Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life"


Section_31
 Share

Recommended Posts

BBC News - Tories hire Obama campaign chief Jim Messina

 

Good luck trying to do an 'Obama' on a white, portly Etonian.

 

I wouldn't laugh it off mate, it's a good move by them - as they were pointing out on the news before, the Tories are winning all the battles in the press no matter how abhorrent their policies are, it all comes back to how shit Miliband is again I suppose, this is the kind of move he should have been making. It's embarrassing, the Tories are building panzers and Miliband is still fucking around with cavalry - we all know how this story ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its ok Numero has assured us all that crime will go up, that the coaltion wont last their term and by the next election Milliband will be in a position to clean up on votes and will lead us all to the promised land.

 

Oh and the tories will have no chance to win.

 

Such a well respected poster couldnt be wrong on every prediction he's ever made on here surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is another particularly disgusting piece of work from the Tories (ably supported by the coalition partners). Ranks alongside the "bedroom tax" as a particularly vile bit of legislation.

 

If they had wanted to cut out vexatious claims or claims that had no chance of winning the arbritration service could have easily introduced a step to weed out the time wasters. Instead justice will be denied to thousands while unscrupulous employers laugh up their sleeves.

 

May a fairer way - a way that may have encouraged some compromise - have been for both parties to pay half the fee?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco

I wouldn't normally reply to the rantings of a half-brained, semi-literate arse-hat with a borderline personality disorder, but considering you needlessly took aim at me personally, I'm happy to put you straight.

 

Its ok Numero has assured us all that crime will go up

 

I didn't actually, but that's besides the point. I, like pretty much all leading criminologists, expected actual crime (which is different to recorded or reported crimes) to rise if two things happened: 1) If austerity hit the living standards of the poorest people in the land. 2) If police numbers on the front line were dropped as significantly as predicted.

 

Now, I quite obviously don't expect crimes which aren't linked to those things to rise. I'm not predicting sex crimes to go up. I predicted crimes, like theft, which are linked to those things, would go up. Of course, what you don't mention in your deluded, reality devoid, partially-fabricated post is that theft has gone up. Both in terms of reported and recorded crime.

 

Of course, as I explained to you, even the ONS themselves have cast doubt over the real drop in crime because of the unwillingness to record reported crimes. This in itself can be the reason for drops in recorded levels of crime. You don't seem to grasp the difference.

 

Now, you might want to pretend that everything I've ever said or ever will say is wrong just because all recorded crime (which is a partial detailing of crime) hasn't risen in the first three years of government, but by doing so you're making yourself look even more of an ignoramus than you already do. Now, why don't you fuck off and start a revolution to daisy chain everybody's roof-mounted routers so we can all get free internet, you fucking crackpot. Either that or you could copy and paste yet another Chomsky article you clearly don't understand; better still you could read something he's written and regurgitate it in broken English so you don't actually have to produce an original idea yourself.

 

that the coaltion wont last their term and by the next election Milliband will be in a position to clean up on votes and will lead us all to the promised land.

 

Oh and the tories will have no chance to win.

 

Such a well respected poster couldnt be wrong on every prediction he's ever made on here surely?

 

You do understand that these are future events, don't you? This government is only just over halfway through its term. I think Miliband will win the election, and I certainly don't think the Tories have much chance of winning a majority next term, but that's just basic logic. Either way, we're a long way away from finding out if any of those things will or won't happen, so I'm not going to accept your bullshit finger-pointing about it.

 

Unless, like these fabricated documents you've mentioned on the FF, you've been to the future in your RETARDIS and seen what happens. If so, I'm sorry that I got it wrong and I'm gutted the Tories won the election in two years time. I still think you're a prick, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bedroom tax is a fucking disgrace. My sister is a nurse she has a young boy and young girl its not her fault their dad fucked off but now she gets stiffed 14 quid a week extra because apparently a boy and girl can share up until the age of 11. 56 quid a month isn't a lot to these fucking toffs but to many its crippling what does she do move into a one bedroom bedsit with two kids and then as soon as one turns 11 she has to move again. Wankers the revenue they make won't make a dent, tax fuckers who will still be left with a massive disposable income after it. Fucking Tory cunts labour are just as bad, isn't their one party who has people's interests at heart, value over profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is another particularly disgusting piece of work from the Tories (ably supported by the coalition partners). Ranks alongside the "bedroom tax" as a particularly vile bit of legislation.

 

If they had wanted to cut out vexatious claims or claims that had no chance of winning the arbritration service could have easily introduced a step to weed out the time wasters. Instead justice will be denied to thousands while unscrupulous employers laugh up their sleeves.

 

May a fairer way - a way that may have encouraged some compromise - have been for both parties to pay half the fee?

 

If only the Lib Dems werent in power they could do something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't normally reply to the rantings of a half-brained, semi-literate arse-hat with a borderline personality disorder, but considering you needlessly took aim at me personally, I'm happy to put you straight.

 

 

 

I didn't actually, but that's besides the point. I, like pretty much all leading criminologists, expected actual crime (which is different to recorded or reported crimes) to rise if two things happened: 1) If austerity hit the living standards of the poorest people in the land. 2) If police numbers on the front line were dropped as significantly as predicted.

 

Now, I quite obviously don't expect crimes which aren't linked to those things to rise. I'm not predicting sex crimes to go up. I predicted crimes, like theft, which are linked to those things, would go up. Of course, what you don't mention in your deluded, reality devoid, partially-fabricated post is that theft has gone up. Both in terms of reported and recorded crime.

 

Of course, as I explained to you, even the ONS themselves have cast doubt over the real drop in crime because of the unwillingness to record reported crimes. This in itself can be the reason for drops in recorded levels of crime. You don't seem to grasp the difference.

 

Now, you might want to pretend that everything I've ever said or ever will say is wrong just because all recorded crime (which is a partial detailing of crime) hasn't risen in the first three years of government, but by doing so you're making yourself look even more of an ignoramus than you already do. Now, why don't you fuck off and start a revolution to daisy chain everybody's roof-mounted routers so we can all get free internet, you fucking crackpot. Either that or you could copy and paste yet another Chomsky article you clearly don't understand; better still you could read something he's written and regurgitate it in broken English so you don't actually have to produce an original idea yourself.

 

 

 

You do understand that these are future events, don't you? This government is only just over halfway through its term. I think Miliband will win the election, and I certainly don't think the Tories have much chance of winning a majority next term, but that's just basic logic. Either way, we're a long way away from finding out if any of those things will or won't happen, so I'm not going to accept your bullshit finger-pointing about it.

 

Unless, like these fabricated documents you've mentioned on the FF, you've been to the future in your RETARDIS and seen what happens. If so, I'm sorry that I got it wrong and I'm gutted the Tories won the election in two years time. I still think you're a prick, though.

 

Oh you 'get' Chomsky so much you read the Guardian and laud Zizek as the next moses.

Your love of Milliband is even more startling but he reminds me of you.

I like the way you wrote a load of long winded garbage though perhaps they have taught you their craft?

Claiming things you dont have access to to be 'fabricated' is rather desperate, in fact all of the above is, Im proud someone so important as you, between meeting Noam and visits to the west bank to chill wit ye homies has found so much time to sit there and write all that out.

Must have touched a nerve, calling you on your predictions, your reply in essence, 'its the future though......' should be borne in mind next time you try messing with it and trying to use your 'knowledge' to 'predict' it.

And you can talk about routers on the roof and this kind of thing, one simple latent application for wireless topology while omitting the 4G wireless that has since superceded, cables in the ground, which was the actual point I was demonstrating.

I enjoyed the furious 'rebuttal', you're a rather silly pathetic man who perpetually makes SD look good, cants say much more than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasnt it Labour that created the 45% threshold? If so you cant take credit for somebody elses doing and then complain they left the country in a mess after 3 years of being Tory lapdogs.

 

 

The top rate of income tax for 13 years under Labour was 40%, they then raised it to 50% a month before they left office.

 

It was 50% for three years under the coalition, and now it's 45%.

 

Someone is going to have to explain to me how Labour's 40% rate wasn't a sop to the affluent while the coalition's 45% rate is.

 

Well they have as much political capital as their political abilities and their strategic thinking will allow them to have; it's not a set figure. That's actually been the saddest thing about this coalition for me, how utterly uninspiring the Lib Dem political moves have been.

 

They are staring into oblivion and still don't have the brains or balls to hold a gun to the Tories heads effectively, and this is not a stellar Tory cabinet by any means.

 

You can't be satisfied with them, surely?

 

 

I am quite satisfied, as it happens, because I know full well what has been achieved and that the Lib Dems have been punching above their weight in this government. I don't wilfully ignore all the positive things that have been done.

 

Bedroom tax is a fucking disgrace. My sister is a nurse she has a young boy and young girl its not her fault their dad fucked off but now she gets stiffed 14 quid a week extra because apparently a boy and girl can share up until the age of 11. 56 quid a month isn't a lot to these fucking toffs but to many its crippling what does she do move into a one bedroom bedsit with two kids and then as soon as one turns 11 she has to move again. Wankers the revenue they make won't make a dent, tax fuckers who will still be left with a massive disposable income after it. Fucking Tory cunts labour are just as bad, isn't their one party who has people's interests at heart, value over profit.

 

 

I don't like the way the spare room penalty has been implemented, but it annoys me that nobody ever acknowledges that it's a Labour Party invention.

 

Labour brought it in for people renting from private sector landlords, and rightly or wrongly the coalition have ensured that everyone is treated equally and extended it to public sector landlords too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The top rate of income tax for 13 years under Labour was 40%, they then raised it to 50% a month before they left office.

 

It was 50% for three years under the coalition, and now it's 45%.

 

Someone is going to have to explain to me how Labour's 40% rate wasn't a sop to the affluent while the coalition's 45% rate is.

 

 

 

 

I am quite satisfied, as it happens, because I know full well what has been achieved and that the Lib Dems have been punching above their weight in this government. I don't wilfully ignore all the positive things that have been done.

 

 

 

 

I don't like the way the spare room penalty has been implemented, but it annoys me that nobody ever acknowledges that it's a Labour Party invention.

 

Labour brought it in for people renting from private sector landlords, and rightly or wrongly the coalition have ensured that everyone is treated equally and extended it to public sector landlords too.

 

3 Years in office(in name at least) and its still somebody else's fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The top rate of income tax for 13 years under Labour was 40%, they then raised it to 50% a month before they left office.

 

It was 50% for three years under the coalition, and now it's 45%.

 

Someone is going to have to explain to me how Labour's 40% rate wasn't a sop to the affluent while the coalition's 45% rate is.

 

 

 

 

I am quite satisfied, as it happens, because I know full well what has been achieved and that the Lib Dems have been punching above their weight in this government. I don't wilfully ignore all the positive things that have been done.

 

 

 

 

I don't like the way the spare room penalty has been implemented, but it annoys me that nobody ever acknowledges that it's a Labour Party invention.

 

Labour brought it in for people renting from private sector landlords, and rightly or wrongly the coalition have ensured that everyone is treated equally and extended it to public sector landlords too.

 

You chose to ignore the economic climate of the times. The 40% top rate of tax under labour was mainly before the world wide meltdown caused through the banking collapse, hence the country could afford to leave the top rate at 40%.

 

You must be familiar with the phrase " we're all in this together" ? The coalition spouted this bullshit on a regular basis. " we'll all have to cut back" said the lib dem tory arselickers, its the price of austerity, blah blah blah.

 

So the lib dems helped the rich millionaire torys to cut the top rate of tax, which greatly benefits people like bankers etc, who got us into the mess in the first place whilst punishing sick, poor vulnerable people in britain is a dirty little ploy by career politicians lacking in any sense of moral fair play.Hopefully it condemns the condems to political oblivion for generations to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 Years in office(in name at least) and its still somebody else's fault.

 

 

What does that even mean? I'm not "blaming" anyone else for anything, I'm putting things in context for the ridiculous reality-denying class warriors on this forum. The wealthy pay more tax under the coalition than they did under Labour - FACT.

 

You chose to ignore the economic climate of the times. The 40% top rate of tax under labour was mainly before the world wide meltdown caused through the banking collapse, hence the country could afford to leave the top rate at 40%.

 

 

Ah, the sound of goalposts moving - "it was okay to have a top rate of 40% under Labour, because Labour hadn't yet fucked the economy!!11"

 

So you're saying the wealthy should pay less tax when the economy is doing well? Really? Is that how we address inequality, is it? To let the rich soar ahead of everyone else in the good times?

 

After you've answered that, you can explain why the top rate of tax shouldn't be 45% now, with particular reference to the HMRC figures which show that a 50% rate would not raise any more tax than 45% does.

 

You must be familiar with the phrase " we're all in this together" ? The coalition spouted this bullshit on a regular basis. " we'll all have to cut back" said the lib dem tory arselickers, its the price of austerity, blah blah blah.

 

So the lib dems helped the rich millionaire torys to cut the top rate of tax, which greatly benefits people like bankers etc, who got us into the mess in the first place whilst punishing sick, poor vulnerable people in britain is a dirty little ploy by career politicians lacking in any sense of moral fair play.Hopefully it condemns the condems to political oblivion for generations to come.

 

 

Tedious reality-denying rhetoric. Completely ignores the fact that any banker worth his salt will take his bonuses in shares rather than cash, and thus will pay capital gains tax rather than income tax.

 

Oh, and by the way, I'll save you the bother of checking - the coalition increased capital gains tax. As I said, the rich pay more tax under this government, and anyone claiming otherwise is a lying shill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco

Labour didn't 'fuck the economy'. How many times. As for paying tax when the economy is doing well, I bet you can't find a single instance of you saying Labour should raise taxes. In fact, it'll be the opposite. You said they were plenty high enough.

 

Personally, I think we should concentrate on raising revenue by other methods of taxation. The wealthy aren't paying much tax on their income in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labour didn't 'fuck the economy'. How many times. As for paying tax when the economy is doing well, I bet you can't find a single instance of you saying Labour should raise taxes. In fact, it'll be the opposite. You said they were plenty high enough.

 

Personally, I think we should concentrate on raising revenue by other methods of taxation. The wealthy aren't paying much tax on their income in general.

 

 

Labour were running a deficit in the good times which left us unprepared for the bad times. How many times indeed.

 

What I will have said 5 or 10 years ago would be that the tax burden should be shared more fairly. I pay less tax now than I ever did under Labour, and I am not a high earner. This is because the coalition have raised the basic rate threshold considerably. But raising tax thresholds doesn't create as much unnecessary bureaucracy as complex systems of tax credits, rendering it useless as a tool for a statist authoritarian who wants to expand the size of government.

 

I want more tax on unearned income verse earned income. I'd like to know why the Lib Dems are the only party proposing stuff like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labour didn't 'fuck the economy'. How many times. As for paying tax when the economy is doing well, I bet you can't find a single instance of you saying Labour should raise taxes. In fact, it'll be the opposite. You said they were plenty high enough.

 

Personally, I think we should concentrate on raising revenue by other methods of taxation. The wealthy aren't paying much tax on their income in general.

 

You are much more forgiving than I am.

 

Sure, it was the actions of bankers that caused the meltdown but the Labour government had a responsibility - via the FSA - to ensure that they were not taking excessive or potentially disastrous risks. The story that appeared to emerge was that Gordon was more than happy to turn his blind eye to what was going on as long as the banks kept delivering huge amounts of revenue.

 

As for taxing the wealthy you need to start by defining who you consider to be wealthy in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Labour were running a deficit in the good times which left us unprepared for the bad times. How many times indeed.

 

What I will have said 5 or 10 years ago would be that the tax burden should be shared more fairly. I pay less tax now than I ever did under Labour' date=' and I am not a high earner. This is because the coalition have raised the basic rate threshold considerably. But raising tax thresholds doesn't create as much unnecessary bureaucracy as complex systems of tax credits, rendering it useless as a tool for a statist authoritarian who wants to expand the size of government.

 

I want more tax on unearned income verse earned income. I'd like to know why the Lib Dems are the only party proposing stuff like this.[/quote']

 

Its a default answer, Labour did or didnt do this and its irrelevant. Three years this government has been in power and things are more fucked than theyve ever been. The financial meltdown was caused by very close allies and friends of the current government and yet they are receiving preferential treatment. Cutting Corporation Tax really helps the man on the street or any competition to the already omnipotent businesses who dictate government policy the world over.

 

I dont know why you keep bringing up the last Labour government as though its 'my team' as Ive constantly told you that they bear no resemblance to what a Labour party should be. All theyve done is taken up the ground vacated by your party who are simply another branch of the Tory party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does that even mean? I'm not "blaming" anyone else for anything, I'm putting things in context for the ridiculous reality-denying class warriors on this forum. The wealthy pay more tax under the coalition than they did under Labour - FACT.

 

 

 

 

Ah, the sound of goalposts moving - "it was okay to have a top rate of 40% under Labour, because Labour hadn't yet fucked the economy!!11"

 

So you're saying the wealthy should pay less tax when the economy is doing well? Really? Is that how we address inequality, is it? To let the rich soar ahead of everyone else in the good times?

 

After you've answered that, you can explain why the top rate of tax shouldn't be 45% now, with particular reference to the HMRC figures which show that a 50% rate would not raise any more tax than 45% does.

 

 

 

 

Tedious reality-denying rhetoric. Completely ignores the fact that any banker worth his salt will take his bonuses in shares rather than cash, and thus will pay capital gains tax rather than income tax.

 

Oh, and by the way, I'll save you the bother of checking - the coalition increased capital gains tax. As I said, the rich pay more tax under this government, and anyone claiming otherwise is a lying shill.

 

 

Independent analysts predict 634 bankers earning over one million per year will be better off by a total of 34 million pounds due to coalition tax cuts, £54000 each better off, not taking into amount shares, bonuses etc.

 

Bankers are just one example, as the thread title says " cuts will change our way of life" but only for the poor, the filthy rich are doing very well, thank you, do you honestly think govt austerity measures hit someone with the wealth of, say, Wayne Rooney?

 

You are familiar with the coalition sound bite " we're all in this together" ? Clegg & co used to enjoy saying it when announcing cuts. It seems to have been shelved lately, i wonder why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labour were running a deficit in the good times which left us unprepared for the bad times. How many times indeed.

 

What I will have said 5 or 10 years ago would be that the tax burden should be shared more fairly. I pay less tax now than I ever did under Labour, and I am not a high earner. This is because the coalition have raised the basic rate threshold considerably. But raising tax thresholds doesn't create as much unnecessary bureaucracy as complex systems of tax credits, rendering it useless as a tool for a statist authoritarian who wants to expand the size of government.

 

I want more tax on unearned income verse earned income. I'd like to know why the Lib Dems are the only party proposing stuff like this.

 

At the start of this government the UK had the lowest national debt to GDP out of Italy, France, Germany, Japan the US and the UK. That will not be the case come the end of it.

 

That's the truth of the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...