GD4ELI Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Try finding a British made TV, computer, stereo system, can of good lager, etc. For stereo start here: http://www.meridian-audio.com/ and there are plenty more companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 'Buy British' or 'Buy American' only works if there is something British or American to actually buy. Try finding a British made TV, computer, stereo system, can of good lager, etc. What exactly is a "can of good lager"? Bottled British ale is widely available (Manx and UK), and has the added advantage of having some flavour. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 Bottled British ale is widely available (Manx and UK), and has the added advantage of having some flavour. Apart from Guinness I much prefer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 'Buy British' or 'Buy American' only works if there is something British or American to actually buy. Try finding a British made TV, computer, stereo system, can of good lager, etc. What exactly is a "can of good lager"? Bottled British ale is widely available (Manx and UK), and has the added advantage of having some flavour. S I love hoppy ales from the South of England and malty Scottish heavies. Bushys make a very nice oyster stout, but we really should be making more speciality stouts and lagers here - because we have the perfect water for them. We should be encouraging them more. English lager is are never going to be the best because most of the water there is too hard, but on the other hand, English bitters/IPAs etc are sublime. Okells and Bushys have both got pretty close to replicating the traditional English bitter that the traditional English tourist was looking for all those years ago. As bitters go they are good - but I wish more people would ask for their other products and help them produce brews that suit our lovely soft water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theman Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 ha ha ha i've got 7 out of ten for the first time... but its on mf top ten post's right now.. sry you cant see it lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theman Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 lol it's 8.. it's that a mf recored????????? do i win a prize????????? ha ha ha lmao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 With all the worries about the EU and G20 etc cracking down on tax havens etc I think its important to recognise there are two issues here which can be conflated together unfairly. The first is tax evasion - I fully understand the rights of governments to tax their citizens and the law is the law. Trying to hide money away, or not declare it is a serious problem and I can understand Governments wanting to coordinate and work together to stop it. That involves transparency, tax treaty agreements etc. The second issue is the fact that neither people or companies are forced to be based in any particular jurisdiction. With company structures nowadays significant parts of an economy aren't based around physical assets or whatever - they are footloose organizations which invest/manage investments in physical assets - whether they are factories, research centres, property, ships or whatever. I believe that the choice of location for these types of activities is entirely down the owners and managers of these companies. I would presume these people would want to make sure they are based in lcoations with effective regulation, a well developed legal system etc. And yes the tax levels in the location is definitely a consideration. But I regard all these issues as totally legitimate business and political concerns and not something that the IOM or any other jurisdiction should be condemmed for pursuing. I have very little problem with the EU, G20, USA or whoever wanting to take action against tax evasion, but if they start to try and restrict the Island's ability to offer services to attract people involved in the second issue, then I totally and utterly disagree - the IOM is developing a legitimate nieche in a segment of the world economy and their is nothing wrong with attracting businesses involved in it. Certainly Tax policy is a part of it - and why shouldn't it be? But there is nothing immoral or wrong in creating a jurisdiction which manages the right hand side of the balance sheet - the financial assets - while due to its location it will be less involved in the right hand side concerning physical assets. We've a great little island, but lets be realistic - we aren't going to have car plants, mass tourism or fortune 500 research centres - the population is too small, transport links too difficult and the weather too variable to make that a realistic prospect. We can have successful physical industries, but they will be one part of the economy as will the sectors managing financial assets - whether its insurance companies, offshore banking, ship and aircraft registers or whatever. Doing these things doesn't make us a tax haven - and neither does having a tax, or a regulatory system which is simpler than elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 A sensible post, China. Yet again, the difficulty is in the imprecise definition of tax haven, which I do not think we are if the definition is to assist in tax evasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Certainly Tax policy is a part of it - and why shouldn't it be? But there is nothing immoral or wrong in creating a jurisdiction which manages the right hand side of the balance sheet - the financial assets - while due to its location it will be less involved in the right hand side concerning physical assets. We've a great little island, but lets be realistic - we aren't going to have car plants, mass tourism or fortune 500 research centres - the population is too small, transport links too difficult and the weather too variable to make that a realistic prospect. We can have successful physical industries, but they will be one part of the economy as will the sectors managing financial assets - whether its insurance companies, offshore banking, ship and aircraft registers or whatever. Doing these things doesn't make us a tax haven - and neither does having a tax, or a regulatory system which is simpler than elsewhere. Is there nothing immoral or wrong? It would seem to appear to be immoral if we believe that everyone in society has some form of responsibility to pay their fair share in taxes and contribute to society. But it seems the ability to avoid tax makes it seem less easy to assess what a fair share is. Nevertheless, it does appear that some have the capability to avoid their taxes and others do not. Is this not immoral or wrong? But I do think that tax avoidance is so commonplace and is not something that only a few Island's benefit from that it is hypocrisy to target the nations/regions that benefit from it most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 . Nevertheless, it does appear that some have the capability to avoid their taxes and others do not. Is this not immoral or wrong? nope its not, its perfectly fine in my book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 . Nevertheless, it does appear that some have the capability to avoid their taxes and others do not. Is this not immoral or wrong? nope its not, its perfectly fine in my book I think it is fine too if committing tax fraud is made far easier on the part of those on lesser wages, if it is at all possible. If both the rich and poorer can avoid tax it would seem a far more equal situation and I could not fault it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 . Nevertheless, it does appear that some have the capability to avoid their taxes and others do not. Is this not immoral or wrong? nope its not, its perfectly fine in my book I think it is fine too if committing tax fraud is made far easier on the part of those on lesser wages, if it is at all possible. If both the rich and poorer can avoid tax it would seem a far more equal situation and I could not fault it. who said anything about committing tax fraud, as long as its done legal then its not a problem, i avoid tax, cause i pay an accountent, thats his job to hide it lose it or what ever, as long as he saves me more than his costs then im happy, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 who said anything about committing tax fraud, as long as its done legal then its not a problem, i avoid tax, cause i pay an accountent, thats his job to hide it lose it or what ever, as long as he saves me more than his costs then im happy, Because it isn't that cheap that pay to an accountant. And it appears that the richer or more wealthy you are the larger the greater the ability to avoid tax and the greater the proportion of tax avoided. Am I wrong here? Just doesn't appear to be a fair system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 who said anything about committing tax fraud, as long as its done legal then its not a problem, i avoid tax, cause i pay an accountent, thats his job to hide it lose it or what ever, as long as he saves me more than his costs then im happy, Because it isn't that cheap that pay to an accountant. And it appears that the richer or more wealthy you are the larger the greater the ability to avoid tax and the greater the proportion of tax avoided. Am I wrong here? Just doesn't appear to be a fair system. i can tell u now, that im not rich by any amount, far from it, dam skint most of the time, but an accountant should pay his own fees and more with the work he does, i know i been had 4 till i found a really gd one, and he saved me a bomb in the first year i had him, haveing him, paid his own wagers plus he made me a few quid better off as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 i can tell u now, that im not rich by any amount, far from it, dam skint most of the time, but an accountant should pay his own fees and more with the work he does, i know i been had 4 till i found a really gd one, and he saved me a bomb in the first year i had him, haveing him, paid his own wagers plus he made me a few quid better off as well So am I talking shit then, anyone can 'avoid' what they would normally pay in tax? And the rich do not avoid proportionally more? If that is the case then the issue of moralising over tax avoidance is quite pointless and I see no reason why offshore jurisdictions should be criticised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.