General News Discussion

[eFestivals]

well she didnt just pop down to the local NHS did she?

The NHS is staffed by people. Who staffs private hospitals?

I just think they should of waited (I can see why they annouced it, always thought the royals would be better at cover ups),

that's the great leveller about life, no matter who you are and where you come from, we all shit and piss, and we all have a tendency to gossip.

So while some people love to invent the most stupid conspiracy theories going, the simple fact is that it would be impossible to keep such things secret - because even if you bumped people off, someone has to do the bumping and they'd be likely to blab eventually.

because if something goes wrong (which i know could happen at any time but from im told more likely in the first 12 weeks) having to face a miscarriage must be awful let alone in front of the world

but think of the sympathy they could milk from it!! it would guarantee the monarchy for another 100 years.

[Guest]

but think of the sympathy they could milk from it!! it would guarantee the monarchy for another 100 years.

[eFestivals]

I was cynically thinking the exact same thing... and then we could have an update every month on the chances of a succesful pregnancy... and then.... well, just imagine the build up!

I'm not being quite so cynical as to think that was an - excuse the pun - pre-conceived plan.

It's merely a useful consequence of the whole situation if things were to come out for the worst from Bill & Kate's point of view.

Me, i'd say the useful consequence is one less leech, for the moment at least.

[Guest]

I'm not being quite so cynical as to think that was an - excuse the pun - pre-conceived plan.

It's merely a useful consequence of the whole situation if things were to come out for the worst from Bill & Kate's point of view.

Me, i'd say the useful consequence is one less leech, for the moment at least.

[eFestivals]

part of me feels sorry for Kate. Her life is over, and for what?

£10M+pa for life, servants, always on holiday that you don't have to pay for, shaking hands being considered 'working hard', etc, etc, etc?

[eFestivals]

what I was wanting to say was yeah, that's something to feel sorry for. I bet the starving and homeless wished they were treated twice as badly as that.

[Guest]

what I was wanting to say was yeah, that's something to feel sorry for. I bet the starving and homeless wished they were treated twice as badly as that.

[eFestivals]

well, quite. It's hardly a life of hardship... but I wouldn't want it for anything

I think I'd quite enjoy it, as long as I didn't have to become like them.

[philipsteak]

I think I'd quite enjoy it, as long as I didn't have to become like them.

[TheGayTent]

Before the inevitable rumours start I'd like to go on record and deny any possibility of fatherhood...

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I didn't mean to sound like I thought it might be a plan either...

part of me feels sorry for Kate. Her life is over, and for what?

[kaosmark2]

Surely Kate is the member of the royals to feel the LEAST sorry for? She wasn't born into it, brought up in the environment. She chose it. She chose to marry into the family. It was her decision to have that sort of life.

[TheGayTent]

Surely Kate is the member of the royals to feel the LEAST sorry for? She wasn't born into it, brought up in the environment. She chose it. She chose to marry into the family. It was her decision to have that sort of life.

[TheGayTent]

Unless he's the millionaire Paul Daniels...?

[Guest]

A life on benefits and a council house ?

[hot_ice]

so it was the autumn statement yesterday, whats people assessments of it? I didn't managed to get to watch it but from the clips ive seen labour look liked they missed another open goal (both Miliband and Balls performances were under whelming)

[eFestivals]

so it was the autumn statement yesterday, whats people assessments of it? I didn't managed to get to watch it but from the clips ive seen labour look liked they missed another open goal (both Miliband and Balls performances were under whelming)

It's piss-taking amusing .... loads of people on middle incomes have been told their tax rate is rising by one percent (which by itself I have no issue with; part of the heart of the problem is that income taxes have been cut by over 1/3 in the last 30 years to benefit the richest) while meanwhile the richest 1% are going to be getting a 5% income tax cut from this April - which is worth £50k each year (about twice the average wage) to someone earning £1m pa.

And yet people still choose to believe that the economic policies of this coalition are about cutting the deficit. Yeah, OK.

Fuck me people are stupid.

[TalkShow Bob]

New Economics Foundation sent a brilliant very consises email about it yesterday. The giest was that the government was failing on its own terms and it was an overly regresstive mini budget.

I also note, as a public sector employee, that the chansalor has grashously allowed me to have only a 1.7% pay cut this year. Yay! (N.B thats 2.2% in old RPI money). That will be lovley with my yet further increased pension conributions; notably the only public sector employees not facing this are the MPs. Funny that.

[eFestivals]

notably the only public sector employees not facing this are the MPs. Funny that.

there should be a law which says that MPs have to have the same pay-increase terms as the worst of other public sector employees - it might increase their focus just a little.

There should also be a law which says that 2% of any turnover from business done in the UK is paid as corporation tax, deductable against a greater amount of corporation tax being paid if the tax on company profits (at current rates) is a greater amount than that 2% of turnover - it would stop the likes of Starbucks taking the piss while having no effect on companies that don't take the piss.

And any of those poor little darlings who might have to pay up-to an extra £2500 in tax on their pension contributions and who moan about it should be tarred and feathered and dragged thru the street while the other 90% of us throw eggs at them. It's no fucking good their 'champions' saying "but that might effect too many middle income tax-payers", because anyone who can afford to put twice the average wage into their pension in any year is not going to miss a measely two and half grand which they'll not notice the govt taking anyway.

[fred quimby]

Love this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20614593

[abdoujaparov]

There should also be a law which says that 2% of any turnover from business done in the UK is paid as corporation tax, deductable against a greater amount of corporation tax being paid if the tax on company profits (at current rates) is a greater amount than that 2% of turnover - it would stop the likes of Starbucks taking the piss while having no effect on companies that don't take the piss.

[eFestivals]

if I've understood what you're saying right (and apologies if I havent) wouldnt that just mean that business that are barely profitable or operating a loss (say because they have just started up) are more likely to go bust?

You can look it that way if you wish to, but there's a whole massive other side to it too (which I'll get to in a moment). But in regard to that, it would just be, at the end of the day, another operating cost - so new businesses would have to factor in that added cost before starting, and nothing would change (because the same would apply in all directions, and that start-up would therefore be no more or less profitable against the competition than it was).

But the other side is that a business that is barely profitable is depriving the exchequer of taxes - because it's depriving the profitable businesses of that business. Capitalist theory says it needs to ship up or shut down.

What is profit is infinitely manipulable, while turnover is not (tho for certain sectors, there's big holes. I'm not saying it's perfect). It will never be possible to fairly tax by going after profits because of that, and so a 'trade tax' on turnover is a much better way to go.

It stops, for example, the c**ts from robbing us all via leveraged buy-outs, where we pay for them to become billionaires. It also stops an awful lot of the no-added-value speculative traders anywhere from city banks to your local high street, and returns that business to value-adding traders. The ups to the idea are endless.

I came up with the idea last night, so don't go expecting a full-formulated plan from me ... and I have identified a few areas where there's some big problems with the idea, but all sorts of exceptions could be made around those if really necessary - for example, you could say that businesses in their first year are exempt; and to stop people taking the piss you could say that only businesses where all shareholders hadn't been involved in another start-up-trade-tax-exemption business for the last five years were eligible to be exempt.

It's not like a system with lots of exemptions and special cases is a wacky idea in our tax system, is it?

The tax could be brought in slowly too, so its impact was minimised while companies adjust - that takes away many of the problems, because companies are always having to adjust their budgets anyway - but for most businesses, the ones that are 'officially' profitable, it's not an added cost at all anyway.

Is it a more flawed idea than what we have currently? I don't think it is.

Edited December 6, 2012 by eFestivals

[abdoujaparov]

You can look it that way if you wish to, but there's a whole massive other side to it too (which I'll get to in a moment). But in regard to that, it would just be, at the end of the day, another operating cost - so new businesses would have to factor in that added cost before starting, and nothing would change (because the same would apply in all directions, and that start-up would therefore be no more or less profitable against the competition than it was).

[eFestivals]

Wouldnt the cost them just be passed on to the customer? So you would have (potentially) a massive increase in corporation tax funded out of the pockets, partly at least, of consumers.

for any business making a 10% margin before corp tax it's cost neutral, because what is collected via that 'trade tax' would be offset against any corp-tax bill. So, for most firms it's cost neutral, so there's nothing to be passed onto the customer.

For the others, currently they're essentially being subsided by the tax-payer to stay in business - cos businesses are meant to make a profit in a capitalist system, else they go to the wall. They've stealing business from the 'good' businesses, and the tax-payer is paying them to be able to do that ... and the owner is getting rich of course (again, paid for by the taxpayer). So who really cares if these businesses go to the wall? The trade will go elsewhere, to a better place - and if there needs to be a small price increase as a result then that's a market adjustment to the new rules of the market. It's a price worth paying for a fairer market without the w*nkers - we all win via that in the end.

Any economic solution that anyone might suggest is going to have negative impacts in one direction or another, that's an inevitable consequence of any tweak to the system - but it's not a reason by itself it not make those tweaks.

[abdoujaparov]

for any business making a 10% margin before corp tax it's cost neutral, because what is collected via that 'trade tax' would be offset against any corp-tax bill. So, for most firms it's cost neutral, so there's nothing to be passed onto the customer.

For the others, currently they're essentially being subsided by the tax-payer to stay in business - cos businesses are meant to make a profit in a capitalist system, else they go to the wall. They've stealing business from the 'good' businesses, and the tax-payer is paying them to be able to do that ... and the owner is getting rich of course (again, paid for by the taxpayer). So who really cares if these businesses go to the wall? The trade will go elsewhere, to a better place - and if there needs to be a small price increase as a result then that's a market adjustment to the new rules of the market. It's a price worth paying for a fairer market without the w*nkers - we all win via that in the end.

Any economic solution that anyone might suggest is going to have negative impacts in one direction or another, that's an inevitable consequence of any tweak to the system - but it's not a reason by itself it not make those tweaks.