I can understand how Johnson might be afraid of Channel 4 after they not only caught him lying on camera but also called him out for doing so. Liars like Johnson hate/fear getting exposed.
I can understand how Johnson might be afraid of Channel 4 after they not only caught him lying on camera but also called him out for doing so. Liars like Johnson hate/fear getting exposed.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Yes Channel 4 have a long history of anti-Tory bias and being unprofessional I completely agree.
Rather than "you know nothing Jon Snow", we have on Channel 4 Jon "Fuck the Tories" Snow.
If the BBC's main journalist had been seen chanting "Fuck Labour" or "Fuck Corbyn" or "Fuck the socialists" then they would not have remained a BBC journalist. For a journalist which has a duty of impartiality that would be gross misconduct but for Channel 4 though Jon Snow going to a Corbyn rally and chanting "Fuck the Tories" is just another day in the office.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I have no objection to showing videos and letting the public decide.
That is not what I am referring to, the head of Channel 4 news has repeatedly called Johnson a liar. Everyone involved with Channel 4 news is very leftwing and open about it. In no professional media does someone go around chanting "Fuck the Tories" and continue to represent the Channel as an impartial "journalist". Channel 4 has about as much credibility for impartiality as Fox. Do you think its appropriate for an "impartial" journalist to be chanting "fuck the Tories" in public?
He has a demonstrably proven history of lying. He's been sacked twice for lying. When people don't trust you, because you lie, you find that they simply don't believe in "honest mistakes". His reputation and credibility are in tatters and he has only himself to blame. Well, him and the rest of the Tory party that enable him and his awful propaganda-slogan machine.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8929076.html
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...on-lying-media
Of course, Rand will now claim that all of those were just "honest mistakes".
At some point, Rand, when there's this much smoke, a fire becomes a certainty.
Edit: Hoo, this one's a doozy:
https://boris-johnson-lies.com/
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Randblade, post your fucking sources. It's basic courtesy.
I'm sick of spending hours trawling round the internet trying to find where the information you post comes from because literally any factual claim you post needs to be double checked.
I will reply to this once I have links for the factual claims presented.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I have also never been sacked for telling lies.
With De Pfeffel the lies start with his name, and so far it hasn't stopped. One has to wonder if the man is capable of saying anything that's true.
But we should not flatter ourselves to think that RandBlade can be convinced that staunchly supporting a pathological liar will only leave him in tears when it's too late to undo the damage.
Congratulations America
The thing about the whole Times thing was that he was then able to just walk straight into a job on the Telegraph, presumably because he knew Max Hastings. Can you imagine almost anyone else scoring a job at a major national newspaper with 'sacked for fabricating a quote while a graduate trainee' on their resume? Like, maybe if he was a long term employee with experience and a track record who just screwed up one time and their Times had to let him go, you could understand another national newspaper taking him on but a graduate with no journalism training or journalism degree who made up a quote inside his first year there? Fucker coasts through life on easy mode and everyone just makes an exception for him for no reason.
He can get his ass in front of Andrew Neil and get grilled like all the other party leaders, too.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I think you're missing a big part of the reason why dividends are taxed at a lower rate: far fewer people would own/start/invest in a business if their corporate earnings were taxed at the same rate as if they just worked for a big corporation.
When you invest there is a risk, but the upside of that risk is progress, goods and jobs for the wider society. Lower dividend rates put an incentive behind that risk, beyond just the issues of double-taxation.
This clown really is kind of a shithead:
http://archive.spectator.co.uk/artic...995/6/politics
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
People who start small businesses are generally not motivated primarily by money, since making as much money as you would have made if you'd just worked a regular job is extremely difficult and most small businesses fail before they ever get big enough to make anyone mega rich. I work for a small business that does a lot of business to business stuff, so I know a lot of those people as clients, none of them think like that.
Additionally, the benefits of salary vs dividend for small business owners are not that clear cut. For example, the personal allowance for income tax is far higher than for dividends, and dividends as a whole are not tax deductible so paying dividends leaves the business as a whole with a larger tax bill.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Indeed, people have all sorts of motivations for starting (or investing in) a business. But it would be a lot more difficult (and thus fewer would take the chance) if they paid both a corporate income tax and a high personal income tax on what is effectively business profits.
It takes 3 to 5 years for most businesses to start turning a profit for the government to even tax.
The owner will have been paying themselves a salary to live on during that time. Once they become profitable, assuming they want to be "tax efficient", they'll still pay themselves a salary because that £12,500 tax free personal allowance is just sitting there otherwise. They have another £2000 tax free of dividends. Under Labour, they will have to pay 20% on what's left over instead of 7%. But since the tax rate is just the same as income tax now they might as well just make the whole thing a salary, which the business is now no longer taxed on. Plus, I think there's other stuff they can do to be "tax efficient" - IDGAF, this policy isn't aimed at them.
This is not going to stop anyone started a business, it means they'll take home a bit less several years down the road. It means they will, in fact, pay the same tax rate their own employees do.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I also think it's amusing that anyone thinks most small business owners even know what dividends are when they're first deciding to start a business.
Hope is the denial of reality
There's are many reasons, another is that it encourages business owners to hold retained profits in the company rather than taking all the income out as salaries which can then be used to ensure the business is stable in the future or fund future growth - then that retained profit can be taken out as dividends in the future rather than taken out at the time the money was received. Its illegal to take dividends that are not from taxed profits.
The bizarre notion that you can take £40bn out of corporations per annum via increased taxation without impacting the economy or employment or wages can only be made by someone terminally stupid who has never ran a company.
It's marginally more sensible than thinking that Brexit hasn't and won't have a negative impact on the economy, or employment, or wages.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
That correlation between corporate tax and unemployment in full:
Source (US Data)
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Apples and oranges
American taxation system is completely different to ours and I believe but I'm sure someone else could better answer that it has all sorts of deductibles and exemptions and other stuff so that was never the rate paid. Also changes are normally sensibly made in a package of reforms that don't all go in the same direction - eg sensibly in my opinion lowering rates but removing exemptions, or vice-versa. All we have here is a shopping list of many taxes all going up while costs are put up too and this isn't supposed to have any knock on effect?
If you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you.