Snap General Election?
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
In the long term, the national; interest is synonymous with personal interest. What is the point in voting for a party that promises milk and honey all for free in the short term, but which will destroy the country overall in the long term?
And in another one of those u-turn thingies, after his nuclear / terrorism / brexit u-turns, Corbyn agrees!
"we're all better off when everybody is better off"
That deep thought, that philosophical gem, was followed by "we're all inside ths studio when we're all inside the studio". Genius at work.
Corbyn. Plonker.
That's what most people do.
But it's important that you acknowledge that it is a belief, and not an objective truth.
Moonhawk said:
joshcowin said:
Just to be clear, I will pay £4,500 in this garden tax, the company I work for will more than likely cease to trade, I am mid 20's I will have to sell my house no doubt at a reduced sum, find another Job at a lower pay bracket all because I work hard and play by the rules, doesn't sound great, I'm sure there will be thousands of people in this position. Scary week ahead
It could also damage the building trade.I have a house worth £250k and have some savings. I decide to spend those savings extending the house. This will theoretically increase the value of my house - but my income remains the same.
Under Labour's LVT - that increase in the value of the house now attracts a larger annual charge, but my ability to pay hasn't increased and my overall wealth probably hasn't increased by a significant amount if the increase in property value is only equal to the money spent on it.
How many people would think twice about having "home improvement" work done.
joshcowin said:
This is my exact point, I work for a local building company employing 12 people, the company will cease to exist. I will be out of work, unable to afford my house, have no where to live, become dependant on the state for housing, its just mad.
Comrade, you have nothing to worry about. The state will provide all you need. Report to Potato Field 16543 at 0400 for the annual harvest.footnote said:
turbobloke said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
In the long term, the national; interest is synonymous with personal interest. What is the point in voting for a party that promises milk and honey all for free in the short term, but which will destroy the country overall in the long term?
And in another one of those u-turn thingies, after his nuclear / terrorism / brexit u-turns, Corbyn agrees!
"we're all better off when everybody is better off"
That deep thought, that philosophical gem, was followed by "we're all inside ths studio when we're all inside the studio". Genius at work.
Corbyn. Plonker.
As before I can't speak for PPP and this repetition is likely to be waste of time as it's clearly beyond your comprehension level, but as already posted I vote for the least worst option for the country in terms of an objective assessment around track records, manifestos and PM implications.
essayer said:
joshcowin said:
This is my exact point, I work for a local building company employing 12 people, the company will cease to exist. I will be out of work, unable to afford my house, have no where to live, become dependant on the state for housing, its just mad.
Comrade, you have nothing to worry about. The state will provide all you need. Report to Potato Field 16543 at 0400 for the annual harvest.
Tuna said:
Yipper said:
Tories lost more ground overnight, after the TV debate. Projected seats have fallen another -10%.
If you add up all of Yipper's posts, the Tories are currently on minus three hundred seats. 
footnote said:
wormus said:
Tories are for those who want to look after themselves where Labour is for those who want to be looked after. It's always been thus.
But why is that put forward as the most desirable objective in a society where more people than ever need looking after by other people? Your children, your parents and grandparents and so on - should they just be left to look after themselves too?
And if they can't, should we just take the view that, well they had all the same opportunities as me, so tough luck if they don't make the best of it
They feel entitled to what the `rich' have, but don't want to take the same risks, or work as hard/intelligently as those who have acquired whatever wealth they have., and feel it should be just be handed to them on a plate.
Not happy to be in a low paid job, or no job at all? then do something about it, but expect to have to work very hard for whatever is achieved , or do you think the person who sweeps the factory yard, is really worth the same as the person who created the factory and all the jobs in it?
The world owes no one a living, so don't expect to be handed one. But all too often the labour supporter wants the same wealth as the `rich' whilst having no real idea what those who achieve wealth did to acquire it.
There is nothing stopping anyone in this country, from the poorest from achieving any level of wealth they might desire, other than their own intelligence, and work ethic. Being poor does not mean a person is unintelligent. being poor does not mean they cannot rise above the position they were handed in the first place. It just takes the correct mind set, but all too often the labour supporter does not have the correct mind set, and just plays the victim card/its someone all else`s fault, at the first sign of difficulty.
wormus said:
footnote said:
But why is that put forward as the most desirable objective in a society where more people than ever need looking after by other people?
Your children, your parents and grandparents and so on - should they just be left to look after themselves too?
And if they can't, should we just take the view that, well they had all the same opportunities as me, so tough luck if they don't make the best of it
No argument we should look after society's most vulnerable but it's no good to do nothing yourself and just look to somebody else to sort it out for you. I already pay for my children, and my parents have houses they can sell to pay for their own care if required. I don't expect to inherit anything and that's fine.Your children, your parents and grandparents and so on - should they just be left to look after themselves too?
And if they can't, should we just take the view that, well they had all the same opportunities as me, so tough luck if they don't make the best of it
The top 5% already pay a lot in tax (my personal contribution was £60k in FY17). The answer isn't to expect an ever smaller % of the population to carry everyone else. Everyone has a responsibility to make the most of the opportunities open to them. Too many "victims" in today's society where it's considered poverty not to have the latest iPhone.
As Norman Tebbit said, more people need to "get on their bikes."
I haven't said we should all be allowed to stay at home watching telly and eating grapes while wormus earns all the money for us.
Do you think the woman who'll have to wipe your parents' arses (whether they have their own houses or not) or your kids arses is only worth the least you can get away with paying her?
Does that make her a muppet who hasn't made the most of her opportunities or should she go on strike and let you get your hands dirty until you pay her the most you're able to pay - so that she's paying £60k in tax?
Chucking about Daily Mail truisms isn't helpful.
Like all media, it just exists to make money for itself.
It's not there to deliver actual truth to you, but if you buy it when it gives you stories that agree with you then it will keep giving you stories that agree with you.
If you want a better car, you acknowledge you will pay a higher price.
If you want better schools or hospitals, or elderly care, then we will all pay a higher price - more tax.
What's the problem with that? The problem is when you come up against the 'Party of Low taxation' then it doesn't compute.
Because you can't have better and pay less - and you can't keep saying that it's badly managed because every party has had a go at fixing it and they've all failed because maybe it's not actually broken and maybe we should just admit it costs a lot of money and it's going to cost a lot more and that's life because if you want better cars, or bigger houses then like better healthcare - it just cosst more - so tax has to go up.
I don't have a problem with that - it seems self-evident.
If you don't want that then the alternative is individual private health care and most people can't afford that so we're back at square one.
Burwood said:
But tenants or owners will have to pay somehow. Unless of course[b] there is massive over supply of housing, which there isn't.[b/]
Well, there will be when the Garden tax bleeds everyone dry and they have to sell up and prices are driven downwards because after all, who's going to buy a property if there's a £x annual Garden Tax?stew-S160 said:
I'm thinking of an metaphor for the two main parties-
Labour- fairies, unicorns, mermaids, magical stuff and we will fight the evil wicked witch.
Tory- fairies and all that stuff isn't real. Deal with it. Times will be hard. Stand on your own two feet.
Am I missing anything?
Labour- fairies, unicorns, mermaids, magical stuff and we will fight the evil wicked witch.Labour- fairies, unicorns, mermaids, magical stuff and we will fight the evil wicked witch.
Tory- fairies and all that stuff isn't real. Deal with it. Times will be hard. Stand on your own two feet.
Am I missing anything?
Tory- fairies and all that stuff isn't real. Deal with it. Times will be hard. Stand on your own two feet.
LibDems - the cool uncle, have some legal drugs and love everyone (in Europe)
Green Party - Gruffalos (fortunately there is only one. Or none). We make Corbyn look sane. Oh and one of our leaders supported the Brighton Bombing. But we are nice really. Free lentils.
skahigh said:
This would cost me something like an extra £4k per year in tax compared to council tax, this would have a significant impact on our lives.
On the other hand, the Conservatives want to destroy my profession if this is to be believed.
http://www.itcontractor.com/theresa-may-abolish-co...
Some choice I have in this election.
That article is a bit hysterical, but if I were a company that employed contractors I'd be very worried. A big part of the Conservative approach to contractors is to push the burden of regulation onto the company that takes them on. The theory is that it will stop those nasty contractors from doing all that sneaky tax stuff that happens when you're running a business.On the other hand, the Conservatives want to destroy my profession if this is to be believed.
http://www.itcontractor.com/theresa-may-abolish-co...
Some choice I have in this election.
In practise, it's going to mire big companies in treacle, as they have to jump through hoops over contract and temporary staff.
The warning signs are already there - they started with public sector contracts and have already seen departments loose staff, hasty attempts to apply blanket exemptions and total confusion over workers' status. The election has distracted a lot of people from the size of the cock-up, so this isn't getting the scrutiny it deserves. It's especially difficult because it's spread across the entire public sector so the overall effect could take years to come clear.
In the private sector though, the whole point of contract staff is being able to respond quickly to demand, and being able to bring in specialist skills that are otherwise hard to 'magic up' in house. Putting a brake on that free flow mobile work force will hugely damage a lot of businesses, from single man-in-a-shed outfits who just want a job done, to the city big hitters who cannot recruit fast enough.
