Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
A high percentage of kippers are though.
Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II
- Thread starter Zefan
- Start date
- Status
A high percentage of kippers are though.
That's what people voted for when they voted for Brexit. It would be hypocrisy to attack Corbyn for doing the same.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 2,184
- Location
- Abingdon
Probably the same percentage of Labour supporters who are anti-semites, but there are a lot more Labour supporters, which is worrying.
The idea of taxation isn't - and has never been - that everyone must always "get what you pay for".
A millionaire paying £50k tax can't demand £50k's worth of services in return. That's just not how tax works.
Let's look at your argument from a different angle... should the rich pay *less* tax because they use less state-provided services? Assuming they use private healthcare, have no need of any benefits, will not use state care in old age... etc, etc. Does that mean they should pay less tax than a poor family who will have housing support, state-provided care, use the NHS.... Because if they don't, it's "unfair" using your stated principles here.
The idea of "personal responsibility" from the Tories is just another way of saying "you're on your own". They want tax breaks for the well off, they want working families to have to pay for their own social care, health care (soon enough), you name it. And if you can't afford it, a Tory idealised state wouldn't help you out in the slightest.
Taxation represents the idea that we all help each other. Society is a collective, not a mass brawl of individuals trying to climb over each other to the top.
And that's what this election represents. A socialist, collective society or everybody for themselves. At least we have something to choose between.
Hopefully emphasis on the starting because switching to the next closest alternative is merely jumping from the frying pan into the nearby simmering saucepan :s
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,676
Practically zero?
If anything labour supporters might be more likely to be Anti-zionist though.
you're not making much sense - the idea here is that people with assets can cover the costs for themselves and poor people can be covered via general taxation... it isn't necessarily the job of the state to pay for everything for everyone... especially when it comes to social care, benefits etc.. this is something the state provides a safety net for when people can't afford it themselves
we aso don't pay out things like JSA to people with substantial assets/savings etc.. richer people are expected to pay for themselves in that case if they have above 16k (IIRC)
the idea of disregarding anyones personal wealth and simply paying out of general taxation is pretty flawed - we don't currently do that at the moment either though we do discriminate based on allocation of assets - I note in your reply that you've chosen to ignore my question:
"in the case of non-residential care currently we've currently got discrimination based on asset allocation - why should someone with a 250k home be better protected than someone who also had a similar home but downsized to a 100k bungalow and now has 150k in cash/investments?"
There is so much irony in that Tory spokesman's comment.
All May has is soundbites and attacks on Corbyn. That's it. There is nothing else in the tank.
And haven't all her "engagements with voters" been staged? Ie, she won't actually ever be talking to real voters on the street, just a few hand-picked stooges.
Be interesting to see what coverage this gets especially if he does well.
IIRC are they sacrificing Rudd to go onstage and be ritually mauled?
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,986
I feel that is an unfair representation the Conservative party hasn't got rid of the social safety during any of it's Governments even Churchill stated their should be a level below which no one should fall. Personal responsibility means not treating the state as your first solution to all problems. Everything the state does has to be paid for by tax payers, my wallet is lighter for every extension of the state, telling people that isn't a thought crime. There is no magic supply of money that can pay for everything and the Conservatives are being wicked and evil by rationing it. Every spending pledge has to be taken from tax payers. Doing less is a societal benefit if it what is not done is not required.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,676
The conservatives realise the more that Teresa May is exposed to the public, the worse they will do in the polls.
Isn't that exactly what she's been doing since calling the election.
Well technically no, SHE'S been supplying supplying sound bites to the press. SHE would not lower herself as Supreme Leader May to engage with mere mortals, SHE has a higher calling to strongly stabalise everything. Ever.
She thinks discussing politics and engaging with the public amounts to swopping soundbites with six other politicians. Does she want to lose this election? D)
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,676
Sound bytes like:
[May on Corbyn]
You would have to be a simpleton to actually believe that BS
Why do you think Dianne Abbot has been 'MIA' since her car crash interview(s) at the beginning of the campaign?
She can't win, if she'd have agreed to take part in the debates now she would have looked weak. The seven way debates are pretty pointless anyway, in 2015 Leanne Wood had more time than David Cameron (which Cameron was quite happy about). Total bore-fest, won't be watching.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,676
- Status