FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Sorting out the deficit!
Sorting out the deficit!
Jump to: Newest in thread
 .
Scrap the minimum wage and replace with living wage.
Takes millions of people off tax credits as they will actually EARN enough and not need them....saves billions surely?
Tax revenues up billions as more people will be actually paying tax....the big problem according to "gorgeous George" is that tax revenues are lower than predicted due to so many of the new jobs being minimum wage!
Sounds very simplistic I know. I'm sure some of you guys on here will go research costings etc (and maybe shoot me down). But sometimes the very simple things get missed. Could this work...or at least help a great deal.
(I know some will say jobs will go.....but same argument when minimum wage introduced...employment actually went up! Companies still need workers) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, gorgeous George (as you despicably call him) made so many cuts to clear the debt that he completely fckd the deficit; did he admit that on 'Breakfast', I wonder????" He wasn't on....the "gorgeous" was a piss take of the tosser! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So, gorgeous George (as you despicably call him) made so many cuts to clear the debt that he completely fckd the deficit; did he admit that on 'Breakfast', I wonder???? He wasn't on....the "gorgeous" was a piss take of the tosser!" I figured that!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ed Balls is a fucking joke. He has absolutely ni credibility. He and Millipede were advisers to the treasury in the last government. In other words, the pair of them are respibsible for the massive fuck up and the massive debt. In 1997 when Labour came to power, Britain was back in the black. Our economy was healthy." You're sounding like a Tory MP there, - deliberately not mentioning the bailing out of banks - & the Tory's want to loosen the reigns on them compared to Europe!! We badly need another Guy Fawkes I feel - but this time a competent one!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are a large number of multi national companies such as BP etc that make obscene huge profits from its operations in the UK. I would impose more rigourus taxation on these companies to contribute the the countries defecit. They along with the banking industry should pay more, why should the burden fall on the person in the street to lift us out of recession, these companies should feel the pinch also" I wonder how many Tory party doners are amongst the aforementioned? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are a large number of multi national companies such as BP etc that make obscene huge profits from its operations in the UK. I would impose more rigourus taxation on these companies to contribute the the countries defecit. They along with the banking industry should pay more, why should the burden fall on the person in the street to lift us out of recession, these companies should feel the pinch also" You will find that the larger UK success stories, Vodafone, BP, Shell etc make up a huge proportion of your pension. So go ahead and screw them if you want your future earnings to disappear! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"cant we all just go on a day trip to France and rob all there banks to help our deficit" what a jolly good idea, a war is always helpful to sort out economic difficulties and France looks a much better target than anyone else in Europe, lets go! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are a large number of multi national companies such as BP etc that make obscene huge profits from its operations in the UK. I would impose more rigourus taxation on these companies to contribute the the countries defecit. They along with the banking industry should pay more, why should the burden fall on the person in the street to lift us out of recession, these companies should feel the pinch also You will find that the larger UK success stories, Vodafone, BP, Shell etc make up a huge proportion of your pension. So go ahead and screw them if you want your future earnings to disappear! " But if they are already contributing and still making obscene profits then there is plenty of scope for them to contribute vastly more so paying for education welfare NHS and our pensions whilst still making vast profit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are a large number of multi national companies such as BP etc that make obscene huge profits from its operations in the UK. I would impose more rigourus taxation on these companies to contribute the the countries defecit. They along with the banking industry should pay more, why should the burden fall on the person in the street to lift us out of recession, these companies should feel the pinch also You will find that the larger UK success stories, Vodafone, BP, Shell etc make up a huge proportion of your pension. So go ahead and screw them if you want your future earnings to disappear! But if they are already contributing and still making obscene profits then there is plenty of scope for them to contribute vastly more so paying for education welfare NHS and our pensions whilst still making vast profit" They also contribute huge amounts of Corporation tax for the country and employ thousands of people. But if you wish to penalise our best companies and watch them take their HQs and jobs to other countries go for it. Far better to encourage these success stories to generate jobs and profits in this country and keep contributing positively to the economy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how doe the companies that end up with a bigger wage bill survive if the wage increase is enforced?? do they then have to put end prices up to customers which would then effect lots of small businesses "if a companies business model involves paying their staff a wage that is insufficient to live off then their business model is wrong and that business is clearly unviable ... put quite simply they should not be in business | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are a large number of multi national companies such as BP etc that make obscene huge profits from its operations in the UK. I would impose more rigourus taxation on these companies to contribute the the countries defecit. They along with the banking industry should pay more, why should the burden fall on the person in the street to lift us out of recession, these companies should feel the pinch also You will find that the larger UK success stories, Vodafone, BP, Shell etc make up a huge proportion of your pension. So go ahead and screw them if you want your future earnings to disappear! But if they are already contributing and still making obscene profits then there is plenty of scope for them to contribute vastly more so paying for education welfare NHS and our pensions whilst still making vast profit" Attack the rich. Make the poor rich and the rich poor. Now there's a plan.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are a large number of multi national companies such as BP etc that make obscene huge profits from its operations in the UK. I would impose more rigourus taxation on these companies to contribute the the countries defecit. They along with the banking industry should pay more, why should the burden fall on the person in the street to lift us out of recession, these companies should feel the pinch also You will find that the larger UK success stories, Vodafone, BP, Shell etc make up a huge proportion of your pension. So go ahead and screw them if you want your future earnings to disappear! But if they are already contributing and still making obscene profits then there is plenty of scope for them to contribute vastly more so paying for education welfare NHS and our pensions whilst still making vast profit They also contribute huge amounts of Corporation tax for the country and employ thousands of people. But if you wish to penalise our best companies and watch them take their HQs and jobs to other countries go for it. Far better to encourage these success stories to generate jobs and profits in this country and keep contributing positively to the economy." Well said that man. How on earth have we evolved into a society where it is no longer a positive attribute to want to earn more and get more by bettering yourself in life. Now it seems to be about attacking the employers, the wealth creators and those who have more in the mistaken belief that making the rich poorer will somehow make the poor richer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"how doe the companies that end up with a bigger wage bill survive if the wage increase is enforced?? do they then have to put end prices up to customers which would then effect lots of small businesses
if a companies business model involves paying their staff a wage that is insufficient to live off then their business model is wrong and that business is clearly unviable ... put quite simply they should not be in business"How about people being more personally motivated to get themselves on in life instead of expecting others to just give them more for not making any more effort or being more productive? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now it seems to be about attacking the employers, the wealth creators and those who have more in the mistaken belief that making the rich poorer will somehow make the poor richer." you seem to repeat this soundbyte of "wealth creators" throughout the forum .... who are they, how do they supposedly create wealth, who do they create this wealth for and what do they do with this wealth after it has been created? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are a large number of multi national companies such as BP etc that make obscene huge profits from its operations in the UK. I would impose more rigourus taxation on these companies to contribute the the countries defecit. They along with the banking industry should pay more, why should the burden fall on the person in the street to lift us out of recession, these companies should feel the pinch also You will find that the larger UK success stories, Vodafone, BP, Shell etc make up a huge proportion of your pension. So go ahead and screw them if you want your future earnings to disappear! But if they are already contributing and still making obscene profits then there is plenty of scope for them to contribute vastly more so paying for education welfare NHS and our pensions whilst still making vast profit They also contribute huge amounts of Corporation tax for the country and employ thousands of people. But if you wish to penalise our best companies and watch them take their HQs and jobs to other countries go for it. Far better to encourage these success stories to generate jobs and profits in this country and keep contributing positively to the economy. Well said that man. How on earth have we evolved into a society where it is no longer a positive attribute to want to earn more and get more by bettering yourself in life. Now it seems to be about attacking the employers, the wealth creators and those who have more in the mistaken belief that making the rich poorer will somehow make the poor richer." Pr is it about companies making vast profits by increasing prices at the mere whiff of crude oil rising in price but somehow forgetting to reduce the prices when the price of oil falls they have to be literally forced by the government to reduce costs and by the time they fuck about for months its risen again. I feel sorry for the huge corporations who dont know where their next billion will come from we do by screwing us. And its crap saying they will pull out of this country as they are still raking in profits and if they want to go let them as there is enough money to be made that other companies will happily take their place | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now it seems to be about attacking the employers, the wealth creators and those who have more in the mistaken belief that making the rich poorer will somehow make the poor richer. you seem to repeat this soundbyte of "wealth creators" throughout the forum .... who are they, how do they supposedly create wealth, who do they create this wealth for and what do they do with this wealth after it has been created? " .I'm glad I'm not the only who's noticed... Adolf Hitler created more wealth and jobs than any european political leader ever. Next we,ll be holding him up as a business role model! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now it seems to be about attacking the employers, the wealth creators and those who have more in the mistaken belief that making the rich poorer will somehow make the poor richer. you seem to repeat this soundbyte of "wealth creators" throughout the forum .... who are they, how do they supposedly create wealth, who do they create this wealth for and what do they do with this wealth after it has been created? " Do you think jobs get created for fun? Innovators and visionary people create companies and enterprises with a view to creating wealth. This is where jobs come from. I thought that it was pretty basic stuff but then I remembered that some people still think that jobs get made like magic by someone, somewhere. Face facts. Wealthy companies and individuals create jobs. Without them where would we be? All working for the Council? A country needs people who want to generate wealth (primarily for themselves) because this is where jobs come from. They need people to employ to make their business bigger and better and more profitable. That is just the way things work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Adolf Hitler created more wealth and jobs than any european political leader ever. Next we,ll be holding him up as a business role model!" You lose | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The following is a very brief rundown of the achievements of “UK” Governments since 1945 (end of the war). 1945-51 Labour Government, winter 1946/7 very harsh coal shortage effected production. Pound had to be devalued in 1949. 1951 - 1964 Conservative Government strong economy low unemployment. 1964 - 1970 Labour Government growth slow and unemployment rising. 1970 – 1974 Conservative Government poor economy high unemployment. 1974 – 1979 Labour Government economic decline, winter of discontent 78/79 strikes etc. Pound devalued. 1979 - 1997 Conservative Government (Margaret Thatcher) gain back control from the unions, unemployment rising but growth in the economy. 1997 – 2010 Labour Government worst recession in recent history, car industry virtually pulled out of UK 2010 to date Conservative Government growth in the economy, deficit reducing un-employment reducing. " there's a few ways to dress things up, here's just one alternative .... and no i don't support either political party 1979-1997 low growth, 3 major recessions, stock exchange collapses twice, highest unemployment ever recorded (4 million), super inflation, massive interest rates, fall in exports, 3 house market crashes, negative equity for the first time, increase in terrorism over NI, 2 wars and 2 involvements in wars. 1997-2010 40 quarters of economic growth (most in recent history and highest in europe and one of the highest of any major developed economy). unemployment falls by 2 million the lowest in real terms in living memory, growth in exports, low inflation, favourable interest rates, 1 stock market crash, an end to terrorism over NI in the first year of office, 2 wars and 2 involvements in other wars | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now it seems to be about attacking the employers, the wealth creators and those who have more in the mistaken belief that making the rich poorer will somehow make the poor richer. you seem to repeat this soundbyte of "wealth creators" throughout the forum .... who are they, how do they supposedly create wealth, who do they create this wealth for and what do they do with this wealth after it has been created? Do you think jobs get created for fun? Innovators and visionary people create companies and enterprises with a view to creating wealth. This is where jobs come from. I thought that it was pretty basic stuff but then I remembered that some people still think that jobs get made like magic by someone, somewhere. Face facts. Wealthy companies and individuals create jobs. Without them where would we be? All working for the Council? A country needs people who want to generate wealth (primarily for themselves) because this is where jobs come from. They need people to employ to make their business bigger and better and more profitable. That is just the way things work." you appear to have side-stepped all of the questions i asked .... you're not shane williams are you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now it seems to be about attacking the employers, the wealth creators and those who have more in the mistaken belief that making the rich poorer will somehow make the poor richer. you seem to repeat this soundbyte of "wealth creators" throughout the forum .... who are they, how do they supposedly create wealth, who do they create this wealth for and what do they do with this wealth after it has been created? Do you think jobs get created for fun? Innovators and visionary people create companies and enterprises with a view to creating wealth. This is where jobs come from. I thought that it was pretty basic stuff but then I remembered that some people still think that jobs get made like magic by someone, somewhere. Face facts. Wealthy companies and individuals create jobs. Without them where would we be? All working for the Council? A country needs people who want to generate wealth (primarily for themselves) because this is where jobs come from. They need people to employ to make their business bigger and better and more profitable. That is just the way things work. you appear to have side-stepped all of the questions i asked .... you're not shane williams are you?" I think if you read my response you will see it answered your questions unless you have some kind of parallel universe conspiracy about Rothschild and world debt going on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now it seems to be about attacking the employers, the wealth creators and those who have more in the mistaken belief that making the rich poorer will somehow make the poor richer. you seem to repeat this soundbyte of "wealth creators" throughout the forum .... who are they, how do they supposedly create wealth, who do they create this wealth for and what do they do with this wealth after it has been created? Do you think jobs get created for fun? Innovators and visionary people create companies and enterprises with a view to creating wealth. This is where jobs come from. I thought that it was pretty basic stuff but then I remembered that some people still think that jobs get made like magic by someone, somewhere. Face facts. Wealthy companies and individuals create jobs. Without them where would we be? All working for the Council? A country needs people who want to generate wealth (primarily for themselves) because this is where jobs come from. They need people to employ to make their business bigger and better and more profitable. That is just the way things work. you appear to have side-stepped all of the questions i asked .... you're not shane williams are you? I think if you read my response you will see it answered your questions unless you have some kind of parallel universe conspiracy about Rothschild and world debt going on." you went off on a tangent about creating jobs, business becoming better and more profitable and then infered that i am a rothschild conspiracy theorist (which i am not). i asked 4 simple questions about wealth not jobs. jobs are not wealth, especially the jobs which are below what even Bojo recognises as a living wage. i ask again .... "wealth creators", who are they, how do they supposedly create wealth, who do they create this wealth for and what do they do with this wealth after it has been created? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't support either party which is why I gave an unbiased picture. I could explain to you the reasons for the three recessions (such as being tied to to European Union exchange rates under the ERM but I doubt you are interested. I could also point out that your 2 million unemployed is not the lowest in living memory as for example under Harold Wilson it was only around 1 million but hey ho why bother with stats." if you look i added "in real terms" after the unemployment totals ... the figure at one time during the last government was officially quoted as being less than 1 million but that wasn't in real terms. during the tatcher years the figure was officially quoted as topping out at 3.3 million but in "real terms " it 4.6 million | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I could explain to you the reasons for the three recessions (such as being tied to to European Union exchange rates under the ERM but I doubt you are interested." it could be explained to you the reason for the recession in the last government (such as being tied to a global financial crisis caused by sub-prime lending in america) but you may be disinterested an equally valid point, but explainations as to causes are irrelevant. the recession happened on certain peoples watches regardless of outside influences and the people who's watch it was must carry the can and thems the facts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now it seems to be about attacking the employers, the wealth creators and those who have more in the mistaken belief that making the rich poorer will somehow make the poor richer. you seem to repeat this soundbyte of "wealth creators" throughout the forum .... who are they, how do they supposedly create wealth, who do they create this wealth for and what do they do with this wealth after it has been created? Do you think jobs get created for fun? Innovators and visionary people create companies and enterprises with a view to creating wealth. This is where jobs come from. I thought that it was pretty basic stuff but then I remembered that some people still think that jobs get made like magic by someone, somewhere. Face facts. Wealthy companies and individuals create jobs. Without them where would we be? All working for the Council? A country needs people who want to generate wealth (primarily for themselves) because this is where jobs come from. They need people to employ to make their business bigger and better and more profitable. That is just the way things work. you appear to have side-stepped all of the questions i asked .... you're not shane williams are you? I think if you read my response you will see it answered your questions unless you have some kind of parallel universe conspiracy about Rothschild and world debt going on. you went off on a tangent about creating jobs, business becoming better and more profitable and then infered that i am a rothschild conspiracy theorist (which i am not). i asked 4 simple questions about wealth not jobs. jobs are not wealth, especially the jobs which are below what even Bojo recognises as a living wage. i ask again .... "wealth creators", who are they, how do they supposedly create wealth, who do they create this wealth for and what do they do with this wealth after it has been created? " Wealth Creators - Innovators, business leaders, successful companies and industries. They create wealth for themselves and for the country through success in business A Company or individual will be motivate to create wealth for themselves and in doing so, the structures (companies) that they create provide jobs which pay wages and taxes for the benefit of the country. Once they have paid their taxes I would presume that they spend their wealth any way that they see fit - houses, cars boats - what do I care. Hopefully that answered your questions more clearly though I dont see it any different to my previous answer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Now it seems to be about attacking the employers, the wealth creators and those who have more in the mistaken belief that making the rich poorer will somehow make the poor richer. you seem to repeat this soundbyte of "wealth creators" throughout the forum .... who are they, how do they supposedly create wealth, who do they create this wealth for and what do they do with this wealth after it has been created? Do you think jobs get created for fun? Innovators and visionary people create companies and enterprises with a view to creating wealth. This is where jobs come from. I thought that it was pretty basic stuff but then I remembered that some people still think that jobs get made like magic by someone, somewhere. Face facts. Wealthy companies and individuals create jobs. Without them where would we be? All working for the Council? A country needs people who want to generate wealth (primarily for themselves) because this is where jobs come from. They need people to employ to make their business bigger and better and more profitable. That is just the way things work. you appear to have side-stepped all of the questions i asked .... you're not shane williams are you? I think if you read my response you will see it answered your questions unless you have some kind of parallel universe conspiracy about Rothschild and world debt going on. you went off on a tangent about creating jobs, business becoming better and more profitable and then infered that i am a rothschild conspiracy theorist (which i am not). i asked 4 simple questions about wealth not jobs. jobs are not wealth, especially the jobs which are below what even Bojo recognises as a living wage. i ask again .... "wealth creators", who are they, how do they supposedly create wealth, who do they create this wealth for and what do they do with this wealth after it has been created? Wealth Creators - Innovators, business leaders, successful companies and industries. They create wealth for themselves and for the country through success in business A Company or individual will be motivate to create wealth for themselves and in doing so, the structures (companies) that they create provide jobs which pay wages and taxes for the benefit of the country. Once they have paid their taxes I would presume that they spend their wealth any way that they see fit - houses, cars boats - what do I care. Hopefully that answered your questions more clearly though I dont see it any different to my previous answer." so are you implying money is wealth and wealth is money? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" so are you implying money is wealth and wealth is money?" I am happy to debate this stuff but playing games with words?.... No thanks. You know exactly what my original post was about, its thrust and its meaning. Now you are trying to twist its meaning because you want to play on a word? These debates would be much easier all around if people stopped playing games and dealt with the content of the post as the poster intended it rather than dragging out a convoluted series of responses in order to try to prove that one word in the original post could have been interpreted differently - despite the fact that its meaning and context was crystal clear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" so are you implying money is wealth and wealth is money? I am happy to debate this stuff but playing games with words?.... No thanks. You know exactly what my original post was about, its thrust and its meaning. Now you are trying to twist its meaning because you want to play on a word? These debates would be much easier all around if people stopped playing games and dealt with the content of the post as the poster intended it rather than dragging out a convoluted series of responses in order to try to prove that one word in the original post could have been interpreted differently - despite the fact that its meaning and context was crystal clear." fair enough .... but then this shows you do not understand how wealth is created in society. i will therefore direct you to parliament.uk where you can click on a televised link (or the commons hansard) to a recent government debate which was scheduled by the Backbench Business Committee following a bid form Steve Baker conservative MP for wycombe. now it's an 8 hour debate entitled Money Creation and Society, in which the mechanisms of money creation are discussed at length. there are even appologies from the 80's/90's thatcherite monetarists such as peter lilly mp on how they got things wrong and how it effects us today. there is clear information that 97% of the uk's money is created by fractional reserve banking and there is broad cross party agreement during the debate that this fractional reserve banking is a fraud as pointed out by the worlds most respected economists and how to tackle the issue going forward. it also shows that this alleged idea of business people being "wealth creators" is a false attribution and that as a result of the economy being based on fractional reserve banking, wealth does not indeed flow downwards from the wealthy to the less well off but flows upward from the less well off to the wealthy. The debate shows that this can't be sustained as the basis of the economy for very much longer and there will be a dramatic contraction causing a cataclysmic effect in the wider economy. this is not the usual ya-boo exchange we are used to seeing in the news but an extremely well mannered debate and is quite an eye-opener to see politicians in of all political persuasions in so much agreement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" so are you implying money is wealth and wealth is money? I am happy to debate this stuff but playing games with words?.... No thanks. You know exactly what my original post was about, its thrust and its meaning. Now you are trying to twist its meaning because you want to play on a word? These debates would be much easier all around if people stopped playing games and dealt with the content of the post as the poster intended it rather than dragging out a convoluted series of responses in order to try to prove that one word in the original post could have been interpreted differently - despite the fact that its meaning and context was crystal clear. fair enough .... but then this shows you do not understand how wealth is created in society. i will therefore direct you to parliament.uk where you can click on a televised link (or the commons hansard) to a recent government debate which was scheduled by the Backbench Business Committee following a bid form Steve Baker conservative MP for wycombe. now it's an 8 hour debate entitled Money Creation and Society, in which the mechanisms of money creation are discussed at length. there are even appologies from the 80's/90's thatcherite monetarists such as peter lilly mp on how they got things wrong and how it effects us today. there is clear information that 97% of the uk's money is created by fractional reserve banking and there is broad cross party agreement during the debate that this fractional reserve banking is a fraud as pointed out by the worlds most respected economists and how to tackle the issue going forward. it also shows that this alleged idea of business people being "wealth creators" is a false attribution and that as a result of the economy being based on fractional reserve banking, wealth does not indeed flow downwards from the wealthy to the less well off but flows upward from the less well off to the wealthy. The debate shows that this can't be sustained as the basis of the economy for very much longer and there will be a dramatic contraction causing a cataclysmic effect in the wider economy. this is not the usual ya-boo exchange we are used to seeing in the news but an extremely well mannered debate and is quite an eye-opener to see politicians in of all political persuasions in so much agreement." Obviously, I bow to your better knowledge now that you have watched an 8 hour television programme and selected the parts that suit your agenda, exagerated them somewhat and deleted the ones that dont fit in your world. Please dont try to tell us that companies do not create wealth for themselves and society. You have conveniently (or perhaps purposely) omitted to mention that our reliance on bank debt is simply BECAUSE we do not have enough wealth creators and self sustaining busineses in the UK anymore. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please dont try to tell us that companies do not create wealth for themselves and society. You have conveniently (or perhaps purposely) omitted to mention that our reliance on bank debt is simply BECAUSE we do not have enough wealth creators and self sustaining busineses in the UK anymore." it would seem your arguement is based on rhetoric, a kind of rhetoric which obviously seeks to divert from the truth | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please dont try to tell us that companies do not create wealth for themselves and society. You have conveniently (or perhaps purposely) omitted to mention that our reliance on bank debt is simply BECAUSE we do not have enough wealth creators and self sustaining busineses in the UK anymore. it would seem your arguement is based on rhetoric, a kind of rhetoric which obviously seeks to divert from the truth" OK - simple (and true) scenario Guy runs a market stall and makes a profit. Decides to run another and takes on an employee to run his existing one and he establishes the new one. He then decides to operate two more market stalls and replicates the success of each one and when he has four people employed working his stalls he decides to open a shop and employs more people. He then buys the shop next door and expands his shop into a mini market and employs more people. Then he buys another shop and employs a retain manager and a buyer to take care of the day to day operations. The guy is a wealth creator. He created his own business empire and made himself wealthy. Along the way he did good for his community and his country by employing people and they paid taxes directly and indirectly from the wages that they earned. This type of thing happens day in and day out across our country and it is the backbone of our society. You choose not to accept it because the banks really are in charge - so tell me - why does anyone bother setting up enterprises and businesses? What is the point if these enterprises are not going to create wealth for the innovator, the local and national economy? Why work? Why pay taxes? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please dont try to tell us that companies do not create wealth for themselves and society. You have conveniently (or perhaps purposely) omitted to mention that our reliance on bank debt is simply BECAUSE we do not have enough wealth creators and self sustaining busineses in the UK anymore. it would seem your arguement is based on rhetoric, a kind of rhetoric which obviously seeks to divert from the truth OK - simple (and true) scenario Guy runs a market stall and makes a profit. Decides to run another and takes on an employee to run his existing one and he establishes the new one. He then decides to operate two more market stalls and replicates the success of each one and when he has four people employed working his stalls he decides to open a shop and employs more people. He then buys the shop next door and expands his shop into a mini market and employs more people. Then he buys another shop and employs a retain manager and a buyer to take care of the day to day operations. The guy is a wealth creator. He created his own business empire and made himself wealthy. Along the way he did good for his community and his country by employing people and they paid taxes directly and indirectly from the wages that they earned. This type of thing happens day in and day out across our country and it is the backbone of our society. You choose not to accept it because the banks really are in charge - so tell me - why does anyone bother setting up enterprises and businesses? What is the point if these enterprises are not going to create wealth for the innovator, the local and national economy? Why work? Why pay taxes?