Welcome to Fortress Brighton
Posted by: oldie on 26 September 2004
Having just returned from a Sunday afternoon trip out of town I have had my car and passengers videoed several times each way, whilst both leaving and returning to the town,all the main roads into and out of the city have Police video van units working 24 hours a day recording all traffic passing by them.
Several roads have been closed to the general public and barricaded, the main sea front road has been restricted from in places 3 lanes each way down to 1 lane each way, with a massive steel barrier down the center. There are more police armed with machine guns[ that are not suitable or accurate enough to be used in a area crowded with people]on the roof tops and patroling the streets around the sea front area than you would expect to see in Beirut. Van loads of coppers are being driven all over the city and hundreds if not a thousand or more plods are crawling all over the place, this is not to mention the bl--dy helicopters over head and the alleged warships patroling the sea lanes just of the coast. And why do the people of Brighton have to put up with being made prisoners in there own City? so that Blair and his circus can perform their staged and totaly controlled ritual before the worlds press. So much for our democracy and rights of freedom, you can't even move around in our own town without being eyed with suspicion by several gun toting black clad moronic looking coppers.
RANT OVER
Sorry, oldie.
Posted on: 01 October 2004 by Mick P
Alex
The Queen is the figurehead of the country. She is the exception to the rule.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 01 October 2004 by Mick P
Tom
I retired in April but I am now working locum. It is lucrative but I have to work my ass off for it.
This is my point, if you work you can make the lolly.
Also get out of the old class war time warp. I served an apprenticeship as a Toolmaker, so I am hardly upper class as you suggest.
We are the architechs of our own fortunes and how you play your cards is entirely down to you.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 01 October 2004 by JonR
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
This is an equal society, you make what you can out of it.
IMO 'an equal society' is a very loose term and is easily open to misinterpretation.
The traditional socialist model, as I understand it, is one where everyone is equal in terms of wealth and 'status'.
In contrast, you have the capitalist (Tory) model, as espoused by Thatcher, which promoted the idea of 'equality of
opportunity'.
So when Mick refers to 'an equal society', I assume he's referring to one which conforms, in his opinion, to the latter concept.
jon
Posted on: 01 October 2004 by Mekon
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
We are the architechs of our own fortunes and how you play your cards is entirely down to you.
Mick, why aren't you more successful? Not that you haven't been relatively successful in your endeavors, but why aren't you more
Mick?
Posted on: 01 October 2004 by Don Atkinson
Equal opportunities
I had an uncle once. Outright socialist. Sold the house he'd been left, gave up his job in the pits, and moved into a council house. Blew the money from his house on golf and drink.
Felt that society should help out.
Suggested that equality and equal opportunity could be achieved by "collecting all the money in" then "sharing it out equally"
He also felt that "when I've spent all mine"....."we should collect all the money in......"
Where do you start with people like this?
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 01 October 2004 by Mick P
Alex
You asked a stupid question
"Can you let me know which cards I would need to play as architect of my own fortune so that I can become head of state?
If I knew the answer to that, I would now be the Head of State and most certainly would not tell you how to do it.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 01 October 2004 by Don Atkinson
Can you let me know which cards I would need to play as architect of my own fortune so that I can become head of state?
I think the traditional route was to raise an army and win the ensuing civil war. Sometimes backfired. Cromwell was moderately sucesfull at it, warts and all.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 01 October 2004 by oldie
CHRIST ALMIGHTY TOM,
I don't think that I have ever disagreed with one of your post but in Gods name have you totaly gone mad ,can you imagine the result of letting him loose to give advice as a member of the samaritans to people who are at the end of their tether or people who actually need good advice not some half baked attempt regarding limited knowledge of one make of high end music centre,it would be the same as employing a pyromaniac in a explosives factory
Please withdraw that last paragraph
oldie
Posted on: 01 October 2004 by Mick P
Tom
I think you and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I cannot see any point in trying to convince each other of our respective viewpoints.
We are are both flogging a dead horse.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 01 October 2004 by oldie
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Alves:
so any ex employer of the Post Office could make the same money as you? Or is it possible that you got your highly paid job because of people you knew?[QUOTE]
Mason's ??
oldie.
Posted on: 01 October 2004 by oldie
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Tom
I think you and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum. I cannot see any point in trying to convince each other of our respective viewpoints.
We are are both flogging a dead horse.
Regards
Mick
Mick I think that you ,and a few others are not just at opposite ends of the spectrum , but at oposite ends of humane Society, and thats a terrible and sad indictment to make against anybody
oldie
Posted on: 01 October 2004 by oldie
Tom' shouldn't that have read "most" postal workers as there is at least one , [I will not say worker in case it spoils the image]person who was apparently in receipt of a lot more than that.
oldie.
Posted on: 01 October 2004 by Don Atkinson
Tom,
A few posts back you mentioned that your union got you a decent settlement.
I already told you what my uncle did. He blew his money and lived off the state, grumbling.
I wouldn't advocate following in his footsteps.
Matthew highlighted a significant factor about capturing the tax that the rich evade (or did he say avoid?) Either way, its there for the taking. (or collecting)
I don't see any parity between benefit fraud and tax avoidance. I do see a similarity between benefit fraud and tax evasion. Get the rules changed. Otherwise you might as well ask the rich for charity.
And I also remember the union official who called for action to ensure wages were raised to the point where "the wage of every person in this great country of ours is higher than the national average !" People need to be realistic.
We should try harder to sort the lazy spongers from the unfortunate, but willing. The latter are entitled to a decent wage.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 01 October 2004 by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
And I also remember the union official who called for action to ensure wages were raised to the point where "the wage of every person in this great country of ours is higher than the national average !" People need to be realistic.
Awesome! - do you recall who it was?
Mike
Posted on: 01 October 2004 by matthewr
Don,
Your uncle was not a Socialist but a wastrel and an idiot.
I was referring to tax avoidance not evasion -- that's where between £25bn and £85bn of *our* money goes. To complain about relatively trivial problem of benefit fraud (which costs what, £50m? at most) when this is going on makes little sense to me.
As for the the concept of "tax avoidance" , to my mind it roughly translates as "we will exploit loopholes in the law to keep monies that the state clearly intends to collect". In other words it is legally within the letter of the law but morally is completely bankrupt and akin to theft.
So the real differences between benefit fraud and tax evasion are:
-- Benefit fraud is a crime that nets poor individiuals piffling amounts of money for which they risk being sent to jail.
-- Tax avoidance is not a crime but a morally dubious activity that nets very rich individuals (and corporations) great piles of cash that in all but a strict legal sense belongs to us.
In my experience people who split hairs about the difference beween "evasion" and "avoidance" to justify keeping money that should be going to the state are basically just greedy and, more often than not, cunts.
Matthew
Posted on: 01 October 2004 by Chris Dolan
Matthew
I've not read any of this thread other than your last post...but
There are a number of ways that "tax" can be mitigated (to choose a neutral word) there is nothing wrong with applying the law (although I exclude from that comment the Court of Appeal which in my view has been perverse for quite some time).
If there is perceived to be a "loophole" the government can close it, surely...
Chris
Posted on: 01 October 2004 by Steve Toy
quote:
Your uncle was not a Socialist but a wastrel and an idiot.
I thought all socialists were wastrels and idiots.
Still no comment from anyone on the issue of "road pricing."
Perhaps as it isn't going to happen for another ten years nobody cares.
Except me.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 02 October 2004 by Mekon
Steve
I've ignored Jay-z's advice twice already in this thread, but if you can't see my posts, maybe someone is intercepting your net connection.
I suggest you try
this.
Posted on: 02 October 2004 by matthewr
Chris said "If there is perceived to be a "loophole" the government can close it, surely..."
Loopholes are closed at about the same rate that new ones are discovered. There is talk of some kind of the treasury devising some kind of general "anti-avoidance" law although I've no idea how such legislation could be framed.
Matthew
PS You know I'd have thought Mekon would have contributed more to this thread.
Posted on: 02 October 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Dolan:
... There are a number of ways that "tax" can be mitigated (to choose a neutral word) there is nothing wrong with applying the law (although I exclude from that comment the Court of Appeal which in my view has been perverse for quite some time).
