Why the UKIP will never work....
Discussion
FiF said:
sidicks said:
I think it's great - it's showing up those who are most vociferously anti-UKIP for what they are - ignorant simpletons!
Upon reflection I can understand that viewpoint. In reality you may have been too complimentary of their intelligence. NicD said:
you can argue all you like that your flip, sarcastic comments are valid, doesn't make it so.
I absolutely stand by mine.
'We will resource fully our military assets and personnel.' means exactly what it says,and certainly NOT 'nonsense' or 'nothing'
How can 'Schools will be investigated by OFSTED on the presentation of a petition to the Department for Education signed by 25% of parents or governors' be irrelevant? Irrelevant to what?
You need to learn some precision with language if you want to be taken seriously.
Ok, lets examine those I though they were obvious, but evidently no.I absolutely stand by mine.
'We will resource fully our military assets and personnel.' means exactly what it says,and certainly NOT 'nonsense' or 'nothing'
How can 'Schools will be investigated by OFSTED on the presentation of a petition to the Department for Education signed by 25% of parents or governors' be irrelevant? Irrelevant to what?
You need to learn some precision with language if you want to be taken seriously.
"We will resource fully our military assets and personnel.". So on face value that means that every military programme and every member of staff has a budget allocated that is sufficient to meet the anticipated demands. That is true now, it is true by definition, because programmes are not agreed until the budget is allocated. So if that is what the statement means then it is irrelevant. If it means that the military will get everything they want, then that would be a blatant lie, because that will never be the case. So what else can it mean? Please do explain it
"How can 'Schools will be investigated by OFSTED on the presentation of a petition to the Department for Education signed by 25% of parents or governors' be irrelevant? Irrelevant to what?"
As I have already said, schools are investigated by OFSTED on request of far less than 25% of parents. Indeed I have linked to an article that identifies that schools have been investigated on the complaints of less than 1% pf parents. So either UKIP is proposing to make less OFSTED less responsive to parents complains (in which case I think most would disagree with it); or it is irrelevant as it will not change existing practice
Precise enough?
JustAnotherLogin said:
FiF said:
sidicks said:
I think it's great - it's showing up those who are most vociferously anti-UKIP for what they are - ignorant simpletons!
Upon reflection I can understand that viewpoint. In reality you may have been too complimentary of their intelligence. Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 23 November 21:56
JustAnotherLogin said:
NicD said:
you can argue all you like that your flip, sarcastic comments are valid, doesn't make it so.
I absolutely stand by mine.
'We will resource fully our military assets and personnel.' means exactly what it says,and certainly NOT 'nonsense' or 'nothing'
How can 'Schools will be investigated by OFSTED on the presentation of a petition to the Department for Education signed by 25% of parents or governors' be irrelevant? Irrelevant to what?
You need to learn some precision with language if you want to be taken seriously.
Ok, lets examine those I though they were obvious, but evidently no.I absolutely stand by mine.
'We will resource fully our military assets and personnel.' means exactly what it says,and certainly NOT 'nonsense' or 'nothing'
How can 'Schools will be investigated by OFSTED on the presentation of a petition to the Department for Education signed by 25% of parents or governors' be irrelevant? Irrelevant to what?
You need to learn some precision with language if you want to be taken seriously.
"We will resource fully our military assets and personnel.". So on face value that means that every military programme and every member of staff has a budget allocated that is sufficient to meet the anticipated demands. That is true now, it is true by definition, because programmes are not agreed until the budget is allocated. So if that is what the statement means then it is irrelevant. If it means that the military will get everything they want, then that would be a blatant lie, because that will never be the case. So what else can it mean? Please do explain it
"How can 'Schools will be investigated by OFSTED on the presentation of a petition to the Department for Education signed by 25% of parents or governors' be irrelevant? Irrelevant to what?"
As I have already said, schools are investigated by OFSTED on request of far less than 25% of parents. Indeed I have linked to an article that identifies that schools have been investigated on the complaints of less than 1% pf parents. So either UKIP is proposing to make less OFSTED less responsive to parents complains (in which case I think most would disagree with it); or it is irrelevant as it will not change existing practice
Precise enough?
You were quick to criticise me before. And you assured me that I was wrong. Any comment on these? Or shall I move on to start picking apart other UKIP policies?
JustAnotherLogin said:
Or shall I move on to start picking apart other UKIP policies?
Well you'd be saving me a job 
When I read the UKIP manifesto posted on this thread yesterday, my initial thought was to pick it apart line by line. The I decided that life was probably too short to bother posting something that was only going to get the odd rolleyes smilie and a few insults from the usual suspects.
