Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Great work from the coalition







00snook

Active member
Aug 20, 2007
2,357
Southsea
Cameron is playing the blame game to depress confidence and growth to justify austerity. Secondly, to use austerity as justification for a smaller state to gain lower taxes. Thirdly, to paint Labour as a party that can not be trusted with the country's finances again. Therefore, we Conservatives will win a second term because, people vote out of fear. The latter strategy worked the last time in office (18 years) and will work again because, in the end, elections are won and lost on economic credibility. Hence, as people believe Labour created the mess they won't be trusted again.

This is why proportional representation is the future of government.

Spend less time worrying about how to get re-elected, and more time working together with the other parties to create a strong LONG TERM economic recovery plan.

The whole time it is Tories vs Labour their policies will be largely geared up to retaining power (or gaining if in opposition) and this doesn't always equal the best thing for the country.

In fact it rarely does.
 


Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
30,311
Hove
I'm sure Foam Mouth and Balls will have an answer for all this. I hope Labour stay well clear of running this country, however I have a bad feeling they might get back in.

All the time they spout this rubbish that The Tories only care about rich people, and the Tories are evil, the more people will fall for it. We can all agree that too much money has gone out of the system for years and has been given to people who should have absolutely no rights to it, while the rest of us keep paying taxes.

Too much money has gone out of the system to those that don't deserve it, and in comparison, billions has not been coming in through the rich finding ways to avoid it.

You have a bad feeling they may get back in for one reason only, and it isn't that the country have taken to Milliband and Balls all of a sudden....
 




Camicus

New member
Prehaps we could round up the workshy and breeders and put them in special camps that would serve the swines right.......
 




Westdene Seagull

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch
NSC Patron
Oct 27, 2003
21,413
The arse end of Hangleton
*slow hand claps*
You don't actually think this has anything to do with Tory governing do you? Hahaha.
The country has gone to the dogs in their tax the poor and f*** the eonvironment reign and I'm looking forward to the Thatcher government paedo ring picking up some steam in the news . Better get it out there before she dies too.
Was there a paedophile ring in No 10? MP Tom Watson demands probe - Crime - UK - The Independent

... or the Heath government paedo ring or any other PM government ring ! It never ceases to amaze me that people only have to see Thatchers name for them to take a statement as fact.
 


Albumen

Don't wait for me!
Jan 19, 2010
11,495
Brighton - In your face
Yes congratulations to the government for the 1% increase during the Olypmics.

london-olympic-bid-260.jpg
 


Bwian

Kiss my (_!_)
Jul 14, 2003
15,898
I don't care how miniscule they are. As a taxpayer I have no desire to bankroll people on benefits who decide to have large families.

In fact, given the option, I would prefer that taxpayers did not stump up for any kind of benefits. Leave it to charities,

As a taxpayer I have no desire to bankroll companies and corporations who avoid paying taxes in this country because of the loopholes that allow them to do so. If they get their income from within the UK then pay UK taxes-not use some clever accounting to pay corporation taxes in Luxembourg or other countries who tolerate fleecing UK taxpayers. Get companies whose business model is based on minimum wage salaries to pay people living wages-then there'd be a massive drop in benefits. As a taxpayer I don't want to subsidise these companies. Pay your share of taxes and pay living wages. We'll all benefit.
 






Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
As a taxpayer I have no desire to bankroll companies and corporations who avoid paying taxes in this country because of the loopholes that allow them to do so. If they get their income from within the UK then pay UK taxes-not use some clever accounting to pay corporation taxes in Luxembourg or other countries who tolerate fleecing UK taxpayers. Get companies whose business model is based on minimum wage salaries to pay people living wages-then there'd be a massive drop in benefits. As a taxpayer I don't want to subsidise these companies. Pay your share of taxes and pay living wages. We'll all benefit.

So don't buy from Amazon, Apple, or Boots.
 


Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
30,311
Hove
Prehaps we could round up the workshy and breeders and put them in special camps that would serve the swines right.......

The estimated loss to the country through benefit cheats is approx. £1.2 bn per year.

The estimated loss to the country through tax avoidance (legal) and tax evasion cheats (illegal) is approx. £120 bn per year. (according to The Tax Justice Network & Tax research UK).

Yet as a country we seem more concerned with the £1.2 bn than the £120 bn each year. We'd rather come down hard on the guy exaggerating a bad back, than the millionaire barely paying 10p in the £1 in tax...I know who I'd rather go after!!
 




loz

Well-known member
Apr 27, 2009
2,446
W.Sussex
Apart from his policies that madee the poor poorer through stealth taxes and ill thought out schemes like the car srapage scheme which took the cheap cars off the road and put up the prices of old second hand cars, pricing many out of vehicle ownership. Then there is the runaway housing market which has now priced out a lot of 1st time buyers and had the knock on effect of higher rents for those who can't afford to buy (again squeezing the low earners spending power, forcing more debt, etc) and so on.


