|
Post by gonzales on Jun 13, 2017 11:32:44 GMT
I could have replied that you make a fair point Phil, but then you ruin it by putting words in the mouths of people on the other side of the political spectrum.
It's worth repeating an opinion I saw recently (and we as Gasheads surely know this from our recent history) - 'in a country so divided, nobody truly wins'.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Jun 13, 2017 11:38:45 GMT
To me jeremy corbyn is about hope for a fairer society. I want my grand children to at least have access to the health service and education i had. I want them to get on the housing ladder and have jobs with proper contracts. Under the current regime that will not happen,meanwhile the wealthy will increase there immense riches and the rise that is all to apparent in real poverty in modern britain will gain pace. If you wanted all of that, why did you vote Labour? And if you voted Brexit, again, for the sake of your grandkids, why did you do that? It was the most shortsighted thing you could have possibly done. Whichever way you cut it, your grandkids will have to rely on inheritance from you and their parents to have a comfortable second phase of life. Meaning they will have to work hard for their first 45 years if they want all the things you have just mentioned. There is no pension pots, the last labour government saw to that when Brown raided it. Banks are wise to mortgage lending after the crash in 2007-09 crippled the banking system which the government then had to mostly purchase with the tax payers money which we are still paying for right now. And you want to vote for the same party that did this in the first place? Madness! The rich aren't getting richer because they are creaming it off interest rates are they? They are at 0.5%. It's because most of them have had to invest in this country, through the bad times but now it has improved they have created an economy and jobs, but now it's looking better you want to penalise them for that? Increase taxes so far and All that will happen is they will shrink the size of their companies, make people redundant, increasing unemployment and possibly move businesses back off shore. Oh and Alan Sugar put £56m in personal tax back into the treasury last year and that won't include his corporation tax, his employee contributions and business rates. What if he moves off sure and other businesses do the same? Have labour got a magic pot to replace them? We are in 7 years of austerity because we have to be, it's the only chance of us giving my kids and your grandkids an opportunity of what you outlined. Borrowing has trebled because the mess was so great it has taken longer to pay everything back. It's basic maths. I'm 36, I set up a business in 09 in a recession when I got made redundant and worked damn hard, I consider myself to be reasonably successful, I took no salary for 18 months but now, with employees I am enjoying what I made, I am in the higher tax bracket, why should I be overly penalised for what I did in 2009? Corbyn quite simply had no basic business costs for his manifesto, it was nothing but a pipe dream using the inexperienced youth to grapple votes. Fair play it works. But I would rather have the DUP in coalition than that lunatic. If I may give an alternative view:
Pensions - the removal of dividend tax releif is a minor factor in the DB scheme issue. Its mainly due to the enforced indexation and changes in valuation methods imposed by the 1993 and 1995 Pensions Acts, imo. Basically a bad overreaction from Maxwell by the Major government.
The Labour government had to bail out the banks - yes, they did, they had no choice. A number of banks became too big to fail, which was a result of the loosening of regulations in the 80's and 90's. I certainly don't remember the Torys calling for tighter banking regulation, or splitting up the large banks.
Regarding austerity - the way that the Tories have handled the economy since 2010 is pretty strange, when you look at it. Reducing the money supply through fiscal policy on the one hand, while increasing it through Quantitative Easing on the other. This method can only lead to greater inequality. Greater inequality means less money circulating in the economy. There's only so much money a person can spend on things other than assets, leading to assets booming in price, tying up yet more money.
With repayment of student loans and the high costs of housing, the young generally have very little spare cash. This is very bad for the economy, as money is tied up rather than being productively circulated.
This is the only time since the Great Depression that a downturn has been followed by austerity, and its the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. Coincidence?
