Quantcast
Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life" - Page 233 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Section_31

Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life"

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least the jobseekers agreement is out of the way now so there goes my illness coming back when it comes to any of this. Wahey. Thank you Iain Duncan Smith for the ride, glad I stepped off, you fraudster.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good to see Huhne didn't struggle getting back into work. Bet he was a bit worried about that.

 

He got on his bike Monty, unlike the dolites. Like Iain Duncan Smith, nobody ever gave him a god damn thing.

Share this post


Link to post
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!

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×