General Election 2017

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 288 of 450 < 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 >

NickinOX Sailing country. 02 Jun 17 1.25pm
Originally posted by malxeagles Are you aware of the difference between Communism and Socialism? I may not voting for Corbyn, but am getting tired of this pointless mudslinging against him. Attack his policies if you believe they are wrong, but calling him a Communist serves no purpose other then making him look sensible when he asks, (quite reasonably), to debate policy and step away from name calling. Edited by malxeagles (02 Jun 2017 1.19pm) Where did he call him a communist? He said the Corbyn's campaign manager was a member of the communist party until December of 2016. If you come to a fork in the road, take it.
Alert a moderator to this post

NickinOX

Sailing country. 02 Jun 17 1.25pm

Originally posted by malxeagles

Are you aware of the difference between Communism and Socialism? I may not voting for Corbyn, but am getting tired of this pointless mudslinging against him. Attack his policies if you believe they are wrong, but calling him a Communist serves no purpose other then making him look sensible when he asks, (quite reasonably), to debate policy and step away from name calling.

Edited by malxeagles (02 Jun 2017 1.19pm)

Where did he call him a communist? He said the Corbyn's campaign manager was a member of the communist party until December of 2016.

If you come to a fork in the road, take it.

Alert a moderator to this post

malxeagles Wimbledon 02 Jun 17 1.27pm
Originally posted by Willo I could not agree more. And don't get me started on the so called "Costed" manifesto pledges with the "Money Tree" at the forefront.That "Corporation tax" increase has been spent over and over and over again - and will be again before next Thursday ! And don't get me started on that 'Socialist Campaign Group News', the 'London Labour briefing' and all that left-wing hogwash. I think I will leave it at this else I will be a victim of hypertension and I will get on my political 'Soapbox' besides I have leaflets to deliver on behalf of my party. Fair enough mate. But can someone explain to me how the Conservative Party plan to find the money to decrease Corporation Tax to 16%
Alert a moderator to this post

malxeagles

Wimbledon 02 Jun 17 1.27pm

Originally posted by Willo

I could not agree more.

And don't get me started on the so called "Costed" manifesto pledges with the "Money Tree" at the forefront.That "Corporation tax" increase has been spent over and over and over again - and will be again before next Thursday !

And don't get me started on that 'Socialist Campaign Group News', the 'London Labour briefing' and all that left-wing hogwash.

I think I will leave it at this else I will be a victim of hypertension and I will get on my political 'Soapbox' besides I have leaflets to deliver on behalf of my party.

Fair enough mate. But can someone explain to me how the Conservative Party plan to find the money to decrease Corporation Tax to 16%

Alert a moderator to this post

NickinOX Sailing country. 02 Jun 17 1.33pm
Originally posted by malxeagles Fair enough mate. But can someone explain to me how the Conservative Party plan to find the money to decrease Corporation Tax to 16% Why would you need to find money for a tax cut? Surely you would only need to find money to cover expenses? Whether it is a good policy or not, is another matter. If you come to a fork in the road, take it.
Alert a moderator to this post

NickinOX

Sailing country. 02 Jun 17 1.33pm

Originally posted by malxeagles

Fair enough mate. But can someone explain to me how the Conservative Party plan to find the money to decrease Corporation Tax to 16%

Why would you need to find money for a tax cut? Surely you would only need to find money to cover expenses?

Whether it is a good policy or not, is another matter.

If you come to a fork in the road, take it.

Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50 Croydon 02 Jun 17 1.37pm
Originally posted by malxeagles Fair enough mate. But can someone explain to me how the Conservative Party plan to find the money to decrease Corporation Tax to 16% Last time they cut it, they collected more than when it was at a higher rate. More incentive for companies to invest and make bigger profits, and less incentive to find ways of avoiding paying it. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]
Alert a moderator to this post

hedgehog50

Croydon 02 Jun 17 1.37pm

Originally posted by malxeagles

Fair enough mate. But can someone explain to me how the Conservative Party plan to find the money to decrease Corporation Tax to 16%

Last time they cut it, they collected more than when it was at a higher rate. More incentive for companies to invest and make bigger profits, and less incentive to find ways of avoiding paying it.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert a moderator to this post

Mr_Gristle In the land of Whelk Eaters 02 Jun 17 1.37pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Similarly, show me the Tory (or UKIP for that matter) plans to invade Poland and exterminate all Jews (more a left wing aspiration these days of course). Corbyn's head of campaign, Andrew Murray, who has praised Stalin and North Korea, was member of the Communist Party of Great Britain until December of last year. Can't help you there as I don't equate May and her leadership with the inner circle of the Third Reich. Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)
Alert a moderator to this post

Mr_Gristle

In the land of Whelk Eaters 02 Jun 17 1.37pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Similarly, show me the Tory (or UKIP for that matter) plans to invade Poland and exterminate all Jews (more a left wing aspiration these days of course).

Corbyn's head of campaign, Andrew Murray, who has praised Stalin and North Korea, was member of the Communist Party of Great Britain until December of last year.

Can't help you there as I don't equate May and her leadership with the inner circle of the Third Reich.

Well I think Simon's head is large; always involved in espionage. (Name that tune)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online 02 Jun 17 1.46pm
Originally posted by nickgusset What is this gem based on? If anything, I'd say Corbyn has shown bloody mindedness at times especially in the face of opposition to him from the media and some in the PLP. Other than the figures thing the other day, he hasn't put a foot wrong. TM is hiding ffs. No more local radio appearances now or local media interviews, after that car crash in Plymouth. You need to re evaluate who you think looks the strongest of the leaders. Nick, stop writing comedy. It goes from farce to pathos. Bless you. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online

02 Jun 17 1.46pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

What is this gem based on?
If anything, I'd say Corbyn has shown bloody mindedness at times especially in the face of opposition to him from the media and some in the PLP. Other than the figures thing the other day, he hasn't put a foot wrong.
TM is hiding ffs. No more local radio appearances now or local media interviews, after that car crash in Plymouth.

You need to re evaluate who you think looks the strongest of the leaders.

Nick, stop writing comedy. It goes from farce to pathos.

Bless you.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online 02 Jun 17 1.53pm
Originally posted by Mapletree Just to point out we were never 'given' money under the Marshall Plan. It was a loan subject to 50 annual repayments. Which we took 61 to pay off. The amount was equivalent to around £30bn today. In effect it was giving it away. Like I say....Labour supporters talk a lot about the 1945 government but I rarely hear them relate how that without America they would have been able to do very little indeed. Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Jun 2017 2.01pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online

02 Jun 17 1.53pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

Just to point out we were never 'given' money under the Marshall Plan. It was a loan subject to 50 annual repayments.

Which we took 61 to pay off.

The amount was equivalent to around £30bn today. In effect it was giving it away.

Like I say....Labour supporters talk a lot about the 1945 government but I rarely hear them relate how that without America they would have been able to do very little indeed.

Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Jun 2017 2.01pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online 02 Jun 17 1.57pm
Originally posted by Mr_Gristle Show me the Labour plans for five year plans, farm collectivisation, "re-education" centres, suppression of all religion, a state press with elimination of private media ownership, mass murder of the land-owning class and institutionalised state surveillance of the populace and perhaps I'll agree with you. I think that's Stalinism not Communism. Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Jun 2017 2.00pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online

02 Jun 17 1.57pm

Originally posted by Mr_Gristle

Show me the Labour plans for five year plans, farm collectivisation, "re-education" centres, suppression of all religion, a state press with elimination of private media ownership, mass murder of the land-owning class and institutionalised state surveillance of the populace and perhaps I'll agree with you.

I think that's Stalinism not Communism.

Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Jun 2017 2.00pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 02 Jun 17 1.59pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 Last time they cut it, they collected more than when it was at a higher rate. More incentive for companies to invest and make bigger profits, and less incentive to find ways of avoiding paying it. This analysis has so many problems with it, not least that there is not "more incentive to make bigger profits" due to tax rates being a few percentage points lower. No company looks at a 26% tax rate and goes, oh well then I won't bother as I will only get 74p for every pound of extra profit I get, I will rather get zero. It's the role of all company directors to maximise shareholder return, which will involve maximising post tax profits whatever the rate of tax. In terms of tax avoidance it's the same. As long as tax rate is above zero there will be incentives to avoid it, and the incentives will be positive as long as the money you pay in professional fees is less than tax saved, which depends not only on rate but on quantum of profits. What the government has done is increase taxable base while decreasing the tax rate, so making it harder for companies to class profits as "non-taxable" or shift them to lower tax jurisdictions. But this should be the case whatever the rate of tax. This move should be commended and it's thanks to the OECD that this has happened. The incentive to move profits to tax havens still exists but in practice it's now much more difficult The rate of CT in the UK is way way below the rest of the G20 and ability to avoid has decreased so there is definitely scope to increase rates. Companies still base themselves in Japan and Germany despite their comparatively high rates of CT due to skilled labour force and high quality of infrastructure and public services (paid for by those taxes) The last time they cut it they also changed the method of accounting for tax receipts so in the latest figures they have effectively had some double counting as certain companies will have been caught twice in the official statistics, therefore making them misleading. Tax on corporate profits as a share of GDP has fallen every single year from 2010. So in real terms they have fallen. Business investment is very weak at the moment and has been since the GFC. Lower tax rates have made no difference. Corporate share of investment has barely increased according to the OECD since 2010 and certainly shows no sign of having been impacted by lower tax rates. The tax take has also been boosted by the return to profit of the banking sector, which cannot be attributed to the government. A simplistic view of this matter is a real problem when you actually look at what's happening and the incentives and possibilities in reality.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 02 Jun 17 1.59pm

Send a Private Message to CambridgeEagle

Originally posted by hedgehog50

Last time they cut it, they collected more than when it was at a higher rate. More incentive for companies to invest and make bigger profits, and less incentive to find ways of avoiding paying it.

This analysis has so many problems with it, not least that there is not "more incentive to make bigger profits" due to tax rates being a few percentage points lower. No company looks at a 26% tax rate and goes, oh well then I won't bother as I will only get 74p for every pound of extra profit I get, I will rather get zero. It's the role of all company directors to maximise shareholder return, which will involve maximising post tax profits whatever the rate of tax.

In terms of tax avoidance it's the same. As long as tax rate is above zero there will be incentives to avoid it, and the incentives will be positive as long as the money you pay in professional fees is less than tax saved, which depends not only on rate but on quantum of profits.

What the government has done is increase taxable base while decreasing the tax rate, so making it harder for companies to class profits as "non-taxable" or shift them to lower tax jurisdictions. But this should be the case whatever the rate of tax. This move should be commended and it's thanks to the OECD that this has happened. The incentive to move profits to tax havens still exists but in practice it's now much more difficult

The rate of CT in the UK is way way below the rest of the G20 and ability to avoid has decreased so there is definitely scope to increase rates. Companies still base themselves in Japan and Germany despite their comparatively high rates of CT due to skilled labour force and high quality of infrastructure and public services (paid for by those taxes)

The last time they cut it they also changed the method of accounting for tax receipts so in the latest figures they have effectively had some double counting as certain companies will have been caught twice in the official statistics, therefore making them misleading.

Tax on corporate profits as a share of GDP has fallen every single year from 2010. So in real terms they have fallen.

Business investment is very weak at the moment and has been since the GFC. Lower tax rates have made no difference. Corporate share of investment has barely increased according to the OECD since 2010 and certainly shows no sign of having been impacted by lower tax rates.

The tax take has also been boosted by the return to profit of the banking sector, which cannot be attributed to the government.

A simplistic view of this matter is a real problem when you actually look at what's happening and the incentives and possibilities in reality.

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 02 Jun 17 2.04pm
Originally posted by NickinOX Which German historians? Hindenburg was reported to have been so annoyed with Hitler that he could not even look at him when the latter was made Chancellor. Furthermore, Hindenburg was so disturbed by the idea of Hitler being in charge that he re-ran for office, despite hating the job. Try reading Kershaw's magisterial work on Hitler: chapter 10 volume 1 should help. You might also look at Evan's "The Coming of the Third Reich (chpater 5 in volume 1). They make it clear that Hindenburg detested Hitler and was extremely distrustful of him. The feeling was mutual. As for the Night of the Long Knives: most people were more immediately afraid of the SA and its storm-troopers than they were of Hitler. Furthermore, as Kershaw points out, presumably given Hindenburg's state of health (he was shortly to die of ill health), it is not even clear whether Hindenburg was even shown the telegram sent in his name. Edited by NickinOX (02 Jun 2017 1.09pm) Volker Ullrich in a biography of Hitler. I think it was more of a mix of flattery, charm, intimidation and other less nice traits that Hitler managed to gain a hold over Hindenburg. I'd be interested to read that so thank you for the tip.
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 02 Jun 17 2.04pm

Originally posted by NickinOX

Which German historians? Hindenburg was reported to have been so annoyed with Hitler that he could not even look at him when the latter was made Chancellor.

Furthermore, Hindenburg was so disturbed by the idea of Hitler being in charge that he re-ran for office, despite hating the job.

Try reading Kershaw's magisterial work on Hitler: chapter 10 volume 1 should help. You might also look at Evan's "The Coming of the Third Reich (chpater 5 in volume 1).

They make it clear that Hindenburg detested Hitler and was extremely distrustful of him. The feeling was mutual.

As for the Night of the Long Knives: most people were more immediately afraid of the SA and its storm-troopers than they were of Hitler. Furthermore, as Kershaw points out, presumably given Hindenburg's state of health (he was shortly to die of ill health), it is not even clear whether Hindenburg was even shown the telegram sent in his name.

Edited by NickinOX (02 Jun 2017 1.09pm)

Volker Ullrich in a biography of Hitler. I think it was more of a mix of flattery, charm, intimidation and other less nice traits that Hitler managed to gain a hold over Hindenburg.

I'd be interested to read that so thank you for the tip.

Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 02 Jun 17 2.06pm
Originally posted by Willo I could not agree more. And don't get me started on the so called "Costed" manifesto pledges with the "Money Tree" at the forefront.That "Corporation tax" increase has been spent over and over and over again - and will be again before next Thursday ! And don't get me started on that 'Socialist Campaign Group News', the 'London Labour briefing' and all that left-wing hogwash. I think I will leave it at this else I will be a victim of hypertension and I will get on my political 'Soapbox' besides I have leaflets to deliver on behalf of my party. I think you've now said this about 4 times on this thread. You've come over all "Maybot".
Alert a moderator to this post

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 02 Jun 17 2.06pm

Originally posted by Willo

I could not agree more.

And don't get me started on that 'Socialist Campaign Group News', the 'London Labour briefing' and all that left-wing hogwash.

I think I will leave it at this else I will be a victim of hypertension and I will get on my political 'Soapbox' besides I have leaflets to deliver on behalf of my party.

I think you've now said this about 4 times on this thread. You've come over all "Maybot".

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online 02 Jun 17 2.09pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle I would have campaigned strongly for Bernie Sanders if I was a US citizen. He's certainly not a communist. I believe that he would have stood a much better chance of beating Trump than Hilary. More foolishness from Trump yesterday. I enjoyed Macron's trolling of Trump saying "let's make our planet great again". I agree wholeheartedly with his comments: "President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement is an abdication of American leadership and an international disgrace. At this moment, when climate change is already causing devastating harm around the world, we do not have the moral right to turn our backs on efforts to preserve this planet for future generations. "The United States must play a leading role in the global campaign to stop climate change and transition rapidly away from fossil fuels to renewable and more efficient sources of energy. We must do this with or without the support of Donald Trump and the fossil fuel industry." May's response has been typically weak and wobbly on this. The UK are signed up to Paris and it's of paramount importance. We should be using our "special relationship" to put pressure on the US and joining China and the EU in condemning Trump. Seeming both Trump and May want to turn the clock back. The Tory manifesto is pretty dismal on climate change, energy policy and investment in tech. The Labour response has been robust on this issue. May is spineless. She would be a disaster in any sort of negotiation. This is a view shared by high profile British diplomats who see her style as confrontational and ineffective with Europe and pandering and weak with the US. Sanders v Trump would have been interesting. Harder to attack....Sanders would have probably won. Not everyone thinks so though and this is an interesting read on the topic. [Link] 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online

02 Jun 17 2.09pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

I would have campaigned strongly for Bernie Sanders if I was a US citizen. He's certainly not a communist. I believe that he would have stood a much better chance of beating Trump than Hilary.

More foolishness from Trump yesterday. I enjoyed Macron's trolling of Trump saying "let's make our planet great again".

I agree wholeheartedly with his comments: "President Trump's decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement is an abdication of American leadership and an international disgrace. At this moment, when climate change is already causing devastating harm around the world, we do not have the moral right to turn our backs on efforts to preserve this planet for future generations.

"The United States must play a leading role in the global campaign to stop climate change and transition rapidly away from fossil fuels to renewable and more efficient sources of energy. We must do this with or without the support of Donald Trump and the fossil fuel industry."

May's response has been typically weak and wobbly on this. The UK are signed up to Paris and it's of paramount importance. We should be using our "special relationship" to put pressure on the US and joining China and the EU in condemning Trump. Seeming both Trump and May want to turn the clock back. The Tory manifesto is pretty dismal on climate change, energy policy and investment in tech. The Labour response has been robust on this issue. May is spineless. She would be a disaster in any sort of negotiation. This is a view shared by high profile British diplomats who see her style as confrontational and ineffective with Europe and pandering and weak with the US.

Sanders v Trump would have been interesting.

Harder to attack....Sanders would have probably won.

Not everyone thinks so though and this is an interesting read on the topic.

[Link]

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 288 of 450 < 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

General Election 2017

Site Map

Sponsors