Discussion
Just been watching him on the telly, extolling the virtues of himself the union. I think he looks much more statesman like and is a great orator. I think he could make a good PM and much needed change for the (r)Uk in the next election. Ignoring the way he plotted against his own brother, what do others think?
benjj said:
I've said before that if that lisping, cretinous rubber faced retard is ever voted into power by a fair election I'll pack up and leave.
I'm a soft tory who believes in fair representation so have nothing against a labour government...
...but that man is a platinum
who would make us the laughing stock of the world. I wouldn't feel proud if he was my local postman, let alone PM.
8/10 excellent rant, made me laugh. I'm a soft tory who believes in fair representation so have nothing against a labour government...
...but that man is a platinum
who would make us the laughing stock of the world. I wouldn't feel proud if he was my local postman, let alone PM.
He is a brilliant man, a visionary, a trailblazer and a genius. He's a brilliant sportsman, having beaten Putin at bareback topless riding, bear wrestling and having beaten Kim Jong Un at crazy golf.
It is also a fact that Ed does not have a brother, 'David' was simply a spectral result of an excess of Ed's charisma and potential manifesting itself in a human form.
It is also a fact that Ed does not have a brother, 'David' was simply a spectral result of an excess of Ed's charisma and potential manifesting itself in a human form.
legzr1 said:
I'll answer honestly, no axe to grind, no envy or chip on the shoulder...
1. Income Tax - Flat Rate (with low earners taken entirely out until a fair level is earned) - 40% would do fine as a percentage plucked out of thin air.
2. In times of need, those most able to pay should pay - a flat rate should mean a greater incentive to jump from (for I.e) £600K to £1.4M if the opportunity arises.
The caveat being you'll shut your greedy traps and pay the 1% in mansion tax when push comes to shove.
Isn't 1. going to squeeze low to middle earners and benefit high earners? 1. Income Tax - Flat Rate (with low earners taken entirely out until a fair level is earned) - 40% would do fine as a percentage plucked out of thin air.
2. In times of need, those most able to pay should pay - a flat rate should mean a greater incentive to jump from (for I.e) £600K to £1.4M if the opportunity arises.
The caveat being you'll shut your greedy traps and pay the 1% in mansion tax when push comes to shove.
Someone who earns below the 40% tax band will pay more tax, as their rate will increase to 40%. Unless you take all of them out of income tax altogether. In which case you probably won't have enough tax receipts.
Someone who is in the 40% tax band will pay more tax, as the parts of their income which are tax free and taxed at the standard rate will now be taxed at 40%.
Someone who is into the 45% tax band will pay less tax, once the removal of their standard rate allowance is compensated for by a reduction from 45% to 40% on earnings in the 45% band. Someone earning well into the 45% band will see a big tax saving.
You sure that's what you want?
And in 2, you say "most able to pay". So if someone on an income of £1m has set themselves up with a lifestyle that means that their net of tax income is committed to various types of expenditure, you'd agree that they are not in the "most able to pay" group. Unlike say someone on £40k pa who is frugal and able to put quite a lot into a saving account every year. They've got spare money, so they are in the "most able to pay group".
Is that what you mean?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think many higher earners resent being told that they are not paying their fair share, and must pay more, when they are paying the most in absolute and percentage terms. "Fair" in that context seems to be "a fair amount that the Government thinks you should be allowed to retain from what you mistakenly think is your income", rather than "a fair amount that you should contribute from your income".
hornetrider said:
johnxjsc1985 said:
My nightmare which will not go away at least until may is PM ED Miliband, Chancellor ED Balls
and King.... Charles. What a trio .
Have we had an athiest PM before?
Don't forget Deputy PM Alex fand King.... Charles. What a trio .
Have we had an athiest PM before?
king Salmond.I think I'd actually emigrate.
TEKNOPUG said:
It’s a sad reflection on the intelligence of society that previous governments have bribed the electorate with their own money. Now they are borrowing money to bribe the electorate with their children’s and grandchildren’s money and still the public lap it up.
If I was to say to someone directly, “vote for me and I’ll give you £5000. By the way, I’ve taken out a £5k loan in your child’s name that they’ll have to pay back in the future, plus interest….” I suspect that they may actually question my actions and consider their voting options.
This, in spades. And it's a point that the Tories have repeatedly failed to articulate properly. The policies espoused by the SNP, Greens and Plaid last night will come at a heavy price for the next few generations.If I was to say to someone directly, “vote for me and I’ll give you £5000. By the way, I’ve taken out a £5k loan in your child’s name that they’ll have to pay back in the future, plus interest….” I suspect that they may actually question my actions and consider their voting options.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff