Snap General Election?

[anonymous-user]

footnote said:

Totally agree.

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.

But as above, some of us already pay a lot of tax, how much is enough, 70, 80% of earned income? Where's the incentive? I expect to pay to put my own kids through university, I pay for private medical care and I get nothing for the state, even though I pay a lot into it. How is that fair? If it gets much worse I'll just sacrifice salary and put it into my pension instead.

[Gargamel]

footnote said:

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.

I am a libetarian conservation

I want a party that is for low taxation, places the responsibility for looking after yourself and your loved ones with the individuals and not the state.

Let me keep more of my money, more people that can pay will pay, and the state can fill in the gaps, not look to provide a "free" universal service.

[PurpleAki]

WCZ said:

Yipper said:

Tories lost more ground overnight, after the TV debate

TM was awful imo

And what about Jeremy this morning?

[768]

[motco]

p1stonhead said:

It'll never happen though. How many people could afford it? Probably not that many.

I hope you're right, especially if the intend agricultural land to be included.

[Stickyfinger]

A little Nipper said:

silly stuff.

[Tuna]

footnote said:

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.

What bks. Wealthy people have received no more from the state than those on the poverty line. In fact, often significantly less - private education, private healthcare, no benefits etc. etc. etc.

It's rare that they 'did it all themselves', true - often their family and background help them, and the rags to riches tales remain the minority - but the state did nothing more to help them be wealthy than it did for all those people who didn't.

So how do you figure that someone for whom the state did no more than it does for the poorest person owes the state some special extra fee? As it is, once you get past the tax evasion hysteria, 'the wealthy' pay the lions share of taxation, and support a huge proportion of those that the state failed. The wealthy do pay more fecking tax - a lot more fecking tax - and that's a good thing. We actively want people to be wealthy as it genuinely, measurable and provably supports the state and the poor of this country.

And whilst people grumble over taxation - especially when successive governments fiddle it around - the vast majority do pay up. The famous tax avoidance schemes rarely have so much impact that the people who use them aren't paying orders of magnitude more tax than the poor.

But that doesn't appear to suit your narrative so I'm sure you'll ignore it and go read a rousing Gif on Facebook that tells you the evil rich are screwing the downtrodden poor. Who needs to actually think these days when animated pictures tell us what's true?

[Moonhawk]

Pan Pan Pan said:

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.

I have had this exact same argument with people.

They say "aren't you lucky - I wish I had what you have" (and i'm no millionaire by any stretch of the imagination).

But they only want what I have now - they don't want the life I had to lead in order to achieve it (i.e. getting my first job at 13 when my mates were all out playing (and later on getting pissed on street corners on White Lightning and Hooch), Spending almost every weekend and bank holiday working right through my GCSEs, A-levels and Uni, spending hours of my free time studying, walking out of one job at 5pm - straight into a second evening job and not getting home until 11pm just to make ends meet, spending hours of my life commuting in order to take a job that will further my career, relocating away from friends and family to achieve the same, taking risks buying the property we want in an area we want to live etc)

They would happily swap places with me - but only today. They wouldn't want to swap places with me 30 years ago.

Edited by Moonhawk on Tuesday 30th May 12:57

[joshcowin]

footnote said:

Totally agree.

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.
.

Why vote for anyone, no party exists that meets your views, you will not be represented how you want to be.

[johnxjsc1985]

The top 3000 earners pay more income tax than the bottom 9 million tax payers .

[robemcdonald]

footnote said:

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.

Totally agree.

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.

It's a shame no one is campaigning on this basis. That would be worth voting for.

[JagLover]

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.

Well it is in the manifesto to consider it?. I think the explanation could be allot clearer as to how it would operate. The Tories have put out some rough figures as to how it could work but that is extrapolating a system based on taxing land to the current house value.

It will not necessarily be as drastic as many are making out. But you could easily see it being many multiples higher than current council tax, particularly for properties with large gardens.

As many have said councils in the south east would be awash with money. So the only way I could see it working is as a hypothecated central tax to distribute to councils.

The shadow chancellor has said "this is a radical alternative to austerity" so they seem keener on it than you make out.

As a principle, and on a revenue neutral basis replacing other taxes, there is nothing wrong with a LVT. Depending on the level and the treatment of such issues as agricultural land and green belt/otherwise protected countryside.

[gooner1]

joshcowin said:

footnote said:

Totally agree.

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.
.

Why vote for anyone, no party exists that meets your views, you will not be represented how you want to be.

Do you think there is a party that actually meets anyone's views in full?

[robemcdonald]

gooner1 said:

joshcowin said:

footnote said:

Totally agree.

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.
.

Why vote for anyone, no party exists that meets your views, you will not be represented how you want to be.

Do you think there is a party that actually meets anyone's views in full?

Some people adjust their views based on what their party of choice are saying at that time. So yes.

[Murph7355]

Mrr T said:

So Cameron went to the EU with:
1) The potential to radically effect the future of the EU.
2) A veto over any new treaty, any new member, and any new trade treaty.
3) Being a major contributor to the EU budget.

May goes with a:
1) A trade deficit 50% of which is with German.
2) Money which will have to be paid from UK taxes.

Guess who had the stronger hand.

Time will tell, but as the EU never expected for one minute that we'd leave as they were well aware of how project fear would work, Cameron's hand was very weak. As proven with him coming back with NOTHING.

They now know we're going. And they know what parts of their economies are chunkily dependent on the UK market.

If they choose to go Pyrrhic, it will justify the decision to leave. If they play sensibly, all this fluff, bluster and worry will have been for nothing.

Merkel's latest comments are more concerning from a historic perspective IMO. However I'm not convinced drum banging against both the US and UK is a sound strategy. There's only so much importing/exporting amongst themselves the EU can do and continue to grow. And only so much the poorer states will tolerate while Germany grows ever richer.

The game becomes more interesting week by week

[Yipper]

PurpleAki said:

WCZ said:

Yipper said:

Tories lost more ground overnight, after the TV debate

TM was awful imo

And what about Jeremy this morning?

None of the "bad stuff" is sticking to Teflon Corbyn. From uni dropout to praising terrorists to anti-Semitism to neutering the armed forces to company overtax to state theft of utilities to garden tax to national bankruptcy, nothing is sticking. Voters just see a calm and confident politician who will give them "free everything" from cradle to grave and have fun punishing the fat 5% while they are at it. Meanwhile, the slowing economy, slowing house prices, falling real wages, Brexit hysteria, disastrous Tory manifesto and (subsequently) nervous May have gifted Corbyn many extra favourable tailwinds. With just over a week to go, things are getting closer than almost anyone expected.

[joshcowin]

No, one reason why I don't vote!! Why vote for something you don't believe in, you wouldn't do it in any other aspect of your life!

No one in Westminster represents me or my views so I stay clear of the whole mess. However I have to live in this country where their decisions affect me so I am somewhat interested in what people think about current matters.

[essayer]

LVT gives Labour the perfect mechanism to increase the tax paid by many people. Of course the manifesto promises no increases on income tax to salaries below £80k - if day 1 they consult+introduce a LVT where any property over £50k value pays more than Council Tax - and landlords pay instead of tenants - what happens?

Even considering a SNP coalition scenario, CT is a devolved matter.

It was promised in the manifesto so they'll be able to act on it.

[anonymous-user]

footnote said:

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.

There won't be many wealthy people who begrudge paying taxes to help those who have been less fortunate than they have. Wealth, after all, often has an element of luck behind it.

But paying taxes to help those who choose to be less industrious is a different matter.

[robemcdonald]

Yipper said:

PurpleAki said:

WCZ said:

Yipper said:

Tories lost more ground overnight, after the TV debate

TM was awful imo

And what about Jeremy this morning?

None of the "bad stuff" is sticking to Teflon Corbyn. From uni dropout to praising terrorists to anti-Semitism to neutering the armed forces to company overtax to state theft of utilities to garden tax to national bankruptcy, nothing is sticking. Voters just see a calm and confident politician who will give them "free everything" from cradle to grave and have fun punishing the fat 5% while they are at it. Meanwhile, the slowing economy, slowing house prices, falling real wages, Brexit hysteria, disastrous Tory manifesto and (subsequently) nervous May have gifted Corbyn many extra favourable tailwinds. With just over a week to go, things are getting closer than almost anyone expected.

If it had been TM or a conservative being questioned they would have just said "the costings are in the manifesto" or "will be announced at a later date"
JC didn't have them memorised, but at least had them to hand. The presenter was making the most of it in the hopes of a viral clip boosting her own profile.