Britain - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter Ross
  • 13,173 comments
  • 578,735 views

How will you vote in the 2024 UK General Election?

  • Conservative Party

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Green Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Labour Party

    Votes: 14 48.3%
  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Other (Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland)

    Votes: 1 3.4%
  • Other Independents

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other Parties

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Spoiled Ballot

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Will Not/Cannot Vote

    Votes: 8 27.6%

  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
Does it matter that some people make (or rather made) a sport out of it?

Sure, it's a bit of a grisly way to get your kicks, but I'm not sure that it matters what the process is so long as it's not any worse than other common processes and gets the same end result. Snares are awful (and kill the wrong creature a lot), shooting is hit and miss (in approximately that ratio) and also the worst thing in the history of ever because GUNS ARE EVIL (etc.). Hunting with hounds is no worse, as far as I can tell, and if someone wants to enjoy it I can't say I'm bothered.
A group of chavs picking off crows with air rifles for fun is little conceptually different to fox hunting (again, ignoring that population control is effectively irrelevant here - more of a convenient cover for fox hunting than a reason. If May wants to do her bit for the country there are several better ways she could go about it than killing wildlife).

The main difference I can see is that fox-hunters do it in fancy dress (though you might also consider Adidas tracksuits "fancy dress") and have powerful political allies, while the other group would simply be considered yobs. So one would get punished for being bloodthirsty lunatics, while the other is encouraged and supported by some of the most powerful people in the country.
 
A group of chavs picking off crows with air rifles for fun is little conceptually different to fox hunting (again, ignoring that population control is effectively irrelevant here - more of a convenient cover for fox hunting than a reason. If May wants to do her bit for the country there are several better ways she could go about it than killing wildlife).
I don't think you can ignore the population control aspect. The fox population is subject to control, because it's an apex predator. The fact that the economically best method - and best for welfare - means toffs can hip-hip-hooray through it shouldn't really be either here or there.

As for the chavs, crows and air rifles, I give you the Glorious Twelfth... A bloodsport with no purpose but the numbers killed and guns.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you can ignore the population control aspect. The fox population is subject to control, because it's an apex predator. The fact that the economically best method - and best for welfare - means toffs can hip-hip-hooray through it shouldn't really be either here or there.
I accept that population control is necessary, but my point is that isn't really why people do it. They do it because they get a kick out of killing stuff with their posh chums, and population control is simply a convenient side effect that allows them to claim their hobby has a purpose.
As for the chavs, crows and air rifles, I give you the Glorious Twelfth... A bloodsport with no purpose but the numbers killed and guns.
Kicking pigeons?*



* Was tempted to leave that verbatim, but you know what I mean - no guns, but dealing with vermin whose population needs to be controlled.
 
People wondering why this is an issue... well it certainly has gotten people distracted from election fraud, personality cults, media bias and outright fraudulent, lying Brexit nonsense hasn't it?

Even if only for a few days it's always something which is guaranteed to trump whatever the then current hot potato was.
 
How are we paying for it? corporation tax so brutal that every company in the UK will up sticks just when we need investment the most!

I didn't see that anywhere in that link, is that just speculation on your part or are you getting that from one of the sources mentioned in the article?

Edit: I could also have missed it, I suppose, but I'm not really interested in reading that again. :lol:
 
I didn't see that anywhere in that link, is that just speculation on your part or are you getting that from one of the sources mentioned in the article?

Edit: I could also have missed it, I suppose, but I'm not really interested in reading that again. :lol:
I held my nose and dived in. The article contains a link to an earlier one which confirms a 26% tax rate for corporations. That's a 5% hike as I understand it.

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-05-10/...n-plans-for-labour-and-the-liberal-democrats/
 
:eek: A 26% tax rate?! How will these super rich companies cope with paying a little closer to the rate most people have to pay? They'll be destitute.
Brutal, just brutal. They'll all be upping sticks before you know it.
 
Last edited:
:eek: A 26% tax rate?! How will these super rich companies cope with paying a little closer to the rate most people have to pay? They'll be destitute.
Capital is mobile. Headquarters can quite easily be moved these days. Saving 10% on $10Billion is a good chunk of change. Besides, it's foolish to think that corporations are paying taxes to begin with. People pay taxes. Corporations pass along their taxes to customers. If you think that tax hike isn't coming out of your pocket you're sorely mistaken.
 
Capital is mobile. Headquarters can quite easily be moved these days. Saving 10% on $10Billion is a good chunk of change. Besides, it's foolish to think that corporations are paying taxes to begin with. People pay taxes. Corporations pass along their taxes to customers. If you think that tax hike isn't coming out of your pocket you're sorely mistaken.

I guess the countries with a higher corporate tax rate than that don't have any big businesses in them then...

Edit: rather than beating around the bush, Denmark. Higher (significantly) corporate tax rate, higher wages, not higher prices. Businesses don't leave countries where they can still make a profit.
 
I guess the countries with a higher corporate tax rate than that don't have any big businesses in them then...

Edit: rather than beating around the bush, Denmark. Higher (significantly) corporate tax rate, higher wages, not higher prices. Businesses don't leave countries where they can still make a profit.
Yup that's how it works. All businesses leave when the tax rates are too high:lol:
 
Yup that's how it works. All businesses leave when the tax rates are too high:lol:

So you aren't going to back up your assertion that higher corporate tax rates result in either lower revenue for governments or essentially higher taxes (enforced by corporations) on consumers? I just want to be sure.
 
Last edited:
So you aren't going to back up your assertion that higher corporate tax rates result in either lower revenue for governments or essentially higher taxes (enforced by corporations) on consumers? I just want to be sure.
Since I asserted neither of those things, there's no need to back them up.
Economics 101: Corporate taxes are passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices. Why do you think consumer goods in Denmark are the most expensive in the EU? A big part of it is the corporate tax rate. Corporate taxes go up, price of consumer goods goes up. That's how it works. There's a reason why Apple carries cash equal to the GDP of Finland offshore and won't bring it home to the U.S. to invest. 100 Billion reasons actually.
 
Since I asserted neither of those things, there's no need to back them up.
Economics 101: Corporate taxes are passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices. Why do you think consumer goods in Denmark are the most expensive in the EU? A big part of it is the corporate tax rate. Corporate taxes go up, price of consumer goods goes up. That's how it works.

Yet you kind of did attempt to back up the latter. :lol:

You appear to think I don't want you to provide evidence because I don't care about working out what's correct, although I may be reading you wrong on that. If that is what you think you've definitely read me wrong, I'm totally open to other systems if they work better, and considering Denmark regularly gets ranked at or very near the top of happiness indexes, I think that they're definitely doing things the right way. Unfortunately we're not likely to see how that works here because Corbyn appears practically certain to lose as he actually talks like he cares about people and coming up with plans to help rather than asserting that he is a strong leader who will give us a better economy. For some reason people here seem more likely to vote for the latter.

Just read your link, seems kind of inconclusive to me, what with the countries mentioned as having high prices being the ones with higher wages and the ones with lower prices having, unless I'm mistaken (entirely possible), fairly low wages and/or weaker social programs. Worst case scenario if Corbyn wins and it works out like Denmark I actually have to get a job. :lol: But at least it likely wouldn't need to be something for which I needed previous experience or good qualifications*.

*School bored me senseless, I hated having to do classes with other kids because I'm not a people person and I didn't like having to "learn" at their speed, rather than just doing my work as efficiently as possible and getting back to the library to actually continue my education.

There's a reason why Apple carries cash equal to the GDP of Finland offshore and won't bring it home to the U.S. to invest. 100 Billion reasons actually.

Yes, the US government lets them. There's a reason why the economy keeps crashing, and that's just it, companies being given too much freedom to do whatever they want, especially when they know they'll be bailed out if they 🤬 up too much. If governments were actually all willing to tax corporations at the rate they give them then they could all lower their corporate tax rates and people may start to hate the rich less, although that'll likely never happen.
 
Yes, the US government lets them. There's a reason why the economy keeps crashing, and that's just it, companies being given too much freedom to do whatever they want, especially when they know they'll be bailed out if they 🤬 up too much. If governments were actually all willing to tax corporations at the rate they give them then they could all lower their corporate tax rates and people may start to hate the rich less, although that'll likely never happen.
What do you mean, "the economy keeps crashing"? Most of the western world had a problem in 2008. Everything crashed in 1929 but that was nearly 90 years ago. What other crashes are you referring to?

I still think you don't understand how corporate taxation works. Taxes paid are factored into the price of goods sold just like rent, hydro, materials, transportation etc. The consumer ultimately pays for the product, and with it, the taxes included in the price. If costs go up, including taxes, prices go up eventually. Denmark has extremely high taxation across the board and extremely high consumer goods prices. This is not a coincidence.
 
What do you mean, "the economy keeps crashing"? Most of the western world had a problem in 2008. Everything crashed in 1929 but that was nearly 90 years ago. What other crashes are you referring to?

Errr, the one in the 80's? I thought there was at least one more, sue me. ;)

It's not really a coincidence that all three of those happened after the removal of regulations on what banks were allowed to do.

Denmark has extremely high taxation across the board and extremely high consumer goods prices. This is not a coincidence.

Right... and? Again, it has good wages and a happy populace. Unless you have a better argument than things costing more it would seem to be a bit of a dead end discussion, because I really don't see the problem here.
 
Errr, the one in the 80's? I thought there was at least one more, sue me. ;)

It's not really a coincidence that all three of those happened after the removal of regulations on what banks were allowed to do.

Right... and? Again, it has good wages and a happy populace. Unless you have a better argument than things costing more it would seem to be a bit of a dead end discussion, because I really don't see the problem here.
You're moving in circles and taking the goalposts with you. Your original assertion:
:eek: A 26% tax rate?! How will these super rich companies cope with paying a little closer to the rate most people have to pay? They'll be destitute.
I responded saying corporations don't ultimately pay the taxes you do, making your point moot. You invited Denmark into the conversation and said, "not higher prices". Untrue. Let's get back to discussing Britain shall we?
 
What do you mean, "the economy keeps crashing"? Most of the western world had a problem in 2008. Everything crashed in 1929 but that was nearly 90 years ago. What other crashes are you referring to?

I still think you don't understand how corporate taxation works. Taxes paid are factored into the price of goods sold just like rent, hydro, materials, transportation etc. The consumer ultimately pays for the product, and with it, the taxes included in the price. If costs go up, including taxes, prices go up eventually. Denmark has extremely high taxation across the board and extremely high consumer goods prices. This is not a coincidence.
Quite a few more crashes than that have happened.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economic_crises


You also need to factor in that standard VAT in Denmark is the highest in Europe, with some specific tax on goods rates bring even higher (take a look at the tax on new cars in Denmark).

https://www.thelocal.dk/20151120/whats-the-deal-with-denmarks-car-registration-tax

Unlike the US these including tax prices are what's looked at in these kind of comparisons, as such it's not quite as direct a link as you have suggested.
 
You're moving in circles and taking the goalposts with you.

:rolleyes: That's what I get for actually paying attention to what you say, I guess. Maybe next time I'll just keep repeating the same thing over and over without any regard for information and viewpoints you share.

Let's get back to discussing Britain shall we?

I'm definitely not going to stop you, have fun.

Edit: okay, you probably aren't actively trying to insult me, that's just how it's seemed so far. It probably doesn't help that I'm having problems IRL, it's making me easier to anger.
 
Last edited:
Which was written in response to @Robin's assertion that:

I'm pretty sceptical that this will be the case.
Of course not everyone is going to leave, there are more factors involved here than just tax rates. But it's economic reality that these days, in a globalist world, that capital is more mobile than ever, and increasing tax rates in your home country will eventually make some businesses uncompetitive with those located in lower taxed areas of the world. When that happens, and it's prudent to do so, some companies will relocate some or all of their assets to more business friendly regions, if possible. As I said earlier, there's a reason why Apple, a decidedly American company, is holding cash equal to the GDP of Finland, somewhere other than the homeland. Pretty sure they aren't the only one. I can research that if you need a source.
Quite a few more crashes than that have happened.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_economic_crises


You also need to factor in that standard VAT in Denmark is the highest in Europe, with some specific tax on goods rates bring even higher (take a look at the tax on new cars in Denmark).

https://www.thelocal.dk/20151120/whats-the-deal-with-denmarks-car-registration-tax

Unlike the US these including tax prices are what's looked at in these kind of comparisons, as such it's not quite as direct a link as you have suggested.
The post I responded to about the crashes was speaking specifically of the United States, not the world. There has really only been 1 true "crash" in the U.S. in the last century IMO, and that was 1929. I don't consider a recession a crashed economy even if it has serious consequences for some people.
 
UK hospitals have been hit by a large-scale cyber attack, bringing down IT systems across the NHS

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39899646

It's now been declared a Major Incident.

EDIT: This attack seems to be going on worldwide according to the Beeb.

What idiot clicked on the suspicious email attachment this time?

Viruses aren't always spread that way and in some recent cases you don't even have to open a bad attachment to be at risk.
 
Viruses aren't always spread that way and in some recent cases you don't even have to open a bad attachment to be at risk.
I was making a joke. Social engineering is a huge risk to a lot of places, and it's possible that someone did unwittingly give access to the network at some point. Cyberattacks don't happen instantly - some take months or even years to go off.
 
A lot of people are reeling from the fact that many hospital trusts are using Windows XP, an OS no longer supported. "Tory cuts this! Tory cuts that!" is the obvious crow and whilst there is an element of that you can't blame all of the heat on the Conservatives.

Windows XP was outdated in 2010, let alone 2017.
 
Back