General Politics Thread

[TONTROOPER]

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Yes.

 

 

Just saw your post from last night...no wonder you're not happy...I thought she was pretty pathetic too.

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, TONTROOPER said:

 

Just saw your post from last night...no wonder you're not happy...I thought she was pretty pathetic too.

TBH I'm not a huge fan of the Welsh language movement, where I lived there were very few Welsh speakers but if you wanted a government, council or BBC job it was pretty well mandatory. It was the blatant "don't give a f**k about this" of Newsnight, grabbing some Welsh researcher who didn't speak Welsh at the last minute for a debate about the language, thinking it's a nothing issue, who cares?

[strichener]

6 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

An idiot that thinks forensic examination of accounts can be done from a summary.  Fucksake.

You really are a simpleton - The accounts filed quite clearly shows the breakdown of their deferred taxation and the decrease for share awards.  Forensic examination isn't required when the audited accounts provides the information.  I doubt that you got out of the janitorial closet at HMRC.

Edited August 10, 2017 by strichener

[strichener]

4 hours ago, Alert Mongoose said:

 

Agreed. So which one is easier to change?

I would be in favour of a reduced rate of corporation tax if it could be applied on a simpler set of allowable expenses.  For example, direct cost of sales would of course be allowable along with wages, rent, utilities etc.  Licensing fees etc. would be excluded as would inter-company transactions.

[Baxter Parp]

11 hours ago, strichener said:

You really are a simpleton - The accounts filed quite clearly shows the breakdown of their deferred taxation and the decrease for share awards.  Forensic examination isn't required when the audited accounts provides the information.  I doubt that you got out of the janitorial closet at HMRC.

Jesus Christ, when you're in a hole, stop digging.  The whole purpose of examining detailed accounts is to see if they've been completed properly not to accept them at face value. 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I think we should have a separate thread for you two to have your squabbles.

[Baxter Parp]

1 hour ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

I think we should have a separate thread for you two to have your squabbles.

Brainless nonsense must be challenged wherever it appears.

[welshbairn]

13 hours ago, strichener said:

Brainless nonsense must be challenged wherever it appears.

...4 more pages..

Edited August 11, 2017 by welshbairn

[strichener]

2 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

Jesus Christ, when you're in a hole, stop digging.  The whole purpose of examining detailed accounts is to see if they've been completed properly not to accept them at face value. 

Which would be the role of an auditor.  Unless you are claiming that Amazon are involved in some sort of financial crime?

 

 

[strichener]

26 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

...4 more pages..

eh?  Why have you altered my post to contain the someone else's ramblings?

[welshbairn]

6 minutes ago, strichener said:

eh?  Why have you altered my post to contain the someone else's ramblings?

Devilment.

[Baxter Parp]

9 minutes ago, strichener said:

Which would be the role of an auditor.  Unless you are claiming that Amazon are involved in some sort of financial crime?

You haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about you fucking dimwit.

[strichener]

On 11/08/2017 at 11:58, Baxter Parp said:

You haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about you fucking dimwit.

So much anger, so much ignorance.  Neither of which hides your stupidity.

 

[strichener]

On 11/08/2017 at 11:53, kilbowie2002 said:

No big businesses do not commit financial crime, only benefit claimants and immigrants.

Whataboutery.  Are Amazon involved in financial crime and if so, have notified your colleagues in the SFO?

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Stopping big multinationals from squirrelling profits away to Liechtenstein or Panama seems like the left wing counterpart of the "efficiency savings" that the right always seem to claim can compensate for cutting public sector budgets.

[NotThePars]

Tbf Corbyn's manifesto was discussing raising corporation tax to pre 2011 levels wasn't it? You wouldn't think that judging by the cries of "COMMIE SCUM" from the Tories.

[Baxter Parp]

On ‎12‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 12:56, strichener said:

So much anger, so much ignorance.  Neither of which hides your stupidity.

 

Its difficult to conceal the contempt I feel for your ignorance, I'll admit.

[Baxter Parp]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-40911577

Lib Dems claims FoI changes undermine investigative journalism

"FoI's aren't transparent!/FoI's are too transparent!"  Take your pick.

[bob the tank]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-40911577
Lib Dems claims FoI changes undermine investigative journalism
"FoI's aren't transparent!/FoI's are too transparent!"  Take your pick.

It will put into the public domain the full answer to the foi request. Thats what the fibs, the rest of the tories and the bbc don't want, as it would show how much they leave out or twist to suit their agenda

[Baxter Parp]

35 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

You made a claim about Amazon regarding their tax bill.

I posted a link to an article, actually.  Poor start from you, eh?

36 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

You wrongly told him they were a "summary".

Those are not Amazon's books.  They are a summary of their accounts.  They lack detail.  If their books are ever examined, that is not what the HMRC officer will be shown.

37 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

 admitted that you couldnt read company accounts despite being apparently being a former HMRC employee.

I said I wasn't an accountant, which is true, I said I was ex-HMRC, which is also true.  Very few HMRC officers are trained accountants, they are (highly) trained VAT officers, Landfill tax officers, direct tax officers, informant handlers and so on.  The HMRC officers that actually eventually become accountants generally f**k off to private practice.  Your assumptions are revealing your ignorance, I'm afraid.

44 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

From this exchange and your subsequent petulant abuse we are asked to believe that Strichener is at fault here.

He is and frankly you're worse.

45 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Maybe we have so much tax avoidance BECAUSE HMRC employ people who dont understand simple company accounts.

Again, those are not Amazon's full accounts and if I had to guess given the little information given within I would say they've hidden a load of brand value purchases from their parent company in the assets column.  It's what they're good at.