Snap General Election?
Discussion
gooner1 said:
Do you think there is a party that actually meets anyone's views in full?
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.
Yipper said:
PurpleAki said:
WCZ said:
Yipper said:
Tories lost more ground overnight, after the TV debate
TM was awful imo
? It just doesn't seem to convey very well how i reacted to this post.Can we have a laughing smilie the size of the screen?
Theresa has got wind of the Tory circle jerk in here and has some encouragement for you lot:
https://twitter.com/thhamilton/status/869239799273...
https://twitter.com/thhamilton/status/869239799273...
MaxSo said:
Theresa has got wind of the Tory circle jerk in here and has some encouragement for you lot:
https://twitter.com/thhamilton/status/869239799273...
I remember when you could have adult conversations in this place.https://twitter.com/thhamilton/status/869239799273...
joshcowin said:
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.
You'll go the rest of your life never voting?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.
None of the parties represents me or my views entirely, but some have views and represent stuff that I detest, so I'll quite happily vote for the lesser of 2 evils.
Greg66 said:
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.
The benefits system was designed as a safety net to help people who found themselves in a dire situation through no fault of their own (e.g. illness, injury, redundancy).
It was never designed for people to live off as an alternative to working.
Extrapolating a vague statement about looking at some sort of LVT as one option of LG tax generation overhaul to 'Every household in the country will be paying £X,000s more tax under Labour!!' is beyond hysterical.
The idea appalls me too, but there's no way it's gonna happen in a such as blanket fashion as people are headless-chickening about it. The fallout would make the poll tax riots look like a teddy bear's picnic.
The idea appalls me too, but there's no way it's gonna happen in a such as blanket fashion as people are headless-chickening about it. The fallout would make the poll tax riots look like a teddy bear's picnic.
essayer said:
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.
Erm Landlords will just up the rent to cover the LVT (plus a bit more to round it up) . Tenants like consumers always end up paying. 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.
garyhun said:
MaxSo said:
Theresa has got wind of the Tory circle jerk in here and has some encouragement for you lot:
https://twitter.com/thhamilton/status/869239799273...
I remember when you could have adult conversations in this place.https://twitter.com/thhamilton/status/869239799273...
minimoog said:
Extrapolating a vague statement about looking at some sort of LVT as one option of LG tax generation overhaul to 'Every household in the country will be paying £X,000s more tax under Labour!!' is beyond hysterical.
The idea appalls me too, but there's no way it's gonna happen in a such as blanket fashion as people are headless-chickening about it. The fallout would make the poll tax riots look like a teddy bear's picnic.
I reckon it's a tactic. Like I said earlier - we'll probably get a situation where the tax is applied - but then people will get a tax credit or universal benefit to offset the additional cost over council tax.The idea appalls me too, but there's no way it's gonna happen in a such as blanket fashion as people are headless-chickening about it. The fallout would make the poll tax riots look like a teddy bear's picnic.
That will bring more people into the benefits fold and more people will be made reliant on them - this ensures more support for Labour in the future.
I suspect Labour's aim is to get as many people as possible in receipt of some sort of benefit - hence why they are so opposed to means testing things like winter fuel payments.
Slagathore said:
joshcowin said:
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.
You'll go the rest of your life never voting?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.
None of the parties represents me or my views entirely, but some have views and represent stuff that I detest, so I'll quite happily vote for the lesser of 2 evils.
wormus said:
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.
Well, you tell me how much you're willing to pay to live here.There wouldn't be universities if they relied only the people who could afford to pay the full and total cost of the education of their kids - because there wouldn't be enough of those people to make it worthwhile running a university.
Equally, the universities were built and the infrastructure created from the taxes on working people long gone - you're not paying for all that you get - you're paying for the milk - you didn't grow the cow or create the farm.
You don't get nothing from the state - you and you're family and everybody else here, gets to live in a safe democracy where you will be cared for free of charge when your car hits a wall or your demented dad gets lost or your kid falls down a well.
footnote said:
Well, you tell me how much you're willing to pay to live here.
There wouldn't be universities if they relied only the people who could afford to pay the full and total cost of the education of their kids - because there wouldn't be enough of those people to make it worthwhile running a university.
Equally, the universities were built and the infrastructure created from the taxes on working people long gone - you're not paying for all that you get - you're paying for the milk - you didn't grow the cow or create the farm.
You don't get nothing from the state - you and you're family and everybody else here, gets to live in a safe democracy where you will be cared for free of charge when your car hits a wall or your demented dad gets lost or your kid falls down a well.
And there are some people who enjoy all of those benefits and pay nothing for them at all. How is that fair ?There wouldn't be universities if they relied only the people who could afford to pay the full and total cost of the education of their kids - because there wouldn't be enough of those people to make it worthwhile running a university.
Equally, the universities were built and the infrastructure created from the taxes on working people long gone - you're not paying for all that you get - you're paying for the milk - you didn't grow the cow or create the farm.
You don't get nothing from the state - you and you're family and everybody else here, gets to live in a safe democracy where you will be cared for free of charge when your car hits a wall or your demented dad gets lost or your kid falls down a well.
Edited by Gargamel on Tuesday 30th May 13:51
Tuna said:
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 b
ks. 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?
The entire country and political system was devised by the wealthy to ensure they stay wealthy unless they f
k up disastrously.An IT contractor driving a beemer and sending his kids to a minor public school is wealthy by most people's standards.
But you're not shaping the nation in the way that the Duke of Wesminster can shape leasehold law.
Or do you think that isn't how it works? That land ownership laws weren't devised to benefit those who own land - lots of land.
The country is shaped to benefit those who own it - really own it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff