UK General Election 2015

[pingu393]

Scuffers said:

the more it goes on, the more I think that UKIP stand a pretty good chance of 25% of the vote and a decent haul of seats...

.

If UKIP had polled 25% of the vote in EVERY constituency in 2010, how many seats do you think they would have won?

Answer = 12.

The lowest percentage they would have needed to win one seat was 23% and that would have won them Norwich South.

23% = 1
24% = 4
25% = 12
26% = 29
27% = 58
28% = 112
29% = 172
30% = 236 (LARGEST PARTY)
31% = 318
31.1% = 325 (MAJORITY)

[Welshbeef]

So child benefit changes Tory's wanted to make

Limited to 2
1st reduced to the £13 same rate as the second
Stopped at 16yo
Means tested.


According to Lib Dems back in 2010.

I'd say it would have been far better to get rid of the current means tested but restrict to 2 and age limit of 16yo. Makes sense dead easy to administer.

[Axionknight]

Scrap it all together I say.

[speedy_thrills]

[redacted]

[Scuffers]

Axionknight said:

Scrap it all together I say.

This, along with childcare, etc. Use the savings to push up tax allowances.

My view is the state is not there to pay for you to breed, if you can't afford children, don't have them (its not a human right etc)

[Snozzwangler]

Scuffers said:

Axionknight said:

Scrap it all together I say.

This, along with childcare, etc. Use the savings to push up tax allowances.

My view is the state is not there to pay for you to breed, if you can't afford children, don't have them (its not a human right etc)

Yup I agree.

I have views on IVF when there are kids needing adoption too, but I won't derail us in that direction!!

[anonymous-user]

Scuffers said:

the more it goes on, the more I think that UKIP stand a pretty good chance of 25% of the vote and a decent haul of seats...

That's a joke, right?

[speedy_thrills]

Axionknight said:

Scrap it all together I say.

Sounds like a vote winner.

[anonymous-user]

Scuffers said:

This, along with childcare, etc. Use the savings to push up tax allowances.

My view is the state is not there to pay for you to breed, if you can't afford children, don't have them (its not a human right etc)

<sigh>

You know how the Catholic church works, don't you? Encourages breeding within Catholic families, thereby incresing the number of adherents to the Catholic faith. Pretty simple.

Governments need populations. Because populations pay tax.

Two easy ways to grow a population: immigration (which we all know you hate) and the fun way. Produce little people who will grow up into big strong strapping tax payers.

Makes sound economic sense to chuck a small amount of money at someone for 16 years, give or take, if it will encourage them to produce someone who will produce tax receipts for another 50 years or so. A loss-leader, if you will. You can even afford the production of a proportion of feckless layabouts on that model. Not ideal, but some won''t ruin the grand plan.

Besides which, as reproduction is arguably *the* purpose of living, it *is* a human right.

[Scuffers]

Snozzwangler said:

Scuffers said:

Axionknight said:

Scrap it all together I say.

This, along with childcare, etc. Use the savings to push up tax allowances.

My view is the state is not there to pay for you to breed, if you can't afford children, don't have them (its not a human right etc)

Yup I agree.

I have views on IVF when there are kids needing adoption too, but I won't derail us in that direction!!

to a point, I agree with you, there's IVF and IVF, I'm kind f OK with step 1 & 2 treatment, but after this it getting all a bit much.

speedy_thrills said:

Sounds like a vote winner.

can you imagine any party suggesting it? you would instantly have the mob baying for blood....

[speedy_thrills]

Scuffers said:

speedy_thrills said:

Sounds like a vote winner.

can you imagine any party suggesting it? you would instantly have the mob baying for blood....

That's what I enjoy about all these ideas about cutting this benefit or that tax, they are just so far out of touch with the views society generally takes it's very entertaining.

[HonestIago]

Greg66 said:

Scuffers said:

the more it goes on, the more I think that UKIP stand a pretty good chance of 25% of the vote and a decent haul of seats...

That's a joke, right?

I remember I was also mocked for a similar assertion. I think 25% is unlikely but 20% a distinct possibility. No comment on number of seats although whatever they get will be less than they deserve.

