FabSwingers.com forum: Dropped manifesto pledges

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

The Prime Minister left out some things she had in the manifesto from the Queens speech, which are you most sad/happy about.

Any Labour supporters sad about losing that a policy they secretly liked

Any Conservative supporters happy about ditching a stinker

Any Lib Dem supporters...at all?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *utandbigMan
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"The Prime Minister left out some things she had in the manifesto from the Queens speech, which are you most sad/happy about.

Any Labour supporters sad about losing that a policy they secretly liked

Any Conservative supporters happy about ditching a stinker

Any Lib Dem supporters...at all? "
the conservatives are finished after that disappointing speech today I'm sorry may gets worse and worse

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

Personally I think its sad that social care still isn't being sorted.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago

Barbados

Considering what a pigs ear May made of the election and the fact that so many (esp young) people are now paying more attention to politics, she really has shot herself in the foot with that speech.

You have a whole load of people who have come out to vote due to seeing an actually refreshing different potential PM who seems to be likeable, empathetic and honest. Then May shows no compassion whatsoever in response to Grenfell, sparking protests and derision.

Then she goes ahead and attempts to form a government with a party who's stance on many ethical issues is seen as abhorrent. Further alienating her voters and her own backbenchers.

The she had to delay the opening of Parliament due to the fact she did, then didn't, then did, then didn't have an agreement with the DUP.

Then she puts together a Queens speech which bears virtually no resemblance to the manifesto she so narrowly 'won' with.

And somehow she expects people to trust her! All those young people who are voting for the first time as beforehand they have thought 'all politicians are lying bastards' have just had their views confirmed.

The ONLY reason May is still there is PM is because no-one else in the Tory party want to take up the poinsoned chalice of Brexit as they know that it would be political suicide as they know that Brexit is just going to fuck our country up. Not even Johnson or Gove dare challenge her for the role as despite them leading the charge to leave even THEY don't think it is possible.

-Matt

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *VBethTV/TS
over a year ago

Chester

Can't please some people. When they do drop the things people complained about the most, people complain about it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"Can't please some people. When they do drop the things people complained about the most, people complain about it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"Can't please some people. When they do drop the things people complained about the most, people complain about it.

It's hilarious

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *arry247Couple
over a year ago

Wakefield

We find it amazing that no one noticed that there was a terrorist attack during the election.

This meant the government had to concentrate on security issues whilst the opposition was free to concentrate on their election plans.

If the attack had not happened the result would certainly have been different.

We are not saying they would have won a huge majority, that was never on the cards (take a look at history) but the Conservatives would have had a very similar majority as before the election.

The difference would have been that Teresa May’s critics would not have been able to claim she had not been elected as Prime Minister

The Conservatives biggest gaff was their plan labelled by others the dementia tax. Due to the terrorist attack they had no time to explain that fully, if they had the result would have been different.

Look at the Referendum, the leave vote was building momentum until the shooting of Joe Cox, when that happened the leave vote came to a standstill. If the shooting had not happened the leave vote would have been far greater than it was.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"We find it amazing that no one noticed that there was a terrorist attack during the election.

This meant the government had to concentrate on security issues whilst the opposition was free to concentrate on their election plans.

If the attack had not happened the result would certainly have been different.

We are not saying they would have won a huge majority, that was never on the cards (take a look at history) but the Conservatives would have had a very similar majority as before the election.

The difference would have been that Teresa May’s critics would not have been able to claim she had not been elected as Prime Minister

I'm off to get my hard hat

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford

"We find it amazing that no one noticed that there was a terrorist attack during the election.

This meant the government had to concentrate on security issues whilst the opposition was free to concentrate on their election plans.

If the attack had not happened the result would certainly have been different.

We are not saying they would have won a huge majority, that was never on the cards (take a look at history) but the Conservatives would have had a very similar majority as before the election.

The difference would have been that Teresa May’s critics would not have been able to claim she had not been elected as Prime Minister

No-one noticed? Are you fucking serious?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

"We find it amazing that no one noticed that there was a terrorist attack during the election.

This meant the government had to concentrate on security issues whilst the opposition was free to concentrate on their election plans.

If the attack had not happened the result would certainly have been different.

We are not saying they would have won a huge majority, that was never on the cards (take a look at history) but the Conservatives would have had a very similar majority as before the election.

The difference would have been that Teresa May’s critics would not have been able to claim she had not been elected as Prime Minister

My bullshit detector just went off the scale!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *avidnsa69Man
over a year ago

Essex

"Can't please some people. When they do drop the things people complained about the most, people complain about it.

It's hilarious

What's hilarious is that we have a government who are clueless, led by a lame duck PM. God help us all if this is strength and stability

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *avidnsa69Man
over a year ago

Essex

"We find it amazing that no one noticed that there was a terrorist attack during the election.

This meant the government had to concentrate on security issues whilst the opposition was free to concentrate on their election plans.

If the attack had not happened the result would certainly have been different.

We are not saying they would have won a huge majority, that was never on the cards (take a look at history) but the Conservatives would have had a very similar majority as before the election.

The difference would have been that Teresa May’s critics would not have been able to claim she had not been elected as Prime Minister

The Tories failed to win a majority in parliament because they ran a terrible campaign, believed their own hype, produced a manifesto which was deeply unpopular and made gaffe after gaffe. Bugger all to do with terrorism, everything to do with being spectacularly idiotic, arrogant and useless

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago

North West

"We find it amazing that no one noticed that there was a terrorist attack during the election.

This meant the government had to concentrate on security issues whilst the opposition was free to concentrate on their election plans.

If the attack had not happened the result would certainly have been different.

We are not saying they would have won a huge majority, that was never on the cards (take a look at history) but the Conservatives would have had a very similar majority as before the election.

The difference would have been that Teresa May’s critics would not have been able to claim she had not been elected as Prime Minister

Wow, I mean just wow

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *xplicitlyricsMan
over a year ago

south dublin

"We find it amazing that no one noticed that there was a terrorist attack during the election.

This meant the government had to concentrate on security issues whilst the opposition was free to concentrate on their election plans.

If the attack had not happened the result would certainly have been different.

We are not saying they would have won a huge majority, that was never on the cards (take a look at history) but the Conservatives would have had a very similar majority as before the election.

The difference would have been that Teresa May’s critics would not have been able to claim she had not been elected as Prime Minister

Labour did so well because theres a huge gap between the young and the old and after Brexit the youth are more politically involved than ever. Thats why you see so many young people joining the Labour party.

May ran a terrible campaign and tried to make it all about Brexit but the majority of people who were more interested in other issues like social programs voted Labour.

May is a poor communicator, a shaky politician and hardly exudes the strength of Thatcher. Less Iron Lady, more cellophane: weak and easy to see through.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"We find it amazing that no one noticed that there was a terrorist attack during the election.

This meant the government had to concentrate on security issues whilst the opposition was free to concentrate on their election plans.

If the attack had not happened the result would certainly have been different.

We are not saying they would have won a huge majority, that was never on the cards (take a look at history) but the Conservatives would have had a very similar majority as before the election.

The difference would have been that Teresa May’s critics would not have been able to claim she had not been elected as Prime Minister

May ran a terrible campaign and tried to make it all about Brexit but the majority of people who were more interested in other issues like social programs voted Labour.

May is a poor communicator, a shaky politician and hardly exudes the strength of Thatcher. Less Iron Lady, more cellophane: weak and easy to see through."

So why did she win?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"We find it amazing that no one noticed that there was a terrorist attack during the election.

This meant the government had to concentrate on security issues whilst the opposition was free to concentrate on their election plans.

If the attack had not happened the result would certainly have been different.

We are not saying they would have won a huge majority, that was never on the cards (take a look at history) but the Conservatives would have had a very similar majority as before the election.

The difference would have been that Teresa May’s critics would not have been able to claim she had not been elected as Prime Minister

So why did they win?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"We find it amazing that no one noticed that there was a terrorist attack during the election.

This meant the government had to concentrate on security issues whilst the opposition was free to concentrate on their election plans.

If the attack had not happened the result would certainly have been different.

We are not saying they would have won a huge majority, that was never on the cards (take a look at history) but the Conservatives would have had a very similar majority as before the election.

The difference would have been that Teresa May’s critics would not have been able to claim she had not been elected as Prime Minister

So why did they win?"

Because there's more old people than there are young

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

"We find it amazing that no one noticed that there was a terrorist attack during the election.

This meant the government had to concentrate on security issues whilst the opposition was free to concentrate on their election plans.

If the attack had not happened the result would certainly have been different.

We are not saying they would have won a huge majority, that was never on the cards (take a look at history) but the Conservatives would have had a very similar majority as before the election.

The difference would have been that Teresa May’s critics would not have been able to claim she had not been elected as Prime Minister

So why did they win?

Because there's more old people than there are young"

I thought that she'd upset all the old people though?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Because there's more old people than there are young

I thought that she'd upset all the old people though?"

She upset them, but they still voted against their own interests 69% of ages 70+ voted conservative

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

Because there's more old people than there are young

I thought that she'd upset all the old people though?

She upset them, but they still voted against their own interests 69% of ages 70+ voted conservative"

Oh, those stupid old people...have they not learnt anything over their lifetime?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"Can't please some people. When they do drop the things people complained about the most, people complain about it.

Pretty happy. Looks like they're shifting to the left without ukip as a threat and Labour making gains.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *utandbigMan
over a year ago

Bournemouth

Because there's more old people than there are young

I thought that she'd upset all the old people though?

She upset them, but they still voted against their own interests 69% of ages 70+ voted conservative

Oh, those stupid old people...have they not learnt anything over their lifetime?

You have older parents or have had are they stupid then

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

Because there's more old people than there are young

I thought that she'd upset all the old people though?

She upset them, but they still voted against their own interests 69% of ages 70+ voted conservative

Oh, those stupid old people...have they not learnt anything over their lifetime?

You have older parents or have had are they stupid then "

Think the sarcasm shot straight over your head there!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *avidnsa69Man
over a year ago

Essex

"We find it amazing that no one noticed that there was a terrorist attack during the election.

This meant the government had to concentrate on security issues whilst the opposition was free to concentrate on their election plans.

If the attack had not happened the result would certainly have been different.

We are not saying they would have won a huge majority, that was never on the cards (take a look at history) but the Conservatives would have had a very similar majority as before the election.

The difference would have been that Teresa May’s critics would not have been able to claim she had not been elected as Prime Minister

So why did they win?"

It's a Pyrrhic victory though...she's leading a minority government ffs. I dont know about you, but ive always measured success against my objectives. If her objective was to run a minority government, beholden unto a bunch of regressive DUP knuckledraggers, then it's a famous victory. If, on the the other hand, she wanted a big majority to push through Brexit and have a strong mandate, then it's abject failure. It's not exactly rocket science is it?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

As I said right after the result, it's worse than a Pyrrhic victory for the Conservatives, but a victory still.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

Because there's more old people than there are young

I thought that she'd upset all the old people though?

She upset them, but they still voted against their own interests 69% of ages 70+ voted conservative"

But did they really vote against their own interests?

If you're an old person looking forward to residential care currently you'd have to sell your house and then pay for all your care yourself until you where down to your last £23,000. Under the proposed new system that floor would have been raised to £100,000.

Even without a cap on costs the proposed system would have left many old people needing care £75,000 better of than they currently could be. Maybe they actually looked a little more closely at the actual policy and voted accordingly.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Because there's more old people than there are young

I thought that she'd upset all the old people though?

She upset them, but they still voted against their own interests 69% of ages 70+ voted conservative

But did they really vote against their own interests?

And how closely do you have to look at means testing Winter Fuel Allowance or scrapping the triple lock before you vote accordingly?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *VBethTV/TS
over a year ago

Chester

Because there's more old people than there are young

I thought that she'd upset all the old people though?

She upset them, but they still voted against their own interests 69% of ages 70+ voted conservative

But did they really vote against their own interests?

Why bother looking at the propesed policy when you can simply call it a "dementia tax" and scaremonger people into voting for someone else? It's a fact that people are living longer and thus are almost invariably going to need more medical care which must be paid for. If someone had 500 grand in cash and claimed benefits then people would be outraged. So why should a £500k house be any different? Ah..... because people feel entitled to get it when mummy/daddy dies.

Do we make people work til they're 80 to pay for the greater care costs? Or do we apply common sense and use the assets they have? Or do we do what most people seem to choose which is to ignore the problem until it gets 100 times bigger? That's the issue isn't it!

The new plan would have left them up to £100k to pass on to family, far better than is currently allowed. Especially for those who don't own their home!!

I will now standby for the insults from people whose parents own a valuable property! Like my mother does.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

Because there's more old people than there are young

I thought that she'd upset all the old people though?

She upset them, but they still voted against their own interests 69% of ages 70+ voted conservative

But did they really vote against their own interests?

And how closely do you have to look at means testing Winter Fuel Allowance or scrapping the triple lock before you vote accordingly?"

All the old people I know and talked about this with said on both those issues that it didn't really worry them. On the means tested winter fuel allowance most said that they didn't really need it. On the triple lock most said that they agreed that increasing pensions by a minimum of 2.5% a year, regardless of wage or price inflation, couldn't and shouldn't continue indefinitely.

In fact the only worry that most had with the Conservative plans was originally with the failure to put a cap in social care costs and, when told there would actually be a cap, what that cap would be.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago

Barbados

Because there's more old people than there are young

I thought that she'd upset all the old people though?

She upset them, but they still voted against their own interests 69% of ages 70+ voted conservative

But did they really vote against their own interests?

The new plan would have left them up to £100k to pass on to family, far better than is currently allowed. Especially for those who don't own their home!!

I will now standby for the insults from people whose parents own a valuable property! Like my mother does.

As a slight aside, I wish I could find the article again, but I saw a study a few weeks ago that said that elderly living longer is actually not more expensive. The reason being that they actually healthier than in days of yore. I didn't get a chance to look at it in detail, but it sounds plausible.

-Matt

Ps... both sides can play this game. 'Garden tax'?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

Because there's more old people than there are young

I thought that she'd upset all the old people though?

She upset them, but they still voted against their own interests 69% of ages 70+ voted conservative

But did they really vote against their own interests?

The new plan would have left them up to £100k to pass on to family, far better than is currently allowed. Especially for those who don't own their home!!

I will now standby for the insults from people whose parents own a valuable property! Like my mother does.

Don't worry. It's not going to happen yet. But, with a reasonable cap of £100,000 or maybe something like 30% of assets it's actually a pretty good policy that could've gone a long way to solving the social care problem.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

I'm not sure the people you spoke to are representative of the wider population though.

Plenty of reports that Conservative MPs encountered hostility on the doorstep over social care:

"One senior Conservative figure admitted the reaction on doorsteps to the policy had been hostile. “It has gone down like a pile of dog poo,” said one candidate. Mrs May decided to cut her losses, but some Tories worried the affair may have damaged the party."

from 'Theresa May backs down on ‘dementia tax’ social care plans' The Financial Times

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

"I'm not sure the people you spoke to are representative of the wider population though.

Plenty of reports that Conservative MPs encountered hostility on the doorstep over social care:

from 'Theresa May backs down on ‘dementia tax’ social care plans' The Financial Times"

I doubt they're very representative of the wider population as a whole either but I'm pretty sure they're quite representative of the 70% of over 65s that still voted Conservative and why.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"I'm not sure the people you spoke to are representative of the wider population though.

Plenty of reports that Conservative MPs encountered hostility on the doorstep over social care:

from 'Theresa May backs down on ‘dementia tax’ social care plans' The Financial Times

I doubt they're very representative of the wider population as a whole either but I'm pretty sure they're quite representative of the 70% of over 65s that still voted Conservative and why."

Doubt it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *VBethTV/TS
over a year ago

Chester

Trouble is, everybody is an expert at saying what is bad and how not to do things. Just for once I'd like to see someone propose a workable alternative that isn't "tax the rich" or borrow more and worry about it later....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

"I'm not sure the people you spoke to are representative of the wider population though.

Plenty of reports that Conservative MPs encountered hostility on the doorstep over social care:

from 'Theresa May backs down on ‘dementia tax’ social care plans' The Financial Times

I doubt they're very representative of the wider population as a whole either but I'm pretty sure they're quite representative of the 70% of over 65s that still voted Conservative and why.

Doubt it"

Just for the record I didn't vote Conservative. All I'm doing here is giving my opinion as to why over 70% of over 65s actually did vote Conservative. You're welcome to doubt my opinion but it would make for a fat better and informative discussion if you told us all why you think so many did?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"I'm not sure the people you spoke to are representative of the wider population though.

Plenty of reports that Conservative MPs encountered hostility on the doorstep over social care:

from 'Theresa May backs down on ‘dementia tax’ social care plans' The Financial Times

I doubt they're very representative of the wider population as a whole either but I'm pretty sure they're quite representative of the 70% of over 65s that still voted Conservative and why.

Doubt it

If I may just put my oar in here it is probably because the over 65's have lived through at least 3 Labour governments and 70% of them still have good memories

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Well at least the ira terrorist lover never got in.

And it's good news for us we get more money to keep the government in power.

It's a win win for us.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"Can't please some people. When they do drop the things people complained about the most, people complain about it.

It's hilarious

What's hilarious is that we have a government who are clueless, led by a lame duck PM. God help us all if this is strength and stability"

As a neutral observation- shows what a useless bunch Labour are if they couldn't beat the Tories

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *avidnsa69Man
over a year ago

Essex

"Well at least the ira terrorist lover never got in.

And it's good news for us we get more money to keep the government in power.

It's a win win for us.

Democracy is a wonderful thing.....the whole of the Uk held hostage by a bunch of terrorist supporting, climate change denying, creationists. I object to having the government pay out massive bribes whilst jeopardising the Good Friday Agreement.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"Well at least the ira terrorist lover never got in.

And it's good news for us we get more money to keep the government in power.

It's a win win for us.

Don't worry, she cannot organise a piss-up in a brewery. Did you hear about new campaign allegations?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *avidnsa69Man
over a year ago

Essex

"Well at least the ira terrorist lover never got in.

And it's good news for us we get more money to keep the government in power.

It's a win win for us.

Don't worry, she cannot organise a piss-up in a brewery. Did you hear about new campaign allegations?"

Yes indeed. Dodgy call centre in Wales doesn't look a very clever strategy

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

"Trouble is, everybody is an expert at saying what is bad and how not to do things. Just for once I'd like to see someone propose a workable alternative that isn't "tax the rich" or borrow more and worry about it later.... "

You mean like the Dilnot Commission that the Tories started and have consistently refused to implement despite them saying they would in their manifesto?

If you dont want a government to either tax or spend, what exactly are you expecting from a government?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *VBethTV/TS
over a year ago

Chester

You mean like the Dilnot Commission that the Tories started and have consistently refused to implement despite them saying they would in their manifesto?

If you dont want a government to either tax or spend, what exactly are you expecting from a government? "

I'm fine with sensible tax policy and with sensible spend policy. I'm not a fan of borrowing to please people with no concern about the resulting debt or with attempting to milk those who create employment. The politics of envy and punishing those who have managed to do well through their own hard work is utterly pathetic.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

then lets be sensible and increase taxes

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"then lets be sensible and increase taxes "

How much more are you offering?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"then lets be sensible and increase taxes

How much more are you offering?"

i think you should be paying at least 30% of your income

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby

"then lets be sensible and increase taxes

How much more are you offering?

i think you should be paying at least 30% of your income "

From the first penny you earn?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"then lets be sensible and increase taxes

How much more are you offering?

i think you should be paying at least 30% of your income

From the first penny you earn?"

if you say so

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

"then lets be sensible and increase taxes

How much more are you offering?

i think you should be paying at least 30% of your income "

Currently base income tax is 20% and NI is 11%. That makes 31%. Paying 30% of income for most people would actually represent a tax cut.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

"then lets be sensible and increase taxes

How much more are you offering?

i think you should be paying at least 30% of your income

From the first penny you earn?

if you say so"

So basically your solution is a massive 20% increase on people earning less than £11,000 pa and another massive 10% rise for people earning less than £8,000 pa. But for everyone one else a tax of 1% or more.

Talk about robbing the poor to give to the rich.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

Fox Hunting !

Not only seems Barbaric but Arcaic

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby

"then lets be sensible and increase taxes

How much more are you offering?

i think you should be paying at least 30% of your income

Currently base income tax is 20% and NI is 11%. That makes 31%. Paying 30% of income for most people would actually represent a tax cut.

At what level of wages do people actually pay 30% of their income in tax (income and NI)?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

You mean like the Dilnot Commission that the Tories started and have consistently refused to implement despite them saying they would in their manifesto?

If you dont want a government to either tax or spend, what exactly are you expecting from a government?

I think everyone agrees with a sensible tax and spend policy.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

You mean like the Dilnot Commission that the Tories started and have consistently refused to implement despite them saying they would in their manifesto?

If you dont want a government to either tax or spend, what exactly are you expecting from a government?

I think everyone agrees with a sensible tax and spend policy. "

apart from the ignorant

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"Can't please some people. When they do drop the things people complained about the most, people complain about it.

Just imagine how many Labour would have had to drop if they had won....and realised they couldn't afford a fraction of them!

(Or does Comrade Jeremy really have a magic money tree hidden behind his roses?)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"then lets be sensible and increase taxes

How much more are you offering?

i think you should be paying at least 30% of your income

Currently base income tax is 20% and NI is 11%. That makes 31%. Paying 30% of income for most people would actually represent a tax cut.

You pay nothing on first £11000.

So if you earn £11000 your tax rate is zero.

If you earn £22000 then you pay on half of earnings! So tax rate is 10% N.I. Is 5.5% (total 15.5%).... see how it works?

If you earn £44000 then you pay 3/4 of the 31% in total....

Tax is progressive. The more you earn, the more you pay (absolutely AND as a %).

Just pointing out facts. Not making a judgement on either side.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby

"then lets be sensible and increase taxes

How much more are you offering?

i think you should be paying at least 30% of your income

Currently base income tax is 20% and NI is 11%. That makes 31%. Paying 30% of income for most people would actually represent a tax cut.

You pay nothing on first £11000.

So if you earn £11000 your tax rate is zero.

If you earn £22000 then you pay on half of earnings! So tax rate is 10% N.I. Is 5.5% (total 15.5%).... see how it works?

If you earn £44000 then you pay 3/4 of the 31% in total....

Tax is progressive. The more you earn, the more you pay (absolutely AND as a %).

Just pointing out facts. Not making a judgement on either side."

That's correct....so you actually don't pay 30% of your ages in tax and NI until you earn about £60,000 p.a.

So well done that person who said that everyone should be paying at least 30% of your income in tax and NI...you've just given everyone earning less than sixty grand a year a tax rise.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"then lets be sensible and increase taxes

How much more are you offering?

i think you should be paying at least 30% of your income

Currently base income tax is 20% and NI is 11%. That makes 31%. Paying 30% of income for most people would actually represent a tax cut.

You pay nothing on first £11000.

So if you earn £11000 your tax rate is zero.

If you earn £22000 then you pay on half of earnings! So tax rate is 10% N.I. Is 5.5% (total 15.5%).... see how it works?

If you earn £44000 then you pay 3/4 of the 31% in total....

Tax is progressive. The more you earn, the more you pay (absolutely AND as a %).

Just pointing out facts. Not making a judgement on either side.

That's correct....so you actually don't pay 30% of your ages in tax and NI until you earn about £60,000 p.a.

So well done that person who said that everyone should be paying at least 30% of your income in tax and NI...you've just given everyone earning less than sixty grand a year a tax rise."

your maths is wrong

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby

"then lets be sensible and increase taxes

How much more are you offering?

i think you should be paying at least 30% of your income

Currently base income tax is 20% and NI is 11%. That makes 31%. Paying 30% of income for most people would actually represent a tax cut.

You pay nothing on first £11000.

So if you earn £11000 your tax rate is zero.

If you earn £22000 then you pay on half of earnings! So tax rate is 10% N.I. Is 5.5% (total 15.5%).... see how it works?

If you earn £44000 then you pay 3/4 of the 31% in total....

Tax is progressive. The more you earn, the more you pay (absolutely AND as a %).

Just pointing out facts. Not making a judgement on either side.

That's correct....so you actually don't pay 30% of your ages in tax and NI until you earn about £60,000 p.a.

So well done that person who said that everyone should be paying at least 30% of your income in tax and NI...you've just given everyone earning less than sixty grand a year a tax rise.

your maths is wrong"

So what is the level if earnings that you pay 30% in tax and NI?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby

"then lets be sensible and increase taxes

How much more are you offering?

i think you should be paying at least 30% of your income

Currently base income tax is 20% and NI is 11%. That makes 31%. Paying 30% of income for most people would actually represent a tax cut.

You pay nothing on first £11000.

So if you earn £11000 your tax rate is zero.

If you earn £22000 then you pay on half of earnings! So tax rate is 10% N.I. Is 5.5% (total 15.5%).... see how it works?

If you earn £44000 then you pay 3/4 of the 31% in total....

Tax is progressive. The more you earn, the more you pay (absolutely AND as a %).

Just pointing out facts. Not making a judgement on either side.

That's correct....so you actually don't pay 30% of your ages in tax and NI until you earn about £60,000 p.a.

So well done that person who said that everyone should be paying at least 30% of your income in tax and NI...you've just given everyone earning less than sixty grand a year a tax rise.

your maths is wrong"

https://www.gov.uk/estimate-income-tax

10K wage..you pay £200 tax and NI ( actually only NI)....or 2% of your wage

20K...you pay c 3K...16%

30K...........c 7K...23%

40K...........c 10K..25%

50K...........c 14K..28%

60K...........c 18K..30%

Once again, you can check these figures on HMRC website

So you don't pay 30% of your income in tax and NI until you earn 60K.

Where have the HMRC got THEIR maths wrong?

https://www.gov.uk/estimate-income-tax

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"then lets be sensible and increase taxes

How much more are you offering?

i think you should be paying at least 30% of your income

Currently base income tax is 20% and NI is 11%. That makes 31%. Paying 30% of income for most people would actually represent a tax cut.

You pay nothing on first £11000.

So if you earn £11000 your tax rate is zero.

If you earn £22000 then you pay on half of earnings! So tax rate is 10% N.I. Is 5.5% (total 15.5%).... see how it works?

If you earn £44000 then you pay 3/4 of the 31% in total....

Tax is progressive. The more you earn, the more you pay (absolutely AND as a %).

Just pointing out facts. Not making a judgement on either side.

That's correct....so you actually don't pay 30% of your ages in tax and NI until you earn about £60,000 p.a.

So well done that person who said that everyone should be paying at least 30% of your income in tax and NI...you've just given everyone earning less than sixty grand a year a tax rise.

your maths is wrong

So what is the level if earnings that you pay 30% in tax and NI? "

seeing as how you made up some figures to use in your sums why don't you just carry on by making up the level of earnings too

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby

"then lets be sensible and increase taxes

How much more are you offering?

i think you should be paying at least 30% of your income

Currently base income tax is 20% and NI is 11%. That makes 31%. Paying 30% of income for most people would actually represent a tax cut.

You pay nothing on first £11000.

So if you earn £11000 your tax rate is zero.

If you earn £22000 then you pay on half of earnings! So tax rate is 10% N.I. Is 5.5% (total 15.5%).... see how it works?

If you earn £44000 then you pay 3/4 of the 31% in total....

Tax is progressive. The more you earn, the more you pay (absolutely AND as a %).

Just pointing out facts. Not making a judgement on either side.

That's correct....so you actually don't pay 30% of your ages in tax and NI until you earn about £60,000 p.a.

So well done that person who said that everyone should be paying at least 30% of your income in tax and NI...you've just given everyone earning less than sixty grand a year a tax rise.

your maths is wrong

So what is the level if earnings that you pay 30% in tax and NI?

seeing as how you made up some figures to use in your sums why don't you just carry on by making up the level of earnings too "

They are HMRC's figures!

But feel free to correct those figures if you want to.

How much income tax and NI do you think someone who earns 40K pays? Or 30K, or 20, 50, 60?

They are easily checkmate on the HMRC website ....I've even provided you with the link!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"then lets be sensible and increase taxes

How much more are you offering?

i think you should be paying at least 30% of your income

Currently base income tax is 20% and NI is 11%. That makes 31%. Paying 30% of income for most people would actually represent a tax cut.

You pay nothing on first £11000.

So if you earn £11000 your tax rate is zero.

If you earn £22000 then you pay on half of earnings! So tax rate is 10% N.I. Is 5.5% (total 15.5%).... see how it works?

If you earn £44000 then you pay 3/4 of the 31% in total....

Tax is progressive. The more you earn, the more you pay (absolutely AND as a %).

Just pointing out facts. Not making a judgement on either side.

That's correct....so you actually don't pay 30% of your ages in tax and NI until you earn about £60,000 p.a.

So well done that person who said that everyone should be paying at least 30% of your income in tax and NI...you've just given everyone earning less than sixty grand a year a tax rise.

your maths is wrong

So what is the level if earnings that you pay 30% in tax and NI?

seeing as how you made up some figures to use in your sums why don't you just carry on by making up the level of earnings too

They are HMRC's figures!

But feel free to correct those figures if you want to.

How much income tax and NI do you think someone who earns 40K pays? Or 30K, or 20, 50, 60?

They are easily checkmate on the HMRC website ....I've even provided you with the link!"

you've taken 30% as the end product ... ergo your maths is wrong ... doesn't matter one iota how you spin it by adding missing variables just to fit your sums the maths is still wrong

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby

"then lets be sensible and increase taxes

How much more are you offering?

i think you should be paying at least 30% of your income

Currently base income tax is 20% and NI is 11%. That makes 31%. Paying 30% of income for most people would actually represent a tax cut.

You pay nothing on first £11000.

So if you earn £11000 your tax rate is zero.

If you earn £22000 then you pay on half of earnings! So tax rate is 10% N.I. Is 5.5% (total 15.5%).... see how it works?

If you earn £44000 then you pay 3/4 of the 31% in total....

Tax is progressive. The more you earn, the more you pay (absolutely AND as a %).

Just pointing out facts. Not making a judgement on either side.

That's correct....so you actually don't pay 30% of your ages in tax and NI until you earn about £60,000 p.a.

So well done that person who said that everyone should be paying at least 30% of your income in tax and NI...you've just given everyone earning less than sixty grand a year a tax rise.

your maths is wrong

So what is the level if earnings that you pay 30% in tax and NI?

seeing as how you made up some figures to use in your sums why don't you just carry on by making up the level of earnings too

They are HMRC's figures!

But feel free to correct those figures if you want to.

How much income tax and NI do you think someone who earns 40K pays? Or 30K, or 20, 50, 60?

They are easily checkmate on the HMRC website ....I've even provided you with the link!

you've taken 30% as the end product ... ergo your maths is wrong ... doesn't matter one iota how you spin it by adding missing variables just to fit your sums the maths is still wrong "

What do you mean, taken 30% as the end product?

How do you think income tax and NI is worked out?

What is 30% of 60 grand?

What is 30% of 30 grand?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

"Can't please some people. When they do drop the things people complained about the most, people complain about it.

Just imagine how many Labour would have had to drop if they had won....and realised they couldn't afford a fraction of them!

(Or does Comrade Jeremy really have a magic money tree hidden behind his roses?)"

It's amazing when a government can find £1,000,000,000 when it needs to. It's funny how that extra money for NI wasn't in the Tory manifesto (which was entirely uncosted btw) yet they found they money.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

What is 30% of 60 grand?

What is 30% of 30 grand?"

what the fuck are you on about?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge

"then lets be sensible and increase taxes

How much more are you offering?

i think you should be paying at least 30% of your income

Currently base income tax is 20% and NI is 11%. That makes 31%. Paying 30% of income for most people would actually represent a tax cut.

You pay nothing on first £11000.

So if you earn £11000 your tax rate is zero.

If you earn £22000 then you pay on half of earnings! So tax rate is 10% N.I. Is 5.5% (total 15.5%).... see how it works?

If you earn £44000 then you pay 3/4 of the 31% in total....

Tax is progressive. The more you earn, the more you pay (absolutely AND as a %).

Just pointing out facts. Not making a judgement on either side.

That's correct....so you actually don't pay 30% of your ages in tax and NI until you earn about £60,000 p.a.

So well done that person who said that everyone should be paying at least 30% of your income in tax and NI...you've just given everyone earning less than sixty grand a year a tax rise.

your maths is wrong

So what is the level if earnings that you pay 30% in tax and NI?

seeing as how you made up some figures to use in your sums why don't you just carry on by making up the level of earnings too

They are HMRC's figures!

But feel free to correct those figures if you want to.

How much income tax and NI do you think someone who earns 40K pays? Or 30K, or 20, 50, 60?

They are easily checkmate on the HMRC website ....I've even provided you with the link!

you've taken 30% as the end product ... ergo your maths is wrong ... doesn't matter one iota how you spin it by adding missing variables just to fit your sums the maths is still wrong

What do you mean, taken 30% as the end product?

How do you think income tax and NI is worked out?

What is 30% of 60 grand?

What is 30% of 30 grand?"

How about VAT?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby

"then lets be sensible and increase taxes

How much more are you offering?

i think you should be paying at least 30% of your income

Currently base income tax is 20% and NI is 11%. That makes 31%. Paying 30% of income for most people would actually represent a tax cut.

You pay nothing on first £11000.

So if you earn £11000 your tax rate is zero.

If you earn £22000 then you pay on half of earnings! So tax rate is 10% N.I. Is 5.5% (total 15.5%).... see how it works?

If you earn £44000 then you pay 3/4 of the 31% in total....

Tax is progressive. The more you earn, the more you pay (absolutely AND as a %).

Just pointing out facts. Not making a judgement on either side.

That's correct....so you actually don't pay 30% of your ages in tax and NI until you earn about £60,000 p.a.

So well done that person who said that everyone should be paying at least 30% of your income in tax and NI...you've just given everyone earning less than sixty grand a year a tax rise.

your maths is wrong

So what is the level if earnings that you pay 30% in tax and NI?

seeing as how you made up some figures to use in your sums why don't you just carry on by making up the level of earnings too

They are HMRC's figures!

