkest Africa with princess umfufu from edious murphious land.

Great nod to 'Raw'! ;)

Dragonpol

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Henry sounds quite regal to me.

Why thank you, I feel that way myself (even though my screen name is a play on the lead villain from Dalton's proposed 3rd film). It is nice indeed to actually have noble British (Welsh side) bloodlines :)

I honestly don't much care what Will and Kate name their boy, as long as he is happy and healthy and they are hands on parents who rely as little as possible on a nanny, that's what really counts. If I did have a say, I would have also preferred James for obvious reasons, although I am just reading George it is.

Pray tell, what was the villain's name? I know about The Property of A Lady (1991) projected third Dalton film, but not a lot else. I always wondered how you picked your name, Sir Henry!

I think that George is nice and traditional - just how I like it. @TheWizardOfIce and I are are part of the same party, I believe.

The villain's proposed name was Sir Henry Lee Ching, I just added the "cha" for a little bit of humor.

My son's name is Alexander, so I think it's pretty awesome that he has something in common with the new royal :)

My middle name is Alexander. Thanks for making it clear on your name. I'd always wondered about its origin as you, sir, are an MI6 legend!

Dragonpol

WillyGalore wrote:

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

I don't have a particular problem with the welfare state. The amount it costs the taxpayer is a mere drop in the ocean in comparison with the bloated fat cats and huge corporations who go to any lengths possible in order to avoid their fair share of tax. That's what's really hitting the pockets of the taxpayer in this country.

I'll give a good example of an article I read on monday.

Phil Mickleson, who won the Scottish Open and The Open last week, earned nearly £1.5mil for his victories and yet the US and UK governments between them will pocket nearly £900,000 in Income Tax.

Compare that if you will to the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) who made profits of approximately £300mil in the UK last year and thanks to the loopholes in our tax system, only paid £1mil in Corporation Tax.

1 man pays £900,000 in tax. 1 global corporation pays only £100,000 more.

There lies the answer to what's wrong in this country. If you're rich, you can pretty much pay what you like in tax. If you're poor and in need of the most help, people just want to stomp all over you.

Of course the current government have no interest in going after those who avoid paying their tax, as most of them and Party contributors and voters.

But I guess that's the reality and hypocrisy of life.

Don't know why people blame the fat cats - they're not doing anything illegal. Don't be sanctimonious enough to pretend you (and the stomped on poor) wouldn't take advantage of tax loopholes if you could.

Blame the government if you want for having laws that allow corporations to dodge tax but don't blame people for taking advantage of something that is perfectly legal.

And you've hit the nail right on the head. It's not illegal, but it's completely immoral. The rest of us 'plebs' are unable to take advantage of these loopholes/tax avoidance schemes for this very reason: We are NOT rich. Yet we are fully expected to pay our taxes. I'm a self employed caterer and God help me if I'm even £1 out when it comes to filing my tax return. Inland Revenue would come down on me like a ton of bricks.

And yes, you're right. The Government are principally to blame for this and have they taken any steps to rectify this issue? Have they boll***s!

Instead they've foxed their attention on cutting the welfare state. Why? Because poor people don't vote Conservative. That's ultimately what it boils down to. You can only make so many cuts for so long, until the inevitable happens:

Whoever wins the general election in 2015, will increase taxes. And IMO it will be a significant increase.

As Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden said when asked about this, "How many votes did we get at the last election [the 1955 General Election]? 12 million or so, something like that. They certainly weren't all from the well-to-do!"

If only the rich elites voted Conservative they would never be elected on that strength alone as the numbers aren't there to make that happen. No, I'm afraid you have to look at the fact that the poor do vote Conservative, for the reason that they are closet Tories. You oversimplify a complex area - voting intentions - and in doing so you do this forum a great disservice. I just wanted to put the record straight for other readers of this thread. I'm tired of left-wing propaganda.

SirHenryLeeChaChing

@Dragonpol- An excellent middle name yourself, sir. Obviously I approve.

MI6 legend? In terms of being known around here and in terms of longevity as a die hard fan (45th year now and not even 52), perhaps. And some might say I'm only a legend in my own mind :)) Thank you anyway, it's nice to be appreciated.

Dragonpol

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

@Dragonpol- An excellent middle name yourself, sir. Obviously I approve.

MI6 legend? In terms of being known around here and in terms of longevity as a die hard fan (45th year now and not even 52), perhaps. And some might say I'm only a legend in my own mind :)) Thank you anyway, it's nice to be appreciated.

I call you a legend as you are. Also, Bond and Beyond, the MI6 Community break-away site wanted to recruit you to their number, but it's dead over there these days.

WillyGalore

Dragonpol wrote:

As Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden said when asked about this, "How many votes did we get at the last election [the 1955 General Election]? 12 million or so, something like that. They certainly weren't all from the well-to-do!"

If only the rich elites voted Conservative they would never be elected on that strength alone as the numbers aren't there to make that happen. No, I'm afraid you have to look at the fact that the poor do vote Conservative, for the reason that they are closet Tories. You oversimplify a complex area - voting intentions - and in doing so you do this forum a great disservice. I just wanted to put the record straight for other readers of this thread. I'm tired of left-wing propaganda.

I'll set the record straight also. I am certainly not left wing. In fact, I have no allegiance to one party or the other. Quite frankly, when it comes to 2015, I've no clue as to which way I'm going to vote because I'm not sure any of the main political parties are able to dig us out of this hole.

Dragonpol

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

Henry sounds quite regal to me.

Why thank you, I feel that way myself (even though my screen name is a play on the lead villain from Dalton's proposed 3rd film). It is nice indeed to actually have noble British (Welsh side) bloodlines :)

I honestly don't much care what Will and Kate name their boy, as long as he is happy and healthy and they are hands on parents who rely as little as possible on a nanny, that's what really counts. If I did have a say, I would have also preferred James for obvious reasons, although I am just reading George it is.

Pray tell, what was the villain's name? I know about The Property of A Lady (1991) projected third Dalton film, but not a lot else. I always wondered how you picked your name, Sir Henry!

I think that George is nice and traditional - just how I like it. @TheWizardOfIce and I are are part of the same party, I believe.

The villain's proposed name was Sir Henry Lee Ching, I just added the "cha" for a little bit of humor.

My son's name is Alexander, so I think it's pretty awesome that he has something in common with the new royal :)

It also sounds a bit like the villain from John Gardner's Brokenclaw (1990) - Brokenclaw Lee Fu-Chu, no?

Dragonpol

WillyGalore wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

As Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden said when asked about this, "How many votes did we get at the last election [the 1955 General Election]? 12 million or so, something like that. They certainly weren't all from the well-to-do!"

If only the rich elites voted Conservative they would never be elected on that strength alone as the numbers aren't there to make that happen. No, I'm afraid you have to look at the fact that the poor do vote Conservative, for the reason that they are closet Tories. You oversimplify a complex area - voting intentions - and in doing so you do this forum a great disservice. I just wanted to put the record straight for other readers of this thread. I'm tired of left-wing propaganda.

I'll set the record straight also. I am certainly not left wing. In fact, I have no allegiance to one party or the other. Quite frankly, when it comes to 2015, I've no clue as to which way I'm going to vote because I'm not sure any of the main political parties are able to dig us out of this hole.

Well fair enough.

[cough] Nigel Firage? [cough]

WillyGalore

How very very dare you ;-)

Dragonpol

WillyGalore wrote:

How very very dare you ;-)

BNP?

WillyGalore

They wouldn't take me I'm afraid ;-)

Dragonpol

WillyGalore wrote:

They wouldn't take me I'm afraid ;-)

Greens?

WillyGalore

I'm more Monster Raving Loony...



...but I don't have a political party either ;-)

RC7

Dragonpol wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

I don't have a particular problem with the welfare state. The amount it costs the taxpayer is a mere drop in the ocean in comparison with the bloated fat cats and huge corporations who go to any lengths possible in order to avoid their fair share of tax. That's what's really hitting the pockets of the taxpayer in this country.

I'll give a good example of an article I read on monday.

Phil Mickleson, who won the Scottish Open and The Open last week, earned nearly £1.5mil for his victories and yet the US and UK governments between them will pocket nearly £900,000 in Income Tax.

Compare that if you will to the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) who made profits of approximately £300mil in the UK last year and thanks to the loopholes in our tax system, only paid £1mil in Corporation Tax.

1 man pays £900,000 in tax. 1 global corporation pays only £100,000 more.

There lies the answer to what's wrong in this country. If you're rich, you can pretty much pay what you like in tax. If you're poor and in need of the most help, people just want to stomp all over you.

