|
Post by gazz on Apr 22, 2020 11:40:31 GMT
I've decided to redo the 'elbow bump' smiley... I had to change it, as I just couldn't see past two ducks getting familiar!
|
|
|
Post by gazz on Apr 22, 2020 15:50:54 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dudleyhatter on Apr 22, 2020 16:02:15 GMT
Signed Gazz. But but what about the thousands of jobs that will go if we offend a businessman? We can’t expect him to employ people and pay taxes surely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 17:45:37 GMT
Signed Gazz. But but what about the thousands of jobs that will go if we offend a businessman? We can’t expect him to employ people and pay taxes surely. It's not just those jobs. Rolls-Royce who supply his aircraft with gas turbines may very well also be in trouble if the big airlines go under.
|
|
|
Post by gazz on Apr 22, 2020 18:59:45 GMT
I'm not sure if there is deliberate sarcasm/irony in your posts there, Duds & Yorks, so my apologies if I'm missing that.
If there isn't, however, are you suggesting that we allow Branson to dodge paying taxes and have us covering the shortfall, then bail the c*** out with tax payer's money when they hit some chop?
I don't f***ing think so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 19:39:59 GMT
I'm not sure if there is deliberate sarcasm/irony in your posts there, Duds & Yorks, so my apologies if I'm missing that. If there isn't, however, are you suggesting that we allow Branson to dodge paying taxes and have us covering the shortfall, then bail the c*** out with tax payer's money when they hit some chop? I don't f***ing think so. Neither mate, just an observation and apologies if you thought I was taking the piss. There's potentially thousands of jobs at risk if airlines like Virgin go tits up and while I share your view that a billionaire living the life of a tax evader shouldn't benefit from gifts there are consequences for a lot of well paid, skilled jobs. Apparently the German Govt have already made it clear that businesses that have off-shored for tax purposes get nowt. My own preference would be for HMG to take ownership of a share of such businesses, as owners they'd be privy to exactly how they arrange their tax affairs and take steps to prevent it but I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
|
Post by gazz on Apr 22, 2020 20:24:31 GMT
I'm not sure if there is deliberate sarcasm/irony in your posts there, Duds & Yorks, so my apologies if I'm missing that. If there isn't, however, are you suggesting that we allow Branson to dodge paying taxes and have us covering the shortfall, then bail the c*** out with tax payer's money when they hit some chop? I don't f***ing think so. Neither mate, just an observation and apologies if you thought I was taking the p**s. There's potentially thousands of jobs at risk if airlines like Virgin go tits up and while I share your view that a billionaire living the life of a tax evader shouldn't benefit from gifts there are consequences for a lot of well paid, skilled jobs. Apparently the German Govt have already made it clear that businesses that have off-shored for tax purposes get nowt. My own preference would be for HMG to take ownership of a share of such businesses, as owners they'd be privy to exactly how they arrange their tax affairs and take steps to prevent it but I'm not holding my breath. I do get that, mate, but I think if everyone paid their fair share then we'd all be much better off. We can't be held to ransom by employers simply because they don't want to pay their taxes. However, I do think your idea of the government taking ownership of a share is a very good shout, mate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 20:45:54 GMT
Unfortunately there are good grounds for thinking that the present Govt has plans to turn this country into a tax haven where the likes of Branson can shelter their millions and a range of dodgy Russians and Saudis to name but two can hide their ill-gotten gains so the chances of the Tories demanding anything of the sort are zero.
|
|
|
Post by gazz on Apr 22, 2020 21:02:03 GMT
Unfortunately there are good grounds for thinking that the present Govt has plans to turn this country into a tax haven where the likes of Branson can shelter their millions and a range of dodgy Russians and Saudis to name but two can hide their ill-gotten gains so the chances of the Tories demanding anything of the sort are zero. I dread to think what this country will be like five years from now, mate. I know it's been done to death, but do you have any theory as to why this country has moved so far to the right that we've got to where we are now?
|
|
|
Post by gazz on May 1, 2020 13:43:36 GMT
During one of the biggest health and economic crises of our time, polluting airlines in the UK are asking for huge government bailouts. They want taxpayers’ money – our money – to keep them going. You may have already seen it in the news, billionaire Richard Branson hasn’t paid UK tax for 14 years but he’s asking for a £500 million taxpayer bailout for his airline – Virgin Atlantic. Meanwhile, EasyJet is set to receive £600 million in government loans – while refusing to cancel a £170 million payout made to shareholders just weeks ago. Airlines like this want taxpayer money with no-strings-attached, no promises to clean up their businesses or protect the climate, and no commitments to put their employees before shareholders and bonuses. If we want to build a safer, greener and more resilient world after the health crisis is over, the airline industry needs to change. So, I've added my name to an open letter to the UK Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, saying that if he gives airlines a bailout, then they must protect their workers and massively reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Will you join me and thousands of others so he pays attention? Sign the open letter: secure.greenpeace.org.uk/no-free-airline-bailout-emsThanks so much.
|
|
|
Post by hatter_in_macc on May 1, 2020 14:14:23 GMT
Signed, matey.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2020 16:26:05 GMT
Sorry mate, can't sign that one, at least not on the grounds of environmental damage. Greenpeace's position on the aerospace industry is one of the reasons why I join and leave, join and leave. Frankly, they spout a lot of ill-informed b*ll*cks on the subject.
27% of this country's CO2 emissions are caused by transport, principally that's motor vehicle use. There has been a spike in emissions due to the popularity in this country of gas guzzling SUV's, not aerospace. So, while aero engine manufacturers are increasing fuel efficiency by increasing bypass ratio's (typically jet engines that power military fast jets have a low bypass ration of approximately 1:1.5, the Trent 1000 which powers the big Airbus has a ratio of about 1:10) and airframe manufacturers are going lightweight with composites including what you may recognise as plastic, car buyers are ignoring it all. Consider also that the average car consumes approximately 6 times more energy during it's production than it does during its average life.
Aero-engines have reached a point where General Electric estimate that squeezing another 1% fuel efficiency out of their engines will incur development costs of circa $1 billion. Gas turbines already operate at temperatures in excess of the melt point of the materials used in the manufacture of the HP turbine and stator blades. Think about that for a minute. The temperature of the gases in the combustor reaches approximately 1500 deg c. The materials (principally Inconel) will withstand temperatures of 1200 deg c. It's why gas turbines are so expensive so why do we think that is?
It's mostly so you and I can wear cheap clothes, buy cheap food, have cheap holidays, buy cheap consumer goods (it's not uncommon for example for parts for cars to be manufactured in this country, shipped to France for assembly, shipped back here for further assembly. back to France for other value added processes to be performed and shipped back to this country for final assembly into the finished car).
How do we think that simple things like mushrooms are available all year round? It's because they are grown in Spain and on the shelf of your local supermarket within 24 hours of having been picked (via a central distribution hub prior to delivery by road transport).
Next up is energy (24% of the total) so that people like you and me can heat our badly insulated homes so that we can wander about the house in t-shirts and so that we can work in comfortably heated working environments. Business' non-related energy consumption comes next followed by agriculture (10%). How many of us buy solely green energy? Not many I suspect because it's frequently more expensive (I know because I happen to buy such energy).
Every time there's a big match on the telly there's a surge in electricity demand at half time. To cope, additional energy is pumped into the system by standby power generation like the hydro station at Dynorwic in Wales. It consumes more electricity to pump the water back up the system than is actually generated to cope with people putting the kettle on.
I could go on but in a nutshell, I agree that the Government should gave placed restrictions on the paying of dividends to share holders (although even that isn't simple. Chances are that if you've got a pension, some of it will be invested in profitable airlines) but don't kick the aerospace industry because Greenpeace tell you that it's killing your environment because Greenpeace are being somewhat disingenuous. The aerospace industry exists to satisfy the needs of everyone reading this, including members of Greenpeace.
|
|
|
Post by gazz on May 1, 2020 16:53:26 GMT
Sorry mate, can't sign that one, at least not on the grounds of environmental damage. Greenpeace's position on the aerospace industry is one of the reasons why I join and leave, join and leave. Frankly, they spout a lot of ill-informed b*ll*cks on the subject. 27% of this country's CO2 emissions are caused by transport, principally that's motor vehicle use. There has been a spike in emissions due to the popularity in this country of gas guzzling SUV's, not aerospace. So, while aero engine manufacturers are increasing fuel efficiency by increasing bypass ratio's (typically jet engines that power military fast jets have a low bypass ration of approximately 1:1.5, the Trent 1000 which powers the big Airbus has a ratio of about 1:10) and airframe manufacturers are going lightweight with composites including what you may recognise as plastic, car buyers are ignoring it all. Consider also that the average car consumes approximately 6 times more energy during it's production than it does during its average life. Aero-engines have reached a point where General Electric estimate that squeezing another 1% fuel efficiency out of their engines will incur development costs of circa $1 billion. Gas turbines already operate at temperatures in excess of the melt point of the materials used in the manufacture of the HP turbine and stator blades. Think about that for a minute. The temperature of the gases in the combustor reaches approximately 1500 deg c. The materials (principally Inconel) will withstand temperatures of 1200 deg c. It's why gas turbines are so expensive so why do we think that is? It's mostly so you and I can wear cheap clothes, buy cheap food, have cheap holidays, buy cheap consumer goods (it's not uncommon for example for parts for cars to be manufactured in this country, shipped to France for assembly, shipped back here for further assembly. back to France for other value added processes to be performed and shipped back to this country for final assembly into the finished car). How do we think that simple things like mushrooms are available all year round? It's because they are grown in Spain and on the shelf of your local supermarket within 24 hours of having been picked (via a central distribution hub prior to delivery by road transport). Next up is energy (24% of the total) so that people like you and me can heat our badly insulated homes so that we can wander about the house in t-shirts and so that we can work in comfortably heated working environments. Business' non-related energy consumption comes next followed by agriculture (10%). How many of us buy solely green energy? Not many I suspect because it's frequently more expensive (I know because I happen to buy such energy). Every time there's a big match on the telly there's a surge in electricity demand at half time. To cope, additional energy is pumped into the system by standby power generation like the hydro station at Dynorwic in Wales. It consumes more electricity to pump the water back up the system than is actually generated to cope with people putting the kettle on. I could go on but in a nutshell, I agree that the Government should gave placed restrictions on the paying of dividends to share holders (although even that isn't simple. Chances are that if you've got a pension, some of it will be invested in profitable airlines) but don't kick the aerospace industry because Greenpeace tell you that it's killing your environment because Greenpeace are being somewhat disingenuous. The aerospace industry exists to satisfy the needs of everyone reading this, including members of Greenpeace. I'm not posting that for the environmental issue, my issue is why the f*** should we bail out cheeky c***s like Branson when he's not paying a penny in tax?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2020 16:58:21 GMT
Sorry mate, can't sign that one, at least not on the grounds of environmental damage. Greenpeace's position on the aerospace industry is one of the reasons why I join and leave, join and leave. Frankly, they spout a lot of ill-informed b*ll*cks on the subject. 27% of this country's CO2 emissions are caused by transport, principally that's motor vehicle use. There has been a spike in emissions due to the popularity in this country of gas guzzling SUV's, not aerospace. So, while aero engine manufacturers are increasing fuel efficiency by increasing bypass ratio's (typically jet engines that power military fast jets have a low bypass ration of approximately 1:1.5, the Trent 1000 which powers the big Airbus has a ratio of about 1:10) and airframe manufacturers are going lightweight with composites including what you may recognise as plastic, car buyers are ignoring it all. Consider also that the average car consumes approximately 6 times more energy during it's production than it does during its average life. Aero-engines have reached a point where General Electric estimate that squeezing another 1% fuel efficiency out of their engines will incur development costs of circa $1 billion. Gas turbines already operate at temperatures in excess of the melt point of the materials used in the manufacture of the HP turbine and stator blades. Think about that for a minute. The temperature of the gases in the combustor reaches approximately 1500 deg c. The materials (principally Inconel) will withstand temperatures of 1200 deg c. It's why gas turbines are so expensive so why do we think that is? It's mostly so you and I can wear cheap clothes, buy cheap food, have cheap holidays, buy cheap consumer goods (it's not uncommon for example for parts for cars to be manufactured in this country, shipped to France for assembly, shipped back here for further assembly. back to France for other value added processes to be performed and shipped back to this country for final assembly into the finished car). How do we think that simple things like mushrooms are available all year round? It's because they are grown in Spain and on the shelf of your local supermarket within 24 hours of having been picked (via a central distribution hub prior to delivery by road transport). Next up is energy (24% of the total) so that people like you and me can heat our badly insulated homes so that we can wander about the house in t-shirts and so that we can work in comfortably heated working environments. Business' non-related energy consumption comes next followed by agriculture (10%). How many of us buy solely green energy? Not many I suspect because it's frequently more expensive (I know because I happen to buy such energy). Every time there's a big match on the telly there's a surge in electricity demand at half time. To cope, additional energy is pumped into the system by standby power generation like the hydro station at Dynorwic in Wales. It consumes more electricity to pump the water back up the system than is actually generated to cope with people putting the kettle on. I could go on but in a nutshell, I agree that the Government should gave placed restrictions on the paying of dividends to share holders (although even that isn't simple. Chances are that if you've got a pension, some of it will be invested in profitable airlines) but don't kick the aerospace industry because Greenpeace tell you that it's killing your environment because Greenpeace are being somewhat disingenuous. The aerospace industry exists to satisfy the needs of everyone reading this, including members of Greenpeace. I'm not posting that for the environmental issue, my issue is why the f*** should we bail out cheeky c***s like Branson when he's not paying a penny in tax? Sorry, I assumed this bit "If we want to build a safer, greener and more resilient world after the health crisis is over, the airline industry needs to change". meant that you were including the environmental effects of aviation
|
|
|
Post by gazz on May 1, 2020 17:01:01 GMT
I'm not posting that for the environmental issue, my issue is why the f*** should we bail out cheeky c***s like Branson when he's not paying a penny in tax? Sorry, I assumed this bit "If we want to build a safer, greener and more resilient world after the health crisis is over, the airline industry needs to change". meant that you were including the environmental effects of aviation Probably my fault for seeing Branson and seeing red, mate, as I just copied the email and posted it here - that's my issue with it anyway.
|
|