Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
5849 posts

Uber Geek


  #1798430 12-Jun-2017 12:59
Send private message

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

1572 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1798464 12-Jun-2017 13:32
Send private message

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.

 

 


 
 
 
 


284 posts

Ultimate Geek


  #1798508 12-Jun-2017 14:26
Send private message

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that you will find that as part of an EU treaty the final say on whether and how a triggering of Article 50 could be withdrawn would be down to the European Court of Justice, not the UK Supreme Court.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


3842 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #1798532 12-Jun-2017 14:49
Send private message

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

1572 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1798548 12-Jun-2017 15:11
Send private message

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.

 

 


22930 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1798549 12-Jun-2017 15:14
Send private message

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. 

 

 


15363 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  #1798551 12-Jun-2017 15:21
Send private message

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.





Mike

 

Consultant

 


The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

He waka eke noa


 
 
 
 


22930 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1798567 12-Jun-2017 15:39
Send private message

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.


15363 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  #1798568 12-Jun-2017 15:41
Send private message

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.





Mike

 

Consultant

 


The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

He waka eke noa


5849 posts

Uber Geek


  #1798620 12-Jun-2017 16:30
Send private message

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

5308 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  #1798624 12-Jun-2017 16:39
Send private message

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.


14728 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1798625 12-Jun-2017 16:42
Send private message

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.






14728 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1798628 12-Jun-2017 16:44
Send private message

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.






10613 posts

Uber Geek


  #1798641 12-Jun-2017 16:59
Send private message

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.

 

 


Devastation by stupidity
12496 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #1798642 12-Jun-2017 16:59
Send private message

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.

 

 





I don't think there is ever a bad time to talk about how absurd war is, how old men make decisions and young people die. - George Clooney
 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic




News »

Pre-orders for Huawei MateBook 13 open now
Posted 14-Aug-2020 14:26


Freeview On Demand app launches on Sony Android TVs
Posted 6-Aug-2020 13:35


UFB hits more than one million connections
Posted 6-Aug-2020 09:42


D-Link A/NZ extends COVR Wi-Fi EasyMesh System series with new three-pack
Posted 4-Aug-2020 15:01


New Zealand software Rfider tracks coffee from Colombia all the way to New Zealand businesses
Posted 3-Aug-2020 10:35


Logitech G launches Pro X Wireless gaming headset
Posted 3-Aug-2020 10:21


Sony Alpha 7S III provides supreme imaging performance
Posted 3-Aug-2020 10:11


Sony introduces first CFexpress Type A memory card
Posted 3-Aug-2020 10:05


Marsello acquires Goody consolidating online and in-store marketing position
Posted 30-Jul-2020 16:26


Fonterra first major customer for Microsoft's New Zealand datacentre
Posted 30-Jul-2020 08:07


Everything we learnt at the IBM Cloud Forum 2020
Posted 29-Jul-2020 14:45


Dropbox launches native HelloSign workflow and data residency in Australia
Posted 29-Jul-2020 12:48


Spark launches 5G in Palmerston North
Posted 29-Jul-2020 09:50


Lenovo brings speed and smarter features to new 5G mobile gaming phone
Posted 28-Jul-2020 22:00


Withings raises $60 million to enable bridge between patients and healthcare
Posted 28-Jul-2020 21:51



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.