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please dont try to tell us that companies do not create wealth for themselves and society. You have conveniently (or perhaps purposely) omitted to mention that our reliance on bank debt is simply BECAUSE we do not have enough wealth creators and self sustaining busineses in the UK anymore. it would seem your arguement is based on rhetoric, a kind of rhetoric which obviously seeks to divert from the truth OK - simple (and true) scenario Guy runs a market stall and makes a profit. Decides to run another and takes on an employee to run his existing one and he establishes the new one. He then decides to operate two more market stalls and replicates the success of each one and when he has four people employed working his stalls he decides to open a shop and employs more people. He then buys the shop next door and expands his shop into a mini market and employs more people. Then he buys another shop and employs a retain manager and a buyer to take care of the day to day operations. The guy is a wealth creator. He created his own business empire and made himself wealthy. Along the way he did good for his community and his country by employing people and they paid taxes directly and indirectly from the wages that they earned. This type of thing happens day in and day out across our country and it is the backbone of our society. You choose not to accept it because the banks really are in charge - so tell me - why does anyone bother setting up enterprises and businesses? What is the point if these enterprises are not going to create wealth for the innovator, the local and national economy? Why work? Why pay taxes?" .. Lots of things motivate different people in different ways. Why did Jonas Salk toil away for years in a lab on lectures pay to develop a vaccine for polio the scourge illness of the 20th century, crippling and killing millions it came in waves and sent panic through society's globally... only to give it away for FREE and go back to his lab job. Not everyone's in it for the yachts believe it or not! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What she means is your not creating money with business, your just transferring it from one person to another!!!!!!!!.... No creation, zilch, Nada, nothing, zero,. Your entire philosophy is that only wealthy people work hard!. Which is bollocks as I know lots of poor people who've worked hard all their lives and are not wealthy. In fact it's more likely that wealthy people just got luckier than most." In the greater global scheme of things wealth does get transferred around but that is an irrelevance in the day to day life us ordinary folk. At no time have I ever said that only wealthy people work hard. We all rely on people around us, above us and below us to work hard and accept their value as well as accepting that if they want to receive more, then they need to provide more value. And yes of course you are right again - the winners, the shakers, the movers and those who make things happen are by and large - just lucky  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe if we reduced the amount of foriegn aid we paid and used that money at home for those who really need it this may help. Maybe our political leaders should try living on the pay of the average person on the street and stop paying themselves stupid amounts of money ." In the greater scheme of things you are talking about peanuts and really ask yourself... Some people's view of luxury is a HD TV whereas others see clean drinking water as a luxury. It is not too bad to use some of this country's wealth to help those who really do experience poverty. As for politicians - do you really want people on the minimum wage running your country? Our politicians are amongst the lowest paid in the modern world anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What she means is your not creating money with business, your just transferring it from one person to another!!!!!!!!.... No creation, zilch, Nada, nothing, zero,. Your entire philosophy is that only wealthy people work hard!. Which is bollocks as I know lots of poor people who've worked hard all their lives and are not wealthy. In fact it's more likely that wealthy people just got luckier than most. In the greater global scheme of things wealth does get transferred around but that is an irrelevance in the day to day life us ordinary folk. At no time have I ever said that only wealthy people work hard. We all rely on people around us, above us and below us to work hard and accept their value as well as accepting that if they want to receive more, then they need to provide more value. And yes of course you are right again - the winners, the shakers, the movers and those who make things happen are by and large - just lucky ". Ridiculous yachts and private planes and big limousines won't make people enjoy life more, and it sends out terrible messages to the people who work for them. It would be so much better if that money was spent in Africa - and it's about getting a balance. Richard Branson | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe if we reduced the amount of foriegn aid we paid and used that money at home for those who really need it this may help. Maybe our political leaders should try living on the pay of the average person on the street and stop paying themselves stupid amounts of money . In the greater scheme of things you are talking about peanuts and really ask yourself... Some people's view of luxury is a HD TV whereas others see clean drinking water as a luxury. It is not too bad to use some of this country's wealth to help those who really do experience poverty. As for politicians - do you really want people on the minimum wage running your country? Our politicians are amongst the lowest paid in the modern world anyway." How much of our foreign aid really filters down to the people at the bottom who really need it though? Its generally accepted among many politicians that much of the foreign aid we give to 3rd world countries gets creamed off by corrupt government officials in those countries taking money for themselves. I think many people are right to question foreign aid when it is given to countries like India when India are rich enough to have a space programme and we can't afford one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"All you have to do is put a 0.01 percent tax on all business banking this would raise 200 billion a year plenty to sort a lot of stuff out but the government are in the pocket of business so this will never happen we need a revolution fuck big business " what are the aims of the revolaution? To dismantle big business and banks? Then what? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are a large number of multi national companies such as BP etc that make obscene huge profits from its operations in the UK. I would impose more rigourus taxation on these companies to contribute the the countries defecit. They along with the banking industry should pay more, why should the burden fall on the person in the street to lift us out of recession, these companies should feel the pinch also" this and also sophislut's posts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What she means is your not creating money with business, your just transferring it from one person to another!!!!!!!!.... No creation, zilch, Nada, nothing, zero,. Your entire philosophy is that only wealthy people work hard!. Which is bollocks as I know lots of poor people who've worked hard all their lives and are not wealthy. In fact it's more likely that wealthy people just got luckier than most." well said sexy bum, working for the NHS on front line services is anything but easy or cushy, i was there and did the job. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please dont try to tell us that companies do not create wealth for themselves and society. You have conveniently (or perhaps purposely) omitted to mention that our reliance on bank debt is simply BECAUSE we do not have enough wealth creators and self sustaining busineses in the UK anymore. it would seem your arguement is based on rhetoric, a kind of rhetoric which obviously seeks to divert from the truth OK - simple (and true) scenario Guy runs a market stall and makes a profit. Decides to run another and takes on an employee to run his existing one and he establishes the new one. He then decides to operate two more market stalls and replicates the success of each one and when he has four people employed working his stalls he decides to open a shop and employs more people. He then buys the shop next door and expands his shop into a mini market and employs more people. Then he buys another shop and employs a retain manager and a buyer to take care of the day to day operations. The guy is a wealth creator. He created his own business empire and made himself wealthy. Along the way he did good for his community and his country by employing people and they paid taxes directly and indirectly from the wages that they earned. This type of thing happens day in and day out across our country and it is the backbone of our society. You choose not to accept it because the banks really are in charge - so tell me - why does anyone bother setting up enterprises and businesses? What is the point if these enterprises are not going to create wealth for the innovator, the local and national economy? Why work? Why pay taxes?" ok so you answered one of the questions .... a "wealth creator" creates wealth for themselves by exploiting the toil of others and while they are toiling for this so called wealth creator they are have neither the time or the resources to create their own market stall and create their own wealth. the wealth created by this so-called wealth creator is wealth which is not earned by them. this shows part of the mechanics of money creation in society whereby the wealth flows upwards from the less wealthy to the wealthy. in order for the money to be available to people to spend at the market stall it has to be re-distributed from the wealthy back to the not so wealthy by other mechanisms. these other mechanisms include things like taxes. taxing the not so wealthy only produces a small amount of redistributed wealth to the not so wealthy and so the market stall begins to lose custom as less people have the means to buy the market stalls goods and before long the house of cards falls down. taxing the wealthy however re-distributes substantially more wealth back to the bottom and the whole cycle is repeated and everyone benefits. the so-called wealth creator complains, acts like a victim and tries to obsfucate the true picture of the amount of wealth they have in order to selfishly hold on to it and it's at this point that greed takes over and again the house of cards falls. therefore sometimes this has to be achieved by stronger means such as more aggressive taxes on the wealthy for example. the more the wealthy obsfucate the more aggresive the wealth taxes need to be. there are anomalies of course, such as the occaisional altruisitc business person, people who give half of their earned wealth as charitable donation, those who provide services pro-bono etc. the fact that the market stall makes a profit from the society which surrounds it dictates that the market stall has a duty to that society from which it feeds off. it is within the market stalls interest not only to keep the society "alive" but to make sure it flourishes. commercial tax and wealth tax is an intrinsic part of this cycle and to reduce these taxes stifles any wealth creation at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If the wage bill rises faster than planned, then the company can only reduce the wage bill (sack staff), hike prices, or go bust. " in this scenario the business has obviously been based on a poorly thought out model and wasn't viable in the first instance or the model had no fluidity built into it as a contingency. keeping a business going by artificial means has disasterous consequences for all concerned but mostly for any employees of the business. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please dont try to tell us that companies do not create wealth for themselves and society. You have conveniently (or perhaps purposely) omitted to mention that our reliance on bank debt is simply BECAUSE we do not have enough wealth creators and self sustaining busineses in the UK anymore. it would seem your arguement is based on rhetoric, a kind of rhetoric which obviously seeks to divert from the truth OK - simple (and true) scenario Guy runs a market stall and makes a profit. Decides to run another and takes on an employee to run his existing one and he establishes the new one. He then decides to operate two more market stalls and replicates the success of each one and when he has four people employed working his stalls he decides to open a shop and employs more people. He then buys the shop next door and expands his shop into a mini market and employs more people. Then he buys another shop and employs a retain manager and a buyer to take care of the day to day operations. The guy is a wealth creator. He created his own business empire and made himself wealthy. Along the way he did good for his community and his country by employing people and they paid taxes directly and indirectly from the wages that they earned. This type of thing happens day in and day out across our country and it is the backbone of our society. You choose not to accept it because the banks really are in charge - so tell me - why does anyone bother setting up enterprises and businesses? What is the point if these enterprises are not going to create wealth for the innovator, the local and national economy? Why work? Why pay taxes? ok so you answered one of the questions .... a "wealth creator" creates wealth for themselves by exploiting the toil of others and while they are toiling for this so called wealth creator they are have neither the time or the resources to create their own market stall and create their own wealth. the wealth created by this so-called wealth creator is wealth which is not earned by them. this shows part of the mechanics of money creation in society whereby the wealth flows upwards from the less wealthy to the wealthy. in order for the money to be available to people to spend at the market stall it has to be re-distributed from the wealthy back to the not so wealthy by other mechanisms. these other mechanisms include things like taxes. taxing the not so wealthy only produces a small amount of redistributed wealth to the not so wealthy and so the market stall begins to lose custom as less people have the means to buy the market stalls goods and before long the house of cards falls down. taxing the wealthy however re-distributes substantially more wealth back to the bottom and the whole cycle is repeated and everyone benefits. the so-called wealth creator complains, acts like a victim and tries to obsfucate the true picture of the amount of wealth they have in order to selfishly hold on to it and it's at this point that greed takes over and again the house of cards falls. therefore sometimes this has to be achieved by stronger means such as more aggressive taxes on the wealthy for example. the more the wealthy obsfucate the more aggresive the wealth taxes need to be. there are anomalies of course, such as the occaisional altruisitc business person, people who give half of their earned wealth as charitable donation, those who provide services pro-bono etc. the fact that the market stall makes a profit from the society which surrounds it dictates that the market stall has a duty to that society from which it feeds off. it is within the market stalls interest not only to keep the society "alive" but to make sure it flourishes. commercial tax and wealth tax is an intrinsic part of this cycle and to reduce these taxes stifles any wealth creation at all." So anyone who grows a business through entrepreneurial flair and hard work is exploiting people and causing damage to the wider society? Sorry to be blunt but that is utter bollocks. John Lewis is a great example, it keeps on growing, it keeps rewarding its employees who choose to work their, get continuous training and who are also part owners. At the same time it provides good value products to people who want to buy them and contributes significant tax revenues. Perhaps you can explain what is wrong with that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Please dont try to tell us that companies do not create wealth for themselves and society. You have conveniently (or perhaps purposely) omitted to mention that our reliance on bank debt is simply BECAUSE we do not have enough wealth creators and self sustaining busineses in the UK anymore. it would seem your arguement is based on rhetoric, a kind of rhetoric which obviously seeks to divert from the truth OK - simple (and true) scenario Guy runs a market stall and makes a profit. Decides to run another and takes on an employee to run his existing one and he establishes the new one. He then decides to operate two more market stalls and replicates the success of each one and when he has four people employed working his stalls he decides to open a shop and employs more people. He then buys the shop next door and expands his shop into a mini market and employs more people. Then he buys another shop and employs a retain manager and a buyer to take care of the day to day operations. The guy is a wealth creator. He created his own business empire and made himself wealthy. Along the way he did good for his community and his country by employing people and they paid taxes directly and indirectly from the wages that they earned. This type of thing happens day in and day out across our country and it is the backbone of our society. You choose not to accept it because the banks really are in charge - so tell me - why does anyone bother setting up enterprises and businesses? What is the point if these enterprises are not going to create wealth for the innovator, the local and national economy? Why work? Why pay taxes? ok so you answered one of the questions .... a "wealth creator" creates wealth for themselves by exploiting the toil of others and while they are toiling for this so called wealth creator they are have neither the time or the resources to create their own market stall and create their own wealth. the wealth created by this so-called wealth creator is wealth which is not earned by them. this shows part of the mechanics of money creation in society whereby the wealth flows upwards from the less wealthy to the wealthy. in order for the money to be available to people to spend at the market stall it has to be re-distributed from the wealthy back to the not so wealthy by other mechanisms. these other mechanisms include things like taxes. taxing the not so wealthy only produces a small amount of redistributed wealth to the not so wealthy and so the market stall begins to lose custom as less people have the means to buy the market stalls goods and before long the house of cards falls down. taxing the wealthy however re-distributes substantially more wealth back to the bottom and the whole cycle is repeated and everyone benefits. the so-called wealth creator complains, acts like a victim and tries to obsfucate the true picture of the amount of wealth they have in order to selfishly hold on to it and it's at this point that greed takes over and again the house of cards falls. therefore sometimes this has to be achieved by stronger means such as more aggressive taxes on the wealthy for example. the more the wealthy obsfucate the more aggresive the wealth taxes need to be. there are anomalies of course, such as the occaisional altruisitc business person, people who give half of their earned wealth as charitable donation, those who provide services pro-bono etc. the fact that the market stall makes a profit from the society which surrounds it dictates that the market stall has a duty to that society from which it feeds off. it is within the market stalls interest not only to keep the society "alive" but to make sure it flourishes. commercial tax and wealth tax is an intrinsic part of this cycle and to reduce these taxes stifles any wealth creation at all. So anyone who grows a business through entrepreneurial flair and hard work is exploiting people and causing damage to the wider society? Sorry to be blunt but that is utter bollocks. John Lewis is a great example, it keeps on growing, it keeps rewarding its employees who choose to work their, get continuous training and who are also part owners. At the same time it provides good value products to people who want to buy them and contributes significant tax revenues. Perhaps you can explain what is wrong with that?" Nothing. Unless you are talking to internet educated economists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Maybe if we reduced the amount of foriegn aid we paid and used that money at home for those who really need it this may help. Maybe our political leaders should try living on the pay of the average person on the street and stop paying themselves stupid amounts of money ." An MPs salary isn't a 'stupid amount of money'. Fred Goodwin's £4,000,000 + in 2007 is a stupid amount of money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So anyone who grows a business through entrepreneurial flair and hard work is exploiting people and causing damage to the wider society? Sorry to be blunt but that is utter bollocks." not all but there is definately a huge amount of those who are ... and no amount of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalala over and over will change that "John Lewis is a great example, it keeps on growing, it keeps rewarding its employees who choose to work their, get continuous training and who are also part owners. At the same time it provides good value products to people who want to buy them and contributes significant tax revenues. Perhaps you can explain what is wrong with that?" because all businesses are run like John Lewis .... pffffff! you people really are just living in a fantasy world aren't you. time to stop dreaming and come to terms with the real world chaps. "Nothing. Unless you are talking to internet educated economists." funilly enough this was exactly what i attributed your lack of economic reality to as it happens  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So anyone who grows a business through entrepreneurial flair and hard work is exploiting people and causing damage to the wider society? Sorry to be blunt but that is utter bollocks. not all but there is definately a huge amount of those who are ... and no amount of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalala over and over will change that John Lewis is a great example, it keeps on growing, it keeps rewarding its employees who choose to work their, get continuous training and who are also part owners. At the same time it provides good value products to people who want to buy them and contributes significant tax revenues. Perhaps you can explain what is wrong with that? because all businesses are run like John Lewis .... pffffff! you people really are just living in a fantasy world aren't you. time to stop dreaming and come to terms with the real world chaps. Nothing. Unless you are talking to internet educated economists. funilly enough this was exactly what i attributed your lack of economic reality to as it happens "I work in the real world and I live in our local economy. Life is life, it is not a theory that you seem to suggest that effort and reward is purely exploitation. That sounds to be more like SWP rhetoric than any form of life experience. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" According to some reports, immigration brings a net benefit to the UK. Yeah, really. So, just vastly increase the numbers coming in. Problem solved. " In case you had not noticed, that is exactly what has happened as 2,000,000 or so European migrants have arrived over the last X years. The native population of the UK is on the whole taking more in benefit payments than they contribute in taxes whereas the EU migrants tend to be young and working therefore contribute more in taxes than they take in welfare. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" According to some reports, immigration brings a net benefit to the UK. Yeah, really. So, just vastly increase the numbers coming in. Problem solved. In case you had not noticed, that is exactly what has happened as 2,000,000 or so European migrants have arrived over the last X years. The native population of the UK is on the whole taking more in benefit payments than they contribute in taxes whereas the EU migrants tend to be young and working therefore contribute more in taxes than they take in welfare. " ... According to some figures, others show the opposite. Either way money is not the bee all and end all to me. I'd quite happily forgo the 3£ a week benefit (that's your figures) to retain the uk sovereignty and democracy. And according to your own words (reduced population means negative growth) you seen quite happy to ruin the economy of the migrants country to benefit ours?. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" According to some reports, immigration brings a net benefit to the UK. Yeah, really. So, just vastly increase the numbers coming in. Problem solved. In case you had not noticed, that is exactly what has happened as 2,000,000 or so European migrants have arrived over the last X years. The native population of the UK is on the whole taking more in benefit payments than they contribute in taxes whereas the EU migrants tend to be young and working therefore contribute more in taxes than they take in welfare. ... According to some figures, others show the opposite. Either way money is not the bee all and end all to me. I'd quite happily forgo the 3£ a week benefit (that's your figures) to retain the uk sovereignty and democracy. And according to your own words (reduced population means negative growth) you seen quite happy to ruin the economy of the migrants country to benefit ours?." As others have said about your debating style - why dont you stick to the thread rather than twisting content from not just earlier posts, but entirely different threads? You really dont have to try to win every battle you know and for what it is worth it is your assertion - not mine - that that the UK is ruining the economies of other countries. I dont believe in the blame game we all need to take responsibility for the lives that we have. If a country is losing its talent, it needs to do something about that. People will quite naturally gravitate towards opportunity and a brighter future - it is called human nature. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are a large number of multi national companies such as BP etc that make obscene huge profits from its operations in the UK. I would impose more rigourus taxation on these companies to contribute the the countries defecit. They along with the banking industry should pay more, why should the burden fall on the person in the street to lift us out of recession, these companies should feel the pinch also You will find that the larger UK success stories, Vodafone, BP, Shell etc make up a huge proportion of your pension. So go ahead and screw them if you want your future earnings to disappear! " Vodafone is owned by ee | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" According to some reports, immigration brings a net benefit to the UK. Yeah, really. So, just vastly increase the numbers coming in. Problem solved. In case you had not noticed, that is exactly what has happened as 2,000,000 or so European migrants have arrived over the last X years. The native population of the UK is on the whole taking more in benefit payments than they contribute in taxes whereas the EU migrants tend to be young and working therefore contribute more in taxes than they take in welfare. ... According to some figures, others show the opposite. Either way money is not the bee all and end all to me. I'd quite happily forgo the 3£ a week benefit (that's your figures) to retain the uk sovereignty and democracy. And according to your own words (reduced population means negative growth) you seen quite happy to ruin the economy of the migrants country to benefit ours?. As others have said about your debating style - why dont you stick to the thread rather than twisting content from not just earlier posts, but entirely different threads? You really dont have to try to win every battle you know and for what it is worth it is your assertion - not mine - that that the UK is ruining the economies of other countries. I dont believe in the blame game we all need to take responsibility for the lives that we have. If a country is losing its talent, it needs to do something about that. People will quite naturally gravitate towards opportunity and a brighter future - it is called human nature." . You were the one claiming migration had improved the deficit,I was replying to your assumptions!. The simple solution to the deficit problem is exporting more, something the condems promised and haven't done!. The main reason they've failed to export more is the basket case which is the EU(it's hard to export to a bunch of countries in recession as even the Germans are finding out). And by the looks of things I hardly think their going to improve anytime soon. So to summarise, get out of the eu watch our exports rise to the markets in the east (where they have growth) and watch our deficit reduce without having to cut anything! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I do not wish to argue with anyone in particular but just comment on the main point of the OP. Controlled immigration IS beneficial to a country. MASS immigration taking low wages and keeping people out of work is NOT. It causes excessive demands on infrastructure, education and health services, adds people to out of work benefits costs to the country and the 'in work' Tax credits they draw adds further costs to the country. On balance the 2 1/2 Million who came here after Labour's advertising spree in Europe has not added anything beneficial. So Lesson One: Control Immigration. Ed Balls said we would lose a Million jobs. We created 2 Million but sadly too many have been taken by low paid immigrants who send their Child Benefit back to a country with 1/3 the cost of living. Lesson Two: Control Immigration and don't believe Ed Balls. The Coalition had an ambition to get rid of the Deficit by 2015. They got half way there. Labour said anything more than a half reduction would be 'irresponsible'. But now they criticise the Coalition. And who created the biggest Deficit in our lifetimes? Lesson Three: Labour are total hypocrites on economics. To balance the books the Coalition had to cut Welfare costs and introduce new ideas. 2 examples: Capping total benefits at £26,000 and adding Council tenants to the Labour Spare Room Subsidy they levied on Private tenants for 13 years. Labour opposed these every step of the way and invented the nonsense of a 'Bedroom Tax'. Lesson Four: Labour will never reduce the Welfare costs just add taxes as they showed in 13 years they created the biggest 'Client State' in Europe. There are more lessons .... "you omitted the debt currently at about £1.5 trillion which is a lot of noughts and will take a while yet to sort out, if they do whomever gets in next year.. job creation is commendable but when many are on zero hours and paid so little that they are still on benefits to live then that's a mess.. and as usual a blinkered view that there was something called a global financial crash in 08 for which yes the then incumbents deserve criticism due to the lax financial regulatory controls which may have helped but these lax regulatory controls were begun under thatcher and supported by the tories throughout labours tenure.. by the way your points are not 'lessons' its only your opinion.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Copied from the net but a fairly relevant example of tax and wealth spending still... Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this… The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing The fifth would pay $1 The sixth would pay $3 The seventh would pay $7 The eighth would pay $12 The ninth would pay $18 The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59 So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20?. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving). The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving). Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!” “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! The figures clearly aren't right for our tax system in the UK but the message is spot on" .. The trouble with your analogy is that we raise 550 billion through tax but only 150 billion though income tax. So 22%of income tax is raised by the very rich(1%of the population), but that still leaves 78% by everyone else, but that's just income tax. The majority of total tax is raised in other ways like. Fuel duty. Vat. National insurance. Alcohol duty. Fag duty. Corporation tax... Etc etc. So to summarise the tenth man they beat up only pays 4% of total tax through his income tax | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"you omitted the debt currently at about £1.5 trillion which is a lot of noughts and will take a while yet to sort out, if they do whomever gets in next year.. job creation is commendable but when many are on zero hours and paid so little that they are still on benefits to live then that's a mess.. and as usual a blinkered view that there was something called a global financial crash in 08 for which yes the then incumbents deserve criticism due to the lax financial regulatory controls which may have helped but these lax regulatory controls were begun under thatcher and supported by the tories throughout labours tenure.. by the way your points are not 'lessons' its only your opinion.. " Yes the debt is as you say but is less than it would have been and the longer we have a deficit the more the debt goes up. Or were you confusing debt with deficit which was what I was referring to? You also failed to mention the fact that as the Coalition HAS a Long Term Plan the Bond Markets are a) buying our debt and b) charging is the lowest rates ever. Therefore the COST of the debt is actually falling. Zero hours contracts make less than 15% of new jobs and are stepping stones to full time employment. I take it you agree then that the massive immigration of low price labour has kept wages down? So you will be pleased to note that wages for those in work for a year have increased by 4%. While inflation has been kept at less than 2%. I do believe Thatcher de-regulated the markets and not the banks. Two different things but hey lets just throw that name in to make a point? And if you think the failures of the past are not lessons to be learned I guess you come form the Milliband school of economic revisionism... AKA 'same old Labour' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The following is a very brief rundown of the achievements of “UK” Governments since 1945 (end of the war). 1945-51 Labour Government, winter 1946/7 very harsh coal shortage effected production. Pound had to be devalued in 1949. 1951 - 1964 Conservative Government strong economy low unemployment. 1964 - 1970 Labour Government growth slow and unemployment rising. 1970 – 1974 Conservative Government poor economy high unemployment. 1974 – 1979 Labour Government economic decline, winter of discontent 78/79 strikes etc. Pound devalued. 1979 - 1997 Conservative Government (Margaret Thatcher) gain back control from the unions, unemployment rising but growth in the economy. 