Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
Poll: New poll on who you will vote for?
- Thread starter rz30
- Start date
- Status
How would this work !?!?!?!
That is the maddest thing i've ever seen and don't get me started on positive-discrimination
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
As a serious question, because I don't know:
How does the country's debt affect me personally?
I don't get this idea. Nick Clegg said in the debate something along the lines of 'did you know that the highest earners get twice as much tax relief on their pension contributions than lower earners?' - and if you put it like that, it does suddenly sound unfair.
But the reason they get twice as much tax relief is that they pay twice as much tax on the income in the first place!
Besides, it's hardly a new idea to screw over the high earners - pensions tax relief is limited to 20% for those earning over £150k under Labour's new rules anyway.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
I honestly don't get how you think any of that could be bad in any way? Also, how could you say they're from the 'dark ages'? They're the most modern party around, wheras others haven't changed in a hundred years.
Look how much we spend on debt interest, if we don't sort out our finances our interest rate will be put up.
This has one of two affects on you,
-Taxes will have to go up to pay for it
-Your tax money wont be spent on things for you it will be spent paying the debt off.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8573148.stm
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
Interesting question, actually.
Simplest negative would be that of every £1 in tax you pay, a significant percentage goes purely on debt interest. More than goes on the military, for instance. Taxes will therefore need to rise to maintain spending.
Look at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8573148.stm
EDIT - too slow!
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Most of it is pointless crap and the good bits are just totally unworkable. Open all the closed post offices? What, so 3 people a week can visit them?
Redistribute wealth? Sorry but if the poor want more money why not work harder, get a better job, and earn more? And I say this as somebody who doesn't earn in the 40% tax bracket so I'd presumably 'benefit' from redistribution of wealth from those who do.
Because what they're proposing isn't possible economically. Their proposals will just send us into an even bigger recession and leave the country in even more debt.
Don't get me wrong, I like some of their ideas, but they haven't got a clue what they're proposing really.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,379
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
* minimum wage would rise to £8.10 per hour
unaffordable
* large companies would be obliged to ensure at least 40 per cent of board members to be female
sexist & unworkable
* raising fuel duty on petrol
disgusting given fuel/car cost already
* introducing fuel duty and VAT on aviation and “eco-taxes” on pollution.
see above
* scrapping nuclear warheads
see anti-LibDem arguments
* scrap road building programmes
DARK AGES. Roads = arteries
* free insulation for all homes
Why not? Good one, but costly
* re-opening post offices that have shut down
They shut for a reason. Government can't prop up failing business (Labour mines cough cough)
* class sizes down to an average of 20 pupils
Unworkeable
* a weekly state pension of £170 per week for all
unaffordable
* an end to student tuition fees, free school meals for all
unaffordable
* scrapping prescription charges
unaffordable
* redistribute wealth by anyone earning over £45,000 pay more income tax
unfair
People need to work low paid jobs as well. If every member of staff at supermarkets were to suddenly get a better job as you think they should do, then you wouldnt be able to buy any food.
A lot of companies that pay low wages actually do make enough to pay the higher wages, I am definately certain that Tesco / Asda / Morrisons / Sainsburys would have no problems if they paid £8.10 an hour to their staff, they make lots of money while paying very little in wages.
A lot of companies that pay low wages actually do make enough to pay the higher wages, I am definately certain that Tesco / Asda / Morrisons / Sainsburys would have no problems if they paid £8.10 an hour to their staff, they make lots of money while paying very little in wages.
I like these dabates. As far as I am concerned we needed them. These days a lot of young people won't vote. I'm not saying they will watch the debates but at least this way if they watch they can make up there minds to vote or not.
I see lib dems have taken the lead so far on this vote which suprises me but since the first debate I actually liked Nick Cleggs words and he just seemed all round better
I think they deserve a chance to be fair because labour and conserv have had there chances over the years. It cant be any worse then what we have!!
They get my vote here at least.
I see lib dems have taken the lead so far on this vote which suprises me but since the first debate I actually liked Nick Cleggs words and he just seemed all round better
I think they deserve a chance to be fair because labour and conserv have had there chances over the years. It cant be any worse then what we have!!
They get my vote here at least.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
[TW]Fox;16389042 said:
I don't think there's been a post office closure yet that the locals haven't complained about. They're always 'sorry to see it go'.
You make it sound so easy Fox... if it actually was then i'm sure everybody would have done it by now.
Fixed...
Say it isn't so.
To point out the elephant in the room, with the economy in current state, we're going to be in some kind of **** for most of the next decade, like it or not. The only issue is how much.
Vote-buying gimmicks like £10k starting rate of income tax help prove my point. Yes, it is a gimmick - while it will certainly help some, it actually helps far more better off people than it does poor people. Many pensioners are on close to £10k allowance already and many others don't earn enough to even reach the current threshold.
Say it isn't so.
To point out the elephant in the room, with the economy in current state, we're going to be in some kind of **** for most of the next decade, like it or not. The only issue is how much.
Vote-buying gimmicks like £10k starting rate of income tax help prove my point. Yes, it is a gimmick - while it will certainly help some, it actually helps far more better off people than it does poor people. Many pensioners are on close to £10k allowance already and many others don't earn enough to even reach the current threshold.
I'm sorry, but even I have to say 'WTF?' to banning the creation of any new roads, massive fuel duty increases year-on-year, and a further 50% increase in duty on tobacco and alcohol.
[TW]Fox;16389042 said:
LOL Yup, because everyone who's poor is there by choice, and if not then they don't have to stay there. Tell me, in this Eutopia of yours, when all the silly poor people have taken proper high paying jobs (because there are so many of them going spare) and a decent education, and don't have to be under-privileged any more, who is going to take away your rubbish, clean your faeces-filled drains and cut your hair? You're talking rubbish mate.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
This is normal for Fox I dont know why I took him off ignore
I said the same of Dolph... Fox is fun in the Motor section
My point was that the answer is not taking money off the rich to subsidise them, but feel free to read too much into the way it was said rather than the point behind it.
I would imagine it takes a heck of a lot of effort to get yourself into the 40% tax bracket in the first place. This effort should be rewarded, not penalised by having wealth 'redistributed'.
I would imagine it takes a heck of a lot of effort to get yourself into the 40% tax bracket in the first place. This effort should be rewarded, not penalised by having wealth 'redistributed'.
- Status