General Election 2015

Actually I do give a **** about the unemployed and the state of public services.

 

What I don't give a **** about is people who refuse to work, coming out with all the excuses I got a bad back, there's no jobs etc, a lot of unemployed choose that lifestyle then throw themselves on the states mercy whinging how they can't afford to eat and how their kids will starve unless they're given more money, all the while firing out more kids. The conservatives give a **** about these people because they're trying to get them back to work, unlike labour who would just increase their benefits without encouraging them to work, great vote winner for the lazy. I know this happens as I have friends who haven't worked for most of their adult life, I have also seen friends of my children who have never actively looked for work since leaving school in the last couple of years, why should I subsidise these lazy people?

 

I'm not sure what you mean about the state of public services, I know hospitals are overworked and understaffed, but that's for a number of reasons, people are living longer, increase in people moving here etc. Would love to see examples showing the 'state of public services', that to me just sounds like milliband's arguments last night which revolved around we could do better, but couldn't tell us how.

 

I know things aren't perfect but just throwing good money after bad won't solve the issue

We all care about lazy good for nothings but they are such a small percentage of the drain on the system, but it does gives the tories the excuses to go on about those with nothing genuinely can't work who are tarnished with the same brush. I don't have the figures but try compare the tax dodgers against the scroungers.

The amounts lost to the revenue by Tax dodgers runs in to billions. The amount the scroungers cost is still in the millions, yes I know still too much. And you don't hear much of the tories running after their mates in big business trying to get the tax owed. Instead they know the media like to get on the band wagon about scroungers and immigrants not paying their way.

We all care about lazy good for nothings but they are such a small percentage of the drain on the system, but it does gives the tories the excuses to go on about those with nothing genuinely can't work who are tarnished with the same brush. I don't have the figures but try compare the tax dodgers against the scroungers.

 

The amounts lost to the revenue by Tax dodgers runs in to billions. The amount the scroungers cost is still in the millions, yes I know still too much. And you don't hear much of the tories running after their mates in big business trying to get the tax owed. Instead they know the media like to get on the band wagon about scroungers and immigrants not paying their way.

Unbelievable Jeff; your transport worries are over.

 

Just pick a different train company than South West trains.

 

Way to miss the point, Sour Mash

Great news. Thanks all for your help!

As long as it's legal, what's the problem with avoiding paying as much tax as possible?

Can't do that myself, PAYE at 40%.

I have nothing but contempt for those that don't pay their fair share. Hang your heads in shame you w@nkers.

As long as it's legal, what's the problem with avoiding paying as much tax as possible?

As long as it's legal, what's the problem with playing the benefits system for all you can and doing as little work as possible?

If labour care so much about the unemployed why is it that every single labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when they took office?

If labour care so much about the unemployed why is it that every single labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when they took office?

Because they can't manage the economy. Hearts in the right place though, so doesn't matter.

Because they can't manage the economy. Hearts in the right place though, so doesn't matter.

Surely repeating the same mistakes over and over again can't be called caring.

Surely repeating the same mistakes over and over again can't be called caring.

Apparently it can if you read back through this thread.

Apparently it can if you read back through this thread.

Read the link that bridge too far posted

Can't do that myself, PAYE at 40%.

 

I have nothing but contempt for those that don't pay their fair share. Hang your heads in shame you w@nkers.

Can't do that myself, PAYE at 40%.

 

I have nothing but contempt for those that don't pay their fair share. Hang your heads in shame you w@nkers.

What if your next door neighbour worked double the number of hours that you work, pays more tax than you do in ££££ terms, but pays less than 40%.

What would you say about him?

As long as it's legal, what's the problem with playing the benefits system for all you can and doing as little work as possible?

Regardless of whether tax avoidance is moral, the point is the government needs to do something about it instead of focusing on people who can't find a job during an economic downturn

They haven't earned the money in the first place, that's the difference.