I agree with everything you have pointed out..that all started in the 80s and was carried on by Cons and labour they are both to blame.

But I was just stating that for a right wing capitalist country like the UK,G.Brown was not a bad Chancellor..in fact the whole world was on the same spending spree and is now in the same place as us!
 


Tricky Dicky

New member
Jul 27, 2004
13,558
Sunny Shoreham
The estimated loss to the country through benefit cheats is approx. £1.2 bn per year.

The estimated loss to the country through tax avoidance (legal) and tax evasion cheats (illegal) is approx. £120 bn per year. (according to The Tax Justice Network & Tax research UK).

Yet as a country we seem more concerned with the £1.2 bn than the £120 bn each year. We'd rather come down hard on the guy exaggerating a bad back, than the millionaire barely paying 10p in the £1 in tax...I know who I'd rather go after!!

There're not mutually exclusive, go after both sets.
 


Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
30,311
Hove
Interestingly News International barely pay any tax in this country. As of last year it was reported that of their £980m profit, they paid £11m in tax - just 1.2%.

Which paper is leading a charge against the 'benefit cheats' and causing many people (including people on this board) to think that this is the major problem in our economy!?

THE SUN.

Owned by News International...
 




brakespear

Doctor Worm
Feb 24, 2009
12,326
Sleeping on the roof
That's a nonsense, though, because:
1. people move in and out of benefits. What are they supposed to do: if their hours drop and they move on to benefits, kill the first born?
2. most people on benefits are the working poor, whose wages are so low they are entitled to benefits. The logic of this position is basically social cleansing; only the middle-income middle-classes and people with unearned wealth should have kids (Personally, I think it should be more of a priority to ensure people are paid a living wage, which probably makes me a loony lefty)
3. People who are seriously poor are generally in poorer health and live shorter lives (This doesn't apply to everyone on benefits in the UK, clearly). There's loads of evidence that, as a species, we have more children in these circumstances, almost certainly because it's the best chance of passing on our genes. Look how birth rates go down as nations get richer. It's not down to economic incentives or what politicians say, it's what we're like.

top post :thumbsup:
 


CheeseRolls

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 27, 2009
6,165
Shoreham Beach
Refreshing to hear Ian Duncan-Smith on the Today programme this morning saying, among other things, that families on benefits need to stop having children they cannot afford. He correctly points out that families not on benefits plan their families according to their budgets.

The problem is it is just empty words though and it only really serves to demonstrate the "caring side of Conservatism". By the way ,in principle I strongly agree with this, but in practice it would be political suicide to even attempt to implement this.

How do you make this cut, do you go for a big bang approach and limit child related benefits to a maximum of two children in one go ? I am sure there will be some support for this, but most fair minded people would not want to see children suffering through no fault of their own.

How about a phased approach so freeze child related benefits capped at two children for all new claimants ? Whilst this may make a few people think twice about expanding their families, the money saved will be fairly small. It will only take a few cases of large families where the sole income earner loses their job, after many years of employment and a political storm will be in full force.
 




goldstone

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
7,165
As a taxpayer I have no desire to bankroll companies and corporations who avoid paying taxes in this country because of the loopholes that allow them to do so. If they get their income from within the UK then pay UK taxes-not use some clever accounting to pay corporation taxes in Luxembourg or other countries who tolerate fleecing UK taxpayers. Get companies whose business model is based on minimum wage salaries to pay people living wages-then there'd be a massive drop in benefits. As a taxpayer I don't want to subsidise these companies. Pay your share of taxes and pay living wages. We'll all benefit.

In which case it is the responsibility of the government to close the loopholes. If a loophole is there it will be used.

And we need to remember that these companies provide employment for large numbers of people. Drive them out of the UK and the jobs will follow them.
 




Camicus

New member
In which case it is the responsibility of the government to close the loopholes. If a loophole is there it will be used.

And we need to remember that these companies provide employment for large numbers of people. Drive them out of the UK and the jobs will follow them.

It wont drive them out of the UK as its by far the biggest market in europe. Its also worth noting that errors by the DWP amount to £3.2 BN fraud was les than 1Bn still a lot of money but making the DWP do its job properly would solve this. Most of this is from pensions and not sky watching fag smoking vajazzeled 1 armed lesbien mothers of 15
 


Brightonfan1983

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
4,863
UK
And well done to the Gov for putting an upper limit on the amount of our cash given to those not working.

There are too many work shy lazy lumps sitting around taken the piss out of those of us that pay our way.

TB

But your lot'd be fools to consider getting pensioners to pay their way too, wouldn't th.... oh.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here