Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
she would soon move if the the local council sterted to charge her 14% council tax on each empty bedroom.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
1439, the council IS the owner of the property she lives in as I understand it.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
The `anti-social`network Facebook pays only £ 238,000 Corporat-ion Tax on UK earnings of £ 175 million.
The wet summer means lower crop yields since 1980 which means higher food prices for us but the consequences
for the developing world will be disastrous.
The commodity traders will be rubbing their hands planning and waiting for Oxfam to come knocking on their door.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
''The `anti-social`network Facebook pays only £ 238,000 Corporat-ion Tax on UK earnings of £ 175 million.''
So what?
Any sensible company is going to organise its affairs in a way that it minimises the tax it pays like the American one to which you refer.
You obsess all the time about how much or how little tax people and companies pay. That is so shallow ignoring the real problems of an excessively complex tax system combined with too high tax rates and far too high public spending.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
letting them pay little and doing nowt about it not the answer
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Tax is not the answer, it is the problem. The UK Treasury cannot impose its way on international companies and all businesses (and individuals) are and should be free to arrange their affairs legally in a manner that minimises tax liabilities. This is what freedom and the rule of law is all about the alternative is dictatorship. Governments should be our servants not our masters to whom we must pay up whatever they demand.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Reg, I read yesterday that both Brazil and Canada expect bumper grain harvests and that it is the same in the east with the rice crop.
Why is it that those who abstract wealth from the UK economy are more or less free so to do, but those who earn and spend within the economy are penalised at every turn? [See my Barry's Blog response...do]
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
DHB Management....elite greedy pigs....... In conjunction with Ed Connell`s # 29 on `DHB caught red handed..............
The DHB board have made a series of actions to out source services,taking away duties of the
workforce.The Unions are making Ministers aware of their actions as it is thought DHB are
deliberately producing a situation that could encourage the government to go for privatisation
for damage limitation reasons.
The DHB boards recent actions will also increase the remunerations for the DHB management
at privatisation.
It could also muddy the waters for the DPPT`s proposal......what a can of worms.....
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
a big can of worms
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
This is all a mystery to me: we've got 2 port administrations: DHB and DPPT.
One says hoo, the other says haa.
Surely all this is keeping Prosperity away from Dover!
To me it doesn't look as if the Government is intent on giving DHB the heeve-ho, and we can only ask ourselves whether the polarisation DHB - DPPT was ever in the spirit of the original Public Consultation. It was supposed to be about whether to privatise the Port or not, and not whether to exchange the current Dover Harbour Board with another institution.
As we have all seen, DPPT is highly politicised, having obtained the recognition of the Conservative MP and the aspiring Labour candidate for MP, and having connections to the House of Lords. All seems to be going over the head of Public Consultation, which one would imagine should be free of political alliances and continuous behind the scenes maneuvering at highest institutional levels.
Originally, the Public Consultation should have been with the DfT, not 10 Downing Street, the MP, the opposing candidate for MP, the Cabinet, BBC and the House of Lords. All wishy washy and undemocratic!
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Alexander;
I'm probably going to regret replying, but i don' t share your view!!!!!
At the moment the only option on the table is the D.H.B and then should the govt ever make it's mind up
and decide against them we then have a new ball game.
There will be as you have indicated many representations to consider including your own.
The peoples port proposal although i have some reservations on it i see no problem in getting the movers and shakers on it as long as they work for the better for Dover.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
As it`s Sunday lets talk a little treason.....add to the intrigue / mystery...DHB is very similar to another secret society
and it is thought they have one the same membership......and at Westminster ?....but then again I read too many books......
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
may be some truth there reg
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
alex
at present dppt have no involvement with the port, it is purely captain bob and his merry men.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Alex, I think there may be a few cans of white lightning in that post:
"Originally, the Public Consultation should have been with the DfT, not 10 Downing Street, the MP, the opposing candidate for MP, the Cabinet, BBC and the House of Lords. All wishy washy and undemocratic! "
The public consultation was between the DfT and anyone who cared to make a submission, nobody else. So presumably, having made your own submission, you should not have blogged about the port or posted on this forum about it. DPPT is only trying to raise awareness of its position and influence opinion in the general public and in government, precisely what you are trying to do with your blogs and endless mis-representations on here. You are merely peeved that you have no access to people and institutions with influence at the top, and you seek to denigrate those who do, casting aspersions upon their integrity and veracity as you go.
As a footnote, if you think public consultations are supposed to be non-political, you must also believe that the earth is flat, that the sun goes round the earth and that the moon is made of green cheese.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Peter, the Public Consultation was supposed to be non-political, between the DfT and the Public.
Charlie could have made his representation to the DfT, I am convinced it was not correct of him to go also to 10 Downing Street to propose himself as a co-founder of a self-proclaimed port trust during the Public Consultation.
Even more so as he had previously consigned a petition to 10 Downing Street asking for the Port not to be sold but to remain a State asset, as was part of his electoral campaign before being elected MP.
Earlier this year I wrote a letter myself to 10 Downing Street asking about the Public Consultation and whether my representation was still valid, as I was concerned about political connections in a Public Consultation.
I received a reply too, and the promise that the letter would be forwarded to the Department for Transport, which it was.
Nothing to do with the moon being made of green cheese, mate. Just a matter of democratic principles!
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Public consultations are political processes.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Elite Greedy ``Dangerous`` Pigs ....Lord Dannett and other Generals together with retired military
chiefs are caught up in ``Generals for hire`` scandal.
They have,allegedly,used the `old boy` network to lobby Ministers for defence contracts.
Phillip Hammond Defence Secretary has ordered MOD investigations......
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Poor old Starbucks. The company as a whole may be valued at around $40bn (£24.9bn), but the UK part of it appears to be a drain upon resources, trading at a loss these past ten years or so.
We should, of course, be nothing but grateful that these poor souls don't up-sticks and leave this
good for nothing market place.
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/starbucks-uk-tax-bill-comes-183406936.html
Costa, on the other hand must be getting something very much wrong...good for them, good for us too.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.