The Tories are cowardly scumbags

Though he does elaborate on this definition of the Aristocracy, my opponent merely demonstrates that they are rich, not that are failing to pay a fair or sufficient amout of tax. My opponent further argues that, "the Duke of Westminster is the wealthiest British-born person in the country and has assets worth ï¿½6,750 million ($10,571 million) – that's enough to pay for the milk that the viscous, grasping Tories wanted to snatch off the kids for the next 135 years! " My opponents link demonstrates that the Dukes vast wealth is at least partly tied up in his "Grosvenor Group" and therefore in legitimate and above board financial deals. As a result they are being taxed. My opponent has offered no suggestion that this taxation is too low, or that the Duke of Westminster has fiddled his accounts, nor that such fiddling is a characteristic of the aristocracy. In addition I picked up a four pint bottle of semi-skimed milk from Iceland's yesterday, it cost me the reasonable sum of ï¿½1.10. Rounding up that is 28p a pint. My opponents article states that the Dukes has earned by ï¿½250 million in the past year. Let us imagine that the Government took a mere 10% of that money (a low tax rate that prince or pauper alike would welcome). This would raise ï¿½25 million. If we imagine that each child consumes half a pint of milk per day at nursery (monday to friday) then ignoring holidays that child consumes 130 pints of milk per year. At 28p a pint (which ignores the fact that the Nursery could probably purchase it at a cheaper price) the bill for each child comes to roughly ï¿½36 per annum. ï¿½25 million would pay for nearly 700,000 children and this is simply one lightly taxed Aristocrat. I therefore suggest that such people are more than likely paying their fair share. In addition my opponent has failed to show why the parents themselves can not buy milk for their own children. My opponent states that, "Incidentally, the Duke of Westminster comes from a long line of tax-dodgers. When his father was prosecuted for tax evasion in the 1930's his defence was:" "Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so as that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them so as to secure this result, then, however unappreciative the Commissioners of Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax. " However my opponent has mistakenly conflated tax fraud, with the legitimate legal attempt to structure your finances in a way that minimises your tax burden. It the latter to which the Lord referred and the Court agreed with him, his views entering into law as legal principle and precedent. It is for this reason that businessmen, possibly including my opponent hire accountants. [1] . http://smeplus.mercerhole.co.uk... "But this attitude towards tax is common in the aristocracy and the Country Landowners Association, which represents their interests, even offers aristocrats free advice on how to minimise their tax exposure. " Which is entirely legal and proper, if a man is legally required to pay 30p in the pound, it is unfair if he finds himself paying 40p in the pound. My opponent offers certain counter-arguments, "If you examine the list of today's notable Old Etonians you will discover that the list is overwhelmingly populated by Conservative politicians, royalty and also aristocrats who call hobbies their occupations: 'oarsman, equestrian, writer, actor, mountaineer, restaurant critic, etc. If these people weren't rich, their occupation would be described as 'unemployed'! " This does not seem to be a relevant counterpoint, such people are rich, they may be even idle rich. The onus is on my opponent to show how they have swindled and defrauded the system. Simply hiring accountants to ensure they are paying correct amounts of tax is not only their legal right, but also common sense. It is done by every business in the land, from white van man to grand country estates. In addition though they may be idle, their wealth is not. It is invested and keeps the economy afloat. By subjecting it to punitive measures you threaten the economy, and Government revenue, which is therefore counter-productive. My opponent further argues, "3 – The burden of reducing the budget deficit. It is true that the Government needs to pay off the budget deficit, which currently stands at ï¿½155bn ($243bn). This can be done two ways: either collect all the taxes that are due by closing the tax loopholes that the rich exploit, or make savage cuts to the vital public services that the poorest and most disadvantaged members of society rely upon. " 1: My opponent has not demonstrated that the rich are exploiting such loopholes. 2: My opponent has not recognised that even if there are such loopholes, closing them may harm the economy as many flows to tax shelters and such like. 3: My opponent has failed to demonstrate how the provision of milk to nursery school children is a vital service that only the Government can supply. My opponent states that, "Sadly, the spiteful, heartless Tories has chosen the latter option – even though collecting the ï¿½120bn ($188bn) that is owed in tax plus the ï¿½15bn ($23bn) in tax that the rich evade every year would mean the entire deficit could be paid off in less than 13 months. " And cites the socialist worker as support. This can not be considred a reliable source of economic wisdom. Back in the late 90's the socialist worker openly and proudly supported Mugabe's Stalinist policies against the white farmers, the result was hunger and hyper-inflation. The Socialist worker refers to itself as 'revolutionary', 'anti-capitalist' and would seek to forcibly collectivise key British firms. In short they are economically illiterate and even if their sums were correct they do not factor in the inevitable economic collapse that such policies would cause. My opponent further complains that, "I am happy to confirm that our inheritance tax proposal will introduce a threshold of ï¿½1m per person (not per couple). This means that it would be possible for a married couple to enjoy a threshold of ï¿½2m. " Which is excellent news, preserving as it does the long term wealth of the monied and wealth creating class, a vital step when the economy is on the verge of collapse. "Very few public services are unnecessary if you have to rely upon them. Yes, you can reduce the numbers of police, doctors, teachers and other key workers as the Tories propose but if you become the victim of crime, or cannot get a hospital bed when you are injured or your children don't get a decent education, you might think that funding these services properly is necessary. " Surely it is better in terms of human welfare and therefore to reduce our standard of living, indeed create a few more unemployed people, in order to avert economic collapse. If there is an economic collapse the Government will have to axe more than a few police, doctors, teachers and so forth, and indeed will not be able to pay them welfare money. "Finally my opponent repeated the Tory press' mantra of blaming the deficit on the previous Labour Government. I should remind him that the deficit was the result of the global, not British but global, economic crisis " The boom and bust cycle of capitalism is not a new discovery, however the labour Government had no contingency against this and actively tried to make the crisis worse. "In conclusion, the fair way to reduce the budget deficit is to spread the pain over society as a whole by cutting out any waste and excess in the public sector while gathering the taxes that the wealthy owe but currently aren't being collected. " My opponent has failed to prove that the aristocracy are engaged in tax fraud.