Ahh the good old insulate the pensioners from austerity as they vote tactic
ni isn't saving for retirement a pension is
Lords defeat government over tax credits cut
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
Ahh the good old insulate the pensioners from austerity as they vote tactic
ni isn't saving for retirement a pension is
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
He probably has ownership in some business that sells sofa and gets a discount as well as no vat tax on it. But that is just a guess.
Rich people often do make purchases through a company, at the least far more often than poor people.
The solution to the government spending more than it takes in problem has never been more tax or more revenue. The evidence shows that in spite of increases the "tax revenue" the government still manages to spend more than it takes in per budget year.
You're right. Everyone pays NI. But the amount people get out of the system is far more than they put in. A bit like tax credit claimants. National Insurance is also intended to cover a lot more than just retirement. In truth, it has actually become completely disconnected from the benefits it is supposed to pay, and is essentially just a second income tax these days.
Not that it was a serious suggestion. I just wanted to join in with the cool kids in making morally dubious statements based on the concept that fiscal efficiency is the most important thing in life.
Last edited:
you're not going to furnish your home through your company - if you did that you'd be rather screwed in an audit
sure you might get the old sofa from the office or maybe your kids can have a 2yr old Dell computer which has now been replaced etc.. there are plenty of employees with old office stuff too, plenty of old stuff was given away for free to whoever wanted it at my old place when we moved buildings including furniture, monitors and computers
I guess you could get free bog roll and stationary if you like too... maybe you expense a few extra taxi journeys and accumulate some air miles and hotel points
but there are definitely limits to stuff you can simply 'put through the company' - you're very unlikely to be able to do it too regularly for general purchases
I thought everybody knew someone who does thisAny time they want a new PC, it's a business expense. Furniture - business expense.
Not sure you can get away with things like a PS4... but many purchases are easily written down as business expenses. I mean, prove that a new PC isn't? Inland Revenue aren't going to check to see if it has dual TitanX graphics cards now, are they? Just looks like a PC to them.
Heh! I know some people who put nice big vans against theirs for motocross. Must be nice when they shell out £25,000 - £30,000 for a new van or two for the company.
You are ignoring a huge portion of none voters.I know. I've looked it up before. But it's not as though poor people/those on tax credits are all Labour fans. Eg. surely C2 people are big recipients, and...
Going across, that's Con/Lab/Lib/Other.
C2 being skilled working class - skilled workers, D being working class - semi skilled or unskilled, E being those at lowest level of subsistence - state pensioners or widows (no other earner), casual or lowest grade workers.
So, as you can see, a significant proportion of working class people and the worst off vote Tory.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2613/How-Britain-Voted-in
(Shamelessly taken from a post I made in April...)
From that, I don't think it's clear that people getting hit by this change aren't also the sort of people who vote Tory. So, again, can you evidence your claim?
http://www.auditofpoliticalengagement.org/media/reports/Audit-of-Political-Engagement-12-2015.pdf
A huge portion of which either renters, are below 25 or are in the lower income categories. Labour policy has traditionally been far more generous than the Conservatives (regardless as to how much electorate benefit they play).
How come the Chinese? or is it Japanese respects the elderly... Yet *supposedly* this country hates them.
Would it matter either way who they would vote for if changes put overall tend to impact on those who don't vote anyway?. The voting tendencies of none voters is irrelevant tbh until they are sufficiently motivated to do actually do anything - but people who are disenfranchised are not going to be drawn in by more of the same.
I'm struggling to understand why you seem to find it so hard to believe that the Conservative party almost exclusively target cuts at sections of society who are less likely to vote for them (or the inverse for those far more willing to vote for them) hence the triple lock on pensioners (the highest proportion of Conservative voters).
Obviously there will be some cross-over, but if you could point out exactly what part of that you are failing to accept I'll address that directly.
Last edited:
Quite frankly if you choose not to use your vote as an opportunity to voice your opinion you have no right to complain. Even if your reasoning is that it's a "protest" because there's no one you'd want to vote for, by forgoing your vote you remove your ability to influence decisions. You can't have a referendum for every decision.
Suck it up.
Can you tell I have no sympathy for non voters
Some form of reform has to come but in the meantime create a 100 Tory peers and stuff the place.
Which is probably what will happen...
Neither will happen. They'll probably have their powers curbed to ensure this doesn't happen again, which wouldn't be a big deal given they very rarely take such action.
There is no appetite in the Tory Party for Lords reform. George Osborne knows this. He has been in favour of it for a long time, but there is no way it is going to happen.
There is no appetite in the Tory Party for Lords reform. George Osborne knows this. He has been in favour of it for a long time, but there is no way it is going to happen.
Creating a hundred new Tory peers wouldn't exactly look good for a party desperately trying to convince people it's the party of working people either.
Indeed. Creating 100 new peers is an idea that's thrown around on news channels because it's 'simple'. In truth, it would be a really bold move that sets a terrible precedent. The Tories would essentially be saying that the governing party should appoint enough Peers that they always have a major it in the Lords. It's already the second biggest chamber in the world. Without reform, that precedent could see us top the list within a generation.
Not to mention that the move would be vastly hypocritical when the Prime Minister and the Chancellor are trying to push the need for fiscal discipline. To splurge on 100 new Peers would seem excessive (and the bar would be lowered a long way - many of the people appointed would be thoroughly undeserving).
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2014
- Posts
- 3,929
- Location
- Oxon
They were overruled by a group of people who were put into that position by the elected and previous governments. That in itself should be a signal to the government that they're barking up the wrong tree.
The problem with the HoL isn't just that its undemocratic and unelected, it's that any old moron can be put into it by their pals in government, as seen by all the millionaire tories who supported the bill.
If we're going to have an upper house who's role it is to curb the ideological excesses of the government for the good of the nation, they should be either elected to be there or granted their position by an independent committee.
Last edited:
I presume that this would have to be done by amending the Parliament Act? Wouldn't this then also involve the House of Lords and so with their 'input' not be as easy as it sounds?
Quite an interesting read on this situation:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...he-House-of-Lords-but-were-afraid-to-ask.html