Of course the current government have no interest in going after those who avoid paying their tax, as most of them and Party contributors and voters.

But I guess that's the reality and hypocrisy of life.

Don't know why people blame the fat cats - they're not doing anything illegal. Don't be sanctimonious enough to pretend you (and the stomped on poor) wouldn't take advantage of tax loopholes if you could.

Blame the government if you want for having laws that allow corporations to dodge tax but don't blame people for taking advantage of something that is perfectly legal.

And you've hit the nail right on the head. It's not illegal, but it's completely immoral. The rest of us 'plebs' are unable to take advantage of these loopholes/tax avoidance schemes for this very reason: We are NOT rich. Yet we are fully expected to pay our taxes. I'm a self employed caterer and God help me if I'm even £1 out when it comes to filing my tax return. Inland Revenue would come down on me like a ton of bricks.

And yes, you're right. The Government are principally to blame for this and have they taken any steps to rectify this issue? Have they boll***s!

Instead they've foxed their attention on cutting the welfare state. Why? Because poor people don't vote Conservative. That's ultimately what it boils down to. You can only make so many cuts for so long, until the inevitable happens:

Whoever wins the general election in 2015, will increase taxes. And IMO it will be a significant increase.

As Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden said when asked about this, "How many votes did we get at the last election [the 1955 General Election]? 12 million or so, something like that. They certainly weren't all from the well-to-do!"

If only the rich elites voted Conservative they would never be elected on that strength alone as the numbers aren't there to make that happen. No, I'm afraid you have to look at the fact that the poor do vote Conservative, for the reason that they are closet Tories. You oversimplify a complex area - voting intentions - and in doing so you do this forum a great disservice. I just wanted to put the record straight for other readers of this thread. I'm tired of left-wing propaganda.

Not sure why you're quoting post-war politics, the political landscape has altered somewhat, although not for many staunch right-wingers. I think you'll find it's the middle-classes that net the Tories the bulk of their seats. 'Poor' people as you call them tend to steer well clear of them, unless they are the type who dislike 'those foreign people' and are drawn in by 'that lovely chap with the rosy cheeks, who looks like an estate agent. Isn't his suit nice?'. I'm not sure you put any record straight, although I'm thinking of the many people I've heard utter that phrase before and they're certainly not people I'd be discussing politics with.

SirHenryLeeChaChing

Dragonpol wrote:

SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote:

@Dragonpol- An excellent middle name yourself, sir. Obviously I approve.

MI6 legend? In terms of being known around here and in terms of longevity as a die hard fan (45th year now and not even 52), perhaps. And some might say I'm only a legend in my own mind :)) Thank you anyway, it's nice to be appreciated.

I call you a legend as you are. Also, Bond and Beyond, the MI6 Community break-away site wanted to recruit you to their number, but it's dead over there these days.

Well, I never received the invitation! I did stop by to look and see if some old friends that I knew from KTBEU and the early days of this site were there (I truly miss that awesome lady Retrokitty from Canada and her man Daniel, if they are over there please give them my finest regards and tell them how much I miss them), but most of the names I recognized from here and it seems they all still come here too.

Dragonpol

RC7 wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

I don't have a particular problem with the welfare state. The amount it costs the taxpayer is a mere drop in the ocean in comparison with the bloated fat cats and huge corporations who go to any lengths possible in order to avoid their fair share of tax. That's what's really hitting the pockets of the taxpayer in this country.

I'll give a good example of an article I read on monday.

Phil Mickleson, who won the Scottish Open and The Open last week, earned nearly £1.5mil for his victories and yet the US and UK governments between them will pocket nearly £900,000 in Income Tax.

Compare that if you will to the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) who made profits of approximately £300mil in the UK last year and thanks to the loopholes in our tax system, only paid £1mil in Corporation Tax.

1 man pays £900,000 in tax. 1 global corporation pays only £100,000 more.

There lies the answer to what's wrong in this country. If you're rich, you can pretty much pay what you like in tax. If you're poor and in need of the most help, people just want to stomp all over you.

Of course the current government have no interest in going after those who avoid paying their tax, as most of them and Party contributors and voters.

But I guess that's the reality and hypocrisy of life.

Don't know why people blame the fat cats - they're not doing anything illegal. Don't be sanctimonious enough to pretend you (and the stomped on poor) wouldn't take advantage of tax loopholes if you could.

Blame the government if you want for having laws that allow corporations to dodge tax but don't blame people for taking advantage of something that is perfectly legal.

And you've hit the nail right on the head. It's not illegal, but it's completely immoral. The rest of us 'plebs' are unable to take advantage of these loopholes/tax avoidance schemes for this very reason: We are NOT rich. Yet we are fully expected to pay our taxes. I'm a self employed caterer and God help me if I'm even £1 out when it comes to filing my tax return. Inland Revenue would come down on me like a ton of bricks.

And yes, you're right. The Government are principally to blame for this and have they taken any steps to rectify this issue? Have they boll***s!

Instead they've foxed their attention on cutting the welfare state. Why? Because poor people don't vote Conservative. That's ultimately what it boils down to. You can only make so many cuts for so long, until the inevitable happens:

Whoever wins the general election in 2015, will increase taxes. And IMO it will be a significant increase.

As Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden said when asked about this, "How many votes did we get at the last election [the 1955 General Election]? 12 million or so, something like that. They certainly weren't all from the well-to-do!"

If only the rich elites voted Conservative they would never be elected on that strength alone as the numbers aren't there to make that happen. No, I'm afraid you have to look at the fact that the poor do vote Conservative, for the reason that they are closet Tories. You oversimplify a complex area - voting intentions - and in doing so you do this forum a great disservice. I just wanted to put the record straight for other readers of this thread. I'm tired of left-wing propaganda.

Not sure why you're quoting post-war politics, the political landscape has altered somewhat, although not for many staunch right-wingers. I think you'll find it's the middle-classes that net the Tories the bulk of their seats. 'Poor' people as you call them tend to steer well clear of them, unless they are the type who dislike 'those foreign people' and are drawn in by 'that lovely chap with the rosy cheeks, who looks like an estate agent. Isn't his suit nice?'. I'm not sure you put any record straight, although I'm thinking of the many people I've heard utter that phrase before and they're certainly not people I'd be discussing politics with.

I was really just pointing out the fact that Tory voters can't all be tarred with the same brush. I did in fact say that. It remains true. I'm working class myself, by the way and a minimum wage worker to boot so stuff that in your pipe and light it!

TheWizardOfIce

Dragonpol wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

I don't have a particular problem with the welfare state. The amount it costs the taxpayer is a mere drop in the ocean in comparison with the bloated fat cats and huge corporations who go to any lengths possible in order to avoid their fair share of tax. That's what's really hitting the pockets of the taxpayer in this country.

I'll give a good example of an article I read on monday.

Phil Mickleson, who won the Scottish Open and The Open last week, earned nearly £1.5mil for his victories and yet the US and UK governments between them will pocket nearly £900,000 in Income Tax.

Compare that if you will to the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) who made profits of approximately £300mil in the UK last year and thanks to the loopholes in our tax system, only paid £1mil in Corporation Tax.

1 man pays £900,000 in tax. 1 global corporation pays only £100,000 more.

There lies the answer to what's wrong in this country. If you're rich, you can pretty much pay what you like in tax. If you're poor and in need of the most help, people just want to stomp all over you.

Of course the current government have no interest in going after those who avoid paying their tax, as most of them and Party contributors and voters.

But I guess that's the reality and hypocrisy of life.

Don't know why people blame the fat cats - they're not doing anything illegal. Don't be sanctimonious enough to pretend you (and the stomped on poor) wouldn't take advantage of tax loopholes if you could.

Blame the government if you want for having laws that allow corporations to dodge tax but don't blame people for taking advantage of something that is perfectly legal.

And you've hit the nail right on the head. It's not illegal, but it's completely immoral. The rest of us 'plebs' are unable to take advantage of these loopholes/tax avoidance schemes for this very reason: We are NOT rich. Yet we are fully expected to pay our taxes. I'm a self employed caterer and God help me if I'm even £1 out when it comes to filing my tax return. Inland Revenue would come down on me like a ton of bricks.

And yes, you're right. The Government are principally to blame for this and have they taken any steps to rectify this issue? Have they boll***s!

Instead they've foxed their attention on cutting the welfare state. Why? Because poor people don't vote Conservative. That's ultimately what it boils down to. You can only make so many cuts for so long, until the inevitable happens:

Whoever wins the general election in 2015, will increase taxes. And IMO it will be a significant increase.

As Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden said when asked about this, "How many votes did we get at the last election [the 1955 General Election]? 12 million or so, something like that. They certainly weren't all from the well-to-do!"

