Reasons to vote UKIP

Status
Not open for further replies.
boyfalldown said:
It's not worked for countries like Ireland though, just lowering corporation tax.

I'd suggest refining the ukip idea, in that if profit is made in the UK it's taxed here. Furthermore hmrc looked closely at things like inter company loans at non competitive rates and if a transaction was judged to be purely to avoid tax then it was counted as profit. I don't get how companies can report one profit to share holders and another to the taxman
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting a race to the bottom. In business the lowest price bidder doesn't always get the deal. I think the UK has got a lot more to offer than Ireland. Especially the metropolitan area for an international corporation.

Unfortunately the international double taxation rules aren't that straight forward that the UK can just opt out. I haven't done the sims but I wouldn't be surprised that you cost us more than it gains other than the principle of forcing some to pay more.
 
OldCarlos said:
I was referring to Australia, which YOU mentioned in your post, which was in reply to `borders` & immigration.

Of course it matters, just like drug dealing, murder, rape, assault..........etc. It all matters!

Oh & no I won't drop the PC angle if I think it's relevant, just like folk won't stop using the race card when it suits.
Click to expand...
who are these 'some people'?
 
dejongj said:
I'm not suggesting a race to the bottom. In business the lowest price bidder doesn't always get the deal. I think the UK has got a lot more to offer than Ireland. Especially the metropolitan area for an international corporation.

Unfortunately the international double taxation rules aren't that straight forward that the UK can just opt out. I haven't done the sims but I wouldn't be surprised that you cost us more than it gains other than the principle of forcing some to pay more.
Click to expand...


That's not going to help the UK as a whole encouraging people to the metropolitan area. It's creaking enough and way out of step with the rest of the UK.


I don't get what's wrong with the idea of paying tax where you make the money. That's not suggesting leaving any international rules, just being fair and opening In your dealings
 
Phil V said:
Well I don't know about New Zealand, but I'd definitely describe the USA and Australia as places which have a horrifically racist reputation, whether that's social inclusion, government sponsored ethnic cleansing, the way that the law treats different races, reacts to natural disasters... etc. etc.

Would anyone really argue with that? Can we really suggest that those 2 countries aren't endemically racist?
Click to expand...

Interesting you mention the US being a racist country. Have you seen the documentaries of Ross Kemp when he has gone into America to chat to the street gangs. The black gangs hate the hispanic gangs, the hispanic gangs hate the mexican gangs, the mexicans hate the latinos etc etc................ They'll all kill people because of where they live or, the colour of their skin. It's accepted, why is that ? ? ?

I didn't mention white people hating people because of the colour of their skin on purpose, they do, but white people haven't the monopoly on hating people due to the colour of their skin.
 
boyfalldown said:
That's not going to help the UK as a whole encouraging people to the metropolitan area. It's creaking enough and way out of step with the rest of the UK.


I don't get what's wrong with the idea of paying tax where you make the money. That's not suggesting leaving any international rules, just being fair and opening In your dealings
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking the revenue is for the whole of the country. An domiciled hq is a paper thing realistically.

Nothing wrong with paying tax where you make the money if those are the rules. However those aren't the rules. In my opinion we just need to learn that it is a global market and start acting like it. Compete for the business and get it in our purse.
 
h14nha said:
Interesting you mention the US being a racist country. Have you seen the documentaries of Ross Kemp when he has gone into America to chat to the street gangs. The black gangs hate the hispanic gangs, the hispanic gangs hate the mexican gangs, the mexicans hate the latinos etc etc................ They'll all kill people because of where they live or, the colour of their skin. It's accepted, why is that ? ? ?

I didn't mention white people hating people because of the colour of their skin on purpose, they do, but white people haven't the monopoly on hating people due to the colour of their skin.
Click to expand...
Because I wasn't talking about the citizens?
 
dejongj said:
Nothing wrong with paying tax where you make the money if those are the rules. However those aren't the rules. In my opinion we just need to learn that it is a global market and start acting like it. Compete for the business and get it in our purse.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 95%. I do think there need to be some rule changes to stop some of the more dubious ( but currently legal) dodges. It being a global economy does need more then just the UK to change the rules a little
 
boyfalldown said:
France has a smaller population (just) then the UK. German and French healthcare spending is a little higher (per head and gdp) then the UK. Although that's a fraction only so broadly the same
Click to expand...

