The ITV Leaders' Debate

[I1L2T3]

So. You are fine about the taxpayer subsidising the lifestyle of millionaires. Yet you think that the low waged should simply work harder.

 

No surprise there.

 

The taxpayer also subsidises the lifestyles of the low waged through tax credits and housing benefits. In the current setup those in the middle get hit in the pocket, those at the bottom get hit with the destruction of their futures while those at the top have never had it so good. Been like it for years under Labour, the Tories and the LibDems. None of them are going to change it.

[Guest sibon]

The taxpayer also subsidises the lifestyles of the low waged through tax credits and housing benefits. In the current setup those in the middle get hit in the pocket, those at the bottom get hit with the destruction of their futures while those at the top have never had it so good. Been like it for years under Labour, the Tories and the LibDems. None of them are going to change it.

 

That's sort of what I was saying, but with one caveat. Those at the bottom need the extra £1.50 per hour. It either comes from the taxpayer, or the employer. Where the employer can afford it, they should. Many don't though. So the burden falls on the taxpayer.

 

The political class do perpetuate this folly. Maybe we should all vote Green and go for a tenner an hour.

[evil woman]

So. You are fine about the taxpayer subsidising the lifestyle of millionaires. Yet you think that the low waged should simply work harder.

 

No surprise there.

 

Just how is someone earning £500,000 a year on which they pay around £200,000 income tax and no doubt another £20,000 in VAT being subsidised by the tax payers.

[Guest sibon]

Just how is someone earning £500,000 a year on which they pay around £200,000 income tax and no doubt another £20,000 in VAT being subsidised by the tax payers.

 

By paying wages that need topping up by the taxpayer.

 

It is painfully simple really.

[staninoodle]

While id love to see a NMW of 10 quid,the upshot would be more automation,and further job losses.Where it becomes cheaper to hire a robot,the human version is easily replaced,and accepted if it means a cheaper end product.

[evil woman]

By paying wages that need topping up by the taxpayer.

 

It is painfully simple really.

 

So if that millionaire took his business to Rumania and paid his £200,000 a year tax there and employed fRumanians to do the work, the British taxpayer would be better off because they wouldn't be subsidising anything?

[Guest sibon]

So if that millionaire took his business to Rumania and paid his £200,000 a year tax there and employed fRumanians to do the work, the British taxpayer would be better off because they wouldn't be subsidising anything?

 

Where was that?

[psynuk]

No they wouldn't, the agency has brought the work to them. They cannot get the job with the employer direct as the employer has decided to outsource to an agency. The employer does not want to employ direct.

 

Go and visit most office blocks / businesses etc and ask them who the cleaning staff are employed by.

 

Go to SUFC and SWFC and ask the bar staff who they work for.

 

But thats denying the fact there is a job to be filled. If all agencies ceased to exist, your saying the jobs sourced through agencies would never be filled? pure. utter. cobblers.

There's a few good reasons for agencies. but one of the main reasons for many businesses using them was the ability to get staff on demand with no contracted term and also to circumvent employment rights.

[*_ash_*]

Just watched it, but not read the thread.

 

That wasn't quite what I expected. It was quite good.

 

This is was I took from that:

 

The Green party came across as some kind of bizarre global far left-wing party. I never thought about it until watching this.

 

Cameron is supposed to not be doing any more live debates and I'm not that bothered now whether he's on it or not, he can't really lose - if the Monster Raving Looney won outright, he can still tell his Great-Grandchildren that he once won the Prime Minister position in the uk, then made a **** load of money after - he seemed smug and probably because of that, and he thinks his plans are working...

 

however, what's more important after that: who IS on the next live debates?

 

If that Natalie is on again, then I won't watch it. (and quite possibly same for Leanne too). I didn't mind hearing the first bit to see what they'd say, but Natalie got on my nerves after hearing her a couple of times, and Leanne just kept attacking Miliband for some reason?! That's a bizarre political tactic! Surely she should have tried to attack Cameron?

 

Clegg should not bother doing another either (please).

 

Sturgeon is just wrong in every way.

 

-

 

Given the choice, I would personally like to see one with Miliband, Farage, Sturgeon, and Cameron.

Edited April 3, 2015 by *_ash_*

[tzijlstra]

If the predictions come true Sturgeon will be the leader of the third biggest party in Westminster after the election, and she will may well be the king maker by deciding who her party will back.

 

I agree about not being much debate, I think that there was too any people there. The debate should just be between the PM and the leader of the opposition, then they can have the freedom to debate subjects.

 

I realise that JFK, but the thing is, none of us can vote for her party, so why include her in a national debate? The debate MIGHT have been better with only the five English parties involved and further debates should follow specifically for Scotland, Wales (and NI?).

 

The reason is obvious of course, Cameron can't win in Scotland and Wales, so he is not interested.