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

Aye, all that profligate spending by Labour on stuff like, I don't know, schools and hospitals.

 

The reason left wing governments end up spending lots of money after the Tories have been in power, is because the Tories let everything fall to shit - as they're doing now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fucking Eton idiots with this whole JSA bullshit. I'm out of work but have been given this "agreement" that I signed not long back, where I have to apply for 3 jobs a week, look for work every day, join their website, record everything I did, apply for jobs where I even have to travel 90mins to and from work if the job is right.

 

So I can't find any work that's right for me at the moment and it's triggering off depression and anxiety issues that I've had over the years several times. Next thing I'm doing is going to sign on next wednesday, and telling them that I haven't done anything in the agreement apart from look for work. "Actively seeking work." Will also explain that I have depression and anxiety issues and this "agreement" isn't helping.

 

Also that because of this I don't want to write a new agreement. I want a decision on whether or not they think my benefit should be stopped because I broke the current one first. In the mean time I'll just sign on and look for work as I see fit. Then if they decide to stop my benefit I'll appeal, then if that fails I'm taking the fuckers to court.

 

This issue is : I should be able to actively seek work but not have to apply for something if I think it affects my health regarding depression and anxiety starting off again. I don't want to go on sick benefit, I'm looking for work. So can I seek work and not have to apply for jobs if I only see stuff that isn't right for me? That if I applied for it I think there'd be a good chance of being ill again? If they can't resolve that then what about others in my situation? It has to be clear, so I'd like to see that in court if they can't resolve it properly. Just to see what happens.

 

Eton, corporation shafting fucking muppets.

Edited by Red Phoenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole of the political system, both here and in the states - is being led by the nose by big business, that's the fundamental problem, nothing will change until someone mobilises the grass roots.

True that. All the bickering about Labour and the Lib Dems is a complete sideshow - about as pointless as any Zizek/Chomsky slappy fight.

 

The ruling classes are fucking us all over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have found some messed up stuff whilst researching how the JSA rules work a bit when it comes to sanctions, and thought this was bizarre :

 

There is already a human right to welfare

New Statesman, 14th July

 

The Sunday Telegraph reports that Labour is considering a "secret plan" to make the claiming of welfare benefits a "human right". The claim results from the secret taping of a shadow minister at a fundraising event. Patrick Hennessy writes:

 

Willie Bain, a shadow Scottish minister, was disclosed to have said two leading Labour politicians had asked him to examine whether “economic and social rights can be put into law”.

 

The request came from Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice secretary, and Jon Cruddas, the MP who was appointed the party’s policy co-ordinator by Ed Miliband last year, Mr Bain said…

 

At the moment, there is no automatic “right” to state benefits - as the Human Rights Act does not include what are known as “socio-economic rights.”

 

Of course, what the Telegraph – and Iain Duncan Smith, who told the paper, "as if we needed any more proof that Labour are still the same old welfare party, Ed Miliband has now decided that claiming benefits is a human right" – don't mention is that claiming benefits is already a human right. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the UK is a signatory to, reads:

 

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

 

Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

 

It is useful to know that the Conservative party does not, in fact, think that people have a right to food, housing or medical care. It might explain a lot about the aims of their welfare policy.

 

There is already a human right to welfare

 

 

 

The media play a big part in this. They push the "benefit cheats" stories whilst ignoring the fraudsters dodging massive tax bills, rigging the economy and screwing the laws up, so that people think "benefit cheats" are one of our main issues, when they clearly aren't. The just push that stuff so that people out of work are seen as cheating, scrounging, lazy, etc. It'll all fail for them eventually.

 

If we want to solve our economy issues, we should start here :

 

Check Out Who's Hiding $32 Trillion in Offshore Accounts

Money Morning, 1st May

 

More than two million emails that shed light on the biggest tax dodge in history - trillions of dollars hidden in offshore accounts - have been uncovered by the British newspaper The Guardian and the Washington, D.C.-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ).

 

Some $32 trillion has been hidden in small island banking hubs which host a bevy of trust funds, shell corporations and other tax havens, the Tax Justice Network estimates.

 

This money is to the financial world what the Higgs boson and dark matter are to particle physics: It's tough to prove it's there, but the universe doesn't make much sense without it. It's just a matter of connecting the money to the people hiding it.

 

...

 

It bears repeating: $32 trillion has been stashed away, off the books, by corporations and wealthy individuals.

 

Let that sink in for a moment. The implications are stupefying. The real effects of this are far more subtle, and pernicious, but this makes for a fun thought exercise - even setting aside the fact that only some percentage of this huge sum would be fair game for the tax man.

 

In the extremely unlikely event that all $32 trillion was added to government coffers, that would be enough to give every man, woman and child alive on Earth today a roughly $4,600 "stimulus" check.

 

Check Out Who's Hiding $32 Trillion in Offshore Accounts - Money Morning

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hail Iain Duncan Smith! And God save the Queen!

 

Never mind the environment or all this Human Rights nonsense, just look at those rigged stock market charts! Don't they look spiffing?

 

Now get back in your boxes, be good robots, and let's make some more money. We're all in this together, remember?

 

Huzzahh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as well that low-earners are paying much less tax, then.

 

And the higher end earners are not paying what they are supposed to. Specifically massive corporations.

 

Easy this shit.

 

How about companies stop outsourcing their staff from £22k a year jobs to £7.50 an hour ones within 2 years.

 

Companies like Capita feeding ff this shit and saying to people after their two years is up, "Either take £7.50 or leave"

 

Capitalism, manipulative and exploitative towards those that can't afford it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
Just as well that low-earners are paying much less tax, then.

