|
Replies:
|
|
Deleted User
|
Oct 30 2014, 08:14 AM
Post #41
|
|
Deleted User
|
- C-too
- Oct 29 2014, 06:34 PM
- Major Sinic
- Oct 29 2014, 06:24 PM
- C-too
- Oct 29 2014, 05:34 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 29 2014, 02:14 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep Summary●The government’s finances are currently on an unsustainable trajectory. ● Whilst current levels of government debt are below the levels seen in previous periods in history, accumulating such large levels of debt during a long period of peacetime is more or less unknown. ●Government debt figures do not include commitments to future spending either: governments do not account in the same prudent way that companies are required to account. An ageing population means that on unchanged policies the cost of providing age-related spending such as healthcare, pensions and social care will rise substantially over the next five decades, seeing overall debt on an upward trajectory. ●According to the government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) a permanent fiscal adjustment (tax increases and/or spending cuts) of 1.3 per cent of national income will be necessary from 2018/19 in order to ensure that the debt-to-GDP ratio falls to 20 per cent by 2063/64. ●However, the OBR figures make heroic assumptions about healthcare productivity and also assume that there will be a fiscal adjustment of 5.2 per cent of national income before 2018/19. In other words, spending needs to be cut by around 6.5 per cent of national income from now and for the foreseeable future to hit a government debt target of 20 per cent of national income by 2063/64. Such a measure will not create room to reverse recent tax increases.●If more realistic assumptions about healthcare productivity, immigration and spending priorities are made, spending would need to be cut by 9.6 per cent of national income now and for the foreseeable future tohit a debt target of 20 per cent of national income in 50 years’ time. This is equivalent to about one quarter of all government spending or one half of all social protection spending. Other approaches to the analysis of the public finances reach similar conclusions. The Debt Time BombThe Debt deniers can continue to bury their heads, but the truth is that their/our selfishness is piling up a massive headache a Time Bomb for our children and grandchildren. This Gov. should have cut deeper and faster removing the overhang within a single Parliament and then setting course to prune down the National Debt. Failure to do so was a crass act of selfishness. As an aside the Gov. should not tolerate any increase in the EU Budget and this needs to be reeled in to that agreed between the Heads of Governments. Those that claimed that the proceeds of growth would claw our way out of our financial difficulties have, as warned, been proven to be wrong. Cutting Big Nanny down to an affordable size is what we can
That doesn't mean that those near the top of the financial pile shouldn't feel a little discommoded. After all in terms of high income I suspect such are taken by those who benefit most when the economy is good. It might mean one less holiday a year, or drinking wine at £200 pounds per bottle instead of £400 and such like. Hardly an economic catastrophe.
Just who are you talking about? At what point is someone near the top of the financial pile? I know of no one on a little over £100,000 per annum and paying a marginal rate of tax exceeding 60% who would dream of spending £200 on a bottle of wine let alone £400. In my experience those who have earned their money treat it with far more respect than those who have it given to them.
I find it really really peculiar the way in which some people seem to jump to the defence of wealthy people. And the way some people are quick to jump and dump on those who are in receipt of welfare. So you are not prepared to define the level of earnings or the value of assets held which would, in your view, place someone near the top of the financial pile? Yet you are quite happy to make your fatuous comments about £400 bottles of wine.
I have no problem with recipients of welfare benefits if they can demonstrate a real need and that they are making real efforts to remove themselves from such need but I do have a problem with benefit fraudsters and scroungers who I hold in contempt.
|
|
|
| |
|
AndyK
|
Oct 30 2014, 08:15 AM
Post #42
|
- Posts:
- 2,474
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #69
- Joined:
- Aug 11, 2014
|
- Tigger
- Oct 29 2014, 08:38 PM
- AndyK
- Oct 29 2014, 04:55 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 29 2014, 02:14 PM
- AndyK
- Oct 29 2014, 01:36 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep Summary●The government’s finances are currently on an unsustainable trajectory. ● Whilst current levels of government debt are below the levels seen in previous periods in history, accumulating such large levels of debt during a long period of peacetime is more or less unknown. ●Government debt figures do not include commitments to future spending either: governments do not account in the same prudent way that companies are required to account. An ageing population means that on unchanged policies the cost of providing age-related spending such as healthcare, pensions and social care will rise substantially over the next five decades, seeing overall debt on an upward trajectory. ●According to the government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) a permanent fiscal adjustment (tax increases and/or spending cuts) of 1.3 per cent of national income will be necessary from 2018/19 in order to ensure that the debt-to-GDP ratio falls to 20 per cent by 2063/64. ●However, the OBR figures make heroic assumptions about healthcare productivity and also assume that there will be a fiscal adjustment of 5.2 per cent of national income before 2018/19. In other words, spending needs to be cut by around 6.5 per cent of national income from now and for the foreseeable future to hit a government debt target of 20 per cent of national income by 2063/64. Such a measure will not create room to reverse recent tax increases.●If more realistic assumptions about healthcare productivity, immigration and spending priorities are made, spending would need to be cut by 9.6 per cent of national income now and for the foreseeable future tohit a debt target of 20 per cent of national income in 50 years’ time. This is equivalent to about one quarter of all government spending or one half of all social protection spending. Other approaches to the analysis of the public finances reach similar conclusions. The Debt Time BombThe Debt deniers can continue to bury their heads, but the truth is that their/our selfishness is piling up a massive headache a Time Bomb for our children and grandchildren. This Gov. should have cut deeper and faster removing the overhang within a single Parliament and then setting course to prune down the National Debt. Failure to do so was a crass act of selfishness. As an aside the Gov. should not tolerate any increase in the EU Budget and this needs to be reeled in to that agreed between the Heads of Governments. Those that claimed that the proceeds of growth would claw our way out of our financial difficulties have, as warned, been proven to be wrong. Cutting Big Nanny down to an affordable size is what we can
Wealth is relative., just as in the land of the blind where the one eyed man is King. When I was at school the boy with a paket of biscuits had the power, and was envied by all, and so it goes on.
