caparo Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 In the words of all of the tax-avoider defenders. "They are doing nothing illegal. Wouldn't you do it too if you could. It is up to someone to write better rules/laws if they want to stop it" I believe none of the above, by the way. In my opinion, it is high time that those who benefit most from society began to set a strong moral lead. I will follow the example of our esteemed ex leader Tony Blair. If a tax measure is good enough for him then its good enough for the rest of us. We did elect him PM 3 times you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 There are 24million houses in the UK. There are ~60million people and rising There are 60 million acres. Immigration is used to increase population, population increase is government policy. It ensures that land prices rise and that wages fall, it is good for business so to speak, and if you are a landed individual, it ensures vast wealth. An increasing population calls for a sharing of resources and wealth, and allows for new wealth to be created, if it is to be functional that is! The only way capitalism can succeed is if people compete equally. If we are to increase our population, we should make more competitive access to land. Land taxes instead of subsidy! Abolition of council tax to be replaced with LVT and landless peasant benefit (CI - citizens income)- compensation for being denied access to land!_ - a benefit that fluctuates with land values and ensures equality of oportunity and the most productive use of the land! You go on about access to land , but this country is Great because of its green and pleasant countryside , the green belt and national parks. I for one NEVER want to see the day where our stunning countryside is used for building houses on. I sit in my house and all i see is miles of open ,green countryside and the Pennines , and thats the way i want it to stay ..... RURAL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Anton Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 I fail to see how party colours are relevant to the thread. I would have thought they were very relevant. As one of those involved is a local MP many on here will be in a position to use their vote to show their outrage. But that would depend whether outrage was more important than the colour of the candidate's rosette. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 John Bercow the speaker of the house tried to suppress this story on "security grounds." They seem to relish rubbing our noses in what's dumped too. This was due to the fact that the home address of the MP's would be revealed. But the home address of all MP's is revealed on the ballot paper when voting on Election Day anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.