So why don't they feature on the list. Perhaps they spend more on equipment, surgeons etc rather than teams of desk jockeys and layers of management.
 
ST4 said:
So why don't they feature on the list. Perhaps they spend more on equipment, surgeons etc rather than teams of desk jockeys and layers of management.
Click to expand...


Or it may be they spilt the spend across more smaller suppliers? Just because one of those companies isn't one of the biggest in the world doesn't mean you're not spending more spread over more suppliers. Tbh as a banker I'm surprised you equate total spending on healthcare with total spending at one organisation
 
big soft moose said:
So the Ukip candidate who feels that "lenny henry should go back to a black country" wasnt motivated by race then ?
Click to expand...
A black country or The Black Country, he was born in Dudley, which is in an area commonly known as ?
 
nilagin said:
A black country or The Black Country, he was born in Dudley, which is in an area commonly known as ?
Click to expand...

he was but that isnt what they were refering to - the whole quote was "he should go back to a black country rather than live with whites"
 
boyfalldown said:
I agree with you 95%. I do think there need to be some rule changes to stop some of the more dubious ( but currently legal) dodges. It being a global economy does need more then just the UK to change the rules a little
Click to expand...
You are right. There are some blatant abuses where the rules strictly speaking are followed, however it could be argued that it is for the sole purpose off avoidance rather than in pursuit of running a good business.

Interestingly, Hmrc already got the measures to deal with those. Yet don't seem to apply them.
 
OldCarlos said:
There is very little difference between all the main parties these days & the differences are largely irrelevant to the majority of us.
Click to expand...
Indeed. This is why - like them or loathe them - UKIP and the Greens stand out. They have policies that the 'main 3' wouldn't consider.

Whilst I would never vote UKIP myself, I am hoping that they can get people previously disinterested in politics out to vote - whether it's for them or to stop them. Voter turnout rates in this country are appalling low.
 
ST4 said:
She was dimissed from the Party, what's the problem?
Click to expand...
That is exactly the point. A young part won't have all the processes and bureaucracy of an established one in place. You'll always have idiots, what truly matter is how swiftly that is being dealt with.

I mean take a look at what millaband did to his own family. Anyone capable of that I wouldn't trust looking after anyone.
 
boyfalldown said:
I'd suggest refining the ukip idea, in that if profit is made in the UK it's taxed here.
Click to expand...
Not a UKIP idea. Richard Murphy was suggesting segmental reporting years ago.
Besides, our tax system already requires tax to be paid on profit generated here under the Permanent Establishment provisions. The problem comes from calculating the profit, since multinationals have a revenue and cost base spread across multiple jurisidictions.
As an example, a company, registered in Luxembourg with servers in the US, makes an online sale to someone in the UK. The product is despatched from a Jersey warehouse, handled by a third-party distributor and delivered to the UK. Where is the profit made? How do you divide it between the jurisidictions?

boyfalldown said:
Furthermore hmrc looked closely at things like inter company loans at non competitive rates and if a transaction was judged to be purely to avoid tax then it was counted as profit.
Click to expand...
We already have significant Transfer Pricing legislation and a General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) that do precisely this.

boyfalldown said:
I don't get how companies can report one profit to share holders and another to the taxman
Click to expand...
Umm, because that's how Parliament have decided our tax system should work. Companies don't pay tax on accounting profit. They pay it on taxable profit, which is accounting profit adjusted according to the tax legislation. If you look at a set of statutory accounts, there'll be a reconciliation from the tax expected by multiplying accounting profit by the statutory tax rate to the actual tax accrued for in the accounts.

Edit for typos etc.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
France, Germany all have larger populations and their public sector healthcare isbt in the worlds top ten never mind top 5
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9155130/NHS-is-fifth-biggest-employer-in-world.html
Click to expand...
That's because many other countries operate under a system of private hospistals and insurance - with the state contributing to the cost of the insurance (e.g. in Germany, 77% of healthcare funding is by the government). It divides the employer up into multiple smaller units, but ultimately it's still the taxpayer who pays.

What really matters is outcome compared to cost, and the NHS usually rates pretty highly on that. The US does spectacularly poorly, with government spending per capita larger than the UK, but unable to deliver anything like the same level of universal service.
That said, many European countries perform better than the NHS in a number of KPIs, so we should be open to reform to adopt best practise.
 
boyfalldown said:
Or it may be they spilt the spend across more smaller suppliers? Just because one of those companies isn't one of the biggest in the world doesn't mean you're not spending more spread over more suppliers. Tbh as a banker I'm surprised you equate total spending on healthcare with total spending at one organisation
Click to expand...
^^This.^^
To quote the, ahem, ever reliable Wikipedia, "Around 65% of hospital beds in France are provided by public hospitals, around 15% by private non-profit organizations, and 20% by for-profit companies". Split 35% of the NHS away and you'd have a very different picture.
 
Not all of us sit on the Internet all day. Some of us have other stuff to do. ;)
 
ST4 said:
That's the UKIP policy so why do you have problems with UKIP?
Click to expand...

andy700 said:
I think this is why "decent" people have a problem with UKIP.

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/thanet/news/ukip-dogged-by-racist-ex-councillor-32278/
Click to expand...

ST4 said:
She was dimissed from the Party, what's the problem?
Click to expand...

Thing is though those sort of people keep getting attracted to UKIP/ I get the idea that as a new party they'll attract a number of less desirable candidates, but the seems to attract them in droves. There must be something call them
 
boyfalldown said:
Normal, fair and reasoned attracts a large number of racist idiots?
Click to expand...

UKIP mention a reduction of immigrants, that might appeal to racists, but its not the core audience or its intention.

Its like me openning a restaurant that has unlimited food/buffet service, it might attract fat people as a by product but thats not the core reason for offering unlimited food. My reason was to cut down on staffing levels as its self service.
 
ST4 said:
UKIP mention a reduction of immigrants, that might appeal to racists, but its not the core audience or its intention.
.
Click to expand...

so how come so many of their candidates are racists (and sexists, homophobes etc) - can they all have misunderstood what the party is about
 
ST4 said:
UKIP mention a reduction of immigrants, that might appeal to racists, but its not the core audience or its intention.

Its like me openning a restaurant that has unlimited food/buffet service, it might attract fat people as a by product but thats not the core reason for offering unlimited food. My reason was to cut down on staffing levels as its self service.
Click to expand...

Thankfully you, not the UKIP fools, represent my views. I do welcome immigrants to this country, just as I hope that those that leave the UK are welcomed in other countries. In my opinion a hard-working newcomer to our country is worth 10 of the self-righteous UKIP-loving British bigots that make their presence known here and in other places.
I love Europe and it saddens me that the UK hasn't had the cojones to fully participate in the Union. How pathetic is it that people insist on minimal participation yet moan about minimal British influence in European affairs.

 
big soft moose said:
so how come so many of their candidates are racists (and sexists, homophobes etc) - can they all have misunderstood what the party is about
Click to expand...

They've all been kicked out. The party stands for a points based immigration system, not one that allows anyone in just because they are an EU national. I and UKIP stand for letting good quality people, regardless of where they are from, into the UK. When I say good quality I mean free of criminal convictions, skilled and or with big assets/income.

Might see things like this end and high quality people alone being let in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-31921469
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
They've all been kicked out. The party stands for a points based immigration system, not one that allows anyone in just because they are an EU national. I and UKIP stand for letting good quality people, regardless of where they are from, into the UK. When I say good quality I mean free of criminal convictions, skilled and or with big assets/income.
Click to expand...


The flip side of that is it cuts both ways. I imagine it makes us less attractive to investment too. Why invest in the UK when you could go to Germany and have any eu national work for you easily. As opposed to having to complete a complex points system? It also makes it harder for those who can't manage to recruit in the UK. To the point I imagine those businesses may fail. But Nigel farage has said he doesn't care if this has a negative affect on the UK economy. It's only the social effect that matters
 
ST4 said:
They've all been kicked out.
Click to expand...
Nope.
Godfrey Bloom was only asked by Nigel Farage not to repeat the "bongo bongo land" comment - he wasn't censured, let alone kicked out of the party for it.

Even when he assaulted a journalist in the street, he resigned rather than got sacked.

Still, he had form for this kind of thing - turning up drunk for debates in the European chamber, getting expelled from the chamber for shouting Nazi slogans at other speakers, failing to declare financial interests...
 
ST4 said:
That's the UKIP policy so why do you have problems with UKIP?
Click to expand...
I was responding to a particular point.. why don't you read context? is it too difficult a concept for you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top