Condem Government 100 Days Old Today

[B.C.G. JAG]

Are you imputing criminality? That's a dangerous path to go down...

 

 

I'm terrified

 

Yeah him and Phillip Green are just whiter than white eh?

[Woodstock Jag]

I'm terrified

 

Yeah him and Phillip Green are just whiter than white eh?

 

I don't question that both have been ruthless and made the most of the loop-holes in our tax system, but that's entirely their prerogative, and the government of the day's fault for letting them slip through the net.

[Vladimir Putin]

I don't question that both have been ruthless and made the most of the loop-holes in our tax system, but that's entirely their prerogative, and the government of the day's fault for letting them slip through the net.

 

You don't think that if someone is Deputy Chairman of a major UK political party and a member of the Upper House that one of their prerogatives should be paying tax in the country in which they play a role in making the laws?

[B.C.G. JAG]

I don't question that both have been ruthless and made the most of the loop-holes in our tax system, but that's entirely their prerogative, and the government of the day's fault for letting them slip through the net.

 

So you're quite happy that your party is directed by people with such a low personal commitment to paying their moral share whilst squeezing the poorest for as much as they can? All this tells me is that these people will continue to look after themselves whilst screwing us as much as possible.

[Woodstock Jag]

You don't think that if someone is Deputy Chairman of a major UK political party and a member of the Upper House that one of their prerogatives should be paying tax in the country in which they play a role in making the laws?

 

What do you mean by "prerogative to pay tax"? A prerogative is a right.

 

I do believe that all those in our legislature should be subject to UK Tax Law. It's not their fault if the law, until very recently, didn't require them to be domiciled for tax purposes in Britain. As I stress (and I'll repeat it again) Ashcroft HAS given up his non-domiciled status to remain in the legislature in light of the change in the law to require all those in the legislature to be domiciled in the UK. That is the end of the matter and I really don't see what more can be said or done.

 

If you are complaining about the tax he didn't pay before this law came in, the people you should be complaining about are Labour, who failed to change the tax law in the best part of a decade after they became aware that Ashcroft had been nominated for a peerage by then Tory leader William Hague.

[Woodstock Jag]

So you're quite happy that your party is directed by people with such a low personal commitment to paying their moral share whilst squeezing the poorest for as much as they can? All this tells me is that these people will continue to look after themselves whilst screwing us as much as possible.

 

It's not "my" party. I am not a member of the Conservative Party and did not vote for them at the General Election.

 

It's not "directed" by either Ashcroft or Green.

 

It's unfair to single-out the Tories when Labour were the ones with the power to make the law match the the moral obligation.

 

They aren't "squeezing the poorest for as much as they can"; they are examining the horrendous state of the public finances to see where they can and can't afford to sustain spending.

[jaggybunnet]

It's not "my" party. I am not a member of the Conservative Party and did not vote for them at the General Election.

 

It's not "directed" by either Ashcroft or Green.

 

It's unfair to single-out the Tories when Labour were the ones with the power to make the law match the the moral obligation.

 

They aren't "squeezing the poorest for as much as they can"; they are examining the horrendous state of the public finances to see where they can and can't afford to sustain spending.

 

 

 

dont worry they will always have this blinkered view when it comes to the tories, they cant help themselves no matter how obvious the flaws in there points.

 

they have bad short term memory and cant seem to remember that labour were weak and inept and not able to make any disisions that would harm any of money that comes from there cash cow (unions)

[Vladimir Putin]

 

dont worry they will always have this blinkered view when it comes to the tories, they cant help themselves no matter how obvious the flaws in there points.

 

they have bad short term memory and cant seem to remember that labour were weak and inept and not able to make any disisions that would harm any of money that comes from there cash cow (unions)

 

 

There's really not much else you can say once the debate is reduced to this level. Yes, we all hate the Tories and that's the only reason anyone on this thread is objecting to the coaltion.

[Woodstock Jag]

 

There's really not much else you can say once the debate is reduced to this level. Yes, we all hate the Tories and that's the only reason anyone on this thread is objecting to the coaltion.

 

He never said that.

[B.C.G. JAG]

It's not "my" party. I am not a member of the Conservative Party and did not vote for them at the General Election.

That's pretty surprising considering how defensive you are about them.

It's not "directed" by either Ashcroft or Green.

I'd say Ashcroft has an influence that matches his bank balance. To suggest otherwise is pretty naive.

It's unfair to single-out the Tories when Labour were the ones with the power to make the law match the the moral obligation.

You don't think that the people who make the laws on tax should have some kind of moral authority on it, showing that they can be trusted to be honest brokers rather than simply out for personal gain at the expense of others? I refer you to Blackpool Jag's posts on 'egalitarianism'. Not a lot on show here from Ashcroft, Rowlands, Green et al. So you don't think they're at fault because they're just exploiting a loophole that they found? Sounds a bit like blaming rape victims for wearing short skirts or victims of burglary for leaving the skylight unlocked. Just because it's there doesn't mean you should take it if it's morally wrong.

They aren't "squeezing the poorest for as much as they can"; they are examining the horrendous state of the public finances to see where they can and can't afford to sustain spending.

I've got an idea, why don't all three of them show that they are willing to pay their fair share first before thinking that they have any moral authority to tell anyone else what public services can or can't be afforded.

 

 

 

 

 

 

dont worry they will always have this blinkered view when it comes to the tories, they cant help themselves no matter how obvious the flaws in there points.

Broken record syndrome here JB. I think every post you've written contains these words, just in various different orders.

 

 

Edited August 21, 2010 by B.C.G. JAG

[Woodstock Jag]

That's pretty surprising considering how defensive you are about the them.

 

I defend on merit, not on partisan alignment.

 

I'd say Ashcroft has an influence that matches his bank balance. To suggest otherwise is pretty naive.

 

And the Unions don't?

 

You don't think that the people who make the laws on tax should have some kind of moral authority on it, showing that they can be trusted to be honest brokers rather than simply out for personal gain at the expense of others. I refer you to Blackpool Jags posts on 'egalitarianism'. Not a lot on show here from Ashcroft, Rowlands, Green et al. So you don't think they're at fault because they're just exploiting a loophole that they found? Sounds a bit like blaming rape victims for wearing short skirts or victims of burglary victims for leaving the skylight unlocked.

 

Except rape and burglary are illegal. Utilising tax loopholes not only isn't a criminal offence, but also doesn't invade personal liberty like rape or burglary. That is an absolutely ridiculous comparison.

 

It falls to the state (and by proxy, the government) to match what they morally expect in terms of taxation from classes of individual by enshrining it in law through their methods, rates and exemptions. What you are effectively suggesting is that if the state sets a low rate of corporation tax, businesses are morally bound to arbitrarily add a couple of zeros onto their VAT payments to the treasury. Alternatively, you are suggesting that because someone has chosen to build an extension to their house, making it effectively in a higher band if the Council were to rerate it, they are morally bound to send an extra cheque to the local Council office paying the extra £100 or whatever even though the Council hasn't got round to making it officially a different band. That's simply preposterous, and people should be fully entitled to act as they please so long as it is in accordance with the laws and codes of conduct by which they are bound.

 

I've got an idea, why don't all three of them show that they are willing to pay their fair share first before thinking that they have any moral authority to tell anyone else what public services can or can't be afforded.

 

Ashcroft is now domiciled and paying all the tax he is legally bound to pay! The other two aren't breaking the law, so I don't see anything wrong with them offering their expertise and advice about public finances. What moral authority did the Labour front bench have to say what we can and can't afford when they were among the worst of the swindlers in the expenses scandal?

[jaggybunnet]

 

 

well if you were to finally see sense and realise that labour have caused this and like it or not the Tories have had to deal with it then I would not have to labour (sorry) the point

 

 

is this likely to happen, poss not but there you go

[B.C.G. JAG]

 

Except rape and burglary are illegal. Utilising tax loopholes not only isn't a criminal offence, but also doesn't invade personal liberty like rape or burglary. That is an absolutely ridiculous comparison.

 

Wow. Just wow. As I said before, just because something is there, it doesn't mean you should take it if it's morally wrong to do so. Your defense of these people's lack of ethical leadership is truly staggering. Is it OK for Brown McMaster to have disappeared with a sizeable amount of Thistle's shares because he can exploit loopholes like who he donates them to, and because it doesn't invade anyone's personal liberty? Or is it just morally wrong?

