Tory mindset

[Brainwrong]

Up until today, I've been having pretty light-hearted banter with a Tory colleague. But then, all that changed. And all it was was a wee funny meme I sent regarding the current Cameron debacle.

View attachment 5808

Response from Tory:

MAN DOES LEGAL THING.

Move on...


Then, a fair amount of back & forth with another colleague via group chat that seemed a bit touchy if you ask me, so, I just say;

It was a bit of fun guys. But, to be honest, if not paying any tax is your thing, fill your boots. Mind and pay for everything though, when it suits you, like, schools, GPs, hospital visits, all that needless stuff that doesn't matter when you don't need itspecfically yourself n stuff ;)


Then I get this beauty:

Dear K - I pay for your kids education.
More gratitude please.
Thanks
C



So, I respond;

Dear C

If I weren't having kids there would be no next generation workforce so dinnae even try that one.



To which he goes;


Dear K

Re your dumb response. You're over supplying the future workforce with a small army of ankle biters whose education I'm paying for.

Best wishes

C x


So, I say,

Ha! Your usual play the man not the ball, C. You're often the most patronising person I've met when it comes to economics, something I refrain from because it's not even vaguely constructive but if you have no idea how the workforce works then I actually understand why you don't see the need to pay taxes. It all makes sense now.

His response:


I'm going to be the better person and rise above that.

Me:

You lowered it yourself with your previous text. Get over yourself.

Him: [Silence].

So, the reason I posted this was not, as you might think, self aggrandisement, I'm posting this because...

1. Are there any Torys on here that can explain how they reckon he thinks the workforce works?
2. Is there another way that the workforce works other than the next generation being saddled with the previous generation's care?
3. Is there such a thing as a Tory Hibby? I suppose the chances are there as we al know there are HibbyHuns which also seems at odd with my perception of our demographic.

Oh, and said Tory is gay and has made it abundantly clear he resents paying for other people's children's education. Fuckin' walloper.

Thoughts?

 

[Kenny]

Up until today, I've been having pretty light-hearted banter with a Tory colleague. But then, all that changed. And all it was was a wee funny meme I sent regarding the current Cameron debacle.

View attachment 5808

Response from Tory:

MAN DOES LEGAL THING.

Move on...

Then, a fair amount of back & forth with another colleague via group chat that seemed a bit touchy if you ask me, so, I just say;

It was a bit of fun guys. But, to be honest, if not paying any tax is your thing, fill your boots. Mind and pay for everything though, when it suits you, like, schools, GPs, hospital visits, all that needless stuff that doesn't matter when you don't need itspecfically yourself n stuff ;)

Then I get this beauty:

Dear K - I pay for your kids education.
More gratitude please.
Thanks
C

So, I respond;

Dear C

If I weren't having kids there would be no next generation workforce so dinnae even try that one.

To which he goes;

Dear K

Re your dumb response. You're over supplying the future workforce with a small army of ankle biters whose education I'm paying for.

Best wishes

C x

So, I say,

Ha! Your usual play the man not the ball, C. You're often the most patronising person I've met when it comes to economics, something I refrain from because it's not even vaguely constructive but if you have no idea how the workforce works then I actually understand why you don't see the need to pay taxes. It all makes sense now.

His response:

I'm going to be the better person and rise above that.

Me:

You lowered it yourself with your previous text. Get over yourself.

Him: [Silence].

So, the reason I posted this was not, as you might think, self aggrandisement, I'm posting this because...

1. Are there any Torys on here that can explain how they reckon he thinks the workforce works?
2. Is there another way that the workforce works other than the next generation being saddled with the previous generation's care?
3. Is there such a thing as a Tory Hibby? I suppose the chances are there as we al know there are HibbyHuns which also seems at odd with my perception of our demographic.

Oh, and said Tory is gay and has made it abundantly clear he resents paying for other people's children's education. $#@!in' walloper.

Thoughts?

good meme, shite pal ....as he says ...."move on."...ie dont worry yourself with his thoughts

 

[SKII]

He's not paying for your children's education. He is paying back into the system for his own. We all do when we become adults and start paying taxes.
Unless of course he went to Eton

 

[Braehead Cabbage]

Up until today, I've been having pretty light-hearted banter with a Tory colleague. But then, all that changed. And all it was was a wee funny meme I sent regarding the current Cameron debacle.

View attachment 5808

Response from Tory:

MAN DOES LEGAL THING.

Move on...

Then, a fair amount of back & forth with another colleague via group chat that seemed a bit touchy if you ask me, so, I just say;

It was a bit of fun guys. But, to be honest, if not paying any tax is your thing, fill your boots. Mind and pay for everything though, when it suits you, like, schools, GPs, hospital visits, all that needless stuff that doesn't matter when you don't need itspecfically yourself n stuff ;)

Then I get this beauty:

Dear K - I pay for your kids education.
More gratitude please.
Thanks
C

So, I respond;

Dear C

If I weren't having kids there would be no next generation workforce so dinnae even try that one.

To which he goes;

Dear K

Re your dumb response. You're over supplying the future workforce with a small army of ankle biters whose education I'm paying for.

Best wishes

C x

So, I say,

Ha! Your usual play the man not the ball, C. You're often the most patronising person I've met when it comes to economics, something I refrain from because it's not even vaguely constructive but if you have no idea how the workforce works then I actually understand why you don't see the need to pay taxes. It all makes sense now.

His response:

I'm going to be the better person and rise above that.

Me:

You lowered it yourself with your previous text. Get over yourself.

Him: [Silence].

So, the reason I posted this was not, as you might think, self aggrandisement, I'm posting this because...

1. Are there any Torys on here that can explain how they reckon he thinks the workforce works?
2. Is there another way that the workforce works other than the next generation being saddled with the previous generation's care?
3. Is there such a thing as a Tory Hibby? I suppose the chances are there as we al know there are HibbyHuns which also seems at odd with my perception of our demographic.

Oh, and said Tory is gay and has made it abundantly clear he resents paying for other people's children's education. $#@!in' walloper.

Thoughts?

Being scottish and or a hibby should preclude you from being a Rory on moral grounds.

Will anybody out themselves?

And no [MENTION=2693]Smurf[/MENTION] doesn't count☺

 

[Brainwrong]

He's not paying for your children's education. He is paying back into the system for his own. We all do when we become adults and start paying taxes.
Unless of course he went to Eton

Well, perhaps you've hit the nail on the head there; he went to Daniel Stewarts. Or Stewarts Melville or whatever it's called now.

 

[egb_hibs]

His attitude is much much more resembling of metro liberalism than Toryism I'd have thought . This attitude is all over he guardian and correlative seem to me to be identity politics, atheism and social liberalism more than party politics though I'd expect to find it most among labour and green voters.

Second point - you are right: welfare demands ever expanding population which makes the previous especially nuts.

Third point - of course there will be Tory hibbys - pretty much in proportion with the general population.

 

[MixuDave]

How does he reckon he's paying for your kids education when he isnae paying tax, or have I missed something???????

 

[aggie]

How does he reckon he's paying for your kids education when he isnae paying tax, or have I missed something???????

I reckon he meant he does pay tax but has nae kids, therefore he is "paying for everyone else's". Or at least that's how I read it.

 

[Brainwrong]

I reckon he meant he does pay tax but has nae kids, therefore he is "paying for everyone else's". Or at least that's how I read it.

Yep, bang on.


Fair amount of turbulence.

 

[egb_hibs]

[MENTION=1429]Brainwrong[/MENTION] - you missed the uncharitable but true reply that your above average number of kids compensates for the non fecund like himself, who are enabled by the welfare system (and second dig to a Tory of his sort).

- - - Updated - - -

I reckon he meant he does pay tax but has nae kids, therefore he is "paying for everyone else's". Or at least that's how I read it.

Until he is paying 40k per year additional tax to pay for the kids he's not having then is he feck. Even then that's only compensating for the overhead of maintaining the system - no pile of cash is going to wipe his arse or plug in his catheter when the time comes.

 

[Brainwrong]

His attitude is much much more resembling of metro liberalism than Toryism I'd have thought . This attitude is all over he guardian and correlative seem to me to be identity politics, atheism and social liberalism more than party politics though I'd expect to find it most among labour and green voters.

Second point - you are right: welfare demands ever expanding population which makes the previous especially nuts.

Third point - of course there will be Tory hibbys - pretty much in proportion with the general population.

He's a self identified 'Compassionate Conservative' (his words) which seems like a fuckin oxymoron to me.

I've always found his flavour of self interested politics to be absent from the guardian demographic. More lefties than righties if you ask me.

Edit; re colleratives; the only one he's not got out of those three is the Identity Politics.


Fair amount of turbulence.

 

[MixuDave]

I reckon he meant he does pay tax but has nae kids, therefore he is "paying for everyone else's". Or at least that's how I read it.

So no sure why the OP is about not paying taxes? But anyhoo, all tories are ****s, thought everyone knew that already?

 

[Brainwrong]

So no sure why the OP is about not paying taxes? But anyhoo, all tories are ****s, thought everyone knew that already?

He was saying there was nowt wrong with what Cameron Sr / Jr did (and plenty others). He's always bemoaning 'paying for other people'. So, I extrapolated that to mean he'd be far happier paying no tax at all.

I've met a couple of sound Tories. And I've fuckin' tried to like this guy but, he keep acting the ****. So, I may as well not have bothered. Histrionic prick.


Fair amount of turbulence.

 

[HenryLB]

The thing is, I don't think that you're having a discussion by the stage you're at, just knocking lumps out of each other, so I don't think the exchange bears that much analysis if I'm honest. He does sound like a bit of a tosser.

I can't think he actually believes the stuff he says about children, education and the workforce. He's just trying to be personal and snippy. If he does believe it then he's a fool - quite obviously education carries a societal good and one that tangentially benefits him even if he doesn't have kids. Which his sexuality is irrelevant to anyway.

 

[southfieldhibby]

You exchange messages with David Coburn? That's proper weird Kris.

 

[Brainwrong]

The thing is, I don't think that you're having a discussion by the stage you're at, just knocking lumps out of each other, so I don't think the exchange bears that much analysis if I'm honest. He does sound like a bit of a tosser.

I can't think he actually believes the stuff he says about children, education and the workforce. He's just trying to be personal and snippy. If he does believe it then he's a fool - quite obviously education carries a societal good and one that tangentially benefits him even if he doesn't have kids. Which his sexuality is irrelevant to anyway.

Agreed re the level it's at. I've tried really hard to keep it lighthearted without any ad hominem shit from my side but, he invariably goes down that route (when he thinks he's losing).

I think there's a good guy in there, that's why I try to gently let him see the other side of the coin rather than batter him with vitriolic incredulity that I can't say isn't bubbling under my surface.

I really thought better of him, that he truly was saying he believed he was a Compassionate Conservative, and, that being the case then yeah, it's probably a cheap shot (re my kids) to kill the argument or make me go tonto and allow him to win on 'me being a Fanny' grounds.

I think that's key, key to him getting it. He's used that same argument re education so many times that I don't think he's joking.

I could just as easily say 'when you get AIDS, I'll really resent paying for your treatment. You know, because, YOU put yourself at risk, your lifestyle choices are nothing to do with me.'

Bit of amateur psychology but, I think he resents the ease with which a hetro man can have kids whereas he'd have to jump through hoops (excuse the pun) for years to have kids. Just a suspicion of mine from the stuff he's said. So, he lashes out at me.


Fair amount of turbulence.

 

[Brainwrong]

@Brainwrong - you missed the uncharitable but true reply that your above average number of kids compensates for the non fecund like himself, who are enabled by the welfare system (and second dig to a Tory of his sort).

- - - Updated - - -


Until he is paying 40k per year additional tax to pay for the kids he's not having then is he feck. Even then that's only compensating for the overhead of maintaining the system - no pile of cash is going to wipe his arse or plug in his catheter when the time comes.

The hilarity of it all is he's an IT contractor like me, and studiously avoids paying tax. Used to use one of those off shore umbrellas where you get pretty much 95% of your cash back in loans. He's paying less than fuck all into a system he'll expect to help him when he's in dire straights be it, fire, health or just generally nice bloody society & culture to live in.

 

[egb_hibs]

The hilarity of it all is he's an IT contractor like me, and studiously avoids paying tax. Used to use one of those off shore umbrellas where you get pretty much 95% of your cash back in loans. He's paying less than $#@! all into a system he'll expect to help him when he's in dire straights be it, fire, health or just generally nice bloody society & culture to live in.

Sounds like your archetypal metro liberal - he may be a tory, but he sounds like the kind of voter new labour was designed for, and that the tories have gone social liberal for. I wouldn't class him as evoking a tory mindset in particular though as I'd have thought they'd retain the highest number of pundits against this sort of thing. Far more labour / lib dem / green ideology to preference the swinging childless liberal hipster - despite Dave and Dode's Notting Hill mores.

 

[jock3]

Surely there can't be many Tory Hibees?

I think we over analyse Bouncers; the Tories are liars, in the pockets of big business, detest the working class, don't give a sh*t about UK industry, condone tax evasion and are generally all horrible.... end of....

 

[Brainwrong]

Sounds like your archetypal metro liberal - he may be a tory, but he sounds like the kind of voter new labour was designed for, and that the tories have gone social liberal for. I wouldn't class him as evoking a tory mindset in particular though as I'd have thought they'd retain the highest number of pundits against this sort of thing. Far more labour / lib dem / green ideology to preference the swinging childless liberal hipster - despite Dave and Dode's Notting Hill mores.

I see where you're going with the metro liberal / nu-Labour thing now. But, I really think that he thinks he's a tory, and, Blairites thought they were this trail blazing turd way, social-capitalism or whatever (dunno if that's a term at all). Your pointing out the nuances of peoples' political mindset that they don't even know themselves.

The Tory's I've met, that have been sound, are old skool. They genuinely believed their way was for the benefit of all, well, some of them did. I'm no Tory apologist but, it's teenage to thing they're all truly evil ****s.

 

[Dub]

Surely there can't be many Tory Hibees?

I think we over analyse Bouncers; the Tories are liars, in the pockets of big business, detest the working class, don't give a sh*t about UK industry, condone tax evasion and are generally all horrible.... end of....

That's the party and of course I agree with you but Tory supporters can't all be classified thus.

End [as you say] of

 

[egb_hibs]

I see where you're going with the metro liberal / nu-Labour thing now. But, I really think that he thinks he's a tory, and, Blairites thought they were this trail blazing turd way, social-capitalism or whatever (dunno if that's a term at all). Your pointing out the nuances of peoples' political mindset that they don't even know themselves.

The Tory's I've met, that have been sound, are old skool. They genuinely believed their way was for the benefit of all, well, some of them did. I'm no Tory apologist but, it's teenage to thing they're all truly evil ****s.

I'm not saying he isn't a tory - sounds like the notting hill model. I'm just saying I don't think those values evoke the tories as much as the others.

 

[Brainwrong]

I'm not saying he isn't a tory - sounds like the notting hill model. I'm just saying I don't think those values evoke the tories as much as the others.

Yep, and I just pretty much got what you were saying, finally, in my last post.

I reckon they only evoke the other more to you because you see the hypocrisies within the others and you also enjoy pointing peoples' inconsistencies out!

You see, there were millions of people that weren't that target demographic in '97 and, saying any Labour supporters are more Tory than Torys is a bit of a culture shock. That's how I view it anyway.

 

[beefy]

Agreed re the level it's at. I've tried really hard to keep it lighthearted without any ad hominem shit from my side but, he invariably goes down that route (when he thinks he's losing).

I think there's a good guy in there, that's why I try to gently let him see the other side of the coin rather than batter him with vitriolic incredulity that I can't say isn't bubbling under my surface.

I really thought better of him, that he truly was saying he believed he was a Compassionate Conservative, and, that being the case then yeah, it's probably a cheap shot (re my kids) to kill the argument or make me go tonto and allow him to win on 'me being a Fanny' grounds.

I think that's key, key to him getting it. He's used that same argument re education so many times that I don't think he's joking.

I could just as easily say 'when you get AIDS, I'll really resent paying for your treatment. You know, because, YOU put yourself at risk, your lifestyle choices are nothing to do with me.'

Bit of amateur psychology but, I think he resents the ease with which a hetro man can have kids whereas he'd have to jump through hoops (excuse the pun) for years to have kids. Just a suspicion of mine from the stuff he's said. So, he lashes out at me.


Fair amount of turbulence.

Please please please say this to him :dub:

 

[Brainwrong]

Please please please say this to him :dub:

I think that's one of the reasons he's pissed off with me. He'd made the comment about 'other peoples' childrens' educations' one time too many, whilst we were chatting to our colleagues (a few months ago) about tax / politics etc. I made the statement in a general sense to the group, without directing it at him, I just said 'You may as well say, people who live lives that put themselves at higher risk of contracting life threatening diseases, like AIDS for example, why should we pay for them?', never hear a peep out of him for about a week.

Obviously, I was talking about drug users...

 

[egb_hibs]

I think that's one of the reasons he's pissed off with me. He'd made the comment about 'other peoples' childrens' educations' one time too many, whilst we were chatting to our colleagues (a few months ago) about tax / politics etc. I made the statement in a general sense to the group, without directing it at him, I just said 'You may as well say, people who live lives that put themselves at higher risk of contracting life threatening diseases, like AIDS for example, why should we pay for them?', never hear a peep out of him for about a week.

Obviously, I was talking about drug users...

You could take it back to basics; before the development of the welfare state, or other advanced capitalist equivalents, people needed to produce lots of their own children to provide for them in later life. This remains the case the world over where such arrangements are not in place.

You could point out that this, and only this, allows people to be childless by choice, and a by product of this is that it has enabled homosexuality to become socially acceptable, in a way that it is not where society depends immediately, directly and urgently on fecundity.

You could point out that the system appears to be killing itself - having enabled a footloose and fancy free metro liberal ideology to emerge, which prizes a selfish childless society and penalises the production of other people's children, on whom their freedoms depend.

You could point out that the result is not enough children, and so a rapidly approaching end to the arrangements he finds so convivial - we are hurtling to a point where society will need to reverse it's views on things or die, in which case he might find the peachy climate of the moment to be fleeting.

Alternatively we will need to import lots more people from more fecund cultures, which will not be too promising for his lifestyle either - at which point he may find that atomised social liberalism with no bonds, and no obligations, will sell you out in a minute - as the continent's jews, feminists, and increasingly homosexuals are finding.


For light relief, and if he is serious about his toryism, you could ask him where in conservative tradition does he find his political roots? His worldview appears to be anathema to Edmund Burke's - the godfather of modern liberal conservatisms - view of politics and society as a contract between the living, the dead and the yet to be born. You could point out how indistinguishable it appears to be from the grasping maw and self centredness of lefty identity politics, and the opposition to the family in order to undermine free society and individual freedom that has always been integral to traditional marxism.


If on the other hand he is a liberal who goes tory for economic as well as social liberalism, you'll be left with his self interest - point him to Trevor Phillips programme this wednesday night on C4, and ask him how he thinks his long term future looks...

 

[aggie]

You could take it back to basics; before the development of the welfare state, or other advanced capitalist equivalents, people needed to produce lots of their own children to provide for them in later life. This remains the case the world over where such arrangements are not in place.

You could point out that this, and only this, allows people to be childless by choice, and a by product of this is that it has enabled homosexuality to become socially acceptable, in a way that it is not where society depends immediately, directly and urgently on fecundity.

You could point out that the system appears to be killing itself - having enabled a footloose and fancy free metro liberal ideology to emerge, which prizes a selfish childless society and penalises the production of other people's children, on whom their freedoms depend.

You could point out that the result is not enough children, and so a rapidly approaching end to the arrangements he finds so convivial - we are hurtling to a point where society will need to reverse it's views on things or die, in which case he might find the peachy climate of the moment to be fleeting.

Alternatively we will need to import lots more people from more fecund cultures, which will not be too promising for his lifestyle either - at which point he may find that atomised social liberalism with no bonds, and no obligations, will sell you out in a minute - as the continent's jews, feminists, and increasingly homosexuals are finding.


For light relief, and if he is serious about his toryism, you could ask him where in conservative tradition does he find his political roots? His worldview appears to be anathema to Edmund Burke's - the godfather of modern liberal conservatisms - view of politics and society as a contract between the living, the dead and the yet to be born. You could point out how indistinguishable it appears to be from the grasping maw and self centredness of lefty identity politics, and the opposition to the family in order to undermine free society and individual freedom that has always been integral to traditional marxism.


If on the other hand he is a liberal who goes tory for economic as well as social liberalism, you'll be left with his self interest - point him to Trevor Phillips programme this wednesday night on C4, and ask him how he thinks his long term future looks...

Please please please say this to him [emoji1]

 

[Brainwrong]

You could take it back to basics; before the development of the welfare state, or other advanced capitalist equivalents, people needed to produce lots of their own children to provide for them in later life. This remains the case the world over where such arrangements are not in place.

You could point out that this, and only this, allows people to be childless by choice, and a by product of this is that it has enabled homosexuality to become socially acceptable, in a way that it is not where society depends immediately, directly and urgently on fecundity.

You could point out that the system appears to be killing itself - having enabled a footloose and fancy free metro liberal ideology to emerge, which prizes a selfish childless society and penalises the production of other people's children, on whom their freedoms depend.

You could point out that the result is not enough children, and so a rapidly approaching end to the arrangements he finds so convivial - we are hurtling to a point where society will need to reverse it's views on things or die, in which case he might find the peachy climate of the moment to be fleeting.

Alternatively we will need to import lots more people from more fecund cultures, which will not be too promising for his lifestyle either - at which point he may find that atomised social liberalism with no bonds, and no obligations, will sell you out in a minute - as the continent's jews, feminists, and increasingly homosexuals are finding.


For light relief, and if he is serious about his toryism, you could ask him where in conservative tradition does he find his political roots? His worldview appears to be anathema to Edmund Burke's - the godfather of modern liberal conservatisms - view of politics and society as a contract between the living, the dead and the yet to be born. You could point out how indistinguishable it appears to be from the grasping maw and self centredness of lefty identity politics, and the opposition to the family in order to undermine free society and individual freedom that has always been integral to traditional marxism.


If on the other hand he is a liberal who goes tory for economic as well as social liberalism, you'll be left with his self interest - point him to Trevor Phillips programme this wednesday night on C4, and ask him how he thinks his long term future looks...

I don't have the confidence in the threads therein to pull that one off in totality. But, you've given a truly excellent summation and some brilliant point to get me on the right course.


Fair amount of turbulence.

 

[Doc Shrink]

I don't have the confidence in the threads therein to pull that one off in totality. But, you've given a truly excellent summation and some brilliant point to get me on the right course.


Fair amount of turbulence.

Here's my tip:

Rather than try and put EGB's many valid points into a concise message, or indeed summarise some of the other excellent messages given above, sometimes the use of email or text can be misunderstood or at best lose the emphasis that is intended.
In order to ensure that there is no misunderstanding, consider abandoning your exchange via text and simply punch the fcuker's lights oot.

 

[Brainwrong]

Here's my tip:

Rather than try and put EGB's many valid points into a concise message, or indeed summarise some of the other excellent messages given above, sometimes the use of email or text can be misunderstood or at best lose the emphasis that is intended.
In order to ensure that there is no misunderstanding, consider abandoning your exchange via text and simply punch the fcuker's lights oot.

I've been accused now of being no better than my tax resenting colleague for, wait for it...


Putting my monthly bus pass through my company...

'...you use that at the weekend too!...'


Fair amount of turbulence.

 

[emerald green]

Here's my tip:

Rather than try and put EGB's many valid points into a concise message, or indeed summarise some of the other excellent messages given above, sometimes the use of email or text can be misunderstood or at best lose the emphasis that is intended.
In order to ensure that there is no misunderstanding, consider abandoning your exchange via text and simply punch the fcuker's lights oot.

thats the bounce right there ya radge

 

[HenryLB]

I've been accused now of being no better than my tax resenting colleague for, wait for it...


Putting my monthly bus pass through my company...

'...you use that at the weekend too!...'


Fair amount of turbulence.

While I wouldn't suggest they were equivalent, I think if you were being 100% correct you do need to not claim relief on the portion you use for 'leisure' travel and trips between home and workplace.

 

[Brainwrong]

While I wouldn't suggest they were equivalent, I think if you were being 100% correct you do need to not claim relief on the portion you use for 'leisure' travel and trips between home and workplace.

You're right, they're right, and, I'm not saying I'm Jeremy Corbin, principles and concepts are really what're being contested. Willingness to chip in.

And, as I always say, we all have levels at which things become unacceptable.

My mrs says the Grand National is horrific. But she'll happily eat a steak. Utter hypocrisy in my mind. But, I bite my tongue. What's the point.

If I compare paying oneself minimum wage in an entirely legal tax evasion scheme and active hatred of bettering society behind it, with me claiming £50 per month on a bus pass that I use for work every day, I don't feel very hypocritical. Not very hypocritical at all.

 

[HenryLB]

You're right, they're right, and, I'm not saying I'm Jeremy Corbin, principles and concepts are really what're being contested. Willingness to chip in.

And, as I always say, we all have levels at which things become unacceptable.

My mrs says the Grand National is horrific. But she'll happily eat a steak. Utter hypocrisy in my mind. But, I bite my tongue. What's the point.

If I compare paying oneself minimum wage in an entirely legal tax evasion scheme and active hatred of bettering society behind it, with me claiming £50 per month on a bus pass that I use for work every day, I don't feel very hypocritical. Not very hypocritical at all.

Sure, and I must stress that I'm really not having a go at you in any way. But IMO it's not fair to set one's own rules about what's acceptable and get annoyed when others do the same.

Tax evasion is also of course by definition illegal, tax avoidance not. So I don't know where his scheme lands and I certainly wouldn't defend it or the rather spiteful thinking behind it, but it can't be a legal evasion. A segment of your bus pass offsetting - while obviously very small in scale - would appear to be tax evasion.

 

[Brainwrong]

Sure, and I must stress that I'm really not having a go at you in any way. But IMO it's not fair to set one's own rules about what's acceptable and get annoyed when others do the same.

Tax evasion is also of course by definition illegal, tax avoidance not. So I don't know where his scheme lands and I certainly wouldn't defend it or the rather spiteful thinking behind it, but it can't be a legal evasion. A segment of your bus pass offsetting - while obviously very small in scale - would appear to be tax evasion.

Don't worry, man. Totally not taking it personally. I think you're right. But what I'd say is we're none of us whiter than white. Throughout this whole life, our entire existence, there are things we do that we make decisions on. Some of it is up for debate. Tax law isn't. I get that.

I'm also sorry, I always get avoidance and evasion mixed up. Avoidance sounds so much more clear cut to me. But, it's the one that's OK as far as the Notting Hill set / HMRC go. But evasion, which just sounds lore woolly to me, is the utterly illegal one.

This guy is practicing avoidance. But totally within the rules. So, the jokes on me, because, I could be getting twice the cash I get or thereabouts. If only I'd switch to (my perception of) the dark side.

I've never thought about the fact that my bus pass is there at the weekend because sometimes I do work the weekend, not often, I'll admit, but, it's seems perfectly valid to have it there. The pass would cost the same whether I used it or not. They don't have a tiered structure or indeed business bus passes. I could just pay in change every day though. That'd work.

So, evasion for what amounts to at most convenience, I think? I'm probably a Tory @@$@ then.


Fair amount of turbulence.

 

[egb_hibs]

I don't see how you are avoiding never mind evading tax.

You are - if I have envisaged your position correctly - allowed to purchase a bus pass from pre tax pounds because you use it for business.

And this you do; fulfilling the conditions under which this entitlement is extended to you.

Meanwhile it is no skin off LRTs nose who have been paid for your travel through the pass system they administer.

I am therefore not sure what tax is being swerved by you using your pass for other travel:

LRT have been paid for your travel at all times and will have paid whatever slice of tax they do on their income accordingly (if they do). You have met the conditions on purchase of your pass.

Where is the swerved tax? If you paid cash at the weekend LRT would have gained income they have no claim to under the conditions they sold you a pass, while as I've said, you've met the conditions under which you made that purchase.

 

[Smurf]

Surely there can't be many Tory Hibees?

I think we over analyse Bouncers; the Tories are liars, in the pockets of big business, detest the working class, don't give a sh*t about UK industry, condone tax evasion and are generally all horrible.... end of....

I know quite a few Hibby's that have voted Tory. They found that the Tories who apparently "detest" them were given the opportunity to buy their council house. The working class have always been aspirational. Just a pity the labour movement didn't catch on. To most hard working class folk I know they want to own their own home, have a nice car and go on holiday now and again. They know in a fucked up economy they can't have any of that.

 

[HenryLB]

Don't worry, man. Totally not taking it personally. I think you're right. But what I'd say is we're none of us whiter than white. Throughout this whole life, our entire existence, there are things we do that we make decisions on. Some of it is up for debate. Tax law isn't. I get that.

I'm also sorry, I always get avoidance and evasion mixed up. Avoidance sounds so much more clear cut to me. But, it's the one that's OK as far as the Notting Hill set / HMRC go. But evasion, which just sounds lore woolly to me, is the utterly illegal one.

This guy is practicing avoidance. But totally within the rules. So, the jokes on me, because, I could be getting twice the cash I get or thereabouts. If only I'd switch to (my perception of) the dark side.

I've never thought about the fact that my bus pass is there at the weekend because sometimes I do work the weekend, not often, I'll admit, but, it's seems perfectly valid to have it there. The pass would cost the same whether I used it or not. They don't have a tiered structure or indeed business bus passes. I could just pay in change every day though. That'd work.

So, evasion for what amounts to at most convenience, I think? I'm probably a Tory @@$@ then.


Fair amount of turbulence.

I agree (apart from the Tory bit!) It does throw up an interesting facet of this, which is that we all bring morality into it so stringently, but in fact it's all decided on pure legality. I'd argue your bus pass is much less immoral than your mate's stance, yet his is (presumably) the legal one. If they changed the rules tomorrow you could be the one acting whiter than white and him the dodgepot.

And yet we often act like often purely legal situations are intrinsically also part of a morally binding code. Obviously one should 'pay one's fair share', but when one gets into the detail it's often a bit more complicated.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't see how you are avoiding never mind evading tax.

You are - if I have envisaged your position correctly - allowed to purchase a bus pass from pre tax pounds because you use it for business.

And this you do; fulfilling the conditions under which this entitlement is extended to you.

Meanwhile it is no skin off LRTs nose who have been paid for your travel through the pass system they administer.

I am therefore not sure what tax is being swerved by you using your pass for other travel:

LRT have been paid for your travel at all times and will have paid whatever slice of tax they do on their income accordingly (if they do). You have met the conditions on purchase of your pass.

Where is the swerved tax? If you paid cash at the weekend LRT would have gained income they have no claim to under the conditions they sold you a pass, while as I've said, you've met the conditions under which you made that purchase.

I understood BW to mean that he was claiming his pass against tax, as a deductible. Technically - I believe - you are not supposed to do this at least in its entirety if you use it to travel to and from your workplace or for leisure purposes.

 

[Brainwrong]

I agree (apart from the Tory bit!) It does throw up an interesting facet of this, which is that we all bring morality into it so stringently, but in fact it's all decided on pure legality. I'd argue your bus pass is much less immoral than your mate's stance, yet his is (presumably) the legal one. If they changed the rules tomorrow you could be the one acting whiter than white and him the dodgepot.

And yet we often act like often purely legal situations are intrinsically also part of a morally binding code. Obviously one should 'pay one's fair share', but when one gets into the detail it's often a bit more complicated.

- - - Updated - - -



I understood BW to mean that he was claiming his pass against tax, as a deductible. Technically - I believe - you are not supposed to do this at least in its entirety if you use it to travel to and from your workplace or for leisure purposes.

Morality is definitely part of this and it's a major factor in why my colleague is so wound up as he sees me as judging him.

My other colleague can't believe that morality even comes into it. You look out for your own and pay as little as possible. That's his schtick.

I'm a freak here.

Re claiming expenses, I've found it pretty odd that some accountants will say, whap everything you can through and others will say, you can't do this, you can't do that, you must do this.

Now, in my experience, the former are old school but play by the rules and don't do dodgy loans or EBTs or offshore shit.

The latter are the crooks (in my moral code) that make sure that you do absolutely everything by the book to cover themselves but push the absolute limits of what's acceptable re tax.

That's my experience.



Fair amount of turbulence.

 

[egb_hibs]

[MENTION=498]HenryLB[/MENTION]

I understand your point H. My confusion lies in the fact that his deductibility requirements are met. Therefore - even just as a thought experiment - where are the hypothetical taxes being swerved? If there was a weekday only pass option available that would be one thing. As there is not and as LRT revenues / taxation is not being short changed - where is the missing tax ? Even if he tried, how could he pay it without LRT gaining revenues to which they are not entitled?