chem1st Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Tax, tax, tax. Spend, spend, spend. Just ask Alan Johnson. Bit better than tax tax tax, tax tax tax the poor to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Just one and that is make the well-off pay more!A nice idea but whats to stop them living elsewhere? Who do you tax then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Tax, tax, tax. Spend, spend, spend. Just ask Alan Johnson. It is a partial answer though. An increase in income tax would have spread the burden being carried by quite a few middle class families with children. They've lost child benefit and any state support for higher education Some hardworking families will lose up to £35 000 in the next five years. Maybe a couple of pence on income tax would have been "fairer"... to use today's buzz word. I'd certainly prefer tax rises to a reduction in police numbers. Some of the cuts do look pretty sensible though (even though it sticks in my throat to admit it:)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Well labour got youth unemplyment wrong, and didnt sort out the problems caused by it. Labour aren't in Government now Hitch... hadn't you noticed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Just one and that is make the well-off pay more! Surely there you hit the law of diminishing returns - I thought it had been fairly well proved that as you raise tax rates rise for a while then drop off as it becomes more worthwhile to hire good tax accountants / move to a nicer tax regieme whatever - so would that actually work? Tax, tax, tax. Spend, spend, spend. Just ask Alan Johnson. I'm not sure that passes the resonable / valid test to be honest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitch_1980 Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Labour aren't in Government now Hitch... hadn't you noticed? Yes that is true.....but Andy Burnham has said that is an area that labour failed to get a grip with.......so the legacy is still with labour. And under labour unemplyment went down - which most will admit.....but youth umemployment went up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Yes that is true.....but Andy Burnham has said that is an area that labour failed to get a grip with.......so the legacy is still with labour. And under labour unemplyment went down - which most will admit.....but youth umemployment went up. I think you will find that crime went down too.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 The Government keeps going on about us all being in this together, but does the reality paint a different picture. From what I can see the losers are as follows: Right . . 490,000 Public Sector workers will lose their jobs The public sector is bloated with many people doing one unneccesary job. It was purposefully bloated by thirteen years of labour rule: Public sector voters vote Labour - or they lose their useless jobs. (please note I accept there are valuable public sector jobs and that there are exceptions to voting) Social Housing tenants will have funding cut by 50% and new tenants will pay higher rents This equals less rent for the "evil rich" landlords. Armed forces will have significant job losses Very sad, but neccesary under the circumstances - something has to give after 13 years of mismanagement of the economy. Many natural wastage. 18,000 Police jobs Very sad, but neccesary under the circumstances - something has to give after 13 years of mismanagement of the economy. Many natural wastage. Most of us will have to work longer before we get our State Pensions Well . . . we are all living longer, thanks to the "evil" drug companies and their breaks through in medical science. (Oh sorry I forgot: it's the nurses who have made all the medical progress) Child Benefit for higher taxpayers How are they poor? Housing and Council Tax Benefit claimants Sad, but why should the hard-working subsidise the feckless? At the risk of stating the obvious, but this looks rather like the Poor are taking the burden rather more than the well-off. Anyway, thanks once again Nick, perhaps you could tell us how we are all in this together. The wealthy have had a massive tax increase (remember the 50% tax rate). Driving top people abroad and disincentivising entrepreneurs. These people support the rest of the economy. And yes they are in this with the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Right . . The wealthy have had a massive tax increase (remember the 50% tax rate). Driving top people abroad and disincentivising entrepreneurs. These people support the rest of the economy. And yes they are in this with the rest of us. That will be the extraordinarily wealthy, Ron. The 50% tax rate doesn't kick in until you've earned £150 000 per year. A bit of "socialist" window dressing from the New Labour wing of the Tory party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted October 20, 2010 Share Posted October 20, 2010 Tax, tax, tax. Spend, spend, spend. Just ask Alan Johnson. Johnson and the Labour Party are a total waste of time. They long ago decided to agree with the Tories on all the fundamentals and differ merely on the detail. This means that on issues like this, all they can say is "we'd do the same only slightly differently". What they should be pointing out is the utter madness of the situation we're in. We can no longer provide certain services to the level we have been because we don't have enough I.O.U.s. I mean money of course, which has no value in itself but is merely an IOU. So what we're being told is that some people are going to have to live in slums, and some people are going to be assaulted, and some people are going to have to grow up uneducated, not because we don't have enough bricks, steel and glass to build houses, and not because there aren't people around who could look out for the more vulnerable among us, and not because there aren't people around who want to teach and can do it - but because we've run out of IOUs! Madness!! And this is the same system which in its growth and expansion decimates the environment on which we depend, which threatens to make thousands of species extinct, which rapidly depletes our natural resources without any real thought about what's going to happen when they've gone, and which in any case only does a good job of meeting the basic needs of a fraction of the planet's population. And yet our papers and TV stations are full of a small group of old men who are arguing about which infinitesimally small adjustment they think should be made to this barking mad system whilst it runs rampant around them. Idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.