Scunnered Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 References ? (I just don't believe that can be true) 13% in 2010. I'll look out the article from this year that has it reduced by a further 3%. http://english.cntv.cn/20131017/104761.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 (edited) Why would the SNP jeopardise it? . Quite simply the membership doesn't appear to care. Any wrong doing can be simply explained away by saying "SNPBad" or "LOOK, LOOK WHAT LABOUR DONE!!!". This is when i give up trying to debate with you ill go back to posting pics of dogs with bones Edited June 17, 2015 by Ally Bongo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 This is when i give up trying to debate with you ill go back to posting pics of dogs with bones To be honest I think that would be best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 It's hardly surprising a football board would be full of people who tend to partisanship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Absolutely serious. Have you ever been to China? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 where would you go to be able to have an opinion on it in it's entirety? It's the most populus country by a mile and something like the 3rd or 2nd largest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Am I reading the right thing here? What does that article have to do with "Black"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 In October 2014 the IB Times reported that more than 82 million Chinese live below the poverty line which rises to over 200 million if the International standards of poverty applied The population of China is just under 1.4 billion That works out about 7% if my arithmetic (and PC calculator) is correct Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotlad Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Genuine question, not having a pop at anyone's views. How do we attract private business to Scotland that provide skilled better paid jobs as opposed to the current situation where most towns non public sector work is provided by supermarkets. A low business tax rate seemingly isn't a huge incentive for business; access to a well educated and well skilled labour market is more highly prized. For SMEs, prompt payments are key. Gordon MacIntyre Kemp from Business for Scotland is worth a read on the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 Am I reading the right thing here? What does that article have to do with "Black"? Back to black? It's a saying, "reverting to type". Ok, well here's another question I'd like people's views on. The 2015 Holyrood budget had £500m in public spending cuts, while it provided £615m in business tax relief. Why not £0 public spending cuts and £115m business tax relief? Why are people so angry at Westminster austerity measures and not Holyrood austerity measures? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mariokempes56 Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Ask Samson ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 Ask Samson ? His opinion is the same as mine. It can't be defended. But I'm interested if people think it's justifiable? Is it a case that Westminster austerity is heinous while Holyrood austerity is just? I'm genuinely curious because I can't get my head around people thinking it is acceptable. But of course, I'm biased Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mariokempes56 Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 You know the answers but refuse to accept them so no point debating. (anyway I'm apparently middle-class...whatever the funk that is - so I am ooot). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Ok, well here's another question I'd like people's views on. The 2015 Holyrood budget had £500m in public spending cuts, while it provided £615m in business tax relief. Why not £0 public spending cuts and £115m business tax relief? Why are people so angry at Westminster austerity measures and not Holyrood austerity measures? Do you say business tax relief for dramatic effect ? Why not call it what it is ? Small Business Rates Relief is what it is actually called as i am sure you are aware To qualify for this relief the rateable value of your business premises must be £35,000 or less i.e Small businesses £615 million is what the Government will not receive by allowing these concessions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 You know the answers but refuse to accept them so no point debating. (anyway I'm apparently middle-class...whatever the funk that is - so I am ooot). I really don't know the answers. Why is £500m in public spending cuts with £615m in business tax relief acceptable coming out of Holyrood but not Westminster? WHY is Holyrood austerity acceptable when Westminster austerity is an outrage? WHY not £0 public spending cuts and £115m business tax relief? Help me understand, because I just can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 Do you say business tax relief for dramatic effect ? Why not call it what it is ? Small Business Rates Relief is what it is actually called as i am sure you are aware To qualify for this relief the rateable value of your business premises must be £35,000 or less i.e Small businesses £615 million is what the Government will not receive by allowing these concessions And Labour and Tories like to say "savings" rather than "cuts". Regardless of the size of the business, is it acceptable in your opinion that public spending was cut by £500m when this tax relief was available? Why not £0 public spending cuts and £115m business tax relief? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillinger Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Scunnered, I usually like reading your posts on here as it always helps stir up a bit of debate - and while I don't fully agree with a lot of your politics, I don't strongly disagree with any of them, and I like reading the arguments you make as they occasionally make me question my own views. But you cannot seriously be arguing that we follow how the Chinese government behaves in relation to business. Some of the stuff that millions upon millions of their workers have to endure is absolutely criminal. You're throwing stats around like the Tories do when they try to tell us how the UK has improved under their leadership but we're not daft - you can't seriously sit there and tell people that poverty is more of a problem in the UK than it is in China. Their human rights record with regards labour is scandalous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 And Labour and Tories like to say "savings" rather than "cuts". Regardless of the size of the business, is it acceptable in your opinion that public spending was cut by £500m when this tax relief was available? Why not £0 public spending cuts and £115m business tax relief? It's clear that without this relief many of these small businesses which are crucial wouldnt last long after start up Indeed many that have been going a couple of years or so would probably fold Look at the criteria to qualify for the scheme. It's only for really small firms As i said - its robbing Peter to pay Paul Do you not think these wee businesses are important ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flure Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Back to black? It's a saying, "reverting to type". Ok, well here's another question I'd like people's views on. The 2015 Holyrood budget had £500m in public spending cuts, while it provided £615m in business tax relief. Why not £0 public spending cuts and £115m business tax relief? Why are people so angry at Westminster austerity measures and not Holyrood austerity measures? How many jobs did the investment in the business bring or help retain through the supply chain? How did it affect the UK balance of trade? How much money did it protect that was collected by the local authority that might otherwise not have been? How much money did the investment in the businesses stop from being claimed from the welfare budget? You have to look at both sides of the balance sheet. To offer a question like this is either devious or naive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mariokempes56 Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 And Labour and Tories like to say "savings" rather than "cuts". Regardless of the size of the business, is it acceptable in your opinion that public spending was cut by £500m when this tax relief was available? Why not £0 public spending cuts and £115m business tax relief? Right once before I go and get pished. 1) If you invest £1000 in a company and over a period of say 5 years it pays £5000 more in tax etc than otherwise is that not a good thing ? 2) You accept you need a balanced economic approach ? If so there will always be compromises to be made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flure Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 And Labour and Tories like to say "savings" rather than "cuts". Regardless of the size of the business, is it acceptable in your opinion that public spending was cut by £500m when this tax relief was available? Why not £0 public spending cuts and £115m business tax relief? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted June 17, 2015 Share Posted June 17, 2015 Back to black? It's a saying, "reverting to type". Ah right, I thought she'd been eating chip butties again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 Right once before I go and get pished. 1) If you invest £1000 in a company and over a period of say 5 years it pays £5000 more in tax etc than otherwise is that not a good thing ? 2) You accept you need a balanced economic approach ? If so there will always be compromises to be made. 1. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. I'm even allowing £115m in business tax relief in what I'd deem acceptable. So generous am I. 2. No, not at all. Capital should never profit at the expense of people. £500m was take from vital public services that the most vulnerable in society rely on. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever in government investing in small businesses, but not ever at the expense of public services. Never. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 How many jobs did the investment in the business bring or help retain through the supply chain? How did it affect the UK balance of trade? How much money did it protect that was collected by the local authority that might otherwise not have been? How much money did the investment in the businesses stop from being claimed from the welfare budget? You have to look at both sides of the balance sheet. To offer a question like this is either devious or naive. I'm sure the Scottish Government will provide figures to justify their decision. Although unless they're the first EVER to make Reaganomics work... Again you'll be super glad I'm far too humble to say "I told you so". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted June 17, 2015 Author Share Posted June 17, 2015 Ah right, I thought she'd been eating chip butties again. That's went right over my head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.