But feel free to correct those figures if you want to.

How much income tax and NI do you think someone who earns 40K pays? Or 30K, or 20, 50, 60?

They are easily checkmate on the HMRC website ....I've even provided you with the link!

you've taken 30% as the end product ... ergo your maths is wrong ... doesn't matter one iota how you spin it by adding missing variables just to fit your sums the maths is still wrong

What do you mean, taken 30% as the end product?

How do you think income tax and NI is worked out?

What is 30% of 60 grand?

What is 30% of 30 grand?

How about VAT? "

Do you pay VAT on your wages?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

What is 30% of 60 grand?

What is 30% of 30 grand?

what the fuck are you on about?"

You said that everyone should pay 30% of their wages as income tax. At least that's what I thought you said and I think that's what JandS thinks you said to.

I pointed out to you that that would be a massive tax rise for the lower paid and a tax cut for the higher paid. JandS and Morepork have given you the workings out and they're totally correct to say that if everyone payed income tax at a flat rate of 30% those earning less than £60,000 would pay more tax than now and those earning more than £60,000 would pay less.

There is nothing to argue about. On this one they're right; unless you didn't actually mean what JandS, Morepork and I thought you meant when you said about the 30% income tax.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *aughtyinguMan
over a year ago

swindon

The puzzling omission to me was energy price cap thingy. How did deem that unlikely to get through? Or was that intended to be a dropped pledge from the start?

Oh and old people read newspapers and believe in the bbc being unbiased.

The dementia tax thing went to far, the base idea is ok. But surely its a massive boost to tax take for the government, say 75k per dead oap? (average)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

What is 30% of 60 grand?

What is 30% of 30 grand?

what the fuck are you on about?

You said that everyone should pay 30% of their wages as income tax. At least that's what I thought you said and I think that's what JandS thinks you said to.

There is nothing to argue about. On this one they're right; unless you didn't actually mean what JandS, Morepork and I thought you meant when you said about the 30% income tax.

you've deliberately mis construed what i wrote ... go back and read it again instead of filling in the blanks with you own agenda driven figures

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

[Removed by poster at 06/07/17 10:06:07]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

What is 30% of 60 grand?

What is 30% of 30 grand?

what the fuck are you on about?

You said that everyone should pay 30% of their wages as income tax. At least that's what I thought you said and I think that's what JandS thinks you said to.

There is nothing to argue about. On this one they're right; unless you didn't actually mean what JandS, Morepork and I thought you meant when you said about the 30% income tax.

you've deliberately mis construed what i wrote ... go back and read it again instead of filling in the blanks with you own agenda driven figures"

I'm really not deliberately mis construing what you wrote. You wrote "i think you should be paying at least 30% of your income". I've understood that to mean that everyone should pay at least 30% of their income in tax. If that is what you meant then that would be a tax increase for everyone earning less than £60,000 and a massive increase in tax from the very lowest paid.

I'm perfectly willing to accept that I may have misunderstood what you actually meant, if so then just clarify it, but I absolutely haven't deliberately misconstrued it. I've posted back on what I genuinely thought you meant.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby

What is 30% of 60 grand?

What is 30% of 30 grand?

what the fuck are you on about?

You said that everyone should pay 30% of their wages as income tax. At least that's what I thought you said and I think that's what JandS thinks you said to.

There is nothing to argue about. On this one they're right; unless you didn't actually mean what JandS, Morepork and I thought you meant when you said about the 30% income tax.

you've deliberately mis construed what i wrote ... go back and read it again instead of filling in the blanks with you own agenda driven figures

Yes, please clarify what you meant. Because you seem to be the only one who knows what you mean.

Do you mean income tax and NI should be 30% for everyone?

Or do you mean total tax should be 30% for everyone? I.e. income tax, national insurance, vat, fuel duty, road tax, alcohol duty, insurance tax, etc etc etc.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

i wrote "... at least... "

... you went on to fill in the blanks with wild surmise

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby

"i wrote "... at least... "

... you went on to fill in the blanks with wild surmise "

So you can't answer how much tax you think people should pay then? And you can't answer if it's total tax you're talking about or deductions from wages.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"i wrote "... at least... "

... you went on to fill in the blanks with wild surmise

So you can't answer how much tax you think people should pay then? And you can't answer if it's total tax you're talking about or deductions from wages."

grow up ffs

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

I would raise the tax threshold to 20k.Then increase the tax for those on over 100k to make up the lost revenue .

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes

"I would raise the tax threshold to 20k.Then increase the tax for those on over 100k to make up the lost revenue .

I think, before any further increase in income tax thresholds or bands, they should first raise the NI threshold (currently about £6,000) to the same as the income tax threshold and them keep them in lock step.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *andS66Couple
over a year ago

Derby

"i wrote "... at least... "

... you went on to fill in the blanks with wild surmise

So you can't answer how much tax you think people should pay then? And you can't answer if it's total tax you're talking about or deductions from wages.

grow up ffs

QED.

You've been out in the sun too long, drinking two pints on an empty head again.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread