FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

where our tax get spent

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

The govt will be sending all tax payers a very high level analysis of where their tax get spent. A step in the right direction in terms of transparency and understanding? Or a cheap political stunt designed to alienate further the most needy in society and herald some unpleasant new policy directions in advance of a general election??

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

and apologies for the grammar in the headline

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

a waste of money that could have been used for many other reasons..

looks like a not so cheap political stunt..

hey ho..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Depends which taxes they choose to reveal?

Hope they reveal what road tax is spent on because is isn't on roads, surprisingly.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Depends which taxes they choose to reveal?

Hope they reveal what road tax is spent on because is isn't on roads, surprisingly."

Probably because there's no such thing as road tax and hasn't been for quite some time.

I think it's a good idea, provided it's done in a fairly low cost way. It might help bust a few myths about what is spent where. Although it will also depend how it's all presented...lies, damn lies and statistics.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

15 headings from welfare at the top to EU contribution at the bottom. Very little real information and detailed analysis.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Depends which taxes they choose to reveal?

Hope they reveal what road tax is spent on because is isn't on roads, surprisingly.

Probably because there's no such thing as road tax and hasn't been for quite some time.

I think it's a good idea, provided it's done in a fairly low cost way. It might help bust a few myths about what is spent where. Although it will also depend how it's all presented...lies, damn lies and statistics. "

Aw, now i will never find out then.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Oh will they send the proper report of what they want us to think it is being spent on

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Oh will they send the proper report of what they want us to think it is being spent on "

It would be nice for each party as part of their manifesto for next years general election to give an explicit breakdown of where the money will be spent so that the electorate can vote based on some clear facts and hold the politicians to account, but I doubt very much that will happen.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending#zoomed-picture

Welfare broke down, can be done, just the government cba. I'll find other stuff if anyone is interested?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/08/uk-benefit-welfare-spending#zoomed-picture

Welfare broke down, can be done, just the government cba. I'll find other stuff if anyone is interested?"

good researching - just shows that if govt really wanted to be transparent it can, which suggests a not so subtle hidden agenda!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Agenda indeed:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths

What other stuff do you guys want me to dig up?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"Depends which taxes they choose to reveal?

Hope they reveal what road tax is spent on because is isn't on roads, surprisingly."

It isn't really surprising. Tax revenues are seldom hypothecated.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They will put this letter lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If you're actually interested in this, most sections of government (especially councils) already have to publish masses of detail about what they spend and where, it's just not usually shown all together.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Didn't know that. Does make sense though, especially if they can't collect all tax owed.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/11/uk-tax-gap-rises-hmrc-avoidance-nonpayment

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

Bet there will be no mention in numbers of the £50 million or so of our money that Osborn has spent sending us all this thinly veiled Tory election shot.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anejohnkent6263Couple
over a year ago

canterbury

i vote for more welfare spending so our poor people can smoke more, drink more, have better mobile phones,,and electronic gagets ,bigger flat screen tvs or may be the new curved types.these people need more kids as well so we must all pay more.as i get older i just work harder with more risk for nothing ......go nigel my boy kick the political system

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

Showing the split in a pie chart gives a good illustration of the comparative spending by area.

It suggests, perhaps that a bit more spending on health might make it possible to reduce spending on welfare benefits but then improving the health and longevity of the population would increase the pension bill.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andy_tomMan
over a year ago

wolverhampton


"The govt will be sending all tax payers a very high level analysis of where their tax get spent. A step in the right direction in terms of transparency and understanding? Or a cheap political stunt designed to alienate further the most needy in society and herald some unpleasant new policy directions in advance of a general election??"

and you beleave they will tell you the truth . Some how I dont think so,

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"The govt will be sending all tax payers a very high level analysis of where their tax get spent. A step in the right direction in terms of transparency and understanding? Or a cheap political stunt designed to alienate further the most needy in society and herald some unpleasant new policy directions in advance of a general election??

and you beleave they will tell you the truth . Some how I dont think so, "

I suspect the numbers will be truthful but the presentation will be designed to fulfil a particular political angle.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *andy_tomMan
over a year ago

wolverhampton


"The govt will be sending all tax payers a very high level analysis of where their tax get spent. A step in the right direction in terms of transparency and understanding? Or a cheap political stunt designed to alienate further the most needy in society and herald some unpleasant new policy directions in advance of a general election??

and you beleave they will tell you the truth . Some how I dont think so,

there truth or the real truth .?

I suspect the numbers will be truthful but the presentation will be designed to fulfil a particular political angle."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranthamThroatMan
over a year ago

Grantham.


"The govt will be sending all tax payers a very high level analysis of where their tax get spent. A step in the right direction in terms of transparency and understanding? Or a cheap political stunt designed to alienate further the most needy in society and herald some unpleasant new policy directions in advance of a general election??"

The govt will be sending all tax payers a very high level analysis of where their tax get spent.

Rubbish, bullshit and frigging twaddle!

It is already evident that it is nothing like a high level analysis.

It is a HIGHLY manipulated political manipulation of figures, yet again!. (puke)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"The govt will be sending all tax payers a very high level analysis of where their tax get spent. A step in the right direction in terms of transparency and understanding? Or a cheap political stunt designed to alienate further the most needy in society and herald some unpleasant new policy directions in advance of a general election??

The govt will be sending all tax payers a very high level analysis of where their tax get spent.

Rubbish, bullshit and frigging twaddle!

It is already evident that it is nothing like a high level analysis.

It is a HIGHLY manipulated political manipulation of figures, yet again!. (puke)"

It IS a high level analysis - that's the problem. Too high level to show the detail.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"The govt will be sending all tax payers a very high level analysis of where their tax get spent. A step in the right direction in terms of transparency and understanding? Or a cheap political stunt designed to alienate further the most needy in society and herald some unpleasant new policy directions in advance of a general election??

and you beleave they will tell you the truth . Some how I dont think so,

there truth or the real truth .?

I suspect the numbers will be truthful but the presentation will be designed to fulfil a particular political angle. "

Just out of interest, why the

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"i vote for more welfare spending so our poor people can smoke more, drink more, have better mobile phones,,and electronic gagets ,bigger flat screen tvs or may be the new curved types.these people need more kids as well so we must all pay more.as i get older i just work harder with more risk for nothing ......go nigel my boy kick the political system"
.

