General Election 2015

[Seagull on the wing]

And no doubt they had the four kids purely to get a council house.

Don't forget the child benefit as well....

 

[Seagull on the wing]

I agree with your sentiment though the family up the road from you is an extreme example and sound like theyre bent.

Nearly all of Labour's policy has been written by millionaire champagne socialist career politicians.

Helping the poorest and neediest in society should be the goal of every government, redistributing wealth also fairly. But making enemies of anyone with money is not in countries or the poorest best interest. Whatever you think of the rich - those in that top 1% of earners over £150k (most of the Albion first team!) pay 30% of all income tax to the treasury. They are vital to paying for public services we need and a 0.5% cut in richer tax payers buggering off can result in a 15% reduction in taxes raised.

50p tax rate - I wouldn't personally care if it's 30p or 90p for those over £150k as I'll likely never earn it, but it's common sense to get the maximum revenue there will be a best rate, in economics its called "the Laffer curve". If you try and sell a football for £100 nobody will buy, for £1 you'll lose money, you want to get the price that gets the maximum return. If top rate tax is to high many internationally mobile will leave as has happened in France as happened when 70's labour tried to "tax the rich until the pips squeek". and they pay a massive % of the overall tax take. You can end up with much less in the treasury for schools and the NHS from such miscalculated gambits.

But all analysis I've read says 45p tax vs 50p does nothing to raise more money or to save money, there is a band of "true elasticity' (margin of error) in revenue gained/lost + spending v's people leaving/coming and its impossible to prove if it will make or save anything, with some predicting 50p would raise up to 100 mill from Labour and some Torys and economists saying 45p actually raises up to 400 million.

So why do it? Because it appeals to the core class warfare labour "bash the rich..them and us" voter and can be framed in a "tax cut for millionaires" soundbite even though there is no proof any more would end up in treasury for the things that matter and much of the extra money in pockets from 45p will be spent in uk businesses and VAT will be charged making yet another 20%.

the 50p rate assumes everyone will stay, but naturally they wont, so why piss off the group that pays 30% of all taxes?

tackle evasion for sure but if you wage class warfare without sound reasoning, there is a high chance those you claim to represent will be worse off not better with less tax take.

Non Doms - I bet nobody knows one or cares about them. It makes sense to remove the hereditary handing down of non dom status to those born here, but going after those that put over 8 billion a year into the treasury?

If you fly on hols this summer and 90% of pax paid £200 but 10% of seats were unsold, the airline would be dumb not to discount the last 10% of seats rather than have them empty earning nothing. Maybe the other 90% of pax may feel hard done by as, but the airline is making more by having them filled than empty.

I couldn't give a hoot if non dom status is banned if it can be proven there's a benefit to the state coffers to be spent on essential services, but there is none. ed balls said it would lose money as many of these Saudi princes/oligarchs or whoever they are will bugger off, taking their tax revenue and spending power with them and there's no thorough report on how much we'd lose or gain with such a move and as 8 billion is exactly the amount of the Sir Simon Stephens report, NHS shortfall. Why not instead pledge to spend it there whilst doing thorough research on merits/pitfalls of removing non dom status. It's 8 billion of real money. not a juvenile 6th form put the world to rights game.

Of course it also It doesn't suit the labour narrative of rich bashers, who cares if the money is lost and less goes to essential services, we're class warriors, we want to attack the wealthy at any cost, it's them v us comrade.

The current labour party acts in the best interests of the party, not the country. Their dumb interventionist policies may resonate with politically clueless soundbite generation, but they will wreck the economy and ALL will end up with being worse off.

Socialism is a great ideology. I was a fierce Marxist in later teens.
Affordable socialism in a capatilist globalised world, with competent debt reducing, low borrowing, growth based economic management is a utopian pipe dream.
Massive borrowing, debt riddled economic calamity, stifling the economy and business for ideological and not business reasons, leaving behind a devastated mess where all suffer is the reality of party first socialism put forward by Red Eds old labour and the SNP

Well said PW....

 

[Ernest]

you sound like a politician.. in denial because its suits your political view.

I would imagine the majority of people that have posted on this thread know's of someone who is claiming benefit that is living beyond their means, thinking how the f@ck can they afford to afford this or that.

Can you just point me to someone please otherwise I'll say you've watched too much C5 shows lately

 

[Seagull on the wing]

You didn't answer the question , how can people afford all these luxuries on £72 a week ?[/QUOTE)
Have you heard of the black market Ernest...nudge nudge..."You want to buy a telly cheap ? What size and make do you want,I'll get you one tomorrow.
The family in question get benefits for children,disability for depression...rent and rates paid....that's how they get these luxeries,not saying all people are like that there are people who through no misfortune of their own are struggling,these people do need help,the system needs a reform to weed out the scroungers as it needs to weed out the tax dodgers.

 

[beorhthelm]

Job seekers allowance is £72 a week so tell me how these people afford all these luxuries ?

same way everyone else lives beyond their means, credit.

 

[Ernest]

You didn't answer the question , how can people afford all these luxuries on £72 a week ?[/QUOTE)
Have you heard of the black market Ernest...nudge nudge..."You want to buy a telly cheap ? What size and make do you want,I'll get you one tomorrow.
The family in question get benefits for children,disability for depression...rent and rates paid....that's how they get these luxeries,not saying all people are like that there are people who through no misfortune of their own are struggling,these people do need help,the system needs a reform to weed out the scroungers as it needs to weed out the tax dodgers.

Scroungers is an emotive word, I'm sure you know the relation between the amount of benefit fraud and the amount of tax fraud and you think a system that has killed people is the right way to do it ?

 

[Ernest]

same way everyone else lives beyond their means, credit.

So where is the problem then ?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Oh they probably exist its just the question of who they vote for

while I was in the Labour Party in Brighton I did a stint at the polling station at the bottom of the Avenue in Bevendean.
standing next to a tory councillor having a chat when he said hello looks like plenty of votes for you here, described by him as typical Labour voters, parents both disabled, older children, one disabled, well you get the picture.
when they came out from voting they came straight to me and asked if I was the tory, I pointed to the other guy, they shook hands with him and went on their way.
never,never judge a book, especially in politics

Been there, done that ... in 1974.

What was really interesting about the Bevendean polling station was that Brian Ralfe was standing as a candidate (on this occasion as a Drag Queen, rather than as a representative of one of the political parties). As a local boy, Brian was getting a lot of local support (and even some votes). As you say, there's no way of telling how people might vote from simply looking at them and making a simplistic assumption.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

I agree with your sentiment though the family up the road from you is an extreme example and sound like theyre bent.

Nearly all of Labour's policy has been written by millionaire champagne socialist career politicians.

Helping the poorest and neediest in society should be the goal of every government, redistributing wealth also fairly. But making enemies of anyone with money is not in countries or the poorest best interest. Whatever you think of the rich - those in that top 1% of earners over £150k (most of the Albion first team!) pay 30% of all income tax to the treasury. They are vital to paying for public services we need and a 0.5% cut in richer tax payers buggering off can result in a 15% reduction in taxes raised.

50p tax rate - I wouldn't personally care if it's 30p or 90p for those over £150k as I'll likely never earn it, but it's common sense to get the maximum revenue there will be a best rate, in economics its called "the Laffer curve". If you try and sell a football for £100 nobody will buy, for £1 you'll lose money, you want to get the price that gets the maximum return. If top rate tax is to high many internationally mobile will leave as has happened in France as happened when 70's labour tried to "tax the rich until the pips squeek". and they pay a massive % of the overall tax take. You can end up with much less in the treasury for schools and the NHS from such miscalculated gambits.

But all analysis I've read says 45p tax vs 50p does nothing to raise more money or to save money, there is a band of "true elasticity' (margin of error) in revenue gained/lost + spending v's people leaving/coming and its impossible to prove if it will make or save anything, with some predicting 50p would raise up to 100 mill from Labour and some Torys and economists saying 45p actually raises up to 400 million.

So why do it? Because it appeals to the core class warfare labour "bash the rich..them and us" voter and can be framed in a "tax cut for millionaires" soundbite even though there is no proof any more would end up in treasury for the things that matter and much of the extra money in pockets from 45p will be spent in uk businesses and VAT will be charged making yet another 20%.

the 50p rate assumes everyone will stay, but naturally they wont, so why piss off the group that pays 30% of all taxes?

tackle evasion for sure but if you wage class warfare without sound reasoning, there is a high chance those you claim to represent will be worse off not better with less tax take.

Non Doms - I bet nobody knows one or cares about them. It makes sense to remove the hereditary handing down of non dom status to those born here, but going after those that put over 8 billion a year into the treasury?

If you fly on hols this summer and 90% of pax paid £200 but 10% of seats were unsold, the airline would be dumb not to discount the last 10% of seats rather than have them empty earning nothing. Maybe the other 90% of pax may feel hard done by as, but the airline is making more by having them filled than empty.

I couldn't give a hoot if non dom status is banned if it can be proven there's a benefit to the state coffers to be spent on essential services, but there is none. ed balls said it would lose money as many of these Saudi princes/oligarchs or whoever they are will bugger off, taking their tax revenue and spending power with them and there's no thorough report on how much we'd lose or gain with such a move and as 8 billion is exactly the amount of the Sir Simon Stephens report, NHS shortfall. Why not instead pledge to spend it there whilst doing thorough research on merits/pitfalls of removing non dom status. It's 8 billion of real money. not a juvenile 6th form put the world to rights game.

Of course it also It doesn't suit the labour narrative of rich bashers, who cares if the money is lost and less goes to essential services, we're class warriors, we want to attack the wealthy at any cost, it's them v us comrade.

The current labour party acts in the best interests of the party, not the country. Their dumb interventionist policies may resonate with politically clueless soundbite generation, but they will wreck the economy and ALL will end up with being worse off.

Socialism is a great ideology. I was a fierce Marxist in later teens.
Affordable socialism in a capatilist globalised world, with competent debt reducing, low borrowing, growth based economic management is a utopian pipe dream.
Massive borrowing, debt riddled economic calamity, stifling the economy and business for ideological and not business reasons, leaving behind a devastated mess where all suffer is the reality of party first socialism put forward by Red Eds old labour and the SNP

That is one of the best posts I have ever read on here.

No bashing of the parties, just telling it as it is. Those who looked at it, and thought, can't be arsed to read all that, I would say spend a few minutes on it.

 

[glasfryn]

you sound like a politician.. in denial because its suits your political view.

I would imagine the majority of people that have posted on this thread know's of someone who is claiming benefit that is living beyond their means, thinking how the f@ck can they afford to afford this or that.

mmmm yes I think we all know someone who made their money on the backs of other people too, I certainly do.
I have worked for a good few foolishly,mistakenly, its true what they say the older the wiser.............but by then its to late

 

[glasfryn]

I agree with your sentiment though the family up the road from you is an extreme example and sound like theyre bent.

Nearly all of Labour's policy has been written by millionaire champagne socialist career politicians.

Helping the poorest and neediest in society should be the goal of every government, redistributing wealth also fairly. But making enemies of anyone with money is not in countries or the poorest best interest. Whatever you think of the rich - those in that top 1% of earners over £150k (most of the Albion first team!) pay 30% of all income tax to the treasury. They are vital to paying for public services we need and a 0.5% cut in richer tax payers buggering off can result in a 15% reduction in taxes raised.

50p tax rate - I wouldn't personally care if it's 30p or 90p for those over £150k as I'll likely never earn it, but it's common sense to get the maximum revenue there will be a best rate, in economics its called "the Laffer curve". If you try and sell a football for £100 nobody will buy, for £1 you'll lose money, you want to get the price that gets the maximum return. If top rate tax is to high many internationally mobile will leave as has happened in France as happened when 70's labour tried to "tax the rich until the pips squeek". and they pay a massive % of the overall tax take. You can end up with much less in the treasury for schools and the NHS from such miscalculated gambits.

But all analysis I've read says 45p tax vs 50p does nothing to raise more money or to save money, there is a band of "true elasticity' (margin of error) in revenue gained/lost + spending v's people leaving/coming and its impossible to prove if it will make or save anything, with some predicting 50p would raise up to 100 mill from Labour and some Torys and economists saying 45p actually raises up to 400 million.

So why do it? Because it appeals to the core class warfare labour "bash the rich..them and us" voter and can be framed in a "tax cut for millionaires" soundbite even though there is no proof any more would end up in treasury for the things that matter and much of the extra money in pockets from 45p will be spent in uk businesses and VAT will be charged making yet another 20%.

the 50p rate assumes everyone will stay, but naturally they wont, so why piss off the group that pays 30% of all taxes?

tackle evasion for sure but if you wage class warfare without sound reasoning, there is a high chance those you claim to represent will be worse off not better with less tax take.

Non Doms - I bet nobody knows one or cares about them. It makes sense to remove the hereditary handing down of non dom status to those born here, but going after those that put over 8 billion a year into the treasury?

If you fly on hols this summer and 90% of pax paid £200 but 10% of seats were unsold, the airline would be dumb not to discount the last 10% of seats rather than have them empty earning nothing. Maybe the other 90% of pax may feel hard done by as, but the airline is making more by having them filled than empty.

I couldn't give a hoot if non dom status is banned if it can be proven there's a benefit to the state coffers to be spent on essential services, but there is none. ed balls said it would lose money as many of these Saudi princes/oligarchs or whoever they are will bugger off, taking their tax revenue and spending power with them and there's no thorough report on how much we'd lose or gain with such a move and as 8 billion is exactly the amount of the Sir Simon Stephens report, NHS shortfall. Why not instead pledge to spend it there whilst doing thorough research on merits/pitfalls of removing non dom status. It's 8 billion of real money. not a juvenile 6th form put the world to rights game.

Of course it also It doesn't suit the labour narrative of rich bashers, who cares if the money is lost and less goes to essential services, we're class warriors, we want to attack the wealthy at any cost, it's them v us comrade.

The current labour party acts in the best interests of the party, not the country. Their dumb interventionist policies may resonate with politically clueless soundbite generation, but they will wreck the economy and ALL will end up with being worse off.

Socialism is a great ideology. I was a fierce Marxist in later teens.
Affordable socialism in a capatilist globalised world, with competent debt reducing, low borrowing, growth based economic management is a utopian pipe dream.
Massive borrowing, debt riddled economic calamity, stifling the economy and business for ideological and not business reasons, leaving behind a devastated mess where all suffer is the reality of party first socialism put forward by Red Eds old labour and the SNP

the trouble with this is very few that are labour party MP's and prospective MP's are NOT socialists, I have said it before but will now say it again Labour watered down tories

 

[Soulman]

I agree with your sentiment though the family up the road from you is an extreme example and sound like theyre bent.

Nearly all of Labour's policy has been written by millionaire champagne socialist career politicians.

Helping the poorest and neediest in society should be the goal of every government, redistributing wealth also fairly. But making enemies of anyone with money is not in countries or the poorest best interest. Whatever you think of the rich - those in that top 1% of earners over £150k (most of the Albion first team!) pay 30% of all income tax to the treasury. They are vital to paying for public services we need and a 0.5% cut in richer tax payers buggering off can result in a 15% reduction in taxes raised.

50p tax rate - I wouldn't personally care if it's 30p or 90p for those over £150k as I'll likely never earn it, but it's common sense to get the maximum revenue there will be a best rate, in economics its called "the Laffer curve". If you try and sell a football for £100 nobody will buy, for £1 you'll lose money, you want to get the price that gets the maximum return. If top rate tax is to high many internationally mobile will leave as has happened in France as happened when 70's labour tried to "tax the rich until the pips squeek". and they pay a massive % of the overall tax take. You can end up with much less in the treasury for schools and the NHS from such miscalculated gambits.

But all analysis I've read says 45p tax vs 50p does nothing to raise more money or to save money, there is a band of "true elasticity' (margin of error) in revenue gained/lost + spending v's people leaving/coming and its impossible to prove if it will make or save anything, with some predicting 50p would raise up to 100 mill from Labour and some Torys and economists saying 45p actually raises up to 400 million.

So why do it? Because it appeals to the core class warfare labour "bash the rich..them and us" voter and can be framed in a "tax cut for millionaires" soundbite even though there is no proof any more would end up in treasury for the things that matter and much of the extra money in pockets from 45p will be spent in uk businesses and VAT will be charged making yet another 20%.

the 50p rate assumes everyone will stay, but naturally they wont, so why piss off the group that pays 30% of all taxes?

tackle evasion for sure but if you wage class warfare without sound reasoning, there is a high chance those you claim to represent will be worse off not better with less tax take.

Non Doms - I bet nobody knows one or cares about them. It makes sense to remove the hereditary handing down of non dom status to those born here, but going after those that put over 8 billion a year into the treasury?

