aintforever

We've heard all that before. Flog whoever wants to go, buy better players with the cash - onwards and upwards.

To be fair 'Mansion Tax' is just a name it's been given. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows it doesn't just refer to a country estate with a large tree lined drive and it's own stable block and servant's quarters. I guess that rules you out though. What name would make it acceptable for you lot? 'Large House Tax' wouldn't work because you can get a large house in Liverpool for a few quid. 'Expensive House Tax' wouldn't work because to many people any house is expensive.

Of course it should be set up to maximise revenue, I never one mentioned "sticking it to the tiffs", that's something you keep banging on about. I think we could all pay a bit more tax, when I say we I mean anyone with a half decent salary, not just millionaires or the super rich. I don't earn a massive amount but it is above average and the crash/recession/austerity hasn't effected me in the slightest, if anything I have been better off. I read about food banks, cuts to vital services etc and it doesn't seem like we are "all in it together". If you are lucky enough to own a property and have a half decent job this 'austerity' is a right old laff.

I do give to charity, can't you read? I also pay a **** load of tax, and have done my whole working life, without crying like a big baby like some on here.

I do give to charity, it's just a **** in the ocean though. It's much more effective if the government do it through taxes.

No, things like the mansion tax and tax on second homes should raise more. There's no reason why more progressive tax rate would not raise more either. Probably won't happen though, too many people nowadays are just selfish greedy c*nts, that's just the world we live in today.

Dunno, it is fair that they pay more as a percentage because they have more money than they need.

I wouldn't be bothered if I had to pay a bit more tax to keep vital services at a decent level.

I would say both. I'm not sure how shutting libraries, youth clubs and sacking social workers whilst giving millionaires tax breaks gives opportunities to the most needy though?

I'm not in favour of increasing the debt, just the way the deficit is dealt with. I thought I made that quite clear.

That's the point, not everyone does. Some people care about other people.

Immigration is the elephant in the room at this election though isn't it? There is only one party (UKIP) willing to tackle the problem, all the other parties don't even want to talk about it. We are having to make cuts to public services and at the same time welcoming in 2-300,000 new people each year who all need to use these services. It's not a hard problem to understand - if there is more people we need more services. Like the housing crisis, it's all about supply and demand - it's a simple equation yet again, only UKIP seem to understand it. Problem is as soon as the issue is raised it is buried under a load of bullish!t accusations of racism.

I disagree, I'm not talking about the super rich just people who are reasonably well off. Like I said, I earn way above the average and 'austerity' hasn't effected me in the slightest, if anything I'm better off because of lower mortgage payments and low inflation. I could easily pay a bit more tax and not even notice let alone have my lifestyle effected. Any home owner in a half decent job has probably been quids in whilst the poorest get clobbered by the government, those on benefits demonised and vital services cut. It makes no sense to lay off social workers and shut libraries and youth clubs when plenty of people are doing OK. There is easily scope for the deficit to be reduced in a fairer way which is why I think Labour is a better option. Unfortunately the greedy and the selfish will probably have their way.

I don't think we will come close to paying it off regardless of who is in government. Even by those rather optimistic guesses the debt will be knocking on to £2trillion before we even start paying it back. Any sort of sustained growth means an interest rate rise which makes paying it back even harder. The whole system is f*cked anyway, we are just treading water by printing **** loads of new money. Regardless of that I just think we can deal with debt by making the richer people pay more. I'm relatively well off and all 'austerity' has meant for me is lower mortgage repayments and lower inflation, I haven't been effected in the slightest yet many of our poorest are having really hard time and our services are in a bad state. Unfortunately people nowadays are just naturally greedy, there is more than enough money to go round so that everyone can live a half decent life.

Under the Conservatives our national debt has gone up by about £0.6 trillion to £1.36 trillion. That's £1360,000,000,000 (I think). How do you suppose we pay that back?

So if Labour are also making the same cuts what specific policy of theirs will ruin the economy?

What a vile viewpoint, I'm not surprised though, people today care more about money that other people, she says so herself at the end. Today's world is just sick with greed, greed is the new norm.

Wouldn't make any difference though would it? UKIP could still come second in every single constituency, get 25% or whatever of the vote, and still get no seats. While the SNP get to hold the balance of power with a fraction of the vote. Welcome to the crazy world of the FPTP system.

If a Labour/SNP coalition win by a nose then it might change many people's views on PR. It would certainly highlight how daft the FPTP system is, having someone who wants to break up the UK in the cabinet and a government more left wing than more than 90% of the country voted for.

I would love it if they made it to the Prem, much more interesting than Middlesbrough or Norwich again.

I'm not sure it will cost them up North, no left wingers up there are going to vote Lib Dem again. Might lose a few votes to the Greens but I doubt a lot. Any lost to SNP and the Welsh won't matter anyway because they will just form a coalition. You have to reach middle England to win and Ed's move from appearing loony left to mr moderate will only help. Wether that will be enough to get a cartoon character into no10 remains to be seen. I doubt it.

He is coming across better in this one.

Farage has a point on the supply/demand housing issue. Everyone else is ignoring the obvious.

It was a joke (poorly thought out one) made by someone else, it's nothing to do with Ed Balls. Being Ed Balls damages Ed Balls, that joke will not make the slightest difference to anything.

Ed Balls didn't even write the joke you dumb pr!ck.