Actually we spend alot more on old people than poor people so maybe we should start there.

Bus passes, pensions, subscriptions, injections, medical... Their a right liability.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranthamThroatMan
over a year ago

Grantham.


"The govt will be sending all tax payers a very high level analysis of where their tax get spent. A step in the right direction in terms of transparency and understanding? Or a cheap political stunt designed to alienate further the most needy in society and herald some unpleasant new policy directions in advance of a general election??

The govt will be sending all tax payers a very high level analysis of where their tax get spent.

Rubbish, bullshit and frigging twaddle!

It is already evident that it is nothing like a high level analysis.

It is a HIGHLY manipulated political manipulation of figures, yet again!. (puke)

It IS a high level analysis - that's the problem. Too high level to show the detail."

OK I see what you mean now.

They have left out all other relevant info, i.e., pensions etc.,

Self serving politics yet again.

Write to your M.P's folks, waste of time posting here if we can't change them...oh I forgot they destroyed M.P's

expenses reports before 2010!

The Daily Telegraph has an UNRETRACTED CD of expenses of M.P'S claims but they were not considered for the investigation because files paperwork / files were destroyed by order of Speaker Bercow.

Shameful really.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"i vote for more welfare spending so our poor people can smoke more, drink more, have better mobile phones,,and electronic gagets ,bigger flat screen tvs or may be the new curved types.these people need more kids as well so we must all pay more.as i get older i just work harder with more risk for nothing ......go nigel my boy kick the political system.

Actually we spend alot more on old people than poor people so maybe we should start there.

Bus passes, pensions, subscriptions, injections, medical... Their a right liability. "

why don't we just kill off all the poor people and old people. Problem solved.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"i vote for more welfare spending so our poor people can smoke more, drink more, have better mobile phones,,and electronic gagets ,bigger flat screen tvs or may be the new curved types.these people need more kids as well so we must all pay more.as i get older i just work harder with more risk for nothing ......go nigel my boy kick the political system.

Actually we spend alot more on old people than poor people so maybe we should start there.

Bus passes, pensions, subscriptions, injections, medical... Their a right liability.

why don't we just kill off all the poor people and old people. Problem solved. "

That's exactly what the Tories are trying to do.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *earboynottinghamMan
over a year ago

Nottingham

They have basically lumped various essential social services into the 'welfare' bracket.

It's a crude attempt to make people even more contemptuous of the most vulnerable people in our society.

About 2% of that goes on benefits for unemployed people.

Of course it doesn't include how much of the tax which could have been collected from the top 1% but instead sits in offshore accounts doing nobody any good.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"i vote for more welfare spending so our poor people can smoke more, drink more, have better mobile phones,,and electronic gagets ,bigger flat screen tvs or may be the new curved types.these people need more kids as well so we must all pay more.as i get older i just work harder with more risk for nothing ......go nigel my boy kick the political system.

Actually we spend alot more on old people than poor people so maybe we should start there.

Bus passes, pensions, subscriptions, injections, medical... Their a right liability.

why don't we just kill off all the poor people and old people. Problem solved. "
..I was obviously being facetious

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

A PDF on their website would suffice - most councils do this anyway. If it really is a letter to every tax payer it's nothing more than a stunt.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"A PDF on their website would suffice - most councils do this anyway. If it really is a letter to every tax payer it's nothing more than a stunt."

And probably breaches rules on party political advertising.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They could just give housing benefit and council houses just to people whose parents and grandparents have paid into the taxation system.

Then have an Australian style points based immigration system.

Then I would let them spent the tax on anything they wanted.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"A PDF on their website would suffice - most councils do this anyway. If it really is a letter to every tax payer it's nothing more than a stunt.

And probably breaches rules on party political advertising."

Yes it's an interesting one given that Mr Pickles has banned councils from producing council newspapers which used to provide similar information to residents about where council tax was spent. I'm all for providing people with more information, I think it's important, but it always does seem to be one rule for one part of government, a different one for the rest.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Some of the responses on this thread have restored my faith in the UK voting public. It's so good to know people aren't falling for the spin.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

24 million bits of paper to provide information that can be found, in high level data form, on ONS and other web-sites.

It will have required IT set up and then the process costs so somewhere near £2 per letter.

I have other ideas of where to spend £24m. It's a relatively small amount in the scheme of things but when similar and smaller sums are cut as being unaffordable it makes me mad.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

I vote that we each wipe our arse with ours and sent it back.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I vote that we each wipe our arse with ours and sent it back."

Can't I just take a photo of my shit and email it to them?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"I vote that we each wipe our arse with ours and sent it back.

Can't I just take a photo of my shit and email it to them?"

Go ahead, I won't stop you

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"I vote that we each wipe our arse with ours and sent it back.

Can't I just take a photo of my shit and email it to them?"

If you e-mail it then you might find you breach some sort of electronic data rule.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

My wages! Cheers!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"I vote that we each wipe our arse with ours and sent it back.

Can't I just take a photo of my shit and email it to them?

If you e-mail it then you might find you breach some sort of electronic data rule.

"

Sending poo through the post isn't allowed either, but I am seriously considering it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I vote that we each wipe our arse with ours and sent it back.

Can't I just take a photo of my shit and email it to them?

If you e-mail it then you might find you breach some sort of electronic data rule.

Sending poo through the post isn't allowed either, but I am seriously considering it."

Dont - there would have to be an expensive public inquiry into the poo - plus it may be taken away and exploded

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackbirdtimestwoWoman
over a year ago

birmingham


"a waste of money that could have been used for many other reasons..

looks like a not so cheap political stunt..

hey ho.."

I agree just a stunt,,, they could have offered us the opportunity, if we wanted to know to log into a website,,, are they going to waste all that money every year just to seem transparent,, it's a very stupid and wasteful idea.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Governments love stupid wasteful ideas, they have an entire department set up for it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"I vote that we each wipe our arse with ours and sent it back.

Can't I just take a photo of my shit and email it to them?

If you e-mail it then you might find you breach some sort of electronic data rule.

Sending poo through the post isn't allowed either, but I am seriously considering it.

Dont - there would have to be an expensive public inquiry into the poo - plus it may be taken away and exploded "

That sounds messy

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackbirdtimestwoWoman
over a year ago

birmingham


"i vote for more welfare spending so our poor people can smoke more, drink more, have better mobile phones,,and electronic gagets ,bigger flat screen tvs or may be the new curved types.these people need more kids as well so we must all pay more.as i get older i just work harder with more risk for nothing ......go nigel my boy kick the political system"

Don't believe the the hype,,,

We, since the welfare state came into being,, have said it's ok to live of the government, it's only the last few years that we have decided it has to stop,, you can't change an attitude over night,,, families who have 3rd 4th generation who have never worked, can't be expected just to go out and find a job,, let's be realistic,,,

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

3rd&4th generation!!.

I think the royals are on at least 50 or 60 generations

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Probably because there's no such thing as road tax and hasn't been for quite some time. "

Hold the bus, what am I paying when they send me out a letter asking me to pay my annual road tax then?

You may have blown my mind a little here.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think they meant it's now charged on carbon production rather than standard road tax

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"Probably because there's no such thing as road tax and hasn't been for quite some time.

Hold the bus, what am I paying when they send me out a letter asking me to pay my annual road tax then?

You may have blown my mind a little here. "

It's officially called Vehicle Excise Duty.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"i vote for more welfare spending so our poor people can smoke more, drink more, have better mobile phones,,and electronic gagets ,bigger flat screen tvs or may be the new curved types.these people need more kids as well so we must all pay more.as i get older i just work harder with more risk for nothing ......go nigel my boy kick the political system

Don't believe the the hype,,,

We, since the welfare state came into being,, have said it's ok to live of the government, it's only the last few years that we have decided it has to stop,, you can't change an attitude over night,,, families who have 3rd 4th generation who have never worked, can't be expected just to go out and find a job,, let's be realistic,,, "

Uh maybe you shouldn't believe the hype. Cameron and IDS claimed there are families claiming benefits in which there are 3 subsequent generations which haven't worked. Studies found a small percentage of claimants with 2 generations and NO cases of 3 generations unemployed.

Very few people actually want to "live off the state" because it's not a living. If you don't believe me, try living on £70-odd per week for a few months.

Most need their benefits to support them during hard times. Most have paid into the system. Most are not playing the system and do not have a lavish lifestyle and expensive luxuries. Most are struggling through, barely coping, making choices between heating and food, constantly at risk of being sanctioned and having no money at all for months for ridiculous, spurious or fictional transgressions.

The life of Riley it is not.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"Probably because there's no such thing as road tax and hasn't been for quite some time.

Hold the bus, what am I paying when they send me out a letter asking me to pay my annual road tax then?

You may have blown my mind a little here. "

Road tax was abolished in 1937!

Vehicle Excise Duty is what you pay now. It's basically a tax on owning a car/taxable vehicle. The revenue goes to the main central government coffers.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

A Government provides more accurate and verifiable data then ever before and (contrary to the naysayers here) with links to find more detail and suddenly its a 'stunt'.

Did Labour ever tell the truth about where our money went? No I don't think they did. But that's OK its Labour and all the leftie luvvies in the BBC, Guardian, Mirror etc just have to play politics with it.

Its information people. Use it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"3rd&4th generation!!.

I think the royals are on at least 50 or 60 generations"

Oh dear ... lets have a cheap shot at the Royals. Nothing better to offer? Of course you do know they haven't 'lived off' the State for ooh about 400 years? Or that Her Majesty only cost each of us about 60p a year to carry out her State duties? Or that her Crown Estates contribute over £240 Million a year to the Treasury? or that .. Oh never mind ..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Bet there will be no mention in numbers of the £50 million or so of our money that Osborn has spent sending us all this thinly veiled Tory election shot. "

hang on let me get this right: You are objecting to being told what this Government is spending YOUR taxes on? And did the fact it is a Coalition Government of LibDems and Conservatives pass you by? So it is a thinly veiled Tory election shot agreed to by the LibDems then? Cool ....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

Of course it doesn't include how much of the tax which could have been collected from the top 1% but instead sits in offshore accounts doing nobody any good."

The highest-earning 1% of Britons pay almost 30% of all income taxes. The lower-earning 50% pay £17bn – less than the housing benefit bill. Overall 90% of all income tax is paid by half the working population.

Stop reading the Daily Mirror ....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"

Of course it doesn't include how much of the tax which could have been collected from the top 1% but instead sits in offshore accounts doing nobody any good.

The highest-earning 1% of Britons pay almost 30% of all income taxes.

...."

That may well be the case but it says nothing about how much tax that 1% OUGHT to be paying.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

That may well be the case but it says nothing about how much tax that 1% OUGHT to be paying."

They OUGHT to be paying what the Government of the day legislates. And they seem to be doing just that. When Labour shouted about 'tax rebates for the rich' when the Top Rate was reduced from 50p to the current 45p they forgot to mention it had been 40p for the 13 years they were in power and it was only 50p AFTER they lost power in 2010 having made an election bribe that backfired. And tax revenues have shown that we have collected MORE tax since it was reduced.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *onkers66Man
over a year ago

London

I Hate this "our tax money" blah blah .

It is not our money it never has been . If it was we would all have frittered it away by now .

It is our government but that is a totally different issue .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"

That may well be the case but it says nothing about how much tax that 1% OUGHT to be paying.

They OUGHT to be paying what the Government of the day legislates. And they seem to be doing just that. When Labour shouted about 'tax rebates for the rich' when the Top Rate was reduced from 50p to the current 45p they forgot to mention it had been 40p for the 13 years they were in power and it was only 50p AFTER they lost power in 2010 having made an election bribe that backfired. And tax revenues have shown that we have collected MORE tax since it was reduced. "

I'd prefer something less vague than 'seem'.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI

I don't know why this is even being questioned.

It's always been the Tory way to divide and rule.

They pitted the working poor against the workless poor in the 80s and they're doing it again now.

If transparency is so important then why wait for 4.5 years, until 6 months before an election to be transparent?

Conclusion - Tories trying to blow smoke up our asses!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranthamThroatMan
over a year ago

Grantham.


"Bet there will be no mention in numbers of the £50 million or so of our money that Osborn has spent sending us all this thinly veiled Tory election shot.

hang on let me get this right: You are objecting to being told what this Government is spending YOUR taxes on? And did the fact it is a Coalition Government of LibDems and Conservatives pass you by? So it is a thinly veiled Tory election shot agreed to by the LibDems then? Cool ...."

I think people who post are objecting to certain things, like omitting certain figures to try to make people believe that welfare expenditure is too high and, therefore, those who believe their spin will agree with them to slash welfare for those who are vunerable in our society.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"and apologies for the grammar in the headline "

that ok where tax get spent?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago


"The govt will be sending all tax payers a very high level analysis of where their tax get spent."

you spelled "extremely low level analysis" wrongly ..... in reality it should read "thin smokescreen of propganda serving to cover massive tory increases in public borrowing"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"3rd&4th generation!!.

I think the royals are on at least 50 or 60 generations

Oh dear ... lets have a cheap shot at the Royals. Nothing better to offer? Of course you do know they haven't 'lived off' the State for ooh about 400 years? Or that Her Majesty only cost each of us about 60p a year to carry out her State duties? Or that her Crown Estates contribute over £240 Million a year to the Treasury? or that .. Oh never mind .."
...

So exactly what money have they been living off for 400 years then.

Land tax that's not their land?

Living in houses that aren't their houses.

Does that 60p include all the royals, the non state duties, the free houses etc etc...

And while your thinking about that and not reading the daily mail...

What income tax did the Beatles pay when they wrote the song the tax man in 1966?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So exactly what money have they been living off for 400 years then.

Land tax that's not their land?

Living in houses that aren't their houses.

Does that 60p include all the royals, the non state duties, the free houses etc etc...

And while your thinking about that and not reading the daily mail...

What income tax did the Beatles pay when they wrote the song the tax man in 1966?"

I do read the Daily Mail. And the Times. And the Guardian. See unlike you I like to see a balance of opinions.

And I really don't know what tax the Beatles paid but as they were UK resident I would guess it was about 19/6p in the £.

Now the real issues:

The Royals have not taxed us for centuries so no land tax there then.

Most of the houses they live in ARE their own property and THEY maintain them. Those that have been given to the Nation are also maintained indirectly by Her Majesty through the Crown Estates which are independently managed and whose profit goes (as I said) to the Treasury.

The 'Civil List' has now been replaced by income from the Crown Estates so we don't even pay the 60p each per year now.

We do not as taxpayers support any part of the Royal Family and haven't done for centuries.

So basically there is NO story here for you to make politics with. Just be thankful we don't have a Federal president that would cost us £Millions and have a Sovereign who pays her way and is a huge fiscal asset to this country. And has represented our country faultlessly for over 60 years.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The govt will be sending all tax payers a very high level analysis of where their tax get spent.

you spelled "extremely low level analysis" wrongly ..... in reality it should read "thin smokescreen of propganda serving to cover massive tory increases in public borrowing""

Erm I am a tad confused. If the Treasury are detailing all expenditure to taxpayers how is it a smokescreen? The figures are there for all to see. And it is a COALITION Government producing these figures not a Tory one!

You mention "Massive Tory increases in public borrowing". Again it is NOT Tory borrowing. It is Coalition borrowing. And it is not as massive as it would have been had they not reduced the deficit by nearly a half. You do understand the difference between debt and deficit? .. err .. nah didn't thinks so.

If we have a deficit borrowing goes up. We ended up with a massive deficit under Labour after 13 years and we ended up with a 7% deflation of our economy, every family £3k worse off and seriously large annual borrowings (ie DEBT).

They have reduced the INCREASE in debt by a huge amount. The money markets saw that and our cost to borrow (ie Interest Rates) are the lowest for decades. They just placed Bonds repayable in 2068 @ 2.996%. That is a rate of interest not seen since the 1920s. SO: reduce the deficit and reduce the amount we borrow. Repay high interest Bonds with new low interest Bonds. And borrow at record low interests. THOSE mean the numbers are going up but the costs are coming down.

Still with me?....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It was 90p per pound and they still had enough money left over to paint rolls Royces with flowers, trash hotels and buy 250,000£ houses.

In the 1960,s out of every ten pounds raised from tax 3:50£ came from corporation tax today it's 75p ,from ww2 until 1962 the top rate of tax was 97p they then reduced that to 90 then in the 70,s reduced again to 75p during the 80,s it was reduced down by Thatcher from 86 to 60p but the rest of us only got from 33 to 30 and by the 90,s it was 40p.... During all that same time the majority of tax payers went from 25p to... Erm 25p but with the added extra of vat now on everything at 20p we've really gone from 25p to 45p....

Now them very wealthy royals during that 400 years and including today are exempt from taxation... I'm not biased and I don't read newspapers but you tell me where the fairness is on those figures.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 04/11/14 19:23:54]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The govt will be sending all tax payers a very high level analysis of where their tax get spent.

you spelled "extremely low level analysis" wrongly ..... in reality it should read "thin smokescreen of propganda serving to cover massive tory increases in public borrowing"

Erm I am a tad confused. If the Treasury are detailing all expenditure to taxpayers how is it a smokescreen? The figures are there for all to see. And it is a COALITION Government producing these figures not a Tory one!

You mention "Massive Tory increases in public borrowing". Again it is NOT Tory borrowing. It is Coalition borrowing. And it is not as massive as it would have been had they not reduced the deficit by nearly a half. You do understand the difference between debt and deficit? .. err .. nah didn't thinks so.

If we have a deficit borrowing goes up. We ended up with a massive deficit under Labour after 13 years and we ended up with a 7% deflation of our economy, every family £3k worse off and seriously large annual borrowings (ie DEBT).

They have reduced the INCREASE in debt by a huge amount. The money markets saw that and our cost to borrow (ie Interest Rates) are the lowest for decades. They just placed Bonds repayable in 2068 @ 2.996%. That is a rate of interest not seen since the 1920s. SO: reduce the deficit and reduce the amount we borrow. Repay high interest Bonds with new low interest Bonds. And borrow at record low interests. THOSE mean the numbers are going up but the costs are coming down.

Still with me?.... "
...Yeah im with you, your just not making any sense.

1 they've reduced net borrowing by 15% buy cutting spending by 45%.

Interest rates have no effect on guilts, there at a current low for every A rated country.

2 they've increased the debt from 800 million to 1.3 trillion.

3 guilts get paid out every year replacing high yield ones with low yield ones in 2068 is completely nonsensical.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago


"The govt will be sending all tax payers a very high level analysis of where their tax get spent.

you spelled "extremely low level analysis" wrongly ..... in reality it should read "thin smokescreen of propganda serving to cover massive tory increases in public borrowing"

Erm I am a tad confused. If the Treasury are detailing all expenditure to taxpayers how is it a smokescreen? The figures are there for all to see. And it is a COALITION Government producing these figures not a Tory one!

You mention "Massive Tory increases in public borrowing". Again it is NOT Tory borrowing. It is Coalition borrowing. And it is not as massive as it would have been had they not reduced the deficit by nearly a half. You do understand the difference between debt and deficit? .. err .. nah didn't thinks so.

If we have a deficit borrowing goes up. We ended up with a massive deficit under Labour after 13 years and we ended up with a 7% deflation of our economy, every family £3k worse off and seriously large annual borrowings (ie DEBT).

They have reduced the INCREASE in debt by a huge amount. The money markets saw that and our cost to borrow (ie Interest Rates) are the lowest for decades. They just placed Bonds repayable in 2068 @ 2.996%. That is a rate of interest not seen since the 1920s. SO: reduce the deficit and reduce the amount we borrow. Repay high interest Bonds with new low interest Bonds. And borrow at record low interests. THOSE mean the numbers are going up but the costs are coming down.

Still with me?.... "

here we go ... spare me the lecture on economics according to milton friedman please ..... i am up to speed with his flawed theories .... regardless of how the dedicated swallowers of fascism try to dress it up, the fact is that this move by the tories is exactly what it is ... "thin smokescreen of propganda serving to cover massive tory increases in public borrowing"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

He's not really up to speed anyhow if he can't see a problem with his statement "they just placed Bonds repayable in 2068 @ 2.996%".

So their borrowing at 2.9 and borrowing it out to banks via the boe at 0.5. Who then borrow it back to us at anywhere between 4 and 12%(depending on your circumstances).

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It was 90p per pound and they still had enough money left over to paint rolls Royces with flowers, trash hotels and buy 250,000£ houses.

In the 1960,s out of every ten pounds raised from tax 3:50£ came from corporation tax today it's 75p ,from ww2 until 1962 the top rate of tax was 97p they then reduced that to 90 then in the 70,s reduced again to 75p during the 80,s it was reduced down by Thatcher from 86 to 60p but the rest of us only got from 33 to 30 and by the 90,s it was 40p.... During all that same time the majority of tax payers went from 25p to... Erm 25p but with the added extra of vat now on everything at 20p we've really gone from 25p to 45p....

Now them very wealthy royals during that 400 years and including today are exempt from taxation... I'm not biased and I don't read newspapers but you tell me where the fairness is on those figures."

Oh dear. I think the clue is in the line in the song "One for me Nineteen for you" as we hadn't actually brought in decimalisation then. So your '95p' figure doesn't stand scrutiny. The Beatles were liable to a 95% supertax introduced by Harold Wilson's Labour government which is not the same as 95p.

And what people do with the balance they are left with is frankly none of your business.

Not quite sure what the rate of tax in nineteen hundred and frozen cold has to do with anything ... You seem to be a 'Tax the rich bastards' Leftie so excuse me for pointing out that THIS Government is taxing top earners at a far higher rate (45p) than your Labour party ever did in 13 years (40p). They are also getting in more unpaid tax (£24Billion last year) than Labour ever did.

You haven't noticed that millions of people now don't pay tax at all and even more millions have had their tax bill reduced because people (you included) don't pay ANY tax on the first £10,500 of your earnings. Zero, Zilch, Nowt, Not a bean....

The Royal family ALL pay tax and have done for years. So maybe DO read a few papers and get some education.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"here we go ... spare me the lecture on economics according to milton friedman please ..... i am up to speed with his flawed theories .... regardless of how the dedicated swallowers of fascism try to dress it up, the fact is that this move by the tories is exactly what it is ... "thin smokescreen of propganda serving to cover massive tory increases in public borrowing" "

Oh well why let a few carefully worded facts and figures get in the way of ignorance ....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"He's not really up to speed anyhow if he can't see a problem with his statement "they just placed Bonds repayable in 2068 @ 2.996%".

So their borrowing at 2.9 and borrowing it out to banks via the boe at 0.5. Who then borrow it back to us at anywhere between 4 and 12%(depending on your circumstances).

"

Oh lets be selective shall we? The BofE do not lend (its called lending not borrowing) out to every bank at 0.5% ... care to explain to us WHY that is the case or shall I .. No you make a fool of yourself ... D'UH!

And banks don't borrow to us. They LEND it to us at whatever rate you let them get away with.

My point is that Government borrowing rates are at an all time low because of the stability and economic progress we have made in 4 years hard graft. Simples!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"...Yeah im with you, your just not making any sense.

1 they've reduced net borrowing by 15% buy cutting spending by 45%.

Interest rates have no effect on guilts, there at a current low for every A rated country.

2 they've increased the debt from 800 million to 1.3 trillion.

3 guilts get paid out every year replacing high yield ones with low yield ones in 2068 is completely nonsensical.

"

1) Your numbers have no relation to reality at all so I won't waste our time.

You really don't have a clue if you really think interests rates have no effect on Government borrowing (aka Gilts). So the rate of interest on your mortgage has no effect on the cost of it? .. Ooops!

2)Yes. Because even if you halve the deficit you are still borrowing! In the 5 years from 2005 to 2010 Labour borrowing went up from 25% GDP to over 50% GDP. In nearly 5 years it has gone up to 72% GDP. So the RATE OF INCREASE has slowed despite the impact of the greatest recession in our history. We had to claw our way back from -7% growth !

3) Don't show your ignorance. The borrowing replaced was the remaining £218m of a 4% Consol or 'non-redeemable' loan dating back to WWI.

Try reading more ....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI


"3rd&4th generation!!.

I think the royals are on at least 50 or 60 generations

Oh dear ... lets have a cheap shot at the Royals. Nothing better to offer? Of course you do know they haven't 'lived off' the State for ooh about 400 years? Or that Her Majesty only cost each of us about 60p a year to carry out her State duties? Or that her Crown Estates contribute over £240 Million a year to the Treasury? or that .. Oh never mind .."

The Crown Estate has never been and never will be 'hers'.

They are state assets.

And the 60p only represents the money given for her to do her duties. It does not reflect the total cost of keeping/maintaining the monarchy.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *teveanddebsCouple
over a year ago

Norwich

If it's produced by the government then surely it will be full of lies anyway?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"The Crown Estate has never been and never will be 'hers'.

They are state assets.

And the 60p only represents the money given for her to do her duties. It does not reflect the total cost of keeping/maintaining the monarchy. "

Actually The Crown Estate is the property of the Crown and always has been. The reason for the 2011 Crown Grant Act was because of the number of corrupt MPs and ignorant people who thought they could strip the Crown of the support of the civil list and keep hold of the income from the Crowns property.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *athnBobCouple
over a year ago

sandwell


"

Road tax was abolished in 1937!

Vehicle Excise Duty is what you pay now. It's basically a tax on owning a car/taxable vehicle. The revenue goes to the main central government coffers."

It may not be called "road tax" but it IS a tax on car/van/truck/motorcycles using the road

You can own a car without paying it if you declare a SORN and never put it on a public road.

You can run the engine all day on private land without having to pay it so it has nothing to do with emission as to whether you are liable for it or not.

If you put a car on the road even without an engine you have to pay it (again makes a nonsense of it being emissions based).

There are very few exceptions to this tax available to the general public*. Classic cars (pre 73 I think) being the one that springs to mind. Even ultra low emission cars are liable for it, they just have to pay nothing for it at the moment. That will almost certainly change at some point in the future as more cars are bought in this band.

*Some farm vehicles but most people are not farmers nor will ever be, MOD (joining the army to avoid paying VED seems a tad excessive) and I think emergency services but somehow I can't see myself turning up to work in a big red truck with ladders on the top.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI


"

Actually The Crown Estate is the property of the Crown and always has been. The reason for the 2011 Crown Grant Act was because of the number of corrupt MPs and ignorant people who thought they could strip the Crown of the support of the civil list and keep hold of the income from the Crowns property."

Crown in this case simply means the state as we are a constitutional monarchy. It does not mean personal property.

The Crown Prosecution Service - meaning that the prosecution is carried out in the name of the state - not of the Queen personally.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


" Crown in this case simply means the state as we are a constitutional monarchy. It does not mean personal property. "

Please do some research and read a little history. When you have finished come back and retract the above statement because it is totally wrong.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI

"Although nominally belonging to the monarch and inherent with the accession of the throne, the Crown Estate, like the Crown Jewels, is not the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him or her, nor do any revenues, or debts, from the estate accrue to the monarch, as they no longer govern in person. That role has been replaced by the de facto authority of Parliament."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"He's not really up to speed anyhow if he can't see a problem with his statement "they just placed Bonds repayable in 2068 @ 2.996%".

So their borrowing at 2.9 and borrowing it out to banks via the boe at 0.5. Who then borrow it back to us at anywhere between 4 and 12%(depending on your circumstances).

Oh lets be selective shall we? The BofE do not lend (its called lending not borrowing) out to every bank at 0.5% ... care to explain to us WHY that is the case or shall I .. No you make a fool of yourself ... D'UH!

And banks don't borrow to us. They LEND it to us at whatever rate you let them get away with.

My point is that Government borrowing rates are at an all time low because of the stability and economic progress we have made in 4 years hard graft. Simples!"
.

I love it when someone's only reply is the semantics of lending or borrowing.

Gilt markets are set in many ways but by primarily by your rating by either standard and poor or Fitch, if there was as you claim a link between your interest rate and gilt rates the boe rate would clearly be 3.75% the gilt market only make up a small percentage of gov debt and they can be from ultra short to ultra long the principle bring paid back at the date , so when your claiming 2068 2.999 it means we pay out twice a year on the principle for 44 years and then pay back the whole sum which they hope to negate with inflation which robs the average joe of any real wealth helping in the transfer of wealth from the masses to the few.... Hence why the rich keep getting a big slice of the pie every year!.

Your right about one thing though.. I'm definitely a maxist

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

The Crown Estate has never been and never will be 'hers'.

They are state assets.

And the 60p only represents the money given for her to do her duties. It does not reflect the total cost of keeping/maintaining the monarchy. "

I am sorry I never said they were 'hers'. I said the were the Queen's. The technical reality is that the Crown estates are NOT State assets. But neither are they the personal property of the Sovereign. They are property owned by the Sovereign of the United Kingdom "in right of the Crown" managed by an independent board over which she / he has no control and it is all here:

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/

Well given we don't even pay that 60p per person per year now its academic. Funding for the Sovereign Grant (brought in in 2012) comes from a percentage of the profits of the Crown Estate revenue (initially set at 15%). And this pays for everything associated with the Monarchy and not just her State Duties. So it includes upkeep of Buckingham palace which is actually State owned.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/theroyalhousehold/royalfinances/overview.aspx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I love it when the rate of interest on a loan is seen by someone as 'mere semantics'.

I guess Marxists being Communists live in that wonderful Socialist make believe world of never ending taxes to pay for never ending welfare and an ever growing public sector client state that will be a never ending source of votes.

Until people wise up and realise it is of course make believe and the borrowing funded 'boom' will eventually 'bust'.

As it did in 2009.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

See there you go again maxist communist and socialist are three different entities but as usual you lump everything together.

Anyhow fake over borrowing economy?, I think you'll find its communist China that's been buying your gilts for the last 4 years of coalition excesses ... Really you Must try harder

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI

The Crown Estate is nationalised in everything but name.

An Act of Parliament dictated it's current structure and it's profits submitted to the Treasury as should be rightly the case.

Why it still exists is beyond me. It should be scraped! The assets of public value should be retained and the others sold off or used to create a UK investment fund.

Siphoning away tens of millions each year through the Crown Estate, the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, it's a disgusting system in the modern age.

Their 15% cut of the Crown Estate profits doesn't include paying for security. Add anywhere between 50m-100m and it would be closer to the mark.

It's an vast sum of money to fork out for someone to get chauffeured around to shake hands.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

It's a pointless exercise, except as more propaganda. Whatever they tell us it will be lies, misdirection, spun, massaged and basically bullshit.

It's a marketing and is intended to mislead people. It's not intended to provide actual, genuine information.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"The Crown Estate is nationalised in everything but name.

An Act of Parliament dictated it's current structure and it's profits submitted to the Treasury as should be rightly the case.

Why it still exists is beyond me. It should be scraped! The assets of public value should be retained and the others sold off or used to create a UK investment fund.

Siphoning away tens of millions each year through the Crown Estate, the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, it's a disgusting system in the modern age.

Their 15% cut of the Crown Estate profits doesn't include paying for security. Add anywhere between 50m-100m and it would be closer to the mark.

It's an vast sum of money to fork out for someone to get chauffeured around to shake hands. "

Can't you read? They are NOT nationalised in any way as they are totally independent of Government and are held in the name of the Crown for the benefit of the people. At least we agree where the profits go!

So why try and fix something that isn't broken? A solution looking for a problem? Because you hate the idea of Monarchy?

Can you show where these 'millions' are siphoned away? NO! Because they are managed by independent people who have to report the accounts publicly. And why throw in the two Duchies? Bit of generalised mud slinging? They are NOTHING to do with Crown Estates and never have been. And what is SO un-modern about our Head of State's historical land ownership being used for the benefit of the people she reigns over? Its almost Marxist ... oops soorryyy!

No it doesn't cover security you are right. But having a consensual and non political Head of State means it costs us less. Obama's family security costs the US Taxpayer $1.4Billion a year. And if we had a president (God forbid) we would still have to pay for security. And his / her wages. And his / her office. And his / her palaces and hangers on etc etc. And I suspect Her Majesty would say OK lads I'll take my Crown Estates back then ...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's a pointless exercise, except as more propaganda. Whatever they tell us it will be lies, misdirection, spun, massaged and basically bullshit.

It's a marketing and is intended to mislead people. It's not intended to provide actual, genuine information."

So its all lies then? ... care to prove that? And where is it misleading? I think the regulators might have a view on that. It is real data verifiable by anyone at any time. Just phone up HMRC!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Coalition excesses? Blimey last week it was coalition austerity killing everyone. Next week it will be 'Bedroom Tax' ....

welcome to the ever changing world of the Socialist ideology....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm a Marxist your right I've told you that already.

I'm for society, for equality ,anti religion and I'm for a stateless state,I realise though education that I need the state and it needs me but no more than anyone else, and because of this I realise that we have to pay for society.

You on the other hand buy into this media driven bollocks that you've worked hard ,you deserve all your money, you got there by your own hard 'graft'as you say, your business that you started and you created with your hard work means you should keep everything! you believe in you.

This is where we fundamentally disagree, society gave you everything without it you'd have nothing, the roads your business uses were created and maintained by society, the doctors you use, the hospitals, the electric grid and the power your using right now... All created by society ,your education you use to make a living! Given to you by society for free.

all the things you think you did all alone on your own'graft' is bollocks ,trust me if they dropped you off on a desert island not only would you have nothing but you would be lucky to live a year!

So the only difference between you and i, is I know I need society and I'm willing to pay for it, you on the other hand think you can have all the benefits of society but without paying because just like greedy bastard Tories it's all about you!.

Don't bother replying... I'm done with yer

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"I'm a Marxist your right I've told you that already.

I'm for society, for equality ,anti religion and I'm for a stateless state,I realise though education that I need the state and it needs me but no more than anyone else, and because of this I realise that we have to pay for society.

You on the other hand buy into this media driven bollocks that you've worked hard ,you deserve all your money, you got there by your own hard 'graft'as you say, your business that you started and you created with your hard work means you should keep everything! you believe in you.

This is where we fundamentally disagree, society gave you everything without it you'd have nothing, the roads your business uses were created and maintained by society, the doctors you use, the hospitals, the electric grid and the power your using right now... All created by society ,your education you use to make a living! Given to you by society for free.

all the things you think you did all alone on your own'graft' is bollocks ,trust me if they dropped you off on a desert island not only would you have nothing but you would be lucky to live a year!

So the only difference between you and i, is I know I need society and I'm willing to pay for it, you on the other hand think you can have all the benefits of society but without paying because just like greedy bastard Tories it's all about you!.

Don't bother replying... I'm done with yer

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I'm a Marxist your right I've told you that already.

I'm for society, for equality ,anti religion and I'm for a stateless state,I realise though education that I need the state and it needs me but no more than anyone else, and because of this I realise that we have to pay for society.

You on the other hand buy into this media driven bollocks that you've worked hard ,you deserve all your money, you got there by your own hard 'graft'as you say, your business that you started and you created with your hard work means you should keep everything! you believe in you.

This is where we fundamentally disagree, society gave you everything without it you'd have nothing, the roads your business uses were created and maintained by society, the doctors you use, the hospitals, the electric grid and the power your using right now... All created by society ,your education you use to make a living! Given to you by society for free.

all the things you think you did all alone on your own'graft' is bollocks ,trust me if they dropped you off on a desert island not only would you have nothing but you would be lucky to live a year!

So the only difference between you and i, is I know I need society and I'm willing to pay for it, you on the other hand think you can have all the benefits of society but without paying because just like greedy bastard Tories it's all about you!.

Don't bother replying... I'm done with yer

"

The 'just world fallacy' of pull your self up from your bootstraps because we live in a meritocracy where opportunities are available for all and nobody is benefitting from the age of empires because it was so long ago.

Enjoyed reading this thread.

Thanks to all.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So the only difference between you and i, is I know I need society and I'm willing to pay for it, you on the other hand think you can have all the benefits of society but without paying because just like greedy bastard Tories it's all about you!.

Don't bother replying... I'm done with yer"

well I am not done with you...

Did I call you a bastard? No.

Did I say I didn't want to pay for anything? No.

Did we discuss my paying for anything? No.

Did I say I wanted everything for nothing? No.

So listen up: The REAL difference between us is you believe the State knows best about everything. It clearly does NOT! You believe that people should not keep what they have earned after paying taxes for schools, roads, welfare for the needy and everything we believe that defines us as a caring society. The Victorians believed that it was out of our hard work we provided for ourselves and those less able to look after themselves. THAT is caring Capitalism. THAT is my belief and how I have worked all my life. So yes I make NO apologies for believing those that HAVE worked hard and made money should keep it and spend it how THEY see fit. Not some Marxist apparatchik like you telling them how they should spend it. Marxism and Communism are proven failures as societal and economic models. The concept that 'we are all equal except some are more equal than others' simply is corrupt. You only have to look at East Germany (somewhere I have visited) to prove that point.

So with the greatest respect and in line with your personal abuse go and shove it and your total ignorance of who I am and what my beliefs are up your Stalinist / Marxist / whateverist arse.

Do feel free to misquote me ... again.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

As I thought, it's lies, twisted facts and misdirection. It's utterly worthless as anything other than more propaganda designed to make people fight amongst ourselves.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osborne-accused-of-fuelling-ignorance-over-welfare-claims-9839452.html

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ian Duncan smith gets the tax lol.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Depends which taxes they choose to reveal?

Hope they reveal what road tax is spent on because is isn't on roads, surprisingly."

Road tax is a myth iys actually vehicle excise duty it does not go into a seperate pot.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ian Duncan smith gets the tax lol."

Its used to give the millionaires tax rebate on same day bedroom tax came in that affects less well off.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ian Duncan smith gets the tax lol.

Its used to give the millionaires tax rebate on same day bedroom tax came in that affects less well off."
Yes you are right there.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


" We do not as taxpayers support any part of the Royal Family and haven't done for centuries."

Centuries eh?

This was from 2010, reporting an incident from 2004. Poor royals, unable to afford "soaring" fuel bills.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-tried-to-use-state-poverty-fund-to-heat-buckingham-palace-2088179.html

It didn't work this time but how many times have they gotten away with it without us finding out.

Did it perhaps occur to them that if their fuel bill had soared, there were other, ordinary people, many of whom were vulnerable, who could also not heat their homes?

What did they do about it? Take care of themselves and sod the little people, to the extent of actually trying to use money intended for those struggling.

We can't have the Queen told to wear an extra jumper or to only heat one room though, can we?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"It's a pointless exercise, except as more propaganda. Whatever they tell us it will be lies, misdirection, spun, massaged and basically bullshit.

It's a marketing and is intended to mislead people. It's not intended to provide actual, genuine information.

So its all lies then? ... care to prove that? And where is it misleading? I think the regulators might have a view on that. It is real data verifiable by anyone at any time. Just phone up HMRC!"

See what I just posted above.

Yes, it's lies.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anchestercubMan
over a year ago

manchester & NI

It makes me giggle when I hear people bashing socialism.

Even UKIP is supporting the NHS.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"It makes me giggle when I hear people bashing socialism.

Even UKIP is supporting the NHS. "

Supporting privatising it, yes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

Socialism is a great idea and it appeals to me in many ways nut it has been proven not to work except in small communities.

That said, no government must be 100% socialist, capitalist or any other system-ist.

There's no need for this country to be this way. It's entirely down to greed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago

apart from the incoherent ramblings of the odd right wing extremist looneys who believe kaputalism is working, the majority on this thread are in agreement that this tax letter is merely propaganda backed up by some extremely curved statistics.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"As I thought, it's lies, twisted facts and misdirection. It's utterly worthless as anything other than more propaganda designed to make people fight amongst ourselves.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osborne-accused-of-fuelling-ignorance-over-welfare-claims-9839452.html"

Interesting how you make your interpretation. Having read the article I fear you should read it again. All it says is that Osborne has been accused of something by vested interests like the TUC and the IFS .... It proves nothing like the comments you make.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"apart from the incoherent ramblings of the odd right wing extremist looneys who believe kaputalism is working...."

So someone offers a different perspective and I am an extremist looney? Your friend elsewhere called me a Tory bastard. Now I haven't felt the need to resort to that language as I subscribe to Oscar Wilde's observation that abuse is still the refuge of the witless.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It makes me giggle when I hear people bashing socialism.

Even UKIP is supporting the NHS.

Supporting privatising it, yes."

You conveniently forget Tony Bliar's New Labour brought in more privatisation of the NHS than this Government ever has and demanded 20% efficiencies in the NHS. And then paid GPs to actually not work nights and weekends. But to think the private sector has nothing to offer seems quite blinkered. The NHS is a gem we should cherish and care for but it has huge inefficiencies and wastes OUR money quite scandalously in many ways. This Government, despite the Labour's wrecking the economy, has ring fenced NHS spending from cuts and has ploughed in an extra £12.5Billion and we now have a cancer drug fund we never had before for which I am personally very grateful.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


" We do not as taxpayers support any part of the Royal Family and haven't done for centuries.

Centuries eh?

This was from 2010, reporting an incident from 2004. Poor royals, unable to afford "soaring" fuel bills.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-tried-to-use-state-poverty-fund-to-heat-buckingham-palace-2088179.html

It didn't work this time but how many times have they gotten away with it without us finding out.

Did it perhaps occur to them that if their fuel bill had soared, there were other, ordinary people, many of whom were vulnerable, who could also not heat their homes?

What did they do about it? Take care of themselves and sod the little people, to the extent of actually trying to use money intended for those struggling.

We can't have the Queen told to wear an extra jumper or to only heat one room though, can we? "

I am sure you read one article and post another. That article shows the managers of the palaces asked.. 'asked' note ... if the then rules in place (and this was over 10 years ago) would allow insulation improvements for certain buildings (some of which are open to the public) to reduce heat loss and fuel costs. They were told yes ... and then no. So it went no further. Nothing to do with the queen asking for money to be taken from the poor to pay her heating bills at all. Quite where you make THAT connection beats me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ian Duncan smith gets the tax lol.

Its used to give the millionaires tax rebate on same day bedroom tax came in that affects less well off."

Oh dear I wondered when the 'its not a tax' Bedroom tax would come up...

So let me get this right: It was OK for Labour to take away Housing benefit from PRIVATE tenants in need to force them to move for 13 years and nothing was said. But now the PUBLIC sector tenants have been brought in (which seems fair tome) to get them to move from what are subsidised homes suddenly seems evil and bad and very nasty. Helloooo! What is so special about a Council house tenant living in a house that is more than he / she needs when a Private tenant has to lump it? Good old Socialism at work again ...

Now do help me because I am confused. com here:

Labour had a top rate of tax of 40p in the £ for 13 years (bar 2 months) and in their last budget before the election in 2010 raised it to 50p. It actually came into force AFTER the election! This Government reduced it from that false 50p to 45p and this has been the rate for 4 1/2 years. So this Government has been taxing at 5p HIGHER than Labour ever did. So how is a 5p INCREASE in rate a 'tax cut for millionaires'? And if 45p is a tax cut how come the Labour 40p rate wasn't an even bigger 'tax cut for millionaires'?

Got to love Socialist thinking ...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top