1997 – 2010 Labour Government worst recession in recent history, car industry virtually pulled out of UK 2010 to date Conservative Government growth in the economy, deficit reducing un-employment reducing. " Wow that's not a right wing view of it?? Errr labour making the NHS? Nah leave that off then eh? Tories 2010 bringing down unemployed by using zero hour contracts !!! Jesus talk about air brushed | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I do believe Thatcher de-regulated the markets and not the banks. Two different things but hey lets just throw that name in to make a point? " hmmm not sure about that statement ... yes she de-regulated the market but that de-regulation removed any demarkation between the retail banking arms of banks and their domestic banking arms. the balance sheets were broadened to incorporate both retail and domestic and nobody could tell where one ended and the other began. even nigel lawson agrees that the "big bang" and the then government acceptance of the basel accords recommendations were the unintended cause of 2007-2012 global financial crisis. uk investment banks, previously very cautious with what was their own money, had merged with high street banks putting depositors' savings at risk. the US banks were forced to follow suit. they got involved in sub-prime lending which was underpinned by the selling toxic debt and we all know what happened after that. this would indicate the current governments long term plan of selling our debt, as has been mentioned in this thread, would seem a risky one as nobody is quite sure just how toxic these debts may be. it seems no lesson have been learned really. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"you omitted the debt currently at about £1.5 trillion which is a lot of noughts and will take a while yet to sort out, if they do whomever gets in next year.. job creation is commendable but when many are on zero hours and paid so little that they are still on benefits to live then that's a mess.. and as usual a blinkered view that there was something called a global financial crash in 08 for which yes the then incumbents deserve criticism due to the lax financial regulatory controls which may have helped but these lax regulatory controls were begun under thatcher and supported by the tories throughout labours tenure.. by the way your points are not 'lessons' its only your opinion.. Yes the debt is as you say but is less than it would have been and the longer we have a deficit the more the debt goes up. Or were you confusing debt with deficit which was what I was referring to? You also failed to mention the fact that as the Coalition HAS a Long Term Plan the Bond Markets are a) buying our debt and b) charging is the lowest rates ever. Therefore the COST of the debt is actually falling. Zero hours contracts make less than 15% of new jobs and are stepping stones to full time employment. I take it you agree then that the massive immigration of low price labour has kept wages down? So you will be pleased to note that wages for those in work for a year have increased by 4%. While inflation has been kept at less than 2%. I do believe Thatcher de-regulated the markets and not the banks. Two different things but hey lets just throw that name in to make a point? And if you think the failures of the past are not lessons to be learned I guess you come form the Milliband school of economic revisionism... AKA 'same old Labour'" Sajid Javid said on question time last night that it was Gordon Brown who de-regulated the banks. It was one of the first things he did in 1997 when Labour got in and he became chancellor, and the de-regulation of the banks had a direct negative result into the banking crisis we suffered in 2008 when the collapse happened. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The following is a very brief rundown of the achievements of “UK” Governments since 1945 (end of the war). 1945-51 Labour Government, winter 1946/7 very harsh coal shortage effected production. Pound had to be devalued in 1949. 1951 - 1964 Conservative Government strong economy low unemployment. 1964 - 1970 Labour Government growth slow and unemployment rising. 1970 – 1974 Conservative Government poor economy high unemployment. 1974 – 1979 Labour Government economic decline, winter of discontent 78/79 strikes etc. Pound devalued. 1979 - 1997 Conservative Government (Margaret Thatcher) gain back control from the unions, unemployment rising but growth in the economy. 1997 – 2010 Labour Government worst recession in recent history, car industry virtually pulled out of UK 2010 to date Conservative Government growth in the economy, deficit reducing un-employment reducing. " You missed off the conservative government of 1979-1997 having the benefits of peak oil revenues and the proceeds from the numerous privatizations which run into many billions of pounds, which helped uk back into surplus. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wow that's not a right wing view of it?? Errr labour making the NHS? Nah leave that off then eh? Tories 2010 bringing down unemployed by using zero hour contracts !!! Jesus talk about air brushed" OK historical fact that the Labour Administration after the War created the NHS. But where is the historical fact that the Tories used zero hours contracts to bring down unemployment? NOWHERE. They make up less than 15% of new jobs and here IS a FACT: Labour Councils use more zero hours contracts than any other. D'UH!! Ever thought that there some folks who actually use these to their advantage? Students, working mums, retired (like me)? You Lefties throw out the Labour Sound Bites "Zero Hours" ... "Bedroom Tax"... "Cost of living crisis" thinking we don't know they are just that... words. Labour left is with an economy that had reversed by 7.2%. Worth £3000 per family. And they bleat about a phantom £1600 supposed loss forgetting to mention everyone got a massive tax cut... Bloody hypocritical liars! You also forgot to mention its a COALITION Government not a Tory one. But hey lets blame the Tories... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Wow that's not a right wing view of it?? Errr labour making the NHS? Nah leave that off then eh? Tories 2010 bringing down unemployed by using zero hour contracts !!! Jesus talk about air brushed OK historical fact that the Labour Administration after the War created the NHS. But where is the historical fact that the Tories used zero hours contracts to bring down unemployment? NOWHERE. They make up less than 15% of new jobs and here IS a FACT: Labour Councils use more zero hours contracts than any other. D'UH!! Ever thought that there some folks who actually use these to their advantage? Students, working mums, retired (like me)? You Lefties throw out the Labour Sound Bites "Zero Hours" ... "Bedroom Tax"... "Cost of living crisis" thinking we don't know they are just that... words. Labour left is with an economy that had reversed by 7.2%. Worth £3000 per family. And they bleat about a phantom £1600 supposed loss forgetting to mention everyone got a massive tax cut... Bloody hypocritical liars! You also forgot to mention its a COALITION Government not a Tory one. But hey lets blame the Tories... "what massive tax cut?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1984-5 the Tories use the police as an oppressive force to beat down the since proved claim that they wanted to close nearly a 100 pits, despite lying about it" You are rewriting history there fellah. Scargill's Russian funded 'Flying Pickets' were nothing less than paid thugs and murderers. Unions were running amok with their members and using violence to barge their way through the laws of the land. We were the 'Sick Man of Europe' and the Unions were killing the country very quickly. I know. I was there and had a beating for my troubles. Thatcher timed her challenge dead right. Gave in to Scargill in the first year and then built up stocks to beat the bastard later. the man was a fucking idiot but he treated his own miners as idiots and paid the price. How do I know? My late Grandfather and some of my family were Nottinghamshire miners. Proud brave men who told Scargill where to go. You tell THEM it was the Police oppressing them and they will give you a smack because they know what Scargill's killers were capable of. And yes they killed people ... With the greatest respect for your right to freedom of speech you really need to get your leftie head out of your arse and go read some historical FACTS and not repeat the Labour crap. Sorry to be blunt but I saw at first hand what those bastards could do and I will have NOTHING said against the brave coppers who went into hand to hand battle against a bunch of thugs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Export export export export. All the "wealthy countries" ie those with spare money are in main exporters. If you buy in 20 billion more than you sell.... Your always going to have a deficit unless you can be seriously good with money, ie banking and as we've all seem relying on banking as governments have since 1981 your going to run into problems eventually!" true enough ..... L'Angleterre est une nation de boutiquiers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" what massive tax cut?? " Oh you missed the increase of your tax free allowance to £10,500 then? Unless you are earning over £150,000 a year of course. Someone on £15,000 a year (for example) will have had a 32% tax reduction and more next April. May not be much to you but its a lot to most people | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"you omitted the debt currently at about £1.5 trillion which is a lot of noughts and will take a while yet to sort out, if they do whomever gets in next year.. job creation is commendable but when many are on zero hours and paid so little that they are still on benefits to live then that's a mess.. and as usual a blinkered view that there was something called a global financial crash in 08 for which yes the then incumbents deserve criticism due to the lax financial regulatory controls which may have helped but these lax regulatory controls were begun under thatcher and supported by the tories throughout labours tenure.. by the way your points are not 'lessons' its only your opinion.. Yes the debt is as you say but is less than it would have been and the longer we have a deficit the more the debt goes up. Or were you confusing debt with deficit which was what I was referring to? You also failed to mention the fact that as the Coalition HAS a Long Term Plan the Bond Markets are a) buying our debt and b) charging is the lowest rates ever. Therefore the COST of the debt is actually falling. Zero hours contracts make less than 15% of new jobs and are stepping stones to full time employment. I take it you agree then that the massive immigration of low price labour has kept wages down? So you will be pleased to note that wages for those in work for a year have increased by 4%. While inflation has been kept at less than 2%. I do believe Thatcher de-regulated the markets and not the banks. Two different things but hey lets just throw that name in to make a point? And if you think the failures of the past are not lessons to be learned I guess you come form the Milliband school of economic revisionism... AKA 'same old Labour'" There's no confusion, the debt is what it is purely down to Osborne's failure.. or is that down to other factors and not his responsibility.. long term plan, is that the 5 year plan or the now 9 to 10 year plan.. the deregulation of the financial sector was not or was never going to not include the banking sector, that's a naïve and false view.. I am not 'labour' and certainly don't share their views, bit well to the left of that bunch of quasi tories.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"1984-5 the Tories use the police as an oppressive force to beat down the since proved claim that they wanted to close nearly a 100 pits, despite lying about it You are rewriting history there fellah. Scargill's Russian funded 'Flying Pickets' were nothing less than paid thugs and murderers. Unions were running amok with their members and using violence to barge their way through the laws of the land. We were the 'Sick Man of Europe' and the Unions were killing the country very quickly. I know. I was there and had a beating for my troubles. Thatcher timed her challenge dead right. Gave in to Scargill in the first year and then built up stocks to beat the bastard later. the man was a fucking idiot but he treated his own miners as idiots and paid the price. How do I know? My late Grandfather and some of my family were Nottinghamshire miners. Proud brave men who told Scargill where to go. You tell THEM it was the Police oppressing them and they will give you a smack because they know what Scargill's killers were capable of. And yes they killed people ... With the greatest respect for your right to freedom of speech you really need to get your leftie head out of your arse and go read some historical FACTS and not repeat the Labour crap. Sorry to be blunt but I saw at first hand what those bastards could do and I will have NOTHING said against the brave coppers who went into hand to hand battle against a bunch of thugs." I live i. A mining community with all respect!! I saw the cops at close quarters, and you can't tell me there isn't a direct corration between the start of public mistrust of the police and the miners strike , it changed the dynamics forever. Hitlers henchmen were told what to do as well , it's fuck all to do with any party line, and what my 10 year old eyes saw for themselves, fellah | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" what massive tax cut?? Oh you missed the increase of your tax free allowance to £10,500 then? Unless you are earning over £150,000 a year of course. Someone on £15,000 a year (for example) will have had a 32% tax reduction and more next April. May not be much to you but its a lot to most people "£700 is not a massive amount when 6 years of zero wage rises, an extra 5% on vat, and rising inflation, rent prices doubling, fuel prices tripling etc etc etc is taken into account. get real man, no-one believes this kind of spin any more | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ...... I am not 'labour' and certainly don't share their views, bit well to the left of that bunch of quasi tories.. " So, if I may be impolite for a moment, which party does someone 'well to the left' vote for nowadays? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" what massive tax cut?? Oh you missed the increase of your tax free allowance to £10,500 then? Unless you are earning over £150,000 a year of course. Someone on £15,000 a year (for example) will have had a 32% tax reduction and more next April. May not be much to you but its a lot to most people
£700 is not a massive amount when 6 years of zero wage rises, an extra 5% on vat, and rising inflation, rent prices doubling, fuel prices tripling etc etc etc is taken into account. get real man, no-one believes this kind of spin any more "And just who the fuck do you think set the policies responsible for all the negative effects you outline above. re spin, it's a shame that sufficent people were so taken in by Nu-Labour in the first place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ...... I am not 'labour' and certainly don't share their views, bit well to the left of that bunch of quasi tories.. So, if I may be impolite for a moment, which party does someone 'well to the left' vote for nowadays?" One could also ask, who does anyone of the centre-left, the "working man, woman or family" vote for who is going to represent and improve their lot? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" what massive tax cut?? Oh you missed the increase of your tax free allowance to £10,500 then? Unless you are earning over £150,000 a year of course. Someone on £15,000 a year (for example) will have had a 32% tax reduction and more next April. May not be much to you but its a lot to most people
£700 is not a massive amount when 6 years of zero wage rises, an extra 5% on vat, and rising inflation, rent prices doubling, fuel prices tripling etc etc etc is taken into account. get real man, no-one believes this kind of spin any more
And just who the fuck do you think set the policies responsible for all the negative effects you outline above.
re spin, it's a shame that sufficent people were so taken in by Nu-Labour in the first place.
"you mistake me for a supporter of a political party ..... guess again | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ...... I am not 'labour' and certainly don't share their views, bit well to the left of that bunch of quasi tories.. So, if I may be impolite for a moment, which party does someone 'well to the left' vote for nowadays?" . I would consider myself left wing and I've voted the green party for 16 years | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ...... I am not 'labour' and certainly don't share their views, bit well to the left of that bunch of quasi tories.. So, if I may be impolite for a moment, which party does someone 'well to the left' vote for nowadays?" there isn't a whole lot of choice tbh, I usually opt for the greens as 'respect' aka the swp are not my cup of tea.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" what massive tax cut?? Oh you missed the increase of your tax free allowance to £10,500 then? " by the way tax allowance is 10,000 a year at the moment unless you're over 65 .... and the increase in personal allowance since 2010 is not a 32% increase on £15,000 per anum basic wage ... if your going to chuck figures about make sure that they are correct | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" what massive tax cut?? Oh you missed the increase of your tax free allowance to £10,500 then? Unless you are earning over £150,000 a year of course. Someone on £15,000 a year (for example) will have had a 32% tax reduction and more next April. May not be much to you but its a lot to most people
£700 is not a massive amount when 6 years of zero wage rises, an extra 5% on vat, and rising inflation, rent prices doubling, fuel prices tripling etc etc etc is taken into account. get real man, no-one believes this kind of spin any more
And just who the fuck do you think set the policies responsible for all the negative effects you outline above.
"the present government were most certainly responsible for raising VAT from 15% to 20% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's no confusion, the debt is what it is purely down to Osborne's failure.. or is that down to other factors and not his responsibility.. long term plan, is that the 5 year plan or the now 9 to 10 year plan.. the deregulation of the financial sector was not or was never going to not include the banking sector, that's a naïve and false view.. I am not 'labour' and certainly don't share their views, bit well to the left of that bunch of quasi tories.. " Oh sorry I didn't realise the books were in perfect order in 2010 and there was no debt left in any shape or form.. Oh wait .. Well there was the small matter of two aircraft carriers ordered with no money left... And that £35Billion black hole in the Ministry of Defence budget.... And the PFI time bombs that are now crippling NHS Trusts.... And the PFI deals forced on London Underground that crippled the Tube.... And a Reality check: 1997/98 – £352Billion or 40.4% GDP 2007/08 – £527Billion 2010/11 – £902Billion or 60.0% GDP 2014 (Aug) - £1,432 billion 77.4% GDP. http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/ So you would have us believe that suddenly the day after the election the economy suddenly changed and there were no residual dynamics affecting borrowing and debt? The 7.2% recession suddenly went away? Do the maths and tell us where the debt comes from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" by the way tax allowance is 10,000 a year at the moment unless you're over 65 .... and the increase in personal allowance since 2010 is not a 32% increase on £15,000 per anum basic wage ... if your going to chuck figures about make sure that they are correct" I did say the £10,500 is from next April but I guess you are being selective. And I never said it was a 32% increase so again either pay attention or stop trying to be an a arse and deliberately misquoting. What I actually said was: " Someone on £15,000 a year (for example) will have had a 32% tax reduction and more next April." Care to argue facts rather than be clever ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" the present government were most certainly responsible for raising VAT from 15% to 20%" Yes they were indeed. Debts have to be paid somehow and VAT is actually a progressive tax. No VAT on food or clothes and 5% on fuel. Businesses are not penalised as they do quarterly returns and pay Nett. Basic needs are tax free but if you can afford a car you will pay 5% VAT more. Seems fair that the rich pay more... And have we forgotten fuel duty has been frozen saving 20p a litre against the Labour manifesto plan? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" what massive tax cut?? Oh you missed the increase of your tax free allowance to £10,500 then? Unless you are earning over £150,000 a year of course. Someone on £15,000 a year (for example) will have had a 32% tax reduction and more next April. May not be much to you but its a lot to most people
£700 is not a massive amount when 6 years of zero wage rises, an extra 5% on vat, and rising inflation, rent prices doubling, fuel prices tripling etc etc etc is taken into account. get real man, no-one believes this kind of spin any more
And just who the fuck do you think set the policies responsible for all the negative effects you outline above.
the present government were most certainly responsible for raising VAT from 15% to 20%"You may find it is the socilaist EC who are responsible. And who want to harmonise all states' VAT even greater at 21%. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" the present government were most certainly responsible for raising VAT from 15% to 20% Yes they were indeed. Debts have to be paid somehow and VAT is actually a progressive tax. No VAT on food or clothes and 5% on fuel. Businesses are not penalised as they do quarterly returns and pay Nett. Basic needs are tax free but if you can afford a car you will pay 5% VAT more. Seems fair that the rich pay more... And have we forgotten fuel duty has been frozen saving 20p a litre against the Labour manifesto plan?" fair enough on the 32% increase but then £700 allowance on a basic of £15,000 isn't a 32% decrease is it. and as for fuel duty, it's irrelevant to mention what people might have done if they were in power, what counts is the changes made by people who ARE in power. and as for progressive taxes, mansion tax is progressive but we all know where you stand on that from other threads. it never occured to me that i was trying to be arse before ... maybe you're correct. but to you it seems evident that it comes naturally  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Overall it is estimated that 3.2m fewer people will be paying income tax in April 2015 compared with April 2010. The tax saving over this period is estimated to be £805 for a typical basic rate taxpayer." speculation "You may find it is the socilaist EC who are responsible. And who want to harmonise all states' VAT even greater at 21%." again ... speculation facts gentlemen please | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's no confusion, the debt is what it is purely down to Osborne's failure.. or is that down to other factors and not his responsibility.. long term plan, is that the 5 year plan or the now 9 to 10 year plan.. the deregulation of the financial sector was not or was never going to not include the banking sector, that's a naïve and false view.. I am not 'labour' and certainly don't share their views, bit well to the left of that bunch of quasi tories.. Oh sorry I didn't realise the books were in perfect order in 2010 and there was no debt left in any shape or form.. Oh wait .. Well there was the small matter of two aircraft carriers ordered with no money left... And that £35Billion black hole in the Ministry of Defence budget.... And the PFI time bombs that are now crippling NHS Trusts.... And the PFI deals forced on London Underground that crippled the Tube.... And a Reality check: 1997/98 – £352Billion or 40.4% GDP 2007/08 – £527Billion 2010/11 – £902Billion or 60.0% GDP 2014 (Aug) - £1,432 billion 77.4% GDP. http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/ So you would have us believe that suddenly the day after the election the economy suddenly changed and there were no residual dynamics affecting borrowing and debt? The 7.2% recession suddenly went away? Do the maths and tell us where the debt comes from?" you have to highlight the conservative government (1979 - 1997) had the windfall of both peak oil production tax receipts and the proceeds of the many privatizations which ran into many billions of pounds. Take away these from the economic equation, and i wonder how they would have fared? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Overall it is estimated that 3.2m fewer people will be paying income tax in April 2015 compared with April 2010. The tax saving over this period is estimated to be £805 for a typical basic rate taxpayer. speculation You may find it is the socilaist EC who are responsible. And who want to harmonise all states' VAT even greater at 21%. again ... speculation facts gentlemen please " As you wish, you read up on the facts of the EC's VAT policies and targets. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's no confusion, the debt is what it is purely down to Osborne's failure.. or is that down to other factors and not his responsibility.. long term plan, is that the 5 year plan or the now 9 to 10 year plan.. the deregulation of the financial sector was not or was never going to not include the banking sector, that's a naïve and false view.. I am not 'labour' and certainly don't share their views, bit well to the left of that bunch of quasi tories.. Oh sorry I didn't realise the books were in perfect order in 2010 and there was no debt left in any shape or form.. Oh wait .. Well there was the small matter of two aircraft carriers ordered with no money left... And that £35Billion black hole in the Ministry of Defence budget.... And the PFI time bombs that are now crippling NHS Trusts.... And the PFI deals forced on London Underground that crippled the Tube.... And a Reality check: 1997/98 – £352Billion or 40.4% GDP 2007/08 – £527Billion 2010/11 – £902Billion or 60.0% GDP 2014 (Aug) - £1,432 billion 77.4% GDP. http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/ So you would have us believe that suddenly the day after the election the economy suddenly changed and there were no residual dynamics affecting borrowing and debt? The 7.2% recession suddenly went away? Do the maths and tell us where the debt comes from?" they all overspend on 'capital projects', as for PFI blair and his lot only continued and expanded what major started.. same shit just more of it that needs paying back | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Overall it is estimated that 3.2m fewer people will be paying income tax in April 2015 compared with April 2010. The tax saving over this period is estimated to be £805 for a typical basic rate taxpayer. speculation You may find it is the socilaist EC who are responsible. And who want to harmonise all states' VAT even greater at 21%. again ... speculation facts gentlemen please As you wish, you read up on the facts of the EC's VAT policies and targets. " prospective policy is not current reality .... your earlier comment is pure speculation based on wild surmise | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There's no confusion, the debt is what it is purely down to Osborne's failure.. or is that down to other factors and not his responsibility.. long term plan, is that the 5 year plan or the now 9 to 10 year plan.. the deregulation of the financial sector was not or was never going to not include the banking sector, that's a naïve and false view.. I am not 'labour' and certainly don't share their views, bit well to the left of that bunch of quasi tories.. Oh sorry I didn't realise the books were in perfect order in 2010 and there was no debt left in any shape or form.. Oh wait .. Well there was the small matter of two aircraft carriers ordered with no money left... And that £35Billion black hole in the Ministry of Defence budget.... And the PFI time bombs that are now crippling NHS Trusts.... And the PFI deals forced on London Underground that crippled the Tube.... And a Reality check: 1997/98 – £352Billion or 40.4% GDP 2007/08 – £527Billion 2010/11 – £902Billion or 60.0% GDP 2014 (Aug) - £1,432 billion 77.4% GDP. http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/ So you would have us believe that suddenly the day after the election the economy suddenly changed and there were no residual dynamics affecting borrowing and debt? The 7.2% recession suddenly went away? Do the maths and tell us where the debt comes from? you have to highlight the conservative government (1979 - 1997) had the windfall of both peak oil production tax receipts and the proceeds of the many privatizations which ran into many billions of pounds. Take away these from the economic equation, and i wonder how they would have fared?" . There is a train of thought that maybe all the recessions we are seeing of the last 8 years could be just the start of global peak oil. It was estimated to happen around 2000 but funnily enough the one major oil find that wasn't predicted was north sea oil. And that passed peak production in 1994 I think | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" the present government were most certainly responsible for raising VAT from 15% to 20% Yes they were indeed. Debts have to be paid somehow and VAT is actually a progressive tax. No VAT on food or clothes and 5% on fuel. Businesses are not penalised as they do quarterly returns and pay Nett. Basic needs are tax free but if you can afford a car you will pay 5% VAT more. Seems fair that the rich pay more... And have we forgotten fuel duty has been frozen saving 20p a litre against the Labour manifesto plan?" Vat is a red herring because retailers discount massively and this negates any real effect of vat changes on the consumer. A 5% vat difference on a £500 television is £25 and the televisions are more often than not discounted by significantly more than that anyway. Labours spin tactics of the bedroom tax and the cost of living crisis are simply nauseating. Labour buy votes from the poor by promising that the rich will pay for everything. Nauseating. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A 5% vat difference on a £500 television is £25 and the televisions are more often than not discounted by significantly more than that anyway " personally speaking, i don't run my vehicle on televisions, nor does my partner use them as tampons | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Overall it is estimated that 3.2m fewer people will be paying income tax in April 2015 compared with April 2010. The tax saving over this period is estimated to be £805 for a typical basic rate taxpayer. speculation facts gentlemen please " I gave you the Parliamentary record and briefing generated from the OBR figures so hardly speculation... But hey none so blind as those who will not see. What is it about facts you don't quite understand? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ed Balls is a fucking joke. He has absolutely ni credibility. He and Millipede were advisers to the treasury in the last government. In other words, the pair of them are respibsible for the massive fuck up and the massive debt yes but don,t forget Either so many years later to Add to the chaos and a world recession The greedy bankers here they all played a massive part in buggering Things up on a scale thats not been known before with their greedy minds I,m not even sure If they knew a recession was on the way then but they were quite happy to still go on with It and gambleing on every ones financial needs which they did and It Back fired helping to put this country In even bigger debt how they could face anyone after that Is unbelievable what they did Is on par with what ever government or more has done to this country In such a short time, people seem to forget about these BANKERS and just blame the governments. In 1997 when Labour came to power, Britain was back in the black. Our economy was healthy." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Labours spin tactics of the bedroom tax and the cost of living crisis are simply nauseating. Labour buy votes from the poor by promising that the rich will pay for everything. Nauseating." Especially when it was the working class that were hit the hardest by their crash. And their crap about "the millionaires tax cut" when the tax on highest earners has gone UP by 5% against what Labour had for 13 years. Utter lies and hypocrisy! Still they were always 'totally relaxed about the rich' (Mr Peter Mandelson) just don't tell the young Marxist Ed Milliband. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I gave you the Parliamentary record and briefing generated from the OBR figures so hardly speculation... But hey none so blind as those who will not see. What is it about facts you don't quite understand?" here's your quote from parliament.uk ... "Overall it is ESTIMATED that 3.2m fewer people WILL be paying income tax in APRIL 2015 compared with April 2010. The tax saving over this period is ESTIMATED to be £805 for a typical basic rate taxpayer...." www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06569.pdf i've taken the liberty of putting the use of future tense and the word estimate along with a date in the future in capitals (i hope you don't object and regard it as misquoting) ... this quoted statement from parliament.uk is a forecast and is not what is currently happening. therefore safe to say that it is not a current reality and consequently not yet a fact. and if it is not yet a fact it is speculation, conjecture, surmise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There are two parts to the equation. 1) what the government spends AND 2) what the government collects in taxes It is of course great to collect more taxes but a high tax economy is not a happy economy. When tax is low there is innovation, growth and momentum. Just like with your own family finances it is always a good idea to reduce your debt burden and reduce your spending because earning more may not be the easiest option. The balance is somewhere in the middle but I still don't see any of these leading lights in politics - or indeed commentators - have pointed out the elephant in the room. We cannot afford to maintain our current pension and NHS arrangements into the future. Neither of these concepts were created with the thought that people might be living 30 years after retirement. " . Excellent post . Sadly neither party is prepared to tackle either NHS spending or the pension issue. It is totally unfair on future generations to expect them to fund the current pension system. People should be made to accept reality and accept that they must pay significantly more into their pension funds . Some civil servants do not realize how lucky they are still to have a final salary pension scheme , yet the trade unions still complain about changes in the schemes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I gave you the Parliamentary record and briefing generated from the OBR figures so hardly speculation... But hey none so blind as those who will not see. What is it about facts you don't quite understand? here's your quote from parliament.uk ... "Overall it is ESTIMATED that 3.2m fewer people WILL be paying income tax in APRIL 2015 compared with April 2010. The tax saving over this period is ESTIMATED to be £805 for a typical basic rate taxpayer...." www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06569.pdf i've taken the liberty of putting the use of future tense and the word estimate along with a date in the future in capitals (i hope you don't object and regard it as misquoting) ... this quoted statement from parliament.uk is a forecast and is not what is currently happening. therefore safe to say that it is not a current reality and consequently not yet a fact. and if it is not yet a fact it is speculation, conjecture, surmise." Oh dear. How very clever to pick on words you can twist around. Typical Leftie. Aim at the messenger and ignore the message. It was an 'estimate' because no one knows the tax changes that may come in April. Listen up: YOU do the Maths. The numbers are all freely available. Just add up the free pay that was available pre 2010 and the free pay available now or in April. You can do add and subtract? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I gave you the Parliamentary record and briefing generated from the OBR figures so hardly speculation... But hey none so blind as those who will not see. What is it about facts you don't quite understand? here's your quote from parliament.uk ... "Overall it is ESTIMATED that 3.2m fewer people WILL be paying income tax in APRIL 2015 compared with April 2010. The tax saving over this period is ESTIMATED to be £805 for a typical basic rate taxpayer...." www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06569.pdf i've taken the liberty of putting the use of future tense and the word estimate along with a date in the future in capitals (i hope you don't object and regard it as misquoting) ... this quoted statement from parliament.uk is a forecast and is not what is currently happening. therefore safe to say that it is not a current reality and consequently not yet a fact. and if it is not yet a fact it is speculation, conjecture, surmise. Oh dear. How very clever to pick on words you can twist around. Typical Leftie. Aim at the messenger and ignore the message. It was an 'estimate' because no one knows the tax changes that may come in April. Listen up: YOU do the Maths. The numbers are all freely available. Just add up the free pay that was available pre 2010 and the free pay available now or in April. You can do add and subtract? "£705 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"£705 " this is the so-called "massive" tax break we've had since the present government came into office. if you mean the difference between now and next year's speculated tax break that was anounced this week by our desperate and floundering chancellor, then that's a whopping (by your standards) £120 ooOOOOoo. a whole ten bucks a month!!!!
that's £2.30 a week!!!! we can buy ourselves an extra pint of beer a week ..... oh hang on can anyone lend me a £1
and anyway, after current inflation is taken into account at 1.3% we'll be 0.1% worse off ... you know, things council tax rise and gas/electric rise etc etc etc.
you're just not selling it chap.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"£705 this is the so-called "massive" tax break we've had since the present government came into office. if you mean the difference between now and next year's speculated tax break that was anounced this week by our desperate and floundering chancellor, then that's a whopping (by your standards) £120 ooOOOOoo. a whole ten bucks a month!!!!
that's £2.30 a week!!!! we can buy ourselves an extra pint of beer a week ..... oh hang on can anyone lend me a £1
and anyway, after current inflation is taken into account at 1.3% we'll be 0.1% worse off ... you know, things council tax rise and gas/electric rise etc etc etc.
you're just not selling it chap.
"Well you can't do maths that's for sure ... You'd make a great Labour Chancellor. Now lets remind ourselves precisely WHY we are in this shithole? Labour and its spend spend spend, borrow borrow borrow (and the numbers are shown above) and then as that note said "Sorry there is no money" Let me tell you Mr Smartarse leftie that to someone on £15,000 a year its a pretty welcome tax break. Bend the numbers how you want but at least this 'floundering chancellor' has created the fastest growing economy in the G8, 2 million new jobs, given pensioners the biggest rises in years and freed them from Annuities, restored housebuilding, cut the deficit in half and reduced borrowing and its costs from where it would have been. You have to admire a Leftie who says "You aren't doing very well clearing up the shit we left behind are you?" Now remind me again about which Chancellor thought pensioners were worth only 75p a week? Oh wait ... Gordon Brown. And you run down zero tax for the lowest paid?.... says it all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There's no confusion, the debt is what it is purely down to Osborne's failure.. or is that down to other factors and not his responsibility.. " Yep you got it in one. The debt has been rising since the second world war with successive government paying off only odd bits here and there. The deficit is what this current government has reduced by around 50% since being in power and what they are trying to reduce. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The internal market, introduced by Thatcher, is now calculated to suck £10bn out of the NHS each year. That £10bn sure would fit into the £8bn NHS funding gap very nicely. The PFI contracts need to be reopened and renegotiated. The Tories are so quick these days to attack Labour for them, even though they were brought into law by John Major in 1992. Yet, the Tories haven't tried to renegotiate any of the contracts. Increasing the tax threshold has been very counter-productive in my opinion. It costs the government billions every year in lost tax revenue and it helps to keep wages low. Put the tax threshold back to what it was and increase the minimum wage. Where businesses can show they will suffer financially with a higher minimum wage they can be offered a full or partial Employer NI Contributions rebate or a Corporation Tax credit. Most business could afford to pay more, and it will get money circling in the economy from the top to the bottom and back to the top if people have more money to spend. People should not need lifting out of tax. We should all be able to work full time, pay our bills and pay our taxes. If we can't then there really is a cost of living crisis. " well said.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" People should not need lifting out of tax. We should all be able to work full time, pay our bills and pay our taxes. If we can't then there really is a cost of living crisis. " As was said in an earlier post however. We live in a globalised world and like it or not - a poorly educated and unskilled worker in Britain is not really worth anymore in the labour market than a poorly educated, unskilled Chinese worker. A change of philopsophy is needed where people have to realise that if they want more - they have to commit to self improvement and add value to their employment offering. Cruel but true and just a sign of the modern world. I agree that tax credits are just one massive socialist con and an attempt to equalise the income of people who (on the worlds stage) dont actually deserve what the government is having to credit them back. Tough love would be to get rid of tax credits and make people self improve - that might just encourage parents and kids to study harder and give us a more highly skilled future workforce. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Increasing the tax threshold has been very counter-productive in my opinion. It costs the government billions every year in lost tax revenue and it helps to keep wages low. Put the tax threshold back to what it was and increase the minimum wage. Where businesses can show they will suffer financially with a higher minimum wage they can be offered a full or partial Employer NI Contributions rebate or a Corporation Tax credit." While I understand and share your concerns and agree with the intentions the ideas you just described are basically what New Labour did and it failed. Raise employer costs, increase tax and when that fails add in some Government interference with more spending. It surely cannot be wrong to reduce taxes for the lower paid and share the cost of that across everyone else? It is after all what we do in the NHS - we all pay for those that need it? Its a shame you had to drag Thatcher into it as she has been out of power for 30 years. I guess her getting the EU rebate worth £Billions isn't worth a mention or that Blair was busy giving half of it away worth the same £10.4Billion figure you accuse Thatcher of costing the NHS. www.forbritain.org/140518_eu_rebate_blair.pdf And I would be interested to see where you got that figure of £10Billion taken out of the NHS from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And I would be interested to see where you got that figure of £10Billion taken out of the NHS from?" From the documentary Sell Off. That's the figure they calculated. Their summary of the situation of the NHS was very detailed, I have no reason to question the figure. My post was about how the internal market has been draining resources from patient care. That originates with Thatcher. Why would I mention the EU rebate when it has nothing to do with the point I'm making about the structure of the NHS? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"....I agree that tax credits are just one massive socialist con and an attempt to equalise the income of people who (on the worlds stage) dont actually deserve what the government is having to credit them back. Tough love would be to get rid of tax credits and make people self improve ....." I am right with you on the principles of what you say but (as you also say earlier) we have to face the actual realities. Tax Credits are a good and bad thing and while I am fundamentally against any Government interference I can understand and support why a caring society will want to assist those prepared to get off welfare and get back to work. Most people have to start at the bottom and work their way up and Tax Credits assist them on that crucial first step on that ladder. That is the good part. The bad part is that Tax Credits also allow low cost immigrants to unfairly compete with those same people we, as a caring society, are trying to help. We are caught by good intentions between a rock and a hard place and my view is we must stop ALL welfare and Tax Credit payments to ALL immigrants. Period. Not for 2, 3, or 4 years but permanently until that immigrant takes British Nationality and establishes residence after some years. As you rightly say some 'tough love' is needed but we should be 'tough' on those people who come here to take our money and send it back to wherever and 'love' our own workers with the basic decency of a job. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And I would be interested to see where you got that figure of £10Billion taken out of the NHS from? From the documentary Sell Off. That's the figure they calculated. Their summary of the situation of the NHS was very detailed, I have no reason to question the figure. My post was about how the internal market has been draining resources from patient care. That originates with Thatcher. Why would I mention the EU rebate when it has nothing to do with the point I'm making about the structure of the NHS?" I would have preferred a link but I guess we can google it... My thoughts were that to have a pop at Thatcher 30 years after the event and say its all her fault and that that 30 year old money would help now seems rather pointless? And as the NHS is a cost to the total budget surely similar amounts given away by other PMs like Blair OUT of that budget is of equal and far more relevance seeing as his actions cost more and are having an effect today? And don't get me going on Andy Burnham's total hypocrisy over NHS privatisation ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I would have preferred a link but I guess we can google it... My thoughts were that to have a pop at Thatcher 30 years after the event and say its all her fault and that that 30 year old money would help now seems rather pointless? And as the NHS is a cost to the total budget surely similar amounts given away by other PMs like Blair OUT of that budget is of equal and far more relevance seeing as his actions cost more and are having an effect today? And don't get me going on Andy Burnham's total hypocrisy over NHS privatisation ..." Here's the link - I have posted it in another thread https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ultKvnw2h3Q I named Thatcher due to the origin of the problem. You have a problem with her being mentioned but go on to mention another ex-PM yourself. Blair is Thatcher's legacy after all, so things do seem to come full circle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I named Thatcher due to the origin of the problem. You have a problem with her being mentioned but go on to mention another ex-PM yourself. Blair is Thatcher's legacy after all, so things do seem to come full circle. " said it earlier in the 'debate', however some just wont ever see any wrong in her which if being objective she certainly was .. as Blair also did.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" said it earlier in the 'debate', however some just wont ever see any wrong in her which if being objective she certainly was .. as Blair also did.." Thatcher had many faults and made one huge mistake (the Poll Tax in Scotland) but I fail to understand why Lefties continue to drag her name out when they want to blame someone. And yes it IS relevant to compare one PM's actions when another is mentioned. And for me Thatcher will be 100 times the Prime Minister Blair was. She was a conviction politician surrounded by men with none and she reshaped Britain as a great nation again. Yes that caused pain but can anyone REALLY say Britain was better being run by backroom Commie Union Barons supported by thugs telling a soft Labour Government what to do? Blair was two faced lying creep that took us into wars we should never have been in and quietly allowed our economy to be destroyed by Brown while attention was elsewhere. Even John Major left an economy in 1997 with no deficit and had even repaid some debt. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I named Thatcher due to the origin of the problem. You have a problem with her being mentioned but go on to mention another ex-PM yourself. Blair is Thatcher's legacy after all, so things do seem to come full circle. said it earlier in the 'debate', however some just wont ever see any wrong in her which if being objective she certainly was .. as Blair also did.." it's highly ammusing that some of the baby-boomer dinosaurs on these threads get more angry if you tell the truth of how evil she was than they would if you had broken into their parents house and pissed on their mother  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" it's highly ammusing that some of the baby-boomer dinosaurs on these threads get more angry if you tell the truth of how evil she was than they would if you had broken into their parents house and pissed on their mother "Its also highly amusing that some loonie Lefty diehards still feel the need to blame a politician who left office some 30 years ago and yet can find no fault in one who was in power only 7 years ago. Or his successor idiot. Thatcher was NOT the 'evil'. It was the Unions that were causing Britain to die and she stopped it. And she was so 'evil' that she was returned to power on increasing majorities despite the difficult actions she had to take. And the Left will forever hate her because she and her legacy kept them out of power for 18 years. And what does it matter when I was born? Does that make my point of view less valid? At least I lived through that period and before, voted and would vote for her again. If ever this Country needed a conviction politician its now. And anyway you being ageist on us?....LOL | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Even John Major left an economy in 1997 with no deficit and had even repaid some debt." That is completely untrue. Categorically! Under Major's tenure as PM there was a deficit from 1990 to 1997. http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/20/1363802502484/Deficits-by-chancellor-001.jpg | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" said it earlier in the 'debate', however some just wont ever see any wrong in her which if being objective she certainly was .. as Blair also did.. Thatcher had many faults and made one huge mistake (the Poll Tax in Scotland) but I fail to understand why Lefties continue to drag her name out when they want to blame someone. And yes it IS relevant to compare one PM's actions when another is mentioned. And for me Thatcher will be 100 times the Prime Minister Blair was. She was a conviction politician surrounded by men with none and she reshaped Britain as a great nation again. Yes that caused pain but can anyone REALLY say Britain was better being run by backroom Commie Union Barons supported by thugs telling a soft Labour Government what to do? Blair was two faced lying creep that took us into wars we should never have been in and quietly allowed our economy to be destroyed by Brown while attention was elsewhere. Even John Major left an economy in 1997 with no deficit and had even repaid some debt." its not a comparison, strange that you feel the need to promote your icon..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Even John Major left an economy in 1997 with no deficit and had even repaid some debt. That is completely untrue. Categorically! Under Major's tenure as PM there was a deficit from 1990 to 1997. http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/20/1363802502484/Deficits-by-chancellor-001.jpg" Try this: "In 1997 Labour inherited a budget that was actually in balance. After a painful and turbulent decade under the Tories, the public finances had finally been brought under control. But after four years in office Gordon Brown took out the country's credit card and let rip. By the end of 2009-10 our annual deficit had ballooned to £170.8 billion" http://www.debtbombshell.com/britains-budget-deficit.htm And its worth noting that the only time Labour produced a surplus was in the 2 years they kept to Major's spending plans... and economy grew well. Look we can all swop data I guess but the reality is many confuse 'debt' with 'deficit' and whichever you choose Labour mullered our economy even before the coup de grace in 2008 / 09. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" its not a comparison, strange that you feel the need to promote your icon..? " Even stranger that you fabricate what I am saying into something else and then criticise me ... And when did I say she was my 'icon'? Strange! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/20/1363802502484/Deficits-by-chancellor-001.jpg" Try the original article: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Ed Balls is a fucking joke. He has absolutely ni credibility. He and Millipede were advisers to the treasury in the last government. In other words, the pair of them are respibsible for the massive fuck up and the massive debt. In 1997 when Labour came to power, Britain was back in the black. Our economy was healthy. You're sounding like a Tory MP there, - deliberately not mentioning the bailing out of banks - & the Tory's want to loosen the reigns on them compared to Europe!! We badly need another Guy Fawkes I feel - but this time a competent one!!" I am pretty sure that it was Gordon brown and Alistair Darling that bailed out the banks,, with our money, after Brown's fuck up of creating the FSA and taking supervision away from the Bank of England. We as a country get the government we deserve, as long as we vote for a chancellor that bribes us with our children/grandchildren's money by running a deficit or commuting to unfunded future spending, I.e. pension increases. No point blaming the government, blame the electorate for voting them in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" its not a comparison, strange that you feel the need to promote your icon..? Even stranger that you fabricate what I am saying into something else and then criticise me ... And when did I say she was my 'icon'? Strange!" oops, meant to say your heroine.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" its not a comparison, strange that you feel the need to promote your icon..? Even stranger that you fabricate what I am saying into something else and then criticise me ... And when did I say she was my 'icon'? Strange!" nobody is fabricating what your saying into something else .... they're just rubbishing the phantasmagoria that you are attempting to pass off as fact | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" nobody is fabricating what your saying into something else .... they're just rubbishing the phantasmagoria that you are attempting to pass off as fact" Erm .. Ok when did I say anything about Thatcher that was not FACT... now I am trying very hard not to get personal here (unlike you but then you're a Leftie and its what you people do) so name me ONE thing I said that was not FACT. And when you can't at least have the balls to apologise. To Summarise: She fucked up over the Poll Tax. She was undone by Europe. she won us the biggest rebate in the EU. She was voted in with increasing majorities 3 times. She saved Union members from the bastard Commies that were in charge. She saved the country from the same Union barons screwing us over. She gave Scargill the hiding he deserved. And she kept Lefties out of Government for 18 years. etc etc ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" oops, meant to say your heroine.." What the fuck ever .... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ok when did I say anything about Thatcher that was not FACT" everytime you've mentioned her | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" nobody is fabricating what your saying into something else .... they're just rubbishing the phantasmagoria that you are attempting to pass off as fact Erm .. Ok when did I say anything about Thatcher that was not FACT... now I am trying very hard not to get personal here (unlike you but then you're a Leftie and its what you people do) so name me ONE thing I said that was not FACT. And when you can't at least have the balls to apologise. To Summarise: She fucked up over the Poll Tax. She was undone by Europe. she won us the biggest rebate in the EU. She was voted in with increasing majorities 3 times. She saved Union members from the bastard Commies that were in charge. She saved the country from the same Union barons screwing us over. She gave Scargill the hiding he deserved. And she kept Lefties out of Government for 18 years. etc etc ..." Oh the lefties!!! You're a perfect personification of the grab all you can for yourself generation, who would trample over their grandmother for a pound in the road!! I really CBA to list tge things she is at fault for I just hope we never have to suffer anything like her again and I really hope she isn't resting in peace. Oh remember without the commie bastards we'd now be speaking German FACT | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ...You're a perfect personification of the grab all you can for yourself generation, who would trample over their grandmother for a pound in the road!! ...I really hope she isn't resting in peace. Oh remember without the commie bastards we'd now be speaking German FACT" Now who is stereotyping? So I voice an opinion different to yours and I would trample my own Grandmother? And you expect us to take people like you seriously? So as some bright spark said above when he had nothing to challenge me on: "Q E D" Lefties like and the other fellah can only attack the person and not the message or discussion. I challenged your Leftie mate and he had NOTHING. You have offered NOTHING. And you conflate the terrific Russian soldiers in WWII with the traitors who would sell our country out for money? Really? And while the Russians contributed hugely they were only able to do that because we sent convoys to Murmansk with 3,000 Hurricanes, 5,000 tanks and artillery pieces and God knows what else. Materiel WE could have kept here and made OUR job easier. And no it wasn't Lend / Lease stuff either. And you really think we had nothing to do with the outcome of WWII? Really? We had more men and materiel fighting the Japs in '43 and '44 than the Yanks sent here for D Day and after. We had a Million men under arms fighting the Japs. Think we couldn't have used them in Europe? We killed 55,000 japs in one engagement at Kohima and similar elsewhere. Monty kicked Rommel out of Africa while Patton's buddies were having their arses handed to them at Kasserine Pass. And he rolled them half way up Italy before taking total command of D Day landings. A BRITISH planned and executed operation. So go and shove your wisecrack statements about us speaking German where the sun doesn't shine. I would have thought people would have had more respect for the 490,000 dead men and women who gave their lives so people like you can desecrate their memory ... Oh and one last thing. I have only worn my RAF beret and medals from '82 twice. And one of those was at Maggie's funeral. Leftie t**ts tried to shout us down but when she passed just as I came to attention a voice behind me said "Atten...Shun!" and so I carried on and saluted the greatest peacetime Prime Minister this country has ever known. And someone who those of us who went down there in '82 will honour and respect for all our days. The guys behind me were all from that time and two were guys I hadn't seen for 30 years. So don't tell ME and THEM she won't Rest In Peace. She did more for this country in 10 minutes than disrespectful t**ts like you will do in a bloody lifetime. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"god he loves a good un-substantiated rant doesn't he? ." OK smartarse if it is all 'unsubstantiated' care to take it apart with some FACTS? Rather than the normal Leftie crap of rubbishing the writer and failing to discuss what is written. The only one 'ranting' is you ... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The biggest airbrush of history!! " Oh really. Care to offer some FACTS rather than sarcasm? Discuss rather than rubbish the writer. Attack the message rather than the messenger? here is a challenge: Name me ONE thing in that post that was incorrect or misleading? We won't be holding our breath. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The biggest airbrush of history!! Oh really. Care to offer some FACTS rather than sarcasm? Discuss rather than rubbish the writer. Attack the message rather than the messenger? here is a challenge: Name me ONE thing in that post that was incorrect or misleading? We won't be holding our breath. "You are wasting your time. The facts and history are laid down for all to see and Mrs T has a legacy and a history that is now set in stone. Regrettably, there are people on here who were still almost in nappies at the time and yet claim to recall that she was a poor politician. Don't waste your breath. You have an opinion and it generally aligns itself with the history books. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Regrettably, there are people on here who were still almost in nappies at the time and yet claim to recall that she was a poor politician. " Looking at some ages I have to agree .... I was 22 when she came to power and had been working for 6 years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ...You're a perfect personification of the grab all you can for yourself generation, who would trample over their grandmother for a pound in the road!! ...I really hope she isn't resting in peace. Oh remember without the commie bastards we'd now be speaking German FACT Now who is stereotyping? So I voice an opinion different to yours and I would trample my own Grandmother? And you expect us to take people like you seriously? So as some bright spark said above when he had nothing to challenge me on: "Q E D" Lefties like and the other fellah can only attack the person and not the message or discussion. I challenged your Leftie mate and he had NOTHING. You have offered NOTHING. And you conflate the terrific Russian soldiers in WWII with the traitors who would sell our country out for money? Really? And while the Russians contributed hugely they were only able to do that because we sent convoys to Murmansk with 3,000 Hurricanes, 5,000 tanks and artillery pieces and God knows what else. Materiel WE could have kept here and made OUR job easier. And no it wasn't Lend / Lease stuff either. And you really think we had nothing to do with the outcome of WWII? Really? We had more men and materiel fighting the Japs in '43 and '44 than the Yanks sent here for D Day and after. We had a Million men under arms fighting the Japs. Think we couldn't have used them in Europe? We killed 55,000 japs in one engagement at Kohima and similar elsewhere. Monty kicked Rommel out of Africa while Patton's buddies were having their arses handed to them at Kasserine Pass. And he rolled them half way up Italy before taking total command of D Day landings. A BRITISH planned and executed operation. So go and shove your wisecrack statements about us speaking German where the sun doesn't shine. I would have thought people would have had more respect for the 490,000 dead men and women who gave their lives so people like you can desecrate their memory ... Oh and one last thing. I have only worn my RAF beret and medals from '82 twice. And one of those was at Maggie's funeral. Leftie t**ts tried to shout us down but when she passed just as I came to attention a voice behind me said "Atten...Shun!" and so I carried on and saluted the greatest peacetime Prime Minister this country has ever known. And someone who those of us who went down there in '82 will honour and respect for all our days. The guys behind me were all from that time and two were guys I hadn't seen for 30 years. So don't tell ME and THEM she won't Rest In Peace. She did more for this country in 10 minutes than disrespectful t**ts like you will do in a bloody lifetime. " so the 'commie bastards' you rant about are not the same 'commies' from the USSR..? and by traitors do you mean the 'Cambridge five'..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ...You're a perfect personification of the grab all you can for yourself generation, who would trample over their grandmother for a pound in the road!! ...I really hope she isn't resting in peace. Oh remember without the commie bastards we'd now be speaking German FACT Now who is stereotyping? So I voice an opinion different to yours and I would trample my own Grandmother? And you expect us to take people like you seriously? So as some bright spark said above when he had nothing to challenge me on: "Q E D" Lefties like and the other fellah can only attack the person and not the message or discussion. I challenged your Leftie mate and he had NOTHING. You have offered NOTHING. And you conflate the terrific Russian soldiers in WWII with the traitors who would sell our country out for money? Really? And while the Russians contributed hugely they were only able to do that because we sent convoys to Murmansk with 3,000 Hurricanes, 5,000 tanks and artillery pieces and God knows what else. Materiel WE could have kept here and made OUR job easier. And no it wasn't Lend / Lease stuff either. And you really think we had nothing to do with the outcome of WWII? Really? We had more men and materiel fighting the Japs in '43 and '44 than the Yanks sent here for D Day and after. We had a Million men under arms fighting the Japs. Think we couldn't have used them in Europe? We killed 55,000 japs in one engagement at Kohima and similar elsewhere. Monty kicked Rommel out of Africa while Patton's buddies were having their arses handed to them at Kasserine Pass. And he rolled them half way up Italy before taking total command of D Day landings. A BRITISH planned and executed operation. So go and shove your wisecrack statements about us speaking German where the sun doesn't shine. I would have thought people would have had more respect for the 490,000 dead men and women who gave their lives so people like you can desecrate their memory ... Oh and one last thing. I have only worn my RAF beret and medals from '82 twice. And one of those was at Maggie's funeral. Leftie t**ts tried to shout us down but when she passed just as I came to attention a voice behind me said "Atten...Shun!" and so I carried on and saluted the greatest peacetime Prime Minister this country has ever known. And someone who those of us who went down there in '82 will honour and respect for all our days. The guys behind me were all from that time and two were guys I hadn't seen for 30 years. So don't tell ME and THEM she won't Rest In Peace. She did more for this country in 10 minutes than disrespectful t**ts like you will do in a bloody lifetime. " Great post. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" so the 'commie bastards' you rant about are not the same 'commies' from the USSR..? and by traitors do you mean the 'Cambridge five'..? " It would help our discussion if you could actually read when someone replies otherwise we get into a tedious round of repetition .. And yes the 'Cambridge 5' were commie bastard traitors just like half the TUC was in the 70s ... And for the sake of clarification I was referring to British traitors as 'bastards' and my use Grammar was totally accurate as they were Communists inter alia 'Commie bastards'. Now did I say ALL Communists were bastards? No I didn't. That was YOUR twisting of my correct use of English. Now your point WAS exactly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" so the 'commie bastards' you rant about are not the same 'commies' from the USSR..? and by traitors do you mean the 'Cambridge five'..? It would help our discussion if you could actually read when someone replies otherwise we get into a tedious round of repetition .. And yes the 'Cambridge 5' were commie bastard traitors just like half the TUC was in the 70s ... And for the sake of clarification I was referring to British traitors as 'bastards' and my use Grammar was totally accurate as they were Communists inter alia 'Commie bastards'. Now did I say ALL Communists were bastards? No I didn't. That was YOUR twisting of my correct use of English. Now your point WAS exactly?" 50% of the TUC were commies? No Chishy. I'm not having that, on this one you are wrong. It was the whole bloody lot of them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
