What was his tax policy

What was his tax policy

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=d6s994jOFuY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

a tory patriot

if he hadnt died hed have campaigned for brexit and led the uk into a new era of economic squalor

I assume a relatively simple progressive tax system, fitting on one A4 sheet of paper, maybe a few more to limit loopholes, ensuring that all pay there fair share based on income
Probably superior to Aragorns

Interesting question, but not even tax laws are as boring as the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises. Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

no tax on sundays

youtube.com/watch?v=d6s994jOFuY

Reminder that the Dursleys did nothing wrong.

Paid on time. He was an honest law abiding citizen who didn't want his family killed or maimed by a bunch of weirdos. The books are written from a biased perspective. He did nothing wrong

what a terrible cunt, RIP.

What was his?

nah remainer defo, he loves how cheap goods arrive in the nation but doesnt see the immigration so doesnt care at all about it. so he thinks working classers are just petty about immigrants and thinks anyone who cant find a job due to cheap immigrant work is just lazy

hes a remainer

>have smaller brother
>one day he disapears
>parents said he went to a private school
>"We don't even have a television"
>sees brother only on holidays
>he has an owl and a stick he always carries
>he is probably a pervert
>marries some strange bitch he knows from school
>she is also into this disgusting stuff
>be in bed
>already has a disgusting child
>door rings
>another baby in front of the door
>it's named after him
>fuck you James

Justice.

you got the relationships wrong
his wife is related to harrys mother

based

HARRY'S GOT HIMSELF A ROGUE BLUDGER

>gives harry a deliberately difficult upbringing to toughen him up for the adversity he will have to overcome to save the wizarding world

>spoils his son because he knows the boy is soft and stupid and will never amount to anything and might as well just enjoy life

most based character

i dont care didnt read it

There were no taxes due as long as you give up the boipucci.

Thank you

He was a successful businessman in a huge company that sold drills, I think he was even the boss, or at least high up.
He probably paid his taxes because it's "the British thing to do" in his opinion.

As for brexit, as much as he would hate immigrants, he would probably have voted remain. He was running a huge business with connections and exports all over the world, so he would've begrudgingly wanted to stay in the EU just for business reasons. He loves money more than he hates "outsiders" (immigrants or wizards or anyone who isn't like him), as shown in his desire to buy a second house in Majorca. Not to mention the thousands of pounds he spends on his son's birthday presents every year.

It's all a bit Roald Dahl really. Vernon hated wizards, sure. But the difference in treating his own son and Harry is just too much. I know it's children/young adult fiction, but nobody really would stick a relative, unwanted or not, in a fucking cupboard under the stairs and basically starve them, that's borderline psychotic.

Some people argue that his refusal to let Harry go to Hogwarts was because of some deep-seated fear that Harry would go the way of his parents, and that he wouldn't want that for him because it's really dangerous. But Vernon's really not that deep of a character, he was just there to torment Harry and give him a shit childhood so that in the story Harry would progressively grow to realise he's not a waste of space and that the Dursleys are just evil for the sake of being evil, leading to certain parts where Harry starts standing up to them.

I KNOW YOU'RE NOT ASLEEP BOY!

>get the Daily Prostitute magazine from Hedwig via mail order
>wait until everyone's asleep
>get under your blanket, light your wand and start furiously masturbating
>hear heavy footsteps on the landing from your uncle
>quickly unlight your wand and turn over pretending to be asleep

I think we've all been there.

Bring my taxes, boy

trips of truth. Rowling has a bad habit of writing characters to be "evil just cause" which only works if your readers have the moral depth of an adolescent.

I wouldn't say there isn't plenty of child abuse on par with being shut up in a crawlspace that goes on but usually its paired with legitimate "child services get involved" issues.

You can really see how Rowling struggles with the Dursleys in the final book, where she almost hints at them not being complete shit but then she ruins the moment and backpeddles. She actually had Petunia set to perform magic super late in life, therein resolving the bitter basis for her misplaced hatred springing out of envy but changed her mind because "nope, the Dursleys are just big strawmen who hate magic and anything abnormal" is a lot easier for a hack writer.

No shitposts on Sunday

Most of the villains had at least some sort of backstory or reason for their behaviour. The Dursleys were just caricatures really, typical Roald Dahl shitty guardians. Like I said, Rowling could've fleshed them out a bit more. But they're just a representation of the "perfect middle class British family", who liked being proper and cared about their public appearance and stuff. I'd have loved some more insight into Vernon. Petunia got a bit of fleshing out, and Dudley had a good, but short scene where he was genuinely upset at the idea of Harry leaving forever. But Vernon just seemed like a bastard for the sake of it. Again, it's just young adult fiction, but keeping an orphaned relative in a small cupboard for 12-13 years and occasionally starving him is just a bit too implausible.
Once call from child services would've had Harry out of there in a flash, and Vernon and Petunia would be in huge trouble. But you know, ancient magic blood protection spell and everything...

>that cheeky Ayn Rand in the god tier
u cunt

>huge company that sold drills
Pretty sure it was a small company, they only lived on a middle-class street in Surry.

I'm sorry I don't see "orphan" as a good enough backstory for Voldemort being the way he is. The fucker was literally evil as a child for no good reason other than the fact he had no parents.

In fact, most of Rowling's justification for why certain characters are bad is typically hyper-liberal shit like "they have too much money and aristocratic leanings" or "they like following the rules too much".

kek

I did a quick google search and apparently he was the director of the company, and in the second book he's trying to get a deal with some important figure and if it went through he'd be able to buy a house in Majorca and those don't come cheap. He was a successful businessman.
As for living in Privet Drive, that just totally fits his character. Middle-class house in a maze of other middle-class houses, which tend to be inhabited by people just like him who value cars, money, and social status over anything. He was all set to move up to upper-class if Dobby hadn't dropped a cake on his business partner's wife. We don't learn much about him afterwards but you could easily assume his dream of having a second house in a place like Majorca never died. He was climbing the ladder and was nearing the top.
Also I can't imagine the Dursleys moving to a penthouse in central London, they'd much prefer the atmosphere of a middle-class street in Surrey, being richer than most of their neighbours and showing off their expensive car and perfectly kept garden.

I'm pretty sure Voldemort witnessed his father murder his mother or something but I could be wrong.

No, his mother died giving birth to him. He didn't figure out who is father was till later, and the promptly murdered him.

The real question was what was their tax policy?

The thing about Tom Riddle, which I think was cut from the films, is that he was born from fake love. His mother got pregnant with Tom by using a love potion on a Muggle she fancied, there was never real love there. It was explained that being born from a fake relationship like that can have terrible consequences. Voldemort's whole dismissive attitude of the concept of love came from the fact that he was born from fake love. That's why he kept underestimating the power of true love, which resulted in him being "destroyed" when he tried to kill baby Harry after Lily protected him.
One of the main themes in the series is love, and the main antagonist not comprehending the concept of love is what eventually caused his downfall.

Huge tax rates I imagine. Like 70% of people who leave Hogwarts come to work at the ministry and they have to pay them somehow.
There's not much else to do apart from becoming a Quidditch pro, a teacher, or a journalist

I used to fancy being an Auror, but how fucking boring would that be post-Voldemort? I'd rather have Weasley's job, travelling across the country dealing with exploding toilet seats, or maybe open a shady Amsterdam-esque porn shop in Knockturn Alley, selling love potions and polyjuice under the counter.

I think that's just an artifact from when the books actually were more whimsical and Roald Dahl-esque. That sort of thing is why I generally prefer the first four books to the latter three: The universe just wasn't set up to be mature or in any way believable. You can also see it in the way that Hogwarts is a ridiculously dangerous place that no sane parent would ever want their kids to go to, what with the giant snake in the sub-basement or the troll that just sort of appeared in the women's bathroom. Goblet of Fire is as dark as the series should've gotten.

I agree that the books took off into a more serious note which killed the "magic" for me. As for the snake though, nobody believe it, it was just a legend. And the troll was organised by Quirell.
Hogwarts is still quite dangerous if you don't follow the rules though. Don't even fucking think about going into the forest.

I wonder how a Rowling rape baby would turn out.

What?