Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Students occupy University of Sheffield Auditorium

I'll strike you a deal. You pay my mortgage I pay for somebodies degree in flower arranging. You will be OK with this as you don't mind not benefitting from it ?
i don't mind paying for things from which everyone benefits. and being as florists play a useful part in society i would not mind my money going to florists, doctors, historians, hell even the occasional land economist. but i'd be buggered with a fishfork before i pay a penny towards your mortgage (on which default would not cause me to lose a moment's sleep).
 
I'll strike you a deal. You pay my mortgage I pay for somebodies degree in flower arranging. You will be OK with this as you don't mind not benefitting from it ?

We all (potentially) pay for your healthcare, benefits (should you need them), services, security and education. So far you've been fuck all use to me but don't worry, I won't cut you off.
 
I'll strike you a deal. You pay my mortgage I pay for somebodies degree in flower arranging. You will be OK with this as you don't mind not benefitting from it ?

You fall on hard times I may well end up paying the interest on your mortgage. What's your monthly payment atm?
 
My focus is on materiality of tax revenues....not number of businesses. I don't think a the location of a thousand jugglers will count the same as one multinational who might be choosing where to be based.
Interesting excluded middle there -- multinationals or jugglers and de'el take the rest.

In truth, the total corporation tax take for large and small companies is rapidly converging. Here is the raw data up to the end of 2013:

Screen-shot-2014-01-28-at-10.22.11.png


In this article, where this graph came from, the author investigates corporation tax generally. In stark contrast to the claims made by you and others that lowering the tax rate may have encouraged a higher overall tax take, he notes the following:

Give or take large company tax take has fallen on average by £150 million a year over 12 years admittedly with wild oscillations but with recent behaviour when it is known that profits have been rising confirming the trend. - See more at: George Osborne’s £10 billion a year tax giveaway to big companies

Now, I would like to point out to you that in 2000, the corporation tax rate in the UK was 30%. It was cut to 28% in 2007 and then between 2011 and the present day was cut first to 26% and then gradually to 20%. The net effect of this has been to lose an estimated total £1.8bn in tax per year from large companies alone. And if you follow the link and look at the data, you will see that our corporation tax per annum is down by about £4bn per annum compared with an average figure from about 10 years ago. (And lo and behold -- my predicted £4bn drop has been proven correct.)

So don't tell me that the UK can't afford to put corporation tax back up to 25% (lower than its 2010 rate!) Don't tell me that this will somehow mean corporations redomicile somewhere else (where? Everywhere else has higher rates!) Don't tell me this will cost us money (actually, we have recent evidence that the reverse is true!)

And not that it has anything to do with the above, but don't tell me either that our tax revenues are all about multinationals when by this point, the tax take from the totality of "large" companies isn't that much bigger from that of "small" companies.

It's all bullshit. It's all ideological -- an ideology that is costing the country money even while it redistributes wealth from the poor and the merely well off to the super-rich.

I'll finish with this quote from the linked article:

What this means is that over a period of six years more than £30 billion is to be given away to big business to supposedly lure new business activity to the UK when there is no evidence that such a policy works. - See more at: George Osborne’s £10 billion a year tax giveaway to big companies
 
Isn't floristry the sort of thing that the 'history is worthless just like the rest of the humanities' brigade would prefer people to be studying?

I am fucking sick of the attitude that absolutely everyone in society is to blame for its ills with the exception of the only ones who directly benefit from and perpetuate those ills.
 
Nothing at all provided you don't want me to pay for it
Why are you up in arms about a tiny minority of courses in subjects you personally think are not worthwhile (although personally, I think that being qualified in floristry is about as commercially-focused as it comes) but you apparently don't give a damn that £4bn of your money every year has been given back to corporations, and that another £30bn is to be given back over the next six years?

Your contribution to vocational retail-orientated courses like floristry would be minute. Meanwhile, we're talking about your average share personally as a tax payer being in four figures to the big companies! (£30bn plus 5 years of £4bn = £50bn; there are less than 50m taxpayers). Why are you demonizing the individuals that are going to be supplying all the expertise for future business and yet are perfectly happy to hand those businesses your personal cold hard cash?
 
You unemployed, kid? Well, obviously you are, you need to finish school.
Unemployed school leaver? Well what did you expect, you didn't try hard enough and go to uni.
Uni graduate without a job? I bet you expect everything to be handed to you on a plate just because you went to uni, shouldn't have studied a mickey mouse subject should you?
 
I think this is where old Bazza goes quiet.
It frustrates me as somebody who has actually spent many years studying finance and who works as a financial analyst when people spout out old tired neoliberal shite that conforms to a populist Tory narrative but has no basis in actual data. And then they tell us that pigs might fly when we suggest that change is possible. As if their view of the world has come about from their own personal study rather than having been handed to them by the populist narrative of the day. As if they wouldn't have believed a totally different story had that been the prevailing wisdom.
 
Isn't floristry the sort of thing that the 'history is worthless just like the rest of the humanities' brigade would prefer people to be studying?

Probably. Higher Education can't win with those idiots. If it sticks to traditional academic subjects it's out of touch; if it tries to do something more vocational it's peddling 'Mickey Mouse degrees.' And either way it ends up on the receiving end of the argument that education is a private benefit and therefore the state shouldn't fund people's degrees, an argument as selfish as it is illiterate.
 
Probably. Higher Education can't win with those idiots. If it sticks to traditional academic subjects it's out of touch; if it tries to do something more vocational it's peddling 'Mickey Mouse degrees.' And either way it ends up on the receiving end of the argument that education is a private benefit and therefore the state shouldn't fund people's degrees, an argument as selfish as it is illiterate.
Indeed. And the tendency of institutions to offer degree courses for occupations like this will thrive now that financial capital have harnessed the debt farm of tuition/maintenance loans. It's like private taxation for the right to learn a trade...neo-liberal genius.
 
Oh dear.
What sort of a person would confuse the entire discipline of floristry/design with the topic of flower arranging.
Come on Brogdale. Obviously there's more to floristry than just arranging the flowers but that's the post of a man/woman backed into a corner. Just admit you were wrong and move on.
 
a stupid person, that's who
Careful now.
They'll be along citing "..untrammelled moral superiority.." and using the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play to..."once again trammel[led] with reference to fact."
:D
 
Back
Top Bottom