PDA

View Full Version : I'm guessing that this is going to come and bite him big time.



bobspud
26th April 2012, 16:46
What a cock!

Cameron vows not to mix with tax avoiders :: Contractor UK (http://www.contractoruk.com/news/0010529cameron_vows_not_mix_tax_avoiders.html)

I wonder if that means he also wants nothing to do with all the management consultancies that use many different strategies to avoid paying tax, or the corporations that rip the piss dragging in Indians that are payed in expenses to keep them out of the UK tax system.

OwlHoot
26th April 2012, 17:10
He's a sad whiny little man, although I suppose having to mix with LibDems officially for several years is enough to break anyone's spirit. Basically they've pretty much hamstrung the Tories into a state of ineffectual mediocrity.

If he'd had any bottle he'd have picked a fight with them after a year or two, and triggered an election, which the Tories might well have won while still in their honeymoon period and with Milliband heading Labour.

TimberWolf
26th April 2012, 17:37
And then he announced more ICTs over lunch with tax dodger supremo Blair.

bobspud
26th April 2012, 19:03
I just don't think he realises who it is that votes for him. I know very few tories that are on the dole or low incomes. if he thinks he is going to overrun the Guardian reading crowd with a jump to left he's badly mistaken. All he has managed to do so far is make sure I never bother to vote again. I wonder how hard it would be to organise a walk out by every small business in the UK...

Just think if every contractor in the UK said sod it. Im not working for 2 weeks in May on mass. Im willing to bet that when the next quarters vat figures rolled in and the CT take plummeted there would be some very worried faces in the treasury. Im ****ed off with being trodden on like a criminal when I pay substantial and legal taxes for the UK government to piss up the wall. :mad

AtW
26th April 2012, 19:14
He should first comment (with full disclosure) on this -

Cameron family fortune made in tax havens | Politics | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/apr/20/cameron-family-tax-havens)

vetran
26th April 2012, 23:56
What the public servant did looked IR35 caught, they should have popped the new IR35 team on him. Done an audit on 'IR35 suspects' over £50K and had those as well. can't be more than a few thousand of them. The ones who you have to keep tell make a deal, the rest dump and claim you are shaking out useless middle management in the civil service.

They have beefed up the compliance teams on offshoring and artificial tax avoiding structures, they should have some successes by now, try a few test cases, if they lose in court tighten the rules. If they win maybe you will scare a few people.

You aren't going to see the big guys becoming full tax payers but you could possibly encourage them to behave a bit better publicly.

Lockhouse
27th April 2012, 07:16
What about HMRC who sold all their property to a company based in a tax haven?

The Tories are done for.

vetran
27th April 2012, 07:58
What about HMRC who sold all their property to a company based in a tax haven?

The Tories are done for.

That was done on Snot Goblins watch.

Doggy Styles
27th April 2012, 08:09
What about HMRC who sold all their property to a company based in a tax haven?

The Tories are done for.No, that was Labour.

Lockhouse
27th April 2012, 08:10
That was done on Snot Goblins watch.

So Cameron's not going to mix with them then?

Doggy Styles
27th April 2012, 08:19
So Cameron's not going to mix with them then?Feck knows. If they were friends of Brown it's unlikely they'll have much in common with tories.

Doggy Styles
27th April 2012, 08:25
Is this really aimed at the majority of contractors though? In reality many run of the mill contractors formed companies only because clients stopped using sole traders. That's hardly aggressive tax avoidance if you're forced to do it to get work. I was actually quite happy as a sole trader.

alluvial
27th April 2012, 08:29
I'm sick of the little tit now. He really is pathetic. He keeps coming out with these stupid statements without considering just what he is saying.
He's obviously idolises ol' Tone and decided that the way to get elected and stay in power is to try to emulate him and has lurched quite a way left of centre. He doesn't realise that what the electorate in this country want is a return to a more sensible government that puts the British people first and has the balls to stand up to external influences. Can you imagine any governement pre-Bliar putting up with being told we can't deport a known terrorist?
This country is becoming a joke and I really wish that me and the missus had emigrated when we had the chance a few years ago.
Only good thing to come out of the coalition is the country being shown just what the Liberals really stand for and what would happen if they got power. Which is the reason that they are now behind UKIP in the polls.
Scary thing is that Miliband is now leading the polls which could translate into another Labour disaster for the country.

Only hope I can see is if the Tories and Libs have a tiff and split, Cameron is deposed and someone with bigger cahones takes over before the next election.

Don't hold your breathe though. :(

doodab
27th April 2012, 08:46
Only hope I can see is if the Tories and Libs have a tiff and split, Cameron is deposed and someone with bigger cahones takes over before the next election.


And there is the small problem of who will take over. You aren't going to get bigger cojones, just a bigger tit.

alluvial
27th April 2012, 08:59
And there is the small problem of who will take over. You aren't going to get bigger cojones, just a bigger tit.

Good point. There must be someone in the Tory party that would do a better job. How about David Davis?

LisaContractorUmbrella
27th April 2012, 09:10
The problems with this country are not caused by people trying to avoid tax but more that it has become morally unacceptable to make money and make a success of your life :suicide:

alluvial
27th April 2012, 09:55
The problems with this country are not caused by people trying to avoid tax but more that it has become morally unacceptable to make money and make a success of your life :suicide:

I think there's a lot of truth in this. There seems to be a huge upswell of jealousy in the country and also there's outrage at people not paying their fair share. I'm not quite sure where this has come from but it is definitely being enflamed by various muppets that should know better.

Mupps
27th April 2012, 10:06
I agree, there is a very scary anti-work, anti-success mentality taking root in this country now.

The first time i hear the word "Kulak" i'm off!

Doggy Styles
27th April 2012, 10:18
Agreed Cameron looks a tit at times, but remember he's got a balancing act to keep on board as many as possible of the people who used to vote Labour.

It's all very well we in CUK saying we would do this or we'd do that, but tories were saying the same things for nearly 15 years without a sniff of getting elected. And it is important to get elected, otherwise you can't do anything. Catch 22.

It's a case of making the right noises for maximum effect. What actually happens may be another matter, but if what Cameron says means sacrificing half a million right wing votes to gain a million centre-lefters, he's got a result.

Blame the rump of the electorate, and people like AtW, who set great store by the money other people make. Feckin bizarre in my opinion, but you can't just ignore them, they vote.

doodab
27th April 2012, 10:32
The problems with this country are not caused by people trying to avoid tax but more that it has become morally unacceptable to make money and make a success of your life :suicide:

I would argue that the problems are not because it's become morally unacceptable to make money but because it's become morally acceptable to use the making of money as an excuse to behave in a morally unacceptable way.

SupremeSpod
27th April 2012, 10:35
I would argue that the problems are not because it's become morally unacceptable to make money but because it's become morally acceptable to use the making of money as an excuse to behave in a morally unacceptable way.

Are you saying that tax mitigation is immoral?

Scoobos
27th April 2012, 10:46
In my view <general disclaimer>

The hatred comes from the fact that with the Banking collapse and the subsequent bail out with PUBLIC MONEY - people know their enemy.

Inventing the term "banker bashing" isn't going to make people forget that the things that they took for granted in the social system are being systematically dismantled in order to fund a few fat cats.

Of course people are going to turn against the CEO's / MD's of massive multinationals , if they are getting public toilets closed in the name of austerity.

The victorians could afford some of the stuff we're trying to tell the public we cannot, its all just a big bloody scam. If a bailed out bank turns 1.1 billion profit, then whats wrong with wanting at least 20% of it back?

In Australia, Rudd took a different option - and injected $2000 per person back into the economy, in the form of a cheque from the revenue! This appears to have worked (they also have manufacturing and industry intact).

Here, we spend 3000 per head (approx) giving it to the banking system:

The Financial Services Club's Blog: How much have the bank bailouts cost UK taxpayers? (http://thefinanser.co.uk/fsclub/2011/08/how-much-have-the-bank-bailouts-cost-uk-taxpayers.html)

Are we surprised the educated middle to lower class are annoyed? really?

If we truely believe in market forces, then bank or no bank, we allow the rush... You have to believe that the market will kill poor performers and wean out the crap. Propping up failing businesses , does no one any good - especially if thats done by reducing costs and outsourcing your native workers in the name of shareholder returns to people who dont even live here.

LisaContractorUmbrella
27th April 2012, 10:55
In my view <general disclaimer>

The hatred comes from the fact that with the Banking collapse and the subsequent bail out with PUBLIC MONEY - people know their enemy.

Inventing the term "banker bashing" isn't going to make people forget that the things that they took for granted in the social system are being systematically dismantled in order to fund a few fat cats.

Of course people are going to turn against the CEO's / MD's of massive multinationals , if they are getting public toilets closed in the name of austerity.

The victorians could afford some of the stuff we're trying to tell the public we cannot, its all just a big bloody scam. If a bailed out bank turns 1.1 billion profit, then whats wrong with wanting at least 20% of it back?

In Australia, Rudd took a different option - and injected $2000 per person back into the economy, in the form of a cheque from the revenue! This appears to have worked (they also have manufacturing and industry intact).

Here, we spend 3000 per head (approx) giving it to the banking system:

The Financial Services Club's Blog: How much have the bank bailouts cost UK taxpayers? (http://thefinanser.co.uk/fsclub/2011/08/how-much-have-the-bank-bailouts-cost-uk-taxpayers.html)

Are we surprised the educated middle to lower class are annoyed? really?

If we truely believe in market forces, then bank or no bank, we allow the rush... You have to believe that the market will kill poor performers and wean out the crap. Propping up failing businesses , does no one any good - especially if thats done by reducing costs and outsourcing your native workers in the name of shareholder returns to people who dont even live here.


And you don't think that the banking crisis had anything to do with handing out mortgages like smarties with the insistence of the Government at the time as the housing market was the only thing propping up the economy? The fury at the banks is media and government generated as there has to be a scape goat so that the masses don't riot (often) and the government are hardly likely to 'fess up and say fair cop guv it was our profligate spending and bad management that caused this little pickle

Scoobos
27th April 2012, 11:01
we'll have to agree to disagree, though I also think people who took out mortgages at 100% on properties 8x their joint income was also bananas.

It's all bananas and we need to look at a different way than the mutated overgrown beast of multinational captialism we have now... In my opinion.

I know a guy who was on contract at one of the big banks during this, and ran - EVERYONE in treasury knew what was happening; he told me months before to warn my uncle regarding his fund (in the US) and was proven right.

The problems were caused by investing in pools - not the UK housing market, it had little to do with what happened in the US - that caused this, sub prime in the US and selling mortgage books to each other. (again, my personal view)

Oh and 1 thing we can all agree on, hopefully - is that "Dave" is a nob.

alluvial
27th April 2012, 11:02
Oh and 1 thing we can all agree on, hopefully - is that "Dave" is a nob.

Nope, I think he's more of a knob.

doodab
27th April 2012, 11:09
Are you saying that tax mitigation is immoral?

No. I'm saying that for the past 20 or 30 years big business has been happy to ride roughshod over consumers in the name of profit and the governments of the day have mostly let it happen, almost to the extent of letting them write their own rule books, with occasional intervention where things have really gotten out of hand. Executives of large corporations are legally obliged to put aside moral considerations and do what is best for the shareholders leading to a decision making calculus where human misery is measured only in terms of the cost of compensation.

If someone complies with the law then of course they must be considered as behaving reasonably, but a tax system that apparently allows someone with an income of several millions to pay a lower tax rate than someone on a below median income is inherently unjust. So yes, I would consider that some tax mitigation measures might be immoral, but an individual choice to exploit them when they are actually legal cannot be considered so. I would also argue that there is a certain dubiousness in the practice of tax advisers who seek ways to subvert the intent of the law while staying within the letter of it, in much the same way as a lawyer who defends a mass murderer and seeks to obtain his freedom on a technicality when his guilt is not in question is treading a very fine line.

Ultimately there is envy, anger and many other negative things sloshing around in the zeitgeist at the moment, but it seems to me this an inevitable consequence of an economic system that allows a wealthy few to get rapidly wealthier while leaving the majority little, if at all, better off. It's obviously not a state of affairs that the majority are intuitively going to consider just. There is more and more evidence from behavioural economics to suggest that human beings have a heuristic idea of "fairness" that they employ when acting in an economic capacity and a system that fails to acknowledge that is fundamentally flawed.

doodab
27th April 2012, 11:12
And you don't think that the banking crisis had anything to do with handing out mortgages like smarties with the insistence of the Government at the time as the housing market was the only thing propping up the economy? The fury at the banks is media and government generated as there has to be a scape goat so that the masses don't riot (often) and the government are hardly likely to 'fess up and say fair cop guv it was our profligate spending and bad management that caused this little pickle

The financial industry had it coming. For years they have been taking the piss with endowment misselling, pension misselling, ridiculous penalties for late fees, even ridiculous fees for paying off a loan early. Nobody liked them before the financial crisis, so to blame it all on a bit of media spin is frankly ridiculous. It's 50 years of frustration coming out, not 2 or 3.

NotAllThere
27th April 2012, 11:27
... a tax system that apparently allows someone with an income of several millions to pay a lower tax rate than someone on a below median income is inherently unjust...No it isn't. If their absolute tax bill was less, then that would be unjust - but the tax bill of the person on millions is many times higher than the person on £20K a year. Tax rate is neither here nor there; high tax rates for the rich have been shown time and time again to produce less revenue for the government.

moggy
27th April 2012, 11:56
we'll have to agree to disagree, though I also think people who took out mortgages at 100% on properties 8x their joint income was also bananas.

It's all bananas and we need to look at a different way than the mutated overgrown beast of multinational captialism we have now... In my opinion.

I know a guy who was on contract at one of the big banks during this, and ran - EVERYONE in treasury knew what was happening; he told me months before to warn my uncle regarding his fund (in the US) and was proven right.

The problems were caused by investing in pools - not the UK housing market, it had little to do with what happened in the US - that caused this, sub prime in the US and selling mortgage books to each other. (again, my personal view)

Oh and 1 thing we can all agree on, hopefully - is that "Dave" is a nob.

agreed and the banks who approved the 8 times joint salary mortgages at 100% were just as bananas!!

doodab
27th April 2012, 12:17
No it isn't. If their absolute tax bill was less, then that would be unjust - but the tax bill of the person on millions is many times higher than the person on £20K a year. Tax rate is neither here nor there; high tax rates for the rich have been shown time and time again to produce less revenue for the government.

The optimal tax rate from the treasury's perspective is neither here nor there. To someone on 50k paying ~30% tax and struggling to make ends meet, someone earning millions and paying 25% is getting a far better deal, and telling him that screwing him harder than the other guy makes your life as a politician easier isn't going to end well. A politician can argue with him till he's blue in the face, at the end of it he'll decide the politician is a ****** and vote for someone else, because his fundamental inbuilt idea of what is and isn't fair says that he's getting screwed.

That is the fundamental problem. You need to reconcile the economics and mathematics of large scale systems with an intuitive idea of fairness that evolved in much smaller social groups. It requires a better metric of utility than cash.

LisaContractorUmbrella
27th April 2012, 12:41
The financial industry had it coming. For years they have been taking the piss with endowment misselling, pension misselling, ridiculous penalties for late fees, even ridiculous fees for paying off a loan early. Nobody liked them before the financial crisis, so to blame it all on a bit of media spin is frankly ridiculous. It's 50 years of frustration coming out, not 2 or 3.

I don't know enough about pensions or endowments to comment on whether or not they were 'mis-sold' but I do know that consumerism is voluntary and that no-one had a gun put to their head forcing them to buy whatever products were on offer. Same applies to overdraft fees or late payment fees - if you don't want to pay a fee don't go overdrawn - an overdraft is paying for your chosen expenditure with someone else's cash. I am also fairly sure that the Government made some significant tax changes that resulted in a reduced pension income for all and sundry

I agree that some of the banks made stupid (with hindsight possibly) investments and that no-one should be rewarded for failure (bonuses should be paid 24 months + in arrears so that there is a true picture of performance rather than a snap shot) but this constant 'fat cat' bashing will achieve nothing other than to reinforce Socialist policy that success should only be encouraged when not the creator of that success but the non-contributors will be rewarded.

LisaContractorUmbrella
27th April 2012, 12:43
The optimal tax rate from the treasury's perspective is neither here nor there. To someone on 50k paying ~30% tax and struggling to make ends meet, someone earning millions and paying 25% is getting a far better deal, and telling him that screwing him harder than the other guy makes your life as a politician easier isn't going to end well. A politician can argue with him till he's blue in the face, at the end of it he'll decide the politician is a ****** and vote for someone else, because his fundamental inbuilt idea of what is and isn't fair says that he's getting screwed.

That is the fundamental problem. You need to reconcile the economics and mathematics of large scale systems with an intuitive idea of fairness that evolved in much smaller social groups. It requires a better metric of utility than cash.

Or we need to introduce a flat rate of tax across the board which would ultimately save the country billions

BrilloPad
27th April 2012, 12:45
Or we need to introduce a flat rate of tax across the board which would ultimately save the country billions

Or here is a novel idea - 2 rates. Like Maggie did. Unfortunately all the cretins who came after her have no idea.

LisaContractorUmbrella
27th April 2012, 12:49
Or here is a novel idea - 2 rates. Like Maggie did. Unfortunately all the cretins who came after her have no idea.

:spel People who have never worked for a living

Scoobos
27th April 2012, 13:06
I do know that consumerism is voluntary

Modern marketing research would contest that statement. I also believe that since the advent of TV and it being used as a babysitter - it's totally niave to think theres anything voluntary about it at all. We are a social experiment in conditioning - its been blamed for the recent riots and I think that arguement holds a bit of credibility.

I'm not saying all consumerism is bad, but marketing is very very powerful nowadays and it pays to be aware of it.

Marketing and Consumerism | Special Issues for Young Children (http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/parents/marketing/issues_kids_marketing.cfm)
Cycle of 'compulsive consumerism' leaves British family life in crisis, Unicef study finds - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8760558/Cycle-of-compulsive-consumerism-leaves-British-family-life-in-crisis-Unicef-study-finds.html)
Watch not, want not? Kids' TV time tied to consumerism (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2006/april12/med-tv-041206.html)

It's a very interesting topic.

SupremeSpod
27th April 2012, 13:11
Modern marketing research would contest that statement. I also believe that since the advent of TV and it being used as a babysitter - it's totally niave to think theres anything voluntary about it at all. We are a social experiment in conditioning - its been blamed for the recent riots and I think that arguement holds a bit of credibility.

I'm not saying all consumerism is bad, but marketing is very very powerful nowadays and it pays to be aware of it.

Marketing and Consumerism | Special Issues for Young Children (http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/parents/marketing/issues_kids_marketing.cfm)
Cycle of 'compulsive consumerism' leaves British family life in crisis, Unicef study finds - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8760558/Cycle-of-compulsive-consumerism-leaves-British-family-life-in-crisis-Unicef-study-finds.html)
Watch not, want not? Kids' TV time tied to consumerism (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2006/april12/med-tv-041206.html)

It's a very interesting topic.

Only to the feeble-minded!

And people who pay £5 for a fake IQ test.

LisaContractorUmbrella
27th April 2012, 13:12
Modern marketing research would contest that statement. I also believe that since the advent of TV and it being used as a babysitter - it's totally niave to think theres anything voluntary about it at all. We are a social experiment in conditioning - its been blamed for the recent riots and I think that arguement holds a bit of credibility.

I'm not saying all consumerism is bad, but marketing is very very powerful nowadays and it pays to be aware of it.

Marketing and Consumerism | Special Issues for Young Children (http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/parents/marketing/issues_kids_marketing.cfm)
Cycle of 'compulsive consumerism' leaves British family life in crisis, Unicef study finds - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8760558/Cycle-of-compulsive-consumerism-leaves-British-family-life-in-crisis-Unicef-study-finds.html)
Watch not, want not? Kids' TV time tied to consumerism (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2006/april12/med-tv-041206.html)

It's a very interesting topic.

All of which is why I believe in individual responsibility and not the collective responsibility desired by successive Governments - to quote from the film 'Free will - it is a b**tch'

doodab
27th April 2012, 13:12
I don't know enough about pensions or endowments to comment on whether or not they were 'mis-sold'

One presumes you are too young to remember. It was big news for a long time.

BBC NEWS | Business | Pensions scandal costs £11.8bn (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2070271.stm)

'Endowment mis-selling is a national scandal' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/2828940/Endowment-mis-selling-is-a-national-scandal.html)

And to some extent they are still at it.

A £20bn pension mis-selling scandal? - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/9120476/A-20bn-pension-mis-selling-scandal.html)


but I do know that consumerism is voluntary and that no-one had a gun put to their head forcing them to buy whatever products were on offer.

Sure, no one had a gun to their head but if someone tells you this private pension will make you better off when they know it won't but they get a healthy commission, or tells you that this endowment mortgage will cost you less than this repayment one and doesn't bother to tell you that the endowment one might result in you not actually paying back the money you've borrowed but they will get a healthy commission anyway, then you are being conned, pure and simple. This is what I mean by the making of profit being used as justification for immoral behaviour. The financial services industry knew damn well what they were doing, namely exploiting people's naivety and gullibility, followed by a sustained attempt at hiding behind "caveat emptor".

The fact that the man in the street / lady on the internet will actually defend these people speaks volumes about just how far standards have slipped.

original PM
27th April 2012, 13:17
I don't know enough about pensions or endowments to comment on whether or not they were 'mis-sold' but I do know that consumerism is voluntary and that no-one had a gun put to their head forcing them to buy whatever products were on offer. Same applies to overdraft fees or late payment fees - if you don't want to pay a fee don't go overdrawn - an overdraft is paying for your chosen expenditure with someone else's cash. I am also fairly sure that the Government made some significant tax changes that resulted in a reduced pension income for all and sundryI agree that some of the banks made stupid (with hindsight possibly) investments and that no-one should be rewarded for failure (bonuses should be paid 24 months + in arrears so that there is a true picture of performance rather than a snap shot) but this constant 'fat cat' bashing will achieve nothing other than to reinforce Socialist policy that success should only be encouraged when not the creator of that success but the non-contributors will be rewarded.

I kind of agree with you - however if you go £5 over drawn because a direct debit bounces you get

£35 (ish) letter saying you have gone over drawn
£35 (ish) letter telling you have a bounced dd
£35 (ish) letter because items 1 and 2 have made you go further over drawn

I think that is the problem - the costs are completly disproportunate to the initial cost to the bank

Scoobos
27th April 2012, 13:25
All of which is why I believe in individual responsibility and not the collective responsibility desired by successive Governments - to quote from the film 'Free will - it is a b**tch'

Sure yeah, as infants have individual responsibility don't they - I wish ... They could change their own nappies for a start.

doodab
27th April 2012, 13:25
Or we need to introduce a flat rate of tax across the board which would ultimately save the country billions

Well, that's one proposal for reconciling the differences. It's actually one I quite like, especially when NI & the tax credit system are rolled up into a nice simple allowance + a flat rate on everything above it, although I suspect the resulting 46% marginal rate might come as a shock to many people.

The Institute For Fiscal Studies - Options for a UK 'flat tax': some simple simulations (http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/3695)

LisaContractorUmbrella
27th April 2012, 13:29
Sure yeah, as infants have individual responsibility don't they - I wish ... They could change their own nappies for a start.

Now I'm confused :confused: When did infants become part of a discussion on consumerism? If they won't change their own nappies I'm damn sure they won't pay for them

Scoobos
27th April 2012, 13:59
You didn't click any of my links :(

They were straight from my favourites, when arguing about consumerism being voluntary.

It isn't , if you were born any later than 75 (Gen X I think) then you were pretty much conditioned to consume from earlier than you'd believe possible.

Various companies even commissioned studies into the "nag factor" for infants and juniors too. I'll post more links from my faves when I get back in office.

LisaContractorUmbrella
27th April 2012, 14:06
You didn't click any of my links :(

They were straight from my favourites, when arguing about consumerism being voluntary.

It isn't , if you were born any later than 75 (Gen X I think) then you were pretty much conditioned to consume from earlier than you'd believe possible.

Various companies even commissioned studies into the "nag factor" for infants and juniors too. I'll post more links from my faves when I get back in office.

No I didn't. I have now and wish I hadn't. I'm sorry but IMHO it's socialist bulltulip - the first article basically states that a child's mental development is directly attributable to the media. I suppose this would be true if the child had no parents and was left in front of the tv 24/7. Adverts on TV do not make children self obsessed materialists - a lack of boundaries and no-one ever saying no to them would achieve that.

Scoobos
27th April 2012, 14:09
If studies commisioned by the worlds leading universities and analysed by Psychology professors is socialist bulltulip ???!??- I'm not convinced.

You're one of them arent you? (hmm we need a suspicious smilie).

Seriously tho, I'll leave it alone now :)

Daves a Knob.

LisaContractorUmbrella
27th April 2012, 14:14
If studies commisioned by the worlds leading universities and analysed by Psychology professors is socialist bulltulip ???!??- I'm not convinced.

You're one of them arent you? (hmm we need a suspicious smilie).

Seriously tho, I'll leave it alone now :)

Daves a Knob.

One of what???????

Scoobos
27th April 2012, 14:48
I was trying to be funny, but appear to have failed

:igmc:

doodab
27th April 2012, 14:50
One of what???????

Those who have been conditioned.

DodgyAgent
27th April 2012, 15:11
I would argue that the problems are not because it's become morally unacceptable to make money but because it's become morally acceptable to use the making of money as an excuse to behave in a morally unacceptable way.

What has happened is that there is a huge swell of entitlement and envy in this country that looks for any excuse to belittle people who create and sustain wealth. For example It may be that Bob Diamond is overpaid and not doing a good job but when people like AtW (who as a businessman and entrepreneur should know better) jump to conclusions that are founded upon nothing other than newspaper stories, it is no wonder wealth creators are villified.

There seems to be a consensus that says that if everyone was given an equal slice of the cake all our economic woes would be over.

Zippy
27th April 2012, 15:12
No, he's right. Dave's a knob.

DodgyAgent
27th April 2012, 15:24
Modern marketing research would contest that statement. I also believe that since the advent of TV and it being used as a babysitter - it's totally niave to think theres anything voluntary about it at all. We are a social experiment in conditioning - its been blamed for the recent riots and I think that arguement holds a bit of credibility.

I'm not saying all consumerism is bad, but marketing is very very powerful nowadays and it pays to be aware of it.

Marketing and Consumerism | Special Issues for Young Children (http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/parents/marketing/issues_kids_marketing.cfm)
Cycle of 'compulsive consumerism' leaves British family life in crisis, Unicef study finds - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8760558/Cycle-of-compulsive-consumerism-leaves-British-family-life-in-crisis-Unicef-study-finds.html)
Watch not, want not? Kids' TV time tied to consumerism (http://news.stanford.edu/news/2006/april12/med-tv-041206.html)

It's a very interesting topic.

So do you consume things because you are forced to by advertising?

Scoobos
27th April 2012, 15:24
What has happened is that there is a huge swell of entitlement and envy in this country that looks for any excuse to belittle people who create and sustain wealth. For example It may be that Bob Diamond is overpaid and not doing a good job but when people like AtW (who as a businessman and entrepreneur should know better) jump to conclusions that are founded upon nothing other than newspaper stories, it is no wonder wealth creators are villified.

There seems to be a consensus that says that if everyone was given an equal slice of the cake all our economic woes would be over.

I'm with you until you try and use Bob or any other high street bank CEO as an example you lost me. CEO's of financial institutions are merely figureheads who ponce around doing nothing other than try (vainly in my case) to intimidate and act like they know what they are doing.

Its the line of thankless execs below him that do the work - the system is in place and the figurehead is irrelevant.

Andy Hornby is a brilliant example of this - they are born with silver spoons in their mouths and do very little to actually earn their positions.

At least Bob Diamond has a good academic background thats relevant to his job!

I still dont understand when we are in a system that pushes democracy so hard, that we appear to allow totalitarian regimes inside our large corporations.

Look at their histories , on wikipedia even

These people go to Elitist unis, sent their by their wealthy parents - and walk STRAIGHT INTO executive or even managing director roles at major institutions, because they are in the circle and just go around spouting crap , surrounded by yes men - they give themselves fat pay cheques for nothing other than who they are and then when it goes tuts up , they blame the guys who set policy below him and leave for another fat cat job.

My 2 cents.

SupremeSpod
27th April 2012, 15:25
So do you consume things because you are forced to by advertising?

Usually it's because I'm ******** starving! Don't know about you...

Scoobos
27th April 2012, 15:26
So do you consume things because you are forced to by advertising?

I believe a lot of people are, tbh. I think marketing is incredible.

Obviously, as I said we all have to consume to a certain extent, but this throwaway need the next big thing model is just crap and makes sure everyone always WANTS more, but feels like they NEED it to make them happy.

If something needs marketing then you don't need it, you are being conditioned to want it. This was one of the first phrases I got in my economics course years ago. Oh and Resources are Finite, but Wants are infinite - that was another beauty.

Going further, I think there's a lot of people who seriously confuse WANTS with NEEDS.

AtW
27th April 2012, 15:33
For example It may be that Bob Diamond is overpaid and not doing a good job but when people like AtW (who as a businessman and entrepreneur should know better)

:hug:

DodgyAgent
27th April 2012, 15:36
I believe a lot of people are, tbh. I think marketing is incredible.

Obviously, as I said we all have to consume to a certain extent, but this throwaway need the next big thing model is just crap and makes sure everyone always WANTS more, but feels like they NEED it to make them happy.

If something needs marketing then you don't need it, you are being conditioned to want it. This was one of the first phrases I got in my economics course years ago. Oh and Resources are Finite, but Wants are infinite - that was another beauty.

Going further, I think there's a lot of people who seriously confuse WANTS with NEEDS.

That does'nt answer my question. I was asking whether you are "brainwashed" into making decisions

DodgyAgent
27th April 2012, 15:40
I'm with you until you try and use Bob or any other high street bank CEO as an example you lost me. CEO's of financial institutions are merely figureheads who ponce around doing nothing other than try (vainly in my case) to intimidate and act like they know what they are doing.

Its the line of thankless execs below him that do the work - the system is in place and the figurehead is irrelevant.

Andy Hornby is a brilliant example of this - they are born with silver spoons in their mouths and do very little to actually earn their positions.

At least Bob Diamond has a good academic background thats relevant to his job!

I still dont understand when we are in a system that pushes democracy so hard, that we appear to allow totalitarian regimes inside our large corporations.

Look at their histories , on wikipedia even

These people go to Elitist unis, sent their by their wealthy parents - and walk STRAIGHT INTO executive or even managing director roles at major institutions, because they are in the circle and just go around spouting crap , surrounded by yes men - they give themselves fat pay cheques for nothing other than who they are and then when it goes tuts up , they blame the guys who set policy below him and leave for another fat cat job.

My 2 cents.


This statement tells us about you having a huge chip on your shoulder. It tells us nothing about chief execs (how would you know anyway? :laugh )

Scoobos
27th April 2012, 16:04
That does'nt answer my question. I was asking whether you are "brainwashed" into making decisions

Personally, yes.

I went to go watch "lost in space" remake and that still hurts today. *runs away with arms flailing wildly"

I don't feel like i do have a big chip on my shoulder tbh, but do think that theres assumptions made that these CEO's, as they like to call themselves now - are skilled practioners who've worked their way into these positions and then take the micky at everyone elses expense.

Look at hornby's background - where has the "experience" come from? He nailed HBOS completely and yet took massive bonuses.

Just how many contractors lost jobs at HBOS, then Lloyds, and to some extent RBS - due to these guys sorting themselves out at the cost of their staff?

Also, why the laugh? Why shouldnt I know some of some of these people?

amcdonald
27th April 2012, 16:10
Well, that's one proposal for reconciling the differences. It's actually one I quite like, especially when NI & the tax credit system are rolled up into a nice simple allowance + a flat rate on everything above it, although I suspect the resulting 46% marginal rate might come as a shock to many people.

The Institute For Fiscal Studies - Options for a UK 'flat tax': some simple simulations (http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/3695)

But then the onus would be on who ever is in government to reduce spending once people see how much they really pay in tax. How many voters for instance know that when they buy petrol that most of the price is duty with vat added on top of the duty

With a more clued up electorate perhaps they'd be less keen on having a benefits culture

Doggy Styles
27th April 2012, 16:18
No, he's right. Dave's a knob.He may well be, but it's very easy to say isn't it, sitting here. :wink

doodab
27th April 2012, 16:28
But then the onus would be on who ever is in government to reduce spending once people see how much they really pay in tax. How many voters for instance know that when they buy petrol that most of the price is duty with vat added on top of the duty

With a more clued up electorate perhaps they'd be less keen on having a benefits culture

I prefer to think it would encourage a rational debate about what we value as a society and what we are willing to pay for it.

doodab
27th April 2012, 16:37
So do you consume things because you are forced to by advertising?

Not forced necessarily, but certainly influenced. If advertising didn't actually work then companies wouldn't spend money on it. So you have to ask yourself, how does it work? And it works by exploiting the various hard wired heuristics and subconscious processes of decision making and behaviour that the human psyche has evolved over tens of thousands of years.

original PM
27th April 2012, 17:04
anyone with kids knows how influenced they are by adverts - they just need to watch some rubbish about a pink fluffy talking dog (or whatever this weeks fad is) and they desperately need it -- however that is where us as parents need to step in and explain why you cannot have everything you see on tele.

It does actually open some good conversations about wants, needs and also the fact that to get something you need to earn it and it is not just given for free - some important lessons I think....

DodgyAgent
27th April 2012, 17:19
Not forced necessarily, but certainly influenced. If advertising didn't actually work then companies wouldn't spend money on it. So you have to ask yourself, how does it work? And it works by exploiting the various hard wired heuristics and subconscious processes of decision making and behaviour that the human psyche has evolved over tens of thousands of years.

so what is the problem then?

Scoobos
27th April 2012, 19:48
It does actually open some good conversations about wants, needs and also the fact that to get something you need to earn it and it is not just given for free - some important lessons I think....

That's brilliant parenting and I only wish we spent more time and money getting the numpties out there to do the same.

Doggy Styles
28th April 2012, 08:04
so what is the problem then?On a slightly different slant, I believe many people do need protecting from themselves. And not just for their own sakes.

The best example is making mortgages available at huge multiples of income. This has buggered up the housing market, but perhaps more importantly it has created massive personal debt.

