Poll: General election voting intentions poll

[Dolph]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...on-austerity-harmed-the-economy-10149410.html



I'm sure expert opinions don't matter though as long the Tories and their media donors keep repeating the mantra about how the economy is getting better under them.

What were the expert opinions of the previous government? (Hint, they were warned about the dangers of overspending and deficit spending from 2002 onwards and ignored it completely)

 

[Caged]

Not everything has to be a now vs. then comparison of which government were worse. It's totally possible that they both talk(ed) utter bull.

Those aren't a bunch of economists saying "hurr Dave is worse than Gordon/Tony", it's them comparing the narrative to the reality, and it should be encouraged.

 

[atpbx]

What were the expert opinions of the previous government? (Hint, they were warned about the dangers of overspending and deficit spending from 2002 onwards and ignored it completely)

Have you not heard?

Labour were just really unlucky.

The record collapse in manufacturing, more pensioners and children in poverty (in real terms) record increases in gun and knife crime, the worst cancer survival rates in Europe, massive decline in education standards, MRSA, billions wasted on failed IT and NHs projects and an econonomic plan based on an unsustainable public debt bubble and getting as many people into public sector non jobs as possible.

Just, all bad luck.

 

[Destination]

Ed balls luck and Ed Milliluck.
Hmm unlucky in life, unlucky in government.

 

[Dolph]

Not everything has to be a now vs. then comparison of which government were worse. It's totally possible that they both talk(ed) utter bull.

Those aren't a bunch of economists saying "hurr Dave is worse than Gordon/Tony", it's them comparing the narrative to the reality, and it should be encouraged.

Indeed, hence why it's important to ensure information about both governments is provided (given how many of the current labour group were part of the old government) rather than just focusing on the current one.

 

[Mr Jack]

Excellent, so it means the 'poorest' are the ones fully funded on benefits anyway, and doing no work.

Yes, that is the poorest people in society; did you imagine there was another group of poorest people who would conveniently appear so that the personal allowance change could benefit them?

They are not entitled to more of my money in my opinion, so I can happily discount your argument that the poorest in society do worse from a tax break.

You seem confused; that's your opinion, who benefits from the change is a fact. You are entitled to your opinion; you are not entitled to your own facts.

The three year old graph means little to nothing.

What does being three year's old have to do with anything? Do you think there's been a dramatic change in the income distribution of the UK's households? But, if you imagine there's been some dramatic change you could try reading the source the second graph is taken from which was published this year.

 

[Destination]

You arguement remains invalid, those earning nothing for themselves will remain the poorest in society.
This cannot change.
They will always be the lowest percentile.
How else can it be?
We can't keep throwing money at those who choose to do nothing. Thus benefit caps were introduced. You seem to reiterate statements without actually having a point.
I am all for education, training and employment, I am very much for iver time removing a tax burden from those on low incomes, who actually earn an income. I remain against funding those who can't be bothered to do so.

What would you suggest we do?

 

[Mr Jack]

Anyway, what I like most about that graph is a single person on minimum wage, working full time, comes in at around 3 in that first graph.

And as it's a per family thing, it doesn't even go high enough for a family of two adults working full time on minimum wage. As far as I can see, using the publications own data of a single person being £397 better off, then a two adult household being £796 better off doesn't even register in the graph. They must be beyond the richest there. And that is FAR from what I would call a rich household.

Er, no, you've completely failed to understand what the graph shows. It shows the impact by household income decile. You can't read off in the fashion you imagine.

As for the gain as a % of income side of the graph, surely that's all wrong too? £397 per year is FAR more of a percentage of income for someone who is on £12k compared to someone who is on £70k. The result of this is a bigger REAL TERMS difference for the poorer in society. So not actually more beneficial to middle and upper income households then. Just a nice bonus for them, although the upper income housholds, not at all either, since they have NO personal allowance anyway.

Again, you're factually wrong and embarrassingly so. It is true that for someone on £12k the benefit would be larger but that doesn't reflect the income structure of the UK. You can't deduce how the tax change will impact across the income spectrum without understanding the shape of that spectrum. If you do take into account actual people's income, you find that the personal allowance change mostly benefits middle to upper incomes and that most of the money spent on it goes to these higher deciles.

So your claim that this is a benefit for the poor is factually false.

 

[McBain]

Have you not heard?

