David Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share Posted March 9, 2011 That's a shame Pat. You sound like you were quite active in raising money. Especially nowadays, charities need more people like you, not less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildSybianRider Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 after reading your posts in the tranny thread and re: charities, pat, sorry for helling you in the past. You really make me sad, though    Loki, work comp won't let me open the doc you linked a few pages. Do the figures quoted for banks' contributions include tax and nat. insurance from their payroll? It's only corporation tax (etc.) that is relevant - banks claiming the tax PAID BY THEIR EMPLOYEES in their figures is disgraceful. Although obv... this only emphasises your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted March 9, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 9, 2011 (edited) Yep, the PWC estimate is for all tax: about a third of it is corporation tax, with the rest being VAT on transactions, and taxes paid by staff. Also, the figure is for the entire financial sector, not just banks. Â Based on those figures, if every bank in the UK relocated overseas (or rather, as it would actually be, changed the address on its headed notepaper for tax purposes), the lost tax would be equivalent to somewhere in the region of 0.5 to 0.75% extra on income tax. Â Interesting fact: 20 + 0.75 = 50. Edited March 9, 2011 by JNLister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Ill quite happily bash Save the Children for being insensitive money grabbing whores though Anecdotally. When me Granddad died he left a small mount of his will to them as had supported them through his life with money and collections and what not.  Instead of receiving the donation without question. Save the Children wanted to scour the estate of my Granddad to make sure that they were getting what exactly was owed to them, utilising solicitors and some nasty phone calls to make sure they got the cash. Didnt give a shit about the grieving family or all the hassle they were causing holding up house sales and estate settlement. Some care and compassion wouldnt go amiss given the circumstances and it put me off donating to charity because of their callous and smallmindedness. They wanted the maximum amount of money that was owed to them and were prepared to forcefully interfere with things to get their pound of flesh rather than leave it up to the executors to sort They can fuck right off tbh  This is sadly a common occurrence. Mrs Loki works in estate management, and when money is left to charities the pursue it with ruthlessness that can be quite upsetting to the deceased's family. Basically, charities employ some right twats.  There's a good discussion to be had about the efficacy of charities, away from the idiocy of Happ's blatherings. You could argue that charities have been encouraged to grow and expand their remits by successive governments as they are seen as an alternative to the welfare state.  I think this is very dangerous for two reasons. Firstly, the general public choose where to place their charitable donations, as is their right. However, whim is not a good method for apportioning out money to worthwhile causes! I would argue that the government, and NHS specialists have a much better understanding of where money actually needs to be spent in research on diseases, or in funding aid and support for patients.  Bear in mind that far more money is given each year to animal charities than human ones in this country. Some causes are just less appealing than others, but society shouldn't help people based on how cute they look.  The second, more philosophical reason this trend worries me is that giving to charity absolves people of social guilt. I've had plenty of conversations with people where they've said "well, I want to pay less taxes, but it's ok because I give to charity". That only emphasises the fact that the concept of a society as a whole looking after its poor and sick has really started to deteriorate. We're moving back to the idea of the rich dropping a coin into the beggars' hat as and when the mood takes them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 after reading your posts in the tranny thread and re: charities, pat, sorry for helling you in the past. You really make me sad, though   If it will make you feel better can post in the 5 things Im happy about right now thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soretooth Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/03/max...edit-card-myth/ Â The UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted March 10, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 10, 2011 That ties in with the article I posted a few pages earlier. The economists who adhere to Keynesian economics all argue this. Normally I'd be sceptical about embracing such a viewpoint so vigourously, but when you consider who's in power, and what their agenda has always been, it wouldn't surprise me that this is really the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 I bolded the same bits as the original blog post, it's from an unashamedly left wing blog but I think it's a nice little summary of some arguments against the cuts. There's no point in posting that here, as you'll only be accused of some liberal backslapping or some other nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted March 11, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 11, 2011 Yeah, Happ's our resident Derek Zoolander - hopelessly ignorant and absolutely and utterly incapable of turning left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 Never thought I'd be posting this; Â Gordon Brown has sensationally admitted to a secret three year long affair with the Conservative politician Ann Widdecombe. Â The married Labour Leader came clean this morning after discovering that details of his affair were due to be published in a tabloid newspaper this weekend. Â The revelations are all the more astonishing due to the fact that Widdecombe 62, a strong supporter of family values, has always claimed that she is a virgin. Mr. Brown and Miss Widdecombe were both unavailable to comment this morning. Â It is believed that the unnamed tabloid paper had obtained pictures of the couple in an embarrassing role playing situation involving a rubber chicken and a nurses outfit. Source: BBC.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I'm sorry, but this is a joke, right?! Â ...The last bit can't be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 (edited) Source. Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Edited March 11, 2011 by David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I'd already found it, after some frantic searching. I'm quite sad it's a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamite Duane Posted March 12, 2011 Share Posted March 12, 2011 This is rather interesting: Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted March 12, 2011 Author Share Posted March 12, 2011 Are you still supporting UKIP Duane? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts