General Election June 8th

[Vic]

But regardless, the CEO is responsible for a company that might employ thousands of people. Why shouldn't he be allowed to buy a villa or whatever else? If you won the lottery, should we impose 90% tax because you clearly don't deserve it?

How do you know the CEO is not spending his money here, buying a house here, running a business propping up thousands of jobs? The CEO of my last company sat 10 desks away and was a top bloke who did more than enough to invest in staff and run the company best. Who am I to say he should pay more tax, not buy his villa etc?

I don't tell people not earning a lot whether they should be allowed to buy TV's they can barely afford, have pets, have children etc? Maybe if we are prepared to tell executives what they can and can't do maybe we should be doing the same to poor people who could be poor because they are making poor choices?

Let's keep it simple. The rich save money or spend it on luxury goods likely to be foreign-made. The poor spend all their money, most within the UK on British produce, so a million pounds shared among 1000 poor people is better for the UK economy than a million in tax relief for the rich.

Or as JK Galbraith put it re Reagonomics: We have exchanged the certain spending of the poor for the discretionary spending of the rich.

I think you owe hilts an answer to his facts instead of just accusing him of being a cliche ridden idiot with no actual point. It looks like you are just using deflection to stifle debate and make him look a twat.

Hilts thinks it's selfish to give money to people who won't work. Pirate says only 1% of benefits go to people claiming unemployment benefit - many of whom may want to work but can't find it or may (perhaps for reasons not their fault) be unemployable. Hilts fails to see the point and thus falls for the Tory/tabloid/benefits street propaganda that benefits are bad and recipients are scroungers rather than people like you and me who lost their jobs or just got ill or unlucky.

 

[SWP's back]

so a million pounds shared among 1000 poor people is better for the UK economy than a million in tax relief for the rich.

That's overly simple and not comparing like for like.

£1m as a bonus for an addition rate tax payer gives £450,000 directly to the tax man.

Th same amount to 1000 or 100 basic rate payers gives £200,000 to HMRC.

No one was talking about tax relief, simply revenue from income tax on an amount of £1m.

 

[SWP's back]

Hilts thinks it's selfish to give money to people who won't work. Pirate says only 1% of benefits go to people claiming unemployment benefit - many of whom may want to work but can't find it or may (perhaps for reasons not their fault) be unemployable. Hilts fails to see the point and thus falls for the Tory/tabloid/benefits street propaganda that benefits are bad and recipients are scroungers rather than people like you and me who lost their jobs or just got ill or unlucky.

I don't think anyone on here has suggested repealing social protection in any way but may I ask, do you believe a 45% tax rate on high earnings to be a fair amount or do you believe it should be higher?

 

[hilts]

Let's keep it simple. The rich save money or spend it on luxury goods likely to be foreign-made. The poor spend all their money, most within the UK on British produce, so a million pounds shared among 1000 poor people is better for the UK economy than a million in tax relief for the rich.

Or as JK Galbraith put it re Reagonomics: We have exchanged the certain spending of the poor for the discretionary spending of the rich.


Hilts thinks it's selfish to give money to people who won't work. Pirate says only 1% of benefits go to people claiming unemployment benefit - many of whom may want to work but can't find it or may (perhaps for reasons not their fault) be unemployable. Hilts fails to see the point and thus falls for the Tory/tabloid/benefits street propaganda that benefits are bad and recipients are scroungers rather than people like you and me who lost their jobs or just got ill or unlucky.

I see the point quite easily due to its sheer simplicity. The lazy or feckless as another poster put it are more of a burden than the 1% he is stating. There are plenty of people who are unwilling to help themselves yet the left try to portray these people in a different light.

 

[hilts]

For me this has always been the big misconception that many have - that success is directly proportional to work. That just isn't true by any metric at all.

I agree completely society would be better off if everyone contributed on many levels but a sense of entitlement with no responsibility isn't good for so many reasons not just financial.

 

[hilts]

I think you owe hilts an answer to his facts instead of just accusing him of being a cliche ridden idiot with no actual point. It looks like you are just using deflection to stifle debate and make him look a twat.

Still haven't got over having you're arse handed to you on a plate yet. Apart from being unwilling to admit when you're wrong and a frail ego any other character traits we can help you with?

 

[Damocles]

No policy? so

• negotiate to have access to single market and customs union, but would insist british government could help out failing business by reintroducing state aid and not link this to free movement
• Give british firms first option when bidding for contracts.
• keep existing workers rights laws improving where necessary and human rights law.
• bring forward the 20:1 pay ratio with business who sign up having reduced corporation tax levels.
• link any european imigration to employment status before entry.
• sign deals with regard to border control and security information sharing to ensure that the UK and europe work together to combat any threats
• Not hold a second referendum
• Look into (but not commit to) a federal model for the UK nations to avoid an unwanted break up of the unoin, giving region power to more areas, while promising to use the saved money paid into europe to fill the funding gaps in the regions.
• Has no clear policy you can find to reference on the irish border and gibraltar
• Has not yet set whether they would ask for a phased exit.

All these policies are easy to find online, and have as much detail as the tories,

• Leave the european courts of justice
• leave the single market and customs union
• we may be a tax haven if we don't get what we want, (though this has been now played down)
• we have no deffinate immigration policy at present, that we are telling anybody, bar leaving free movement deal.
• If the EU are difficult with us we may withold security infomation and jeopdise lives in a hissy fit of our own making (though she backtracked on this in another u-turn)
• They haven't mentioned how we will replace local government EU funding
• We will answer any difficult question with 'Brexit means Brexit' and not divulge anything to our own citizens who we are there to serve is a transparent plan.
• Have pledged to make brition the science and technology capital of the world
• will leave single market and custom union then negotiate trade deals worldwide.
• will keep existing workers rights EU laws.
• Keep the union as is.
• fight to keep the soft Irish border

Both have brexit plans and both are ambiguous on some details, both are commited to leaving.

The only fucker to have no plan it that tosspot tim farron, with his we will reverse brexit and say nowt else as we are pinning everything on this bollocks.

Yeah but apart from them he's got no policies

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

Because we've had the same style of Leaders since I can remember. That's what people mean by the country needs a change unless you're a lover of war, hate and division between mankind, then I'm guessing those people are quite happy with the way things are.

And you think his previous actions suggests he's the right man? That he's a man who ALWAYS chooses peace, love and cooperation! It's not what I see.
He was chosen as Labour leader by a flawed system. Not a "one man, one vote" system. He's a stooge. Nothing more.

 

[kevin horlocks wand]

It shows blue moon is full of cling on glory tarquins.

Any one who pretends to be a city fan and votes tory is pathetic beyond belief.

Why is it pathetic beyond belief?

 

[Damocles]

Why is it pathetic beyond belief?

Because he's an authoritarian who is attempting to act as a Gatekeeper for City support. People do this all the time actually; you can't be a proper City fan unless you're from Manchester, or unless you've been going since Colin Bell was playing, or unless you go to X number of games, or unless you are working class, or unless you sing X amount of songs at Y decibels or even if you sit in the right section of the ground.

This is actually quite a big issue in our support that needs to be addressed in the future.