Labour were just really unlucky.

The record collapse in manufacturing, more pensioners and children in poverty (in real terms) record increases in gun and knife crime, the worst cancer survival rates in Europe, massive decline in education standards, MRSA, billions wasted on failed IT and NHs projects and an econonomic plan based on an unsustainable public debt bubble and getting as many people into public sector non jobs as possible.

Just, all bad luck.

At least Brown got a good rate on the gold.

Oh wait.

 

[Destination]

Er, no, you've completely failed to understand what the graph shows. It shows the impact by household income decile. You can't read off in the fashion you imagine.

So your claim that this is a benefit for the poor is factually false.

No, we do know what the graph shows.

At the lower end are people who are not earning.
They are getting their full income from benefits of some form.
If we choose not to increase this, then of course they will appear the hardest hit, as everything else was improved.
Good.
If they are working, then the various tax changes will be to their benefit, as per the actual figures I posted above. Actual fugures rather than a decile graph you are telling people they can't read.
Nice to explain your own statistics are generated in a fashion people will not understand.

Plain numbers they will understand.
I will add some, an adult working full time on minimum wage will benefit in full from the tax changes, and will earn £820 extra a year from the lower amount of tax they now have to pay compared to when labour were in power.
Double it for two adults in full time employment.
Thats not bad for a low income household.

 

[Caged]

Indeed, hence why it's important to ensure information about both governments is provided (given how many of the current labour group were part of the old government) rather than just focusing on the current one.

They were probably equally as wrong.

Unfortunately I think the entire system is broken to the point where the amount of changes that need making are so alien to a lot of people that it's never going to happen in a time where clear majority governments don't exist.

 

[xs2man]

Er, no, you've completely failed to understand what the graph shows. It shows the impact by household income decile. You can't read off in the fashion you imagine.



Again, you're factually wrong and embarrassingly so. It is true that for someone on £12k the benefit would be larger but that doesn't reflect the income structure of the UK. You can't deduce how the tax change will impact across the income spectrum without understanding the shape of that spectrum. If you do take into account actual people's income, you find that the personal allowance change mostly benefits middle to upper incomes and that most of the money spent on it goes to these higher deciles.

So your claim that this is a benefit for the poor is factually false.

You are suggesting there that there are more people on middle to upper incomes then? I don't see how that can possibly be if the average wage in the UK is around £25k. Surely that means that because there are many millionaires in this country, that many more people are on lower wages? For example, these increased personal allowance rates have apparently taken 23 million people out of paying taxes. That's what? About 1/3 of the entire population. And a little over 2/3's of the working population. So any way you decide to cut it, it is helping out the people on lower incomes more surely?

But you are lumping this all into groups of people based on income clearly. Where I am not. I am looking at it from the individual perspective. So for 23 million individuals, they are better off because they are not paying any income taxes. By contrast, there will be a small percentage of workers in the UK who earn so much that they do not qualify for the personal allowance (earn over £120k). They obviously see no benefit from this, rightly so, and they are what I would class as the upper income bracket. Everyone else, in the middle, will see some benefit from this, but it may not be as noticeable as it will be for those who do not earn as much, the further up the income scale you go.

I really do fail to see how you can see this as benefiting middle to upper income persons more than lower income persons.

Sure, you can twist statistics and analysis to show what you want. But for the average guy on the street, he doesn't care about income brackets, and groups of people based on their pay packets. He cares that he no longer pays income tax, so he can afford to feed his kids.

 

[Caged]

Could someone explain how fudging the tax bands and personal allowance with the aim of getting more money into someone's pocket is any different to other in-work benefits? Other than how they are presented and the stigma attached to each. It definitely seems a lot simpler but I'm not sure how having so many low earners is a thing to be happy about. Granted it's a fact of life, but I'm not sure it's necessarily something that needs celebrating.

 

[xs2man]

Someone has to do these jobs. But you are correct, it's not really something to be celebrated. However, the world is what it is. These jobs exist, and people do these jobs. Surely the better option is to not pay tax, rather than pay tax, and claim it back via benefits. Not only do you not feel like your getting hand outs, but there is less administration costs for the government, and less of a welfare bill. Sure, the money isn't coming in the same, so it's a zero cost option, well actually less than zero cost due to the lesser administration cost.

