Sex God
And just for the record http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopicpage/415355/40.html
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Staggerlee_BB
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 61
Bisexual Female, 63
0 miles · Widdrington Station
Forum
Sex God
Quote by northwest-cpl
as Tax Credits have equalised payments between University graduated employees and High School leavers; thus removing ambition and motivation to be better qualified.
Really? Tax Credits will only come into play where they are both doing jobs that are so ill paid that the worker requires state benefit to achieve a level of income that surely should come from the employer in the first place.
If there is equality of pay above the Tax Credit level then that would suggest that the education system is producing high calibre High School leavers or the calibre of University graduates isn't what it used to be.
And as to removing incentive to be better qualified, aren't there far more school leavers entering university now than there were a generation ago?
If I am going to be cast adrift in a leaky rowing boat I want the captain and first class passengers to row as well. At the moment it's down to the stokers and steerage passengers to make headway while the quality have their feet up shouting "Row harder you lazy bastards!"
"We're all in it together" - my arse.
That, I meant to say that
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
This?
Socialist policies don't work, never agave worked and never will. The most recent legacy of The Socialist policy of redistributing wealth will haunts for may years to come as Tax Credits have equalised payments between University graduated employees and High School leavers; thus removing ambition and motivation to be better qualified.
There are a multitude of different personalities that exist in this world but broadly you can fit working people into two categories. Those with ambition and those without. Neither is a bad trait and each should be supported because those with ambition will be future leaders and those without will be the workers. Why give handouts to those who have no desire to better themselves just because they object morally to the people who do want to better themselves?
Only in the UK is it worthy of abuse to want to better yourself in life. Perhaps that is why the emerging nations are doing so much better than the UK - because they realise that benefits come from hard work and endeavour and not from charitable donations.
Well you haven't really answered the question have you ? ... so the national health service is a policy that hasn't worked? the post war policy of borrowing to invest failed ?? the trade unions and labour party (when they actually were a socialist party) have failed to raise the standard of living of the working classes in this country??
You are of course wrong ... There are those who would 'better' themselves at the expense of others and there are those who would 'better' us all and there are those who fall in a myriad of different positions along that line
There are those that believe that 'ambition' is the desire to accumulate wealth and there are those that don't
What has removed the ambition and motivation to be better qualified is the cost of becoming better qualified ... bugger another failed socialist policy.. universal free education
That tax credits have as you spuriously claim (that means show me the figures B.T.W.)equalised payments ...You do mean that they have the same income I assume.. between graduates and 'high school' leavers may evidence many things but that tax credits are a bad idea really would be stretching it.I'll go with the fact that employers are exploitative always have been always will be ... new graduates B.T.W. have largely been poorly paid the reward for their hard work usually being an accelerated rise up the corporate ladder not necessarily an instant launch to higher rung.
Why do you find it sooo hard to admit the nature of capitalism .... it is necessarily selfish it doesn't work otherwise
I have now and have never had any objection to anyone 'bettering' themselves I object to exploitation,mendacity,greed,ignorance,arrogance and many many other facets of capitalism I object to the fact that we are expected to believe an obvious lie because our 'betters' tell it.I object to the idea that the only way to 'better' yourself is to have more of an abstract than others.. and money is if nothing else an abstract, the capitalist world is writing cheques that it will one day have to try and cash ... it is fucked .... now were's my fiddle?
Sex God
Well TH I've not really posted much at all for months ... soooo given that, and the fact that the only serious posts I've made have been in response to an answer you made to me tonight , it is something of a mystery that you're struggling to make the connection ....I am indeed finding it difficult being such a fool perhaps I should try harder or perhaps you should consider not trying to patronise me by treating me as such
Sex God
The problem with speed cameras is that road safety figures tend to suggest that they work .... oh bugger how inconvenient
They're being turned off because of cost ... see lives don't really count but cash now there's something important
They're being turned off because of cost ... see lives don't really count but cash now there's something important
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
Or ignore questions in other threads that you can't answer in favour of deliberately pretending that I wasn't making a joke ...I know I look so foolish now don't I :hangs head in shame:..... looks for sarcastic font....no can't find it ... bugger now I must really really really look stupid
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
Looks like a nerd, talks NONsense.
I have assumed a typo on your part and corrected it for you ..... you also appear to have forgotten to mention that he is an evil useless cunt but I'll put that down to your polite reticence
Sex God
Can I just say, that if I ever find myself part of the majority I will have to change my mind :twisted:
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
They have to be here in the first place don't they? They have to believe that there is a government in power committed to reforming and reducing taxes and making the country an appealing place in which to invest their own and other people's money.
Oh and this bit .... is it really government policy that's made investment so unappealing ?? I would suggest that if you look back over the last 20 or so years, those that have put investment in jepordy most, have not been in government but in the corridors of power of large financial only real contribution to the mercurial nature of investments by government has been their refusal to impose sanctions for malpractice on these organisations ... what the economy needs is for the banks,markets and the corporate world to brought to book for their greed and irresponsibility not for us to be throwing cash at them
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
Are we really supposed to believe that these millionaires invest their own capital in business ?? or do they actually raise funds from banks or the markets and set up limited companies that minimise if not negate any personal risk ?? ...... the people who HAVE to invest their own capital are those who are least able to afford it not those high tax payers who can ... all the reduced tax rate will serve to do is line the pockets of the Tory partys' natural constituents ... I would suggest that certain members are either being a little mendacious or are living on another planet
They have to be here in the first place don't they? They have to believe that there is a government in power committed to reforming and reducing taxes and making the country an appealing place in which to invest their own and other people's money. High taxes and business growth are not aligned.Similarly, socialist ideology and business growth are not aligned hence the move from Labour to New Labour.
Watch what is happening in France. Did you see the American tyre Companies response to the French offer of rescuing a huge tyre plant that was closing in Northern France?
in bold
Would you like to explain the post war investment and growth brought about by the 1945 Labour government and how this led to the inevitable collapse of the British economy in the '50's and '60's ?? .... oh hang on though it didn't did it ... business was indeed booming under several socialist governments running deficits that make our current one look like small change
As for a reduction of 5% in tax changing the acquisitive selfish behaviour of those who choose to evade/avoid tax .. you're having a fucking laugh aren't you ... and We lefty liberals are supposed to be unrealistic
All this reduction will do -as I've already stated- is further line the pockets of those who need it least ... you know it I know it why is it so difficult for you to admit??
Sex God
Well that's interesting, apparently I (aged 49 ) am one of the New affluent workers ..... strange that I seem to fit non of the stated defining characteristics of this group .... oh well I'll go back to being just a working class pleb then
Sex God
Are we really supposed to believe that these millionaires invest their own capital in business ?? or do they actually raise funds from banks or the markets and set up limited companies that minimise if not negate any personal risk ?? ...... the people who HAVE to invest their own capital are those who are least able to afford it not those high tax payers who can ... all the reduced tax rate will serve to do is line the pockets of the Tory partys' natural constituents ... I would suggest that certain members are either being a little mendacious or are living on another planet
Sex God
Does the site allow dogs ...(pointedly refuses to make joke specifying canine variety) If it does pencil us in please ...I'm getting a new tent for my birthday and can't wait for the chance to show off my magnificent erection
Sex God
Regardless of how we may make our choice,we do not vote for a party, we are electing an individual to represent us in M.P. is an individual member of Parliament and Not a representative of a party but of his/her constituents (all of them, not just those who voted for him/her ) The parties do not (officially) exist within Queen can invite any member of Parliament (or I believe the house of lords) to form a government... that she usually invites the leader of the largest Parliamentary group (we have on occasion had minority governments) is a matter of precedent and tradition,not a constitutional obligation (we have NO constitution) ... our democracy and it's practices are a matter of evolution and not , like many other parliaments, design; that it works at all is surprise ... that it used to work so well is a fucking miracle ... that it is failing is increasingly less surprising.
I'd opt for democracy .... I'd opt for our democracy if we can fix it,a benevolent dictatorship would be more efficient and possibly more just than our current and recent governments .... but I'll stick with the opportunity to have my say in who governs us
I'd opt for democracy .... I'd opt for our democracy if we can fix it,a benevolent dictatorship would be more efficient and possibly more just than our current and recent governments .... but I'll stick with the opportunity to have my say in who governs us
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
One of the few benefits men get is being able to fit all our clothes into half a wardrobe,
True ...but then there's the wardrobe in the spare room ... the overflow drawers .... the bits hung on the back of doors ... the cupboard in the hall for coats ... it is nice to be able to keep to just the basics ... I still need to get somewhere to hang the hats though
Sex God
Just goes to show when you're officiating at a baby fucking black mass you should be damn sure you can trust the other participants ..... I'm putting a fiver on Berlusconi for next pope
Sex God
Historically anachronisticc aristocratic arse licking shite ...... BB loves it
Sex God
What an absolutely apalling grasp on modern history some of you have .... for most of these pages I was convinced that this was a joke thread,I'm still not sure
Sex God
Quote by Lizaleanrob
oh dear this is not going to look good for the police if the officer in question has been telling fibs :huh:
An officer of the law ? surely not
Sex God
Cards have been tried and rejected before ... just another Tory attempt to make life worse for those who's lives are bad enough already
If people can make savings elsewhere in order to buy whatever 'luxury' they find makes their life more bearable then why shouldn't they ?
If people can make savings elsewhere in order to buy whatever 'luxury' they find makes their life more bearable then why shouldn't they ?
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
The Facebook pages and social efforts to boycott Starbucks will affect only British franchisees and British employees but it satisfies the tiny minds of envious Socialists who can't bear wealth and success to be so public.
I was going to leave this thread as it is going nowhere, but this !!! really? tiny minded socialists ?? what absolute utter short sighted closed tiny minded bollocks ... I cannot think of any socialist who's beliefs are based on idea of a politics of envy is nothing more than poorly considered propaganda from those greedy capitalists who cannot see beyond their own envy of the wealth of others and their desire to claim that wealth for themselves
So the boycott is having an effect on the Capitalist ownerrs of Starbucks is it? Or is more likely affecting UK based franchisees and employees?
Pointless exercise that causes more damage locally than good.
Don't think I made any comment whatsoever about the boycott (looks up , reads, rereads) no ....nothing relating to the boycott in my post
Sex God
Quote by GnV
Maybe you are confusing Marxism with your true Trotsky/Leninism tendencies
I spoke of Marxism with genuine interest and not with an alternate agenda in mind. I don't reject Marxi out of hand, no more than I would Keynes or Hayek. I don't even just subscribe to one in preference to the other but to all of them, for their own reasons.
But, I had drawn the line at the trots and Leninism, I have to admit. Far far too much to the left of my preferences. Their ideology may have been rooted in Marx but that is where the similarity ends.
I think you may be getting confused between economic and social ideologies there is little to choose economically between Lenin, Marx or Trotsky the differences generally lie in how the economic system is to be achieved ... I wasn't confusing anything
Sex God
what you want for snow is either a 2cv or Saab 900 .... or a nice Subaru Legacy, 4wheel drive and traction control (I may know someone who is becoming a little over familiar with the local petrol stations) 
Sex God
Quote by GnV
What I found really sad was the Dambusters film being dubbed to take out the reference to Guy's Labrador - . Why was this politically correct?
If I had a black poodle with a curly head of hair, why can't I call it 'sambo'?
All this political correctness has just gone too far.
If you plan on letting it run off the lead it might be an inadvisible name to be shouting in certain neighbourhoods !!
:rotflmao::rotflmao:Can I suggest that if you really need to bring the dogs colour into it's name then all black dogs should be called Taxi
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
The Facebook pages and social efforts to boycott Starbucks will affect only British franchisees and British employees but it satisfies the tiny minds of envious Socialists who can't bear wealth and success to be so public.
I was going to leave this thread as it is going nowhere, but this !!! really? tiny minded socialists ?? what absolute utter short sighted closed tiny minded bollocks ... I cannot think of any socialist who's beliefs are based on idea of a politics of envy is nothing more than poorly considered propaganda from those greedy capitalists who cannot see beyond their own envy of the wealth of others and their desire to claim that wealth for themselves
While I'm still here ....
Quote by GnV
Finally ... what is wrong with a little more equality ??? what do you think you're going to lose?? because,and lets be honest with each other, that is the bottom line isn't it? you think you'll lose out
I'm assuming this was your writing staggs and that I followed the somewhat complex quotes within quotes and added comments correctly.
The Marxist doctrine of 'everyone's equal' is not the best model to use. Even Marx himself realised the need for capitalists acknowledging that there cannot be more equality between the bosses and the workers.
And why shouldn't those who expose their personal wealth to generate employment for others be entitled to a bigger share?
With so much 'new' money in the economy these days as opposed to the old money of the northern mills dynasties, it is clear - and thank goodness - that people are willing to expose their wealth to generate new businesses to provide employment and it would be most unfair if those who are led were allowed to benefit as much as those who lead - just in the same way that it is grossly unfair for those on benefits to be better off than those who make the effort to go to work to provide for their families.
Oh G where do I start ?? So much misdirection in one post ...
I suggest you go back to kapital and have a little re-read about "The Marxist doctrine of everyone's equal" I get the feeling you misunderstood ....That you believe Marx thought there was a need for capitalists bemuses me ...He acknowledged that there cannot be more equality between bosses and workers ? really ? or did he in fact posit that they should be one and the same ... you remember all that stuff about the workers owning the means of production
Sooo having established the straw man that Marx was a capitalist ... we tiny minded socialists must follow in agreeing that employers must therefore receive the lions share But we haven't established what economic system you're talking about here ... so here are two answers
1: If we're talking about a Marxist system , and it was you who brought Marx into this,then the idea of the bosses receiving more is an oxymoron the bosses and the workers are one and the same it's basic Marxist doctrine the means of production etc,
2: if you're talking about capitalism and the introduction of Marx was just a bit of misdirection ... Under our system of western capitalist oppression then you may be surprised to learn that even an old Trot such as myself doesn't object to my employer taking a higher wage than problem is not that there is a difference but in many many cases it is the magnitude of that difference that needs to be addressed .... Very few businesses can manage without their workforce, there is an interdependence between them and management that pay scales in the type of companies being discussed here fails to recognise .....Given that the original post is about Starbucks .... Starbucks sells coffee so the barista is the hub of the whole deal they are the centre around which the rest of the company revolves .. no coffee sales ,no business ...and yet
Without these poorly paid badly treated baristas who would earn Mr Schultz his $65M ??
Are we supposed to believe that this massive disparity in some way represents a sustainable just state of affairs ?? I would suggest that it's about time a little more balance was introduced into the equation
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
My posts I would suggest are just as qualified as other members whose credentials you don't question.
It is as you say absolutely legal for company directors to shift their tax liability from personal to corporate by taking dividends in lieu of wages, but, and lets be clear about this ,the losers in this particular piece of prestidigitation are all the other tax payers of the country … all that stuff our taxes buy still has to be bought,where does the money come from ???? who pays in the end ??
It is a very short sighted hard of thinking man who thinks that their companies interests are best served by impoverishing their customers
Well, it was you who said:
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
You start with fallacious assumptions and extrapolate from them incorrect conclusions
In response to .....
Any and every Company as well as any and every individual will do everything they can to mitigate tax exposure
As I understand all of these Companies are operating within UK and European legal and tax frameworks.
..... which you seem to have convieniently forgotten, both sweeping generalisations and wrong
You have an opinion that all of the other losers are other tax payers but perhaps the UK Government and HMRC do not see it that way.
No I am of the opinion that everybody will suffer to some extent because of this refusal to accept that there is a wider responsibility that these companies need to address,
The government of course accepts the status quo whilst making bold sweeping statements and not acting on them ,it is the nature of mordern government in this country to do this on all subjects,unless their electorate force their hand
There is an insideous creep towards the demonisation of wealth in the United Kingdom where wealth of any description is becoming frowned upon by those whose motivating force appears to be envy. Perhaps you could suggest a way that Directors and Shareholders could take benefit from their willingness to invest personal funds in an effort to create jobs, wealth and employment?
Oh so much here ....
1; and this may well sound petty but isn't about time the balance was redressed?? the poor have been increasingly demonised for years I've yet to see your post condemning that,did I miss it??care to point me to it ??
2; the "creep" is towards a realistic view of the greed and self serving arrogance of large swathes of the wealthy not towards a demonisation of wealth .... we would after all,all love to win the lottery.
