UKUncut are seriously stupid, aren’t they?

 

Dear Lord are they stupid.

23 thoughts on “UKUncut are seriously stupid, aren’t they?”

  1. Philip

    Stupidity is no excuse.

    Dangerous (if ignorant) and malicious (if not) are the words. I cannot believe how so many people are so removed from where their wealth (collective not individual) has come from and why they are so hell-bent on destroying it.

    The UK has become a nation half-full of wailing, dependent, self-entitled, ignorant economic culture destroyers.

  2. They’re not stupid, any more than Goebbels, or Ehrenberg, or any of the other great propagandists. It’s about what people believe, not what’s true.

  3. The value of Vodaphone is about £100bn.

    Can anyone explain to me why they are not forced to pay £100bn in UK corporation tax (and maybe £110bn as a penalty for all the tax avoidance they have engaged in over the years), as the UK is where they run their business?

    That seems fair.

  4. It’s the narrative. UKUncut have to keep on top of the story about tax avoidance being a dodgy act even if it’s legal as they have to keep feeding their sheep. The sheep must not be allowed a single chance to see any chink in the narrative otherwise they might start to think the whole think was a facade – which it is.

    So UKUncut are not stupid. They are being smart, and duplicitous and evil and dangerous, in order to keep pulling the wool over their sheep’s eyes.

  5. @ Brave Fart

    I think you just nailed it, though the penalty should probably be nearer £20bn.

    Then and add another £10bn for interest and say another £20bn for acting immorally, let’s call it £150bn in total.

    I think that would be fair?

    Though we should check with Richard in case we missed something.

  6. @Brave fart
    So… according to your own numbers, Vodafone should pay over its entire value in tax and then find some way of paying a penalty on top of that. That’s moronic.

    Even if it could pay over its entire value (assuming it could liquidate fixed assets) it would then having nothing with which to secure the funds to pay your proposed penalty and would cease to exist.

    It might seem fair to you, but it’s clearly impossible to me.

  7. @Emil

    I hope we never go the way of the US where dumbed down sarc tags start to become the norm.

    GT – you were sleeping 🙂

  8. Not sure it’s irony, Emil, would suggest satire or ridicule would suit better, but whatever it is, it’s as plane as the penis on Geoff’s forehead that it wasn’t a serious suggestion.

  9. BraveFart asks “Can anyone explain to me why they are not forced to pay £100bn in UK corporation tax (and maybe £110bn as a penalty for all the tax avoidance they have engaged in over the years), as the UK is where they run their business?”

    Well, here’s the answer: Tax avoidance is legal. LEGAL. Tax avoidance is – and pay attention here because this is the important part – the act or acts of minimizing taxation by any or all means LEGALLY available to the taxpayer.

    The last time I checked, the vast majority of governments out there tend to encourage tax compliance (at least in theory) amongst their citizenry, rather than penalize it.

    I’d suggest that before you start asking questions about taxation, you spend a bit of time and effort coming to grips with its most basic concepts. Helps keep one from coming across as an ass.

  10. Even if it could pay over its entire value (assuming it could liquidate fixed assets) it would then having nothing with which to secure the funds to pay your proposed penalty and would cease to exist.

    If it can’t pay 100% tax and the penalty, clearly it isn’t a viable business and doesn’t deserve to exist.

  11. Oh dear, Dennis, had you read the entire thread you might have avoided making a complete arse of yourself. That said, none but the utterly witless could construe Bravefart’s comment as serious so may be you were always doomed to reveal your absence of wits.

  12. I don’t know if it is a logical step to assume that Bravefart’s comment was irony/sarcastic. What with many other bloggers making comments of a similar tone it’s easy to get confused and assume that it was a follower of another blog commenting in all seriousness. #raggingonritchie

  13. DocBud –

    I am well aware that BF’s question was dripping sarcasm. I am also well aware that he isn’t a twit. But you just cannot do that sort of thing at a site like Tim’s. This site is crawling (literally) with Murphyites like Arnald. They are not only ignorant of tax law, they are quite immune to sarcasm.

    So when one posts the sort of question BF did, you have to assume that there are quite a few nitwits (like Arnald) out there who are (a) not going to understand it’s irony/sarcasm, and (b) are going to assume that because no one has answered BF’s question in terms they can understand, the question is one that requires serious consideration. They’re sitting at their computer asking, “Yeah, why doesn’t the govt. tax all the 100m and fine ’em 20m? That would be SOCIAL JUSTICE!”

    My comment wasn’t aimed at BF, it was aimed at those who don’t get the irony, and those who miss the sarcasm.

    Remember, for every WGCE like Arnald, there are about 100 WGCEs like Arnald who read but don’t post here. Asking them to come to grips with reality is hard enough, let alone asking them to come to grips with it using moderately sophisticated tools like sarcasm and irony.

    The last thing you want to do is hand an 8 year old the keys to your car. You need to keep this simple. That was where I was coming from.

  14. Then and add another £10bn for interest and say another £20bn for acting immorally, let’s call it £150bn in total.

    I think that would be fair?

    Candidly, that calculation is correct. Did you steal it from me? Anyway, it’s what I’d expect any right-thinking person to conclude. Right thinking people include union leaders, Labour politicians, anyone from the TJN, and Guardian columnists.

  15. Must admit, I thought BF’s comment was serious. He/she did ask, “Can anyone explain to me…?”

    A sarcastic/ironic/whatever way to put it would have been just to state it as a suggestion and then perhaps add a little smiley face at the end.

    Like this 🙂

  16. What utter bollocks, Dennis. Your plea to being “well aware that BF’s question was dripping sarcasm” doesn’t sit well with your sign off:

    “I’d suggest that before you start asking questions about taxation, you spend a bit of time and effort coming to grips with its most basic concepts. Helps keep one from coming across as an ass.”

    The rest of your explanation is weak in the extreme. Your original comment was more likely to create serious discussion of BraveFart’s suggestion than head it off and far from likely to have BraveFart feeling suitably chastised for posting satire without due care and attention.

    @Geoff Credit to you for coming back and holding your hands up, I withdraw my unkind assertion as to forehead appendages.

    @Anthem See comment by PF.

  17. Dennis, I realise that as a peasant you don’t do much more than eat turnips and shovel shit, but there are times when it is best to stop digging.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *