More USA political questions

[Keith]

Keith,

So you think its OK for Sean to say this:

".....its about parental comoitment, libs want schools to replace parental responsibility, hell they want gov to repalce personal responsibility, wont work".

***********

So Keith, thats OK, but my pointing out that in virtually every meaningful catigory conservitives have let their childern down BADLY, your not OK with that!

Posting lies is OK with Keith put pointing out those lies, that is not OK with Keith and makes him feel sorry for my kids!


By the way Keith, our daughter went to college and is currently a an SEO Digital Marketing Manager at Seagate making six figures.

She is fully aware that I passonatly defend things I care about.

But I didn't read what he posted, only what you posted because the 'F' word leapt out at me. Just because I object to your delivery, doesn't mean in anyway I endorse anyone's opinion. How could I? Even reading through pages of this crap, American politics are a complete mystery.

Your daughter, there you go, six figures that's really impressive...will I like her more for that? In America clearly she'll be in high demand :laugh:, but at least she seems educated enough to probably know once you use the 'F' word like that you've already lost the argument.

I'll bet your daughter would be incredibly embarrassed if she even read a tenth of the diatribes you have engaged in here. From what I understand, you are not like this in real life so it's all a bit of a mystery and giving an excuse that you are responding in kind, is even less intelligent! Why don't you behave like your real self, you know, the one everybody likes in the flesh?

 

[Jim Craik]

In 2008, 64% of the passenger vehicle occupants ages 13 to 15 and 21 to 34 killed in traffic crashes were not using restraints. These age groups had the highest percentage out of all age groups.

If all passenger vehicle occupants over age 4 had worn seat belts, an estimated 17,402 could have been saved.

Keith,

17,402 lives...................mostly in Red States!

I'll repeat, educate your childeren, tell them where babies come from and teach them to wear their FUCKING seatbelts!

 

[Sean]

Sean,

You either you have no idea what you are talking about or you just believe the lies that Conservatives tell you!

Sean, if you want to talk parental responsibility in schooling and life in general, then you are in for a shock.

Blue States have a higher rate of High School Graduation.

Blue states have a higher rate of College Graduation.

Blue states have a higher rate of Advanced degrees.

Blue states have higher income.

**************

But Red States do lead in several catagories.


Red States have a higher drop out rate.

Red States have a Divorce rate

Red States have a higher abortion rate.

Red states have a higher unwed child birth rate.

Red states have a higher foodstamp rate.

Red states have a higher welfare rate.

Red states have a higher suicide rate.

Red States have a higher murder rate.

Red states have a higher vehicle death rate (mostly due to no seatbelts)

Red States virtually all receive more from the Government than they pay in taxes.


So Sean, instead of spreading lies, why dont you Consevatives quit trying to blame others for your problems and educate your childern, teach them about birth control and get them to wear their fucking seatbelts!

Oh yea, and get them to stop accepting more dollars from the Government than they pay in taxes!

You know jim the problem with you is its a polarised competition. I dont see red and blue or dem and republican, frankly they are both aholes.

I am probably as socialy liberal as people get, I am also fiscaly responsible and conservatyive. I dont think these two are or should be mutualy exclusive, although both political parties as they currently exist present that.

There is no question that whether we are talking military procurement or social programs goverment like all large institutions is grossly inefficient.
As govermanet whether dem or republican has shown itself to regard revenue as free unaccountable money I have an issue with more revenue.
Frankly there could never be enough money for governement, so lines must be drawn.

Plus any econ 101 major will tell you that each dollar taken by government costs the economy 5 in terms of circulation. The fact is we have tepid economic growth, Less barrriers would lead to more growth. I am not talkign corporate growth, I am talking small and medium buisness, from which new large companiues also emerge. I am talking lettiung people have ttheir earnings to spend.

I am not anti goivernment either, we clearly need giovernement, but what we have now is an amorphopus mass like a runaway train. Its costs more than we can afford and delivers poorly. That is a fact, math does not lie and sooner or later the bill will be due.

Its also a fact that more money does not solve the social problems. By your stats above republican states recieve more money yet are worse.

I happen to have famnily and freinds in education, right here in the liberal north east. I have seen schools feed kids for breakfast lunch and dinner, because the parents dont, I have seen schools stay open to do homework witht he kids for the same reason. You know what, the drop out rate is the same. School sucess starts with the family, any teacher will tell you that, its all about partental backup and drive. You cant fake that with more money and programs.

The stat I gave about a colorado school getting 36% more money and test scores dropping 8% is from this mornings paper. It is but one example.

I would say to you, stop being so closed mineded. Everybody who is against more tax and overwhelming regulation is not a religious nut, is not pro life, is not anti enviroment.

There are plenty of pro chopice, pro enviroment, people, who aslo want decent neughbourhoods for all and medical, who also might be fiscal realists and realise that the path we are on, will not deliver, is ruinous to the long term health of the country and is crippling a segement of the growth engine, ie working prfessionals, smaal and medium companies. because its that segement that pays the bulk of the taxes and bore the brunt of tax inbcreases, its also thats egement which employs 50+% of people and its that segement from which new industries emerge.

More of the same is clearly not the answer, its not 1965 anymore, there has been a lot of progress, lots is also understood better, things need to be done differently.

Look at Louisiana, there they have vouchers for ppoir kids to got o private schools, a great idea yet the federal government is trying to kill it.

Saying tax the rich, may get you elected, but the rich are not being taxed anyway, small business and working professionals are, and there are no results. If you could tell me that my taxes were part of a solution that woudl be fine, but reality indicates not.

i have no issue with the concept of obama care. But we have soc security and medicare medicaid already running intot he red, with neither party prepred to really deal with it. So now we will add another gov program which i bet you will end up woefully underfunded and needing more. Yes there will prbably be a way to fix it, but as long as people view things like you do, ie I am a dem and live in a state of virtue so what i want is correct, or I am a republican and responsible so what i want is right there will be no solutions possible.

If gov gave social results from money spent then Gates and Buffet would have put their money into gov, not their own foundations.

We are one country, there arte different prespectives, as long as two sides view the other as wrong everybody in the middle gets crushed.

It always amazes me that liberals are all pro choice, they love constitutionaly protected rights as interpretd by the court, and I have no problem with that. I do have aproiblem when there is a right which is actualy written like the second amendment, and then libs hate the constitution and call it an irrlevant dusty document.

By the same token, how come repubs want gioverment out of people lives unless its abortion or gay marriage.

See the point both red and blue behave like chilldren. the rest of us wanta reasonable responsive and responsible government. We do repect the constitution and the rights therein, all of them, not just our favorite pet ones.

However what we get today, is either a bunch of fanatics who think that some 12th century text is the answer, or a bunch of cool aid drinkers lost in some flower child fantasy from the 60s.

Try be an adult. More debt more taxes more borrowing and spending is clearly not a solution. Nor is curbing rights, interfering in the supreme court(trying to overturn roe), tapping everybodies phones(funny how if libs do it it s ok), deciding who may marry, and a whole host of other things which gov does and one group or the other favors. We either live under the rights in the constitution, all of them or we dont. And so far this decade we dont, because each siode wants to pick and choose.

So Jim from what i see of your comments, you are no more correct or virtuous than a right winger, you are just as closed minded and are pretty much the same, just your cause is different.

 

[Jim Craik]

You know jim the problem with you is its a polarised competition. I dont see red and blue or dem and republican, frankly they are both aholes.

Really, if that is true, why did you say this?

Its not about money, its about parental comoitment, libs want schools to replace parental responsibility, hell they want gov to repalce personal responsibility, wont work.

If you really mean that, why did you try and blame the education problem on "libs", when the facts show they do a significantly better job teaching childeren than conservatives?

 

[Sean]

In 2008, 64% of the passenger vehicle occupants ages 13 to 15 and 21 to 34 killed in traffic crashes were not using restraints. These age groups had the highest percentage out of all age groups.

If all passenger vehicle occupants over age 4 had worn seat belts, an estimated 17,402 could have been saved.

Keith,

17,402 lives...................mostly in Red States!

I'll repeat, teach your childeren to wear their FUCKING seatbelts!

I agree, but in your utopia gov would madate somehting even betetr than airbags that woud try save people anyway regardless of cost, and so they wont be responsible for putting on seatbelts. I like having all the safety features including the ones I am responsible for, and if I dont use them, I cant cry about it later.

 

[Sean]

Really, if that is true, why did you say this?



Why did you try and blame the education problem on "libs", when the facts show they do a significantly better job teaching childered than conservatives?

HMM lest see because you just gave a huge comparisson showing that repubs do a worse job, or repub dominates states do. So I said the above to point out to you that you see the country as bue or red. I like to go by issue, not categories dictated by the current poltical entertainment complex. Which is pretty much what washington has become.

Now if youa re going to say as you did that peiople should be responsible and buckle up, I will say they shoudl be responsible for their kids and their kids education. They should not expect the state to feed clothe and do homework, yes in some cases it s necessary but not nearly tot he extent its epxpected or praticed..

As to who does a better job of education, well I woudl say in republican stes the education is far better, in the sense that most who can afford it go to private school.
Now if you want to talk real life educationmaybe someone who teaches self reliance does a far better job than someone who by example of their won life shows their chilldren how to get more from the sytem and do less. Maybe, Jim maybe

Or Maybe someone who teaches through thought and questioning and an open mind does a far better job than someone who teaches that everythign is written in a book from long agio and that is all there is, maybe Jim maybe.


the way the lines are drawn in the current political discourse is wrong. Why must I be anti enviroment to be por buisness and visa versa. Why must I be pro second and anti pro choice. Who creted these labels and why.

Now you can see we are all being played, the choices are false.

 

[Nick]

Keith,



Posting lies is OK with Keith put pointing out those lies, that is not OK with Keith and makes him feel sorry for my kids!

Jim, I know there has been a lot of water under the bridge but lies is a very strong word, you would get a very strong reprimand from the speaker don’t you know. Misguided and confused possibly but not lies

As to who does a better job of education, well I woudl say in republican stes the education is far better, in the sense that most who can afford it go to private school.

Now if you want to talk real life educationmaybe someone who teachrs self reliance does a far better job than someone who by example of their won life shows their chilldren how to get more from the sytem and do less. Maybe, Jim maybe

Well at last something I can talk about with some authority having been educated from 7-11 at a private prep school and from 12-16 in a public boarding school.

Education at a public school is not far better, it is far easier for teachers teaching 15 children in a class as opposed to 30 plus in the state system as it means you can give more attention to each child.

As my wife says give me 15 kids in my class not 30, give me the resources they have so I don't have to buy equipment for lessons out of my own money, give me the teaching assistants they have in private education and just see what I can do.

I accept it teaches you self reliance, when your parents drop you off at boarding school when you are 12 and then move house you have to become self reliant to survive, you can't go running to your mum when things go wrong. "Stop blubbing boy it's only a broken leg, take a couple of aspirins and come and see me in the morning" but not reliance in the way you think.

My experience was many children in private school not bothering because they didn't have to worry financially could rely on going into the family firm or other contacts to get them a position.

If they failed their exams just repeat the year no problems. That brings up another problem with public schools. It may be different now but in my day they taught you to pass exams not necessarily understand what you are doing, because exam results were everything even more important than education.


Incidentally, for what it's worth both my brother and sister were state school educated and both did better academically than I did, although I did have a great time at school.


Prince George: I say, Blackadder, are you sure this is the PM? Seems more like an oily tick to me. When I was at school, we used to line up four or five of his sort, make 'em bend over, and use 'em as a toast rack.

Pitt the Younger: It doesn't surprise me, sir, I know your sort. Once, it was I who stood in the big, cold schoolroom, a hot crumpet burning my cheeks with shame. Since that day, I have been busy every hour God sent, working to become Prime Minister and fight sloth and privilege wherever I found it.

Blackadder: [Casually] I trust you weren't too busy to remove the crumpet.

 

[Robert May Eng.]

If they failed their exams just repeat the year no problems. That brings up another problem with public schools. It may be different now but in my day they taught you to pass exams not necessarily understand what you are doing. ] Quote

Spot on Nick. We sent ours to public schools and although they came out of it well a far as grades go they learned little to nothing on the whole for this very reason. Its all about stats/ pass rates with very little to do with education.

Bob

 

[Pat]

Al,

Yes we do have a high Corporate tax rate...........................

A few thoughts.

(1) Yes its High, not the highest, but its high.

(USA.............34.6%

Argentina......43.1%
Brazil............35.1%
Japan...........29.5%
Russia...........31.9%
Australia........26%
France..........34%
India.............33.6%
UK................27.9%

Just for the record, the US corporate tax rate is 40%. The marginal federal corporate income tax rate on the highest income bracket of corporations (currently USD 18,333,333 and above) is 35%. State and local governments may also impose income taxes ranging from 0% to 12%, the top marginal rates averaging approximately 7.5%. A corporation may deduct its state and local income tax expense when computing its federal taxable income, generally resulting in a net effective rate of approximately 40%. The effective rate may vary significantly depending on the locality in which a corporation conducts business. The United States also has a parallel alternative minimum tax (AMT) system, which is generally characterized by a lower tax rate (20%) but a broader tax base.

Source: KPMG Corporate tax rates table | KPMG | GLOBAL

 

[Nick]

If they failed their exams just repeat the year no problems. That brings up another problem with public schools. It may be different now but in my day they taught you to pass exams not necessarily understand what you are doing. ] Quote

Spot on Nick. We sent ours to public schools and although they came out of it well a far as grades go they learned little to nothing on the whole for this very reason. Its all about stats/ pass rates with very little to do with education.

Bob

Thanks Bob,

Always like your posts, don't always agree with them, although this one I agree with 100% funnily enough .

 

[Keith]

Jim, I know there has been a lot of water under the bridge but lies is a very strong word, you would get a very strong reprimand from the speaker don’t you know. Misguided and confused possibly but not lies

Oi! Don't you start.....:shout:

Lets just start with the premise that I really have no idea what's truth and what isn't in US politics (or domestic come to that).

This is pure Craicspeak.

If I don't condemn something then I must be for it.
If you are not with us, then you must be against us.

These are totalitarian tools reminiscent of Stalin & Hitler.

I detest this default confrontational approach. No, I haven't read any of it - I am sick of it all, so my strategy is to take the piss out of it.

Blah blah blah, and I did that without using the 'F' word.

Anymore of it, and Craik will have to apologise (again) for being a jerk.

By the way, it doesn't matter how high the corporate tax is in the UK, hardly any company pays any or anything as much as they should. Like I say, the burden of taxation in this country falls on the working man.

Small company scenario: (100 employees). Company makes a profit and is liable for Corporation tax at a rate of say 40%. Directors draw the profits as bonus, and gets the company to pay income tax at the rate of 25%. Directors leave the money in the company and transfer it to the Directors Loan Account where it sits there as a tax free lump sum for the directors to draw at will. If the company gets wound up, the Directors, by virtue of the Loan Account, become Preferential Creditors and get paid before trade creditors.

Now, they may have changed the rules since, but that was the way it was during my glory days of the '70's, '80's and '90's.

The Working Class can Kiss my Ass etc etc.

Great innit.

 

[Robert May Eng.]

Al,

Yes we do have a high Corporate tax rate...........................

A few thoughts.

(1) Yes its High, not the highest, but its high.

(2) 12 of the Worlds largest 24 Corporations are based in the United States, WHY?

(3) We have a huge country with a huge infrastructure, we have a massive Military expence. We have military spread all over the world, we spend more than the next 10 countries combined on the military. That costs money, but it buys influence, protects commerce (see point 2)

(3) Although our rate is high, its not that much higher than other large countries, plus we do a lot more than other countries:

2010 Effective Corporate Tax Rates

USA.............34.6%

Argentina......43.1%
Brazil............35.1%
Japan...........29.5%
Russia...........31.9%
Australia........26%
France..........34%
India.............33.6%
UK................27.9%


Al, we can either elect folks who will cut spending or we need to pay for what we spend, its that simple.

As corporation tax is only applied to declared profit it would be very hard to ascertain the relevance of these percentages without knowledge of the inner workings of the relevant countries taxation system.There could be massive differing tax concessions/breaks along with creative accounting that make these percentages unfathomable .

Bob

 

[Sean]

Oi! Don't you start.....:shout:

Lets just start with the premise that I really have no idea what's truth and what isn't in US politics (or domestic come to that).

This is pure Craicspeak.

If I don't condemn something then I must be for it.
If you are not with us, then you must be against us.

These are totalitarian tools reminiscent of Stalin & Hitler.

I detest this default confrontational approach. No, I haven't read any of it - I am sick of it all, so my strategy is to take the piss out of it.

Blah blah blah, and I did that without using the 'F' word.

Anymore of it, and Craik will have to apologise (again) for being a jerk.

By the way, it doesn't matter how high the corporate tax is in the UK, hardly any company pays any or anything as much as they should. Like I say, the burden of taxation in this country falls on the working man.

Small company scenario: (100 employees). Company makes a profit and is liable for Corporation tax at a rate of say 40%. Directors draw the profits as bonus, and gets the company to pay income tax at the rate of 25%. Directors leave the money in the company and transfer it to the Directors Loan Account where it sits there as a tax free lump sum for the directors to draw at will. If the company gets wound up, the Directors, by virtue of the Loan Account, become Preferential Creditors and get paid before trade creditors.

Now, they may have changed the rules since, but that was the way it was during my glory days of the '70's, '80's and '90's.

The Working Class can Kiss my Ass etc etc.

Great innit.

If directors draw the profits, then tey will pay income tax on the amount, one way or another the tax is paid.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Certainly that is true in Australia.

 

[Jim Craik]

Jim, I know there has been a lot of water under the bridge but lies is a very strong word, you would get a very strong reprimand from the speaker don’t you know. Misguided and confused possibly but not lies/QUOTE]Posted by Nick.


Nick,

Of course you are right, lies was too strong a word. I have allowed the almost constant stream of one sided threads and posts to get to me. But that said, it was one of those "pot calling the kettle black moments". But then I should be used to it by now.

But if anyone post a statment like this that is perhaps less than accurate........

".....its about parental comoitment, libs want schools to replace parental responsibility, hell they want gov to repalce personal responsibility, wont work".

Either they have a very limited view of the world, have not been paying attention or perhaps just stating things they heard in the "news" but expect to be called on it.

 

[Sean]

Jim, I know there has been a lot of water under the bridge but lies is a very strong word, you would get a very strong reprimand from the speaker don’t you know. Misguided and confused possibly but not lies




Well at last something I can talk about with some authority having been educated from 7-11 at a private prep school and from 12-16 in a public boarding school.

Education at a public school is not far better, it is far easier for teachers teaching 15 children in a class as opposed to 30 plus in the state system as it means you can give more attention to each child.

As my wife says give me 15 kids in my class not 30, give me the resources they have so I don't have to buy equipment for lessons out of my own money, give me the teaching assistants they have in private education and just see what I can do.

I accept it teaches you self reliance, when your parents drop you off at boarding school when you are 12 and then move house you have to become self reliant to survive, you can't go running to your mum when things go wrong. "Stop blubbing boy it's only a broken leg, take a couple of aspirins and come and see me in the morning" but not reliance in the way you think.

My experience was many children in private school not bothering because they didn't have to worry financially could rely on going into the family firm or other contacts to get them a position.

If they failed their exams just repeat the year no problems. That brings up another problem with public schools. It may be different now but in my day they taught you to pass exams not necessarily understand what you are doing, because exam results were everything even more important than education.


Incidentally, for what it's worth both my brother and sister were state school educated and both did better academically than I did, although I did have a great time at school.


Prince George: I say, Blackadder, are you sure this is the PM? Seems more like an oily tick to me. When I was at school, we used to line up four or five of his sort, make 'em bend over, and use 'em as a toast rack.

Pitt the Younger: It doesn't surprise me, sir, I know your sort. Once, it was I who stood in the big, cold schoolroom, a hot crumpet burning my cheeks with shame. Since that day, I have been busy every hour God sent, working to become Prime Minister and fight sloth and privilege wherever I found it.

Blackadder: [Casually] I trust you weren't too busy to remove the crumpet.

Maybe we are getting our terms mixed up. Here in the USA public means governement schools, private means you pay.

Where I live there are great public schools and that is what my chilldren attend. There is one reason the schools are great, the parents are mostly still married and really on their kids. Class size is between 24-28.

Down the road in another town more working class the punlic school sucks, the budgets are not hugely different but parental attitudes are.

In another town to the north there are essential two types of people. The school as a result essentialy runs 2 internal schools.
From what my freinds there say, if your parent is a non educated person(does not mean formal education) even though you are in the same school and have the same opportunities, start in the same classes, odds are you will end up in a lower level class over time, your grades and sat exams will be far worse and if you go to college at all it will be of a far inferior type.

Those kids comming from more educated and or dedicated parents end up in better classes in terms of content do better and graduate mostly to better colleges. Same school different results.

Each child entering this school has the same opportunities in the school, they start in the same classes, the difference is in the home enviroment. Now of course some kids are really smart and driven, they can come from no parent homes with no parental guidance and do the best, but that is a fractional percentage.

My point is the home enviroment is the single greatest detirminator of how well a child does and how driven a kid is in school. My above illustration is for a school with all types of chilldren but the results are clear. More money would not change the results one bit.

Now in texas the public(gov) schools are teriible. The smart, dedicated or educated parents send their chilldren to private schools, many sacrifice tio do so.. So if you look at stats for texas the average may be worse than say new york, but of kids with dedicated parents (in the case of texas prob republican) the school results are well above average.

The poor results come from public Texas schools which have essentialy poor immigrant students from south of the border. For most(not all) of these kids there is little to no family support and backup in terms of school. There is also poor dicipline etc, and a different cultural attitude towards education. I am generalising but its valid. Changing the budget does not change this.

Here is what happened in louisiana. The public schools there had a decent budget, not the highest, but far higher than other states where there were far better results. Nothing anyone tried could change the results in louisiana including massive federal aid ie big budgets after katrina.

So the state started offering vouchers for poor students to attend private schools. Now to get a voucher the parent had to jump through hoops, and many of the private schools happened to be Church schools.

Of course once these kids were in better schools their results improved greatly.

Two factors at play here. Parents needed to be dedicated and make the effort to get the vouchers, inplying famiuly dedication to education and parental backup. The schools, in this case religious ones dont have a huge budget either, but what they do have is tremendous dicipline.
Now in louisiana gov schools have a budget and lack dcicpilne parental backup.

My conclusion is if we want to give chilldren a chance especialy poorer ones, ever more money for public schools is not the answer. The envropment in which the chilldren arte raised is key, especialy family enviroment.

Therefore for those dedicated parents in poorer neighbourhoods there needs to be a good option.

But results show you just cant fix it for everyone with just money. If your parents are ignorant retards, unless you are a genius odds are you will end up an ignorant retard, and no amount of tax an statal money will change that.

So yeah lets provide the opportunity, but opportunity is not an elevator ride, its a long flight of stairs which you and your kin need to climb on your own steam, just like you need to make the effort to buckle up.

We cant make it good for everyone even if we think we can afford it, it just wont work, more money is not the answer and brings minimal to zero returns. All we can do is provide an opportunity for people to make it good for themselvs. More taxes will not do that.

Yes in the past they had one room schoolhouses no shoes and no books, but that is not the case today or the enviroment in 99.99999% of schools.

 

[Sean]

Jim, I know there has been a lot of water under the bridge but lies is a very strong word, you would get a very strong reprimand from the speaker don’t you know. Misguided and confused possibly but not lies/QUOTE]Posted by Nick.


Nick,

Of course you are right, lies was too strong a word. I have allowed the almost constant stream of one sided threads and posts to get to me. But that said, it was one of those "pot calling the kettle black moments". But then I should be used to it by now.

But if anyone post a statment like this that is perhaps less than accurate........

".....its about parental comoitment, libs want schools to replace parental responsibility, hell they want gov to repalce personal responsibility, wont work".

Either they have a very limited view of the world, have not been paying attention or perhaps just stating things they heard in the "news" but expect to be called on it.

No I live in the liberal north east, I see and hear it everyday firsthand. My familya re teachers, I hear them cry and lament as they are now expoected to do everything, which is just not possible. I see teenage girls having babies because it pays to do so, because their mathers did the same, because they are uneducated not because there were no schools, but because that is their enviroment. More money for schools and socail prgrams does not change that. More money for abortions does not either, because these girsl dont want abortions, they want babies, they want the 125k the sate gives to unwed teenage motehr per child.

So here we have a social program designed to help chilldren from less fortunate motehrs engendering more of the same.

I ahve no problem with social priograms, but I want ones that work, not ones that make libs feel good about themselvs at the expense of taxpayers and ultimatly those they want to help.

 

[Jim Craik]

I ahve no problem with social priograms, but I want ones that work, not ones that make libs feel good about themselvs at the expense of taxpayers

Yea thats right, we push this rediculous school thing, not for the kids, not because a good education has proven to improve ones lot in life.

No, we push education only because it just makes us feel good!

.........@*#%x$X

Yes and while you are working on "parental commitment, parental responsibility, you Red State folks might just teach your childern about why an education is important, where babies come from and why complaining about people on food stamps/welfare while leading the nation in food stamps/welfare is..............%#$*&!

Tell the Red State folks who complain bitterly about Americans who pay no taxes, tell them who those folks are!

Yes this map is a few years old, but it shows where the problem is very clearly and the problem is not education and its not "Libs"!



Yes, the Lib states that push that horrible education, seem to be making enough to be paying taxes. Perhaps you Red States might look into it, you know, instead of complaining try paying for the services you receive!

 

[Keith]

If directors draw the profits, then tey will pay income tax on the amount, one way or another the tax is paid.

Sorry, I think you missed the point I was making and that is, in my example, to avoid paying corporation tax at 40%, drawing the profit as personal bonus income meant paying the tax at a considerably lower and basic rate. That way the company declares zero profit and deprives the exchequer of perhaps 15% tax.

It's legal but it also represents a culture of corporate tax avoidance which is now at epidemic proportions in the UK.

To a degree, it's kept the luxury car and boat business going, as these are often another often used tool to avoid paying corporation tax.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Keith I'm missing something as well, I know that would not work in Oz because if the taxman believes you are in a scheme to deliberately avoid corporate or personal tax he will charge the tax anyway and the onus is on you to prove him wrong.
Maybe the tax law is different in the U.K.
Also we have a thing called a fringe benefit tax, which means if my company bought a boat or luxury car for my benefit I would be taxed at a rate of 45%on the benefit