So I shall just say this - Manifesto pledges which appear might save some money:
– UKIP will leave the EU and save at least £8bn pa in net contributions.
– UKIP will cut the foreign aid budget by £9bn pa
– UKIP will scrap the HS2 project
– UKIP will abolish the Department of Energy and Climate Change and scrap green subsidies.
– UKIP will abolish the Department for Culture Media and Sport
– UKIP will reduce Barnett Formula spending
–We will ensure that visitors to the UK have NHS-approved private health insurance as a condition of entry to the UK, saving the NHS £2bn pa
– UKIP will require foreign vehicles to purchase a Britdisc
– Migrants will only be eligible for benefits (in work or out of work) when they have been paying tax and NI for five years
– Child benefit is only to be paid to children permanently resident in the UK and future child benefit to be limited to the first two children only
Manifesto pledges that are likely to cost money and, in some cases, rather a lot of it (those are emboldened below)
– UKIP will increase personal allowance to the level of full-time minimum wage earnings (approx £13,500 by next election).
– Inheritance tax will be abolished.
– We will introduce a 35p income tax rate between £42,285 and £55,000, whereupon the 40p rate becomes payable.
– Subject to academic performance UKIP will remove tuition fees
– We will resource fully our military assets and personnel.
– All entitlements will be extended to servicemen recruited from overseas.
– UKIP opposes the sale of NHS data to third parties.
– UKIP opposes the bedroom tax
– UKIP believes that full sentences should be served and this should be taken into account when criminals are convicted and sentenced in court
Manifesto pledges which, on the face of it, appear to contradict each other or require other countries to accept all the UK's demands to the potential detriment of their own national interest:
– We would negotiate a bespoke trade agreement with the EU
– UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour
– We would reoccupy the UK’s vacant seat at the World Trade Organisation
– UKIP will leave the Common Fisheries Policy and reinstate British territorial waters.
Manifesto pledges which are likely to lead to the UK having a similar international standing to Zimbabwe or North Korea:
– UKIP will withdraw from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.
– UKIP will not give prisoners the vote.
– We will repeal the Human Rights Act
To make the books balance, I presume that he areas of cost savings work in a "Big Pound" unit of currency whilst the new expenditure areas have a "Little Pound" currency unit, because you ain't gonna make enough savings to pay for the additional expenditure otherwise.
But then, what do I know? I'm only an ignorant communist
You need to brush up on your history, https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-righ... as leaving the ECHR would not turn us in to a North Korea or Zimbabwe. Britain established the concept of human rights so show some more respect for your country.
rs1952 said:
Well you'd be saving me a job
When I read the UKIP manifesto posted on this thread yesterday, my initial thought was to pick it apart line by line. The I decided that life was probably too short to bother posting something that was only going to get the odd rolleyes smilie and a few insults from the usual suspects.
So I shall just say this - Manifesto pledges which appear might save some money:
– UKIP will leave the EU and save at least £8bn pa in net contributions.
– UKIP will cut the foreign aid budget by £9bn pa
– UKIP will scrap the HS2 project
– UKIP will abolish the Department of Energy and Climate Change and scrap green subsidies.
– UKIP will abolish the Department for Culture Media and Sport
– UKIP will reduce Barnett Formula spending
–We will ensure that visitors to the UK have NHS-approved private health insurance as a condition of entry to the UK, saving the NHS £2bn pa
– UKIP will require foreign vehicles to purchase a Britdisc
– Migrants will only be eligible for benefits (in work or out of work) when they have been paying tax and NI for five years
– Child benefit is only to be paid to children permanently resident in the UK and future child benefit to be limited to the first two children only
Manifesto pledges that are likely to cost money and, in some cases, rather a lot of it (those are emboldened below)
– UKIP will increase personal allowance to the level of full-time minimum wage earnings (approx £13,500 by next election).
– Inheritance tax will be abolished.
– We will introduce a 35p income tax rate between £42,285 and £55,000, whereupon the 40p rate becomes payable.
– Subject to academic performance UKIP will remove tuition fees
– We will resource fully our military assets and personnel.
– All entitlements will be extended to servicemen recruited from overseas.
– UKIP opposes the sale of NHS data to third parties.
– UKIP opposes the bedroom tax
– UKIP believes that full sentences should be served and this should be taken into account when criminals are convicted and sentenced in court
Manifesto pledges which, on the face of it, appear to contradict each other or require other countries to accept all the UK's demands to the potential detriment of their own national interest:
– We would negotiate a bespoke trade agreement with the EU
– UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour
– We would reoccupy the UK’s vacant seat at the World Trade Organisation
– UKIP will leave the Common Fisheries Policy and reinstate British territorial waters.
Manifesto pledges which are likely to lead to the UK having a similar international standing to Zimbabwe or North Korea:
– UKIP will withdraw from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.
– UKIP will not give prisoners the vote.
– We will repeal the Human Rights Act
To make the books balance, I presume that he areas of cost savings work in a "Big Pound" unit of currency whilst the new expenditure areas have a "Little Pound" currency unit, because you ain't gonna make enough savings to pay for the additional expenditure otherwise.
But then, what do I know? I'm only an ignorant communist
I am not clever enough to work out the costings but how can I not vote for a party with a manifesto that I agree with 100%?...IMO some things are not just about money.. but then what do I know? I'm just an uneducated, left behind kipper that want's the UK to have control over what it does and how it does it. When I read the UKIP manifesto posted on this thread yesterday, my initial thought was to pick it apart line by line. The I decided that life was probably too short to bother posting something that was only going to get the odd rolleyes smilie and a few insults from the usual suspects.
So I shall just say this - Manifesto pledges which appear might save some money:
– UKIP will leave the EU and save at least £8bn pa in net contributions.
– UKIP will cut the foreign aid budget by £9bn pa
– UKIP will scrap the HS2 project
– UKIP will abolish the Department of Energy and Climate Change and scrap green subsidies.
– UKIP will abolish the Department for Culture Media and Sport
– UKIP will reduce Barnett Formula spending
–We will ensure that visitors to the UK have NHS-approved private health insurance as a condition of entry to the UK, saving the NHS £2bn pa
– UKIP will require foreign vehicles to purchase a Britdisc
– Migrants will only be eligible for benefits (in work or out of work) when they have been paying tax and NI for five years
– Child benefit is only to be paid to children permanently resident in the UK and future child benefit to be limited to the first two children only
Manifesto pledges that are likely to cost money and, in some cases, rather a lot of it (those are emboldened below)
– UKIP will increase personal allowance to the level of full-time minimum wage earnings (approx £13,500 by next election).
– Inheritance tax will be abolished.
– We will introduce a 35p income tax rate between £42,285 and £55,000, whereupon the 40p rate becomes payable.
– Subject to academic performance UKIP will remove tuition fees
– We will resource fully our military assets and personnel.
– All entitlements will be extended to servicemen recruited from overseas.
– UKIP opposes the sale of NHS data to third parties.
– UKIP opposes the bedroom tax
– UKIP believes that full sentences should be served and this should be taken into account when criminals are convicted and sentenced in court
Manifesto pledges which, on the face of it, appear to contradict each other or require other countries to accept all the UK's demands to the potential detriment of their own national interest:
– We would negotiate a bespoke trade agreement with the EU
– UKIP would not seek to remain in the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) or European Economic Area (EEA) while those treaties maintain a principle of free movement of labour
– We would reoccupy the UK’s vacant seat at the World Trade Organisation
– UKIP will leave the Common Fisheries Policy and reinstate British territorial waters.
Manifesto pledges which are likely to lead to the UK having a similar international standing to Zimbabwe or North Korea:
– UKIP will withdraw from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.
– UKIP will not give prisoners the vote.
– We will repeal the Human Rights Act
To make the books balance, I presume that he areas of cost savings work in a "Big Pound" unit of currency whilst the new expenditure areas have a "Little Pound" currency unit, because you ain't gonna make enough savings to pay for the additional expenditure otherwise.
But then, what do I know? I'm only an ignorant communist
At some point in the next few months, I expect UKIP to implode due to the tax/spend promises, coupled with policy making on the hoof and the contradictions in its libertarian/authoritarian/protect workers/free up businesses policies and rhetoric. There will be huge scrutiny on their policies coming up to the election.
They have managed to get more people engaged politically - a good thing I think. I think it's great that people feel they have a chance to be heard. The current FPP system disenfranchises and disillusions so many. Does UKIP support PR?
They have managed to get more people engaged politically - a good thing I think. I think it's great that people feel they have a chance to be heard. The current FPP system disenfranchises and disillusions so many. Does UKIP support PR?
mrpurple said:
I am not clever enough to work out the costings but how can I not vote for a party with a manifesto that I agree with 100%?..
Nor is the OP!Neither (I suspect) has he bothered to do so for the party he supports...!
Further, he appears not to understand that increased tax free allowances mean lower benefits, so the net cost is much lower. Plus of course, other changes to taxes (and other spending) could result in increased tax income due to less need for people to try and avoid paying for things they don't support....
sidicks said:
mrpurple said:
I am not clever enough to work out the costings but how can I not vote for a party with a manifesto that I agree with 100%?..
Nor is the OP!Neither (I suspect) has he bothered to do so for the party he supports...!
Further, he appears not to understand that increased tax free allowances mean lower benefits, so the net cost is much lower. Plus of course, other changes to taxes (and other spending) could result in increased tax income due to less need for people to try and avoid paying for things they don't support....
UKIPs entire tax/spend ethos is regressive, it's designed to make poor people poorer by increasing their tax burden to ease the tax burden on the middle classes and rich whilst at the same time reducing public spending which disproportionately helps those on low income.
Cutting public spending means a worse NHS, higher crime, fewer social workers, fewer community action initiatives and poorer education for the countries less well off.
That's the long and short of it.
mrpurple said:
I am not clever enough to work out the costings but how can I not vote for a party with a manifesto that I agree with 100%?...IMO some things are not just about money.. but then what do I know? I'm just an uneducated, left behind kipper that want's the UK to have control over what it does and how it does it.
Because they're either economically illiterate or they're lying. In some respects it's no different to the Labour Party promising their core voters the earth using Fairy Dust money.ETA Im going to impose the Audi tax on prisoners and illegal immigrants. This will be used to buy everybody an Audi A6 2.7tdi. Please vote for me.
Edited by Countdown on Monday 24th November 12:26
Countdown said:
ETA Im going to impose the Audi tax on prisoners and illegal immigrants. This will be used to buy everybody an Audi A6 2.7tdi. Please vote for me.
That's almost as bad as Apple forcing U2 on people - at least I could avoid that one as I don't use their products. You've just lost my vote..Edited by Countdown on Monday 24th November 12:26
sidicks said:
FredClogs said:
Oh well fair play, I thought they wanted to go down the flat rate route, I must admit I'm not up to date with there manifesto pledges, do you have a link? seems a few people on here would be daft enough to follow them down the flat rate route though.
How will they finance these tax cuts?
Still waiting for your explanation as to how s flat tax system plus tax free allowance is regressive...How will they finance these tax cuts?
In what way is the below regressive?
Assume a flat rate of tax of 30% on all income above £10,000.
Person 1 earns £12,000 - (minimum wage) they pay £600 in income tax
Person 2 earns £27,000 - (median wage) they pay £4,500 (7.5 times as much tax as min wage)
Person 3 earns £50,000 - they pay £12,000 (20 times as much as min wage)
Person 4 earns £100,000 - they pay £27,000 (45 times as much as min wage)
Person 5 earns £1,000,000 - they pay £297,000 (495 times as much as min wage)
FredClogs said:
So you'd give with one hand and take away with the other - people are very wise to that sort of bull, even those on low incomes.
Exactly the opposite - Quite why you think that it is a good idea to make people of minimum wage pay income tax and then give some of that back in benefits is beyond most rationale people.FredClogs said:
UKIPs entire tax/spend ethos is regressive, it's designed to make poor people poorer by increasing their tax burden to ease the tax burden on the middle classes and rich whilst at the same time reducing public spending which disproportionately helps those on low income.
You've already proved that you don't understand what 'regressive' means....FredClogs said:
Cutting public spending means a worse NHS, higher crime, fewer social workers, fewer community action initiatives and poorer education for the countries less well off.
No it doesn't. It's how you spend and what you spend it on that matters, not how much you spend. I'm afraid you simply fall for stupid 'throw money at the problem' rhetoric.FredClogs said:
That's the long and short of it.
As ever, you are far from being even remotely correct.oyster said:
+1
In what way is the below regressive?
Assume a flat rate of tax of 30% on all income above £10,000.
Person 1 earns £12,000 - (minimum wage) they pay £600 in income tax
Person 2 earns £27,000 - (median wage) they pay £4,500 (7.5 times as much tax as min wage)
Person 3 earns £50,000 - they pay £12,000 (20 times as much as min wage)
Person 4 earns £100,000 - they pay £27,000 (45 times as much as min wage)
Person 5 earns £1,000,000 - they pay £297,000 (495 times as much as min wage)
It's regressive compared to the current system because it moves the tax burden from those who are currently paying 40%+ to those who are currently paying 20%In what way is the below regressive?
Assume a flat rate of tax of 30% on all income above £10,000.