The point is though that these people are better off than they were before. People who are working hard to support their families, are being rewarded for this. And surely that's all good. Obviously we all want paid more, but then that is why there are apprenticeships, further education, and just plain hard graft to work your way up.

I did fine when I was working full time on minimum wage. Rents haven't increased by a huge amount around here since then. Food hasn't really gone up too much. Petrol is a bit more expensive mind you. And I got zero from the government by way of benefits, and started paying income tax after £4400 or something. Sure, I didn't have sky TV or flatscreen tv's, or designer clothes, or holidays, but I wasn't hungry, had a car to get to work in and a roof over my head. I didn't expect that, never mind more. I'm quite sure it is a struggle for those working on minimum wage, but I'm equally sure it's still doable. It's not like we have millions of people starving by the roadside...

 

[Sliver]

Spoiler

Someone has to do these jobs. But you are correct, it's not really something to be celebrated. However, the world is what it is. These jobs exist, and people do these jobs. Surely the better option is to not pay tax, rather than pay tax, and claim it back via benefits. Not only do you not feel like your getting hand outs, but there is less administration costs for the government, and less of a welfare bill. Sure, the money isn't coming in the same, so it's a zero cost option, well actually less than zero cost due to the lesser administration cost.

The point is though that these people are better off than they were before. People who are working hard to support their families, are being rewarded for this. And surely that's all good. Obviously we all want paid more, but then that is why there are apprenticeships, further education, and just plain hard graft to work your way up.

I did fine when I was working full time on minimum wage. Rents haven't increased by a huge amount around here since then. Food hasn't really gone up too much. Petrol is a bit more expensive mind you. And I got zero from the government by way of benefits, and started paying income tax after £4400 or something. Sure, I didn't have sky TV or flatscreen tv's, or designer clothes, or holidays, but I wasn't hungry, had a car to get to work in and a roof over my head. I didn't expect that, never mind more. I'm quite sure it is a struggle for those working on minimum wage, but I'm equally sure it's still doable. It's not like we have millions of people starving by the roadside...

Are you David Cameron or Nigel Farage ? I can't decide.

 

[xs2man]

Neither.

I doubt David Cameron has ever worked for minimum wage, and I'm all for Europe. I currently work in Norway (although obviously not Europe) but have also, in the past, worked in other EU countries like Holland. So I'm all for the free movement of labour. I also appreciate the free trade within the EU. Allows me to buy things without import duties.

I'm guessing that was a dig though. But I actually like Farage, maybe not his politics, but I like the man. And least he has the courage of his convictions. Cameron, well, he could be a bit tougher IMO. He's certainly no Thatcher.

The main reason for my views are that I have been there. I left school with virtually nothing. I worked a dead end job for minimum wage. No one was gonna help me but me. I quit and went to Uni, at the age of 23, where I had to pay fees, live off student loans, and study for my degree. I then got myself a decent job. Which got me where I am now. I did this all myself. I had no rich parents backing me, it was all me. And if I can do it, then anyone can do it. So if people can't be arsed to go out and get whatever job is available, then I don't think they should be rewarded for it. If they do go out and get a job, then great, lets help them in doing so. And if they want to better themselves, then even better, lets support them. But the opportunities are there for everyone. They just have to get up and take them.

 

[dunker]

so did the test..and a few others and was surprised that yeah, i don't really care about HS2. which put the torys actually last for me, i thought they would be second, but nope, second for me were labour, third green and forth libbys.

i'm gonna do what i did last time, look at all my candidates and vote for whoever looks the most sane/normal person.

 

[scorza]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32198938

Tony Blair intervenes - though hopefully not like he intervened in Iraq. Will this help or hinder Milliband? I say it'll hinder. I was toying with the idea of switching my support from UKIP to Labour after Ed's Happy Warrior leaders' debate performance, but then up pops Blair to remind me why I despise certain sections of the Labour party.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32198938

Tony Blair intervenes - though hopefully not like he intervened in Iraq. Will this help or hinder Milliband? I say it'll hinder. I was toying with the idea of switching my support from UKIP to Labour after Ed's Happy Warrior leaders' debate performance, but then up pops Blair to remind me why I despise certain sections of the Labour party.

Another own goal for Labour. Even their most faithful supporters hate Phoney Tony and it makes Milliband look like he can't fight his own battles.

 

[platypus]

It smacks of desperation. I really wish he'd just stayed away.