When people say that the Conservatives don't represent business - this is what they're talking about. Their ears are bent by lobbyists from Crapita, Atos Ohmygod and SAP who benefit hugely from being regulated to be the only game in town. Then genuine businesses working on the coal face are screwed.
turbobloke said:
footnote said:
turbobloke said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
In the long term, the national; interest is synonymous with personal interest. What is the point in voting for a party that promises milk and honey all for free in the short term, but which will destroy the country overall in the long term?
And in another one of those u-turn thingies, after his nuclear / terrorism / brexit u-turns, Corbyn agrees!
"we're all better off when everybody is better off"
That deep thought, that philosophical gem, was followed by "we're all inside ths studio when we're all inside the studio". Genius at work.
Corbyn. Plonker.
As before I can't speak for PPP and this repetition is likely to be waste of time as it's clearly beyond your comprehension level, but as already posted I vote for the least worst option for the country in terms of an objective assessment around track records, manifestos and PM implications.
Dictionary time; Truth or fact, Subjective, Objective, Belief.
One can BELIEVE something is the objective truth, but the existence of a BELIEF in itself does not cause the BELIEF to become a TRUTH.
You believe you vote in the national interest. You have no way of knowing that you are actually voting in the national interest as an objective truth becaus ethe national interest cannot be measured objectively. You are measuring it subjectively.
Wasted too much time on you
p1stonhead said:
It won't happen. They can't arbitrarily tax people based on how much their house is worth. It would basically become a monthly rising South East tax. A lot of people who have a big value house are by no means rich they are just victims of circumstance.
The current council tax is based on value, just value backdated 30 years; a properly conceived LVT could help control the excesses of the UK property market but the labour plan is just another magic money tree to be shaken vigorously.footnote said:
But why are you implying that I've suggested the polar opposite to you?
I haven't said we should all be allowed to stay at home watching telly and eating grapes while wormus earns all the money for us.
Do you think the woman who'll have to wipe your parents' arses (whether they have their own houses or not) or your kids arses is only worth the least you can get away with paying her?
Does that make her a muppet who hasn't made the most of her opportunities or should she go on strike and let you get your hands dirty until you pay her the most you're able to pay - so that she's paying £60k in tax?
Chucking about Daily Mail truisms isn't helpful.
Like all media, it just exists to make money for itself.
It's not there to deliver actual truth to you, but if you buy it when it gives you stories that agree with you then it will keep giving you stories that agree with you.
If you want a better car, you acknowledge you will pay a higher price.
If you want better schools or hospitals, or elderly care, then we will all pay a higher price - more tax.
What's the problem with that? The problem is when you come up against the 'Party of Low taxation' then it doesn't compute.
Because you can't have better and pay less - and you can't keep saying that it's badly managed because every party has had a go at fixing it and they've all failed because maybe it's not actually broken and maybe we should just admit it costs a lot of money and it's going to cost a lot more and that's life because if you want better cars, or bigger houses then like better healthcare - it just cosst more - so tax has to go up.
I don't have a problem with that - it seems self-evident.
If you don't want that then the alternative is individual private health care and most people can't afford that so we're back at square one.
I wasn't suggesting these were your views, rather there is a mindset amongst some labour voters that they are entitled to what other people have. I don't agree with them.I haven't said we should all be allowed to stay at home watching telly and eating grapes while wormus earns all the money for us.
Do you think the woman who'll have to wipe your parents' arses (whether they have their own houses or not) or your kids arses is only worth the least you can get away with paying her?
Does that make her a muppet who hasn't made the most of her opportunities or should she go on strike and let you get your hands dirty until you pay her the most you're able to pay - so that she's paying £60k in tax?
Chucking about Daily Mail truisms isn't helpful.
Like all media, it just exists to make money for itself.
It's not there to deliver actual truth to you, but if you buy it when it gives you stories that agree with you then it will keep giving you stories that agree with you.
If you want a better car, you acknowledge you will pay a higher price.
If you want better schools or hospitals, or elderly care, then we will all pay a higher price - more tax.
What's the problem with that? The problem is when you come up against the 'Party of Low taxation' then it doesn't compute.
Because you can't have better and pay less - and you can't keep saying that it's badly managed because every party has had a go at fixing it and they've all failed because maybe it's not actually broken and maybe we should just admit it costs a lot of money and it's going to cost a lot more and that's life because if you want better cars, or bigger houses then like better healthcare - it just cosst more - so tax has to go up.
I don't have a problem with that - it seems self-evident.
If you don't want that then the alternative is individual private health care and most people can't afford that so we're back at square one.
turbobloke said:
footnote said:
turbobloke said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
In the long term, the national; interest is synonymous with personal interest. What is the point in voting for a party that promises milk and honey all for free in the short term, but which will destroy the country overall in the long term?
And in another one of those u-turn thingies, after his nuclear / terrorism / brexit u-turns, Corbyn agrees!
"we're all better off when everybody is better off"
That deep thought, that philosophical gem, was followed by "we're all inside ths studio when we're all inside the studio". Genius at work.
Corbyn. Plonker.
As before I can't speak for PPP and this repetition is likely to be waste of time as it's clearly beyond your comprehension level, but as already posted I vote for the least worst option for the country in terms of an objective assessment around track records, manifestos and PM implications.
"Anyway, I can't speak for PPP but for my part I only give priority to what I objectively decide is the least worst option for the country"
Neither YOU not anybody else has an ability to decide what is OBJECTIVELY best or worst for the country.
Do you understand that?
You can only have a BELIEF that you understand what is objectively best - f
k me!wormus said:
footnote said:
But why are you implying that I've suggested the polar opposite to you?
I haven't said we should all be allowed to stay at home watching telly and eating grapes while wormus earns all the money for us.
Do you think the woman who'll have to wipe your parents' arses (whether they have their own houses or not) or your kids arses is only worth the least you can get away with paying her?
Does that make her a muppet who hasn't made the most of her opportunities or should she go on strike and let you get your hands dirty until you pay her the most you're able to pay - so that she's paying £60k in tax?
Chucking about Daily Mail truisms isn't helpful.
Like all media, it just exists to make money for itself.
It's not there to deliver actual truth to you, but if you buy it when it gives you stories that agree with you then it will keep giving you stories that agree with you.
If you want a better car, you acknowledge you will pay a higher price.
If you want better schools or hospitals, or elderly care, then we will all pay a higher price - more tax.
What's the problem with that? The problem is when you come up against the 'Party of Low taxation' then it doesn't compute.
Because you can't have better and pay less - and you can't keep saying that it's badly managed because every party has had a go at fixing it and they've all failed because maybe it's not actually broken and maybe we should just admit it costs a lot of money and it's going to cost a lot more and that's life because if you want better cars, or bigger houses then like better healthcare - it just cosst more - so tax has to go up.
I don't have a problem with that - it seems self-evident.
If you don't want that then the alternative is individual private health care and most people can't afford that so we're back at square one.
I wasn't suggesting these were your views, rather there is a mindset amongst some labour voters that they are entitled to what other people have. I don't agree with them.I haven't said we should all be allowed to stay at home watching telly and eating grapes while wormus earns all the money for us.
Do you think the woman who'll have to wipe your parents' arses (whether they have their own houses or not) or your kids arses is only worth the least you can get away with paying her?
Does that make her a muppet who hasn't made the most of her opportunities or should she go on strike and let you get your hands dirty until you pay her the most you're able to pay - so that she's paying £60k in tax?
Chucking about Daily Mail truisms isn't helpful.
Like all media, it just exists to make money for itself.
It's not there to deliver actual truth to you, but if you buy it when it gives you stories that agree with you then it will keep giving you stories that agree with you.
If you want a better car, you acknowledge you will pay a higher price.
If you want better schools or hospitals, or elderly care, then we will all pay a higher price - more tax.
What's the problem with that? The problem is when you come up against the 'Party of Low taxation' then it doesn't compute.
Because you can't have better and pay less - and you can't keep saying that it's badly managed because every party has had a go at fixing it and they've all failed because maybe it's not actually broken and maybe we should just admit it costs a lot of money and it's going to cost a lot more and that's life because if you want better cars, or bigger houses then like better healthcare - it just cosst more - so tax has to go up.
I don't have a problem with that - it seems self-evident.
If you don't want that then the alternative is individual private health care and most people can't afford that so we're back at square one.
And there's a mindset amongst some of the Tory voters on here that all Labour voters are rabid communists.
I intended to vote LibDem because I disagree with Brexit but I'm swayed by Corbyn on the NHS and tuition fees.
I believe in grammar schools. I believe in free university places based on merit - so this will probably lead to a contraction in the university sector.
I believe in encouraging people to start their own businesses etc etc.
There shouldn't be disincentives to becoming wealthy.
But if you are wealthy, stop pretending you're self-made and didn't benefit from free education, free hospitals and healthcare, free infrastructure that generations built and died for and didn't benefit from only for you to say feck them - I did it all myself - if you are wealthy - pay more fecking tax and live with it and be fecking happy that you live in a safe country that looks after the less fortunate.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff