I1L2T3 Posted September 2, 2013 Share Posted September 2, 2013 No, but I do think that spending money you haven't got is a bad idea, regardless of what it is spent on. Anyone can improve services if they don't care about putting the country into massive levels of debt. I'd be far more impressed if they improved services and didn't spend any more, or even better, spent less. But that's not Labour. They need their "bribes", or hardly anyone would vote for them. I would be interested to see how many people that pay more into the system than they got out vote Labour. I would hazard a guess at not very many. You're talking as if the Tories never ever ran a budget deficit. Or gave sweeteners to win votes. They're all at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blake Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 not sure if the lib dem vote will collapse or if it does then not uniformly over the country. in places like eastleigh it seems to have held up quite well. if coalitions do become more frequent then the lib dems will most likely play a part in them, so clegg will be deputy pm forever oh come on. They've been flatlining at 10% or under in the polls for over 2 years. They got 23.5% in May 2010. They will be lucky if they manage 18% next time. There is no way they will not lose at least 20 and probably more like 30 seats if that happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 You're talking as if the Tories never ever ran a budget deficit. Or gave sweeteners to win votes. They're all at it. The Tories never ran deficits like Labour do. Whenever the Tories are in government the country is always better off at the end than they were at the beginning. Tory "sweeteners" tend to be in the form of tax breaks, ie letting people keep more of the money they earn. As opposed to Labours "sweeteners", benefit increases, new benefits for working people, and public sector pay rises. ie giving away money that other people have earned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 The Tories never ran deficits like Labour do. Whenever the Tories are in government the country is always better off at the end than they were at the beginning. Tory "sweeteners" tend to be in the form of tax breaks, ie letting people keep more of the money they earn. As opposed to Labours "sweeteners", benefit increases, new benefits for working people, and public sector pay rises. ie giving away money that other people have earned. Do I see people better off now? No, Why have the government borrowed more already than in three whole terms under Labour? What about the disabled being punished, council tenants be punished, civil service, NHS, police, fire and the army cuts? What about the rapid increase of food banks? What about kids being kept at school trying to pass exams just to massage the unemployment figures and just about everything else, whilst at the same time not reeling in the tax dodgers and tory party donators, giving tax cuts to the wealthiest who just sit on their money (e.g. professional footballers getting at least £5k per week tax cut? I mean, the list can go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridgeway84 Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 The Tories never ran deficits like Labour do. Whenever the Tories are in government the country is always better off at the end than they were at the beginning. Tory "sweeteners" tend to be in the form of tax breaks, ie letting people keep more of the money they earn. As opposed to Labours "sweeteners", benefit increases, new benefits for working people, and public sector pay rises. ie giving away money that other people have earned. Apart from in 1964. The IMF stick used to beat Labour was also revealed as crap on New Years Day 2010 when The Times revealed Privy Council documents proving Heath was preparing to go 'cap in hand' to them. However deciding to fight the miners and losing meant the deficit was rolled onto Labour. Labour paid it back ahead of time. The legendary Denis Healey also dictated terms to them by hinting at pulling the Rhine Army out to cut costs. The IMF then relaxed their demands. Turned out HM Treasury had their sums wrong all along an Labour never needed to ask the IMF at all. Fancy that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Do I see people better off now? No, Why have the government borrowed more already than in three whole terms under Labour? What about the disabled being punished, council tenants be punished, civil service, NHS, police, fire and the army cuts? What about the rapid increase of food banks? What about kids being kept at school trying to pass exams just to massage the unemployment figures and just about everything else, whilst at the same time not reeling in the tax dodgers and tory party donators, giving tax cuts to the wealthiest who just sit on their money (e.g. professional footballers getting at least £5k per week tax cut? I mean, the list can go on. What is this tax cut aimed only at professional footballers? How are disabled and council tenants being punished? Are they being treated any differently to non-disabled and non-council tenants? No? So how are they being punished? What did Labour do about "reeling in tax dodgers"? Do you not think they'd have done so if they were able to? What do you propose be done? Stick guns in peoples faces? The coalition were handed a pile of **** by Labour. It's no wonder they had to increase spending, Labour had made so many people reliant on the state, and then allowed the economy to collapse, making even more people reliant on the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deaf andy Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 What is this tax cut aimed only at professional footballers? How are disabled and council tenants being punished? Are they being treated any differently to non-disabled and non-council tenants? No? So how are they being punished? What did Labour do about "reeling in tax dodgers"? Do you not think they'd have done so if they were able to? What do you propose be done? Stick guns in peoples faces? The coalition were handed a pile of **** by Labour. It's no wonder they had to increase spending, Labour had made so many people reliant on the state, and then allowed the economy to collapse, making even more people reliant on the state. council tax benefit support. making the lowest earners in our society make up the difference in the council's budget, rather than fairly adding a percent or two to everybody's bill. example, assuming homes in same tax bracket - before changeover CTB: person 1, working, paying £1000/year council tax (these figures are for illustration only) person 2, not working, paying no council tax after changeover CTS: person 1, still working, still paying £1000/year council tax person 2, still not working, somehow has to find £230/year. for a mostly lib/lab council, that was a very tory way of raising revenue when it would have been fairer to add 2% to everyone's council tax bill. example - a better solution person 1, still working, paying £1020/year person 2, still not working, contributes £20 to the council's coffers obviously, if person 2 was sat in a big house in an affluent suburb, but not working, then he or she would be contributing more than £20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 What is this tax cut aimed only at professional footballers? The lowering of the top rate tax bracket. Footballers are just an example. e.g. Tevez was handed a tax cut meaning his take-home increased to excess of £5k per week. ---------- Post added 03-09-2013 at 08:13 ---------- council tax benefit support. making the lowest earners in our society make up the difference in the council's budget, rather than fairly adding a percent or two to everybody's bill. example, assuming homes in same tax bracket - before changeover CTB: person 1, working, paying £1000/year council tax (these figures are for illustration only) person 2, not working, paying no council tax after changeover CTS: person 1, still working, still paying £1000/year council tax person 2, still not working, somehow has to find £230/year. for a mostly lib/lab council, that was a very tory way of raising revenue when it would have been fairer to add 2% to everyone's council tax bill. example - a better solution person 1, still working, paying £1020/year person 2, still not working, contributes £20 to the council's coffers obviously, if person 2 was sat in a big house in an affluent suburb, but not working, then he or she would be contributing more than £20. Social housing and other benefits allow people to work in e.g. supermarkets for the NMW. If there were no benefits supermarkets would have to pay their workers a lot more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 council tax benefit support. making the lowest earners in our society make up the difference in the council's budget, rather than fairly adding a percent or two to everybody's bill. To everybody's bill? Apart from the people who don't have to pay anything, you mean? Everyone should have to pay something. It's not good for society to have a system where some people think they are entitled to everything for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deaf andy Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Social housing and other benefits allow people to work in e.g. supermarkets for the NMW. If there were no benefits supermarkets would have to pay their workers a lot more erm, okay... i didn't mention tax credits. i was responding to happ hazard's question - how are council/non-council tenants being punished. social housing isn't always cheaper than private rented. isn't the current policy to bring social housing rents in line with their private sector counterparts? ---------- Post added 03-09-2013 at 08:30 ---------- To everybody's bill? Apart from the people who don't have to pay anything, you mean? Everyone should have to pay something. It's not good for society to have a system where some people think they are entitled to everything for free. read it again. the non-working person in the example would contribute, by exactly the same amount extra as everyone else. both persons would be paying £20 more than before. everyone pays something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.