You don't know that - don't generalise! There are plenty of people out of work (and in work for that matter) who claim benefits having paid NI for donkey's years.

You don't know that - don't generalise! There are plenty of people out of work (and in work for that matter) who claim benefits having paid NI for donkey's years.

Probably worth reading the post I was replying to before getting your knickers in a twist.

Regardless of whether tax avoidance is moral, the point is the government needs to do something about it instead of focusing on people who can't find a job during an economic downturn

But what about over the last couple of years, where the economy has been growing?

Probably worth reading the post I was replying to before getting your knickers in a twist.

My point still stands

But what about over the last couple of years, where the economy has been growing?

So you think that when the economy starts growing, all unemployment is immediately eradicated?

My point still stands

It can't still stand as it's in complete contradiction to the post I was replying to, so doesn't really make much sense.

So you think that when the economy starts growing, all unemployment is immediately eradicated?

No, but when the upturn takes place more jobs are available and people should be encouraged to go out and get said jobs.

The point is they're focusing on people who can't get a job in an economic upturn...

It can't still stand as it's in complete contradiction to the post I was replying to, so doesn't really make much sense.

This is what it always comes down to on this forum, you think that because the mega rich have a job which pays them a high salary, they have "earned" their money. I say no one can work hard enough to "earn" those enormous amounts, and it's quite right that the state takes a large proportion of it and gives it to others who aren't blessed with the same intelligence, luck, family connections, stable mental health etc, not to mention pay for roads, infrastructure etc that the wealthy themselves benefit from

No, but when the upturn takes place more jobs are available and people should be encouraged to go out and get said jobs.

 

The point is they're focusing on people who can't get a job in an economic upturn...

So you think all people on benefits are workshy and just need to be hit with a stick until they try hard enough to find a job? The fact is that most people on benefits want to work but can't find a job, or they've lost confidence in themselves, or they have mental health problems that stop them holding down a job. Forcing them further into poverty does nothing to change their situation.

You think it's all like the people on benefits Street, and some are like that, but they're the minority. In the mean time you have good people suffering, like this guy :

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/03/victims-britains-harsh-welfare-sanctions

Take a look at some of this lot. It beggars belief. All examples are sourced, including examples from the most right-wing of right-wing organs, the good old Mail.

This is Ian and Duncan Smith's brave new world of getting people back into employment.

http://stupidsanctions.tumblr.com/

And, of course, any employment counts, including zero-hours contracts. One questions Paxman did ask is whether Cameron would be prepared to take a zero-hours contract job. Luckily for him, he never will and I suspect very few people on here would be especially delighted by the prospect. When I was a kid, we were told about the bad old days of hire-and-fire. How are these contracts much different?

There are plenty of industries that I don't think business can be trusted with. Health care and prisons would be one. I'd even say that there is a good case for big pharma to be hemmed in. I'd also say that transport and utilities need to be run with the national interest in mind.

 

All of these things are essentials, and unlike some of the other essentials such as food, aren't as easily procured when profit motive is involved. We don't need to speculate on what happens when companies are given reign over the essentials. All of the above are taxes going to the private sector, and then who knows where. Decisions are going to be based on short-term profitability rather than any long term improvement, and people have to cope with year-on-year inflation-busting price rises in many former nationalised sectors.

 

Don't buy that it can't be done. Other countries have not only achieved it, but also now own big parts of our energy market. They had the nous to do something useful with their nationalised expertise; Thatcher was stupid enough to sell our kit to them, so we now subsidise foreign states when in the past, all of that money would have been going into our own exchequer.

 

That's what I mean.

No joking aside, I think you would struggle to find a more 'caring' conservative front bencher. He may come across as arrogant and smarmy (although a lot of lefties describe most conservatives as arrogant) but I actually think he's not a bad guy. He is extremely passionate about being PM and getting this country turned around.

 

It is a pretty insulting thing to say that people don't care, and is not actually a common personality trait. I think it would really rangle with Dave though, considering he spent a good amount of his life looking after a severly disabled child.

I didn't say he didn't care. Or wasn't caring. I think it's an odd and slightly meaningless thing to say as a differentiator of politicians or political parties.

It just grosses me out when he defends his Cotswolds buddies. Well, that and a few other things.

Take a look at some of this lot. It beggars belief. All examples are sourced, including examples from the most right-wing of right-wing organs, the good old Mail.

This is Ian and Duncan Smith's brave new world of getting people back into employment.

 

http://stupidsanctions.tumblr.com/

 

And, of course, any employment counts, including zero-hours contracts. One questions Paxman did ask is whether Cameron would be prepared to take a zero-hours contract job. Luckily for him, he never will and I suspect very few people on here would be especially delighted by the prospect. When I was a kid, we were told about the bad old days of hire-and-fire. How are these contracts much different?

That's a truly sickening list.

If labour care so much about the unemployed why is it that every single labour government has left office with unemployment higher than when they took office?

don,t think thats true..labour party Attlee's government was the maintenance of near full unemployment. The government maintained most of the wartime controls over the economy, including control over the allocation of materials and manpower, and unemployment rarely rose above 500,000, or 3% of the total workforce.^, Labour shortages proved to be a more frequent problem. The inflation rate was also kept low during his term. The rate of unemployment rarely rose above 2% during Attlee's time in office, whilst there was no hard-core of long-term unemployed. Both production and productivity rose as a result of new equipment, while the average working week was shortened. and i won,t mention thatchers terrible record on unemployment.

This thread reminds me of a quote I love from Its A Mad Mad World:

"Everybody has to pay taxes. Even businessmen that rob and steal and cheat from people everyday, even they have to pay taxes."

They haven't earned the money in the first place, that's the difference.

But they have only earned the money thanks to a society provided to them by taxes paid fairly by you and me.

Both are selfishly abusing a system for their own means, no difference in my book.

And this is what Dave wouldn't tell us last night

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32084722

But they have only earned the money thanks to a society provided to them by taxes paid fairly by you and me.

 

Both are selfishly abusing a system for their own means, no difference in my book.

That's rubbish. Are you saying that the the only way anybody ever earns any money is because of public subsidies? High taxes restrict your ability to earn, not enhance it.

That's rubbish. Are you saying that the the only way anybody ever earns any money is because of public subsidies? High taxes restrict your ability to earn, not enhance it.

Without paying taxes you wouldn't have a functioning society.

mind you one of prime minsters written out of history and despised by the lunatic wing of the party //Passing through our peculiar time-warp, we now arrive at Edward Heath’s much derided time in office. However, despite the chorus of yawns that inevitably break out at the sound of the name, Heath was a remarkable man and an exceptional Conservative leader. Exceptional due to the fact that he was one of the few twentieth-century Tory Prime Ministers to witness a fall in unemployment under his leadership. Indeed, there were 100,000 fewer people unemployed when he departed in 1974 than when he entered office in 1970.

Sandwiched in between two of the Conservative Party’s so-called national ‘titans’, Mr. Heath actually performs rather admirably. Margaret Thatcher’s fiscal fascination with the free market resulted in nearly 600,000 more individuals being unemployed at the end of her reign than at the start. This even after Labour ‘ruined’ the British economy during the late 1970s. “Like North Korea, just without the hope” is a phrase often evoked to describe late 1970s Britain. That may have been so, but 600,000 people certainly had more hope at the end of the 1970s than at the start of it. its funny how we can paint some people has great leaders despite statistics showing the opposite of reality.

That's rubbish. Are you saying that the the only way anybody ever earns any money is because of public subsidies? High taxes restrict your ability to earn, not enhance it.

Lots of people do earn money that is then publicly subsidised - e.g companies paying minimum wages ARE subsidised by you and me because we have to provide their employees with benefits so that they can live.