If only the rich elites voted Conservative they would never be elected on that strength alone as the numbers aren't there to make that happen. No, I'm afraid you have to look at the fact that the poor do vote Conservative, for the reason that they are closet Tories. You oversimplify a complex area - voting intentions - and in doing so you do this forum a great disservice. I just wanted to put the record straight for other readers of this thread. I'm tired of left-wing propaganda.

Well said Draggers.

If everyone was so keen to punish the fat cats and help the downtrodden masses rise up then how come the Tories got in?

Same as the 80's; the leftist view of history has it that everyone hated Maggie but you don't win 3 elections if that us the case. If Maggie was so despised then what does that say about Kinnock who never came close to toppling her?

I suppose he was more a figure of ridicule and as Glen says in the Thick Of It 'hated is better than being laughed at'.

Dragonpol

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

Dragonpol wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

WillyGalore wrote:

I don't have a particular problem with the welfare state. The amount it costs the taxpayer is a mere drop in the ocean in comparison with the bloated fat cats and huge corporations who go to any lengths possible in order to avoid their fair share of tax. That's what's really hitting the pockets of the taxpayer in this country.

I'll give a good example of an article I read on monday.

Phil Mickleson, who won the Scottish Open and The Open last week, earned nearly £1.5mil for his victories and yet the US and UK governments between them will pocket nearly £900,000 in Income Tax.

Compare that if you will to the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) who made profits of approximately £300mil in the UK last year and thanks to the loopholes in our tax system, only paid £1mil in Corporation Tax.

1 man pays £900,000 in tax. 1 global corporation pays only £100,000 more.

There lies the answer to what's wrong in this country. If you're rich, you can pretty much pay what you like in tax. If you're poor and in need of the most help, people just want to stomp all over you.

Of course the current government have no interest in going after those who avoid paying their tax, as most of them and Party contributors and voters.

But I guess that's the reality and hypocrisy of life.

Don't know why people blame the fat cats - they're not doing anything illegal. Don't be sanctimonious enough to pretend you (and the stomped on poor) wouldn't take advantage of tax loopholes if you could.

Blame the government if you want for having laws that allow corporations to dodge tax but don't blame people for taking advantage of something that is perfectly legal.

And you've hit the nail right on the head. It's not illegal, but it's completely immoral. The rest of us 'plebs' are unable to take advantage of these loopholes/tax avoidance schemes for this very reason: We are NOT rich. Yet we are fully expected to pay our taxes. I'm a self employed caterer and God help me if I'm even £1 out when it comes to filing my tax return. Inland Revenue would come down on me like a ton of bricks.

And yes, you're right. The Government are principally to blame for this and have they taken any steps to rectify this issue? Have they boll***s!

Instead they've foxed their attention on cutting the welfare state. Why? Because poor people don't vote Conservative. That's ultimately what it boils down to. You can only make so many cuts for so long, until the inevitable happens:

Whoever wins the general election in 2015, will increase taxes. And IMO it will be a significant increase.

As Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden said when asked about this, "How many votes did we get at the last election [the 1955 General Election]? 12 million or so, something like that. They certainly weren't all from the well-to-do!"

If only the rich elites voted Conservative they would never be elected on that strength alone as the numbers aren't there to make that happen. No, I'm afraid you have to look at the fact that the poor do vote Conservative, for the reason that they are closet Tories. You oversimplify a complex area - voting intentions - and in doing so you do this forum a great disservice. I just wanted to put the record straight for other readers of this thread. I'm tired of left-wing propaganda.

Well said Draggers.

If everyone was so keen to punish the fat cats and help the downtrodden masses rise up then how come the Tories got in?

Same as the 80's; the leftist view of history has it that everyone hated Maggie but you don't win 3 elections if that us the case. If Maggie was so despised then what does that say about Kinnock who never came close to toppling her?

I suppose he was more a figure of ridicule and as Glen says in the Thick Of It 'hated is better than being laughed at'.

Thanks for the rear guard support, Ice.

As Stewart Lee (hardly a Tory by any stretch) said, "In the 80s everyone hated the Tories. It was amazing that they kept getting re-elected!" The closet-Tory voter is the key to all of this. As Lord Hailsham wrote "The Left Were Never Right"

You're spot on on Lady Thatcher too. God rest her soul. In my view she saved the UK from a socialist Soviet puppet state disaster in the 1980s.