Thorpist Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Most places that are Tory strongholds are nice, affluent places, so you can understand people voting for more of the same. Why do people vote when all they do is keep people poor and dependent on benefits? Probably voting tory would make poor people poorer. Not a lot of wealth proportionately in the north so why would one vote for a party dedicated to people keeping wealth by being parasites off the masses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Probably voting tory would make poor people poorer. Not a lot of wealth proportionately in the north so why would one vote for a party dedicated to people keeping wealth by being parasites off the masses How is the Conservative party "dedicated to people keeping wealth by being parasites off the masses"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpist Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 The conservative party protects and expresses the interests of that small part of the people who control wealth. I believe that the labour movement for all it’s faults tries to look after the people who do the work not the ones who get an unfair return on being fortunate enough to inherit power and wealth. I have no argument against wealth creators; whoever they do have a duty to society to help improve life for everyone. Without a labour movement the pay and conditions in this country would not improve. Health and safety at work would hardly matter unless it impacted on profitability. You only have to look around the world at countries with no labour movement to see the lot of the workers. I am not saying that labour is perfect or even near ,but at least some within the movement have the right idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 The conservative party protects and expresses the interests of that small part of the people who control wealth. I believe that the labour movement for all it’s faults tries to look after the people who do the work not the ones who get an unfair return on being fortunate enough to inherit power and wealth. I have no argument against wealth creators; whoever they do have a duty to society to help improve life for everyone. Without a labour movement the pay and conditions in this country would not improve. Health and safety at work would hardly matter unless it impacted on profitability. You only have to look around the world at countries with no labour movement to see the lot of the workers. I am not saying that labour is perfect or even near ,but at least some within the movement have the right idea. Looking at the countries with no wealth creators is a good indicator of how crap life would be like without them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Like turkeys voting for Christmas, Rotherham is Sheffield's little sister when it comes to Labour voting sheep. Excellent progress for UKIP. Slowly but surely this party is beginning to be treated as a real threat to Lib-Lab-Con. Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android I wouldn't start wetting your knickers yet. UKIP always increase their vote share in less affluent towns because the sheep get suckered into their heavy PR anti immigration stance. Just like the Daily Mail and the Sun, its always sensationalised and targetted. What about the rest of UKIP's lesser pushed manifesto eh... ... it opposes the move to legislate for same-sex marriage. ... to create a 31% flat tax on all earned incomes ...Direct the majority of health care spending to elected County Health Boards (another load of QUANGOS eh) ...base our long term energy strategy on gas, nuclear and coal!! ...small business to self regulate their own health, safety, food safety and hygene practices... Wonder why they never spread these "vote winners" all over the papers. Good luck in the General Election (maybe this year, well next year, well next decade) pehaps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 There's nothing wrong with flat tax as long as the personal allowance is set high enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoast Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 There's nothing wrong with flat tax as long as the personal allowance is set high enough. would have to be around 20 grand a year for it work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 That's what I'd set it at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted November 30, 2012 Author Share Posted November 30, 2012 There's nothing wrong with flat tax as long as the personal allowance is set high enough. And as long as it does not combine with benefit withdrawal rates leading to high marginal deduction rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpist Posted November 30, 2012 Share Posted November 30, 2012 Looking at the countries with no wealth creators is a good indicator of how crap life would be like without them. As I posted no problem with wealth creators just the people who inherit power and privilege Should society be happy with a few getting and using the fruits of the masses labour far in excess of their contribution to society India has lots of wealth creators and also an awful lot of poverty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.