This is what it always comes down to on this forum, you think that because the mega rich have a job which pays them a high salary, they have "earned" their money. I say no one can work hard enough to "earn" those enormous amounts, and it's quite right that the state takes a large proportion of it and gives it to others who aren't blessed with the same intelligence, luck, family connections, stable mental health etc, not to mention pay for roads, infrastructure etc that the wealthy themselves benefit from

Fascinating. I take it you have an arbitrary amount that people can earn from just hard work? Loads of every day people would pay less tax than they can, nothing to do with the"Mega Rich".

But they have only earned the money thanks to a society provided to them by taxes paid fairly by you and me.

 

Both are selfishly abusing a system for their own means, no difference in my book.

Most companies and self employed people find ways to minimise the tax they pay, only an idiot would do otherwise.

Anyone who thinks the mega rich and corporations can be defended for avoiding paying their fair share is nothing but an utter c**t.

Take a look at some of this lot. It beggars belief. All examples are sourced, including examples from the most right-wing of right-wing organs, the good old Mail.

This is Ian and Duncan Smith's brave new world of getting people back into employment.

 

http://stupidsanctions.tumblr.com/

 

And, of course, any employment counts, including zero-hours contracts. One questions Paxman did ask is whether Cameron would be prepared to take a zero-hours contract job. Luckily for him, he never will and I suspect very few people on here would be especially delighted by the prospect. When I was a kid, we were told about the bad old days of hire-and-fire. How are these contracts much different?

& yet when sanctions are mentioned on here the usual bigoted, blinkered fools tell us it's just a one off etc. They live in their little bubbles oblivious to the real world.

Lots of people do earn money that is then publicly subsidised - e.g companies paying minimum wages ARE subsidised by you and me because we have to provide their employees with benefits so that they can live.

That's not what I said.

The example you give is a very small proportion of the working population and merely illustrates the ridiculous anomalies of the tax system that Gordon Brown created.

Anyone who thinks the mega rich and corporations can be defended for avoiding paying their fair share is nothing but an utter c**t.

That all depends on what you consider is a 'fair share'.

And please mind your language, not everybody thinks as vindictively as you.

That's not what I said.

 

The example you give is a very small proportion of the working population and merely illustrates the ridiculous anomalies of the tax system that Gordon Brown created.

17% of working age households receive working tax credits - hardly a very small proportion

http://www.poverty.org.uk/15/index.shtml

Anyone who thinks the mega rich and corporations can be defended for avoiding paying their fair share is nothing but an utter c**t.

Anyone who thinks the mega rich and corporations can be defended for avoiding paying their fair share is nothing but an utter c**t.

The Millibands used a deed of variance to avoid more inheritance tax. Is that right or wrong ?

As long as it's legal, what's the problem with avoiding paying as much tax as possible?

Even the banks are starting to agree that something maybe barely legal but it doesn't make it right.

Well, if for no other reason than to reduce the ridiculous licensing costs that people, including us, have to pay for drugs.

 

Their stance is basically "Can't afford the life-saving drugs we have? F**k you. Die."

Are you sure you haven't taken that stance out of the latest Tory manifesto?

So you think all people on benefits are workshy and just need to be hit with a stick until they try hard enough to find a job? The fact is that most people on benefits want to work but can't find a job, or they've lost confidence in themselves, or they have mental health problems that stop them holding down a job. Forcing them further into poverty does nothing to change their situation.

 

You think it's all like the people on benefits Street, and some are like that, but they're the minority. In the mean time you have good people suffering, like this guy :

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/03/victims-britains-harsh-welfare-sanctions

No, where did I say that? What a way to turn me correcting what you said into an extreme opinion, that's really well done.

& yet when sanctions are mentioned on here the usual bigoted, blinkered fools tell us it's just a one off etc. They live in their little bubbles oblivious to the real world.

I think you're creating an argument nobody has - these sanctions are ridiculous and i don't think anyone would say they aren't??

...