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

[wellquickwoody]

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.

I believe the defintion of 'to rob' is as follows (from the Oxford English Dictionary) -

'take property unlawfully from (a person or place) by force or threat of force'

Which in this case would be completely untrue would it not?

 

[Pavilionaire]

it may or may not be, but quoting an article in the Guardian as fact is like quoting one about milliband from the mail.

Danny Alexander made the well timed accusation, wheres the proof, he should put up or shut up...... The balanced BBC piece on it, actually said it was a proposal put forward by IDS in 2012 that was rejected by the government and not implemented. as are many such departmental proposals put forward as ideas and then rejected.

Roll on 2015 and the day before the leaders debates on QT, about to lose his seat and his party facing wipeout, Danny Alexander says this is what they were going do (no Danny ot was a proposal that the government you were in rejected) and its what they plan to do now (right Danny so you're access all areas in the Tory campaign room are you?), the Guardian will happily peddle his words as it suits the pro Labour anti Tory narrative.

Its obvious, the Lib Dems (whose biggest threat in their SW marginals are the Tories) just want this to dominate the QT debate and this be the post debate headline.

Take off your blinkers.

This is not some wild accusation - Alexander has been very specific about the document in question, the date it was released and to whom it was given.

It is in the public interest because the Tories have been very vague about where they'll cut welfare if the economy doesn't grow as quickly as they expect.

This demonstrates that the Lib Dems have been effective in restraining the Tory plans to cut the deficit by slashing the welfare and benefits budgets. Yes, it is only a proposal document but it is an indicator of the direction the Tories are likely to take if they get a majority. I'm not against some cuts to child benefit and tax credit but these proposals were draconian.

 

[Nibble]

I believe the defintion of 'to rob' is as follows (from the Oxford English Dictionary) -

'take property unlawfully from (a person or place) by force or threat of force'

Which in this case would be completely untrue would it not?

No, that about sums it up.

 

[pb21]

Why should I have to subsidise lower income families with shit loads of kids?

Because in the long run you, your wife and your child would benefit more than if you didn't.

Obviously in some case the system can seem unfair and be abused and isn't perfect but on balance it is, IMO, the best way.

 

[Bold Seagull]

...

 

[wellquickwoody]

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.

And obviously NOBODY in government has EVER thought of this amazing solution to our problems, but you have? If a politician had actually acted on this amazing revelation they would be perceived by the electorate as the saviour of the UK and granted life immortality etc etc. Something, somewhere leads me to believe this may not be as simple a solution as you think.

 

[Nibble]

And obviously NOBODY in government has EVER thought of this amazing solution to our problems, but you have? If a politician had actually acted on this amazing revelation they would be perceived by the electorate as the saviour of the UK and granted life immortality etc etc. Something, somewhere leads me to believe this may not be as simple a solution as you think.

It's not in a politicians interest to solve this problem. That's why it's not been solved.

 

[peterward]

Take off your blinkers.

This is not some wild accusation - Alexander has been very specific about the document in question, the date it was released and to whom it was given.

It is in the public interest because the Tories have been very vague about where they'll cut welfare if the economy doesn't grow as quickly as they expect.

This demonstrates that the Lib Dems have been effective in restraining the Tory plans to cut the deficit by slashing the welfare and benefits budgets. Yes, it is only a proposal document but it is an indicator of the direction the Tories are likely to take if they get a majority. I'm not against some cuts to child benefit and tax credit but these proposals were draconian.

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

 

[wellquickwoody]

Italy doesn't allow them in their country for that exact reason.

And what a model economy that is!

 

[glasfryn]

All this talk about 'The Rich' is very interesting.
Who are the rich and how many of them are there?
What qualifies someone to be classed as a rich person? Is it someone who has a few million in assets or is it the chap down the road with a bigger house and car than you?
I am interested, because according to some on here, the Tories only look after the rich and don't give a toss about the 'poor'.
Well, I can't believe all those who vote Tory are rich ,otherwise,it means there are a hell of a lot of rich people in this country.

in Great Britain in the last five(5) years the rich have got richer .............where did all that wealth come from

 

[Nibble]

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.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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

I was born in 1948 under a Labour government. We had a massive debt then. Nothing has changed.

 

[Pavilionaire]

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

Leaving aside your patronising questioning (Yes, I AM aware there is a debt problem, I'm a grown-up and I wear long trousers) I've also worked for the civil service and know that ministers don't sit around an office "brain-storming" for new ideas, they engage think-tanks and civil servants to come up with ideas and have them evaluated.

Assuming that Alexander isn't making this whole thing up the fact that it got as far as it did with IDS putting his name on it and being put up for discussion by the Quad means it must be in the ballpark of Tory thinking.

 

[beorhthelm]

I was born in 1948 under a Labour government. We had a massive debt then. Nothing has changed.

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.

 

[Hotchilidog]

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

Blah blah blah. Do you have a mortgage? If so pay it off tomorrow and then start lecturing the unemployed, underpaid, sick and disabled about how they live their lives whilst billion dollar corporations find ways to avoid paying their due.

You obviously missed the global FINANCIAL crash caused by white collar gamblers (and the pandering to those gamblers) who have f**ked it up for everyone who actually does real work for a living.

I damn sure that those people being hit by benefit cuts had nothing to do with the mess we are in but they are the ones paying for it. I've been in gainful employment for 30 years and paid my taxes and my NI and because of attitudes like yours I'll end up vilified as a scrounger should I ever need to call upon the pool of cash I have spent a lifetime paying into.

The Tories have spent the last five years sending money from the bottom to the top. The polar opposite of the trickle-down economics espoused by those darlings of the right Thatcher and Reagan. It's trickle-up economics now and I am stunned more people do not see it that way. The Tories don't even believe in work paying anymore, they are more interested in their friends hiring people for as low a cost as possible whilst tax payers pick up the rest of the tab so people can eat and pay rent/mortgage. Cameron is surely one of the best snake-oil salesmen going albeit with most of the media outlets helping him out.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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.

How many times did we go running to the IMF in the 70s? Rampant inflation didn't help either. You cannot pay out more than you've got coming in.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

Agreed, Close to 10,000 people have been made redundant after starbucks pulls out of the UK?........ they need to be tackled, they need to pay fairly but ultimatums are simplistic. to have 10,000 potentially on the dole may cost more. Starbucks/google tax revenue is money not in the coffers that absolutely should be, having thousands on the dole wont put that tax revenue in but it will take a hell of a lot from what is currently in the coffers. You can only work with what you actually have and not what you hope/think you should have.... They need to be pursued but kicking them out is not the answer.

Other people will sell coffee. Tax paying other people.

 

[looney]

As much as I agree with most of your post has to be said there is no such thing as trickledown economics/theory, leftwing urban legend.

 

[BLOCK F]

in Great Britain in the last five(5) years the rich have got richer .............where did all that wealth come from

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

 

[narly101]

Because in the long run you, your wife and your child would benefit more than if you didn't.

Obviously in some case the system can seem unfair and be abused and isn't perfect but on balance it is, IMO, the best way.

Your argument is invalid. I don't disagree with child benefit, but I do disagree with subsidising low income families who are incapable of keeping a lid on it. The world is too populated anyway. It's time we thought about the future.