Brexit - Part 3? British elections 2017

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Brexit - Part 3? British elections 2017

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#1798430 12-Jun-2017 12:59

I'm unsure why May risked the polls. She had parliamentary majority and that's all she needed legally to negotiate with Brussels and pass agreed outcomes into law.

I always saw her role as analogous to the 'night-watchman' in a cricket test. The night-watchman's job is to survive until stumps. No-one expects boundaries.

May was always going to be sacrificed after Brexit negotiations were concluded. Perhaps being a bookend PM was something she couldn't tolerate ...

Mike

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1798464 12-Jun-2017 13:32

frankv:

SJB:

The problem is not Corbyn's policies it's the cost of implementing them. Nobody would argue it's not a good idea to have free higher education, world class free health care even cheaper travel on a nationalised railway system but who is going to pay for it long term.

The rich who currently avoid/evade tax would be a good place to start. Then the corporates like Apple. If they paid their share instead of just leeching on society, there would be more than enough money to pay for it.

You would run out of the rich pretty quickly. They would simply move elsewhere.

You are better off targeting the middle class as there are a lot more of them and they are less inclined to do a runner. Of course, the problem is they won't stand for the level of taxation necessary and won't vote for you next time round so you are out in the wilderness again, especially when they see that the increased taxation hasn't made much difference. It never does.

evilengineer

466 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 367

#1798508 12-Jun-2017 14:26

Geektastic:

I believe that to be incorrect. The Supreme Court says it cannot be stopped. The 27 states must agree to any extension of the two year period allowed under Article 50.

I'm pretty sure that you will find that as part of an EU treaty the final say on whether and how a triggering of Article 50 could be withdrawn would be down to the European Court of Justice, not the UK Supreme Court.

Oh, the irony.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1798532 12-Jun-2017 14:49

SJB:

frankv:

SJB:

The problem is not Corbyn's policies it's the cost of implementing them. Nobody would argue it's not a good idea to have free higher education, world class free health care even cheaper travel on a nationalised railway system but who is going to pay for it long term.

The rich who currently avoid/evade tax would be a good place to start. Then the corporates like Apple. If they paid their share instead of just leeching on society, there would be more than enough money to pay for it.

You would run out of the rich pretty quickly. They would simply move elsewhere.

Yeah... it does depend on other countries also forcing the rich to pay their share. Make it a residence requirement; you must pay tax to the UK pro rata to the number of days you live there. I doubt that the rich would be willing to spend most of their time in Panama or Lesotho or Cayman Islands or whatever tax haven they're hiding their money in.

Corporates might be an easier target; e.g. Apple can't sell any products into the UK if they don't pay their share of taxes. Any tax-avoidance agreements they have with Ireland or anywhere else are irrelevant. After Brexit that might be possible; until then, I guess it depends on the EU to pass the appropriate anti-tax-haven legislation, and/or Ireland to renegotiate their agreement with Apple.

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1798548 12-Jun-2017 15:11

frankv:

SJB:

frankv:

SJB:

The problem is not Corbyn's policies it's the cost of implementing them. Nobody would argue it's not a good idea to have free higher education, world class free health care even cheaper travel on a nationalised railway system but who is going to pay for it long term.

The rich who currently avoid/evade tax would be a good place to start. Then the corporates like Apple. If they paid their share instead of just leeching on society, there would be more than enough money to pay for it.

You would run out of the rich pretty quickly. They would simply move elsewhere.

Yeah... it does depend on other countries also forcing the rich to pay their share. Make it a residence requirement; you must pay tax to the UK pro rata to the number of days you live there. I doubt that the rich would be willing to spend most of their time in Panama or Lesotho or Cayman Islands or whatever tax haven they're hiding their money in.

Corporates might be an easier target; e.g. Apple can't sell any products into the UK if they don't pay their share of taxes. Any tax-avoidance agreements they have with Ireland or anywhere else are irrelevant. After Brexit that might be possible; until then, I guess it depends on the EU to pass the appropriate anti-tax-haven legislation, and/or Ireland to renegotiate their agreement with Apple.

It would be interesting to come back in say a couple of centuries to see how things have changed.

IMO the current model of society is unsustainable.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1798549 12-Jun-2017 15:14

SJB:

It would be interesting to come back in say a couple of centuries to see how things have changed.

IMO the current model of society is unsustainable.

If we could overcome our parasitic nature as a species, I believe it to be sustainable. Sadly, not likely.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1798551 12-Jun-2017 15:21

networkn:

SJB:

It would be interesting to come back in say a couple of centuries to see how things have changed.

IMO the current model of society is unsustainable.

If we could overcome our parasitic nature as a species, I believe it to be sustainable. Sadly, not likely.

While the profit motivation prevails things will not change, in an ideal society altruism would be the driving motivation, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15468

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1798567 12-Jun-2017 15:39

MikeB4:

networkn:

SJB:

It would be interesting to come back in say a couple of centuries to see how things have changed.

IMO the current model of society is unsustainable.

If we could overcome our parasitic nature as a species, I believe it to be sustainable. Sadly, not likely.

While the profit motivation prevails things will not change, in an ideal society altruism would be the driving motivation, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

It's ok, we will be extinct in the not too distant future.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12767

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1798568 12-Jun-2017 15:41

networkn:

MikeB4:

networkn:

SJB:

It would be interesting to come back in say a couple of centuries to see how things have changed.

IMO the current model of society is unsustainable.

If we could overcome our parasitic nature as a species, I believe it to be sustainable. Sadly, not likely.

While the profit motivation prevails things will not change, in an ideal society altruism would be the driving motivation, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

It's ok, we will be extinct in the not too distant future.

Not extinct, but the planet will reset, defragment and clean up the file system.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#1798620 12-Jun-2017 16:30

MikeB4:

in an ideal society altruism would be the driving motivation, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Some people think there is no such thing as true altruism because all altruistic acts confer some benefit on the giver.

For example donating blood, makes you feel like you have done something good and you get a biscuit.

Mike

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3317

Trusted

#1798624 12-Jun-2017 16:39

All this makes me glad I don't have kids. We're destroying our very ecosystems and all the fancy tech we invent won't save us from that fact.

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1798625 12-Jun-2017 16:42

frankv:

SJB:

frankv:

SJB:

The problem is not Corbyn's policies it's the cost of implementing them. Nobody would argue it's not a good idea to have free higher education, world class free health care even cheaper travel on a nationalised railway system but who is going to pay for it long term.

The rich who currently avoid/evade tax would be a good place to start. Then the corporates like Apple. If they paid their share instead of just leeching on society, there would be more than enough money to pay for it.

You would run out of the rich pretty quickly. They would simply move elsewhere.

Yeah... it does depend on other countries also forcing the rich to pay their share. Make it a residence requirement; you must pay tax to the UK pro rata to the number of days you live there. I doubt that the rich would be willing to spend most of their time in Panama or Lesotho or Cayman Islands or whatever tax haven they're hiding their money in.

Corporates might be an easier target; e.g. Apple can't sell any products into the UK if they don't pay their share of taxes. Any tax-avoidance agreements they have with Ireland or anywhere else are irrelevant. After Brexit that might be possible; until then, I guess it depends on the EU to pass the appropriate anti-tax-haven legislation, and/or Ireland to renegotiate their agreement with Apple.

It's not actually fair that you should pay more just because you happen to have more. That does not fit with any definition of fairness I would accept.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1798628 12-Jun-2017 16:44

SJB:

frankv:

SJB:

frankv:

SJB:

The problem is not Corbyn's policies it's the cost of implementing them. Nobody would argue it's not a good idea to have free higher education, world class free health care even cheaper travel on a nationalised railway system but who is going to pay for it long term.

The rich who currently avoid/evade tax would be a good place to start. Then the corporates like Apple. If they paid their share instead of just leeching on society, there would be more than enough money to pay for it.

You would run out of the rich pretty quickly. They would simply move elsewhere.

Yeah... it does depend on other countries also forcing the rich to pay their share. Make it a residence requirement; you must pay tax to the UK pro rata to the number of days you live there. I doubt that the rich would be willing to spend most of their time in Panama or Lesotho or Cayman Islands or whatever tax haven they're hiding their money in.

Corporates might be an easier target; e.g. Apple can't sell any products into the UK if they don't pay their share of taxes. Any tax-avoidance agreements they have with Ireland or anywhere else are irrelevant. After Brexit that might be possible; until then, I guess it depends on the EU to pass the appropriate anti-tax-haven legislation, and/or Ireland to renegotiate their agreement with Apple.

It would be interesting to come back in say a couple of centuries to see how things have changed.

IMO the current model of society is unsustainable.

I agree. As long as people think they are free to have as many children as they want, the population will increase ad infinitum until it eventually corrects itself either through war, famine or disease.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1798641 12-Jun-2017 16:59

MikeAqua:

MikeB4:

in an ideal society altruism would be the driving motivation, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Some people think there is no such thing as true altruism because all altruistic acts confer some benefit on the giver.

For example donating blood, makes you feel like you have done something good and you get a biscuit.

It's reasonable that you might give and expect that you may be helped by others if/when you're in need.

I think Ayn Rand argued that such acts of charity (as giving blood) just had to have a logical "selfish" motivation, but that's IMO inevitable when looking for an answer to fit an inflexible ideology.

There's an argument that charity encourages dependency in the same way that it's argued that welfare encourages dependency.

However I expect that both "lifestyle choice" beggars and beneficiaries are a minority. They make great "examples" for ideologists though.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16318

Lifetime subscriber

#1798642 12-Jun-2017 16:59

Geektastic:

It's not actually fair that you should pay more just because you happen to have more. That does not fit with any definition of fairness I would accept.

That would depend on how you got more. If you happened to be born into a family that lives in the right neighbourhood where you grow up with the right accent and they can afford the right university for you where you make the right contacts that lubricate you through a privileged, highly-paid career, then I would say it is eminently fair.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10