Finally, regarding the proposed increase in business taxation. I agree with keeping corp tax competitive, but at the moment it is extraordinarily low. Even after Labour's proposed increase it would be one of the lowest in the developed world, lowest in the G7 I believe. So why would this force businesses to move offshore?
|
|
|
Post by philbemmygas on Jun 13, 2017 11:47:58 GMT
I could have replied that you make a fair point Phil, but then you ruin it by putting words in the mouths of people on the other side of the political spectrum. It's worth repeating an opinion I saw recently (and we as Gasheads surely know this from our recent history) - 'in a country so divided, nobody truly wins'. Alas irony is difficult to detect in the written word; I am bombarded in the press and social media with opinions and counter opinions as to who is right and who is wrong. Fiscal policy can and will be debated until the cows come home, roll on the League Cup draw. Then we can all get off our proverbial high stools and talk about football again, or even before if we make somemore signings. UTG
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 11:54:14 GMT
Wasn't the 'hammering' that those over 80k were going to be 'hit' with something like £2.50 a week? I'd happily pay that and I earn less than 20k, why is it the richer you are the greedier you become and the less you care about others? That's obviously not a truism but it is the inference us poor can draw from the constant bullshit spilled by the mainstream press and regurgitated by posters online. Also, our corporation tax is one of the lowest in the developed world and under the labour proposal would still be lower than other Western European countries. Not that it matters because after the hard-brexit craved by so many of May's cronies airbus et al will say 'see ya' - and us young people will be left to clear up the mess left to us. Have you ever heard of the Laffer Curve?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 12:13:49 GMT
In a poll taken at the start of last season only 5 rovers players in the whole squad did not support the labour party. They were
1] tom lockyer plaid cymru 2] stuart sinclair greens 3] christian montano ukip 4] ellis harrison undecided 5] matty taylor conservative because hes a greedy selfish money grabbing basta** . All the others backed labour as well as manager darrell clarke who fully supports corbyns revolution which is in fact loosely based on the modern bristol rovers model.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 12:16:15 GMT
F@ck labour - tramps
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Jun 13, 2017 12:27:41 GMT
If you wanted all of that, why did you vote Labour? And if you voted Brexit, again, for the sake of your grandkids, why did you do that? It was the most shortsighted thing you could have possibly done. Whichever way you cut it, your grandkids will have to rely on inheritance from you and their parents to have a comfortable second phase of life. Meaning they will have to work hard for their first 45 years if they want all the things you have just mentioned. There is no pension pots, the last labour government saw to that when Brown raided it. Banks are wise to mortgage lending after the crash in 2007-09 crippled the banking system which the government then had to mostly purchase with the tax payers money which we are still paying for right now. And you want to vote for the same party that did this in the first place? Madness! The rich aren't getting richer because they are creaming it off interest rates are they? They are at 0.5%. It's because most of them have had to invest in this country, through the bad times but now it has improved they have created an economy and jobs, but now it's looking better you want to penalise them for that? Increase taxes so far and All that will happen is they will shrink the size of their companies, make people redundant, increasing unemployment and possibly move businesses back off shore. Oh and Alan Sugar put £56m in personal tax back into the treasury last year and that won't include his corporation tax, his employee contributions and business rates. What if he moves off sure and other businesses do the same? Have labour got a magic pot to replace them? We are in 7 years of austerity because we have to be, it's the only chance of us giving my kids and your grandkids an opportunity of what you outlined. Borrowing has trebled because the mess was so great it has taken longer to pay everything back. It's basic maths. I'm 36, I set up a business in 09 in a recession when I got made redundant and worked damn hard, I consider myself to be reasonably successful, I took no salary for 18 months but now, with employees I am enjoying what I made, I am in the higher tax bracket, why should I be overly penalised for what I did in 2009? Corbyn quite simply had no basic business costs for his manifesto, it was nothing but a pipe dream using the inexperienced youth to grapple votes. Fair play it works. But I would rather have the DUP in coalition than that lunatic. If I may give an alternative view:
Pensions - the removal of dividend tax releif is a minor factor in the DB scheme issue. Its mainly due to the enforced indexation and changes in valuation methods imposed by the 1993 and 1995 Pensions Acts, imo. Basically a bad overreaction from Maxwell by the Major government.
The Labour government had to bail out the banks - yes, they did, they had no choice. A number of banks became too big to fail, which was a result of the loosening of regulations in the 80's and 90's. I certainly don't remember the Torys calling for tighter banking regulation, or splitting up the large banks.
Regarding austerity - the way that the Tories have handled the economy since 2010 is pretty strange, when you look at it. Reducing the money supply through fiscal policy on the one hand, while increasing it through Quantitative Easing on the other. This method can only lead to greater inequality. Greater inequality means less money circulating in the economy. There's only so much money a person can spend on things other than assets, leading to assets booming in price, tying up yet more money.
With repayment of student loans and the high costs of housing, the young generally have very little spare cash. This is very bad for the economy, as money is tied up rather than being productively circulated.
This is the only time since the Great Depression that a downturn has been followed by austerity, and its the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. Coincidence?
Finally, regarding the proposed increase in business taxation. I agree with keeping corp tax competitive, but at the moment it is extraordinarily low. Even after Labour's proposed increase it would be one of the lowest in the developed world, lowest in the G7 I believe. So why would this force businesses to move offshore?
A nice have your cake and eat it argument. If there is a problem with pension valuations it is equally labour's fault as was the banking crisis. After all they were the government for 13 years with large majorities. They made the law they replaced what they didn't like and kept what they agreed with. Of course the counter argument is they didn't know what they were doing and were trapped in the headlights like rabbits.
|
|
Marshy
Proper Gas
Posts: 14,389
|
Post by Marshy on Jun 13, 2017 12:32:21 GMT
In a poll taken at the start of last season only 5 rovers players in the whole squad did not support the labour party. They were 1] tom lockyer plaid cymru 2] stuart sinclair greens 3] christian montano ukip 4] ellis harrison undecided 5] matty taylor conservative because hes a greedy selfish money grabbing basta** . All the others backed labour as well as manager darrell clarke who fully supports corbyns revolution which is in fact loosely based on the modern bristol rovers model. 4) Ellis Harrison- undecided, ha nothing new there then!
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Jun 13, 2017 13:05:43 GMT
If I may give an alternative view:
Pensions - the removal of dividend tax releif is a minor factor in the DB scheme issue. Its mainly due to the enforced indexation and changes in valuation methods imposed by the 1993 and 1995 Pensions Acts, imo. Basically a bad overreaction from Maxwell by the Major government.
The Labour government had to bail out the banks - yes, they did, they had no choice. A number of banks became too big to fail, which was a result of the loosening of regulations in the 80's and 90's. I certainly don't remember the Torys calling for tighter banking regulation, or splitting up the large banks.
Regarding austerity - the way that the Tories have handled the economy since 2010 is pretty strange, when you look at it. Reducing the money supply through fiscal policy on the one hand, while increasing it through Quantitative Easing on the other. This method can only lead to greater inequality. Greater inequality means less money circulating in the economy. There's only so much money a person can spend on things other than assets, leading to assets booming in price, tying up yet more money.
With repayment of student loans and the high costs of housing, the young generally have very little spare cash. This is very bad for the economy, as money is tied up rather than being productively circulated.
This is the only time since the Great Depression that a downturn has been followed by austerity, and its the slowest recovery since the Great Depression. Coincidence?
Finally, regarding the proposed increase in business taxation. I agree with keeping corp tax competitive, but at the moment it is extraordinarily low. Even after Labour's proposed increase it would be one of the lowest in the developed world, lowest in the G7 I believe. So why would this force businesses to move offshore?
A nice have your cake and eat it argument. If there is a problem with pension valuations it is equally labour's fault as was the banking crisis. After all they were the government for 13 years with large majorities. They made the law they replaced what they didn't like and kept what they agreed with. Of course the counter argument is they didn't know what they were doing and were trapped in the headlights like rabbits. Again, is it likely that the conservatives would have done anything differently? If they had gone into power with the stated aim of restricting the activities of the banks, breaking up the biggest, when the economy seemed to be going so well, the press and the opposition would have had a a field day. I'm not letting the Labour government of the time off the hook entirely, but just saying that they are not 100% to blame for a pensions crisis that started before they took office, and took a long time to become evident, nor a banking crisis that was the same plus was international in scope.
|
|
Marshy
Proper Gas
Posts: 14,389
|
Post by Marshy on Jun 13, 2017 14:56:09 GMT
In a poll taken at the start of last season only 5 rovers players in the whole squad did not support the labour party. They were 1] tom lockyer plaid cymru 2] stuart sinclair greens 3] christian montano ukip 4] ellis harrison undecided 5] matty taylor conservative because hes a greedy selfish money grabbing basta** . All the others backed labour as well as manager darrell clarke who fully supports corbyns revolution which is in fact loosely based on the modern bristol rovers model. What a load of old bollox that is!
|
|
|
Post by gasstrictband on Jun 13, 2017 15:02:25 GMT
Pour It in Your Ear.
|
|
|
Post by gashead1981 on Jun 13, 2017 15:06:21 GMT
Wasn't the 'hammering' that those over 80k were going to be 'hit' with something like £2.50 a week? I'd happily pay that and I earn less than 20k, why is it the richer you are the greedier you become and the less you care about others? That's obviously not a truism but it is the inference us poor can draw from the constant bullshit spilled by the mainstream press and regurgitated by posters online. Also, our corporation tax is one of the lowest in the developed world and under the labour proposal would still be lower than other Western European countries. Not that it matters because after the hard-brexit craved by so many of May's cronies airbus et al will say 'see ya' - and us young people will be left to clear up the mess left to us. Or I could see it another way. I was made redundant from a job where I had an OTE of £50k per year. I took the risk to start up a business and borrowed £50k to do so. I drew no salary for 18 months and the first salary I did draw was £15k. £17 the next and then £25k the year after. Under the national average until year 5. To pay my loan back in full I was also taxed on the profit that I made before I pay it back. Not many people are willing to risk 5 years salary and take on a loan that size. But I did and made it work. I now employ 5 other people and have 5 subcontractors. I have worked 36 hour days, had sleepless nights and a few other sticky patches along the way. Forgive me for being a touch selfish but I don't want to give anymore money to HMRC than I absolutely have to. Especially when I was the one who took the risk, I employ others and contribute greatly to the economy. Now I am earning a decent wedge for myself, why should I now be overly taxed again? The same goes for every other company owner across the U.K. If it was that easy, why doesn't everyone else do it? Our corp tax maybe one of the lowest, but our VAT is one of the highest, our personal contribution is one of the highest, road fund, fuel duty, business rates are all some of the, if not highest in Europe. People under the age of 21 were largely raised in a free handout labour government, encouraged to stay at home and given pay increases for doing so, which is great, until the means to pay for it ran out. And it did, in a big way. A local family I know earn £28k a year in handouts, why the hell would the old man go out to work? I would stay at home on that pay cheque as well.
|
|
|
Post by Kingswood Polak on Jun 13, 2017 15:21:23 GMT
No they never. Their own leader wouldn't and refused to debate and be interviewed for her own job. They had no manifesto and would not be drawn on it. Labour did have a manifesto and fully costed out. The press decided not to concentrate on that and found it funny to make fun out of people who made mistakes. Have you ever tried to remember a manifesto that was just 2 weeks old and get it word perfect ? I'd love to see you try and then see how you'd like it when the press and everyone else made fun of you. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone or in this case he/she who is not without mistake. Fact is we had a Brexit vote we didn't need which led to an election we didn't need and yet somehow this is labours fault if it weren't so tragic then it would be funny but we now have a severely diminished PM who is expected to deliver Brexit when she couldn't deliver an outright majority in her own country. It's an omnishambles and showed such poor judgment that it's beyond any logic. Who have ever thought of the conservatives in bed with the late Reverend Ian Paisley's DUP. Something I certainly would never have Imagined possible. "costed out" are you being serious? Most of it was going to come from taxing the £85K+ earners but when Labour tried a similar tax increase in the past it suddenly all disappeared as the rich founds ways of not paying it i.e. pay more into their pensions, set up Ltd co's etc. I've nothing against Labour but I can't believe anybody trusted Corbyn's calculations when he could really say what he wanted as he knew he was unlikely to ever be elected. Given the Tories had a whopping 20% lead when the election was called and the actual difference was 2% then I'd call that pretty good. You talk of the 85k plus earners but forget the huge corporations such a Google and even the poxy coffee franchises. Petsonally, in my near 54 years, I've never seen a country so polarised. I don't know you fella but if you just take a walk into the city centre then you'll see the homeless setting up in shop doors as early as 19:00. I think there has to be radical change but I won't go into one now as I've had a gutfull of it in the last few weeks. It is what it is & most people don't even realise they are maybe one or possibly 2 pay cheques away from being a part of the great unwashed.
|
|
|
Post by Kingswood Polak on Jun 13, 2017 15:23:44 GMT
No they never. Their own leader wouldn't and refused to debate and be interviewed for her own job. They had no manifesto and would not be drawn on it. Labour did have a manifesto and fully costed out. The press decided not to concentrate on that and found it funny to make fun out of people who made mistakes. Have you ever tried to remember a manifesto that was just 2 weeks old and get it word perfect ? I'd love to see you try and then see how you'd like it when the press and everyone else made fun of you. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone or in this case he/she who is not without mistake. Fact is we had a Brexit vote we didn't need which led to an election we didn't need and yet somehow this is labours fault if it weren't so tragic then it would be funny but we now have a severely diminished PM who is expected to deliver Brexit when she couldn't deliver an outright majority in her own country. It's an omnishambles and showed such poor judgment that it's beyond any logic. Who have ever thought of the conservatives in bed with the late Reverend Ian Paisley's DUP. Something I certainly would never have Imagined possible. "No Manifesto" = No Promises/No Lies. I really can't figure out why the Labour Party didn't win the election. They promised everything and still couldn't win - I'm baffled !!! This isn't an angry posting btw. Really ? The media smears have been non stop against Corbyn. If that were David Milliband it would have been a labour victor im sure.
|
|
|
Post by Kingswood Polak on Jun 13, 2017 15:36:23 GMT
To me jeremy corbyn is about hope for a fairer society. I want my grand children to at least have access to the health service and education i had. I want them to get on the housing ladder and have jobs with proper contracts. Under the current regime that will not happen,meanwhile the wealthy will increase there immense riches and the rise that is all to apparent in real poverty in modern britain will gain pace. If you wanted all of that, why did you vote Labour? And if you voted Brexit, again, for the sake of your grandkids, why did you do that? It was the most shortsighted thing you could have possibly done. Whichever way you cut it, your grandkids will have to rely on inheritance from you and their parents to have a comfortable second phase of life. Meaning they will have to work hard for their first 45 years if they want all the things you have just mentioned. There is no pension pots, the last labour government saw to that when Brown raided it. Banks are wise to mortgage lending after the crash in 2007-09 crippled the banking system which the government then had to mostly purchase with the tax payers money which we are still paying for right now. And you want to vote for the same party that did this in the first place? Madness! The rich aren't getting richer because they are creaming it off interest rates are they? They are at 0.5%. It's because most of them have had to invest in this country, through the bad times but now it has improved they have created an economy and jobs, but now it's looking better you want to penalise them for that? Increase taxes so far and All that will happen is they will shrink the size of their companies, make people redundant, increasing unemployment and possibly move businesses back off shore. Oh and Alan Sugar put £56m in personal tax back into the treasury last year and that won't include his corporation tax, his employee contributions and business rates. What if he moves off sure and other businesses do the same? Have labour got a magic pot to replace them? We are in 7 years of austerity because we have to be, it's the only chance of us giving my kids and your grandkids an opportunity of what you outlined. Borrowing has trebled because the mess was so great it has taken longer to pay everything back. It's basic maths. I'm 36, I set up a business in 09 in a recession when I got made redundant and worked damn hard, I consider myself to be reasonably successful, I took no salary for 18 months but now, with employees I am enjoying what I made, I am in the higher tax bracket, why should I be overly penalised for what I did in 2009? Corbyn quite simply had no basic business costs for his manifesto, it was nothing but a pipe dream using the inexperienced youth to grapple votes. Fair play it works. But I would rather have the DUP in coalition than that lunatic. Hang on one moment. Basic maths you say, so we borrow 3 times the amount of ALL previous labour adminstrations put together whilst crashing the economy so that we are joint last in the G7, alongside that leviathan of industry Italy, at 1.2%. If that is an improving economy then I don't know what you believe a bad one is. As for Corbyn being a lunatic, could you maybe add some reasonable back up rather than the sound bites that the red tops had people repeating, mantra like. Good on you that you have done well but the facts are the 7 years of austerity have not worked. We have not paid off the debt and have nothing to show for the extra borrowed money and then printing more money ( quantatibe easing) we had 20,000 less police, A&E units closed, armed forces cut by over 10,000 and not one commissioned aircraft carrier. Our public sector workers are stuck on wage rises that don't cover the cost of living increases and we are looking at even more cuts now. Let's hope your luck and business carry on thriving. The facts are that the wealthy are not sticking their money back in and Alan Sugar is very much the exception. There is no trickle down but a trickle out, to offshore accounts and tax havens, just like the ex gashead Lamsdown.
|
|
|
Post by countygroundhotel on Jun 13, 2017 15:37:10 GMT
A nice have your cake and eat it argument. If there is a problem with pension valuations it is equally labour's fault as was the banking crisis. After all they were the government for 13 years with large majorities. They made the law they replaced what they didn't like and kept what they agreed with. Of course the counter argument is they didn't know what they were doing and were trapped in the headlights like rabbits. Again, is it likely that the conservatives would have done anything differently? If they had gone into power with the stated aim of restricting the activities of the banks, breaking up the biggest, when the economy seemed to be going so well, the press and the opposition would have had a a field day. I'm not letting the Labour government of the time off the hook entirely, but just saying that they are not 100% to blame for a pensions crisis that started before they took office, and took a long time to become evident, nor a banking crisis that was the same plus was international in scope. But they aren't at all to blame for the banking crisis, laughable really.
|
|
|
Post by Kingswood Polak on Jun 13, 2017 15:48:01 GMT
Wasn't the 'hammering' that those over 80k were going to be 'hit' with something like £2.50 a week? I'd happily pay that and I earn less than 20k, why is it the richer you are the greedier you become and the less you care about others? That's obviously not a truism but it is the inference us poor can draw from the constant bullshit spilled by the mainstream press and regurgitated by posters online. Also, our corporation tax is one of the lowest in the developed world and under the labour proposal would still be lower than other Western European countries. Not that it matters because after the hard-brexit craved by so many of May's cronies airbus et al will say 'see ya' - and us young people will be left to clear up the mess left to us. Great post. When is enough, enough ? You are spot on in that. Like I said. I've never seen a country sompolarised in my lifetime and social media has had a massive impact in it. It's crazy that so many have a bloody full library in their pockets bit don't have the attention span to just take a couple of minutes, to check is something they have seen posted is actually true. We have access to so much information yet so many don't care to even look. I find that quite sad and we are supposed to live in enlightened times yet it's personal attack and vitriol that are used over substance and fact what worries me now is we have a PM who wouldn't debate or be interviewed for her own job yet we are supposed to trust this strong and stable PM to deliver a brexit, alongside the dinosaur DUP, that will benefit this country. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we saw yet another general election in 6 months time. I just cannot see any coalition with them to be workable.
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Jun 13, 2017 16:19:55 GMT
Again, is it likely that the conservatives would have done anything differently? If they had gone into power with the stated aim of restricting the activities of the banks, breaking up the biggest, when the economy seemed to be going so well, the press and the opposition would have had a a field day. I'm not letting the Labour government of the time off the hook entirely, but just saying that they are not 100% to blame for a pensions crisis that started before they took office, and took a long time to become evident, nor a banking crisis that was the same plus was international in scope. But they aren't at all to blame for the banking crisis, laughable really. At the time the Tories were calling for more deregulation for the banks not less.
|
|
|
Post by mariobalotelli on Jun 13, 2017 18:09:48 GMT
What a thoroughly educated opinion you have there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2017 18:36:41 GMT
What a thoroughly educated opinion you have there. Thank you treacle 😉😘
|
|