dutchman
Well-Known Member
And "New Labour" did so well did it, losing the last two general elections and condemning millions to a life of unending poverty and misery under the Tories.
Is that true? Corbyn is 70's and 80's labour and we all had enough of that. If your genuine Labour candidates are the same "old school" people, then Labour has really had it.
And "New Labour" did so well did it, losing the last two general elections and condemning millions to a life of unending poverty and misery under the Tories.
Corbyn's not a weasel - he's genuine but unfortunately also a nutter with no understanding of economics and would lead the country like the Pied Piper into extreme poverty.
New Labour were electable under Blair and the right Miliband. They did so much right under their first term and it all went wrong when Brown started over-spending: creating a deficit and then building it up year after year until the shit hit the fan.
Ed Miliband wasn't New Labour; he was a Chief Weasel in New Labour's clothing and had a defeat coming to him. Corbyn's not a weasel - he's genuine but unfortunately also a nutter with no understanding of economics and would lead the country like the Pied Piper into extreme poverty.
The lower income earners in the country generally have more disposable income under a Tory government as the Tory philosophy is to lower the tax burden.
Asked about his feelings towards Ashcroft and the pig allegation, Cameron said: “Everyone can see why the book was written and everyone can see straight through it. As for the specific issue raised, a very specific denial was made a week ago and I’ve nothing to add to that.”
Cameron 'denies' pig allegation:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...rd-ashcroft-allegations-call-me-dave-dead-pig
Well that's me totally convinced. Don't know about you?
I understand it plainly. I just don't believe the Tory proganda.
Cuts to tax credits outstrip increase in the tax-free threshold and minimum wage try again.
You are right to ignore propaganda from all sides - the glib statements and soundbites at best paper over the cracks and at worst are no more than myth. Instead look at what the parties are actually doing. Every government needs to collect tax, however the Tories usually cut income tax (for everyone - not just the rich as Labour would have you believe) and corporation tax and reduce spending. In my opinion this is the best approach: it makes working more attractive and as a result unemployment goes down, welfare costs reduce and it creates a virtuous circle. I accept the point re VAT however the last rise was inevitable due to the appalling debt situation inherited from Brown and Balls and I believe that once we have the finances healthy again it will be reduced. I'd also like to point out that VAT is to some degree a voluntary tax as food and essentials are VAT-free. Hence it taxes people with disposable income who know at the point of purchase that they can afford it. Wealthier people spend more on consumables and so they pay more.
If you look at what Corbyn is proposing as a tax regime it is crazy (gathering evaded tax an exception - of course we should do that). I've seen a video of him saying that 70% tax 'may not be enough'. This would result in wide scale emigration and tax revenue would decrease. No, I wouldn't be in the 70% tax bracket - I believe it is wrong because it would be bad fro the country, not me. I also really like the Tories plans to reduce Corporation Tax. Companies more than individuals can choose where to be registered and this will bring more incorporations to the UK resulting in higher tax revenue and more jobs. Corbyn's plans would cause a mass exodus of companies with the opposite results.
I don't like everything the Tories do: I disagree with the new dividend tax and the new tax rules on Buy to Let; I wouldn't have even considered bringing back fox hunting - but I've taken the view that the economy is more important than anything else and so they are the best choice for now.
I take issue with the fact that tax avoidance/evasion is so easily overlooked by this government. As it probably no doubt was when Labour was in power and even the Tories before that. Dealing with this for me is paramount and supersedes everything else. If this is properly addressed then everything else probably no longer becomes necessary.
People are disillusioned by politicians, the government and the media as they are essentially told that it has to be shit for them because that's the way it's always been.
Corbyn may not ultimately have the policy and capability to any of the things he is saying. But he is at least saying something different - which people want to hear.
The way that the media have gone after him almost makes it feel like they are desperately trying to hide something... which again is why people want to hear what he has to say.
This is a deliberate policy to force companies to shoulder the burden of paying well for less esteemed work. Why should the state provide funding so companies can take the piss? It's not going to happen overnight but if you create the right macro-economical environment it will happen.
What of the small businesses who are clearly less well placed to shoulder substantial increases to their wage bill? At the end of the day these measures will see people's net incomes go down rather than up and will incur greater costs to business. It doesn't 'make work pay' and it isn't business-friendly.
If a company cannot afford to pay staff then it cannot afford to be in business. Are you seriously suggesting that the state should support ventures that aren't viable?
No but I am saying that larger companies are naturally better placed to cover significant rises in staff costs than smaller ones. The state should be supporting its citizens and I reiterate that reducing people's net income is a contradiction of that.
I'd be fully in support of reducing taxes and even giving welfare to SMEs who had trouble meeting the Living Wage.
The long and the short of it economically, is it's far better for the market for lots of people to have some cash than a few people to have lots and everyone else to be scraping by. Money spent out in wages to low earners comes back to government really quickly from taxation, as opposed to profits and other large payments which go off shore or at best into a savings account and not the economy.
Small British business needs all the support it can get, and I'd be happy to see the welfare bill transferred from tax credits to corporate welfare to help small companies make the transitions they need, including productivity investments. What I'm not happy about is Amazon paying their warehouse staff fuck all while they dodge tax, or Starbucks moving their profits off shore. My local corner shop can't do that and neither can I if I set up a new enterprise. The money those business owners make stays in our economy and becomes other people's income.
No but I am saying that larger companies are naturally better placed to cover significant rises in staff costs than smaller ones.
This has got to be the most boring fucking thread I've ever come across! Pull it NOW FFS! No-one ever wins in politics!
This has got to be the most boring fucking thread I've ever come across! Pull it NOW FFS! No-one ever wins in politics!
Don't join in then - it should be pulled as YOU find it boring? Extraordinary.
I keep checking to see if it's been closed yet, moron.
Why should it be closed if it is of interest? I find the Corbyn election fascinating
Clicking on posts on a football forum to see if they've closed doesn't sound like much of a life to me.
I don't believe it is overlooked. There is always more that can be done and I agree with Corbyn that we should try and get it. However nobody believes there is as much out there we can get as Corbyn claims and it's certainly not a cure all. It would all be academic if all high earners and companies left the uk as he raised tax to rediculous levels.
You are right to ignore propaganda from all sides - the glib statements and soundbites at best paper over the cracks and at worst are no more than myth. Instead look at what the parties are actually doing. Every government needs to collect tax, however the Tories usually cut income tax (for everyone - not just the rich as Labour would have you believe) and corporation tax and reduce spending. In my opinion this is the best approach: it makes working more attractive and as a result unemployment goes down, welfare costs reduce and it creates a virtuous circle. I accept the point re VAT however the last rise was inevitable due to the appalling debt situation inherited from Brown and Balls and I believe that once we have the finances healthy again it will be reduced. I'd also like to point out that VAT is to some degree a voluntary tax as food and essentials are VAT-free. Hence it taxes people with disposable income who know at the point of purchase that they can afford it. Wealthier people spend more on consumables and so they pay more.
If you look at what Corbyn is proposing as a tax regime it is crazy (gathering evaded tax an exception - of course we should do that). I've seen a video of him saying that 70% tax 'may not be enough'. This would result in wide scale emigration and tax revenue would decrease. No, I wouldn't be in the 70% tax bracket - I believe it is wrong because it would be bad fro the country, not me. I also really like the Tories plans to reduce Corporation Tax. Companies more than individuals can choose where to be registered and this will bring more incorporations to the UK resulting in higher tax revenue and more jobs. Corbyn's plans would cause a mass exodus of companies with the opposite results.
I don't like everything the Tories do: I disagree with the new dividend tax and the new tax rules on Buy to Let; I wouldn't have even considered bringing back fox hunting - but I've taken the view that the economy is more important than anything else and so they are the best choice for now.
Labour have consistently run the lowest deficit in normal times as well.
If you ran your budget like the Tories propose you'd never own a house and likely never go to uni.
Man there's so much wrong in this post. First Income Tax is one of the most progressive taxes. VAT however is not hitting the poorest hardest by far and is always raised under the Tories. Taxing consumption while trying to get out of a recession is stupid and put us back into recession in 2010/11. Our growth since has been anemic and only recently has got us back to where we were with a big increase in private debt along the way.
Expect the same model this time. Though he's getting lucky with oil prices keeping inflation down. Big ideological cuts that hurt the economy, then lots of giveaways pre election and a missing of his own targets. Add in housing bubble and mass immigration to keep the growth figures up and everybody's happy.
Factually, the most successful period economically for everything from reduction of debt to wages to economic growth and raising of living standards was during the post war Keynesian consensus.
Labour have consistently run the lowest deficit in normal times as well.
Try looking a bit beyond what they say and check what they do. You'll be hard pushed to find an economist that thinks Osborne has been doing a great job.
All this aside we are facing massive costly crises in health housing and climate change that we could make big strides on with a little sensible investment when rates are low and returns on here projects high.
If you ran your budget like the Tories propose you'd never own a house and likely never go to uni.
Uni used to be for better students & fully funded, it is the mad idea that everyone goes that has resulted in massive student debts and bugger all trained apprentices.
Houses, we need to build social/council houses & keep them, not sell them off. That is why there is this huge rental market & loads of people in rent arrears or being evicted. Like back to the 30's when my Dads Family were known to have done the old moonlight flit, except of course these days you can't easily disappear to evade your unaffordable debts.
You could easily stop it, make it hard to get buy to let mortgage and hike up tax on income from rent.
They already have. Do you think it is fair to tax people different rates on their incomes depending on how they earn it?
When I went to uni (back in 92) you went to do something relatively academic, science, engineering etc.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?