Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
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 |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone?" Sadly no, a lot of law firms that rely on legal aid don't practice chancery/contract law. Totally agree with your sentiments though, it's all just tax tax tax. I sense an uprising coming. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone? Sadly no, a lot of law firms that rely on legal aid don't practice chancery/contract law. Totally agree with your sentiments though, it's all just tax tax tax. I sense an uprising coming. " Thanks. There are peaceful protests every day and they don't seem to be helping. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She's right, you can't tax everything. Unfortunately the poor have been taxed to shit recently and are likely to riot soon, so gonna have to tax somebody aren't they. i'm sure their lawyers will find loopholes of they're really that bothered. Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone?" The top 3000 earners contribute more tax revenue than the bottom 9m as a result of the increase in the tax free threshold etc, and higher tax rate earners are contributing proportionately more than in nearly 20 years. That is not to dismiss that average households have suffered a meaningful reduction in disposable income over the past few years, but pointing out that some of the numbers tell an interesting story. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone? Sadly no, a lot of law firms that rely on legal aid don't practice chancery/contract law. Totally agree with your sentiments though, it's all just tax tax tax. I sense an uprising coming. " Unlikely. Those at the top do their utmost to avoid it. The government and media channel hatred towards the most vulnerable. Society hates that woman from benefits street far more than Gary Barlow and his tax avoiding bandmates but who is really screwing the country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She's right, you can't tax everything. Unfortunately the poor have been taxed to shit recently and are likely to riot soon, so gonna have to tax somebody aren't they. i'm sure their lawyers will find loopholes if they're really that bothered. Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone? The top 3000 earners contribute more tax revenue than the bottom 9m as a result of the increase in the tax free threshold etc, and higher tax rate earners are contributing proportionately more than in nearly 20 years. That is not to dismiss that average households have suffered a meaningful reduction in disposable income over the past few years, but pointing out that some of the numbers tell an interesting story." Pointing out that wages are distributed unequally, and therefore taxed unequally? The richest still have way more disposable left after taxes than that 9 million. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone? Sadly no, a lot of law firms that rely on legal aid don't practice chancery/contract law. Totally agree with your sentiments though, it's all just tax tax tax. I sense an uprising coming. Unlikely. Those at the top do their utmost to avoid it. The government and media channel hatred towards the most vulnerable. Society hates that woman from benefits street far more than Gary Barlow and his tax avoiding bandmates but who is really screwing the country. " I hate both | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A just giving page has been set up to help her pay her mansion tax. " Will there be a charity record in the shops as well? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone? Sadly no, a lot of law firms that rely on legal aid don't practice chancery/contract law. Totally agree with your sentiments though, it's all just tax tax tax. I sense an uprising coming. Unlikely. Those at the top do their utmost to avoid it. The government and media channel hatred towards the most vulnerable. Society hates that woman from benefits street far more than Gary Barlow and his tax avoiding bandmates but who is really screwing the country. " Agreed. There was a more of a fuss in the media over him getting an OBE from the queen more than making him pay taxes too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A just giving page has been set up to help her pay her mansion tax. Will there be a charity record in the shops as well?" geldof missed a trick... maybe the record sales should go to helping victims of the ebola crisis AND the mansion tax..... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She's right, you can't tax everything. Unfortunately the poor have been taxed to shit recently and are likely to riot soon, so gonna have to tax somebody aren't they. i'm sure their lawyers will find loopholes of they're really that bothered. Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone? The top 3000 earners contribute more tax revenue than the bottom 9m as a result of the increase in the tax free threshold etc, and higher tax rate earners are contributing proportionately more than in nearly 20 years. That is not to dismiss that average households have suffered a meaningful reduction in disposable income over the past few years, but pointing out that some of the numbers tell an interesting story." . Tax payments are completely confidential, how an earth do you assume that the top 3000 pay any income tax at all. When Jimmy carr avoided his tax, he was avoiding tax at 20% not 40 or 50. He was collecting his income at the time through corporation tax on his company. He sought to avoid this and pay no tax, just a 7%fee charged by the firm that ran the scheme. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She's right, you can't tax everything. Unfortunately the poor have been taxed to shit recently and are likely to riot soon, so gonna have to tax somebody aren't they. i'm sure their lawyers will find loopholes of they're really that bothered. Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone? The top 3000 earners contribute more tax revenue than the bottom 9m as a result of the increase in the tax free threshold etc, and higher tax rate earners are contributing proportionately more than in nearly 20 years. That is not to dismiss that average households have suffered a meaningful reduction in disposable income over the past few years, but pointing out that some of the numbers tell an interesting story.. Tax payments are completely confidential, how an earth do you assume that the top 3000 pay any income tax at all. When Jimmy carr avoided his tax, he was avoiding tax at 20% not 40 or 50. He was collecting his income at the time through corporation tax on his company. He sought to avoid this and pay no tax, just a 7%fee charged by the firm that ran the scheme." It was unearthed under the freedom of information act by a journalist, I assume it was aggregated and leaked for political purposes. The point I was trying to make is that there is huge gap in terms of what people both earn and pay back. A line has to be drawn somewhere to encourage entrepreurship, creativity and growth which is desperately needed to help balance the books at some point in the distant future. Just taxing the shit out of everyone, rich and poor, in my view isn't the right way as France is finding out. Tax is overly complex which makes it open to abuse. A simpler system which was policed more effectively would make life a lot easier. But whatever the system both ends of the social spectrum will always feel that the other side should contribute more. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She's right, you can't tax everything. Unfortunately the poor have been taxed to shit recently and are likely to riot soon, so gonna have to tax somebody aren't they. i'm sure their lawyers will find loopholes of they're really that bothered. Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone? The top 3000 earners contribute more tax revenue than the bottom 9m as a result of the increase in the tax free threshold etc, and higher tax rate earners are contributing proportionately more than in nearly 20 years. That is not to dismiss that average households have suffered a meaningful reduction in disposable income over the past few years, but pointing out that some of the numbers tell an interesting story.. Tax payments are completely confidential, how an earth do you assume that the top 3000 pay any income tax at all. When Jimmy carr avoided his tax, he was avoiding tax at 20% not 40 or 50. He was collecting his income at the time through corporation tax on his company. He sought to avoid this and pay no tax, just a 7%fee charged by the firm that ran the scheme. It was unearthed under the freedom of information act by a journalist, I assume it was aggregated and leaked for political purposes. The point I was trying to make is that there is huge gap in terms of what people both earn and pay back. A line has to be drawn somewhere to encourage entrepreurship, creativity and growth which is desperately needed to help balance the books at some point in the distant future. Just taxing the shit out of everyone, rich and poor, in my view isn't the right way as France is finding out. Tax is overly complex which makes it open to abuse. A simpler system which was policed more effectively would make life a lot easier. But whatever the system both ends of the social spectrum will always feel that the other side should contribute more." . Completely agree. If we moved corporation tax back to 50% this would encourage firms to put profit back into tax free r&d or infrastructure or expansion. Hey we might even put capital back into capitalism | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She's right, you can't tax everything. Unfortunately the poor have been taxed to shit recently and are likely to riot soon, so gonna have to tax somebody aren't they. i'm sure their lawyers will find loopholes of they're really that bothered. Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone?" How do you work that one out? The poor (presumably those on low pay) don't pay any tax at all of the first £10,000 of their salary. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She's right, you can't tax everything. Unfortunately the poor have been taxed to shit recently and are likely to riot soon, so gonna have to tax somebody aren't they. i'm sure their lawyers will find loopholes of they're really that bothered. Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone? The top 3000 earners contribute more tax revenue than the bottom 9m as a result of the increase in the tax free threshold etc, and higher tax rate earners are contributing proportionately more than in nearly 20 years. That is not to dismiss that average households have suffered a meaningful reduction in disposable income over the past few years, but pointing out that some of the numbers tell an interesting story.. Tax payments are completely confidential, how an earth do you assume that the top 3000 pay any income tax at all. When Jimmy carr avoided his tax, he was avoiding tax at 20% not 40 or 50. He was collecting his income at the time through corporation tax on his company. He sought to avoid this and pay no tax, just a 7%fee charged by the firm that ran the scheme. It was unearthed under the freedom of information act by a journalist, I assume it was aggregated and leaked for political purposes. The point I was trying to make is that there is huge gap in terms of what people both earn and pay back. A line has to be drawn somewhere to encourage entrepreurship, creativity and growth which is desperately needed to help balance the books at some point in the distant future. Just taxing the shit out of everyone, rich and poor, in my view isn't the right way as France is finding out. Tax is overly complex which makes it open to abuse. A simpler system which was policed more effectively would make life a lot easier. But whatever the system both ends of the social spectrum will always feel that the other side should contribute more.. Completely agree. If we moved corporation tax back to 50% this would encourage firms to put profit back into tax free r&d or infrastructure or expansion. Hey we might even put capital back into capitalism "I imagine that comment was a joke or you would intentionally want to drive business out of the IK. Corporation tax should be abolished not increased, it is a stupid, punitive tax that punishes companies for creating wealth and being successful. A simple transaction tax should replace corporation tax and then there would be no loophole at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The poor (presumably those on low pay) don't pay any tax at all of the first £10,000 of their salary." ahem .... VAT at 20% since jan 2011 .... and you propose another transaction tax ..... just how many transaction taxes do you want .... one's enough thanks all the same | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She's right, you can't tax everything. Unfortunately the poor have been taxed to shit recently and are likely to riot soon, so gonna have to tax somebody aren't they. i'm sure their lawyers will find loopholes of they're really that bothered. Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone? How do you work that one out? The poor (presumably those on low pay) don't pay any tax at all of the first £10,000 of their salary." . So let's say they earn 9 grand. They spend 500 a year on fuel 375£of that is tax. They pay 500 on energy bills(they usually spend three times more than an ordinary consumer because they have pre paid metres). 25£is tax. They spend 1000 on food . between 50 and 200£tax depending on food bought. They spend 500 in the pub (poor people have a fetish for contraband ) 375£ tax.
One things for sure knowing they only earn 9 grand there'll spend it all "living" and depending on what they spend it on between 20% and 60 % will be tax.
So let's say there extra frugal and manage the 20% bracket, it's still alot of tax for somebody earning fuck all | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She's right, you can't tax everything. Unfortunately the poor have been taxed to shit recently and are likely to riot soon, so gonna have to tax somebody aren't they. i'm sure their lawyers will find loopholes of they're really that bothered. Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone? The top 3000 earners contribute more tax revenue than the bottom 9m as a result of the increase in the tax free threshold etc, and higher tax rate earners are contributing proportionately more than in nearly 20 years. That is not to dismiss that average households have suffered a meaningful reduction in disposable income over the past few years, but pointing out that some of the numbers tell an interesting story.. Tax payments are completely confidential, how an earth do you assume that the top 3000 pay any income tax at all. When Jimmy carr avoided his tax, he was avoiding tax at 20% not 40 or 50. He was collecting his income at the time through corporation tax on his company. He sought to avoid this and pay no tax, just a 7%fee charged by the firm that ran the scheme. It was unearthed under the freedom of information act by a journalist, I assume it was aggregated and leaked for political purposes. The point I was trying to make is that there is huge gap in terms of what people both earn and pay back. A line has to be drawn somewhere to encourage entrepreurship, creativity and growth which is desperately needed to help balance the books at some point in the distant future. Just taxing the shit out of everyone, rich and poor, in my view isn't the right way as France is finding out. Tax is overly complex which makes it open to abuse. A simpler system which was policed more effectively would make life a lot easier. But whatever the system both ends of the social spectrum will always feel that the other side should contribute more.. Completely agree. If we moved corporation tax back to 50% this would encourage firms to put profit back into tax free r&d or infrastructure or expansion. Hey we might even put capital back into capitalism
I imagine that comment was a joke or you would intentionally want to drive business out of the IK. Corporation tax should be abolished not increased, it is a stupid, punitive tax that punishes companies for creating wealth and being successful.
A simple transaction tax should replace corporation tax and then there would be no loophole at all.". One law needed you earn money here you pay tax here. Your free to fuck off to Russia by all means but your company ceases to trade here. Do you think another company wouldn't do what they do for 50%profit.... Hey I thought that was the whole point of capitalism | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The poor (presumably those on low pay) don't pay any tax at all of the first £10,000 of their salary. ahem .... VAT at 20% since jan 2011 .... and you propose another transaction tax ..... just how many transaction taxes do you want .... one's enough thanks all the same" Food is zero rated as are children's clothes. Presumably "the poorest" are spending on basic rather than luxury goods so the increase in VAT is not really relevant. The relevance of VAT can be seen on, for example a TV. Advertised price £600 - Vat element £100 (of which £50 relates to the increase since 2911). TV gets reduced within a few weeks by the retailer to £450. The transaction tax concept is a corporate tax, payable by companies and not individuals. The idea being that for example every product or service sold by a company from the UK, to another company or individual inside or outside the UK generates a transaction tax - payable by the Company as an addition to their quarterly VAT return. This would replace Corporation Tax and mean that every company that makes any kind of transaction in the UK will pay the tax. No escaping and no loopholes. The tax can be quite minimal because it will catch every single transaction and close the corporation tax loopholes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She's right, you can't tax everything. Unfortunately the poor have been taxed to shit recently and are likely to riot soon, so gonna have to tax somebody aren't they. i'm sure their lawyers will find loopholes of they're really that bothered. Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone? How do you work that one out? The poor (presumably those on low pay) don't pay any tax at all of the first £10,000 of their salary.. So let's say they earn 9 grand. They spend 500 a year on fuel 375£of that is tax. They pay 500 on energy bills(they usually spend three times more than an ordinary consumer because they have pre paid metres). 25£is tax. They spend 1000 on food . between 50 and 200£tax depending on food bought. They spend 500 in the pub (poor people have a fetish for contraband ) 375£ tax.
One things for sure knowing they only earn 9 grand there'll spend it all "living" and depending on what they spend it on between 20% and 60 % will be tax.
So let's say there extra frugal and manage the 20% bracket, it's still alot of tax for somebody earning fuck all"Look at the post. It said "the poor have been taxed to shit recently." Just pointing out that this is not strictly true. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And you forgot to say not only do the poor not pay tax on the 10 grand... Millionaires don't either!!" Personally I admire people who have created wealth for themselves and who have presumably created employment and tax revenues for the country. I don't want to shaft them or persecute them. On the contrary, I would like us to encourage more and more people to be like that. Jobs don't grow on trees you know. People have to create enterprises, take risks and build companies. If that makes them wealthy... Good luck to them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"like the way she tried to link the "£2 million pound" mansion tax level with "poor little old grannies being the ones to be hit...." How many poor "little old grannies" own £2,000,000 homes........ "
Very well said. She'd best carry on doing her adverts or whatever she does, and keep her political views to herself if she can't say something sensible. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"like the way she tried to link the "£2 million pound" mansion tax level with "poor little old grannies being the ones to be hit...." How many poor "little old grannies" own £2,000,000 homes........ "I would think in this day and age that there are many little old ladies, men and couples in multi million pound houses that aren't rich. Due to the increase in house prices over the last 20 - 30 years there are many property rich people who live on a modest income/pension... Should we force them to sell their family home? I personally think not... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"like the way she tried to link the "£2 million pound" mansion tax level with "poor little old grannies being the ones to be hit...." How many poor "little old grannies" own £2,000,000 homes........
I would think in this day and age that there are many little old ladies, men and couples in multi million pound houses that aren't rich. Due to the increase in house prices over the last 20 - 30 years there are many property rich people who live on a modest income/pension...
Should we force them to sell their family home? I personally think not..."if they sold their £2,000,000 pound house then they would be rich | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How incredibly middle class aspirational the swinging world is these days. Either way you look at it - UK plc spends more than it makes and UK plc currently has to borrow to make up the shortfall. I've never been a Tory voter - but I'm edging in that direction - hard decisions taken to bring our spending back into line. I'm in the top 10% salary bracket and I'm far from wealthy - just about comfortable - but not wealthy. Tax the too 1% more I say! " Currently all 4 'main parties' are completely business led in policies. All are for cuts to services and more austerity measures. Labour have said the will continue the present cuts for 2 years after the election. Meaning more of the poorest and even middle income squeezed to breaking point. Lib dems have supported most of the cuts been put in place since being in coalition with the conservatives. And ukip and the conservatives are practically the same, except ukip is even more pro wealthy / business and cuts. None of then have a real answer to the cost of living crisis, that is caused by mostly companies wanting even better profits, year in year out. . There is only one way to go from here. And that is to rebalance the power from the richest 1% to the 99%... There are 5 families in the UK that hold more wealth than the combined wealth of the bottom 20%. Capitalism doesn't work for the majority!! That why a democrat socialist movement must happen, to protect the majority of the population from the greed of so few people. Check out UK socialist partys website | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How incredibly middle class aspirational the swinging world is these days. Either way you look at it - UK plc spends more than it makes and UK plc currently has to borrow to make up the shortfall. I've never been a Tory voter - but I'm edging in that direction - hard decisions taken to bring our spending back into line. I'm in the top 10% salary bracket and I'm far from wealthy - just about comfortable - but not wealthy. Tax the too 1% more I say! Currently all 4 'main parties' are completely business led in policies. All are for cuts to services and more austerity measures. Labour have said the will continue the present cuts for 2 years after the election. Meaning more of the poorest and even middle income squeezed to breaking point. Lib dems have supported most of the cuts been put in place since being in coalition with the conservatives. And ukip and the conservatives are practically the same, except ukip is even more pro wealthy / business and cuts. None of then have a real answer to the cost of living crisis, that is caused by mostly companies wanting even better profits, year in year out. . There is only one way to go from here. And that is to rebalance the power from the richest 1% to the 99%... There are 5 families in the UK that hold more wealth than the combined wealth of the bottom 20%. Capitalism doesn't work for the majority!! That why a democrat socialist movement must happen, to protect the majority of the population from the greed of so few people. Check out UK socialist partys website" The grass is always is greener? If you think that capitalism does not work how come it is still going strong and is the preferred choice of governance in virtually all first world countries. Socialism was tried and failed really quite miserably when it became clear to the population at large that wealth went from a small percentage of the population to an even smaller percentage of the population. Be grateful that you live in a stable and wealthy country whose standards of living and the infrastructure are the envy of others. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The grass is always is greener? If you think that capitalism does not work how come it is still going strong and is the preferred choice of governance in virtually all first world countries. Socialism was tried and failed really quite miserably when it became clear to the population at large that wealth went from a small percentage of the population to an even smaller percentage of the population. Be grateful that you live in a stable and wealthy country whose standards of living and the infrastructure are the envy of others. " If you really think it failed, then why are some fairly wealthy countries not so far from England socialist countries. Denmark and Finland to name just 2, Both with thriving economies. Even though tax is much higher there than in the UK, people are not just willing but happy to give up the money for not only more services but much better services too. http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/ Check out that website, I think you might be surprised at 7 out of the 8 other countries in the list. Why I say socialism is the option, is because all the parties at the moment are on the side of big business and billionaires. Rather than the average working class person. Vital services for the poorest and even for the wealthier but still stretched, have be hacked away atlike some kind of cancer. Yet the big companies that provide our essential services are given over to shareholder, who aren't in the business of making it cheaper for you or me to have whatever it is they are selling.... Electric is a good example. Socialist want the power and vital utilities back in to public ownership, so that not only can prices fall to affordable levels but they become accountable to the people they are supplying too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And you forgot to say not only do the poor not pay tax on the 10 grand... Millionaires don't either!! Personally I admire people who have created wealth for themselves and who have presumably created employment and tax revenues for the country. I don't want to shaft them or persecute them. On the contrary, I would like us to encourage more and more people to be like that. Jobs don't grow on trees you know. People have to create enterprises, take risks and build companies. If that makes them wealthy... Good luck to them."
I do love it when the socialists have a go at the successful businessmen and entrepreneurs. If these people did not exist, then there would be mass unemployment. Its pure jealousy.
I see socialism as an admission of being lazy and having no ambition. Just relying on the state for everything.
Reading some of the near communist views on here makes me chuckle. Free thought and self expression of views would not be allowed in the society they crave.
I look forward to the next anti capitalism riots, just to watch these hypocritical morons raiding Apple and Nike stores | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
that's just my personal opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Myleene Klass didn't come across as well as the media said really, her political arguments weren't mega strong - plus Ed Miliband is hardly confident in anything these days. Tax is never gonna please everybody. I would rather the people who earn more and contribute the most to the economy get rewards to boost and encourage the economy. Long term abuse of taxpayers money, or avoidance, is a huge drain and affects us all. Either do the best you can, and really do that, or take action and deliver change through protest, politics or education - just don't moan about stuff and do nothing or nothing changes that's just my personal opinion."Well said , again how many of the posters on this forum actually took the time to vote at of the last bi/gen elections | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And you forgot to say not only do the poor not pay tax on the 10 grand... Millionaires don't either!! Personally I admire people who have created wealth for themselves and who have presumably created employment and tax revenues for the country. I don't want to shaft them or persecute them. On the contrary, I would like us to encourage more and more people to be like that. Jobs don't grow on trees you know. People have to create enterprises, take risks and build companies. If that makes them wealthy... Good luck to them.
I do love it when the socialists have a go at the successful businessmen and entrepreneurs. If these people did not exist, then there would be mass unemployment. Its pure jealousy.
I see socialism as an admission of being lazy and having no ambition. Just relying on the state for everything.
Reading some of the near communist views on here makes me chuckle. Free thought and self expression of views would not be allowed in the society they crave.
I look forward to the next anti capitalism riots, just to watch these hypocritical morons raiding Apple and Nike stores ". Most of the successful business people and technical innervates you admire did it when they had nothing. I really don't get your argument that innovation would stop if you taxed rich people more. Humans have always innovated regardless of money. If you think taxing the rich or just making them pay the tax in the first place is communism, you've got a very blurred thinking | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do love it when the socialists have a go at the successful businessmen and entrepreneurs. If these people did not exist, then there would be mass unemployment. Its pure jealousy. I see socialism as an admission of being lazy and having no ambition. Just relying on the state for everything. Reading some of the near communist views on here makes me chuckle. Free thought and self expression of views would not be allowed in the society they crave. I look forward to the next anti capitalism riots, just to watch these hypocritical morons raiding Apple and Nike stores " I am honestly all for businesses making money and being successful, they wouldn't be out there trying to make money if there wasn't a market for whatever they sell. And yes, there would be extremely high unemployment as a result. What I object to is companies that make billions in profits not paying there tax through loopholes, or government giving them money in the form of subsidies. Like if its the energy company getting a few million for expanding the renewable sector and then hiking up the price of electric and gas just before winter hits which hits the poorest (pensioners, unemployed, disabled) harder and harder. Like when Ed Miliband Said that Labour would freeze energy prices for 20 months after the election. A week later the big 6 announced price rises, probably in retaliation to that pledge. This is depsite the big 6 having record profits this year, they could of afforded to freeze the prices voluntarily. And as for saying socialism is about being lazy and relying on the state to provide for them. I am a socialist, I am currently not just at work in a low paid factory job. But I am attending college learning welding and fabrication. Trying to better myself and the prospects for my family. And socialism has move a long way from the Stalin like regime, where he instigated a socialist dictatorship. I stand for liberal socialist democracy for all people within this country. * Fairer treatment from government, by not removing essential public services and reducing austerity measures imposed on the wrong people. * fairer treatment within employment. From the instant introduction of a living wage of no less than £8ph. Not waiting till 2020, which if you just increased NMG in line till 2020 it would have arrived at the £7.60 mark naturally. Apprentices should be paid a wage they can live on, plus be promised a job at the end of the apprenticeship. * Public and essential services (electric, gas, railways, airports, road maintenance, social housing, NHS, schools, colleges and universities) should owned by the tax payer and government, not in some cases, a multinational company that just wants to increase profits for shareholders | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The grass is always is greener? If you think that capitalism does not work how come it is still going strong and is the preferred choice of governance in virtually all first world countries. Socialism was tried and failed really quite miserably when it became clear to the population at large that wealth went from a small percentage of the population to an even smaller percentage of the population. Be grateful that you live in a stable and wealthy country whose standards of living and the infrastructure are the envy of others. If you really think it failed, then why are some fairly wealthy countries not so far from England socialist countries. Denmark and Finland to name just 2, Both with thriving economies. Even though tax is much higher there than in the UK, people are not just willing but happy to give up the money for not only more services but much better services too. http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/ Check out that website, I think you might be surprised at 7 out of the 8 other countries in the list. Why I say socialism is the option, is because all the parties at the moment are on the side of big business and billionaires. Rather than the average working class person. Vital services for the poorest and even for the wealthier but still stretched, have be hacked away atlike some kind of cancer. Yet the big companies that provide our essential services are given over to shareholder, who aren't in the business of making it cheaper for you or me to have whatever it is they are selling.... Electric is a good example. Socialist want the power and vital utilities back in to public ownership, so that not only can prices fall to affordable levels but they become accountable to the people they are supplying too. " If you are happy to accept the cost of living in a high tax state.. That is your prerogative. By the way, the UK energy costs are in the cheapest group in the whole of a Europe. - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10727731/Why-whinge-UK-energy-costs-are-among-the-cheapest-in-Europe.html Ironic that the most expensive is your socialist utopia called Denmark?? As for your other Utopia - Finland - despite being courted and complemented by mr Milliband until very recently, the wheels fell off the illusion just last month when the Finnish Prime Minister announced that austerity measures were urgently needed to recover from a lost decade. - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-10/finland-loses-top-rating-as-s-p-cuts-to-aa-on-weak-economy.html Good luck with your socialist fantasy. There is another way of getting on in life you know. It is called self improvement and hard work. It is a proven method of transferring wealth and does not involve stealing from those who are most productive in order to keep the unproductive in champagne. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She's right, you can't tax everything. Unfortunately the poor have been taxed to shit recently and are likely to riot soon, so gonna have to tax somebody aren't they. i'm sure their lawyers will find loopholes of they're really that bothered. Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone? The top 3000 earners contribute more tax revenue than the bottom 9m as a result of the increase in the tax free threshold etc, and higher tax rate earners are contributing proportionately more than in nearly 20 years. That is not to dismiss that average households have suffered a meaningful reduction in disposable income over the past few years, but pointing out that some of the numbers tell an interesting story." All that proves is that wealth is distributed unfairly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She's right, you can't tax everything. Unfortunately the poor have been taxed to shit recently and are likely to riot soon, so gonna have to tax somebody aren't they. i'm sure their lawyers will find loopholes of they're really that bothered. Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone? The top 3000 earners contribute more tax revenue than the bottom 9m as a result of the increase in the tax free threshold etc, and higher tax rate earners are contributing proportionately more than in nearly 20 years. That is not to dismiss that average households have suffered a meaningful reduction in disposable income over the past few years, but pointing out that some of the numbers tell an interesting story. All that proves is that wealth is distributed unfairly." Bitter envy. How will stealing money from rich people make poorer peoples lives better? It may not be politically correct but poor people are poor for a reason and rich people are rich for a reason. The only problem that we have in this country is that far too many people have a sense of expectation and entitlement that has no basis on their position in the world because it was only an accident of birth that they happen to be born in this country. In any event the poor in this country have riches that are beyond the comprehansion of 95% of the worlds population many of whom see clean drinking water as the height of luxury. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I do love it when the socialists have a go at the successful businessmen and entrepreneurs. If these people did not exist, then there would be mass unemployment. Its pure jealousy. I see socialism as an admission of being lazy and having no ambition. Just relying on the state for everything. Reading some of the near communist views on here makes me chuckle. Free thought and self expression of views would not be allowed in the society they crave. I look forward to the next anti capitalism riots, just to watch these hypocritical morons raiding Apple and Nike stores I am honestly all for businesses making money and being successful, they wouldn't be out there trying to make money if there wasn't a market for whatever they sell. And yes, there would be extremely high unemployment as a result. What I object to is companies that make billions in profits not paying there tax through loopholes, or government giving them money in the form of subsidies. Like if its the energy company getting a few million for expanding the renewable sector and then hiking up the price of electric and gas just before winter hits which hits the poorest (pensioners, unemployed, disabled) harder and harder. Like when Ed Miliband Said that Labour would freeze energy prices for 20 months after the election. A week later the big 6 announced price rises, probably in retaliation to that pledge. This is depsite the big 6 having record profits this year, they could of afforded to freeze the prices voluntarily. And as for saying socialism is about being lazy and relying on the state to provide for them. I am a socialist, I am currently not just at work in a low paid factory job. But I am attending college learning welding and fabrication. Trying to better myself and the prospects for my family. And socialism has move a long way from the Stalin like regime, where he instigated a socialist dictatorship. I stand for liberal socialist democracy for all people within this country. * Fairer treatment from government, by not removing essential public services and reducing austerity measures imposed on the wrong people. * fairer treatment within employment. From the instant introduction of a living wage of no less than £8ph. Not waiting till 2020, which if you just increased NMG in line till 2020 it would have arrived at the £7.60 mark naturally. Apprentices should be paid a wage they can live on, plus be promised a job at the end of the apprenticeship. * Public and essential services (electric, gas, railways, airports, road maintenance, social housing, NHS, schools, colleges and universities) should owned by the tax payer and government, not in some cases, a multinational company that just wants to increase profits for shareholders" Two things... Companies and not governments create real jobs. In a perfect world, yes utilities and the transport infrastructure should be in state control but that does not suit our version of governance. Look at the NHS budget and how it is used as a political tool - played with and messed with by whatever government is in power and challenged by the one in opposition. Multiply that budget to include the railway and utilities and you can be absolutely guaranteed that investment would be compromised by political intervention as it was before privatisation. There is no question that cheap energy and an integrated transport network are at the heart of any successful economy but our type of adversarial politics does not fit with state control of anything that has a public budget. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Like when Ed Miliband Said that Labour would freeze energy prices for 20 months after the election. A week later the big 6 announced price rises, probably in retaliation to that pledge. This is depsite the big 6 having record profits this year, they could of afforded to freeze the prices voluntarily. " One of the reason electricity prices are so high is because the 'non energy' costs in the supply contracts. These have sky rocketed because of green levies that were put in place to supplement wind etc. The fucktard who created these levies??? Ed Miliband. Cheaper electrity could be generated, but we are closing down old and coal powered stations, as they are deemed dirty and create to much CO2, and we have signed the Kyoto Agreement to reduce our emissions by a greater amount than any other EU country....Another great Labour idea. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She's right, you can't tax everything. Unfortunately the poor have been taxed to shit recently and are likely to riot soon, so gonna have to tax somebody aren't they. i'm sure their lawyers will find loopholes of they're really that bothered. Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone? The top 3000 earners contribute more tax revenue than the bottom 9m as a result of the increase in the tax free threshold etc, and higher tax rate earners are contributing proportionately more than in nearly 20 years. That is not to dismiss that average households have suffered a meaningful reduction in disposable income over the past few years, but pointing out that some of the numbers tell an interesting story. All that proves is that wealth is distributed unfairly. Bitter envy. How will stealing money from rich people make poorer peoples lives better? It may not be politically correct but poor people are poor for a reason and rich people are rich for a reason. The only problem that we have in this country is that far too many people have a sense of expectation and entitlement that has no basis on their position in the world because it was only an accident of birth that they happen to be born in this country. In any event the poor in this country have riches that are beyond the comprehansion of 95% of the worlds population many of whom see clean drinking water as the height of luxury." The rich haven't earned this money,they have been awarding themselves massive bonuses out of taxpayers money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She's right, you can't tax everything. Unfortunately the poor have been taxed to shit recently and are likely to riot soon, so gonna have to tax somebody aren't they. i'm sure their lawyers will find loopholes of they're really that bothered. Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone? The top 3000 earners contribute more tax revenue than the bottom 9m as a result of the increase in the tax free threshold etc, and higher tax rate earners are contributing proportionately more than in nearly 20 years. That is not to dismiss that average households have suffered a meaningful reduction in disposable income over the past few years, but pointing out that some of the numbers tell an interesting story. All that proves is that wealth is distributed unfairly. Bitter envy. How will stealing money from rich people make poorer peoples lives better? It may not be politically correct but poor people are poor for a reason and rich people are rich for a reason. The only problem that we have in this country is that far too many people have a sense of expectation and entitlement that has no basis on their position in the world because it was only an accident of birth that they happen to be born in this country. In any event the poor in this country have riches that are beyond the comprehansion of 95% of the worlds population many of whom see clean drinking water as the height of luxury." The same quote by the obscenely wealthy, every time this subject comes up. " you should be grateful for what you have, some people are starving". They never help those poor fuckers either. Just rape their countries resources and work their peoples fingers to the bone for a pittance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She's right, you can't tax everything. Unfortunately the poor have been taxed to shit recently and are likely to riot soon, so gonna have to tax somebody aren't they. i'm sure their lawyers will find loopholes of they're really that bothered. Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone? The top 3000 earners contribute more tax revenue than the bottom 9m as a result of the increase in the tax free threshold etc, and higher tax rate earners are contributing proportionately more than in nearly 20 years. That is not to dismiss that average households have suffered a meaningful reduction in disposable income over the past few years, but pointing out that some of the numbers tell an interesting story. All that proves is that wealth is distributed unfairly. Bitter envy. How will stealing money from rich people make poorer peoples lives better? It may not be politically correct but poor people are poor for a reason and rich people are rich for a reason. The only problem that we have in this country is that far too many people have a sense of expectation and entitlement that has no basis on their position in the world because it was only an accident of birth that they happen to be born in this country. In any event the poor in this country have riches that are beyond the comprehansion of 95% of the worlds population many of whom see clean drinking water as the height of luxury. The rich haven't earned this money,they have been awarding themselves massive bonuses out of taxpayers money." So rich people are just stupid people who miraculously found themselves to be heads of big companies and corporations? I think not. Broadly speaking those who are lacking in education, motivation and willpower will be those complaining the loudest about how unfair society is. The law of nature says that you work hard, getter a better education and get wealth distribution through deserved effort. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She's right, you can't tax everything. Unfortunately the poor have been taxed to shit recently and are likely to riot soon, so gonna have to tax somebody aren't they. i'm sure their lawyers will find loopholes of they're really that bothered. Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone? The top 3000 earners contribute more tax revenue than the bottom 9m as a result of the increase in the tax free threshold etc, and higher tax rate earners are contributing proportionately more than in nearly 20 years. That is not to dismiss that average households have suffered a meaningful reduction in disposable income over the past few years, but pointing out that some of the numbers tell an interesting story. All that proves is that wealth is distributed unfairly. Bitter envy. How will stealing money from rich people make poorer peoples lives better? It may not be politically correct but poor people are poor for a reason and rich people are rich for a reason. The only problem that we have in this country is that far too many people have a sense of expectation and entitlement that has no basis on their position in the world because it was only an accident of birth that they happen to be born in this country. In any event the poor in this country have riches that are beyond the comprehansion of 95% of the worlds population many of whom see clean drinking water as the height of luxury. The same quote by the obscenely wealthy, every time this subject comes up. " you should be grateful for what you have, some people are starving". They never help those poor fuckers either. Just rape their countries resources and work their peoples fingers to the bone for a pittance." I live in a deprived area of a deprived north western town. Education standards are appalling and unemployment is high. There are more pubs and fast food outlets here than other so called more affluent areas. Why would that be? If you are poor, surely you won't be wasting money on booze and fast food. The average worker in the UK needs to get used to the fact that they are worth no more than an average worker anywhere else in the world and if they want more money then they need to better themselves rather than expect the state to keep topping up their money with no production output. This country is knackered because we spend more money than we earn. Things have to be cut. NHS, pensions and more are just unaffordable to the country now. A political leader is needed to stand up and tell us the truth instead of piddling around in effectively at the edges. NHS - essential overhaul needed including introduction of private services. Companies need to be encouraged to offer PHI and this should be tax deductible. Frivolous GP and A&E visits chargeable. Child credit - stop immediately for all NEW claimants. It is not the States responsibility to contribute to supporting children. Pensions - all those under 25 today will have to make private pension arrangements. The state cannot afford to support an ever ageing population. There is more. But that will do for starters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Like when Ed Miliband Said that Labour would freeze energy prices for 20 months after the election. A week later the big 6 announced price rises, probably in retaliation to that pledge. This is depsite the big 6 having record profits this year, they could of afforded to freeze the prices voluntarily. One of the reason electricity prices are so high is because the 'non energy' costs in the supply contracts. These have sky rocketed because of green levies that were put in place to supplement wind etc. The fucktard who created these levies??? Ed Miliband. Cheaper electrity could be generated, but we are closing down old and coal powered stations, as they are deemed dirty and create to much CO2, and we have signed the Kyoto Agreement to reduce our emissions by a greater amount than any other EU country....Another great Labour idea. " The reason are utilities are so expensive as nothing to do with green levies . More to do with oil price But if you look deeper you will see that are all owned by foreign companies so this government have no control on those nor any say . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She's right, you can't tax everything. Unfortunately the poor have been taxed to shit recently and are likely to riot soon, so gonna have to tax somebody aren't they. i'm sure their lawyers will find loopholes of they're really that bothered. Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone? The top 3000 earners contribute more tax revenue than the bottom 9m as a result of the increase in the tax free threshold etc, and higher tax rate earners are contributing proportionately more than in nearly 20 years. That is not to dismiss that average households have suffered a meaningful reduction in disposable income over the past few years, but pointing out that some of the numbers tell an interesting story. All that proves is that wealth is distributed unfairly. Bitter envy. How will stealing money from rich people make poorer peoples lives better? It may not be politically correct but poor people are poor for a reason and rich people are rich for a reason. The only problem that we have in this country is that far too many people have a sense of expectation and entitlement that has no basis on their position in the world because it was only an accident of birth that they happen to be born in this country. In any event the poor in this country have riches that are beyond the comprehansion of 95% of the worlds population many of whom see clean drinking water as the height of luxury. The rich haven't earned this money,they have been awarding themselves massive bonuses out of taxpayers money. So rich people are just stupid people who miraculously found themselves to be heads of big companies and corporations? I think not. Broadly speaking those who are lacking in education, motivation and willpower will be those complaining the loudest about how unfair society is. The law of nature says that you work hard, getter a better education and get wealth distribution through deserved effort." What a load of crap, they award each other big pay rises they didn't earn. All scratch each others backs, went to the same private schools. Bankers did well, scammed us well and truly, then we bailed them out and they lined thier pockets again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Like when Ed Miliband Said that Labour would freeze energy prices for 20 months after the election. A week later the big 6 announced price rises, probably in retaliation to that pledge. This is depsite the big 6 having record profits this year, they could of afforded to freeze the prices voluntarily. One of the reason electricity prices are so high is because the 'non energy' costs in the supply contracts. These have sky rocketed because of green levies that were put in place to supplement wind etc. The fucktard who created these levies??? Ed Miliband. Cheaper electrity could be generated, but we are closing down old and coal powered stations, as they are deemed dirty and create to much CO2, and we have signed the Kyoto Agreement to reduce our emissions by a greater amount than any other EU country....Another great Labour idea. The reason are utilities are so expensive as nothing to do with green levies . More to do with oil price But if you look deeper you will see that are all owned by foreign companies so this government have no control on those nor any say . " Nonsense. What you pay is made up of many elements. Oil price is only one variable. Taxation and government policy is set in stone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"She's right, you can't tax everything. Unfortunately the poor have been taxed to shit recently and are likely to riot soon, so gonna have to tax somebody aren't they. i'm sure their lawyers will find loopholes of they're really that bothered. Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone? The top 3000 earners contribute more tax revenue than the bottom 9m as a result of the increase in the tax free threshold etc, and higher tax rate earners are contributing proportionately more than in nearly 20 years. That is not to dismiss that average households have suffered a meaningful reduction in disposable income over the past few years, but pointing out that some of the numbers tell an interesting story. All that proves is that wealth is distributed unfairly. Bitter envy. How will stealing money from rich people make poorer peoples lives better? It may not be politically correct but poor people are poor for a reason and rich people are rich for a reason. The only problem that we have in this country is that far too many people have a sense of expectation and entitlement that has no basis on their position in the world because it was only an accident of birth that they happen to be born in this country. In any event the poor in this country have riches that are beyond the comprehansion of 95% of the worlds population many of whom see clean drinking water as the height of luxury. The rich haven't earned this money,they have been awarding themselves massive bonuses out of taxpayers money. So rich people are just stupid people who miraculously found themselves to be heads of big companies and corporations? I think not. Broadly speaking those who are lacking in education, motivation and willpower will be those complaining the loudest about how unfair society is. The law of nature says that you work hard, getter a better education and get wealth distribution through deserved effort. What a load of crap, they award each other big pay rises they didn't earn. All scratch each others backs, went to the same private schools. Bankers did well, scammed us well and truly, then we bailed them out and they lined thier pockets again. " We were all happy to take credit and low interest rates , We can all get a better education , change comes from voting to get change . Like I have said before for every 10 individual comments on these types of post 6 people did not take the time to vote hence the 40% turnout at the last election .Blame is a easy word to throw | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
.
Under either system stopping people from falsely claiming for stuff, should and could be done.
All your arguments seem to be based around the idea that socialism let's people illegally claim benefits and that's just not true.
The real argument is can a cooperation run itself as well as share holders who wish to run things to maximise profits.
Maximising profits does not make things more efficient, it makes making profit the most efficient way.
For example BMW and Mercedes made cars so well in the 80,s and early 90,s , that they had to start under engineering, allowing breakdown and failure of their products to maximise profits.
This is a classic example of how right wing capitalism makes products worse but with great bullshit shiny pr and advertising to make it appear better. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I like the quote about getting an education and bettering yourself. Let's start with knowing what the basic premise of socialism is, it's the belief that means of production can be owned by the people doing the producing and doesn't have to be by a few select individuals at the top. Comparing socialism to communist dictatorships is like comparing your beliefs in capitalism to adolf Hitler's, you see it doesn't work as they were both dictators on opposed sides of thought. Germany is a socialist country Japan China France Italy Norway Sweden Finland Spain Canada Australia All these country's have socialist and labour parties, they all seem to do alright, last time I visited one all hell hadn't broken loose. I hate to be the one to break you the bad news but under Tory rule, there was people who over claimed for benefits .
Under either system stopping people from falsely claiming for stuff, should and could be done.
All your arguments seem to be based around the idea that socialism let's people illegally claim benefits and that's just not true.
The real argument is can a cooperation run itself as well as share holders who wish to run things to maximise profits.
Maximising profits does not make things more efficient, it makes making profit the most efficient way.
For example BMW and Mercedes made cars so well in the 80,s and early 90,s , that they had to start under engineering, allowing breakdown and failure of their products to maximise profits.
This is a classic example of how right wing capitalism makes products worse but with great bullshit shiny pr and advertising to make it appear better."Have you ever been to any of the countries you have noted or have you any idea what is going on in these places? You have a Utopian view which makes be believe that you are incapable, or unwilling, to take a view of all aspects of an economy. You have berated the UK but our energy costs are amongst the cheapest in Europe. We pay significantly less for alcohol than a number of places you mention. Try buying a coffee oin Paris for less than 5 Euros, Spain and Italy are in meldown, France is on its knees with the most unpopular (socialist) government in living memory. Socialism does not work especially in times of need. Tough times call for tough measures and I am convinced that we would be a great deal better off by now if Cameron did not have the dead leg Nick Clegg dragging us back. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I like the quote about getting an education and bettering yourself. Let's start with knowing what the basic premise of socialism is, it's the belief that means of production can be owned by the people doing the producing and doesn't have to be by a few select individuals at the top. Comparing socialism to communist dictatorships is like comparing your beliefs in capitalism to adolf Hitler's, you see it doesn't work as they were both dictators on opposed sides of thought. Germany is a socialist country Japan China France Italy Norway Sweden Finland Spain Canada Australia All these country's have socialist and labour parties, they all seem to do alright, last time I visited one all hell hadn't broken loose. I hate to be the one to break you the bad news but under Tory rule, there was people who over claimed for benefits .
Under either system stopping people from falsely claiming for stuff, should and could be done.
All your arguments seem to be based around the idea that socialism let's people illegally claim benefits and that's just not true.
The real argument is can a cooperation run itself as well as share holders who wish to run things to maximise profits.
Maximising profits does not make things more efficient, it makes making profit the most efficient way.
For example BMW and Mercedes made cars so well in the 80,s and early 90,s , that they had to start under engineering, allowing breakdown and failure of their products to maximise profits.
This is a classic example of how right wing capitalism makes products worse but with great bullshit shiny pr and advertising to make it appear better.
Have you ever been to any of the countries you have noted or have you any idea what is going on in these places?
You have a Utopian view which makes be believe that you are incapable, or unwilling, to take a view of all aspects of an economy.
You have berated the UK but our energy costs are amongst the cheapest in Europe. We pay significantly less for alcohol than a number of places you mention. Try buying a coffee oin Paris for less than 5 Euros, Spain and Italy are in meldown, France is on its knees with the most unpopular (socialist) government in living memory.
Socialism does not work especially in times of need. Tough times call for tough measures and I am convinced that we would be a great deal better off by now if Cameron did not have the dead leg Nick Clegg dragging us back."
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are you talking about. 1 what's utopian about saying you can do things better.utopia refers to a place where its already at its best. 2 what's the price of coffee in Paris and alcohol in Manchester got to do with anything except some life reference of what you like to do yourself. 3 you inferred some sort of link between socialism and uneducated people which couldn't be further from the truth. 4 your arguments seem to be centred around your own life experience and with little actual fact or reasoning." Plenty of facts and reasoning. You just need to look at the broad economic situation of the world. You have recently referred to a few countries as successful socialist models but you failed to identify that the general population pay more than we do for the same things yet your original point at the top of this thread was the poorest have been taxed to death in recent years. Your examples actually disprove what you are aspiring to achieve. The EU is a socialist experiment and it is failing because the most dsocialist countries in the EU are failing. Scandinavia is the most expensive place to live in Europe - you saw on the example given that Denmark has the highest energy prices in Europe. Finland has lived a lie for ten years and now need severe austerity measures or face economic disaster. All the evidence is there, you just need to read it. Socialism is a failure and there are no ifs or buts about it. If you object to "the poor being taxed to death" I can assure you that you would not want to live in any of the example countries that you mentioned earlier. The grass is not always greener. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 igacy and have to start making cuts themselves. This is as the economies fail due to the incentive to work being taken away and those who can including the large corporations (WPP being a prime example) move to a lower tax regimes.
One rate of income tax for all, the less punitive the tax rate the less incentive to avoid it. No inheritance tax either and a less generous system regarding the NHS and foreign aid.
Whichever system you have there has to be integrity of those operating it and sufficient safeguards to prevent its abuse.
Discuss! lol
Unfortunately there seems to be an auto-correction that puts a smiley in the word prof ligacy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are you talking about. 1 what's utopian about saying you can do things better.utopia refers to a place where its already at its best. 2 what's the price of coffee in Paris and alcohol in Manchester got to do with anything except some life reference of what you like to do yourself. 3 you inferred some sort of link between socialism and uneducated people which couldn't be further from the truth. 4 your arguments seem to be centred around your own life experience and with little actual fact or reasoning. Plenty of facts and reasoning. You just need to look at the broad economic situation of the world. You have recently referred to a few countries as successful socialist models but you failed to identify that the general population pay more than we do for the same things yet your original point at the top of this thread was the poorest have been taxed to death in recent years. Your examples actually disprove what you are aspiring to achieve. The EU is a socialist experiment and it is failing because the most dsocialist countries in the EU are failing. Scandinavia is the most expensive place to live in Europe - you saw on the example given that Denmark has the highest energy prices in Europe. Finland has lived a lie for ten years and now need severe austerity measures or face economic disaster. All the evidence is there, you just need to read it. Socialism is a failure and there are no ifs or buts about it. If you object to "the poor being taxed to death" I can assure you that you would not want to live in any of the example countries that you mentioned earlier. The grass is not always greener." . Again you keep adding so called facts like "socialism is a failure" , well that's fine , all I want is some evidence to what you base this theory on!.. Your evidence seems to be the line, all the evidence is there and I just need to read it but where, tell me, it's you that's arguing the case. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The problem with a socialist system is sometimes not the cost of the benefits themselves (depending upon the policies of those elected) but the cost of administering to whom an how much benefit is paid. It is surely after all only morally right that those who can afford to look after those unfortunate who through a illness or disability cannot. Additionally socialist governments use the benefits system to keep people on benefits. a prime example being tax credits that were given to those earning up to £65,000 a year under the last government. This is to ensure that they get re-elected and remain in power until they ultimately cannot tax the earners enough to pay for their p igacy and have to start making cuts themselves. This is as the economies fail due to the incentive to work being taken away and those who can including the large corporations (WPP being a prime example) move to a lower tax regimes.
One rate of income tax for all, the less punitive the tax rate the less incentive to avoid it. No inheritance tax either and a less generous system regarding the NHS and foreign aid.
Whichever system you have there has to be integrity of those operating it and sufficient safeguards to prevent its abuse.
Discuss! lol
Unfortunately there seems to be an auto-correction that puts a smiley in the word prof ligacy ". At what percentage would tax have to be ,for the rich not to avoid it then!. I like the fact that people make statements like socialists are lazy, then add no inheritance tax... And the point of passing lots of wealth to your offspring would be what!. To help them from never having to work perhaps!. Sounds like your encouraging them to be lazy bastards to me! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are you talking about. 1 what's utopian about saying you can do things better.utopia refers to a place where its already at its best. 2 what's the price of coffee in Paris and alcohol in Manchester got to do with anything except some life reference of what you like to do yourself. 3 you inferred some sort of link between socialism and uneducated people which couldn't be further from the truth. 4 your arguments seem to be centred around your own life experience and with little actual fact or reasoning. Plenty of facts and reasoning. You just need to look at the broad economic situation of the world. You have recently referred to a few countries as successful socialist models but you failed to identify that the general population pay more than we do for the same things yet your original point at the top of this thread was the poorest have been taxed to death in recent years. Your examples actually disprove what you are aspiring to achieve. The EU is a socialist experiment and it is failing because the most dsocialist countries in the EU are failing. Scandinavia is the most expensive place to live in Europe - you saw on the example given that Denmark has the highest energy prices in Europe. Finland has lived a lie for ten years and now need severe austerity measures or face economic disaster. All the evidence is there, you just need to read it. Socialism is a failure and there are no ifs or buts about it. If you object to "the poor being taxed to death" I can assure you that you would not want to live in any of the example countries that you mentioned earlier. The grass is not always greener." Im no great fan of socialism, but didn't we have the worlds greatest financial meltdown since the great depression in 2008 under capitalism?. These financial wizz kids didn't even know what the fuck they had after they had cut and diced all those complex financial packages. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And you forgot to say not only do the poor not pay tax on the 10 grand... Millionaires don't either!!" They do; the personal tax allowance is abolished if you earn over £100K; it's on a sliding scale and, effectively with NI, means that for those earning around £118K the marginal rate of taxation is 63%. In other words, The Treasury is generous to allow you to keep 37 pence of every £1.00 you earn. You need to be earning well beyond this particular Gordon Brown created scam to compensate for the loss in the personal allowance. It's essentially a kick in the nuts for people who are reasonably successful and work hard; another 'tax' that never gets mentioned by the media but decimates your salary, especially if it goes in hand with no pay rises since 2008. 'We're all in this together' makes me want to put my fingers down my throat. For amusement value; run a few Internet searches on the estimated net worth of various MPs. It amazes me, how many that have never had jobs outside politics, have managed to amass so much. I'm sure that I could have been far more 'successful' if I could claim for almost anything, including food, as a legitimate expense. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Could be a way of generating income for lawyers actually, seeing as legal aid has gone? Sadly no, a lot of law firms that rely on legal aid don't practice chancery/contract law. Totally agree with your sentiments though, it's all just tax tax tax. I sense an uprising coming. Unlikely. Those at the top do their utmost to avoid it. The government and media channel hatred towards the most vulnerable. Society hates that woman from benefits street far more than Gary Barlow and his tax avoiding bandmates but who is really screwing the country. " The next program they should make is " Expenses Street ". Let's see how the public would react to that!!! These people are the biggest scroungers on the planet!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""At what percentage would tax have to be ,for the rich not to avoid it then!. I like the fact that people make statements like socialists are lazy, then add no inheritance tax... And the point of passing lots of wealth to your offspring would be what!. To help them from never having to work perhaps!. Sounds like your encouraging them to be lazy bastards to me!" I didn't say socialist were lazy. Most people if given the choice between receiving the same amount of money for working or not working would choose not to work. The reason for removing inheritance tax is that penalizes those who are frugal and save their earnings on which they have paid tax and have improved their homes or live in an area where a relatively modest house puts them above the inheritance tax threshold. In all probability those who inherit will spend it therefore paying VAT and those with whom they spend their money will pay taxes on the income. All people are as capable as one another of being hard working or lazy or somewhere imbetween. I would suggest that the current tax rate of 20% would be sufficient. High tax rates work in the same way as low ones, just that they provide incentives for different activities, avoidance or production. " . Jimmy Carr was avoiding tax at 20%. Why would a clever person, who's made a few bob pay tax at any rate if they can legally avoid it!. Your premise is that if you lower it too 20% ,they'll volunteer to pay as it's less significant. What chaos would we descend into if we left all taxs to volunteer payments. Now my idea is that we actually start enforcing the laws that apply to 98% of the population, to the other 2% that have been getting away with it for years. You can and should receive a lengthy jail sentence for financial fraud and large scale tax evasion, after all that is the exact system we apply to any other criminal activity to dissuade them from carrying out further crime. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And you forgot to say not only do the poor not pay tax on the 10 grand... Millionaires don't either!! They do; the personal tax allowance is abolished if you earn over £100K; it's on a sliding scale and, effectively with NI, means that for those earning around £118K the marginal rate of taxation is 63%. In other words, The Treasury is generous to allow you to keep 37 pence of every £1.00 you earn. You need to be earning well beyond this particular Gordon Brown created scam to compensate for the loss in the personal allowance. It's essentially a kick in the nuts for people who are reasonably successful and work hard; another 'tax' that never gets mentioned by the media but decimates your salary, especially if it goes in hand with no pay rises since 2008. 'We're all in this together' makes me want to put my fingers down my throat. For amusement value; run a few Internet searches on the estimated net worth of various MPs. It amazes me, how many that have never had jobs outside politics, have managed to amass so much. I'm sure that I could have been far more 'successful' if I could claim for almost anything, including food, as a legitimate expense. " . Yeah but don't forget most of them pay themselves through company dividends which apply no NI payments, and the tax rate is somewhere around 10%till 35 grand then around 20% too a hundred grand and I think topping out at 25%? . either way it's a dam site less than everyone else. Then there's the perfectly legal scam of selling stuff to your "wife's" company at a loss and capital gains loss certificates. Tax doesn't have to be taxing, but they make it dammed complicated for the benefit of screwing people who can't afford expensive accountants | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yeah but don't forget most of them pay themselves through company dividends which apply no NI payments, and the tax rate is somewhere around 10%till 35 grand then around 20% too a hundred grand and I think topping out at 25%? . either way it's a dam site less than everyone else. Then there's the perfectly legal scam of selling stuff to your "wife's" company at a loss and capital gains loss certificates. Tax doesn't have to be taxing, but they make it dammed complicated for the benefit of screwing people who can't afford expensive accountants" I agree completely; the only people that seem to get screwed for income tax are those that don't earn a fantastic amount of money and can't afford to utilize the legal means to minimise their liability. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are you talking about. 1 what's utopian about saying you can do things better.utopia refers to a place where its already at its best. 2 what's the price of coffee in Paris and alcohol in Manchester got to do with anything except some life reference of what you like to do yourself. 3 you inferred some sort of link between socialism and uneducated people which couldn't be further from the truth. 4 your arguments seem to be centred around your own life experience and with little actual fact or reasoning. Plenty of facts and reasoning. You just need to look at the broad economic situation of the world. You have recently referred to a few countries as successful socialist models but you failed to identify that the general population pay more than we do for the same things yet your original point at the top of this thread was the poorest have been taxed to death in recent years. Your examples actually disprove what you are aspiring to achieve. The EU is a socialist experiment and it is failing because the most dsocialist countries in the EU are failing. Scandinavia is the most expensive place to live in Europe - you saw on the example given that Denmark has the highest energy prices in Europe. Finland has lived a lie for ten years and now need severe austerity measures or face economic disaster. All the evidence is there, you just need to read it. Socialism is a failure and there are no ifs or buts about it. If you object to "the poor being taxed to death" I can assure you that you would not want to live in any of the example countries that you mentioned earlier. The grass is not always greener. Im no great fan of socialism, but didn't we have the worlds greatest financial meltdown since the great depression in 2008 under capitalism?. These financial wizz kids didn't even know what the fuck they had after they had cut and diced all those complex financial packages. " THe Soviet Union was the ultimate socialist experiment. Wealth was transferred from a minority of wealthy industrialists and Establishment families to an even smaller minority of party leaders. Three generations of Russians were stuffed in this experiment and the legacy is still alive with most Russians not trusting the government to do anything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are you talking about. 1 what's utopian about saying you can do things better.utopia refers to a place where its already at its best. 2 what's the price of coffee in Paris and alcohol in Manchester got to do with anything except some life reference of what you like to do yourself. 3 you inferred some sort of link between socialism and uneducated people which couldn't be further from the truth. 4 your arguments seem to be centred around your own life experience and with little actual fact or reasoning. Plenty of facts and reasoning. You just need to look at the broad economic situation of the world. You have recently referred to a few countries as successful socialist models but you failed to identify that the general population pay more than we do for the same things yet your original point at the top of this thread was the poorest have been taxed to death in recent years. Your examples actually disprove what you are aspiring to achieve. The EU is a socialist experiment and it is failing because the most dsocialist countries in the EU are failing. Scandinavia is the most expensive place to live in Europe - you saw on the example given that Denmark has the highest energy prices in Europe. Finland has lived a lie for ten years and now need severe austerity measures or face economic disaster. All the evidence is there, you just need to read it. Socialism is a failure and there are no ifs or buts about it. If you object to "the poor being taxed to death" I can assure you that you would not want to live in any of the example countries that you mentioned earlier. The grass is not always greener. Im no great fan of socialism, but didn't we have the worlds greatest financial meltdown since the great depression in 2008 under capitalism?. These financial wizz kids didn't even know what the fuck they had after they had cut and diced all those complex financial packages. THe Soviet Union was the ultimate socialist experiment. Wealth was transferred from a minority of wealthy industrialists and Establishment families to an even smaller minority of party leaders. Three generations of Russians were stuffed in this experiment and the legacy is still alive with most Russians not trusting the government to do anything. " . People failed, not the system. You do know that socialists run under a capitalist system don't yer. Under your logic John Lewis is a failure? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yeah but don't forget most of them pay themselves through company dividends which apply no NI payments, and the tax rate is somewhere around 10%till 35 grand then around 20% too a hundred grand and I think topping out at 25%? . either way it's a dam site less than everyone else. Then there's the perfectly legal scam of selling stuff to your "wife's" company at a loss and capital gains loss certificates. Tax doesn't have to be taxing, but they make it dammed complicated for the benefit of screwing people who can't afford expensive accountants I agree completely; the only people that seem to get screwed for income tax are those that don't earn a fantastic amount of money and can't afford to utilize the legal means to minimise their liability." Income tax is not a scam that screws you. If you work for a company they are obligated by law to remove income tax and NI at source. Nothing you can do about it if you are an employee. TBH all this moaning about tax just does not address the real issues and that is what our taxes are being spent on. What we need is a politician or a political party to stand up and actually tell us what deep shit we really are in. The country cannot afford a free to use NHS, pensions for all and a liberal welfare ststem. That is the bottom line. We need taxes lower for everyone so that people have more money to spend and the only way to achieve that is to decimate government spending. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are you talking about. 1 what's utopian about saying you can do things better.utopia refers to a place where its already at its best. 2 what's the price of coffee in Paris and alcohol in Manchester got to do with anything except some life reference of what you like to do yourself. 3 you inferred some sort of link between socialism and uneducated people which couldn't be further from the truth. 4 your arguments seem to be centred around your own life experience and with little actual fact or reasoning. Plenty of facts and reasoning. You just need to look at the broad economic situation of the world. You have recently referred to a few countries as successful socialist models but you failed to identify that the general population pay more than we do for the same things yet your original point at the top of this thread was the poorest have been taxed to death in recent years. Your examples actually disprove what you are aspiring to achieve. The EU is a socialist experiment and it is failing because the most dsocialist countries in the EU are failing. Scandinavia is the most expensive place to live in Europe - you saw on the example given that Denmark has the highest energy prices in Europe. Finland has lived a lie for ten years and now need severe austerity measures or face economic disaster. All the evidence is there, you just need to read it. Socialism is a failure and there are no ifs or buts about it. If you object to "the poor being taxed to death" I can assure you that you would not want to live in any of the example countries that you mentioned earlier. The grass is not always greener. Im no great fan of socialism, but didn't we have the worlds greatest financial meltdown since the great depression in 2008 under capitalism?. These financial wizz kids didn't even know what the fuck they had after they had cut and diced all those complex financial packages. THe Soviet Union was the ultimate socialist experiment. Wealth was transferred from a minority of wealthy industrialists and Establishment families to an even smaller minority of party leaders. Three generations of Russians were stuffed in this experiment and the legacy is still alive with most Russians not trusting the government to do anything. . People failed, not the system. You do know that socialists run under a capitalist system don't yer. Under your logic John Lewis is a failure?" I have no idea but the socialist dictat of offering the poor money that will be taken from the rich in order to buy their votes is guaranteed to keep this country in chains as long as we have interferists like Labour and the Liberals. WE OURSELVES are responsible for the lives we lead. No one else. You have the life that you deserve because of the decisions that you have made and I have the life that I deserve for the same reasons. Moaning about fairness is completely irrelevant. Life is unfair unfortunately and we need to get back to some traditional values where people stop moaning and get to work making sure that they are their families are looked after. I get sick to death of hearing about people who cant get a good job because.... they have not got a good education, they are no good at writing CV's, they are too fat and suffer confidence issues... whose fault is it that they are where they are? It is not the governments fault, it is their own and they have the power to change it... But no, much easier to blame the government and plan on ways of taking money from people who do get on in life. Can you answer me one question. What justification is there to have millions of people who are paid out more by the state for doing nothing than there is tax collected by ALL of the people who pay income tax? Tough love and a reality check is needed for all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are you talking about. 1 what's utopian about saying you can do things better.utopia refers to a place where its already at its best. 2 what's the price of coffee in Paris and alcohol in Manchester got to do with anything except some life reference of what you like to do yourself. 3 you inferred some sort of link between socialism and uneducated people which couldn't be further from the truth. 4 your arguments seem to be centred around your own life experience and with little actual fact or reasoning. Plenty of facts and reasoning. You just need to look at the broad economic situation of the world. You have recently referred to a few countries as successful socialist models but you failed to identify that the general population pay more than we do for the same things yet your original point at the top of this thread was the poorest have been taxed to death in recent years. Your examples actually disprove what you are aspiring to achieve. The EU is a socialist experiment and it is failing because the most dsocialist countries in the EU are failing. Scandinavia is the most expensive place to live in Europe - you saw on the example given that Denmark has the highest energy prices in Europe. Finland has lived a lie for ten years and now need severe austerity measures or face economic disaster. All the evidence is there, you just need to read it. Socialism is a failure and there are no ifs or buts about it. If you object to "the poor being taxed to death" I can assure you that you would not want to live in any of the example countries that you mentioned earlier. The grass is not always greener. Im no great fan of socialism, but didn't we have the worlds greatest financial meltdown since the great depression in 2008 under capitalism?. These financial wizz kids didn't even know what the fuck they had after they had cut and diced all those complex financial packages. THe Soviet Union was the ultimate socialist experiment. Wealth was transferred from a minority of wealthy industrialists and Establishment families to an even smaller minority of party leaders. Three generations of Russians were stuffed in this experiment and the legacy is still alive with most Russians not trusting the government to do anything. . People failed, not the system. You do know that socialists run under a capitalist system don't yer. Under your logic John Lewis is a failure? I have no idea but the socialist dictat of offering the poor money that will be taken from the rich in order to buy their votes is guaranteed to keep this country in chains as long as we have interferists like Labour and the Liberals. WE OURSELVES are responsible for the lives we lead. No one else. You have the life that you deserve because of the decisions that you have made and I have the life that I deserve for the same reasons. Moaning about fairness is completely irrelevant. Life is unfair unfortunately and we need to get back to some traditional values where people stop moaning and get to work making sure that they are their families are looked after. I get sick to death of hearing about people who cant get a good job because.... they have not got a good education, they are no good at writing CV's, they are too fat and suffer confidence issues... whose fault is it that they are where they are? It is not the governments fault, it is their own and they have the power to change it... But no, much easier to blame the government and plan on ways of taking money from people who do get on in life. Can you answer me one question. What justification is there to have millions of people who are paid out more by the state for doing nothing than there is tax collected by ALL of the people who pay income tax? Tough love and a reality check is needed for all." Well said | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can you answer me one question. What justification is there to have millions of people who are paid out more by the state for doing nothing than there is tax collected by ALL of the people who pay income tax?" Firstly, unemployment and sickness benefit make up a very small percentage of the welfare bill. By far the largest share goes on pensions. Plus, a large proportion of benefits are paid to people in work but on low incomes, not to those who "do nothing". Secondly, many of those who "do nothing" worked for many years and paid tax and NI, which should entitle them to support now they need it - mostly through no fault of their own. Many are doing all they can to find work or get well, hampered by continual hurdles from the government and propaganda generated hostility. The idle scroungers who don't want to work and play the system are a tiny minority. People who not only desperately need the welfare system but contributed in the belief it would be a safety net if they needed it, are suffering and, in some cases, dying as a result of current welfare policy. The government propaganda machine is doing a fine job. If only they put as much effort into making actual improvements as they do into lying and helping themselves to public money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Can you answer me one question. What justification is there to have millions of people who are paid out more by the state for doing nothing than there is tax collected by ALL of the people who pay income tax? Firstly, unemployment and sickness benefit make up a very small percentage of the welfare bill. By far the largest share goes on pensions. Plus, a large proportion of benefits are paid to people in work but on low incomes, not to those who "do nothing". Secondly, many of those who "do nothing" worked for many years and paid tax and NI, which should entitle them to support now they need it - mostly through no fault of their own. Many are doing all they can to find work or get well, hampered by continual hurdles from the government and propaganda generated hostility. The idle scroungers who don't want to work and play the system are a tiny minority. People who not only desperately need the welfare system but contributed in the belief it would be a safety net if they needed it, are suffering and, in some cases, dying as a result of current welfare policy. The government propaganda machine is doing a fine job. If only they put as much effort into making actual improvements as they do into lying and helping themselves to public money." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your just wrong on so many levels 1 being kind and looking after fellow humans is an innate aspect of our species. Darwin's survival of the fittest is the most common misused and quoted line in any book, he wrote chapter after chapter about how we look after one another to ensure our own survival. Ie without everyone else your "choices you make" as you say, would enable you to live about 3 months and certainly wouldn't allow you to run a businesses or make any money. No roads, no drugs, no doctors, no nurses, no schools, no defence, no teachers, no electric grid, no water, no sewers etc etc etc. These things are all done for the benefit of society, that's everyone, not people you deem necessary or worthy. 2 most of the people you complain about jobless, poor, inept , the weak, the stupid.... They were created under the capitalist system that you think having more of will somehow fix!. 3 have you ever considered that the problem is not the system but the greed and sloth of the people that run the system. 4 you seem to be convinced of the idea that a conservative party could cure stuff like debt, unemployment rate, social ills and poverty... Well I hate to be the one that breaks this news to you... In over 200 years of evidence they've failed at every level along with every other party." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your just wrong on so many levels 1 being kind and looking after fellow humans is an innate aspect of our species. Darwin's survival of the fittest is the most common misused and quoted line in any book, he wrote chapter after chapter about how we look after one another to ensure our own survival. Ie without everyone else your "choices you make" as you say, would enable you to live about 3 months and certainly wouldn't allow you to run a businesses or make any money. No roads, no drugs, no doctors, no nurses, no schools, no defence, no teachers, no electric grid, no water, no sewers etc etc etc. These things are all done for the benefit of society, that's everyone, not people you deem necessary or worthy. 2 most of the people you complain about jobless, poor, inept , the weak, the stupid.... They were created under the capitalist system that you think having more of will somehow fix!. 3 have you ever considered that the problem is not the system but the greed and sloth of the people that run the system. 4 you seem to be convinced of the idea that a conservative party could cure stuff like debt, unemployment rate, social ills and poverty... Well I hate to be the one that breaks this news to you... In over 200 years of evidence they've failed at every level along with every other party." In my living memory, on two - possibly three occasions, it has taken a conservative government to fix an almighty fucked up economy by the preceding labour government. I have never argued that pensioners are not part of the problem. Welfare including pensions equates to around 260 billion and we only collect 150 billion from income tax. How can that ever in a million years be sustainable? Massive decisions need to be taken because there really is no alternative. Successive governments are just piddling around in the shallows and not meeting the problem head on. We cannot afford the NHS, pension and welfare system as it is and it needs a massive overhaul. Taking a bit more tax here and there is not going to stop and ever ageing population from needing more and more money from pensions and the NHS. Throwing money at the symptoms does not fix the problem. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I agree that the tax system should be simpler. With regard to dividends they are effectively taxed at 40% on the recipient once the basic rate tax allowance has been utilised, and the personal allowance also disappears as income rises between £100k and £120k, so the only saving is the national insurance which at this level of income is 2%. Also of course the company declaring the dividends can only do so out of post corporation tax profits. Many people incorporate not for tax reasons but to protect personal assets such as the family home from a downturn in trade. Once you earn over approx £600k and wish to spend it, it is more tax efficient not to be limited but an unincorporated trader. The other issue as has been mentioned that the current model is unsustainable without dramatically cutting public expenditure. As people are living longer the state pension age will have to be raised even further, or the amounts that are contributed through auto-enrolment will have to be substantially increased with no upper limit on the amount payable. Tax evasion is of course illegal and should be penalised appropriately whereas tax avoidance isn't. The reason that most people would avoid tax if they could is because they object to what is done with it. Politicians feathering their own nests is one of the biggest gripes. Additionally the cost benefit of pursuing the arbitrary 2% of tax payers avoiding (therefore legally) paying tax and the lengthy and costly court cases should be looked at as it would be cheaper to change the rules. Also why worry about the few when HMRC do deals with large corporations - remember Vodafone? Why are those who use the rules to their advantage are pilloried whereas the ones who write the rules poorly are not? " Someone who knows their stuff. A rare breed on here | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You are correct this thread is about "mansion tax". The reason I think it is unfair is that it is based on the value of the property not what was paid for it. Therefore it is effectively a tax on an unrealised capital gain. If the tax were to be levied on the properties where the purchase price were more than £2m then it would mean that those properties taxed would be owned by people who in theory could afford the "mansion tax" which would I think be a fairer system and Mylene Klass would pay it but her example of a granny wouldn't. Just mho " A standard British family who buy a £2m property will have to pa the thick end of £100k in stamp duty, that is a lot of tax! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" A standard British family who buy a £2m property will have to pa the thick end of £100k in stamp duty, that is a lot of tax!" not sure a "standard" british family would be buying £2 million property tbf | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" A standard British family who buy a £2m property will have to pa the thick end of £100k in stamp duty, that is a lot of tax! not sure a "standard" british family would be buying £2 million property tbf" I was trying to differentiate between the speculative oligarchs and middle eastern investors who buy up prime property to those who do well and buy a home. Standard was maybe the wrong word but hopefully you get the point. Either way, £100k on top of the purchase price is a lot of tax. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" A standard British family who buy a £2m property will have to pa the thick end of £100k in stamp duty, that is a lot of tax! not sure a "standard" british family would be buying £2 million property tbf I was trying to differentiate between the speculative oligarchs and middle eastern investors who buy up prime property to those who do well and buy a home. Standard was maybe the wrong word but hopefully you get the point. Either way, £100k on top of the purchase price is a lot of tax." Indeed it is. But it would make more sense to add the wealth tax to the buying cost as it would be immediate income from the transaction. As I understand the policy as it stands is that Granny Muggins will only pay the tax on her death and then will pay inheritance tax as well. Prudence will never pay under a socialist government. Spend everything - and for sure it wont matter because the government will look after you, simply by persecuting those who have been prudent | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Mansion Tax is nothing more than an envy tax and it will be the thin end of the wedge. What next a mandatory tax return to assess your other wealth assets - car, boat, high end tv, hot tub etc - where will it end? Ah... I know when a socialist government has its eyes and fingers in every little crevice of our lives and knows exactly what we spend our money on and what we do for fun as well as work. " I fucking hope not. I have a nice car, a nice little boat and a Hot Tub! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" A standard British family who buy a £2m property will have to pa the thick end of £100k in stamp duty, that is a lot of tax! not sure a "standard" british family would be buying £2 million property tbf I was trying to differentiate between the speculative oligarchs and middle eastern investors who buy up prime property to those who do well and buy a home. Standard was maybe the wrong word but hopefully you get the point. Either way, £100k on top of the purchase price is a lot of tax. Indeed it is. But it would make more sense to add the wealth tax to the buying cost as it would be immediate income from the transaction. As I understand the policy as it stands is that Granny Muggins will only pay the tax on her death and then will pay inheritance tax as well. Prudence will never pay under a socialist government. Spend everything - and for sure it wont matter because the government will look after you, simply by persecuting those who have been prudent " The UK already has one of the highest rates of property tax within the OECD, 4.6% of GDP compared to an average of 1.8%. It appears to be an easy target for those who cannot think of better ways to raise revenue or control spending! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"as clarified earlier..... inheritance tax would be un-earned wealth to the benefactor .... the deceased wouldn't miss the money and so is in economic language a "neutral" tax" No tax is neutral unless the people paying it don't benefit by an equivalent amount in some other way, but I know what you man. Inheritance tax won't be scrapped as of course as dead people can't vote | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Mansion Tax is nothing more than an envy tax and it will be the thin end of the wedge. What next a mandatory tax return to assess your other wealth assets - car, boat, high end tv, hot tub etc - where will it end? The working class get bedroom tax so why shouldn't a Mansion be taxed? They have plenty of spare bedroom unless I'm mistaken." Is a reduction in the benefit you receive from the state really a tax? Not saying it is right, but it is fundamentally different. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"as clarified earlier..... inheritance tax would be un-earned wealth to the benefactor .... the deceased wouldn't miss the money and so is in economic language a "neutral" tax No tax is neutral unless the people paying it don't benefit by an equivalent amount in some other way, but I know what you man. " although the equivalent amount (or more than equivalent amount) the benefactor would gain is £1,330,000 of un-earned wealth on a £2 million property, which is still a lot of free cash in anyone's books surely | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Mansion Tax is nothing more than an envy tax and it will be the thin end of the wedge. What next a mandatory tax return to assess your other wealth assets - car, boat, high end tv, hot tub etc - where will it end? The working class get bedroom tax so why shouldn't a Mansion be taxed? They have plenty of spare bedroom unless I'm mistaken. Is a reduction in the benefit you receive from the state really a tax? Not saying it is right, but it is fundamentally different." Sorry but I see no difference, It's still money taken from you by the government and going back into their pockets. The vast majority of people on benefits don't sit on their arses expecting handouts and have put into the kitty for many years. Is it right that these families are ending up homeless, starving or relying on food banks? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"as clarified earlier..... inheritance tax would be un-earned wealth to the benefactor .... the deceased wouldn't miss the money and so is in economic language a "neutral" tax No tax is neutral unless the people paying it don't benefit by an equivalent amount in some other way, but I know what you man. although the equivalent amount (or more than equivalent amount) the benefactor would gain is £1,330,000 of un-earned wealth on a £2 million property, which is still a lot of free cash in anyone's books surely" Presumably the donor worked for the cash that bought it though, and paid tax, so it is effectively taxing the money twice. That is, however, assuming that the owner did actually pay their tax rather than stashing it in loophole schemes and accounts. Actually, forget I said anything. Inheritance tax might be the first time the wealth had been taxed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working class get bedroom tax so why shouldn't a Mansion be taxed? They have plenty of spare bedroom unless I'm mistaken. Is a reduction in the benefit you receive from the state really a tax? Not saying it is right, but it is fundamentally different." true enough .... but the argument of if folks can't afford the rent they should move is fundamentally the same as the argument if folks can't afford to pay a property tax they should move isn't it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Mansion Tax is nothing more than an envy tax and it will be the thin end of the wedge. What next a mandatory tax return to assess your other wealth assets - car, boat, high end tv, hot tub etc - where will it end? The working class get bedroom tax so why shouldn't a Mansion be taxed? They have plenty of spare bedroom unless I'm mistaken. Is a reduction in the benefit you receive from the state really a tax? Not saying it is right, but it is fundamentally different. Sorry but I see no difference, It's still money taken from you by the government and going back into their pockets. The vast majority of people on benefits don't sit on their arses expecting handouts and have put into the kitty for many years. Is it right that these families are ending up homeless, starving or relying on food banks?" I didn't say it was right, and in fact I believe it to be wholly wrong, but it is fundamentally different, a mansion tax is money being taken from someone who has earned it, the bedroom tax (or under occupancy charge as it is called) is a reduction in the benefits received, it is not a tax. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The working class get bedroom tax so why shouldn't a Mansion be taxed? They have plenty of spare bedroom unless I'm mistaken. Is a reduction in the benefit you receive from the state really a tax? Not saying it is right, but it is fundamentally different. true enough .... but the argument of if folks can't afford the rent they should move is fundamentally the same as the argument if folks can't afford to pay a property tax they should move isn't it" Except that for people trapped by bedroom tax there aren't properties to move to whereas that wouldn't be a problem for those facing mansion tax. I see a lot of hand wringing about the people who've lived in their homes all their lives but can't afford the mansion tax, whereas nobody gave half a wet fart for those on benefits facing losing their home because of the bedroom tax. Not even when they'd worked for most of the time they'd lived there. The poor aren't entitled to be attached to a home, an area or anything else apparently. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Mansion Tax is nothing more than an envy tax and it will be the thin end of the wedge. What next a mandatory tax return to assess your other wealth assets - car, boat, high end tv, hot tub etc - where will it end? The working class get bedroom tax so why shouldn't a Mansion be taxed? They have plenty of spare bedroom unless I'm mistaken. Is a reduction in the benefit you receive from the state really a tax? Not saying it is right, but it is fundamentally different. Sorry but I see no difference, It's still money taken from you by the government and going back into their pockets. The vast majority of people on benefits don't sit on their arses expecting handouts and have put into the kitty for many years. Is it right that these families are ending up homeless, starving or relying on food banks? I didn't say it was right, and in fact I believe it to be wholly wrong, but it is fundamentally different, a mansion tax is money being taken from someone who has earned it, the bedroom tax (or under occupancy charge as it is called) is a reduction in the benefits received, it is not a tax." I get your meaning and yes essentially you're right. But it's hard to have any sympathy because let's face it the vast majority of people who own mansions dodge taxes through loop holes....Close the loop holes and then I'd say scrap Mansion Tax. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Mansion Tax is nothing more than an envy tax and it will be the thin end of the wedge. What next a mandatory tax return to assess your other wealth assets - car, boat, high end tv, hot tub etc - where will it end? The working class get bedroom tax so why shouldn't a Mansion be taxed? They have plenty of spare bedroom unless I'm mistaken. Is a reduction in the benefit you receive from the state really a tax? Not saying it is right, but it is fundamentally different. Sorry but I see no difference, It's still money taken from you by the government and going back into their pockets. The vast majority of people on benefits don't sit on their arses expecting handouts and have put into the kitty for many years. Is it right that these families are ending up homeless, starving or relying on food banks? I didn't say it was right, and in fact I believe it to be wholly wrong, but it is fundamentally different, a mansion tax is money being taken from someone who has earned it, the bedroom tax (or under occupancy charge as it is called) is a reduction in the benefits received, it is not a tax. I get your meaning and yes essentially you're right. But it's hard to have any sympathy because let's face it the vast majority of people who own mansions dodge taxes through loop holes....Close the loop holes and then I'd say scrap Mansion Tax." I'll balance that with anyone just looking to live on benefits and taking the piss should be kicked off of them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Mansion Tax is nothing more than an envy tax and it will be the thin end of the wedge. What next a mandatory tax return to assess your other wealth assets - car, boat, high end tv, hot tub etc - where will it end? The working class get bedroom tax so why shouldn't a Mansion be taxed? They have plenty of spare bedroom unless I'm mistaken. Is a reduction in the benefit you receive from the state really a tax? Not saying it is right, but it is fundamentally different. Sorry but I see no difference, It's still money taken from you by the government and going back into their pockets. The vast majority of people on benefits don't sit on their arses expecting handouts and have put into the kitty for many years. Is it right that these families are ending up homeless, starving or relying on food banks? I didn't say it was right, and in fact I believe it to be wholly wrong, but it is fundamentally different, a mansion tax is money being taken from someone who has earned it, the bedroom tax (or under occupancy charge as it is called) is a reduction in the benefits received, it is not a tax. I get your meaning and yes essentially you're right. But it's hard to have any sympathy because let's face it the vast majority of people who own mansions dodge taxes through loop holes....Close the loop holes and then I'd say scrap Mansion Tax." There are some high profile tax evasion cases which have been highlighted recently and the law should be strengthened to punish those that actively evade tax, but I suspect you will find 99% of people pay the legally required amount of tax under the current legislation. I've said often on here that a simpler system that was more effectively policed for both individuals and corporates would see a significant rise in tax revenue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Mansion Tax is nothing more than an envy tax and it will be the thin end of the wedge. What next a mandatory tax return to assess your other wealth assets - car, boat, high end tv, hot tub etc - where will it end? The working class get bedroom tax so why shouldn't a Mansion be taxed? They have plenty of spare bedroom unless I'm mistaken. Is a reduction in the benefit you receive from the state really a tax? Not saying it is right, but it is fundamentally different. Sorry but I see no difference, It's still money taken from you by the government and going back into their pockets. The vast majority of people on benefits don't sit on their arses expecting handouts and have put into the kitty for many years. Is it right that these families are ending up homeless, starving or relying on food banks? I didn't say it was right, and in fact I believe it to be wholly wrong, but it is fundamentally different, a mansion tax is money being taken from someone who has earned it, the bedroom tax (or under occupancy charge as it is called) is a reduction in the benefits received, it is not a tax. I get your meaning and yes essentially you're right. But it's hard to have any sympathy because let's face it the vast majority of people who own mansions dodge taxes through loop holes....Close the loop holes and then I'd say scrap Mansion Tax. There are some high profile tax evasion cases which have been highlighted recently and the law should be strengthened to punish those that actively evade tax, but I suspect you will find 99% of people pay the legally required amount of tax under the current legislation. I've said often on here that a simpler system that was more effectively policed for both individuals and corporates would see a significant rise in tax revenue." Agree totally. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are some high profile tax evasion cases which have been highlighted recently and the law should be strengthened to punish those that actively evade tax, but I suspect you will find 99% of people pay the legally required amount of tax under the current legislation. I've said often on here that a simpler system that was more effectively policed for both individuals and corporates would see a significant rise in tax revenue. Agree totally. " I agree too .... but if the authorities can't even keep contraband out of a prison how will they manage to police 40 odd million peoples tax affairs? efficiently | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are some high profile tax evasion cases which have been highlighted recently and the law should be strengthened to punish those that actively evade tax, but I suspect you will find 99% of people pay the legally required amount of tax under the current legislation. I've said often on here that a simpler system that was more effectively policed for both individuals and corporates would see a significant rise in tax revenue. Agree totally. I agree too .... but if the authorities can't even keep contraband out of a prison how will they manage to police 40 odd million peoples tax affairs? efficiently" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the rality of the "spare room subsidy/bedroom tax" is all it is achieving is that 2 bed property rental is rising in cost to a point where it will reach parity with the cost of a 3 bed property rental by the middle of next year .... in our area there is a big surplus of 3 bed rentals and a dearth of 2 bed properties .... either way the amount of benefit being paid out isn't changing ..... poorly thought out policy if you ask me" It wasn't a policy. It was the evening out of an anomoly so that private and poublic sector rents applied by the same rules. As we are on the subject of social housing. Is it actually right in 2015 that we are expecting the state to build houses for people to live and for them to pay the state rent? Sounds like an Orwellian nightmare to me. Gewt rid of social housing altogether - it was of another era. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are some high profile tax evasion cases which have been highlighted recently and the law should be strengthened to punish those that actively evade tax, but I suspect you will find 99% of people pay the legally required amount of tax under the current legislation. I've said often on here that a simpler system that was more effectively policed for both individuals and corporates would see a significant rise in tax revenue. Agree totally. I agree too .... but if the authorities can't even keep contraband out of a prison how will they manage to police 40 odd million peoples tax affairs? efficiently" By making it simpler. Unfortunately governments prefer to have overly complicated tax systems because the more tax generators there out there, the more they can rob Peter to pay Paul. For example. There is not a single person in this country who does not see thge logic of morphing VED into the price of fuel. It makes sense on every level so that those who spend more time on the road, or who use gas guzzlers pay more. Unfortunately that does not suit the government as they lose a lever that can be used against us. For example a decrease in fuel duty and an increase in VED may well be revenue nuetral but it may be positive for some that the government are looking to bribe - for example those who currently have low emmission vehicles. A simple tax system will benefit everyone but a sitting government as they will have less to meedle with. Just imagine - zero income tax for all and a sliding scale of VAT for everything that is bought in the country. Everyone then pays tax - even the tourists and the government even get other people (the selling companies) to collect it all in for them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the rality of the "spare room subsidy/bedroom tax" is all it is achieving is that 2 bed property rental is rising in cost to a point where it will reach parity with the cost of a 3 bed property rental by the middle of next year .... in our area there is a big surplus of 3 bed rentals and a dearth of 2 bed properties .... either way the amount of benefit being paid out isn't changing ..... poorly thought out policy if you ask me It wasn't a policy. It was the evening out of an anomoly so that private and poublic sector rents applied by the same rules. As we are on the subject of social housing. Is it actually right in 2015 that we are expecting the state to build houses for people to live and for them to pay the state rent? Sounds like an Orwellian nightmare to me. Gewt rid of social housing altogether - it was of another era." . You keep referring to the state as if it's another person, it's us everyone who lives here. We borrow money very cheaply as a country, we invest it in building houses (which employs people, you love people getting employed remember), we charge rent (we get income from our investment) and in 20 years we sell them the house (and make profit, you know like that capitalism bullshit you constantly rabbit on about). You seem hell bent on a few people making loads but not keen on all of us making a little bit. Which is weird | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There are some high profile tax evasion cases which have been highlighted recently and the law should be strengthened to punish those that actively evade tax, but I suspect you will find 99% of people pay the legally required amount of tax under the current legislation. I've said often on here that a simpler system that was more effectively policed for both individuals and corporates would see a significant rise in tax revenue. Agree totally. I agree too .... but if the authorities can't even keep contraband out of a prison how will they manage to police 40 odd million peoples tax affairs? efficiently By making it simpler. Unfortunately governments prefer to have overly complicated tax systems because the more tax generators there out there, the more they can rob Peter to pay Paul. For example. There is not a single person in this country who does not see thge logic of morphing VED into the price of fuel. It makes sense on every level so that those who spend more time on the road, or who use gas guzzlers pay more. Unfortunately that does not suit the government as they lose a lever that can be used against us. For example a decrease in fuel duty and an increase in VED may well be revenue nuetral but it may be positive for some that the government are looking to bribe - for example those who currently have low emmission vehicles. A simple tax system will benefit everyone but a sitting government as they will have less to meedle with. Just imagine - zero income tax for all and a sliding scale of VAT for everything that is bought in the country. Everyone then pays tax - even the tourists and the government even get other people (the selling companies) to collect it all in for them." . Here's an even easier way. We start jailing wealthy people to 20 years hard labour for their treasonous tax evasion, after we've done about 30, the rest will just pay every year without complaint. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It wasn't a policy. It was the evening out of an anomoly so that private and poublic sector rents applied by the same rules. As we are on the subject of social housing. Is it actually right in 2015 that we are expecting the state to build houses for people to live and for them to pay the state rent? Gewt rid of social housing altogether - it was of another era." it is completely and morally correct that the state is expected to provide housing for people to live in on a not for profit basis as the unregulated rental market is completely out of control ..... one example being what is happening in the New Era Estate currently. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just imagine - zero income tax for all and a sliding scale of VAT for everything that is bought in the country. Everyone then pays tax - even the tourists and the government even get other people (the selling companies) to collect it all in for them." from orwell to dickens in one easy step | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just imagine - zero income tax for all and a sliding scale of VAT for everything that is bought in the country. Everyone then pays tax - even the tourists and the government even get other people (the selling companies) to collect it all in for them. from orwell to dickens in one easy step " . He's obviously a lover of Victorian history and those wonderful work houses with there ensuite cholera and tuberculosis. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" from orwell to dickens in one easy step " Or from Orwell to....Orwell (he wrote a few books about extreme poverty as well) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" from orwell to dickens in one easy step Or from Orwell to....Orwell (he wrote a few books about extreme poverty as well)" lol ... true enough ... the longer this government goes on the further down "the road to wigan pier" we seem to be | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It wasn't a policy. It was the evening out of an anomoly so that private and poublic sector rents applied by the same rules. As we are on the subject of social housing. Is it actually right in 2015 that we are expecting the state to build houses for people to live and for them to pay the state rent? Gewt rid of social housing altogether - it was of another era. it is completely and morally correct that the state is expected to provide housing for people to live in on a not for profit basis as the unregulated rental market is completely out of control ..... one example being what is happening in the New Era Estate currently. " Social housing, like welfare had its day in the post war years. The government needs to butt out of our lives and if needed regulate rental accommodation. There is a reason why we have so many people in this country who are completely dependent on the state and that has to be drastically reduced. We need to care more and pay more for those truly in need. Those who are able bodied need to get out there and sort themselves and their families out. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just imagine - zero income tax for all and a sliding scale of VAT for everything that is bought in the country. Everyone then pays tax - even the tourists and the government even get other people (the selling companies) to collect it all in for them. from orwell to dickens in one easy step . He's obviously a lover of Victorian history and those wonderful work houses with there ensuite cholera and tuberculosis." Typical socialist. Lose an argument and resort to insults. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Your just wrong on so many levels 1 being kind and looking after fellow humans is an innate aspect of our species. Darwin's survival of the fittest is the most common misused and quoted line in any book, he wrote chapter after chapter about how we look after one another to ensure our own survival. Ie without everyone else your "choices you make" as you say, would enable you to live about 3 months and certainly wouldn't allow you to run a businesses or make any money. No roads, no drugs, no doctors, no nurses, no schools, no defence, no teachers, no electric grid, no water, no sewers etc etc etc. These things are all done for the benefit of society, that's everyone, not people you deem necessary or worthy. 2 most of the people you complain about jobless, poor, inept , the weak, the stupid.... They were created under the capitalist system that you think having more of will somehow fix!. 3 have you ever considered that the problem is not the system but the greed and sloth of the people that run the system. 4 you seem to be convinced of the idea that a conservative party could cure stuff like debt, unemployment rate, social ills and poverty... Well I hate to be the one that breaks this news to you... In over 200 years of evidence they've failed at every level along with every other party. In my living memory, on two - possibly three occasions, it has taken a conservative government to fix an almighty fucked up economy by the preceding labour government. I have never argued that pensioners are not part of the problem. Welfare including pensions equates to around 260 billion and we only collect 150 billion from income tax. How can that ever in a million years be sustainable? Massive decisions need to be taken because there really is no alternative. Successive governments are just piddling around in the shallows and not meeting the problem head on. We cannot afford the NHS, pension and welfare system as it is and it needs a massive overhaul. Taking a bit more tax here and there is not going to stop and ever ageing population from needing more and more money from pensions and the NHS. Throwing money at the symptoms does not fix the problem." I think your being somewhat disingenuous talking about conservatives fixing a economy after a labour government. Are we not forgetting the huge oil tax revenue that peaked under a conservative government in the 80's or the selling off of publicly owned companies like BT, Gas etc, which of course brought in many billions. Sort of makes it easier to say they fixed the economy, when you have this many billions to play with. And when labour did get back in 1997, they had to spend huge sums in capital projects like schools and hospitals which the conservatives failed to spend much money on. And i had first hand experience of going to a school under a conservative government where so little money was spent on it, they were still using temporary classrooms 30 years after they were installed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It wasn't a policy. It was the evening out of an anomoly so that private and poublic sector rents applied by the same rules. As we are on the subject of social housing. Is it actually right in 2015 that we are expecting the state to build houses for people to live and for them to pay the state rent? Gewt rid of social housing altogether - it was of another era. it is completely and morally correct that the state is expected to provide housing for people to live in on a not for profit basis as the unregulated rental market is completely out of control ..... one example being what is happening in the New Era Estate currently. Social housing, like welfare had its day in the post war years. The government needs to butt out of our lives and if needed regulate rental accommodation. " i disagree on this .... if one builds ones own house (and that doesn't include employing a builder to do it for you) and then further down the line it is rented to someone else then your hard work has earned that wealth .... however if one inherits money (which as we have already clarified is un earned wealth) and purchases property solely to rent out, then the money from that rent is again un-earned wealth. rents keep rising in the private sector to a point where in many areas it consumes as much as 50% of a persons income. until your suggested mechanisms to kerb the increasing acceleration of market rent (which isn't a very capitalist idea i must say) a not for profit system of housing provided by the state is both morally correct and necessary | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just imagine - zero income tax for all and a sliding scale of VAT for everything that is bought in the country. Everyone then pays tax - even the tourists and the government even get other people (the selling companies) to collect it all in for them. from orwell to dickens in one easy step . He's obviously a lover of Victorian history and those wonderful work houses with there ensuite cholera and tuberculosis. Typical socialist. Lose an argument and resort to insults." . I won the argument you lost and that's not an insult. Moron would be an insult, saying someone loves Victorian housing values based upon your statements is just fact. Your entire response regardless of question posed is.... Labour are fucktards blah blah blah I remember when 3 day weeks were common place blah blah blah. My answer is stop arguing with idiots like me on swinger's sites and read some real books. Them come back with some facts and actually talk sense. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