If there is perceived to be a "loophole" the government can close it, surely...
First, you have to define your aims. Is the objective to raise the maximum amount of tax, to remove money from the wealthy or what?
There's plenty of evidence that increasing the rate of tax doesn't always increase the amount collected. In Russia where they've lowered and flattened the tax rate, far more money is now being raised (I use Russia as the most recent example of my point). Apart from the inevitable loopholes, rich people will tend to leave if they feel they're being ripped off by the country that they're living in. There are always plenty of other countries that will be more than happy to take them in. The system must be practical as well as fair.
It's generally accepted that the wealthier members of society should subsidize those less well off but how far should this be taken (on a scale from Mick to Matthew)?
Steve
Posted on: 02 October 2004 by Mick P
Steve
I am not wealthy but comfortable.
I begrudge subsidising anyone who does not deserve it.
In my opinion, social service money should be targetted to those who have earned it over the years, eg OAP's and Widows, not malingerers and unmarried mothers etc. 40p tax is the top limit of what is fair.
If I had to pay more, I would seriously think of selling up 100% and moving to Spain. Then the tax man would lose out.
You have to remember that the 50/60 somethings are the wealthiest sector of the community. No mortgage or kids to feed and they are the good time baby boomers and believe me, there are thousands who would not need much incentive to move out. These people tend to be my social circle and without any exaggeration, about 20% own a house abroad and the figure is growing.
Two of my former colleagues are moving out already.
I am off next week for an exploritary holiday.
I may buy a holiday home out there, buy nothing and keep my cash in equities or possibly move out there lock stock and barrel. I am totally undecided at the moment.
The overall picture of climate and lifestyle is the deciding factor. but if I get taxed much more, it is more likely that I shall go and Spain will get the benifit of it all.
Squeesing tax out of middle England is a high risk strategy in these mobile times.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 02 October 2004 by matthewr
Alex,
Well you'd obviously know more about tax laws than me.
My arguments about tax avoidance are much in my mind becuase of the libdems made it a big issue at their conference, and becuase of an article by Monbiot in this week's Guardian. Monbiot is getting a lot of his info from the Tax Justice Network (
http://www.taxjustice.net/e/about/index.php). He also talks (in the briefest terms) about a general "Anti-avoidance" law that the treasury baulked at passing.
The main difficulty with stopping avoidance is that much of the money goes abroad and whilst most sane people agree that it's wrong that News International basically pays trivial amounts of tax in the UK, the US and Australia where it makes all it's profits, I'm not sure anyone has actually got a realistic proposal for stopping this.
Tom said "Perhaps there ought to be a flat rate and no allowances"
Rather like Leffer curves that show that tax yield doesn't neccesarily go up as you conrinue to raise tax rates, there is lots of evidence that totally flat, very simple schemes actually raise more money. There are very good arguments for basically tearing the lot down and starting again
Posted on: 02 October 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by 7V:
It's generally accepted that the wealthier members of society should subsidize those less well off but how far should this be taken (on a scale from Mick to Matthew)?
Just to clarify ...
I was using 'Mick' and 'Matthew' as being at different ends of the political spectrum and not making any inferences about their respective levels of wealth (which is none of my business - damn it, we are British). I was considering using oldie instead of Matthew but thought that "Mick to Matthew" read better than "Mick to oldie". Mick was, of course, never in doubt.
Steve
Posted on: 02 October 2004 by Simon Perry
I am not convinced that we* are really enjoying the good times as much as Mick thinks we are. Sure it's fine for the Micks of the world with their defined benefit pensions, but those days have now gone (in the private sector at least).
However, Mick does raise a point with regard to forcing people off-shore because of the risk of excessive taxation. It happens. Another factor to consider is 'ability to pay' versus annual salary. Perhaps if we were to start again we could move to a tax regime that was far more locally based and took account of cot of living factors. People working in retail in London for example have an unreasonably shit time of it.
Simon
* people under 40 who can afford to buy Naim equipment (trying to avoid class distinctions)
Posted on: 02 October 2004 by matthewr
I agree that Mick going to Spain is an excellent idea.
Matthew
