Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 10:50:52 GMT
I agree with a lot of what you have said but would you want to allow any of this lot to spend our hard earned money to address the issues you raise.All of them have displayed a complete lack of ability to meet these challenges over the last 70 years what's going to change now? Oh I dont have a lot of faith dont get me wrong. But I do believe that inequality has worsened dramatically over the last 10 years under Tory rule (that's why we vote for them isnt it?). I'm talking about meaningful change to narrow the range between super rich and the abandoned, to better public services. To at least bring us in line with the average in European schooling. The one thing I have categorical belief in is that another Tory government would not narrow the gap enough, if at all. Is labour or lib dems the answer? I have no idea. Is tory the answer? Definitely not. You see, the fundamental for me is this question really. When faced with a human societal problem, do you pull together, compromise and support community? Or do you become insular, cynical and chastise? When you are on your death bed (this one is dramatic just humour me) do you want to be the guy that tried to help or do you want to be the guy that voted to make life just a little bit harder for those already in hardship and crisis? I doubt myself sometimes but I do still (just) believe in compassion and in people. I couldnt vote to extend suffering, it's not in my nature I guess. We can still still show compassion to those in genuine need and I’ve said on numerous occasions that those most severely disabled for example deserve far more. The trouble is the system is abused by those using the benefit system as a lifestyle choice and not the last ditch support mechanism that it was first designed to be. Regardless of which party is in power let’s assume there is a fixed benefit budget. Would you be happy with the current allocation where the most sick and disabled in society struggle to survive in order to subsidise others who leave school with no intention of working and expect the state to fund their choice or would you prefer the most needy to be properly looked after and suggest the fit and able bodied start looking after themselves? The way we are going there will not be enough taxpayers left to provide any sort of benefit system. |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Nov 7, 2019 10:50:57 GMT
Oh I dont have a lot of faith dont get me wrong. But I do believe that inequality has worsened dramatically over the last 10 years under Tory rule (that's why we vote for them isnt it?). I'm talking about meaningful change to narrow the range between super rich and the abandoned, to better public services. To at least bring us in line with the average in European schooling. The one thing I have categorical belief in is that another Tory government would not narrow the gap enough, if at all. Is labour or lib dems the answer? I have no idea. Is tory the answer? Definitely not. You see, the fundamental for me is this question really. When faced with a human societal problem, do you pull together, compromise and support community? Or do you become insular, cynical and chastise? When you are on your death bed (this one is dramatic just humour me) do you want to be the guy that tried to help or do you want to be the guy that voted to make life just a little bit harder for those already in hardship and crisis? I doubt myself sometimes but I do still (just) believe in compassion and in people. I couldnt vote to extend suffering, it's not in my nature I guess. Absolutely agree, the challenge for me is that having been a Labour voter all my like Corbyn and his mates have I competence written all over them and I can't vote for that.I cannot vote Tory as it goes against my principles so I have to decide whether to sit this one out or not. Question yourself thus, then. If your abstinence contributes to a Tory government are you complicit? Is there a lesser of evils to consider? For me, there is the known negative and the unknown. You may be familiar with the story of the guy on the burning platform. He cant stay on the platform and burn to death so he jumps 120 feet in to the icy water below. Later, after surviving he says better a probable death than a certain one. If I vote labour we may get a labour MP. Very maybe. Will it mean JC becomes PM? Very unlikely indeed. But it will mean 1 less Tory. If I dont vote or vote LD/Green, I've increased the chances of another Tory. So for me, the lesser of evils and the balance swings in favour of voting for my labour candidate. JC is also standing down after this one remember. |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Nov 7, 2019 11:01:12 GMT
Oh I dont have a lot of faith dont get me wrong. But I do believe that inequality has worsened dramatically over the last 10 years under Tory rule (that's why we vote for them isnt it?). I'm talking about meaningful change to narrow the range between super rich and the abandoned, to better public services. To at least bring us in line with the average in European schooling. The one thing I have categorical belief in is that another Tory government would not narrow the gap enough, if at all. Is labour or lib dems the answer? I have no idea. Is tory the answer? Definitely not. You see, the fundamental for me is this question really. When faced with a human societal problem, do you pull together, compromise and support community? Or do you become insular, cynical and chastise? When you are on your death bed (this one is dramatic just humour me) do you want to be the guy that tried to help or do you want to be the guy that voted to make life just a little bit harder for those already in hardship and crisis? I doubt myself sometimes but I do still (just) believe in compassion and in people. I couldnt vote to extend suffering, it's not in my nature I guess. The way we are going there will not be enough taxpayers left to provide any sort of benefit system. Do you mean if mega corporations continue to be allowed to avoid tax? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 11:03:31 GMT
I guess that every house in council estates or deprived areas just have satellite dishes for decorative purposes? If people are genuinely in need and don’t waste their money on booze, fags and tv subscriptions then they won’t mind having their benefit paid in voucher form only redeemable for life’s essentials - which is surely why benefits were created? I can’t recall ever seeing a report of social housing with swimming pools. However, I am aware of a single mother who has never worked being allocated a flat in Portishead Marina when it was first constructed - presumably a percentage of a development that size would have to be provided for social housing? She must of thought all her christmas’s had come at once. I wonder how many of her friends and acquaintances saw that good fortune and thought that’s the way to go? You seem to still be talking about benefit claimants, not the homeless, foodbank users, education, or anything else we have been musing on. I daresay your post sounds a bit jealous and you seem to be forgetting that most people in council houses do work! There is always going to be a limited amount which can be collected in tax (unless like McDonnell you think we could have a 99% tax band for those horrible rich people). We need to be smarter in how that is allocated and a big factor in that would be to stop so much waste from state benefit, again it should be an emergency support mechanism not a choice. Those savings can provide properly for those truly in need. The benefit system has also encouraged people to have too many kids, that allied to an ageing population and increased immigration will have put strain on health and education. Things can’t continue in that way and governments can’t keep chasing the same people for more and more tax. I don’t understand why I would come across as jealous. I work hard for every penny I earn and just don’t like to see my taxes misused and abused. If I gave a homeless person £10 and he bought food and a hot drink I’d be pleased my money was well used, if he walked into to Ladbrokes with the £10 I’d be fuming. It’s not about being mean spirited it’s a frustration of money being misused. |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Nov 7, 2019 11:06:09 GMT
You seem to still be talking about benefit claimants, not the homeless, foodbank users, education, or anything else we have been musing on. I daresay your post sounds a bit jealous and you seem to be forgetting that most people in council houses do work! There is always going to be a limited amount which can be collected in tax (unless like McDonnell you think we could have a 99% tax band for those horrible rich people). We need to be smarter in how that is allocated and a big factor in that would be to stop so much waste from state benefit, again it should be an emergency support mechanism not a choice. Those savings can provide properly for those truly in need. The benefit system has also encouraged people to have too many kids, that allied to an ageing population and increased immigration will have put strain on health and education. Things can’t continue in that way and governments can’t keep chasing the same people for more and more tax. I don’t understand why I would come across as jealous. I work hard for every penny I earn and just don’t like to see my taxes misused and abused. If I gave a homeless person £10 and he bought food and a hot drink I’d be pleased my money was well used, if he walked into to Ladbrokes with the £10 I’d be fuming. It’s not about being mean spirited it’s a frustration of money being misused. but if everyone paid £10 more a year in tax and we eradicated homelessness, you wouldnt be up for that? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 11:07:03 GMT
The way we are going there will not be enough taxpayers left to provide any sort of benefit system. Do you mean if mega corporations continue to be allowed to avoid tax? They can and should pay more. Same as millions of self employed, they avoid tax every bit as much. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 11:12:21 GMT
There is always going to be a limited amount which can be collected in tax (unless like McDonnell you think we could have a 99% tax band for those horrible rich people). We need to be smarter in how that is allocated and a big factor in that would be to stop so much waste from state benefit, again it should be an emergency support mechanism not a choice. Those savings can provide properly for those truly in need. The benefit system has also encouraged people to have too many kids, that allied to an ageing population and increased immigration will have put strain on health and education. Things can’t continue in that way and governments can’t keep chasing the same people for more and more tax. I don’t understand why I would come across as jealous. I work hard for every penny I earn and just don’t like to see my taxes misused and abused. If I gave a homeless person £10 and he bought food and a hot drink I’d be pleased my money was well used, if he walked into to Ladbrokes with the £10 I’d be fuming. It’s not about being mean spirited it’s a frustration of money being misused. but if everyone paid £10 more a year in tax and we eradicated homelessness, you wouldnt be up for that? No I would prefer to stop benefit cheating and system abuse first and solve homelessness that way. If that isn’t enough then I would consider a bit more. You sound a bit like those charity collectors. Can you spare £5 pound a month to save a snow leopard. Ok I’ll set up a direct debit. Then someone wants to save polar bears and say’s its only another £5 surely you can pay that little bit more? When does it ever end. As society and it’s demographic changes we have to become smarter and more efficient in how we use our money and stop the state being abused. |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Nov 7, 2019 11:16:29 GMT
but if everyone paid £10 more a year in tax and we eradicated homelessness, you wouldnt be up for that? No I would prefer to stop benefit cheating and system abuse first and solve homelessness that way. If that isn’t enough then I would consider a bit more. You sound a bit like those charity collectors. Can you spare £5 pound a month to save a snow leopard. Ok I’ll set up a direct debit. Then someone wants to save polar bears and say’s its only another £5 surely you can pay that little bit more? When does it ever end. As society and it’s demographic changes we have to become smarter and more efficient in how we use our money and stop the state being abused. OK then, what if we recognised that about 3 minutes ago you and I both agreed that mega corporations should be made to pay their taxes. So you and I dont actually have to spend anything at all actually? Shall we do that? The UK eradicates homelessness and nobody is worse in the pocket. Imagine that. Something to be proud of no? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 11:21:33 GMT
I guess that every house in council estates or deprived areas just have satellite dishes for decorative purposes? If people are genuinely in need and don’t waste their money on booze, fags and tv subscriptions then they won’t mind having their benefit paid in voucher form only redeemable for life’s essentials - which is surely why benefits were created? I can’t recall ever seeing a report of social housing with swimming pools. However, I am aware of a single mother who has never worked being allocated a flat in Portishead Marina when it was first constructed - presumably a percentage of a development that size would have to be provided for social housing? She must of thought all her christmas’s had come at once. I wonder how many of her friends and acquaintances saw that good fortune and thought that’s the way to go? You seem to still be talking about benefit claimants, not the homeless, foodbank users, education, or anything else we have been musing on. I daresay your post sounds a bit jealous and you seem to be forgetting that most people in council houses do work! You are too polite sir 😉 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 11:25:58 GMT
No I would prefer to stop benefit cheating and system abuse first and solve homelessness that way. If that isn’t enough then I would consider a bit more. You sound a bit like those charity collectors. Can you spare £5 pound a month to save a snow leopard. Ok I’ll set up a direct debit. Then someone wants to save polar bears and say’s its only another £5 surely you can pay that little bit more? When does it ever end. As society and it’s demographic changes we have to become smarter and more efficient in how we use our money and stop the state being abused. OK then, what if we recognised that about 3 minutes ago you and I both agreed that mega corporations should be made to pay their taxes. So you and I dont actually have to spend anything at all actually? Shall we do that? The UK eradicates homelessness and nobody is worse in the pocket. Imagine that. Something to be proud of no? First mega corporations should only be taxed for UK profits. IMO all firms regardless of size should pay the same percentage of tax, decades of governments have not addressed the ridiculous number of loopholes that can be exploited - I wonder if that was done properly the percentage they need to pay could even be reduced reduced an increase the yield? Likewise, I’d prefer a personal taxation system where everyone pay the same percentage of tax and provide a large increase to personal tax allowances for those at the bottom end. Far simpler and far fairer. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 11:34:04 GMT
OK then, what if we recognised that about 3 minutes ago you and I both agreed that mega corporations should be made to pay their taxes. So you and I dont actually have to spend anything at all actually? Shall we do that? The UK eradicates homelessness and nobody is worse in the pocket. Imagine that. Something to be proud of no? First mega corporations should only be taxed for UK profits. IMO all firms regardless of size should pay the same percentage of tax, decades of governments have not addressed the ridiculous number of loopholes that can be exploited - I wonder if that was done properly the percentage they need to pay could even be reduced reduced an increase the yield? Likewise, I’d prefer a personal taxation system where everyone pay the same percentage of tax and provide a large increase to personal tax allowances for those at the bottom end. Far simpler and far fairer. I am trying, hard, to not respond to Eric, but the utter incoherence in this post has to be challenged. To Quote "I’d prefer a personal taxation system where everyone pay the same percentage of tax and provide a large increase to personal tax allowances for those at the bottom end. Far simpler and far fairer" Are you truly suggesting that those on higher incomes have a different personal allowance than those on lesser incomes? If so, can you indicate how you think HMRC could administer that? Also have you calculated the marginal rate of taxation on those two groups under your proposition? |
|
|
|
Post by William Wilson on Nov 7, 2019 11:38:09 GMT
I think you'll find that it is Corbyn who does 'aspiration'. After saying he would get rid of student debt at the last election, he had to backtrack and claimed it was just 'an aspiration'. You are also behind the times. The Tories have already started to recruit 20,000 Police Officers. Labour has promised 10,000 Police Officers. You and Officer Brady are also missing the point (yet again). Corbyn is saying that young people do not need to work hard. They need council houses. They don't need to look after their health. They need bigger State. The State will provide. If people stopped working hard and paying taxes, then I don't know where the money will come from to pay for all of this. I, personally, like to judge a political party on what they do, or have done, once in power. It's been 9 years of this lot. Judge them on their record... How the hell anyone could vote for them is beyond me. No let me adjust that, I fully understand why the 1% who own the most would. Does it matter if they`ve been in power for 9 or 90 years? Not when the alternative is worse. |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Nov 7, 2019 11:39:02 GMT
I, personally, like to judge a political party on what they do, or have done, once in power. It's been 9 years of this lot. Judge them on their record... How the hell anyone could vote for them is beyond me. No let me adjust that, I fully understand why the 1% who own the most would. Does it matter if they`ve been in power for 9 or 90 years? Not when the alternative is worse. You think it will be worse. How exactly? Worse for who? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 11:45:07 GMT
No I would prefer to stop benefit cheating and system abuse first and solve homelessness that way. If that isn’t enough then I would consider a bit more. You sound a bit like those charity collectors. Can you spare £5 pound a month to save a snow leopard. Ok I’ll set up a direct debit. Then someone wants to save polar bears and say’s its only another £5 surely you can pay that little bit more? When does it ever end. As society and it’s demographic changes we have to become smarter and more efficient in how we use our money and stop the state being abused. So you and I dont actually have to spend anything at all actually? Shall we do that? The UK eradicates homelessness and nobody is worse in the pocket. Imagine that. Something to be proud of no? Ah, the elephant in the room. Am I correct in saying that large corporations are free to arrange their tax set-up in any on the countries in the EU Single Market? Which is why so many of them are 'based' in Luxembourg? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 11:49:12 GMT
I, personally, like to judge a political party on what they do, or have done, once in power. It's been 9 years of this lot. Judge them on their record... How the hell anyone could vote for them is beyond me. No let me adjust that, I fully understand why the 1% who own the most would. Does it matter if they`ve been in power for 9 or 90 years? Not when the alternative is worse. William, I cannot think of a worse record in recent history than this current Tory government. They slashed government spending and devastated public services as a result. If they had done this and met their declared target of reducing national debt by 2014, I would say fair enough, they put this to the voters and delivered. But they did not, they did slash spending, with devastating affect, but proceeded to then double the national debt. Incompetence is not a strong enough word. |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Nov 7, 2019 11:51:28 GMT
Lib Dems to target 43 constituencies
More detail on the 60 areas where parties will not stand against each other
Here is a little more on the 60 constituencies where candidates from pro-Remain parties will stand aside as part of the electoral pact between Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party.
The Lib Dems will get a clear run in 43 of the 60 seats in England and Wales, including a number of target seats like Cheltenham, Richmond Park and Cheadle.
The Green Party will get a clear run in 10, with Plaid Cymru in 7.
Green candidate Carla Denyer tweeted her delight at being selected to run in Bristol West
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2019 11:51:48 GMT
Does it matter if they`ve been in power for 9 or 90 years? Not when the alternative is worse. William, I cannot think of a worse record in recent history than this current Tory government. They slashed government spending and devastated public services as a result. If they had done this and met their declared target of reducing national debt by 2014, I would say fair enough, they put this to the voters and delivered. But they did not, they did slash spending, with devastating affect, but proceeded to then double the national debt. Incompetence is not a strong enough word. and Labour will make all of that even worse. We all know the Labour policies are economic madness. The Tories may not be very good, but just look at the alternative. |
|
|
|
Post by William Wilson on Nov 7, 2019 11:52:09 GMT
I agree with a lot of what you have said but would you want to allow any of this lot to spend our hard earned money to address the issues you raise.All of them have displayed a complete lack of ability to meet these challenges over the last 70 years what's going to change now? Oh I dont have a lot of faith dont get me wrong. But I do believe that inequality has worsened dramatically over the last 10 years under Tory rule (that's why we vote for them isnt it?). I'm talking about meaningful change to narrow the range between super rich and the abandoned, to better public services. To at least bring us in line with the average in European schooling. The one thing I have categorical belief in is that another Tory government would not narrow the gap enough, if at all. Is labour or lib dems the answer? I have no idea. Is tory the answer? Definitely not. You see, the fundamental for me is this question really. When faced with a human societal problem, do you pull together, compromise and support community? Or do you become insular, cynical and chastise? When you are on your death bed (this one is dramatic just humour me) do you want to be the guy that tried to help or do you want to be the guy that voted to make life just a little bit harder for those already in hardship and crisis? I doubt myself sometimes but I do still (just) believe in compassion and in people. I couldnt vote to extend suffering, it's not in my nature I guess. Oh FFS. I don`t believe that anybody on here, will be voting to extend suffering. If you think that increasing taxes and chucking money at the problem is the way forward, then you know who to vote for. Then, let`s see where we are in a couple of year`s time. I well remember the last hard left government we had. If they alleviated suffering, then I`m Keir Hardy. |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Nov 7, 2019 11:54:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by William Wilson on Nov 7, 2019 11:55:22 GMT
Does it matter if they`ve been in power for 9 or 90 years? Not when the alternative is worse. William, I cannot think of a worse record in recent history than this current Tory government. They slashed government spending and devastated public services as a result. If they had done this and met their declared target of reducing national debt by 2014, I would say fair enough, they put this to the voters and delivered. But they did not, they did slash spending, with devastating affect, but proceeded to then double the national debt. Incompetence is not a strong enough word. Lesley, May well all be true. So vote for Corbyn, then get back to me in five years, and we`ll discuss the merits of your decision. |
|
