Best UK Prime Minister ?

[DJ Leon]

But........if you keep taxing the rich then they organise their affairs so as not to pay ANY. Why do you think the French and Scandinavians like to be tax domiciled in the UK? Better not to bleed the rich dry otherwise there won't be any rich left.

Simple really if only you'd give up the socialist dogma.

Socialist dogma? Pathetic.

 

[Buzzer]

Socialist dogma? Pathetic.

why is it pathetic? What part of my argument is incorrect or farcical? Or is it that you just can't construct a rebuttal?

 

[DTES]

Don't see how people have voted for Blair, the bloke is a self obessed cretin who is covered in spin. He is more interested in earning millions from his lecture tour round the us than he is from sorting this country out.

Crime is out of control, despite what the offical figures go on about.
The police are more interested in earning money from speeding cars etc than actually sorting real crime
The NHS is in crisis despite the fortune that has been spent on it, but yet the gov. still refuse to say they have got it wrong, just ask any nurse or doctor
The war, not going say any more on that
Giving more and more powers to Europe
Asylum
The education system isn't exactly in the best state.
And i'm sure people will add more

Expect people to disagree and say he is greatest thing ever but quite how is beyond me.

I've probably spoken up for Blair more than most here, but I've never claimed he's the greatest ever - he is far from. But he is not as bad as Margaret Thatcher, not even close.

As for the taxes - yes, it is possible to arrange affairs so that you pay less, but it's pretty difficult to legally "arrange" a £100,000+ salary so that don't pay any income tax, isn't it?

 

[Buzzer]

it's pretty difficult to legally "arrange" a £100,000+ salary so that don't pay any income tax, isn't it?

You're joking aren't you? As an accountant, I can say that it's very easy. The richer you are, the easier it gets.

 

[Mr Burns]

Yeah, it's like income tax - STUPID!

You pay a percentage of what you earn. No problem with that. I don't really see why there should be bands, ie the more you earn, the higher percentage you pay. I don't see why you house is worth £1 million, you should have to pay more council tax than someone living in a £100k bedsit. You still use the same services.

But by charging people for something, because they can afford it, it plain bollocks.

 

[DTES]

You're joking aren't you? As an accountant, I can say that it's very easy. The richer you are, the easier it gets.

So that you pay no tax? I think not. Of course it's possible to arrange taxes, but there's a big difference between avoidance and evasion.

But then, despite my position, I've always supported a 50% top rate, so we're never going to agree on this thread on anything.

Regards,

DTES ACA

 

[Buzzer]

So that you pay no tax? I think not. Of course it's possible to arrange taxes, but there's a big difference between avoidance and evasion.

But then, despite my position, I've always supported a 50% top rate, so we're never going to agree on this thread on anything.

Regards,

DTES ACA

ummm...Residency for tax purposes would do the trick.

 

[DJ Leon]

why is it pathetic? What part of my argument is incorrect or farcical? Or is it that you just can't construct a rebuttal?

Well your argument appears to be that income tax is a bad thing because it encourages the rich to avoid it. Do I really need to deconstruct the weakness of that position?

Actually, the bit I found pathetic wasn't your argument - it's your branding of a post (where I didn't actually give an argument) as clouded by 'socialist dogma'. It shows clearly that you are the one with the agenda before any debate has actually begun.

 

[DTES]

I don't really see why there should be bands, ie the more you arn, the higher percentage you pay.

Er...

The current top rate is 40%. Just think how much income tax is raised in Britain from this top rate right now.

Now you want to lower this, so the rate is constant. You're not going to cover the amount lost just by raising the 10% starting rate, so the standard rate is going to have to come up.

You think it's fair for everyone to pay, say, 30% of everything. You think that's viable?

 

[chip]

Er...

The current top rate is 40%. Just think how much income tax is raised in Britain from this top rate right now.

Now you want to lower this, so the rate is constant. You're not going to cover the amount lost just by raising the 10% starting rate, so the standard rate is going to have to come up.

You think it's fair for everyone to pay, say, 30% of everything. You think that's viable?

Tax could be much lower than 30% and it should be.

Are you really so bad with spending your money that you can't trust yourself to do it wisely?

 

[DTES]

Tax could be much lower than 30% and it should be.

Are you really so bad with spending your money that you can't trust yourself to do it wisely?

If there was one tax band, it would have to be at a higher rate than the current 22% standard rate.

I do not earn enough to reach the 40% band now, and yes, I am so bad at paying rent, council tax and bills that I can't afford to give any more as income tax. Sorry.

 

[Buzzer]

Well your argument appears to be that income tax is a bad thing because it encourages the rich to avoid it. Do I really need to deconstruct the weakness of that position?

Actually, the bit I found pathetic wasn't your argument - it's your branding of a post (where I didn't actually give an argument) as clouded by 'socialist dogma'. It shows clearly that you are the one with the agenda before any debate has actually begun.

You are so far adrift from following my original post that you've gone all high and mighty.

I posted:

But........if you keep taxing the rich then they organise their affairs so as not to pay ANY ....Better not to bleed the rich dry otherwise there won't be any rich left.

The important words are KEEP and BLEED THEM DRY. My post does not per se imply that a) income tax is a bad thing nor b) it encourages the rich to avoid it. I personally am ambivalent to income tax. It's a necessary evil as far as I see it. My argument is (and it's bloody obvious from reading it) that if you try and collect TOO MUCH tax from the rich then it acts as a counter productive force. At the moment, we seem to have just the right balance.

As for you getting all hot and bothered about socialist dogma - are you claiming that the redistribution of wealthis NOT part of the orthodoxy? I find it pathetic that you sit there writing little epithets and threatening to 'deconstruct' a simple argument rather than actually do it. And if you do try and deconstruct it, stick to rebutting my actual argument - not the fictitious one that you would like to answer.

 

[chip]

If there was one tax band, it would have to be at a higher rate than the current 22% standard rate.

I do not earn enough to reach the 40% band now, and yes, I am so bad at paying rent, council tax and bills that I can't afford to give any more as income tax. Sorry.

Actually, for most middle income families tax is more like 60%. I
was really wondering why you thought that politicians are so much better at spending our money than we are? There is no evidence to suggest that is true.

 

[mona]

True, I could never bring myself to vote for either Steve Bassam or Ken Bodfish, were I ever given the opportunity.

Are we talking about the Steve Bassam who watches the Albion and has worked hard to support our case for Falmer?
Oh I see.
Well let's wave Brighton and Hove Albion FC goodbye. Let the market decide. Brighton and Hove can become a rich London suburb where rugby rules and any football oiks can take the train to watch Chelsea.

In May let's all vote for the parties who want to kill off BHAFC I say.

 

[DJ Leon]

You are so far adrift from following my original post that you've gone all high and mighty.

I posted:

But........if you keep taxing the rich then they organise their affairs so as not to pay ANY ....Better not to bleed the rich dry otherwise there won't be any rich left.

The important words are KEEP and BLEED THEM DRY. My post does not per se imply that a) income tax is a bad thing nor b) it encourages the rich to avoid it. I personally am ambivalent to income tax. It's a necessary evil as far as I see it. My argument is (and it's bloody obvious from reading it) that if you try and collect TOO MUCH tax from the rich then it acts as a counter productive force. At the moment, we seem to have just the right balance.

As for you getting all hot and bothered about socialist dogma - are you claiming that the redistribution of wealthis NOT part of the orthodoxy? I find it pathetic that you sit there writing little epithets and threatening to 'deconstruct' a simple argument rather than actually do it. And if you do try and deconstruct it, stick to rebutting my actual argument - not the fictitious one that you would like to answer.

Pathetic.

 

[bigc]

Are we talking about the Steve Bassam who watches the Albion and has worked hard to support our case for Falmer?
Oh I see.
Well let's wave Brighton and Hove Albion FC goodbye. Let the market decide. Brighton and Hove can become a rich London suburb where rugby rules and any football oiks can take the train to watch Chelsea.

In May let's all vote for the parties who want to kill off BHAFC I say.

I wasn't saying I would, but it would leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Bassam worked hard for his own interest. Prior to him, the leader of the council was only expected to stay 1 year, 12 years later he left.

I respect him for all he did for Falmer but he really is an odious New Labour animal.

Dave Lepper is far more geniune in his support of the albion.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

I'm amazed that Thatcher is winning this with almost 50% of the total votes. Not because IMHO she shouldn´t (I voted for her) but because of people's perception of her.

No one under 30 can have any personal knowledge of the state the country was in in the late 70's - strikes everywhere, British Leyland, the poor man of Europe, totally uncompetitive, dominant disruptive union practices and ineffectual management - so I can totally understand why younger people would not vote for her and would see only the bad things about her time in office. But on this board there must be a high percentage of under 30's and yet she is running away with it!

Why? I think it must be an indictment of the others.

Blair has blown it - he started well (although he didn't have a lot to beat) but it's all gone pear shaped, and I don't just mean over Iraq. They've poured more money in to public services but things haven't improved as far as I can see (although I am obviously looking from a distance). And many people now doubt his personal honesty - even the biggest opponents of Thatcher never branded her a liar.

Major was a nice guy in the wrong job, just ineffectual.

Callaghan was a disaster (winter of discontent, crisis, what crisis?) and IMHO was the biggest single factor in Thatcher coming to power.

Wilson was as devious as they come (remember the allegations of sleaze and the Lavender list, not to mention the suspicious way he left office). He was fortunate to be PM in a time when the press was less investigative and more respectful of office; now they would rip into him!

And MacMillan was a decent enough man but made a mess over Suez.

So it seems to me that Maggie is winning by default. The best of a pretty poor bunch

 

[mona]

And MacMillan was a decent enough man but made a mess over Suez.

Wasn't Eden responsible for Suez?

 

[larus]

I've probably spoken up for Blair more than most here, but I've never claimed he's the greatest ever - he is far from. But he is not as bad as Margaret Thatcher, not even close.

As for the taxes - yes, it is possible to arrange affairs so that you pay less, but it's pretty difficult to legally "arrange" a £100,000+ salary so that don't pay any income tax, isn't it?

The problem with left wing people is that they want to penalise the people that are prepared to work hard, take chances and have an entrepreneurial dive.

They always support the social model, so long as it's other people paying for it. It doesn't matter how inefficient the state is at delivering those services, so long as they are run by the state and those nasty private companies aren't making a profit.

This is what holds this country back. Privatise the health service, make it profit driven, make the government push to improve the price it gets from the privatised health service, but keep it free at the point of devlivery.

This is why Maggie gets so many votes; most people realise that she did a great job (albeit with some mistakes), but she had balls and more integrity than Blair.

When she came to power, our industries were a laughing stock, and we had trade unions ruining the productivity of the country. She had the courage to stand up to them and put them in their place. Note how little of the reforms have been revoked by this 'Labour' government. The industries that couldn't compete were allowed to die, so that others would be started that could compete and add real value to the economy.

Blair is just a poor imitation of Maggie, and she was one of the first people who he invited to Downing Street after his '97 victory.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

Why is Churchill not there?
Why is Kinnock there ?that crooked windbag is about as much use as the popes bollocks.