Tory plans to rob from the poor and give to the rich. Again...

[narly101]

It'll be interesting to see how the upper middle classes in Surrey etc who votes Tory to keep the status quo , who turn their noses up at the poor react when their tax credits and child benefit get stopped.

You'll be delighted to know then that it wasn't really a problem. My sons child benefit went straight into a savings account for him when he's older.

Now that it's stopped - we've supplemented that from our own income.

Child benefit is an antiquated system which should have been overhauled years ago.

 

[Stato]

Take off your blinkers.

This is not some wild accusation this is public knowlege of a 3 year old rejected proposal (1 of many rejected ideas) made public today just before QT by a desperate man about to see his political career end and his party decimated.


Do you realise this country has a massive massive debt problem?

Do you realisee this country spends way more than it makes?

Do you realise we waste more of our money each year on debt interest than we spend on schools/Defence?

Do you realise the bigger the debt the worse the countries credit rating, the higher the interest rate to borrow money (which is inevitable with a deficit), the more interest you'd pay?

Do you still advocate head in sand and carry on regardless?

...........Ministers come up with some ideas on how we can reduce spending as we're spending much more than we earn and the debt interest is wasting billions and we're out of control economically.

Said ministers report back on ideas to bring the country back from the brink with deficit reduction ideas to bring sending in line with earnings (AKA Tory cuts/Austerity)

Ideas assessed, many rejected, some implemented.......... Wait 3 years, cue Desperate Dan

Large national debt is not a 21st century invention of Gordon Brown. Over stressing it's importance was a useful political tactic which was adopted by Cameron in opposition in order to differentiate his party from Labour. Read this and calm down:

http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Is means testing child benefit a ridiculous idea then? That was one of the topics for discussion in that paper in 2012 and means testing was adopted in 2013 - thereby the plebs are getting something that the non-plebs are not. Very un-Tory like.

The problem with the means testing introduced in 2013 was to allow loopholes which are exploited. An individual is entitled to child benefit if their earnings are under £50k per annum , between £50k and £60K there is a sliding scale where the benefit is clawed back and earnings above £60k disqualify them from claiming. However with two earners in the household they can both earn £49k per annum thus a combined salary of £98k and still be entitled to a payout. What no-one has raised so far is that all these benefits which could be targeted by a future Tory government are going to disappear anyway and re-emerge as an element of Universal Credit.

 

[vegster]

They give to the rich by trying to fix the national debt by cutting welfare instead of making them pay their taxes to cure the debt, which it would do many times over.

Add to that the fact that many businesses in the UK make huge profits by paying minimum wage or close to it and getting the profits out of the country rather than investing in people or infrastructure.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Add to that the fact that many businesses in the UK make huge profits by paying minimum wage or close to it and getting the profits out of the country rather than investing in people or infrastructure.

There are many more businesses paying the lowest hourly rate possible knowing that the state will top up employees wages with working tax credits in order to keep them above the poverty line.

 

[KZNSeagull]

The problem with the means testing introduced in 2013 was to allow loopholes which are exploited. An individual is entitled to child benefit if their earnings are under £50k per annum , between £50k and £60K there is a sliding scale where the benefit is clawed back and earnings above £60k disqualify them from claiming. However with two earners in the household they can both earn £49k per annum thus a combined salary of £98k and still be entitled to a payout. What no-one has raised so far is that all these benefits which could be targeted by a future Tory government are going to disappear anyway and re-emerge as an element of Universal Credit.

That's fair enough re the mean testing - there was something similar introduced when I was last living in the UK for some other benefit with exactly the same loophole in it. Would have been about 2001 or 2002 - Income Support or something similar, so it is not a new benefit loophole. I suspect that it has not been closed yet as it would be hellishly difficult to keep track off, but not beyond the wit of man. (As an aside, I have just applied for a job working on the UK benefit IT systems so if I get it, I will then find out just how difficult it is!). I have always felt that it is odd that the government gives Child benefit (and other universal benefits) to the well-off, but it is the determination of who is well off that is the problem.

 

[Peteinblack]

It's unbelievable really.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...xander-tory-plans-welfare-cuts-child-benefits

No plans to reign in billionaire tax cheats I see.

No, sadly it's entirely believable; it's what the Conservatives exist for - to defend inequality and privilege while persuading the masses that this is in their own interests, and that any attempt at change would be ten times worse. Of course, you also fob the masses off with a few crumbs from the rich man's table, while playing divide-and-rule to prevent unified opposition.

And when the vast majority of newspapers (owned by wealthy businessmen or large corporations, and so naturally Right-wing) are promoting the Conservative message every day - and endlessly smearing and misrepresenting the other parties and distorting their views - it is not surprising that the masses are fooled, time and time again, into voting Conservative, even when they suffer from their policies.

Although it doesn't make it any less depressing.

 

[beorhthelm]

There are many more businesses paying the lowest hourly rate possible knowing that the state will top up employees wages with working tax credits in order to keep them above the poverty line.

or, tax credits are suppressing wage demands.

 

[glasfryn]

Glasfryn;largely from rises in the stockmarket and valuations of businesses these people own.

still got richer as millions got poorer, and all these businesses did they give their workers a rise to share the wealth

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

still got richer as millions got poorer, and all these businesses did they give their workers a rise to share the wealth

Of course they did , the rate of CPI or 1% whichever was less and those poor buggers in the public sector got a pay freeze

 

[Ernest]

And still the sheep will vote Tory next week

 

[Wondergull]

Maybe cutting child benefit would deter irresponsible people from having children – its madness that you need a licence for a car etc but anyone can have children regardless of whether you can afford them or not. I currently do not have any children but my wife and I are looking to start a family but we will not be entitled to claim child benefit due to our earnings so I guess my broad shoulders will have to bare the cost without any aid from the state.

We also have an expensive car that costs me a lot each month – we decided we wanted it and bought it regardless of the cost. If the government could perhaps introduce a car benefit system then that would really help my outgoings each month?

 

[synavm]

Depending on how this issue (whether you support the measures or not) is spun tonight, and how Cameron responds, I think you might see a bit of movement in polls over the coming days.

 

[crookie]

The problem is that they are getting away with not paying corporation tax, but do pay NI, and, via the workers, income tax. Is it better to keep unemployment down or lose the company? As you say, it's finding a workable way to collect it.

Such a weak and pathetic defence of tax avaoidance by companies. Does anyone seriously believe this country would be a worse place if there were no Starbucks or Amazon. Will Starbucks customers suddenly stop drinking coffee if Starbucks pulled out, or would they transfer their business to places like Costa that pay tax, or god forbid independently owned coffee shops ? Their employees would likely be absorbed by these other businesses.

What about Amazon ? Do they sell anything that you couldn't buy elsewhere ? Of course not. Their business model depends on paying tiny amounts of tax, that is why their prices are so low. They don't feel obliged to pay anything towards the health of their employees, the health and education of their families, and contributions to the road network which they are dependent on for transporting their products. So they pay NI ? So what, so does every other business that employs people, most of those also pay corporation tax. If they disappeared would their customers suddenly stop buying ? Hardly, they might just have to spend a little more on the same product, either online, or maybe even venture down to the shops.

It would be nice if the good taxpayers of this country took action for themselves on corporate responsibility and aggressive tax avoidance, sadly the packed out Starbucks and the Amazon packages on every doorsteps suggest that they don't

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Such a weak and pathetic defence of tax avaoidance by companies. Does anyone seriously believe this country would be a worse place if there were no Starbucks or Amazon. Will Starbucks customers suddenly stop drinking coffee if Starbucks pulled out, or would they transfer their business to places like Costa that pay tax, or god forbid independently owned coffee shops ? Their employees would likely be absorbed by these other businesses.

What about Amazon ? Do they sell anything that you couldn't buy elsewhere ? Of course not. Their business model depends on paying tiny amounts of tax, that is why their prices are so low. They don't feel obliged to pay anything towards the health of their employees, the health and education of their families, and contributions to the road network which they are dependent on for transporting their products. So they pay NI ? So what, so does every other business that employs people, most of those also pay corporation tax. If they disappeared would their customers suddenly stop buying ? Hardly, they might just have to spend a little more on the same product, either online, or maybe even venture down to the shops.

It would be nice if the good taxpayers of this country took action for themselves on corporate responsibility and aggressive tax avoidance, sadly the packed out Starbucks and the Amazon packages on every doorsteps suggest that they don't

It wasn't a defence, but carry on.

 

[crookie]

It wasn't a defence, but carry on.

Sorry, wasn't having a go at you, just the apologists of tax avoidance that trot that argument out every time companies like Starbucks and Amazon are criticized for their tax affairs

 

[BLOCK F]

No, sadly it's entirely believable; it's what the Conservatives exist for - to defend inequality and privilege while persuading the masses that this is in their own interests, and that any attempt at change would be ten times worse. Of course, you also fob the masses off with a few crumbs from the rich man's table, while playing divide-and-rule to prevent unified opposition.

And when the vast majority of newspapers (owned by wealthy businessmen or large corporations, and so naturally Right-wing) are promoting the Conservative message every day - and endlessly smearing and misrepresenting the other parties and distorting their views - it is not surprising that the masses are fooled, time and time again, into voting Conservative, even when they suffer from their policies.

Although it doesn't make it any less depressing.

Ha-ha, so it is only clever dicks like you who are smart enough not to be fooled by the evil Tories,is it?
Patronising smug g-t.

 

[yxee]

still got richer as millions got poorer, and all these businesses did they give their workers a rise to share the wealth

I think the conservative party believe in supply and demand in the labour market. The Labour party must have some different idea of how humans operate. Maybe putting artificial caps and bans on everything imaginable will actually work for Ed, and history will remember him as a genius. I just don't think it's very likely.

 

[Baldseagull]

But it IS robbing from the poor. If individuals and corporations were forced to pay tax we would not need to reduce welfare. The average citizen pays around 20% of their income to tax. Starbucks pays 0.05%

There's your national debt solved right there. Right there. Solved.

Google "Google Tax" a Tory plan.

 

[Baldseagull]

yes it has. the debt then was due to the war and had a clear repayment schedule - its all paid off now. the debts we run now are never ending with no structured payments other than hoping growth and inflation will chip away at it and keep it managable.

Not really. Yes we paid the Americans back the money from the war, but we took out loans to do it. Effectively we are still paying for the Second World War.