Person 1 earns £12,000 - (minimum wage) they pay £600 in income tax
Person 2 earns £27,000 - (median wage) they pay £4,500 (7.5 times as much tax as min wage)
Person 3 earns £50,000 - they pay £12,000 (20 times as much as min wage)
Person 4 earns £100,000 - they pay £27,000 (45 times as much as min wage)
Person 5 earns £1,000,000 - they pay £297,000 (495 times as much as min wage)
oyster said:
sidicks said:
FredClogs said:
Oh well fair play, I thought they wanted to go down the flat rate route, I must admit I'm not up to date with there manifesto pledges, do you have a link? seems a few people on here would be daft enough to follow them down the flat rate route though.
How will they finance these tax cuts?
Still waiting for your explanation as to how s flat tax system plus tax free allowance is regressive...How will they finance these tax cuts?
In what way is the below regressive?
Assume a flat rate of tax of 30% on all income above £10,000.
Person 1 earns £12,000 - (minimum wage) they pay £600 in income tax
Person 2 earns £27,000 - (median wage) they pay £4,500 (7.5 times as much tax as min wage)
Person 3 earns £50,000 - they pay £12,000 (20 times as much as min wage)
Person 4 earns £100,000 - they pay £27,000 (45 times as much as min wage)
Person 5 earns £1,000,000 - they pay £297,000 (495 times as much as min wage)
We have a staggered tax system, as does every developed nation, because it prevents run away wealth at the top end and in a democracy that will always be supported.
This is now a moot conversation as I've already been corrected that even UKIP policy makers have seen the error of their own stupidity and removed the suggestion from their manifesto (even if some of their boys on here seem still willing to support the idea).
FredClogs said:
Of course changing to a flat tax system from our current one is regressive, it would increase the burden on the lowest incomes whilst reducing the tax burden on the highest earners, unless the exchequer is content with taking a massive reduction in the overall amount collected.
You appear to be ignorant of how a tax free allowance works....FredClogs said:
Any system which assumes everyone pay the same rate regardless of their wealth is designed only to help the wealthy and hence the poor poorer.
We have a staggered tax system, as does every developed nation, because it prevents run away wealth at the top end and in a democracy that will always be supported.
This is now a moot conversation as I've already been corrected that even UKIP policy makers have seen the error of their own stupidity and removed the suggestion from their manifesto (even if some of their boys on here seem still willing to support the idea).
Everyone doesn't pay the same rate though due to the tax free allowance, so once again you are wrong.We have a staggered tax system, as does every developed nation, because it prevents run away wealth at the top end and in a democracy that will always be supported.
This is now a moot conversation as I've already been corrected that even UKIP policy makers have seen the error of their own stupidity and removed the suggestion from their manifesto (even if some of their boys on here seem still willing to support the idea).
It seems you are desperate for the lowest paid workers to pay income tax and then need an inefficient benefits system to top up those wages, creating an inevitable poverty trap and costly administration burden.
I'm not sure how you can support this...
Edited by sidicks on Monday 24th November 12:56
sidicks said:
FredClogs said:
Of course changing to a flat tax system from our current one is regressive, it would increase the burden on the lowest incomes whilst reducing the tax burden on the highest earners, unless the exchequer is content with taking a massive reduction in the overall amount collected. Any system which assumes everyone pay the same rate regardless of their wealth is designed only to help the wealthy and hence the poor poorer.
We have a staggered tax system, as does every developed nation, because it prevents run away wealth at the top end and in a democracy that will always be supported.
This is now a moot conversation as I've already been corrected that even UKIP policy makers have seen the error of their own stupidity and removed the suggestion from their manifesto (even if some of their boys on here seem still willing to support the idea).
Everyone doesn't pay the same rate though due to the tax free allowance, so once again you are wrong.We have a staggered tax system, as does every developed nation, because it prevents run away wealth at the top end and in a democracy that will always be supported.
This is now a moot conversation as I've already been corrected that even UKIP policy makers have seen the error of their own stupidity and removed the suggestion from their manifesto (even if some of their boys on here seem still willing to support the idea).
It seems you are desperate for the lowest paid workers to pay income tax and then need an inefficient benefits system to top up those wages, creating an inevitable poverty trap and costly administration burden.
I'm not sure how you can support this...
All this 'the richest x % pay the x% of all the tax' is rubbish. We have a system where low wages/zero hour contracts are supplemented by the state through additional benefits raised by those same taxes which could have been given in salary in the first place.
Yazar said:
All this 'the richest x % pay the x% of all the tax' is rubbish. We have a system where low wages/zero hour contracts are supplemented by the state through additional benefits raised by those same taxes which could have been given in salary in the first place.
Additionally, the government taxes minimum wage workers and then (often) needs to give some of that money back - why not just not tax them in the first place?? The minimum wage would be at or above the living wage if the government didn't tax these workers so heavily in the first place!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff