|
Post by Yellow River on Nov 6, 2017 22:24:29 GMT
It's a matter of patriotism for me. You can't love your country if you actively seek to reduce your tax bill. Tax pays for the education of our children etc, there's no excuse. Does that mean the Queen is unpatriotic and hates her country?
|
|
|
Post by oldham on Nov 7, 2017 6:14:38 GMT
It's a matter of patriotism for me. You can't love your country if you actively seek to reduce your tax bill. Tax pays for the education of our children etc, there's no excuse. Does that mean the Queen is unpatriotic and hates her country? Probably š
|
|
|
Post by flean on Nov 7, 2017 6:22:11 GMT
Good old Apple. Just the $252 billion in cash reserves that they've paid little tax on because they've moved it around the world through friendly countries like Ireland. All those anti-capitalists with their iPhones and iPads should be throwing them away right now in disgust. Not very patriotic to the US public is it? Nor the Irish public who are waiting for their govt to collect 14 billion Euros from Apple in unpaid taxes, who complain it's a bit complicated. Makes Take That's dodgy scheme pale in comparison doesn't it? www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41889787Aye, cretins of the highest order. That's an incredible story really. How Ireland can be so blatant too. It's all effed up.
|
|
|
Post by saddletramp on Nov 7, 2017 8:15:52 GMT
I see the "stars" of Mrs Browns boys invested Ā£2 Million pounds offshore. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41886608Absolutely disgusting. How the f@@k can people working on that shite earn Ā£2 Mill ?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Nov 7, 2017 8:19:34 GMT
Good old Apple. Just the $252 billion in cash reserves that they've paid little tax on because they've moved it around the world through friendly countries like Ireland. All those anti-capitalists with their iPhones and iPads should be throwing them away right now in disgust. Not very patriotic to the US public is it? Nor the Irish public who are waiting for their govt to collect 14 billion Euros from Apple in unpaid taxes, who complain it's a bit complicated. Makes Take That's dodgy scheme pale in comparison doesn't it? www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41889787Aye, cretins of the highest order. That's an incredible story really. How Ireland can be so blatant too. It's all effed up. They are afraid of losing all the tech companies in the Dublin area, so will do anything to keep them it seems, even if it's shaving points on a transaction. A shame when they took billions from the ECB to bail them out in the same period. Makes you wonder how many smaller European countries contain other such favourable deals that haven't come out yet.
|
|
|
Post by helsinkiyellow on Nov 7, 2017 9:32:15 GMT
Funny how many people criticise rich people for tax avoidance,which is perfectly legal. So is marrying your cousin. It's still ain't right! I think we need to draw a line between tax breaks available to all which are fully transparent and beneficial to society (e.g. ISAs which encourage people to save/invest, thereby giving them a bigger stake in businesses whilst reducing the pension burden on the state) vs these secretative and complex offshore webs. Here's a radical idea already in existance in the Nordics: Publish everybody's tax records annually. Full transparency, everything in the open. Once the facts are known, then we can start to address the huge inbalances and discrepancies that exist.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Nov 7, 2017 9:37:04 GMT
Slavery was once legal too. We took a moral stance and did something about it. Some people's moral compass will always be askew, so we need to tighten all these loopholes to make avoidance both morally unacceptable and illegal.
(EDIT - by the way, when I say 'some people's' I include the Queen's private estate, Lewis Hamilton, 'pay me cash and avoid VAT' builders, and every single one of us, regardless of assets. For me, it's a question of social responsibility, not bashing the already rich).
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Nov 7, 2017 10:05:12 GMT
Aye, cretins of the highest order. That's an incredible story really. How Ireland can be so blatant too. It's all effed up. They are afraid of losing all the tech companies in the Dublin area, so will do anything to keep them it seems, even if it's shaving points on a transaction.Ā A shame when they took billions from the ECB to bail them out in the same period.Ā Makes you wonder how many smaller European countries contain other such favourable deals that haven't come out yet. Luxembourg I reckon will have a quite a few. Iirc, they already have the Amazon one. The claim by a few is that the Paradise Papers are really a move by the EU to pressure the UK Authorities about tax havens. The EU effectively though have a similar arrangement with Luxembourg, Ireland etc though.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Nov 7, 2017 13:13:29 GMT
They are afraid of losing all the tech companies in the Dublin area, so will do anything to keep them it seems, even if it's shaving points on a transaction. A shame when they took billions from the ECB to bail them out in the same period. Makes you wonder how many smaller European countries contain other such favourable deals that haven't come out yet. Luxembourg I reckon will have a quite a few. Iirc, they already have the Amazon one. The claim by a few is that the Paradise Papers are really a move by the EU to pressure the UK Authorities about tax havens. The EU effectively though have a similar arrangement with Luxembourg, Ireland etc though. And the Amazon one has been in court about the sweetheart deal - I believe Juncker (of all people) was the chief honcho in Luxembourg at the time. They owe a princely 295 million in back taxes but the inevitable legal challenges persist: www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-amazon-taxavoidance/eu-orders-amazon-to-repay-295-million-in-luxembourg-back-taxes-idUSKCN1C913SInterestingly: The bill suggests the Commission believes Amazon shielded around 900 million euros in EU profits from tax, calculations by Reuters show. The irony about UK tax havens is countries like Ireland and Luxembourg have been as complicit in it as everyone else has! Like anything though, all it will do is move the money to more obscure places when a new island pop ups in the Caribbean or Asia...
|
|
|
Post by makv on Nov 7, 2017 15:40:21 GMT
Aye, cretins of the highest order. That's an incredible story really. How Ireland can be so blatant too. It's all effed up. They are afraid of losing all the tech companies in the Dublin area, so will do anything to keep them it seems, even if it's shaving points on a transaction. A shame when they took billions from the ECB to bail them out in the same period. Makes you wonder how many smaller European countries contain other such favourable deals that haven't come out yet. What the hell were the ECB doing bailing them out when the money could have been spent on fixing county cricket?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Nov 7, 2017 21:51:40 GMT
They are afraid of losing all the tech companies in the Dublin area, so will do anything to keep them it seems, even if it's shaving points on a transaction. A shame when they took billions from the ECB to bail them out in the same period. Makes you wonder how many smaller European countries contain other such favourable deals that haven't come out yet. What the hell were the ECB doing bailing them out when the money could have been spent on fixing county cricket? Giles Clarke was an investment banker after all!
|
|
|
Post by Boogaloo on Nov 8, 2017 9:09:15 GMT
What the hell were the ECB doing bailing them out when the money could have been spent on fixing county cricket? Giles Clarke was an investment banker after all! Is that some Cockney rhyming slang term I haven't heard before?
|
|
|
Post by saddletramp on Nov 8, 2017 10:40:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pooshooter on Nov 8, 2017 11:15:50 GMT
I've never like Lewis Hamilton.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Nov 8, 2017 13:15:00 GMT
Or their use of zero hours contracts and unpaid internships. Or not using the Royal Mail for literature. Like always, they are all as morally bad as each other!
|
|
|
Post by Pete Burrett on Nov 8, 2017 13:45:27 GMT
Or their use of zero hours contracts and unpaid internships. Or not using the Royal Mail for literature. Like always, they are all as morally bad as each other! Indeed they are, whether it's lying during the Brexit campaign, cheating on expenses or sexually harassing colleagues. Makes one want to support the policies of a party, but not necessarily the personalities within it.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Nov 8, 2017 13:53:18 GMT
Or their use of zero hours contracts and unpaid internships. Or not using the Royal Mail for literature. Like always, they are all as morally bad as each other! Indeed they are, whether it's lying during the Brexit campaign, cheating on expenses or sexually harassing colleagues. Makes one want to support the policies of a party, but not necessarily the personalities within it. Or even promising a free university education and weaseling out of it after an election by saying it was an aspiration. The trouble is, we all fall for it and don't complain enough to change it.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Nov 8, 2017 14:12:12 GMT
Or it could be something that really happens and you don't complain. Like this: Universal Credit is assessed and paid in arrears, on a monthly basis in a single payment. Your personal circumstances will be assessed to work out the amount of Universal Credit you are entitled to.
If you're paid weekly and get 5 pay-days in a month you probably won't qualify that month for universal credit; so you 'will no longer get' it. Never mind you can 're-apply the following month as you should only get 4 wage payments in your assessment period then"
There are 5 months with 5 Fridays in them in 2018. Source
When you apply for Universal Credit you usually wonāt be paid for the first 7 days. These days are known as āwaiting daysā. They apply to claimants who need to find work or better paid work. There are some exclusions here.
After the waiting days are over you will enter an Assessment period, here's an example: "The date of your new claim is 1 September.
Your waiting days are from 1 September to 7 September
Your first assessment period starts from 8 September (as this is the first day of your entitlement).
Your assessment period then runs for a complete calendar month from 8 September to 7 October, with a new assessment period beginning on 8 October.
Changes in your circumstances during an assessment period may alter your final payment.
These changes can include:
finding or finishing a job changing address your rent going up or down becoming too ill to work or meet your work coach" [ Same source ]
Your payment is 6 weeks after your claim.
Quiz question: if you are paid weekly and have to re-apply 5 times in 2018 because you are paid 5 times in 5 weeks, how much Universal Credit will you lose?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Nov 8, 2017 15:27:37 GMT
Or it could be something that really happens and you don't complain. Like this: Universal Credit is assessed and paid in arrears, on a monthly basis in a single payment. Your personal circumstances will be assessed to work out the amount of Universal Credit you are entitled to.
If you're paid weekly and get 5 pay-days in a month you probably won't qualify that month for universal credit; so you 'will no longer get' it. Never mind you can 're-apply the following month as you should only get 4 wage payments in your assessment period then"
There are 5 months with 5 Fridays in them in 2018. Source
When you apply for Universal Credit you usually wonāt be paid for the first 7 days. These days are known as āwaiting daysā. They apply to claimants who need to find work or better paid work. There are some exclusions here.
After the waiting days are over you will enter an Assessment period, here's an example: "The date of your new claim is 1 September.
Your waiting days are from 1 September to 7 September
Your first assessment period starts from 8 September (as this is the first day of your entitlement).
Your assessment period then runs for a complete calendar month from 8 September to 7 October, with a new assessment period beginning on 8 October.
Changes in your circumstances during an assessment period may alter your final payment.
These changes can include:
finding or finishing a job changing address your rent going up or down becoming too ill to work or meet your work coach" [ Same source ]
Your payment is 6 weeks after your claim.
Quiz question: if you are paid weekly and have to re-apply 5 times in 2018 because you are paid 5 times in 5 weeks, how much Universal Credit will you lose?
I don't know the system near enough to comment on the theoretical that you proposed. Any system can be broken with enough different scenarios. I've been doing that at work recently, but it doesn't prove the system is wrong. My own view is 4 weeks should be the maximum waiting period with UC, but the system should be geared to do it in 2-3 weeks. But I understand that this is not possible in every circumstance, but there are mechanisms in place for people with the most complex cases to get grants and so forth. Notably, both the Tories and Labour both support Universal Credit as a system over the previous one. I'd also go as far to say no Government helplines should be premium rate numbers. It should be enshrined into law to stop any party easily changing that.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Nov 8, 2017 16:24:03 GMT
Nothing theoretical - those are the words from the Universal Credit site. Now, when you say that Labour supports Universal Credit you're being a little ungenerous - Labour support the original principles of Universal Credit ā to make work pay and simplify the social security system. However they are violently opposed to it being implemented in a manner the punishes the poor (as the words of the Universal Credit site above demonstrate). A Labour-instigated vote to halt the roll-out of UC was won by 299 votes to zero - so it's not that popular with anyone. It wouldn't be - "the policy of making recipients wait six weeks before payment when they first make a claim causes huge problems including eviction. In the Department for Work and Pensionsā own analysis, this wait was identified by nearly half of all recipients in arrears as the reason for their mounting debt. It comes after research by Citizens Advice found 79 per cent of those in debt who were on Universal Credit owed "priority debts" to their landlord, council or energy company. Source: New Statesman
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Nov 8, 2017 22:12:20 GMT
Nothing theoretical - those are the words from the Universal Credit site. Now, when you say that Labour supports Universal Credit you're being a little ungenerous - Labour support the original principles of Universal Credit ā to make work pay and simplify the social security system. However they are violently opposed to it being implemented in a manner the punishes the poor (as the words of the Universal Credit site above demonstrate). A Labour-instigated vote to halt the roll-out of UC was won by 299 votes to zero - so it's not that popular with anyone. It wouldn't be - "the policy of making recipients wait six weeks before payment when they first make a claim causes huge problems including eviction. In the Department for Work and Pensionsā own analysis, this wait was identified by nearly half of all recipients in arrears as the reason for their mounting debt. It comes after research by Citizens Advice found 79 per cent of those in debt who were on Universal Credit owed "priority debts" to their landlord, council or energy company. Source: New StatesmanEither way, I can't be arsed to work it out. I believe 6 weeks is too much and would much rather see it shortened to a more sane and caring time period alongside a clear support matrix for those who will get into arrears - I see no reason not to. UC is not going away and it's roll-out isn't either. The snowball has too much momentum to stop. The Labour instigated vote was meaningless political virtue signalling exercise that achieved nothing - and you know that. Makes for a snazzy headline though.
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Nov 8, 2017 23:16:37 GMT
Nothing theoretical - those are the words from the Universal Credit site. Now, when you say that Labour supports Universal Credit you're being a little ungenerous - Labour support the original principles of Universal Credit ā to make work pay and simplify the social security system. However they are violently opposed to it being implemented in a manner the punishes the poor (as the words of the Universal Credit site above demonstrate). A Labour-instigated vote to halt the roll-out of UC was won by 299 votes to zero - so it's not that popular with anyone. It wouldn't be - "the policy of making recipients wait six weeks before payment when they first make a claim causes huge problems including eviction. In the Department for Work and Pensionsā own analysis, this wait was identified by nearly half of all recipients in arrears as the reason for their mounting debt. It comes after research by Citizens Advice found 79 per cent of those in debt who were on Universal Credit owed "priority debts" to their landlord, council or energy company. Source: New StatesmanEither way, I can't be arsed to work it out.Ā I believe 6 weeks is too much and would much rather see it shortened to a more sane and caring time period alongside a clear support matrix for those who will get into arrears - I see no reason not to.Ā UC is not going away and it's roll-out isn't either.Ā The snowball has too much momentum to stop. The Labour instigated vote was meaningless political virtue signalling exercise that achievedĀ nothing - and you know that. Makes for a snazzy headline though. They objected quite clearly to the way the present approach to UC punishes the poor, how is that virtue signalling? How else were they supposed to register their objections as an Opposition? It also got the outrageous phone line changed (small and I know you have mentioned this in your previous posts).
|
|
|
Post by saddletramp on Nov 9, 2017 6:56:19 GMT
Nothing theoretical - those are the words from the Universal Credit site. Now, when you say that Labour supports Universal Credit you're being a little ungenerous - Labour support the original principles of Universal Credit ā to make work pay and simplify the social security system. However they are violently opposed to it being implemented in a manner the punishes the poor (as the words of the Universal Credit site above demonstrate). A Labour-instigated vote to halt the roll-out of UC was won by 299 votes to zero - so it's not that popular with anyone. It wouldn't be - "the policy of making recipients wait six weeks before payment when they first make a claim causes huge problems including eviction. In the Department for Work and Pensionsā own analysis, this wait was identified by nearly half of all recipients in arrears as the reason for their mounting debt. It comes after research by Citizens Advice found 79 per cent of those in debt who were on Universal Credit owed "priority debts" to their landlord, council or energy company. Source: New StatesmanYou say, "these are the words of the Universal credit site" Then post from The New statesman,a left wing propaganda machine that would critisise a Tory government,if they paid benefits out in 1 day,saying it should be 1 hour. Had a quick look at the OFFICIAL site. The first thing i saw, "If you need help to pay your bills or cover other costs while you wait for your first Universal Credit payment, you can apply to get an advance" Nothing about that mentioned in The New statesman,what a surprise. Didn't bother reading anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cannell on Nov 9, 2017 8:30:41 GMT
As you know my first post links to and uses the words of the DWP site. The one you quote links to the new statesman.
Odd that you pretend to have had a problem with this.
How do you feel about having to start again if you get five paydays in the same month?
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Nov 9, 2017 8:45:01 GMT
Either way, I can't be arsed to work it out. I believe 6 weeks is too much and would much rather see it shortened to a more sane and caring time period alongside a clear support matrix for those who will get into arrears - I see no reason not to. UC is not going away and it's roll-out isn't either. The snowball has too much momentum to stop. The Labour instigated vote was meaningless political virtue signalling exercise that achieved nothing - and you know that. Makes for a snazzy headline though. They objected quite clearly to the way the present approach to UC punishes the poor, how is that virtue signalling? How else were they supposed to register their objections as an Opposition? It also got the outrageous phone line changed (small and I know you have mentioned this in your previous posts). Because without all MPs, it's not worth a damn - especially considering all of the continued posturing about the legitimacy of the Brexit vote being a percentage of a percentage, etc. The Tories could hold a vote about something, but if the other half don't turn up, it's meaningless drivel. The vote didn't get the phone number changed BTW. The pressure before was what worked.
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Nov 9, 2017 9:04:37 GMT
The vote was part of the pressure on the phone line.
So what, the Tories didn't turn up as the Govt were scared rigid they would lose with Tory MPs also opposing joining Labour. Less embarrassing to use the Whips Office to stop all Tory MPs voting which is pathetic and further demonstrates its weakness. So no it isn't virtue signalling because the Tories ran scared, it is using the correct procedures in the the correct way for an Opposition.
How else is an Opposition supposed to operate on something it feels important? By your theory of virtue signalling, anything the opposition does is virtue signalling.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Nov 9, 2017 21:46:57 GMT
The mood music from the Govt before the vote was the phone charges were going to change but weren't annoucned. Other than to be seen to be voting, it did nothing. The work had been done already but wouldn't look good on a campaign poster.
|
|
|
Post by Yellow River on Nov 10, 2017 7:58:10 GMT
Gary Lineker has been named in the so-called Paradise Papers over the amount of tax he paid on a home in Barbados.
|
|
|
Post by Marked Ox on Nov 10, 2017 10:28:51 GMT
The mood music from the Govt before the vote was the phone charges were going to change but weren't annoucned. Other than to be seen to be voting, it did nothing. The work had been done already but wouldn't look good on a campaign poster. You really believe that? The Govt got shamed into changing the phone charges. Again, what does an Opposition do in Parliament that isn't virtue signalling when they feel an issue is important as by definition they don't have a majority? The Govt ran scared from that vote and Labour demonstrated they gave a damn. I've never voted Labour by the way.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Baldi on Nov 10, 2017 13:18:05 GMT
The mood music from the Govt before the vote was the phone charges were going to change but weren't annoucned. Other than to be seen to be voting, it did nothing. The work had been done already but wouldn't look good on a campaign poster. You really believe that? The Govt got shamed into changing the phone charges. Again, what does an Opposition do in Parliament that isn't virtue signalling when they feel an issue is important as by definition they don't have a majority? The Govt ran scared from that vote and Labour demonstrated they gave a damn. I've never voted Labour by the way. I happened to be working from home that day and the constant Conservative squirming on the Daily Politics all but confirmed they were doing something about it. A lo and behold, it was changed. The calls from all sides before the vote did more than the vote itself.
|
|