Drug companies and tax avoidance

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Bob Russell — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:34:37 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Bob If you paid less tax then you would have more to spend on your family-who would benefit-as would all the workers whowould have jobs as a result of that spending and their families would then buy things which other workers had made etc

Wynne

[/quote]

not really, because the extra goods one might buy are in all probability made in SE Asia, thus benefiting their economy not ours.

[/quote]

Or buy from Amazon with profits taxed in Luxembourg, not a penny paid here!

So far this week I have bought a light bulb, a new cat flap, jigsaw blades, an early Christmas present and an electric plug. All delivered next day (Amazon Prime), all ordered on separate days to ensure Amazon make no money out of me!

Sadly my carbon footprint is now the size of Basingstoke!

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Mark Holmes — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 17:28:57 GMT

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]

I agree though, we do need a different government with a decent pair of cojones that will radically change the tax and welfare system to make society fairer

[/quote]

We have David Davis reforming the welfare system witht he universal credit. It should always pay to work under that system.

[quote user="Clive Ansell"]A good start would be to ask the more fortunate members of society to contribute their fair share, and even a little more perhaps for those earning, say >£150000pa, at least in short term to reduce the deficit. Instead the opposite has happened, in the 2012 budget the very rich enjoyed a 5% tax cut[/quote]

Any independant analysis shows that the 50% tax band was a waste of time, it produced very little revenue but was a disincentive to people investing in business. People like it because it sounds nice and use it as a political weapon. I heard some bleating unionist on question time asking "what sort of message it sends" frankly I don't care about any messages or examples. If it didn't raise useful revenue and was damaging to the country it is better cut.

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Simon Neuhoff — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:56:22 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]

The welfare system is the third rail of UK Politics - neither party has the curlies to change it.

[/quote]

It is certainyl a contentious issue! on one hand you have some people screaming about all the scroungers on benefits and on the other people screaming about ATOS depriving handicapped people of legitimate and much needed help.

On the whole I think the truth is probably somewhere in between and less dire than either side make out.

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:08:35 GMT

The welfare system is the third rail of UK Politics - neither party has the curlies to change it.

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Clive Ansell — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:53:33 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Drastic situations require drastic solutions-and the plight of the British taxpayer is dire-tax must be reduced by an enormous amount-we simply can't go on as we are-it's unaffordable so we have to think outside the box

Wynne

[/quote]

A good start would be to ask the more fortunate members of society to contribute their fair share, and even a little more perhaps for those earning, say >£150000pa, at least in short term to reduce the deficit. Instead the opposite has happened, in the 2012 budget the very rich enjoyed a 5% tax cut, while later in the year there was a freeze on the minimum wage for those below 21 years of age. How on earth can we get people off benefits and into work if already very low pay is reduced even further in real terms.

The £850 billion cost of the bank bailout/nationalisation in 2008 is 5 times more than the annual benefit budget. It is the avaricious greed and tax avoidance/evasion at the other end of the earnings spectrum that needs addressing.

I agree though, we do need a different government with a decent pair of cojones that will radically change the tax and welfare system to make society fairer

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:42:11 GMT

Goods from SE Asia are cheaper than British, even after paying for shipping-partly because of the intolerable tax burden on British industry-back we go to the begining-some industries are driven out of this country physically (manufacture) others (retailing ) are driven out in terms of location of head offices

I'm bowing out of this argument now-my views are clear and won't ever alter we need much lower taxes

Wynne

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Clive Ansell — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:34:51 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Wynne

[/quote]

not really, because the extra goods one might buy are in all probability made in SE Asia, thus benefiting their economy not ours.

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 15:10:46 GMT

Evelyn There's a very simple way of removing the benefits trap-reduce benefits I agree it's grossly unjust that people can be worse off for working

Wynne

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:26:29 GMT

Wynne

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:24:03 GMT

If you don't have problems with the current level of British taxation I can't understand you Tax freedom day is at a record late date but everyone is too scared of going against the ruling socialist elite to take a stand

Wynne

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Bob Russell — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:57:22 GMT

Tax does not need to be reduced 'drastically'. It just needs to be spent wisely!

I don't have any problems with the idea of paying tax. I just want to benefit from the spending.

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:54:21 GMT

Neutering may be unfortunate for some but the present robbery of taxpayers by families who haven't worked for generations and have no intention of ever working is even more unfair

Wynne

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Dagmar Steele — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 13:22:51 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

It's in order to protect future generations of children from poverty at very little cost to the taxpayer I advocate compulsory neutering for benefit claimants Anything else is simply unafordable for the taxpayer

Wynne

[/quote]

Wynne, I hope you are playing the devil's advocate. Nazi Germany has decided who is fit to breed and who not, I don't want something like that ever happen again. Apart from that I know at least two female vets on benefits, single moms who are struggling to find a job but I'm very sure they'll get of it soon - are they unfit to have another child afterwards, cause if we follow your scheme they'd be neutered by then....

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Mark Holmes — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:50:08 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Mark There wouldn't be any bodies The subculture unwilling to work would die out of old age in nature's own good time

Wynne

[/quote]

No but compulary neutering is the thin edge of a wedge resulting in bodies. However the long term contraceptive/sterilisation initiative for drug users is a good idea

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:34:40 GMT

Evelyn I think a lot of people agree that the benefit trap has to be destroyed It's just that they then become too squeamish to take the necessary actions-so the taxpayer gets clobbered more and more

Wynne

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 12:22:16 GMT

Mark There wouldn't be any bodies The subculture unwilling to work would die out of old age in nature's own good time

Wynne

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:51:39 GMT

Just to get boring and sensible again for a bit :

Some people "on benefits" are cynical scroungers. But far too many are in the "benefits trap": they are able and willing to go to work, but their income would severely decrease if they did.

A way has to be found to destroy the benefits trap. I'm not clever enough to suggest exactly how, but it seems to me that it can only be done by a radical reconstruction of the system. This is going to be difficult because any government that tries to do it will have to contend with the easy jibes and sneers of a socialist opposition.

Means-testing for any "benefit" is unjust. Otherwise, it becomes a matter of "If you have some money, you pay for it. If you haven't any money (even if it's just because you've spent it on fags and cruises) we'll give it to you anyway".

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Mark Holmes — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:39:29 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Wynne

[/quote]

Hmmm again something that was tried in Europe. I guess with all your valleys you have somewhere convenient for the bodies!

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:32:59 GMT

Wynne

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Simon Neuhoff — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 11:23:52 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Sorry I don't totally agree with you Arlo-I wouldn't give any child benefit to scroungers-and in saying benefits should be means tested I assume you would give them Most working couples do limit their families to what's affordable-it's the scroungers who breed like vermin in order toget even more benefits

Wynne

[/quote]

Wynn the children as born are innocent - not "scroungers". Why should they be punished and neglected for the perceived sins of the parents? There are issues with the current system but I have yet to see anyone propose a better, workable solution.

"The rich get richer and the poor get children" adage holds in all countries - whether there is a child benefit scheme or not.

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Mark Holmes — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:51:56 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"] Most working couples do limit their families to what's affordable-it's the scroungers who breed like vermin in order toget even more benefits[/quote]

I would avoid vilifying entire classes of people though particularly using dehumanising words such as vermin. It has been done before in Germany, Russia and Rwanda and in all three cases the outcome has not been considered good.

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Mark Hedberg — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:26:50 GMT

Just at the risk of throwing a match into a pool of gasoline, none of this reform will ever happen because hardly anyone will vote to decrease their own benefits, and there are rather a lot of people who are on benefits. Wonder if they vote?

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:18:00 GMT

Wynne

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Hannah Wynne Richards — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:15:08 GMT

Arlo is absolutely spot on The planet cannot support an unlimited human population explosion World population was 3.5 billion when I was in school It's now 7 billion -that's a doubling in less than 1 lifetime-crazy In the same time the population of this country has increased by 25% Again an unsustainable rate of increase

People have made a lifestyle choice to have children since antiquity, but it's only recently that they have been able to do so with no intention whatsoever of contributing 1 penny to the support of those children This also is no longer sustainable as the tax payer simply can't afford it

Wynne

Re: Drug companies and tax avoidance

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:05:39 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"][quote user="Clive Ansell"]Totally agree about child benefit, but it should be stopped altogether. Having children is a life style choice and should not be funded by the taxpayer at all. All benefits should be means tested and given according to need only.[/quote] It is a lifestyle choice to some extent but one that 99.9% of the world's population has chosen to exercise since Adam and Eve. If you ever meet Mrs A Clive I would suggest you don't express that opinion in front of her if you value your ears! [/quote]

Absolutely, completely and utterly agree with Clive. It's all very well and good saying that people have exercised that lifestyle choice since Adam and Eve, but back then the population was 2. Now it's about 7 billion. I think that means children are no longer our god-given right. Indeed that if we continue to think of them in those terms, the planet will not be able to sustain the population for much longer.

Mrs A. needs to reconsider!

Arlo (father of 2, negotiated down from 4)