UK Politics (49 Viewers)

JuveJay

Senior Signor
Moderator
Mar 6, 2007
75,018
I have a question for all the British members here. Why is it so wrong that the BNP want to preserve "British peoples identity"? and why is it deemed racist?

I mean i understand why Europeans become such pussies when it comes to nationalism and all that for obvious historical reasons. But i think that some of the BNP's concerns are understandable.

When they consider themselves to be "better" than other ethnic groups, thats when it can be considered racism, but when they want to stop immigration from non "British" people, i don't see why thats wrong. I also don't see why its wrong if they want Britain to be more "British". After all it is the British peoples country, and its their ancestors that have lived there for centuries, so they do have more of a right to it than anybody else. Of course, for minority ethnic groups that have been in Britain for generations, these guys have just as much of a right to Britain as the "British" people. But if the government decides to stop giving citizenship to people from other nationalities, i personally see that as completely legitimate and completely understandable.
Capping immigration is understandable, deporting black people back to their 'home country' that they were not born in, have never lived in, and sometimes have never been to is not understandable. The BNP are just racists who (badly) disguise themselves as a party with the concerns of white British people, they are far right and not right wing. Funnily enough they are ok with other white Europeans, because people from the Caucas are ok as that is where British people came from.

The only people who vote BNP are racists, uneducated people, ignorant people, and most worryingly, those who are none of the above but are disillusioned with life in poor urban areas.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,251
Would anybody in their right mind agree to this bullshit?


UK Proposes All Paychecks Go to the State First

CNBC Associate Web Producer
Monday, 20 Sep 2010

The UK's tax collection agency is putting forth a proposal that all employers send employee paychecks to the government, after which the government would deduct what it deems as the appropriate tax and pay the employees by bank transfer.

http://m.cnbc.com/us_news/39265847
 

Bozi

The Bozman
Administrator
Oct 18, 2005
22,749
Would anybody in their right mind agree to this bullshit?


UK Proposes All Paychecks Go to the State First

CNBC Associate Web Producer
Monday, 20 Sep 2010

The UK's tax collection agency is putting forth a proposal that all employers send employee paychecks to the government, after which the government would deduct what it deems as the appropriate tax and pay the employees by bank transfer.

http://m.cnbc.com/us_news/39265847
:scared:
 

AngelaL

Jinx Minx
Aug 25, 2006
10,215
The government can fuck off. They will probably create more accounting errors than the individual businesses would, so I don't see a point.
You're right! Not only that, trying to monitor the government's deductions, let alone get refunds of erroneous tax deductions, would be well nigh impossible!

PAYE is the best method of paying your tax. Your employer's wages dept. work it out for you, pay it direct to the taxman, AND give you a detailed statement every payday. The statement shows your your net pay and deductions details, plus details of your tax code, taxable income and tax paid to date. So that you can check their figures, if you want, and if you think it's wrong you can query it.
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,347
Would anybody in their right mind agree to this bullshit?


UK Proposes All Paychecks Go to the State First

CNBC Associate Web Producer
Monday, 20 Sep 2010

The UK's tax collection agency is putting forth a proposal that all employers send employee paychecks to the government, after which the government would deduct what it deems as the appropriate tax and pay the employees by bank transfer.

http://m.cnbc.com/us_news/39265847
Not an insane idea, here it happens slightly different.

You get a payslip with your level of tax clearly printed on it.
Over here the employer has to calculate the level of tax. He sends the money to the state, the employee gets what's left. In all honesty the system isn't that much different. I see cons and pros to both systems, but I do ask myself if the government would be able to keep up. I think they wouldn't be able to pay on time, because of all the paper work.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,251
But that's on the pay stub, directly taken out by the employer, no? We have that here as well. What the UK is suggesting is that they send the checks into the government so they can do the paper of work on tax deductions.

Just don't see a point to it when the actual employer can do it for them. It's probably just another ploy to get a few people government jobs.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,251
You're right! Not only that, trying to monitor the government's deductions, let alone get refunds of erroneous tax deductions, would be well nigh impossible!

PAYE is the best method of paying your tax. Your employer's wages dept. work it out for you, pay it direct to the taxman, AND give you a detailed statement every payday. The statement shows your your net pay and deductions details, plus details of your tax code, taxable income and tax paid to date. So that you can check their figures, if you want, and if you think it's wrong you can query it.
Yeah, I can see a lot of ways the government could screw this up.
 

IrishZebra

Western Imperialist
Jun 18, 2006
23,327
But that's on the pay stub, directly taken out by the employer, no? We have that here as well. What the UK is suggesting is that they send the checks into the government so they can do the paper of work on tax deductions.

Just don't see a point to it when the actual employer can do it for them. It's probably just another ploy to get a few people government jobs.
Our pay stubs are 'cheques' we have a system called paypath that does it electronically.
 
OP
Red

Red

-------
Moderator
Nov 26, 2006
47,024
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #335
    Anyone interested in the referendum on voting reform?

    Or the Scottish or any of the local elections coming up?


    Think I'll probably vote no to AV.

    Not because I don't want electoral reform, but because I don't like this particular voting system that they are considering.
     

    AngelaL

    Jinx Minx
    Aug 25, 2006
    10,215
    Anyone interested in the referendum on voting reform?

    Or the Scottish or any of the local elections coming up?
    Think I'll probably vote no to AV.

    Not because I don't want electoral reform, but because I don't like this particular voting system that they are considering.
    Am I interested? Not really!

    Like yourself, I'll probably vote no to AV. When I started to read it, I found myself asking questions like 'if there is still no majority & the 'C' party votes are redistributed, what happens to the 'D' party votes that were awarded to the 'C' party? One can only assume that the third choice of party would get the 'vote' but they didn't make that clear! Would anyone remember who their third choice was? It could be easily pogled ....


    ....and I don't trust the Government enough! :shifty: Keeping it simple is best. That way, there are fewer ways to muck things up!
     
    OP
    Red

    Red

    -------
    Moderator
    Nov 26, 2006
    47,024
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #340
    What do you see as the main benefits?
    Not spending half the time being ruled by a government that almost no-one in Scotland voted for is rather appealing. The Conservatives won only one seat in Scotland out of a possible 59 at the last election.

    That would allow Scotland to remain a broadly centre-left country, while England is centre-right and heading further right in general.
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 6, Guests: 39)