[turbobloke]

speedy_thrills said:

Scuffers said:

speedy_thrills said:

Sounds like a vote winner.

can you imagine any party suggesting it? you would instantly have the mob baying for blood....

That's what I enjoy about all these ideas about cutting this benefit or that tax, they are just so far out of touch with the views society generally takes it's very entertaining.

It'd be a vote loser for sure so speedy_thrills' irony is well-placed, but that's not to say it's out of touch with 'society'. In general such unpopularity is more likely to mean that sufficient people have been bought by a policy and now depend on it (or think they do) as to make any change too risky. Even with a majority of childless or financially non-dependent voters, numbers and the perception aspect still make for too much risk.

[Scuffers]

speedy_thrills said:

That's what I enjoy about all these ideas about cutting this benefit or that tax, they are just so far out of touch with the views society generally takes it's very entertaining.

I'm not sure that's true though.

the problem is that the greater society never speak, the vocal shouty socialists are all we here, show me the right wing equivalent of Bunny La Tw4t for example?

I think if you could get the message across cleanly and dispassionately, most people would agree with the philosophy of smaller government being way less involved in this stuff.

ie. cut all the odd benefits like child care, tax credits, etc, and thus reduce the need to tax people in the first place, the state is a really inefficient way to redistribute wealth as has been amply demonstrated over the last 50+ years.

Imaging if you could get to a system of scrapping NI, paying only income tax, with staring allowances of £20K.

no more state having to top up low pay, just so offset the taxes your leveling on people...

(Yes, I know this will never happen!)

[Axionknight]

Greg66 said:

<sigh>

You know how the Catholic church works, don't you? Encourages breeding within Catholic families, thereby incresing the number of adherents to the Catholic faith. Pretty simple.

Governments need populations. Because populations pay tax.

Two easy ways to grow a population: immigration (which we all know you hate) and the fun way. Produce little people who will grow up into big strong strapping tax payers.

Makes sound economic sense to chuck a small amount of money at someone for 16 years, give or take, if it will encourage them to produce someone who will produce tax receipts for another 50 years or so. A loss-leader, if you will. You can even afford the production of a proportion of feckless layabouts on that model. Not ideal, but some won''t ruin the grand plan.

Besides which, as reproduction is arguably *the* purpose of living, it *is* a human right.

So society is a breeding based, never ending ponzi scheme?

Doomed, doooooooomed I tells ya!!

[Scuffers]

Axionknight said:

So society is a breeding based, never ending ponzi scheme?

Precisely....

Here's a question, what do people think the realistic number is for the UK to be full/overcrowded?

bear in mind the Supermarkets already think there are some 70M people in the UK.

[Axionknight]

[redacted]

[speedy_thrills]

Scuffers said:

Imaging if you could get to a system of scrapping NI, paying only income tax, with staring allowances of £20K.

I see...to be honest though I'm not sure it's an idea people will buy into.

[Esseesse]

Scuffers said:

Axionknight said:

So society is a breeding based, never ending ponzi scheme?

Precisely....

Here's a question, what do people think the realistic number is for the UK to be full/overcrowded?

bear in mind the Supermarkets already think there are some 70M people in the UK.

IIRC once upon a time it was thought that the UK could sustain around 40M I think? So perhaps with modern farming techniques, 50M?

[Scuffers]

speedy_thrills said:

Scuffers said:

Imaging if you could get to a system of scrapping NI, paying only income tax, with staring allowances of £20K.

I see...to be honest though I'm not sure it's an idea people will buy into.

and that's the problem.

we have brought up two generations of people that know nothing else than state funded everything.

the point in a vastly simplified state is that it then consumes far less money, this to total tax burden on the country is massively reduced, people then get to keep what they earn and do not see living off the state as an option.

Just add up all the taxes you pay every year, in direct (income, NI, council tax, etc) and indirect (VAT, duties, prescription charges, parking, road fund licence, etc).

how much of this money goes towards the administration of collecting it? (just how much money do CAP/Capita/Serco/etc make?)

it's non productive, it;s an overhead to the country we simply don't need or can afford.

we need firemen/Police/nurses/doctors/binmen/social services/etc. ie. the people that actually do jobs that society needs/demands, show me the need for DVLA (in it's current form), or a huge chunk of HMRC.