Are the Unions damaging Labour's chance of election in 2015?

by TopHat24/7 Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:50 pm

First topic message reminder :

The multitude of examples of disgraceful behaviour by Trade Unions over the past year have really started to show them up as the evil bully-boys they are.

Latest example being the vicious targeting of the wives and children of Ineos managers:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24758166

Question is, will this start to hurt Labour's chances of election in 2015?

Clearly formerly 'Red' Ed is concerned as he's taken steps to distance himself from both their antics and the Unions themselves, surely all this negativity will have to bite at some point? This could be the last thing Labour's already dwindling opinion poll leads need - could 2014 be the year of the turning point re public opinion or the main two parties??

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:59 am

I'll explain it to you......Like I explained it's vote share and not the lead that counts......

On Voting intentions.........Europe and Unions comes way below...........

Economy
Crime
Health,
Environment
Fairness
social security
Standard of living
Immigration.............On Voting intentions.........

Which means that the majority of the electorate ponder those things as a rule before anything else.......So by the time they get to Unions it's a non factor...

2001 election Michael Portillo " I tried to convey to William (Hague) that Europe was a non issue but he wouldn't listen....."

The Tories campaigned on save the pound and got hammered..

by TopHat24/7 Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:03 am

Truss, I decided it was easier to agree with you than dispute the point - so why are you continuing to labour it (no pun intended)?

by **seanmichaels** Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:39 am

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:I could go on but I have bored myself now. The point is, and the point I have been making all along is that different agendas suit different political philosophies. The truth is almost always somewhere in the middle.

The article you have quoted might be completely accurate or a complete work of fiction, but depending on what angle the author is coming from can make the perspective change dramatically.

Never had you as a socialist......

Fair point re a balanced view but I think it is fair to also assume that a lot of the other large economies will have had plans to sell stocks if the the need arose or timing was right. Most didn't from what I can see, and ultimately the UK now stands 18th in the list of Gold reserves.

by TopHat24/7 Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:52 am

seanmichaels wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:I could go on but I have bored myself now. The point is, and the point I have been making all along is that different agendas suit different political philosophies. The truth is almost always somewhere in the middle.

The article you have quoted might be completely accurate or a complete work of fiction, but depending on what angle the author is coming from can make the perspective change dramatically.
Never had you as a socialist......

Fair point re a balanced view but I think it is fair to also assume that a lot of the other large economies will have had plans to sell stocks if the the need arose or timing was right. Most didn't from what I can see, and ultimately the UK now stands 18th in the list of Gold reserves.

How're all those countries ahead of us getting on....??

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:58 am

Another problem Cameron has is that the Libs will have to distance themselves from the Tories some how before the Election.......

Vote yellow get blue is going to be a big electioneering slogan in Lib/Lab marginals........

Farge won't be in the debates.......Can easily override his appeal by saying it's only the three biggest parties invited pertaining to SEATS.......

However anybody thinking the debates suit cameron have to realise that Miliband is considered a crap leader so he'll be starting from a lowly position and can only enhance his position........Also Clegg will need to stick it to Cammy to avoid the Tory-sympathiser charge........

after all the Libs are meant to be a center-left party.

Also worth noting that Thatcher ratings were low before she beat Callaghan in 79.......

by Mind the windows Tino. Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:59 am

seanmichaels wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:I could go on but I have bored myself now. The point is, and the point I have been making all along is that different agendas suit different political philosophies. The truth is almost always somewhere in the middle.

The article you have quoted might be completely accurate or a complete work of fiction, but depending on what angle the author is coming from can make the perspective change dramatically.
Never had you as a socialist......

Fair point re a balanced view but I think it is fair to also assume that a lot of the other large economies will have had plans to sell stocks if the the need arose or timing was right. Most didn't from what I can see, and ultimately the UK now stands 18th in the list of Gold reserves.

I'm not a socialist.

Look, part of it was a little gentle ribbing of you, but the basic point remains. They are two separate issues to me. The UK sale of gold was handled badly, I would never disagree with that simple premise. The PR was a disaster and allowed the entire market to front run them. Crazy decision. What I do take issue with is using it as a stick to beat Brown/Labour. They pulled the trigger and his job title means he should shoulder the blame, but you only have to scratch a little bit under the surface to see that things are not quite what they seem surrounding this. Politicians on both sides of the divide are culpable. I have heard it described on here (can't remember who but it was on the closed section) as "the worst piece of financial mismanagement in British political history" or words to that effect. Now this is obviously bullsh*t but people throw stuff like this around if it suits their view. I don't just mean people on forums either, journalists and political reporters are just as bad.

For the record, gold reserves are usually indexed alongside foreign currency reserves and that makes even worse reading. We are currently 24th in that list. Our gold and foreign currency reserves stand at $94,540,000,000. To give it some context, Algeria's stands at $183,100,000,000 and China who top the list have $3,236,000,000,000.....

China rule the world. TopHat will go into a tailspin......

by TopHat24/7 Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:03 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Another problem Cameron has is that the Libs will have to distance themselves from the Tories some how before the Election.......

Vote yellow get blue is going to be a big electioneering slogan in Lib/Lab marginals........

Farge won't be in the debates.......Can easily override his appeal by saying it's only the three biggest parties invited pertaining to SEATS.......

However anybody thinking the debates suit cameron have to realise that Miliband is considered a crap leader so he'll be starting from a lowly position and can only enhance his position........Also Clegg will need to stick it to Cammy to avoid the Tory-sympathiser charge........

after all the Libs are meant to be a center-left party.

Also worth noting that Thatcher ratings were low before she beat Callaghan in 79.......

Nice spin to somehow turn the debates into a Labour advantage Rolling Eyes

by Rowley Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:03 am

TSMR has some jewellery she does not wear I can weigh in if this will help.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:05 am

TopHat24/7 wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Another problem Cameron has is that the Libs will have to distance themselves from the Tories some how before the Election.......

Vote yellow get blue is going to be a big electioneering slogan in Lib/Lab marginals........

Farge won't be in the debates.......Can easily override his appeal by saying it's only the three biggest parties invited pertaining to SEATS.......

However anybody thinking the debates suit cameron have to realise that Miliband is considered a crap leader so he'll be starting from a lowly position and can only enhance his position........Also Clegg will need to stick it to Cammy to avoid the Tory-sympathiser charge........

after all the Libs are meant to be a center-left party.

Also worth noting that Thatcher ratings were low before she beat Callaghan in 79.......
Nice spin to somehow turn the debates into a Labour advantage

Stupid faces instead of rebuttal.......predictable

by Rowley Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:19 am

Would not be too quick to dismiss Miliband in the debates. As Truss has said he goes in with very limited expectations and so the only way is up for him really and whilst he can come across as a bit spoddish the guy is a Oxbridge Graduate and former lecturer at Harvard so is not exactly an intellectual lightweight. Still think his image is an issue but genuinely think you write him off at your peril in an intellectual debate. Might not be quite as pithy or sharp with a soundbite but intellectually he can more than hold his own.

by TopHat24/7 Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:19 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Another problem Cameron has is that the Libs will have to distance themselves from the Tories some how before the Election.......

Vote yellow get blue is going to be a big electioneering slogan in Lib/Lab marginals........

Farge won't be in the debates.......Can easily override his appeal by saying it's only the three biggest parties invited pertaining to SEATS.......

However anybody thinking the debates suit cameron have to realise that Miliband is considered a crap leader so he'll be starting from a lowly position and can only enhance his position........Also Clegg will need to stick it to Cammy to avoid the Tory-sympathiser charge........

after all the Libs are meant to be a center-left party.

Also worth noting that Thatcher ratings were low before she beat Callaghan in 79.......
Nice spin to somehow turn the debates into a Labour advantage
Stupid faces instead of rebuttal.......predictable

Were you able to type that with a straight face?? Cool

by Mind the windows Tino. Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:23 am

Rowley wrote:TSMR has some jewellery she does not wear I can weigh in if this will help.

I'll show you a bid for it.

by **seanmichaels** Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:24 am

Rowley wrote:Would not be too quick to dismiss Miliband in the debates. As Truss has said he goes in with very limited expectations and so the only way is up for him really and whilst he can come across as a bit spoddish the guy is a Oxbridge Graduate and former lecturer at Harvard so is not exactly an intellectual lightweight. Still think his image is an issue but genuinely think you write him off at your peril in an intellectual debate. Might not be quite as pithy or sharp with a soundbite but intellectually he can more than hold his own.

this is what worries me. he has been very clever in recent times with his timing of policies such as the energy freeze. we all know that it is BS but there are lot of very stupid people in this country which makes him dangerous. tina has obviously already fallen for it but then he is from the north west.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:28 am

TopHat24/7 wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Another problem Cameron has is that the Libs will have to distance themselves from the Tories some how before the Election.......

Vote yellow get blue is going to be a big electioneering slogan in Lib/Lab marginals........

Farge won't be in the debates.......Can easily override his appeal by saying it's only the three biggest parties invited pertaining to SEATS.......

However anybody thinking the debates suit cameron have to realise that Miliband is considered a crap leader so he'll be starting from a lowly position and can only enhance his position........Also Clegg will need to stick it to Cammy to avoid the Tory-sympathiser charge........

after all the Libs are meant to be a center-left party.

Also worth noting that Thatcher ratings were low before she beat Callaghan in 79.......
Nice spin to somehow turn the debates into a Labour advantage
Stupid faces instead of rebuttal.......predictable
Were you able to type that with a straight face??

This is why it's a waste of time to try to debate with this guy..

It's as good as it gets.........

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:33 am

Rowley wrote:Would not be too quick to dismiss Miliband in the debates. As Truss has said he goes in with very limited expectations and so the only way is up for him really and whilst he can come across as a bit spoddish the guy is a Oxbridge Graduate and former lecturer at Harvard so is not exactly an intellectual lightweight. Still think his image is an issue but genuinely think you write him off at your peril in an intellectual debate. Might not be quite as pithy or sharp with a soundbite but intellectually he can more than hold his own.

Very true...He also only needs Lib dem votes.......Every time Clegg agrees with cammy which he'll have to do.......as the Libs have to go on the 2010-2015 record........

He goes "You see vote yellow get blue"........mention "sell out" once in a while as well.....

Clegg is in a real tight spot..

by Mind the windows Tino. Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:33 am

seanmichaels wrote:
Rowley wrote:Would not be too quick to dismiss Miliband in the debates. As Truss has said he goes in with very limited expectations and so the only way is up for him really and whilst he can come across as a bit spoddish the guy is a Oxbridge Graduate and former lecturer at Harvard so is not exactly an intellectual lightweight. Still think his image is an issue but genuinely think you write him off at your peril in an intellectual debate. Might not be quite as pithy or sharp with a soundbite but intellectually he can more than hold his own.
this is what worries me. he has been very clever in recent times with his timing of policies such as the energy freeze. we all know that it is BS but there are lot of very stupid people in this country which makes him dangerous. tina has obviously already fallen for it but then he is from the north west.

Whereas you seem to fall for anything that is written. Irrespective of how inaccurate it is.

by TopHat24/7 Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:34 am

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Another problem Cameron has is that the Libs will have to distance themselves from the Tories some how before the Election.......

Vote yellow get blue is going to be a big electioneering slogan in Lib/Lab marginals........

Farge won't be in the debates.......Can easily override his appeal by saying it's only the three biggest parties invited pertaining to SEATS.......

However anybody thinking the debates suit cameron have to realise that Miliband is considered a crap leader so he'll be starting from a lowly position and can only enhance his position........Also Clegg will need to stick it to Cammy to avoid the Tory-sympathiser charge........

after all the Libs are meant to be a center-left party.

Also worth noting that Thatcher ratings were low before she beat Callaghan in 79.......
Nice spin to somehow turn the debates into a Labour advantage
Stupid faces instead of rebuttal.......predictable
Were you able to type that with a straight face??
This is why it's a waste of time to try to debate with this guy..

It's as good as it gets.........

Ah, sorry, forget you don't like it when people respond to you in the same manner you respond to others.

#hypocritemuch....

by Champagne_Socialist Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:37 am

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Champagne_Socialist wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:You chose a way of deriving income (gambling) that deliberately allowed you to avoid paying any tax.

With an education half as impressive as you make out you have, getting a job is far from impossible, so don't make out like you're some hard-up serf continually screwed by 'the man' and condemned to a life of welfare dependency and turnip eating.

IF, you are to be believed, then your weekly income was more than I was getting as a grad when I first started work in 2007 and I paid tax and NI on that.
Uunder UK taxation laws gambling profits are not subject to tax. It is physically impossible for me to pay tax on my gambling profits even if I wanted to as it is illegal for the tax man to collect any tax on gambling profits. I do make donations to charity however (nspcc).

You keep talking about me not paying income tax on my gambling profits and that is just highlighting your limited knowledge of taxation laws. Income tax is a tax on income derived from employment, going to the casino and putting £100 on number 18 on roulette and winning is not a form of employment and thus is not subject to income tax. You attacking me constantly for not paying income tax on my gambling profits is as silly as you saying I should pay capital gains tax on gambling profits or corporation tax because all of those taxes have no relevance to gambling profits.

Perhaps you are in favour of taxing gambling profits but that would mean everyone who wins £10 on a scratch card has to pay tax on it or an old granny winning £40 at bingo has to pay tax on it or a few lads heading to the casino to play blackjack on a saturday night and get lucky and win £100 have to pay tax on it.

If you are going to tax gambling profits because the gambler has managed to increase their capital then you need to also offer tax breaks for gambling losses because the gambler has reduced their capital.

But like I said it is physically impossible in the Uk to pay tax on any gambling profits and once again the fact you keep talking about me avoiding tax on gambling just shows your lack of knowledge of taxation laws. You can't avoid a tax that does not exist.

My tax law knowledge is fine thank-you. None of the pretentious diatribe above disputes what I'm saying - which is that you consciously chose a means of income that allowed you to avoid paying income tax and NI which are the single greatest tax contributions any one else makes.

So, as always, you're either ignorantly missing the point or simply choosing to skirt around it because you know you're in the wrong. But please, continue to lecture us all on how you think the government should spend the taxes we've all bust a gut to earn by working hard all day whilst you're sat on your backside in your dressing gown with a cup of tea clicking on internet gambling websites.

I consciously chose to be a gambler so that I could avoid paying tax haha you half talk nonsense. I enjoyed playing poker as a student, I was good at it and i was making a profit, I continued to play online and in casinos so that I could make a living from it. The fact it is not taxable had no bearing on my decision, the fact I am good at poker and make a profit is tthe reason I play poker, your clearly jealous that you lack gambling skills to make a profit and thus have to wake up and sit in an office all day in your dead end job.

You consciously chose to work in a low to medium pay job so as to avoid paying the 45% rate of income tax, you consciously chose not to die so that you avoid paying inheritance tax, what I am saying is complete nonsense but makes as much sense as what you are saying.

by **seanmichaels** Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:42 am

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
seanmichaels wrote:
Rowley wrote:Would not be too quick to dismiss Miliband in the debates. As Truss has said he goes in with very limited expectations and so the only way is up for him really and whilst he can come across as a bit spoddish the guy is a Oxbridge Graduate and former lecturer at Harvard so is not exactly an intellectual lightweight. Still think his image is an issue but genuinely think you write him off at your peril in an intellectual debate. Might not be quite as pithy or sharp with a soundbite but intellectually he can more than hold his own.
this is what worries me. he has been very clever in recent times with his timing of policies such as the energy freeze. we all know that it is BS but there are lot of very stupid people in this country which makes him dangerous. tina has obviously already fallen for it but then he is from the north west.
Whereas you seem to fall for anything that is written. Irrespective of how inaccurate it is.

Next you'll be telling me the Americans didn't actually land on the moon. Wait....

by TopHat24/7 Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:48 am

Champagne_Socialist wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
Champagne_Socialist wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:You chose a way of deriving income (gambling) that deliberately allowed you to avoid paying any tax.

With an education half as impressive as you make out you have, getting a job is far from impossible, so don't make out like you're some hard-up serf continually screwed by 'the man' and condemned to a life of welfare dependency and turnip eating.

IF, you are to be believed, then your weekly income was more than I was getting as a grad when I first started work in 2007 and I paid tax and NI on that.
Uunder UK taxation laws gambling profits are not subject to tax. It is physically impossible for me to pay tax on my gambling profits even if I wanted to as it is illegal for the tax man to collect any tax on gambling profits. I do make donations to charity however (nspcc).

You keep talking about me not paying income tax on my gambling profits and that is just highlighting your limited knowledge of taxation laws. Income tax is a tax on income derived from employment, going to the casino and putting £100 on number 18 on roulette and winning is not a form of employment and thus is not subject to income tax. You attacking me constantly for not paying income tax on my gambling profits is as silly as you saying I should pay capital gains tax on gambling profits or corporation tax because all of those taxes have no relevance to gambling profits.

Perhaps you are in favour of taxing gambling profits but that would mean everyone who wins £10 on a scratch card has to pay tax on it or an old granny winning £40 at bingo has to pay tax on it or a few lads heading to the casino to play blackjack on a saturday night and get lucky and win £100 have to pay tax on it.

If you are going to tax gambling profits because the gambler has managed to increase their capital then you need to also offer tax breaks for gambling losses because the gambler has reduced their capital.

But like I said it is physically impossible in the Uk to pay tax on any gambling profits and once again the fact you keep talking about me avoiding tax on gambling just shows your lack of knowledge of taxation laws. You can't avoid a tax that does not exist.

My tax law knowledge is fine thank-you. None of the pretentious diatribe above disputes what I'm saying - which is that you consciously chose a means of income that allowed you to avoid paying income tax and NI which are the single greatest tax contributions any one else makes.

So, as always, you're either ignorantly missing the point or simply choosing to skirt around it because you know you're in the wrong. But please, continue to lecture us all on how you think the government should spend the taxes we've all bust a gut to earn by working hard all day whilst you're sat on your backside in your dressing gown with a cup of tea clicking on internet gambling websites.
I consciously chose to be a gambler so that I could avoid paying tax haha you half talk nonsense.

You consciously chose to work in a low to medium pay job so as to avoid paying the 45% rate of income tax, you consciously chose not to die so that you avoid paying inheritance tax, what I am saying is complete nonsense but makes as much sense as what you are saying.

Tophat your personal insults are rather boring and they add nothing to the debate. You have a limited knowledge of uk taxation laws and it is evident in your posts. You seem all too happy to throw insults round and it is very sad that you are a man of 30 who feels the need to insult strangers over an internet forum. I will just put you on the foe list if it continues because it is all rather tedious.

1. You don't know what I do or what I earn.
2. Nothing you've said shows I lack knowledge of UK tax law.
3. Nothing you've said actually counters my points.

According to you you are a fully qualified lawyer (to add to your long list of other keyboard warrior attributes) yet you decide to earn a few hundred quid a week (your comment, not my assumption) doing internet gambling rather than pursue a career.

I think someone creating fictitious internet personalities and coming on to lecture people on morality is much sadder than laughing at someone incapable of constructing a basic sustainable argument.

Haven't you got an episode of Loose Women to watch or something??

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:54 am

More mocking and abuse........

Why can't you debate properly ??

by TopHat24/7 Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:02 pm

Again, a bit rich from someone with a history of telling people to f*** off on this forum.

My posts are a thousand times more engaging than that.

But, then again, you never were one to run shy of hypocrisy, were you??

by Mind the windows Tino. Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:07 pm

This was a good thread.

by Rowley Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:08 pm

Assume the emphasis is very much on the word was then Tina.

by Mind the windows Tino. Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:10 pm

Yep.

TopHat has a point, Truss is a signing beacon of hypocrisy but it is just going to be a slanging match from this point in.

I'm a bit annoyed that TopHat/Beefcake missed my wumming over China ruling the world as well.

by Lumbering_Jack Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:14 pm

China do rule the world. The Americans owe then billions don't they?

They could take America anytime they wanted.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:15 pm

I've made valid points on this thread none which have been rebutted by the op.......

The guy just mocks and abuses.......instead

Did the same on my Bradley thread........Mocked it and then "Maybe I was wrong about Bradley"

I am a hypocrite but I do debate...Not like this d**k

by Mind the windows Tino. Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:15 pm

You called me a moron once.

It hurt my feelings.

by Rowley Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:18 pm

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:You called me a moron once.

It hurt my feelings.

An outrageous slur, you would have to revise to reach moron level.

by Lumbering_Jack Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:18 pm

You're a funny guy Truss...

I don't know if it's intentional or not.

by Mind the windows Tino. Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:20 pm

Rowley wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:You called me a moron once.

It hurt my feelings.
An outrageous slur, you would have to revise to reach moron level.

Goon.

by Rowley Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:22 pm

Nice Tina, old school insult, has been a while since you called me that.

by Lumbering_Jack Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:24 pm

How come you were demoted Rowley? Poor performance?

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:26 pm

Anyway I'll bow out now.........Before all the crazies arrive..

by TopHat24/7 Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:26 pm

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:Yep.

TopHat has a point, Truss is a signing beacon of hypocrisy but it is just going to be a slanging match from this point in.

I'm a bit annoyed that TopHat/Beefcake missed my wumming over China ruling the world as well.

For once I decided to take the mature response and not be baited. Take it as a sign of respect Hug

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:28 pm

Remember though............

It's vote share you should watch..........and how consistent it is...

Standard of living is the major factor in Elections........Better or worse than before..

Tories need a seven point lead = 40% minimum........Thatcher only got 42 against Foot...

by **seanmichaels** Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:29 pm

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:You called me a moron once.

It hurt my feelings.

Until you realised he had a point?

Don't want to add fuel to the fire but gambling for a living (if you can do it!!) to avoid tax seems to me like a lot of sense. We had a cricketer over from SA once who lived with a mate's Dad who was retired. Got him in to something called doubling up at the bookies. Basically you keep betting and if you lose you double your stake until you win. I think as long as the odds are evens or more you can't lose unless you run out of money. mate's Dad was to scared to go in to the bookies and find out how his horse did on the £1k bet. He did win though and I think as he had odds of 2-1 he ended up £1k in profit (tax & NI free).

by TopHat24/7 Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:31 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I've made valid points on this thread none which have been rebutted by the op.......

The guy just mocks and abuses.......instead

Did the same on my Bradley thread........Mocked it and then "Maybe I was wrong about Bradley"

I am a hypocrite but I do debate...Not like this d**k

Again with the hypocrisy. I have offered rebuttals but, you being you, just ignores/refuses to accept them because they don't accord with your chosen viewpoint.

So we're back to the old chestnut that everyone is 100% wrong unless they 100% agree with everything Truss says.

Great, really know how to get a great 'debate' going, don't you big guy??

Also, re Bradley:

1. There's nothing wrong with adapting ones opinion slightly, refusing to do so is the truest sign of ignorance;
2. I didn't flip my opinion, I just accepted I had been too hard. I still do not consider him the 3rd best fighter on the planet. I just accept that he warrants a 5-7 berth rather than 9-11.

by TopHat24/7 Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:33 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Remember though............

It's vote share you should watch..........and how consistent it is...

Standard of living is the major factor in Elections........Better or worse than before..

Tories need a seven point lead = 40% minimum........Thatcher only got 42 against Foot...

Can you explain why vote share is so important in a FTPT system not PR?

by Lumbering_Jack Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:34 pm

seanmichaels wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:You called me a moron once.

It hurt my feelings.
Until you realised he had a point?

Don't want to add fuel to the fire but gambling for a living (if you can do it!!) to avoid tax seems to me like a lot of sense. We had a cricketer over from SA once who lived with a mate's Dad who was retired. Got him in to something called doubling up at the bookies. Basically you keep betting and if you lose you double your stake until you win. I think as long as the odds are evens or more you can't lose unless you run out of money. mate's Dad was to scared to go in to the bookies and find out how his horse did on the £1k bet. He did win though and I think as he had odds of 2-1 he ended up £1k in profit (tax & NI free).

Mugs game doing it like that. The money sharp runs out...

by Mind the windows Tino. Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:39 pm

Yep, gambling is a mugs game.

Only ever hear about the winning bets. You never see a poor bookie.

by **seanmichaels** Tue Nov 05, 2013 1:46 pm

Lumbering_Jack wrote:
seanmichaels wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:You called me a moron once.

It hurt my feelings.
Until you realised he had a point?

Don't want to add fuel to the fire but gambling for a living (if you can do it!!) to avoid tax seems to me like a lot of sense. We had a cricketer over from SA once who lived with a mate's Dad who was retired. Got him in to something called doubling up at the bookies. Basically you keep betting and if you lose you double your stake until you win. I think as long as the odds are evens or more you can't lose unless you run out of money. mate's Dad was to scared to go in to the bookies and find out how his horse did on the £1k bet. He did win though and I think as he had odds of 2-1 he ended up £1k in profit (tax & NI free).
Mugs game doing it like that. The money sharp runs out...

But that's the point. if you have £10k you'd be incredibly unlucky not to make £1k at least a week. Bookies will not let you do it (it is a bit like card counting) but if you visit a couple there is no way of getting busted.

by Lumbering_Jack Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:01 pm

seanmichaels wrote:
Lumbering_Jack wrote:
seanmichaels wrote:
Mind the windows Tino. wrote:You called me a moron once.

It hurt my feelings.
Until you realised he had a point?

Don't want to add fuel to the fire but gambling for a living (if you can do it!!) to avoid tax seems to me like a lot of sense. We had a cricketer over from SA once who lived with a mate's Dad who was retired. Got him in to something called doubling up at the bookies. Basically you keep betting and if you lose you double your stake until you win. I think as long as the odds are evens or more you can't lose unless you run out of money. mate's Dad was to scared to go in to the bookies and find out how his horse did on the £1k bet. He did win though and I think as he had odds of 2-1 he ended up £1k in profit (tax & NI free).
Mugs game doing it like that. The money sharp runs out...
But that's the point. if you have £10k you'd be incredibly unlucky not to make £1k at least a week. Bookies will not let you do it (it is a bit like card counting) but if you visit a couple there is no way of getting busted.

The week when you are unlucky you lose the lot.

Even if you do relatively small amounts of 10 quid, it would only take 6 losing bets to be down 630 quid, more than a weeks wage for most.

If it worked, people would do it.

by TRUSSMAN66 Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:01 pm

Anybody remember the Tory right's alternatate Queen speech..........

1. A Margaret Thatcher day...bank holiday

2. Privatise the BBC

3. Top rate of Tax 25 %.........

4, Capital punishment

and they say UKIP are loonies..

by TopHat24/7 Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:10 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Anybody remember the Tory right's alternatate Queen speech..........

1. A Margaret Thatcher day...bank holiday

2. Privatise the BBC

3. Top rate of Tax 25 %.........

4, Capital punishment

and they say UKIP are loonies..

Link?

by Lumbering_Jack Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:12 pm

Www.beefsternonsense.com

by Champagne_Socialist Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:17 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
Champagne_Socialist wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
Champagne_Socialist wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:You chose a way of deriving income (gambling) that deliberately allowed you to avoid paying any tax.

With an education half as impressive as you make out you have, getting a job is far from impossible, so don't make out like you're some hard-up serf continually screwed by 'the man' and condemned to a life of welfare dependency and turnip eating.

IF, you are to be believed, then your weekly income was more than I was getting as a grad when I first started work in 2007 and I paid tax and NI on that.
Uunder UK taxation laws gambling profits are not subject to tax. It is physically impossible for me to pay tax on my gambling profits even if I wanted to as it is illegal for the tax man to collect any tax on gambling profits. I do make donations to charity however (nspcc).

You keep talking about me not paying income tax on my gambling profits and that is just highlighting your limited knowledge of taxation laws. Income tax is a tax on income derived from employment, going to the casino and putting £100 on number 18 on roulette and winning is not a form of employment and thus is not subject to income tax. You attacking me constantly for not paying income tax on my gambling profits is as silly as you saying I should pay capital gains tax on gambling profits or corporation tax because all of those taxes have no relevance to gambling profits.

Perhaps you are in favour of taxing gambling profits but that would mean everyone who wins £10 on a scratch card has to pay tax on it or an old granny winning £40 at bingo has to pay tax on it or a few lads heading to the casino to play blackjack on a saturday night and get lucky and win £100 have to pay tax on it.

If you are going to tax gambling profits because the gambler has managed to increase their capital then you need to also offer tax breaks for gambling losses because the gambler has reduced their capital.

But like I said it is physically impossible in the Uk to pay tax on any gambling profits and once again the fact you keep talking about me avoiding tax on gambling just shows your lack of knowledge of taxation laws. You can't avoid a tax that does not exist.

My tax law knowledge is fine thank-you. None of the pretentious diatribe above disputes what I'm saying - which is that you consciously chose a means of income that allowed you to avoid paying income tax and NI which are the single greatest tax contributions any one else makes.

So, as always, you're either ignorantly missing the point or simply choosing to skirt around it because you know you're in the wrong. But please, continue to lecture us all on how you think the government should spend the taxes we've all bust a gut to earn by working hard all day whilst you're sat on your backside in your dressing gown with a cup of tea clicking on internet gambling websites.
I consciously chose to be a gambler so that I could avoid paying tax haha you half talk nonsense.

You consciously chose to work in a low to medium pay job so as to avoid paying the 45% rate of income tax, you consciously chose not to die so that you avoid paying inheritance tax, what I am saying is complete nonsense but makes as much sense as what you are saying.

Tophat your personal insults are rather boring and they add nothing to the debate. You have a limited knowledge of uk taxation laws and it is evident in your posts. You seem all too happy to throw insults round and it is very sad that you are a man of 30 who feels the need to insult strangers over an internet forum. I will just put you on the foe list if it continues because it is all rather tedious.
1. You don't know what I do or what I earn.
2. Nothing you've said shows I lack knowledge of UK tax law.
3. Nothing you've said actually counters my points.

According to you you are a fully qualified lawyer (to add to your long list of other keyboard warrior attributes) yet you decide to earn a few hundred quid a week (your comment, not my assumption) doing internet gambling rather than pursue a career.

I think someone creating fictitious internet personalities and coming on to lecture people on morality is much sadder than laughing at someone incapable of constructing a basic sustainable argument.

Haven't you got an episode of Loose Women to watch or something??

1)I don't really care what you earn because it is irrelevant to the debate but I can only assume your pay is rather low, hence why you are always so angry on this forum.

2)You keep saying I don't pay tax because i don't pay income tax on my gambling profits. Probably about 50% of everything I earn goes to tax. VAT, Council tax, road tax, VAT on my fuel bills, Green taxes on my fuel bills, Fuel duty tax. Just highlights your lack of understanding of UK taxation laws.

3)You have not made any valid points, you keep trying to attack me for not paying tax on my gambling profits even though gambling profits are exempt from taxation. It just highlights your lack of knowledge.

I said that I earn roughly £400 profit a week through poker which is about £20,000 a year, not bad for sitting on my arse watching loose women all day Smile

and it is probably more than you earn and you probably work a 9/5.

Fact is that I gamble and I make a profit, there is no taxation on gambling profits and so I pay no tax on those profits because it is physically impossible for me to do so. But I do pay taxes as highlighted above Smile

by Champagne_Socialist Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:20 pm

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:I've made valid points on this thread none which have been rebutted by the op.......

The guy just mocks and abuses.......instead

Did the same on my Bradley thread........Mocked it and then "Maybe I was wrong about Bradley"

I am a hypocrite but I do debate...Not like this d**k

This is the big problem with tophat and the reason he was stripped of being a mod, the guy is an internet warrior, he likes to insult people on the internet which is rather sad. He was proven wrong by Truss on this thread so he decided to turn the thread into a slanging match.

by Mind the windows Tino. Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:21 pm

Champagne_Socialist wrote:I can only assume your pay is rather low, hence why you are always so angry on this forum.

Truss is minted and he is always angry.

by Champagne_Socialist Tue Nov 05, 2013 2:32 pm

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:
Champagne_Socialist wrote:I can only assume your pay is rather low, hence why you are always so angry on this forum.
Truss is minted and he is always angry.

His excuse is he's American heart

by Sponsored content