Originally posted by @pap
To be fair, thatâs 3% more than the Labour Party ever collected from themâŚ
That was when the party leadership was infested with neo-liberal fuckos looking for a post-Parliament earner.
Given that the present leadership has specifically and consistently targeted this kind of corporate tax avoidance, I think youâre now on much dodgier ground with that argument.
Itâs not an argument, itâs a fact. The last Labour government turned a blind eye. Not saying it has anything to do with the current incumbents, just saying that they did nowt about it, and that was a Labour government.
We also dont know how the current incumbents would actually deal with it - itâs easy to say what youâd do when youâre not in Government.
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Itâs not an argument, itâs a fact. The last Labour government turned a blind eye. Not saying it has anything to do with the current incumbents, just saying that they did nowt about it, and that was a Labour government.
If you want to go with that, fine. It has zero relevance to whatâs happening now.
We also dont know how the current incumbents would actually deal with it - itâs easy to say what youâd do when youâre not in Government.
The Tories have zero interest in changing things. Theyâve had five years to do something about the issue, rightfully criticised New Labour when it brokered similar deals. New Labour demonstrated little willingness to do anything about the issue either.
You canât look at their policy and say that tackling the inequalities of big business is anywhere near their agenda; yesterday was a very decent example of that.
This argument needs to get in the sea. Cameron has been PM for nearly 6 years now. Constantly blaming the last lot, isnât really saying much about what you have done with your own time.
I probably have more time to read the thread than you, so have highlighted a couple of bits that you seem to have missed.
I havenât read much of this shite but what about childcare provision? Tax? Transport?
Some right little Osbournes who support these bastards.
They have had an entire parliament to do stuff. They spent their first 5 years in govt complaining about their predecessors. At some point they need to take some responsibility themselves.
Itâs hardly a great argument, in of itself regardless.
Itâs also an issue Osborne has made a lot of noise about tackling, but very little in terms of action. He could start with his fucking Dad, for one.
Originally posted by @Barry-Sanchez
I havenât read much of this shite but what about childcare provision? Tax? Transport? Some right little Osbournes who support these bastards.
No, you clearly havenât as thatâs all been dealt with above.
Same old Barry, always wrong.
Completely different situations between his Dad and Google though, one is a failing business trying to minimise taxes due to historical debts (which will never be outlawed as itâs legitimate accountancy and is the same in pretty much every country in the world), the other is making enormous profits but not declaring them in the UK (which will be made illegal going forward as itâs not fair on the country it bases itself in).
I am all for criticising this party, but that is something that people are hanging onto that isnât the slightest bit unfair.
A merkel.
Originally posted by @Goatboy
Originally posted by @Chertsey-Saint
Originally posted by @hoofinruth
Cameron now being heavily criticised for referring to âa bunch of migrantsâ. Not the first time he used such questionable language I think?
Whatâs the collective noun for migrants?
A merkel.
Stop getting political GB, youâre going to make it kick off!
Tory councillor. Runs a specialist eviction service. No conflict of interests there, then.
A Tory councillor is being investigated after it emerged he runs an âeviction specialistâ firm in a borough where 1,800 families are homeless.
Timothy Briggs, 46, allegedly failed to declare he owns and operates LegalMentor.co.uk, a firm which describes itself as a âtenant eviction companyâ.
A statement on its website boasts of having âan impressive near 100% record in getting possession for landlords at the first hearing.â
Another page with a list of legal costs is entitled: âEvicting tenants - as Easy as A, B, Câ
The company did not appear on Mr Briggsâ declaration of interests in information published in 2014 or 2015.
Pipe down, what about transport, tax and chidlcare?
Page 34, near the bottom. Go read my post, thereâs a good lad.
Iâve broken it down in a table that even you should be able to understand.
This Google malarky might just work out for the UK.
Whie nothing had been agreed, the EU could do nothing. Now that the UK has an agreement with Google, there is something concrete to investigate. The figure of ÂŁ130m, whilst small, is now the catalyst for an EU investigation into state aid. If the EU find that it does constitute state aid then they will have to pony up what the EU regard as reasonable. Good stuff - more money for us.
However the fallout from this will be that Google will not be as eager to settle cases with the rest of the EU for fear of the same treatment. Maybe by getting in first, albeit with a low figure, we may just ultimately benefit in the long run.
Before anyone starts getting hot under the collar, I am not suggesting for one minute that this is all part of a cunning plan by GO - Iâm just theorising a potential outcome.