 

Is VAT still a tax? Ah, what you mean is that they're paying less income tax, but you're not saying about all the other stuff that makes that dramatically less impressive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fuck it, why don't we scrap tax altogether? It only gets wasted on the feckless and the poor anyway, and why should I pay for them? Those who can afford it will then have more disposable income to spend on private school, police or security, medicine and waste disposal. We could even make roads pay as you go based on sat nav info. The more altruistic could even build social housing conurbations or "ghettos" for the burgeoning underclass, who would either have to work or eat each other.

 

The Victorian Way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as well that low earners don't have to use trains, then.

 

 

They do, but trains are used overwhelmingly more by the well-off.

 

Is VAT still a tax? Ah, what you mean is that they're paying less income tax, but you're not saying about all the other stuff that makes that dramatically less impressive.

 

 

Sure, VAT is a tax, albeit one that the IFS has shown to be slightly progressive.

 

Avoiding VAT is relatively easy: buy a cheaper television and maybe pass on the home cinema system and chocolate biscuits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco

Sure, VAT is a tax, albeit one that the IFS has shown to be slightly progressive.

 

VAT is a progressive tax if you neglect to mention several important factors, but that's not the point. The point is that a tax rise takes away money from a tax cut you were bragging about. Whether it's progressive - and I'd argue strongly that it isn't (but, again, not the point) - is irrelevant. There are several ways the coalition are giving with one hand and taking with the other. To brag about the hand that's giving without mentioning the arse slapping handed out by the other is a little disingenuous.

 

Avoiding VAT is relatively easy: buy a cheaper television and maybe pass on the home cinema system and chocolate biscuits.

 

Brilliant. Oi, oiks, you know that money you earned that we let you keep a bit more of, you can't spend it on things you like and/or need because we'll nick it all back off you. Certainly don't buy biscuits, it's gruel for you. Oh, and don't you dare try to watch TV or buy something that makes you happy, that's only for rich folk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They do, but trains are used overwhelmingly more by the well-off.

 

 

 

 

Sure, VAT is a tax, albeit one that the IFS has shown to be slightly progressive.

 

Avoiding VAT is relatively easy: buy a cheaper television and maybe pass on the home cinema system and chocolate biscuits.

 

I imagine that they will need to use the trains a lot more once the plebs are pushed out of living in anything other then a shoebox within 10 miles of the capital.

 

I'd laugh at that last paragraph if I didn't think you were serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

VAT is a progressive tax if you neglect to mention several important factors, but that's not the point. The point is that a tax rise takes away money from a tax cut you were bragging about. Whether it's progressive - and I'd argue strongly that it isn't (but, again, not the point) - is irrelevant. There are several ways the coalition are giving with one hand and taking with the other. To brag about the hand that's giving without mentioning the arse slapping handed out by the other is a little disingenuous.

 

 

I don't think a 2.5% rise in VAT comes close to wiping out the £600 a year cut in income tax. You would need to be spending £24,000 a year on VAT-rated product, which seems a little on the unlikely side.

 

Brilliant. Oi, oiks, you know that money you earned that we let you keep a bit more of, you can't spend it on things you like and/or need because we'll nick it all back off you. Certainly don't buy biscuits, it's gruel for you. Oh, and don't you dare try to watch TV or buy something that makes you happy, that's only for rich folk.

 

 

I don't have a home cinema system :|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Numero Veinticinco
I don't think a 2.5% rise in VAT comes close to wiping out the £600 a year cut in income tax. You would need to be spending £24,000 a year on VAT-rated product, which seems a little on the unlikely side.

 

It's only one of the things the arse slapping hand takes, isn't it.

 

I don't have a home cinema system :|

 

I bet you hav the odd packet of choccy biscuit though, don't you? You bourgeois bastard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to take your word for it. I guess that makes it fair game. Poor people don't use public transport.

 

 

Sure they do, but the people who spend most on rail fares are your distance commuters, business people, and so on - the better off.

 

No need to take my word for it, the stats will confirm it.

 

BBC News - Trains are a rich man's toy, says transport secretary

 

British railways are a "rich man's toy", Transport Secretary Philip Hammond has told MPs.

 

He was responding to a question about regulating fare prices on the planned high speed rail link so that it would be a "railway for everybody".

 

He said it was an "uncomfortable fact" that trains were already used by the better-off and said some fares were "eye-wateringly expensive".

He was asked by Labour MP Julie Hilling whether HS2 would become a "rich person's toy" unavailable to "people of low or moderate means".

 

She said: "Can you assure people that actually, it's going to be a railway for everybody, and what will happen about regulating fare prices, etc?"

 

Mr Hammond replied: "Uncomfortable fact number one is that the railway is already relatively a rich man's toy - the whole railway.

 

"People who use the railway on average have significantly higher incomes than the population as a whole - simple fact."

 

He said it was assumed HS2 would use "similar pricing to the West Coast Mainline, which I have said before ranges from eye-wateringly expensive to really quite reasonable, if you dig around and use the advance purchase ticket options that are available".

 

The assumption was that the "socio-economic mix" of HS2 passengers would be similar to those using that route and that the "ripple effects" of High Speed 2 would spread across the economy.

 

The transport secretary later told the BBC he had not been talking about the cost of rail tickets but had answered a question about whether HS2 would be a rich man's toy "perhaps slightly flippantly" and had pointed out that people who used the railways were usually better off than average workers.

 

 

Let's face it, you have to be well off to travel regularly by rail. It's cheaper to fly to Spain than it is to get a train to London. And Spain isn't full of fucking cockneys (er, well, bits of it are, but ykwim).

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...