Edited August 21, 2010 by B.C.G. JAG

[Woodstock Jag]

Wow. Just wow. As I said before, just because something is there, it doesn't mean you should take it if it's morally wrong to do so. Your defense of these people's lack of ethical leadership is truly staggering. Is it OK for Brown McMaster to have disappeared with a sizeable amount of Thistle's shares because he can exploit loopholes like who he donates them to, and because it doesn't invade anyone's personal liberty? Or is it just morally wrong?

 

Again, completely misrepresenting what I'm saying.

 

I am not saying that Ashcroft and co are paragons of virtue. Further, I don't really care if they are paragons of virtue. All I care about is that the public finances are balanced and government doesn't overspend in the future.

 

The McMaster one is actually a very pertinent example of the distinction I'm drawing here, and which you're refusing to acknowledge. It was an absolute scandal that McMaster, having been given shares to safeguard the future of the Club, upped sticks and took them with him. He would have been morally right to return the shares given the purpose for which they were provided. However, the greatest issue is not his taking the shares, but the mechanism which allowed him to take the shares in the first place. Both his and Tom Hughes' guardianship shares should have been subject to the same sort of limitations as the Jags Trust's are: upon ceasing involvement in the Club they should have reverted to the Club by default.

 

The question of invasion of personal liberty has nothing to do with whether or not something is morally right or wrong, but the gravity of the behaviour and the extent to which the state has authority to act retrospectively.

[GrantB]

Wow. Just wow. As I said before, just because something is there, it doesn't mean you should take it if it's morally wrong to do so. Your defense of these people's lack of ethical leadership is truly staggering. Is it OK for Brown McMaster to have disappeared with a sizeable amount of Thistle's shares because he can exploit loopholes like who he donates them to, and because it doesn't invade anyone's personal liberty? Or is it just morally wrong?

 

A bit like the Tories cracking down on benefit thieves while turning a blind eye to tax dodging.

 

I cant stand Labour but I'd much rather have them back than have one more day of this ConDem shambles.

[Woodstock Jag]

A bit like the Tories cracking down on benefit thieves while turning a blind eye to tax dodging.

 

I cant stand Labour but I'd much rather have them back than have one more day of this ConDem shambles.

 

Labour turned every bit as much a blind eye to tax dodging! Lord Ashcroft held his title for 10 years before Labour eventually decided to force members of the legislature to be domiciled in the UK! It is a complete "two wrongs" fallacy to suggest that benefit cheats shouldn't be cracked down upon because others are evading tax by legal loopholes.

[B.C.G. JAG]

Again, completely misrepresenting what I'm saying.

 

I am not saying that Ashcroft and co are paragons of virtue. Further, I don't really care if they are paragons of virtue. All I care about is that the public finances are balanced and government doesn't overspend in the future.

 

The McMaster one is actually a very pertinent example of the distinction I'm drawing here, and which you're refusing to acknowledge. It was an absolute scandal that McMaster, having been given shares to safeguard the future of the Club, upped sticks and took them with him. He would have been morally right to return the shares given the purpose for which they were provided. However, the greatest issue is not his taking the shares, but the mechanism which allowed him to take the shares in the first place. Both his and Tom Hughes' guardianship shares should have been subject to the same sort of limitations as the Jags Trust's are: upon ceasing involvement in the Club they should have reverted to the Club by default.

 

The question of invasion of personal liberty has nothing to do with whether or not something is morally right or wrong, but the gravity of the behaviour and the extent to which the state has authority to act retrospectively.

 

With all due respect, I fail to see the difference. Both are scenarios where an individual has acted immorally but has justified their behaviour by utilising a loophole, as you put it.

[Woodstock Jag]

With all due respect, I fail to see the difference. Both are scenarios where an individual has acted immorally but has justified their behaviour by utilising a loophole, as you put it.

 

I'm not saying they've acted in a manner morally justifiable. I'm saying that it is wrong simply to chastise the Tories for the legal activities of an individual with whom they are associated when Labour were the ones with the power to make that individual subject to a fairer tax code.

 

They are all as bad as each other, so let's not pretend the Tories are any more corrupt and command any less moral authority than their predecessors.

[GrantB]

Labour turned every bit as much a blind eye to tax dodging! Lord Ashcroft held his title for 10 years before Labour eventually decided to force members of the legislature to be domiciled in the UK! It is a complete "two wrongs" fallacy to suggest that benefit cheats shouldn't be cracked down upon because others are evading tax by legal loopholes.

 

It's a question of ideology. The Tories like to come down hard on the most vulnerable in society and Labour target the more well off.

[Woodstock Jag]

It's a question of ideology. The Tories like to come down hard on the most vulnerable in society and Labour target the more well off.

 

Labour don't come down on anybody, wrecking the public finances and in the process ultimately coming down on everyone anyway, as we have to try to pay off the debt they accrue.

 

The Tory/Lib Dem Coalition has, so far, phased in an increase in the income tax threshold, bringing the poorest out of income tax completely, and is looking at removing benefits from those who either are cheating the system or are on incomes receiving universal benefits but don't need them. If you think that's got priorities back to front, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[B.C.G. JAG]

This is what happens when commercial interests are placed above human rights

[Blackpool Jags]

As for the odious fraudster that is Ashcroft...

 

I liked this quote from that thread:

 

"I say, splendid news, what.

 

That's exactly what the country needs. I'm sure Mr Ashcroft will help the Government enormously in their anti-scrounger campaign.

 

Such an expert will be invaluable on cracking down on the riffraff."

 

 

 

As far as I'm concerned, his behaviour is not substantially different from (say) the Trades Unions bankrolling the Labour Party, with countless examples of people being signed-up automatically to the political levy regardless of their political persuasion, having to pick up on it and specifically ask to be withdrawn from it to stop them getting their grubby mits on their money.

 

This is blue chip crap. Do take the trouble to ascertain the facts before vomiting onto the forum with this bilious pish.

 

The Labour Party was founded by the Trade Unions; the former is the political wing, the latter the industrial wing of the Labour movement. Union members are asked at the point of joining whether they wish to have a (tiny) proportion of the set subscription directed to that union's political levy. I appreciate that this unfortunate fact compromises the juiciness of your anti-labour invective. That's just a wee shame.

[GrantB]

This is blue chip crap. Do take the trouble to ascertain the facts before vomiting onto the forum with this bilious pish.

 

The Labour Party was founded by the Trade Unions; the former is the political wing, the latter the industrial wing of the Labour movement. Union members are asked at the point of joining whether they wish to have a (tiny) proportion of the set subscription directed to that union's political levy. I appreciate that this unfortunate fact compromises the juiciness of your anti-labour invective. That's just a wee shame.

 

I'm not sure about this point BJ.

 

I was offered no such optout when I joined Unite. It's something that really sticks in my throat (being a card carrying member of the SNP) that a percentage of my union subscription goes to funding the Labour party.

Edited August 22, 2010 by GrantB

[jaggybunnet]

I'm not sure about this point BJ.

 

I was offered no such optout when I joined Unite. It's something that really sticks in my throat (being a card carrying member of the SNP) that a percentage of my union subscription goes to funding the Labour party.

 

 

my brother (postie) was the same, he eventualy left the union due to this and other things, even though he is a L***** supporter.

[Woodstock Jag]

This is blue chip crap. Do take the trouble to ascertain the facts before vomiting onto the forum with this bilious pish.

 

The Labour Party was founded by the Trade Unions; the former is the political wing, the latter the industrial wing of the Labour movement. Union members are asked at the point of joining whether they wish to have a (tiny) proportion of the set subscription directed to that union's political levy. I appreciate that this unfortunate fact compromises the juiciness of your anti-labour invective. That's just a wee shame.

 

I need look no further than below. What you say is exactly what is supposed to happen, and there are parts of the TU movement who comply with this. Many, however, don't provide a clear option and leave people who don't support Labour inadvertently paying the political levy.

 

I'm not sure about this point BJ.

 

I was offered no such optout when I joined Unite. It's something that really sticks in my throat (being a card carrying member of the SNP) that a percentage of my union subscription goes to funding the Labour party.

 

 

my brother (postie) was the same, he eventualy left the union due to this and other things, even though he is a L***** supporter.