What do you think a Tory gov will or should do?

[stevey-o]

Simmo, to answer your questions:

Would I work harder to earn more if tax was lower? It depends what the trade off was. Tax for me being lower means tax for someone else has to be higher or savings have to be made somewhere so something is being cut. As Maggie Thatcher said, if you want something "someone, somewhere has to pay for it". If I'm not paying for it who is? Or what is?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think in Norway they have massive VAT but low income tax (this is why it's expensive to visit but people who live there have a decent quality of life). That seems quite fair to me as a way of stopping such massive tax avoidance by bosses of limited co's etc and if benefit stays low it encourages the workshy to get out of the house and get a job if they want a decent standard of living. Again, Norway and other Scandinavian countries have low uptake of their welfare state benefits. Also fair is the Lib Dem idea of council tax being based on earnings so a pensioner in a 2 bed house pays less than a couple on a combined salary of 100k in an identical house in the same road. There are lots of fairer ways to do tax.

I also don't care what background MPs have, until their background is a centrepiece for their policies in a way that is unrepresentative for the democracy that elects them. If John Prescott had been giving massive power to unions left, right and centre I would have had the same issues with him as I do with Cameron.

 

[looney]

Superb. Young Puny, frothing at the mouth with RAGE again.

I wouldn't have thought so - you have to change the entire culture of a nation to see a fall in gun crime - there are too many ghettos in the US where carrying a gun is seen as a pre-requisite. I wouldn't expect you to understand this. Maybe you should post a 15 year old link from the NRA website to illustrate your point?

Please provide a link to the fall in gun crime since the gun ban? No you cant can you binster, no wonder I get pm's congratulating me on exposing you as being a clueless tosser. It aint difficult.

No you have to liberalise gun ownership to see a fall in gun crime, take wisconsin for example Flidster.

 

[User removed 4]

Superb. Young Puny, frothing at the mouth with RAGE again.

I wouldn't have thought so - you have to change the entire culture of a nation to see a fall in gun crime - there are too many ghettos in the US where carrying a gun is seen as a pre-requisite. I wouldn't expect you to understand this. Maybe you should post a 15 year old link from the NRA website to illustrate your point?

I may be wrong but i'm pretty sure that canada has as many guns per capita as the US, i'm sure that was mentioned on that michael moore film, its the psyche of the USA thats the problem.

 

[stevey-o]

Yup, that was in the Michael Moore film.

 

[looney]

I may be wrong but i'm pretty sure that canada has as many guns per capita as the US, i'm sure that was mentioned on that michael moore film, its the psyche of the USA thats the problem.

If its the psyche or "culture" thats the issue then why mes with the laws like dribbler advocates.

Damn i hope the tories liberalise gun ownership.

 

[Simster]

Please provide a link to the fall in gun crime since the gun ban? No you cant can you binster, no wonder I get pm's congratulating me on exposing you as being a clueless tosser. It aint difficult.

No you have to liberalise gun ownership to see a fall in gun crime, take wisconsin for example Flidster.

Make your mind up. Dimster, binster, flidster, gimster - all in just two posts. It all adds to the weight of your BRILLIANT argument.

If it aint difficult, then why do you get so many PMs congratulating you? Oh that's right, you don't.

I may be wrong but i'm pretty sure that canada has as many guns per capita as the US, i'm sure that was mentioned on that michael moore film, its the psyche of the USA thats the problem.

Spot on bushy. I couldn't agree more. Here is your answer looney, a cultural shift in attitudes to guns really needs to happen.

What I was originally saying was that a liberal attitude to gun ownership is what causes gun problems. You seem to think that we should have a right to bear arms in this country, despite the huge gun crime figures in the US.

I should have clarified that attempting to restrict gun ownership when the right to bear arms remains in the constitution (and is supported by the hugely influential NRA lobby) is going to barely move the needle one way or the other. It'll take decades to see results, the same as attempting to curb binge drinking in this country I think.

 

[Simster]

Now dribbler. Five names in 3 posts. Do you have any pet scouts you like to bully, looney?

 

[drew]

Out of all that narrative you find one phrase "pet projects" and then you put in something that your own brain has concocted. You said that not me, but I do see the Millenium Dome, the inquiry into Bloody Sunday, devolution of Scotish assembly, devolution of Welsh assembly (at the cost to the British taxpayer for Holyrood and any Welsh assembly, plus no doubt these MSP's/MWP's? salries) as examples of pet projects that I can think of straight away.

So who planned the millenium dome in the first place? Which party bangs on about moving away from central power. What is it that Cameron bangs on about, Central power to People power. Isn't that what a devolved parliament does? The whole mechanics of it might not yet be right but nothing is going to be 100% effective when set up from new.

 

[looney]

You playing the victim now Dribbler? Yes Ive decided on Dribbler as its the best match, I saw a "I hate wearing trousers" thread by your metrosexual posse, why not go and bounce that one and leave the clever stuff to the adults in this thread?

 

[simmo]

Simmo, to answer your questions:

Would I work harder to earn more if tax was lower? It depends what the trade off was. Tax for me being lower means tax for someone else has to be higher or savings have to be made somewhere so something is being cut. As Maggie Thatcher said, if you want something "someone, somewhere has to pay for it". If I'm not paying for it who is? Or what is?

I posted this in my earlier update, why can people especially Labour Supporters not understand this

All Labour voters ALWAYS think lower tax rates mean lower tax revenue but it will surprise them to know it quite often doesn't because 2 things happen 1) ordinary people work more overtime etc as stated above and 2) very rich people instead of going abroad to other countries stay in the UK because it is not financially necessary for them to find other tax boltholes.

Lower tax rates do not necessarily mean lower tax revenues.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I think in Norway they have massive VAT but low income tax (this is why it's expensive to visit but people who live there have a decent quality of life). That seems quite fair to me as a way of stopping such massive tax avoidance by bosses of limited co's etc and if benefit stays low it encourages the workshy to get out of the house and get a job if they want a decent standard of living. Again, Norway and other Scandinavian countries have low uptake of their welfare state benefits.

Well I have just looked it up and from the answer I have seen The basic income tax rate is 28%, and in addition to that the VAT is 25% on everything you buy.

So they have both higher VAT and income tax than we do.

Also fair is the Lib Dem idea of council tax being based on earnings so a pensioner in a 2 bed house pays less than a couple on a combined salary of 100k in an identical house in the same road. There are lots of fairer ways to do tax.

On a personal note after Falmer I will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER vote Lib Dem in any election in my life ever again. That is purely personal though.

I also don't care what background MPs have, until their background is a centrepiece for their policies in a way that is unrepresentative for the democracy that elects them. If John Prescott had been giving massive power to unions left, right and centre I would have had the same issues with him as I do with Cameron.

Cameron has not spent as yet one single day in office, how can you possibly have issues with Cameron in that he "looks after his own".

 

[simmo]

So who planned the millenium dome in the first place?

Who financed it, whom allowed it to become massively over budget, whom oversaw it into the big white elephant that it is

Which party bangs on about moving away from central power. What is it that Cameron bangs on about, Central power to People power. Isn't that what a devolved parliament does? The whole mechanics of it might not yet be right but nothing is going to be 100% effective when set up from new.

This is just drivel and isn't even worthy of a response.

 

[Simster]

You playing the victim now Dribbler? Yes Ive decided on Dribbler as its the best match, I saw a "I hate wearing trousers" thread by your metrosexual posse, why not go and bounce that one and leave the clever stuff to the adults in this thread?

I like wearing trousers. Sorry.

I'll try to follow this one instead, although I now realise I am going to struggle under the weight of your massive intellect. Any chance you provide me a link to prove that the right to bear arms has meant fewer gun crimes? Perhaps from the NRA website? The older the better. Cheers.

Meanwhile I'll get my thinking cap on for a childish name for you. I quite like Puny, but I do think you more of a Scrappy Doo character, frothing at the mouth, a complete simpleton and hopelessly out of your depth. I'll get back to you on that one.

 

[Shanker45]

Cut public spending and raise taxes.

Is the correct answer!

 

[beorhthelm]

...Central power to People power. Isn't that what a devolved parliament does?

devolved parliments just add an extra layer of government. the Tory idea of local power is to devolve power right down to district level. although i dont think its a very consistant objective (they introduced National cirriculem f.ex) and more idealogical than concreate policies.

 

[drew]

devolved parliments just add an extra layer of government. the Tory idea of local power is to devolve power right down to district level. although i dont think its a very consistant objective (they introduced National cirriculem f.ex) and more idealogical than concreate policies.

The principle is the same though. If you go down to district level then you are adding another tier of government just further down the chain. One minute we hear the tories banging on about postcode lottery when it comes to services, health education etc but that is exactly what would happen if districts could decide what were their priorities.

If each district had their own powers, own politicians etc it would mean more expense to be borne by that local community. Where would the economies of scale be?

 

[beorhthelm]

The principle is the same though.

no it isnt. moving decision making down to district level does just that, move it down. devolving to Wales, Scotland, regions introduces an addtional level to the existing heirarchy. Economies of scale? most expediture (main exception being NHS) is administered at local level anyway under instruction of central government. councils are given the budgets and policies to fulfill, with some Minister changing their mind and guidlines every few months and little empathy for local issues or priorities.

 

[drew]

Cameron has not spent as yet one single day in office, how can you possibly have issues with Cameron in that he "looks after his own".

Lets hope he never does.

As for your lower taxation argument, you even admit that it might result in higher revenues. Can you let us know where your stats are coming from and what examples in the real world you have to back it up? Or are you just going to spout off that you can't be bothered.

Most people I know that vote for the Tories do so because at the end of the day they want lower taxes, ie more money in their pockets. They will still be complaining when the waiting lists are longer, when their roads aren't gritted or the pot holes repaired, when their kids education deteriorates and they can't get on the limited places at Uni. When there aren't enough Police or prison places to deal with societies scum. No doubt you will bang on about beauracracy for the police but most of that is because they need an audit trail and evidence to convict.

As for working overtime, another poster has got it spot on. I also have worked for a number of multinationals in the insurance sector and can confirm that you don't get paid overtime but the work still has to be completed and deadlines met. I very much suspect that that applies to the vast majority of white collar workers.

Do you get overtime paid for your job and if so, what do you do.

I don't believe that the current Labour government are the best thing since sliced bread, far from it, it's just that I believe we would be in a lot worse situation now if the Tories were or do get into power.

History would have viewed the last thirteen years totally different if there hadn't been the Iraq fiasco (and I am referring to the cock up which has been the aftermath of the war) and the worldwide recession due to the unregulated activities of your so called wealth creators, unregulated by the Labour government but where the Tories would have gone further, apparently.

 

[drew]

no it isnt. moving decision making down to district level does just that, move it down. devolving to Wales, Scotland, regions introduces an addtional level to the existing heirarchy. Economies of scale? most expediture (main exception being NHS) is administered at local level anyway under instruction of central government. councils are given the budgets and policies to fulfill, with some Minister changing their mind and guidlines every few months and little empathy for local issues or priorities.

I disagree as I think the general principle is the same. Having said that, just because decision making is moved down to local level doesn't make it any more democratic. There are still differences of opinion at the district level just as there are at the national level. The main problem with district level decisions is that it will exacerbate the post code lottery arguments. Also, how small are the districts you refer to meant to be. Are we talking about the district of Burgess Hill (in my case) or is it mid Sussex, or is it West Sussex or is it the Southeast. Who decides and what makes them right. Would it be right that someone in Burgess Hill might be entitled to 5 attempts at IVF and someone in Haywards Heath only 1! Who pays what for the better schools? Who is going to fund trunk roads through districts and who is going to decide safety requirements for things. Do you have a national safety standard for things or is it up to your local districts to decide.

Extreme examples but who decides what powers districts have in the first place.

 

[NMH]

I like wearing trousers. Sorry.

I'll try to follow this one instead, although I now realise I am going to struggle under the weight of your massive intellect. Any chance you provide me a link to prove that the right to bear arms has meant fewer gun crimes? Perhaps from the NRA website? The older the better. Cheers.

Meanwhile I'll get my thinking cap on for a childish name for you. I quite like Puny, but I do think you more of a Scrappy Doo character, frothing at the mouth, a complete simpleton and hopelessly out of your depth. I'll get back to you on that one.

You keep giving looney a hard time about these names you are getting, but he's being kind really. He's overlooked the silliest of the lot - 'Simeon'!
I mean, BWAAAhahaha!

 

[Nibble]

The US constitution doesn't actually give a universal right to bear arms. It gives the right to bear arms as part of a governed organisation.