March in London on the 26th?

Tax more, do not cut Corporation tax, raise it.
Click to expand...

What an excellent way to promote growth...

scorza said:
Great - that will reduce the government's total liabilities by a massive amount. We seriously do not want to be the world's financial capital any more, and neither does anyone else for that matter.
Click to expand...

Right, so you want to gut one of the largest contributors to our tax income before we have anything to replace it. I am sure that will cause no problems at all...

Drive the banking sector out of the UK and the cuts we are having at the moment will look like a drop in the ocean to what would need to be done.
 
Hatter The Mad said:
Diary: 2004-2004
March in question: 2002
Click to expand...

Exactly - imagine what would be in the diary if it was running during the march!

As far as I'm aware, there were around 150 "incidents" reported during the march, although only 2 arrests were made.

Besides, "anarchism" wasn't really at the fore in 2002 - just chart the violence of the May Day protests over the years - it's been steadily increasing.
 
RDM said:
Right, so you want to gut one of the largest contributors to our tax income before we have anything to replace it. I am sure that will cause no problems at all...

Drive the banking sector out of the UK and the cuts we are having at the moment will look like a drop in the ocean to what would need to be done.
Click to expand...

We can absorb the losses of income tax, what concerns me most of all is that there is no possible way we can absorb another shock to the system like another banking crisis. Even more concerning is that dark clouds are gathering again, look across the Irish sea - the Irish banks are going to need yet another bailout (hooray for cuts and low taxes), our banks are horribly exposed to Ireland, what will happen if Ireland defaults? Anything that can be done to reduce our exposure to risk ought to be done, otherwise it's hello third world. Risk reduction is a perfectly acceptable form of payment.
 
robgmun said:
Labour ****ed it all up royally
Click to expand...

No doubt in my mind Labour are to blame for the dire straits we're in.

I've never argued about the situation we're in, just the solution.

Oh, and LOL at insinuating the Labour party is socialist!
 
amigafan2003 said:
No doubt in my mind Labour are to blame for the dire straits we're in.

I've never argued about the situation we're in, just the solution.

Oh, and LOL at insinuating the Labour party is socialist!
Click to expand...
There is no point in taking him seriously, let alone replying to him.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
Everyone else does. What's wrong with you man ? ;)
Click to expand...

No one with a brain would have a pop at old bill, its a thankless job, but you do do ok for money dont you, and you do get a decent pension even if it looks like you might have to cough up more for it.
 
amigafan2003 said:
No doubt in my mind Labour are to blame for the dire straits we're in.

I've never argued about the situation we're in, just the solution.

Oh, and LOL at insinuating the Labour party is socialist!
Click to expand...

This.

I think he's sometimes a bit confused so best left alone.
 
You know, I keep reading about all these final salary pension schemes being unsustainable but I've been having a chat with one of our pension trustees (I'm in a final salary scheme in the private sector funded by my employer) and they aren't seeing any issues in near term, mid term or even long term funding - in fact he said they are even looking at a modest surplus this year and paying some back to the company. We're not being asked to pay more and he thinks it's HIGHLY unlikely we ever will. I've also been reasearching the final salary schemes in Accenture, Fujitsu and IBM and they are all showing a surplus as well.

If the private sector can fund final salary pension schemes then why can't the public sector?

Granted, the scheme is closed to new entrants, but I've always argued that the pensions for people already in the civil service/public sector schemes should be left alone and just close the schemes to new entrants. Why isn't that working in the public sector? No one has explained that to me.

EDIT: You can't argue with this post as it's 1337!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
because the bulk of public sector final salary schemes are unfunded ponzi schemes with no actual savings or investment of contribution?
 
robgmun said:
wow, all you socialists are living cloud cuckoo land, no wonder Labour ****ed it all up royally
Click to expand...

This is the epitome of it all for me - and all the similar comments and passages in here.

Doesn't matter your level of interest, knowledge or exactly why you dissagree - but if you do you are automatically a labourite lefty/socialist who has no grounding in reality?

I wonder how many of the anti-anything away from the right persuastion in here actually know anything about what they profess, not as many as the scathing comments that are being banded about I guess.

It isn't a simple case of 'no to cuts' but a 'no to the cuts you are making'.

There is always choice.

But I better shut up, get my labour membership card/hammer and sickle flag and get back up into the clouds, huh?
 
Dolph said:
because the bulk of public sector final salary schemes are unfunded ponzi schemes with no actual savings or investment of contribution?
Click to expand...

Dolph - our whole economic outlook of the UK, and many other countries, is nothing more than an unfunded ponzi scheme? (It is funded, but by people who will be alive when you and I are dead)

Why are you shining your spotlight, once again?

There are actual savings, and investment of contributions and other political and fiscal failings are not the fault of those in receipt of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom