So the government should bail billionaires out.. that's what you are saying..
He can fund it.. just incorporate into his annual profit and losses across his while business estate..
Chinese "Devil Virus" - anyone worried?
- Thread starter manwithnoname
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
So the government should bail billionaires out.. that's what you are saying..
He can fund it.. just incorporate into his annual profit and losses across his while business estate..
I never said he would he fund it, I said he could fund it. His companies shouldn't be bailed out because he could afford to do it. It seems him and other billionaires would rather see people go poor than do that and use that to get free Government money.
It's not a bail out of his company. The company is not under any obligation to keep earning money quarter after quarter, it is free to shut down and do nothing. The only reason for it to operate is to make a profit (or in the case of young high growth companies, to chase the dream). Trump can just fire everyone, keep a few ground staff to maintain the value of the physical assets, and not have a care in the world.
The furlough makes zero difference to Trump. It is entirely to keep his staff in the job.
Delusional. When a company is no longer competitive, your socialist policy steps in to bail out a shit business because unions. Then a successful business that is temporarily shut down, your socialist hatred of their wealth means you refuse to bail them out, and they go ok fine, we'll shut down and fire everyone, no problem, no skin of my nose.
Do you get how that will result in an economy full of shit inefficient companies with no growth? Sort of like we have now.
No it isn't. It's to keep his business ticking over so it will be easier for it reopen when it is allowed to.
So what you are saying is instead of sucking up your pride and letting his business tick over for several months using money printed by your central bank, you'd prefer the majority of his staff to be laid off instead out of some sort of spite?
Or else you estimate the cost of keeping things ticking over for those months is cheaper than having no running costs, and then hiring new staff later down the line. If these were highly trained staff with hard to come by qualifications then maybe, but it's a god damn golf course. Hiring and firing them is an afternoon's work.
Ah yes - the banks were bailed out with public money because they were no longer competitive and wait, let’s see if I get this right, they were “a shit business because unions”.
I'd prefer he paid them because he can fucking afford to, rather than my tax money doing it. I want my tax money to help those who aren't doing well now, even in the case of companies taking Government grants/furloughs etc. but what I'm saying is he actually has the money to pay these staff for (and on the top golf course which his allegedly are there are a lot of qualified staff, so not as easy to rehire everybody) and if he used some of his billions to continue paying the staff for a bit, then Goverment money would go further somewhere else. It's the same with Richard Branson and Virgin. It was the same with our Lizards until the backlash forced them to change their minds.
Far be it from me to defend Donald Trump, but ultimately his companies that are based in the U.K. (which I doubt he ever really had much day-to-day involvement with, and certainly not now) are free to apply for government support the same as every other company is.
If we go down the route of looking at the wealth of people at the top of businesses and deciding who should be paying for what then it all gets a bit complicated, and ultimately no government can force any company to keep staff on.
Ultimately if we were to say that those working for these companies can’t be furloughed, it would the employees that suffer, not Trump.
If we go down the route of looking at the wealth of people at the top of businesses and deciding who should be paying for what then it all gets a bit complicated, and ultimately no government can force any company to keep staff on.
Ultimately if we were to say that those working for these companies can’t be furloughed, it would the employees that suffer, not Trump.
Spot on, aside from union pressure (stick), in their case it was through political "donations" (the carrot). The government being a stupid donkey in all cases.
Last edited:
They're a little different. Branson fled the country to avoid tax (quite correctly in my view), but that's why people were pissed about him asking for furlough funds. Our club were different because we continued to pay the millionaire footballers their full wage (evil cunt players in my view), which is why people were pissed off in that case. It's almost as if people just want something to be outraged about, myself included I guess.
People are aware of that but he reaps the rewards of these businesses in the good times, why can't those who run businesses use those insane profits to cover the bad times?
People were also pissed off with Branson because he's a billionaire who could have paid for it himself. Tax evasion is a cunt's trick. Tax is there to pay for essential services. Now fair enough you could have legitimate issues about Government wasting a lot of that money and they really do but if that's the reason to avoid tax you could funnel it into other areas or start a charity (a legitimate not bullshit one) and avoid tax that way while contributing something.
That's fair, but if you can just as easily pull the shutters down and sit on your hands in the bad times, then that's what you're going to do. Trump is in that boat. Branson not so much.
Ok, remember your argument above. When the business makes money, the government take 50% when you add all the employee contributions and income taxes up. When your business loses money, the government do nothing. So how come the government get to take all the reward for none of the risk?
If I have a good business that returns 20% on investment, then I end up with 10% after tax. Is that worth my while? I am risking going bust and losing it all, for a poxy 10%? I could make 10% with much less risk just by investing in bonds. So why would I ever set up a business under that tax system? Well two reasons (1) I bribe the government, so I have no risk of going bust because they'll cover it, or (2) I employ cheap labour overseas to increase my margins, or (3) some other uncapitalist bullshit scheme you can think of to game the system, which sometimes leads to industrial accidents where people die, and regulators cover it up. Tax rates should be set around 10%.
Just been reading about the second wave in Hokkaido Japan, got cases down to 1 or 2 a day, but didn't test extensively & track & trace, then the second wave hit & they're back in lockdown again.
Got to wonder if that will impact any potential reopening plans here.
Got to wonder if that will impact any potential reopening plans here.
Companies already avail of a number of tax loopholes and other ways to make their profits seems smaller to keep their tax bills low. No big company is paying 50% tax. You can't include income tax in that because total gross employee wages are included as a cost of business when calculating profits.
I agree, and in normal circumstances under more usual recessions or downturns they do, otherwise they close. But this is not being treated as a usual recession or downturn.
Public money will be spent supporting people anyway, either through benefits or through furlough schemes like this one. At least with this then companies will be expected to keep people on and start paying them properly when things improve.
How and when taxes are deducted is for accountants. What really matters is how much of the value you've created ends up in the pocket of owners/businesses, staff/consumers, and cunts/government. The companies that avoid tax are the ones that can afford to register in offshore tax havens, and subsidiaries dotted around the globe to shift profits around to the most optimal place, as well as having a chinese workforce. All things which wreck the economy where consumers actually live. If you are a smaller business, you have no real choice. To pay less tax then you'd to move to a country with dirt roads, no hospital, no police, and no life. What you'd like is a fair tax rate in exchange for a decent country, in other words 10%.
Word on the grapevine is they're asking around seeing if organisations will be ready to get back to normal 3rd week of May...
Apparently the 2019 UK national security risk assessment that warned the government that a pandemic was possible - likely even - and outlined mitigating strategies to deal with it, reckoned there would most likely be 3 waves, all lasting around 15 weeks each, with the peak coming around the 6th or 7th week of each wave:
https://www.scribd.com/document/457900683/Uknsra-Selected-Pages-Redacted
The WHO (not the band), just said there is no evidence whatsoever that having recovered from covid-19 you are then immune to getting it again.
Appaz there's some girl in Italy who's had it for 6 weeks and is still testing positive...
My understanding of that (and I admit I could be totally wrong AND overly optimistic) was that they are saying there is no evidence yet regarding THIS coronavirus, as it is still new. But there is evidence of all other coronaviruses leading to a level of immunity once someone has had it. The WHO (again, not the band) presumably can only deal in facts regarding this strain.
Would I hang my hat on this assumption? Probably not. But would I be looking to see tests on who has had it if and when they become available? Yes, for sure.
Super spreader. Lock her up on a little island like Typhoid Mary.
Yeah apparently they've rowed back from that statement. Most scientists seem to think there'll be at least some form of immunity, because that's how you recover in the first place.
There was a dude who had SARS for 116 days
And the cunt is still alive.
The stuff at the top of the tree for sure. That stuff hanging low is where the hard work is.