If you fly on hols this summer and 90% of pax paid £200 but 10% of seats were unsold, the airline would be dumb not to discount the last 10% of seats rather than have them empty earning nothing. Maybe the other 90% of pax may feel hard done by as, but the airline is making more by having them filled than empty.

I couldn't give a hoot if non dom status is banned if it can be proven there's a benefit to the state coffers to be spent on essential services, but there is none. ed balls said it would lose money as many of these Saudi princes/oligarchs or whoever they are will bugger off, taking their tax revenue and spending power with them and there's no thorough report on how much we'd lose or gain with such a move and as 8 billion is exactly the amount of the Sir Simon Stephens report, NHS shortfall. Why not instead pledge to spend it there whilst doing thorough research on merits/pitfalls of removing non dom status. It's 8 billion of real money. not a juvenile 6th form put the world to rights game.

Of course it also It doesn't suit the labour narrative of rich bashers, who cares if the money is lost and less goes to essential services, we're class warriors, we want to attack the wealthy at any cost, it's them v us comrade.

The current labour party acts in the best interests of the party, not the country. Their dumb interventionist policies may resonate with politically clueless soundbite generation, but they will wreck the economy and ALL will end up with being worse off.

Socialism is a great ideology. I was a fierce Marxist in later teens.
Affordable socialism in a capatilist globalised world, with competent debt reducing, low borrowing, growth based economic management is a utopian pipe dream.
Massive borrowing, debt riddled economic calamity, stifling the economy and business for ideological and not business reasons, leaving behind a devastated mess where all suffer is the reality of party first socialism put forward by Red Eds old labour and the SNP

Good post.

 

[beorhthelm]

So where is the problem then ?

if you consider spending benefits on electrical goods and toys ok, there's no problem at all.

 

[Stato]

That is one of the best posts I have ever read on here.

No bashing of the parties, just telling it as it is. Those who looked at it, and thought, can't be arsed to read all that, I would say spend a few minutes on it.

I've read it and can sum it up with the phrase:

Don't upset the rich because the wealth will trickle down.

The last half a century has proven trickle down economics to be a complete myth:

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ckle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85

http://mic.com/articles/104612/7-charts-show-why-trickle-down-economics-has-been-an-enormous-failure

Anyone still arguing it is either in the top 1%, is deluded enough to believe that they have a good chance of joining it, or is just continuing with the same arguments because they have invested too much intellectual capital for too long to admit they were wrong.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

I've read it and can sum it up with the phrase:

Don't upset the rich because the wealth will trickle down.

The last half a century has proven trickle down economics to be a complete myth:

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ckle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85

http://mic.com/articles/104612/7-charts-show-why-trickle-down-economics-has-been-an-enormous-failure

Anyone still arguing it is either in the top 1%, is deluded enough to believe that they have a good chance of joining it, or is just continuing with the same arguments because they have invested too much intellectual capital for too long to admit they were wrong.

Funny you read it like that, because that not what the post said.

How I read it was, over tax the rich, and they will go elsewhere to pay their taxes. Like or lump it, if you want to take take take from the rich, they won't stick around so there will be no rich to tax from?

I am not in the top 1%, I have no chance of ever getting there, I have a six figure mortgage and probably will for many years to come and consider myself far from deluded. However I have common sense, and know if you take take take from the super rich, they will just get up and move elsewhere.

I would rather take 40% tax from a ****ing big pot of money, than 99% from a near empty pot.

 

[beorhthelm]

The last half a century has proven trickle down economics to be a complete myth:

were you going to provide some evidence directly against the theory, or rely on indirect commentry from a different issue? trickle down doesnt bring wealth equality and has never pretended to. its about improving the whole economy.

 

[Mr Bridger]

I agree with your sentiment though the family up the road from you is an extreme example and sound like theyre bent.

Nearly all of Labour's policy has been written by millionaire champagne socialist career politicians.

Helping the poorest and neediest in society should be the goal of every government, redistributing wealth also fairly. But making enemies of anyone with money is not in countries or the poorest best interest. Whatever you think of the rich - those in that top 1% of earners over £150k (most of the Albion first team!) pay 30% of all income tax to the treasury. They are vital to paying for public services we need and a 0.5% cut in richer tax payers buggering off can result in a 15% reduction in taxes raised.

50p tax rate - I wouldn't personally care if it's 30p or 90p for those over £150k as I'll likely never earn it, but it's common sense to get the maximum revenue there will be a best rate, in economics its called "the Laffer curve". If you try and sell a football for £100 nobody will buy, for £1 you'll lose money, you want to get the price that gets the maximum return. If top rate tax is to high many internationally mobile will leave as has happened in France as happened when 70's labour tried to "tax the rich until the pips squeek". and they pay a massive % of the overall tax take. You can end up with much less in the treasury for schools and the NHS from such miscalculated gambits.

But all analysis I've read says 45p tax vs 50p does nothing to raise more money or to save money, there is a band of "true elasticity' (margin of error) in revenue gained/lost + spending v's people leaving/coming and its impossible to prove if it will make or save anything, with some predicting 50p would raise up to 100 mill from Labour and some Torys and economists saying 45p actually raises up to 400 million.

So why do it? Because it appeals to the core class warfare labour "bash the rich..them and us" voter and can be framed in a "tax cut for millionaires" soundbite even though there is no proof any more would end up in treasury for the things that matter and much of the extra money in pockets from 45p will be spent in uk businesses and VAT will be charged making yet another 20%.

the 50p rate assumes everyone will stay, but naturally they wont, so why piss off the group that pays 30% of all taxes?

tackle evasion for sure but if you wage class warfare without sound reasoning, there is a high chance those you claim to represent will be worse off not better with less tax take.

Non Doms - I bet nobody knows one or cares about them. It makes sense to remove the hereditary handing down of non dom status to those born here, but going after those that put over 8 billion a year into the treasury?

If you fly on hols this summer and 90% of pax paid £200 but 10% of seats were unsold, the airline would be dumb not to discount the last 10% of seats rather than have them empty earning nothing. Maybe the other 90% of pax may feel hard done by as, but the airline is making more by having them filled than empty.

I couldn't give a hoot if non dom status is banned if it can be proven there's a benefit to the state coffers to be spent on essential services, but there is none. ed balls said it would lose money as many of these Saudi princes/oligarchs or whoever they are will bugger off, taking their tax revenue and spending power with them and there's no thorough report on how much we'd lose or gain with such a move and as 8 billion is exactly the amount of the Sir Simon Stephens report, NHS shortfall. Why not instead pledge to spend it there whilst doing thorough research on merits/pitfalls of removing non dom status. It's 8 billion of real money. not a juvenile 6th form put the world to rights game.

Of course it also It doesn't suit the labour narrative of rich bashers, who cares if the money is lost and less goes to essential services, we're class warriors, we want to attack the wealthy at any cost, it's them v us comrade.

The current labour party acts in the best interests of the party, not the country. Their dumb interventionist policies may resonate with politically clueless soundbite generation, but they will wreck the economy and ALL will end up with being worse off.

Socialism is a great ideology. I was a fierce Marxist in later teens.
Affordable socialism in a capatilist globalised world, with competent debt reducing, low borrowing, growth based economic management is a utopian pipe dream.
Massive borrowing, debt riddled economic calamity, stifling the economy and business for ideological and not business reasons, leaving behind a devastated mess where all suffer is the reality of party first socialism put forward by Red Eds old labour and the SNP

Top post.

 

[Stato]

were you going to provide some evidence directly against the theory, or rely on indirect commentry from a different issue? trickle down doesnt bring wealth equality and has never pretended to. its about improving the whole economy.

And isn't improving the whole economy working out great for all of us?

http://www.theguardian.com/business...ains-wealthiest-double-net-worth-since-crisis

 

[Steve Foster]

Some interesting comments about taxing the wealthy. No doubt I will get shot down but as someone who is comfortably within the top 1% of earners (& yes I have worked my socks off to get there) & an IFA to a number of very wealthy clients re their finances, it is largely an irrelevance as to what the highest rate of income tax is. Most high earners earning above £150,000 pa are not employees but run their own businesses, self employed, or Directors of companies. There are many legal ways of extracting revenue from businesses, without getting political but brought about by the former Labour Party. Paying large amounts of income tax is largely voluntary as is inheritance tax.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

I have had them all calling, and take all there bumph, especially the tory stuff and there is loads of it, shred it all for cat litter, watching Cameron's face go through the shredder is almost and I say almost orgasmic

There is also the added satisfaction of seeing your cats showing their appreciation of Dodgy Dave in the litter tray