This affects the whole economy, not just the borrowers, because consumer spending and thus 'growth' is lower, and with several million people in large personal debt it severely limits the ability to raise base rates. The coallition is a bit hamstrung by this.

oscarose
30th April 2012, 07:25
I just don't think he realises who it is that votes for him. I know very few tories that are on the dole or low incomes. if he thinks he is going to overrun the Guardian reading crowd with a jump to left he's badly mistaken. All he has managed to do so far is make sure I never bother to vote again. I wonder how hard it would be to organise a walk out by every small business in the UK...

Just think if every contractor in the UK said sod it. Im not working for 2 weeks in May on mass. Im willing to bet that when the next quarters vat figures rolled in and the CT take plummeted there would be some very worried faces in the treasury. Im ****ed off with being trodden on like a criminal when I pay substantial and legal taxes for the UK government to piss up the wall. :mad

Smell the coffee bob.

Haven't you realised that there hasn't been any difference between the tories and labour for about 20 years now. IT contractors are very well paid and the vast majority aren't small businesses employing people but 1 man bands. The idea of a 2 week 'strike' is an absolute joke. IT workers are increasing held in diminishing esteem and indeed treated like lepers in many establishments despite business becoming almost entirely dependent on them. No one in the UK will be interested in some kind of 'action'. Afterall, there will be no shortage of bobs waiting to fill the roles.

In the eyes of Joe Public, IT contractors earning £500+ day (of tax payers money) at banks probably will be held with the same regard as bankers.

Grow up and get into the real world.

LisaContractorUmbrella
30th April 2012, 09:09
On a slightly different slant, I believe many people do need protecting from themselves. And not just for their own sakes.

The best example is making mortgages available at huge multiples of income. This has buggered up the housing market, but perhaps more importantly it has created massive personal debt.

This affects the whole economy, not just the borrowers, because consumer spending and thus 'growth' is lower, and with several million people in large personal debt it severely limits the ability to raise base rates. The coallition is a bit hamstrung by this.

Protecting people from themselves encourages a nanny state - we need to encourage individual responsibility through education

Old Greg
30th April 2012, 09:33
Protecting people from themselves encourages a nanny state - we need to encourage individual responsibility through education

Why not educate them by forcing them to live with the consequence? Isn't it their own responsibilty to educate themselves. Do you want the state spreading its indoctrination?

Doggy Styles
30th April 2012, 09:53
Protecting people from themselves encourages a nanny state - we need to encourage individual responsibility through educationWe've been saying this for years, about a variety of topics, but in most cases it has only a limited effect.

Time and time again a laissez-fair approach to lending or investment has proved to be a recipe for disaster, even among 'professionals'. In fact, especially among professionals, so imagine what it is like among the great unwashed.

In the case I discussed, it is no more nanny state to return to a '3 or 4 times earnings' limit on personal lending than any other rules relating to due dilligence within banks.

Scoobos
30th April 2012, 11:12
In the case I discussed, it is no more nanny state to return to a '3 or 4 times earnings' limit on personal lending than any other rules relating to due dilligence within banks.

WHS + remove this stupid "joint income" too - 3x4 times a joint income is double the risk of long term incapacity or job loss ....

AlfredJPruffock
30th April 2012, 11:49
The real issue which is not being discusses is that the tax burden of almost every European country is intolerable - those who are pn PAYE have no option but to grin an bear it - those who freelance perhaps have more options - but for how much longer ?

The US have got it right with taxation levels - with an average taxation level of apox 20 per cent - there is no need for ltd companies and the likes - you simply pay your tax on PAYE and spend the rest as you will.




Now my advice for those who die -
Declare the pennies on your eyes ..

Cos Im the Taxman
And youre working for no-one but me

LisaContractorUmbrella
30th April 2012, 13:03
Why not educate them by forcing them to live with the consequence? Isn't it their own responsibilty to educate themselves. Do you want the state spreading its indoctrination?

I meant education as in learning in school - have just realised the flaw in the plan though - excessive Government interference in our schools to such a point that the kids aren't allowed to win. OK let's go with your plan

Old Greg
30th April 2012, 13:30
I meant education as in learning in school - have just realised the flaw in the plan though - excessive Government interference in our schools to such a point that the kids aren't allowed to win. OK let's go with your plan

And does that make for a better world as we are freed from the road to serfdom?

LisaContractorUmbrella
30th April 2012, 14:27
And does that make for a better world as we are freed from the road to serfdom?

Sorry does what make for a better world? I wouldn't have said that one can be freed from serfdom (unless you mean in the literal sense where a man was bound by law to his liege), I would have thought that one chooses not to walk that road

Scoobos
30th April 2012, 14:29
I meant education as in learning in school - have just realised the flaw in the plan though - excessive Government interference in our schools to such a point that the kids aren't allowed to win. OK let's go with your plan

Ah now we agree on something :)

LisaContractorUmbrella
30th April 2012, 15:26
Ah now we agree on something :)

I thought you'd be all for protecting the little dears from the psychological damage of losing an egg and spoon race Scoobos :wink

DodgyAgent
30th April 2012, 15:31
And does that make for a better world as we are freed from the road to serfdom?

I am not sure what point you are making here

Old Greg
30th April 2012, 15:54
I am not sure what point you are making here

A literary point. This should be right up your street.

The Road to Serfdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom)