
Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
( , Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread

no matter how hard they might wring their hands
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:34, 5 replies, latest was 13 years ago)

( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:36, Reply)

our tax could be significantly reduced. Unfortunately, the government won't do so because the companies would just move somewhere else.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:39, Reply)

It's not fair Kroney.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:41, Reply)

Anyone over the age of 8 complaining about things not being fair needs to grow the fuck up
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:47, Reply)

making the occasional public appearance for mencap spasmo's
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:38, Reply)

Although admittedly that's purely out of a fear of being exposed as a massive hypocrite after all my bashing of people who complain about the higher tax rate.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:37, Reply)

you've got no hope in this hypothetical world of wealth
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:40, Reply)

I'd no more deliberatly avoid tax than I'd deliberatly not get a train ticket.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:39, Reply)

skipping a train a few stops is a bit naughty, conning the country out of millions because your a greedy cunt makes you a greedy cunt
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:41, Reply)

It's a very grey area
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:42, Reply)

The more people earn, the less they want to pay tax and the easier it gets for them.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:45, Reply)

there's shouldn't be a borderline acceptance for it, it's wrong and it's damaging to the economy, the government and society.
Tax evasion and avoidance should become a shameful taboo and then we could get some lower taxes for everyone.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:45, Reply)

If we were all sure the rich and business were being told to cough up or else then we'd all be happier to chip in.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:46, Reply)

( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:49, Reply)

It all gets fed back into the economy anyway, and will attract VAT, Stamp, CGT, IHT in any event.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:49, Reply)

Most avoidance that goes on is the likes of battered buying fivolous ipads as a 'necessary expence of the business' when really that's bollocks. Still attracts vat, and pays staff wages along the way though. It's not exactly turkmenistan.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:55, Reply)

say battered earns £100k, so he pays £3k a month in tax. meanwhile someone else earns £25k a year, so he only pays £750 in tax.
if battered is already contributing £2,250 more per month in tax because of nothing more than his own hard work and abilities, does it matter quite as much if he then skanks a bit of ipad tax back?
moral dilemma...
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 16:06, Reply)

irrespective of rights or wrongs nobody will ever go 'please sir take some more', it's the opposite. You only have to look at the ongoing expenses scandal to see what the great and the good of the nation get up to, down to the chavs on the council estate on incapacity and carers allowance cos nobody gives a fuck
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 16:11, Reply)

pricks on low salaries are mighty quick to say: "please sir, take some more - of their salaries"
people are by nature out to get what they can and keep what they can. and anyone who thinks otherwise is (i) naive and (ii) guaranteed to be a low earner themselves
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 16:15, Reply)

so taking that bit extra doesn't make things a struggle for them.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 16:22, Reply)

Even though we could afford not too, so I am a massive hypocrite
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 16:24, Reply)

and it was cheaper than the one I'm paying in Cornwall.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 16:51, Reply)

when you're never going to have to put it into action.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:44, Reply)

( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:49, Reply)

( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:49, Reply)

This same instinct to hoard is the reason why capitalism even exists.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:51, Reply)

or it was in the 50s
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:56, Reply)

Women were treated as inferior because society traditionally treated them as such. Human beings hoard resources. They fight to protect them, they covet those of others. It's a survival instinct. You can't simply get rid of it by making it naughty.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:59, Reply)

there's no evidence for that and there's a heap of Anthropological evidence that counters it.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 16:06, Reply)

The minute they feel they're getting a raw deal, they instantly revert to type. If you want to see what human beings are really like, restrict the food supply. I guarantee you that you won't see any sharing for the greater good.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 16:08, Reply)

Go look at villages in Pakistan after the flooding or Japan after the Tsunami and see how they came together to do what they could in their comunities to help everyone.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 16:12, Reply)

when you've got a whole bunch of people to help you, isn't it. Co-operation for individual gain.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 16:14, Reply)

Families taking children from the cities etc.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 16:16, Reply)

If you're going to analyse something that has its root in a survival instinct, you're goign to have to look at situations where it was present in its purest form.
You talk about a disaster, or a war, everybody's on a more or less equal footing. Nobody's actually starving, rationing was actually a great equaliser in that capacity. Nobody's at a survival level. The tsunami had international aid packages and the rest of the country's food reserves. When everybody else is suffering to the same extent you are, people are much more willing to co-operate.
I'm saying that capitalism has its root in the same acquisition of resources as that survival instinct. I'm not saying that all humans act like that all the time, but people are fundamentally selfish and will act in that way when they think they can get away with it.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 16:19, Reply)

you can duel this out with rolled up Guardians if you want
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 16:22, Reply)

Because peoples self preservation is not immediatly at risk, they didn't have to be greedy?
Unlike Jimmy Carr, who's starving and therefore only able to act under his primal urges.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 16:24, Reply)

When everybody has nothing, they will co-operate to survive. When there's an inequality, they will fight each other for resources.
The rich want to keep what they have because they've acquired it themselves, they have a me and mine attitude. The poor want a piece of it through taxing the rich to provide services or more dole money, or whatever. They have a me and mine attitude.
I was just comparing it to a survival instinct because, ultimately, I think it's the same aspect of our character that triggers the behaviour.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 16:26, Reply)

if you can afford an £800 an hour tax lawyer...
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:57, Reply)

Nakers 1 taxman 0, BOOM!
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 16:01, Reply)

If I go shopping with £100, I'm less likely to spend it than if I go shopping with £10.
But that might just be me and not Rswipe.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:51, Reply)

if you earn the arse-end of fuck-all, it hardly matters anyway.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:47, Reply)

once his landfill recycling business takes off and he becomes richer than Croesus.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:51, Reply)

meh
actually on a non-specific individual basis, i totally agree with you. the only people blithering about "fairness" and "everyone should pay this, that and the other" are the people who have fuck-all. the minute they earn or win or inherit a lot of money, it's a different story.
the only exception being the ex, who earns a fortune but genuinely supports higher taxes etc. the leftie twat.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 15:58, Reply)

and look down on those that try to avoid doing so
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 16:02, Reply)

but i maintain that people beating the "pay more taxes" drum are usually the people who do NOT earn a decent wage.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 16:04, Reply)

you'll seee that poor people are a real drain on the system, so technically, they should be the ones payingmore.
You can't argue with logic
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 16:05, Reply)

Human beings are, by and large, utterly unpleasant creatures.
( , Tue 19 Jun 2012, 16:06, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread