• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Political Issues

The argies had been quiet about the falklands then recently oil was discovered in its waters and they started to kick off again.

The people of the falklands have free and legal elections and wish to remain part of great britain, which is all that should matter.

Were they open to fact based discussions? Or did they not realise they were getting manipulated by succesive generations of Argie politicians for their on gain?

It seems its all they fudging talk about over there!
 
Last edited:
[video=youtube;t1X7bldd6RE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1X7bldd6RE[/video]

Turn up the sound when this bad boy takes off

This is what we sent in the last time they played up

Apparently some of their soldiers defecated themselves when they heard it coming
 
What's the purpose of British naval bases when the US Navy exists?

Well i guess we get good trading contracts because we can say to countries that we can keep trading routes open.

Im what is often called a little englander although i do not consider myself to be one, i would not care if sold the falklands back if it was for something big like 200 billion and i would be more then happy for america to have to fight all the wars and britain to just give a few soldiers and tanks to nato like other countries.

But as the argies want it and we do not want to give it back, lets fudge them mother fudgers up.
 
I have to agree on inheritance tax, really is sickening that what people work for all their life and then pass on to their loved ones is just stolen away in tax. Thousands upon thousands having to sell their family home they they grew up in etc to pay the tax.

Its not even a small notional figure, 40% is ridiculous.

The Tories were supposed to increase the threshold to ?ú1m as in their manifesto but they ditched the plan. Hopefully they will win next time outright and then it will certainly be pushed though.

Dont see much of a fuss with inheritance tax. I could be wrong as I've barely looked into it, but I thought a couple could get over 600k tax free ? A lot of families have a couple of children so I doubt many are leaving behind 1.2 million. A rise or scrap of inheritance tax would cost so much and benefit so few. I think the argument for it is that a lot of the money would be through property and the rise in house prices, rather than paid for. For example Buy 500k house in 2001 and now its worth 1m... do the people inheriting it really deserve the luck of a house price boom on someone elses house?
 
For example Buy 500k house in 2001 and now its worth 1m... do the people inheriting it really deserve the luck of a house price boom on someone elses house?

The house price boom boils my tinkle.

I would love nothing more than for prices to drop 90% tomorrow.

But if they have risen, and the market dictates an extreme increase in value, then yes, they deserve the luck of the house price boom.

It's like arguing that United didn't deserve their 8 goal victory against Arsenal.

4 - 2 would've been enough, so lets chalk off the other 4 goals.

Only a cretin would advocate that sort of system.
 
Dont see much of a fuss with inheritance tax. I could be wrong as I've barely looked into it, but I thought a couple could get over 600k tax free ? A lot of families have a couple of children so I doubt many are leaving behind 1.2 million. A rise or scrap of inheritance tax would cost so much and benefit so few. I think the argument for it is that a lot of the money would be through property and the rise in house prices, rather than paid for. For example Buy 500k house in 2001 and now its worth 1m... do the people inheriting it really deserve the luck of a house price boom on someone elses house?

Online gaming and poker sites are where the money is, i'd tax winnings at 95% personally.
 
Online gaming and poker sites are where the money is, i'd tax winnings at 95% personally.

The should certainly be a tax on gambling again but i guess the lobyists have chucked a lot of money the way of different governments. I never got the idea of the super casino. If theses businesses want to make the money they should the customers should also pay tax on their winnings not sure about 95% i would have though at least 40% would be ok.
 
The house price boom boils my tinkle.

I would love nothing more than for prices to drop 90% tomorrow.

But if they have risen, and the market dictates an extreme increase in value, then yes, they deserve the luck of the house price boom.

It's like arguing that United didn't deserve their 8 goal victory against Arsenal.

4 - 2 would've been enough, so lets chalk off the other 4 goals.

Only a cretin would advocate that sort of system.

erm... Man Utd earnt that victory, they scored every goal themselves. Its not like they scored 6 goals and then were given an extra 2 goals after the event due to a freak rule that says if you score 6 you now get 8.

But I dont think it was the best example to use was it ? Its nothing like your parents earning 500k through luck in a property boom and then you having to pay some tax on that when they die ? The children definitely didnt earn the money - do they deserve the gain and not to pay tax? Im not sure on the answer to my question, I just asked it. Im not sure inheritance tax is the biggest issue around when the tax is X amount over 600k and possibly these days that money was earned through a property boom. Not the worst thing to happen if I had to pay tax on 200k out of an 800k inheritance.
 
The should certainly be a tax on gambling again but i guess the lobyists have chucked a lot of money the way of different governments. I never got the idea of the super casino. If theses businesses want to make the money they should the customers should also pay tax on their winnings not sure about 95% i would have though at least 40% would be ok.

:lol: It was a comment to me as I've mentioned before that I played poker and made a fair bit through it. And to be fair even my own friends get wound up at the amount of tax free money I made at my peak, compared with them going to work and losing 40%.

I wouldnt have minded paying tax though, but they scrapped gambling tax in favour of charging the bookies money. It encouraged more gambling and the government got more tax this way than via the old 10% rule.
 
Online gaming and poker sites are where the money is, i'd tax winnings at 95% personally.

I dont care any more - I dont ever win !!

But these gaming companies and poker sites are big tax dodgers (not to mention most are completely corrupt, such as the owner of one site who decided he would let himself view the other peoples cards). I think williamhill run their online business from Gibraltar to avoid tax.

A tax on the individual player would be harsh though as poker is 1 person giving money to another (as opposed to player v bookie), it would be like me giving a friend ?ú100 as a gift and him having to pay tax.
 
They should be made to bring the sites onshore and pay full tax, or not be allowed to trade, its very easy to enforce.
 
erm... Man Utd earnt that victory, they scored every goal themselves. Its not like they scored 6 goals and then were given an extra 2 goals after the event due to a freak rule that says if you score 6 you now get 8.

But I dont think it was the best example to use was it ? Its nothing like your parents earning 500k through luck in a property boom and then you having to pay some tax on that when they die ? The children definitely didnt earn the money - do they deserve the gain and not to pay tax? Im not sure on the answer to my question, I just asked it. Im not sure inheritance tax is the biggest issue around when the tax is X amount over 600k and possibly these days that money was earned through a property boom. Not the worst thing to happen if I had to pay tax on 200k out of an 800k inheritance.

You seem happy to apply morality to money when it doesn't effect you?

You pay tax on income and every other way, what is morlly right about taxing the dead?
 
I dont care any more - I dont ever win !!

But these gaming companies and poker sites are big tax dodgers (not to mention most are completely corrupt, such as the owner of one site who decided he would let himself view the other peoples cards). I think williamhill run their online business from Gibraltar to avoid tax.

A tax on the individual player would be harsh though as poker is 1 person giving money to another (as opposed to player v bookie), it would be like me giving a friend ?ú100 as a gift and him having to pay tax.

So a tax on poker winnings is harsh "because it is like one friend giving another a gift and him having to pay tax" but inheritance tax which is one family member giving another money, money which they have already been taxed on is unfair?

Socailists have a really odd attitude at times that i just can not understand, oh yes i can, envy.
 
Dont see much of a fuss with inheritance tax. I could be wrong as I've barely looked into it, but I thought a couple could get over 600k tax free ? A lot of families have a couple of children so I doubt many are leaving behind 1.2 million. A rise or scrap of inheritance tax would cost so much and benefit so few. I think the argument for it is that a lot of the money would be through property and the rise in house prices, rather than paid for. For example Buy 500k house in 2001 and now its worth 1m... do the people inheriting it really deserve the luck of a house price boom on someone elses house?

What if it isnt property, say someone saves loads of money from their net income and wants to leave it to their kids. Why should the govt just take it because someone has died. Property booms are a way of life whether fair or not and the law doesnt distinguish this, if you bought a house for 1m and it went down to 900k in a recession youd still pay the same tax.
 
Dont see much of a fuss with inheritance tax. I could be wrong as I've barely looked into it, but I thought a couple could get over 600k tax free ? A lot of families have a couple of children so I doubt many are leaving behind 1.2 million. A rise or scrap of inheritance tax would cost so much and benefit so few. I think the argument for it is that a lot of the money would be through property and the rise in house prices, rather than paid for. For example Buy 500k house in 2001 and now its worth 1m... do the people inheriting it really deserve the luck of a house price boom on someone elses house?

Why should my hard earnt (already taxed) money and shrewd financial moves (such as property) be taxable at all?
(when passed to my family, assets I accrued for their benefit)
 
Its OK to put money on black and double our money from sheer luck, but you get some luck in the housing market you get taxes at 40%?

Golfball.....fudging found out son.

I'm alright jack, every other fudger can pay taxes and i'll pontificate about what's fair or not.
 
Houses are assets that increase and decrease in value just like other assets. If you buy a house for 500k and it increases to 1mil then you were just smart enough to have bought at the right time. By the same token if I invest 500k in Facebook when it floats and in 8 years time my shares are worth 1 million then good for me
 
India tells Britain: We don't want your aid

India’s Finance Minister has said that his country “does not require” British aid, describing it as “peanuts”.


Pranab Mukherjee and other Indian ministers tried to terminate Britain’s aid to their booming country last year - but relented after the British begged them to keep taking the money, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.


The disclosure will fuel the rising controversy over Britain’s aid to India.

The country is the world’s top recipient of British bilateral aid, even though its economy has been growing at up to 10 per cent a year and is projected to become bigger than Britain’s within a decade.

Last week India rejected the British-built Typhoon jet as preferred candidate for a ?ú6.3 billion warplane deal, despite the Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, saying that Britain’s aid to Delhi was partly “about seeking to sell Typhoon.”

Mr Mukherjee’s remarks, previously unreported outside India, were made during question time in the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of parliament.

“We do not require the aid,” he said, according to the official transcript of the session.

“It is a peanut in our total development exercises [expenditure].” He said the Indian government wanted to “voluntarily” give it up.
According to a leaked memo, the foreign minister, Nirumpama Rao, proposed “not to avail [of] any further DFID [British] assistance with effect from 1st April 2011,” because of the “negative publicity of Indian poverty promoted by DFID”.
But officials at DFID, Britain’s Department for International Development, told the Indians that cancelling the programme would cause “grave political embarrassment” to Britain, according to sources in Delhi.
DFID has sent more than ?ú1 billion of UK taxpayers’ money to India in the last five years and is planning to spend a further ?ú600 million on Indian aid by 2015.
“They said that British ministers had spent political capital justifying the aid to their electorate,” one source told The Sunday Telegraph.
“They said it would be highly embarrassing if the Centre [the government of India] then pulled the plug.”
Amid steep reductions in most British government spending, the NHS and aid have been the only two budgets protected from cuts.
Britain currently pays India around ?ú280 million a year, six times the amount given by the second-largest bilateral donor, the United States. Almost three-quarters of all foreign bilateral aid going to India comes from Britain. France, chosen as favourite to land the warplane deal, gives around ?ú19 million a year.

-----

:D
 
India tells Britain: We don't want your aid

India’s Finance Minister has said that his country “does not require” British aid, describing it as “peanuts”.


Pranab Mukherjee and other Indian ministers tried to terminate Britain’s aid to their booming country last year - but relented after the British begged them to keep taking the money, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.


The disclosure will fuel the rising controversy over Britain’s aid to India.

The country is the world’s top recipient of British bilateral aid, even though its economy has been growing at up to 10 per cent a year and is projected to become bigger than Britain’s within a decade.

Last week India rejected the British-built Typhoon jet as preferred candidate for a ?ú6.3 billion warplane deal, despite the Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, saying that Britain’s aid to Delhi was partly “about seeking to sell Typhoon.”

Mr Mukherjee’s remarks, previously unreported outside India, were made during question time in the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of parliament.

“We do not require the aid,” he said, according to the official transcript of the session.

“It is a peanut in our total development exercises [expenditure].” He said the Indian government wanted to “voluntarily” give it up.
According to a leaked memo, the foreign minister, Nirumpama Rao, proposed “not to avail [of] any further DFID [British] assistance with effect from 1st April 2011,” because of the “negative publicity of Indian poverty promoted by DFID”.
But officials at DFID, Britain’s Department for International Development, told the Indians that cancelling the programme would cause “grave political embarrassment” to Britain, according to sources in Delhi.
DFID has sent more than ?ú1 billion of UK taxpayers’ money to India in the last five years and is planning to spend a further ?ú600 million on Indian aid by 2015.
“They said that British ministers had spent political capital justifying the aid to their electorate,” one source told The Sunday Telegraph.
“They said it would be highly embarrassing if the Centre [the government of India] then pulled the plug.”
Amid steep reductions in most British government spending, the NHS and aid have been the only two budgets protected from cuts.
Britain currently pays India around ?ú280 million a year, six times the amount given by the second-largest bilateral donor, the United States. Almost three-quarters of all foreign bilateral aid going to India comes from Britain. France, chosen as favourite to land the warplane deal, gives around ?ú19 million a year.

-----

:D

F uck me

F uck this
 
Back