3;The wealth created in these cases is personal wealth for the directors and shareholders of these companies, isn't that why they're trying to avoid paying tax FFS! To try and paint these same people as altruistic social benefactors is somewhat disengenuous to say the least
4; Aren't the massive wages and dividends the directors recieve not reward enough ?? Do the shareholders not invest in order to take dividends from the companies?? don't they shift their investments when it looks as though they wont recieve any?? Do you really really believe that they are motivated by the desire to create jobs wealth and employment for anyone other than themselves ?? Can I suggest that the constant press to reduce staffing and wages would tend to suggest otherwise ??? Are you sure in your heart of hearts that it's me that's unqualified to discuss this?It would appear to be that out of the two of us it isn't me that is ignoring the reality of the situaution
It is an absolute fact of economics that high corporation and company taxes stifles growth and does nothing to incentivise economic investment. No investment = no employment.
Is it ?? can I suggest you go back to the wiki look at tax rates and look at how those economies have performed ? I'd suggest that you may find some that give lie to this
My personal opinion is that Corporation tax is State punishment for risking personal funds, taking great risks and creating employment in the country.
And in my opinion you're wrong
Bottom line is that we can't have it all ways unless we fancy pulling out of Europe, abandoning trade agreements and treaties and doing a North Korea by establishing total isolationism. We might lose the brightest, wealthiest and most talented in our society as a result but at least all those who are left will be equal
I'm sorry but this is just quoting classic Tory doctrine it isn't true and never has been .... increasing taxes has never ever led to the mass exodus you suggest and there is no reason why it should now ...
Finally ... what is wrong with a little more equality ??? what do you think you're going to lose?? because,and lets be honest with each other, that is the bottom line isn't it? you think you'll lose out
Sex God
Quote by Too Hot
The more complex your affairs ?? most of these companies affairs are complicated BY accountants for the purpose of making their tax position more obscure ... you appear to have the cart and horse in the wrong positions
Not at all, UK and European Law is clear. This is why HMRC feels that a public humiliation campaign might shame them into coughing up a few million because they have accounted accurately and within the law and HMRC can't touch them.
I don't question or deny the accuracy of their accountancy merely the need for quite so much of it
Quote by Too Hot
The real joke ?? the real joke is that people make excuses for companies, be they UK based or otherwise, deliberately avoiding their responsibilities to their customers .... and have no doubt paying tax is one of them
You would be interested ?? working on the assumption that the company is paying 21% on a figure that I assume the director would be paying 40% on then fuck yes tax is being avoided and that is wrong, simple black and white no grey areas no moral doubt dead wrong ... see in the long run it's killing babies, I mean Jimmy Saville is being hung drawn and quartered for molesting them; what's going to happen when the local maternity ward can't afford that new incubator or operating theatre or fucking electric at least he was helping pay for those
If you honestly don't realise that the reason UK Limited Companies pay such high Corporation Tax then your posts about this subject are not really qualified. It is absolutely lawful for Director Shareholders to take dividends and most do. Company Directors and Shareholders take great risk to create wealth, jobs and opportunity and you just want to pin them down and run through their pockets AFTER they have accounted lawfully for their successful activities.
It is good accounting practice to mitigate tax responsibilities and any Company Director failing in that respect would have some pretty angry shareholders to deal with.
Really ?? sooo high
not that high surely seems there are one or several higher. And a couple of those are it would seem our economic role models.
My posts I would suggest are just as qualified as other members whose credentials you don't question.
It is as you say absolutely legal for company directors to shift their tax liability from personal to corporate by taking dividends in lieu of wages, but, and lets be clear about this ,the losers in this particular piece of prestidigitation are all the other tax payers of the country … all that stuff our taxes buy still has to be bought,where does the money come from ???? who pays in the end ??
It is a very short sighted hard of thinking man who thinks that their companies interests are best served by impoverishing their customers
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
I have always believed that if you can't afford to drive it off the forecourt straight into a wall you can't afford to drive it
Strange that one Staggers, as I always thought that was what insurance was for. :doh: unless of course you don't believe in having insurance either as some republicans I hear refrain from purchasing such capitalistic things.
:Shakes head more in sorrow than anger :