Yes, that's why I asked what a rich person was. If its someone who earns over £1m pa then its going to be hard graft getting much extra tax out of them because there's only 20,000 of them. If its measured on the value of property (as many measures of wealth seem to include property) then a lot of people are going to be made bankrupt by such things as mansion taxes. Which means a lot of property will be put up for sale so people can pay their bills which means the value of the properties fall, which means they are no longer wealthy, which means they are no longer liable for tax bills. What I am trying to say is that much of the wealth that some people think exists, only exists by virtue of someone attaching a value to it. Its implied wealth, not real.
We cannot afford the levels of rent seeking currently acting like a millstone round the neck of the UK economy, whether that is the lazy landlord sucking up his tenants meagre pay rises or banks ripping off businesses with small print or sharp practice to City spivs helping themselves to public money or the hard earned cash of ordinary workers and acting as little more than privatised taxation. Sort out the top end of society Attlee style and watch the UK flourish. Don't be distracted by cute puppies! Unless you have been living in a hole, you have missed the fact that this is how economies work and have worked for the passed several decades left and right.
Taking money out of peoples pockets via mortgage rates/unemployment etc is the primary way to control an economy, unfortunately we have lost control of that as the main regulator.
Act to reduce rents and people will just spend the money on something stupid like holidays abroad or other imports.
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Oct 30 2014, 08:17 AM
Post #43
|
- Posts:
- 17,279
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- Major Sinic
- Oct 30 2014, 08:14 AM
I do have a problem with benefit fraudsters and scroungers who I hold in contempt. But do you have a problem with tax evaders who in around 70 cases are evading a £billion plus each per year, out of the economy abroad.
|
|
|
| |
|
HIGHWAY
|
Oct 30 2014, 08:29 AM
Post #44
|
- Posts:
- 4,040
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #54
- Joined:
- Jul 23, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Oct 30 2014, 08:17 AM
- Major Sinic
- Oct 30 2014, 08:14 AM
I do have a problem with benefit fraudsters and scroungers who I hold in contempt.
But do you have a problem with tax evaders who in around 70 cases are evading a £billion plus each per year, out of the economy abroad. So instead of answering that question,you ask another one,,,some people would say you have moved the goalpost others on here would say were used to that kind of thing from you
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Oct 30 2014, 08:36 AM
Post #45
|
- Posts:
- 17,279
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 08:29 AM
So instead of answering that question,you ask another one,,,some people would say you have moved the goalpost others on here would say were used to that kind of thing from you I merely ponder at the illogicality of frothing at the mouth about benefit fraud costing you 16p a week and not being bothered at all by industrial size tax evasion costing you £50 a week.
|
|
|
| |
|
HIGHWAY
|
Oct 30 2014, 08:37 AM
Post #46
|
- Posts:
- 4,040
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #54
- Joined:
- Jul 23, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Oct 30 2014, 08:36 AM
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 08:29 AM
So instead of answering that question,you ask another one,,,some people would say you have moved the goalpost others on here would say were used to that kind of thing from you
I merely ponder at the illogicality of frothing at the mouth about benefit fraud costing you 16p a week and not being bothered at all by industrial size tax evasion costing you £50 a week. Like I said moving the goalposts,
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Oct 30 2014, 08:45 AM
Post #47
|
- Posts:
- 17,279
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 08:37 AM
Like I said moving the goalposts, No goal posts have been moved. There just is not the level of benefit fraud that people perceive. In the case of IB/ESA it is so low it is statistically insignificant. Yet to please Daily Mail readers the government are now spending more on searching for those few IB/ESA frauds that the frauds cost. On the other hand there is next to (expletive deleted) all being spent of recovering the £119.3 billion being lost a year in evaded tax and other tax scams.
|
|
|
| |
|
HIGHWAY
|
Oct 30 2014, 08:56 AM
Post #48
|
- Posts:
- 4,040
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #54
- Joined:
- Jul 23, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Oct 30 2014, 08:45 AM
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 08:37 AM
Like I said moving the goalposts,
No goal posts have been moved. There just is not the level of benefit fraud that people perceive. In the case of IB/ESA it is so low it is statistically insignificant. Yet to please Daily Mail readers the government are now spending more on searching for those few IB/ESA frauds that the frauds cost. On the other hand there is next to (expletive deleted) all being spent of recovering the £119.3 billion being lost a year in evaded tax and other tax scams. Maybe In your mind asking a question instead of answering one is not moving the goalposts,but in most peoples it (expletive deleted ) is
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Oct 30 2014, 09:04 AM
Post #49
|
- Posts:
- 17,279
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 08:56 AM
Maybe In your mind asking a question instead of answering one is not moving the goalposts,but in most peoples it (expletive deleted ) is It isn't moving the goal posts at all.
|
|
|
| |
|
HIGHWAY
|
Oct 30 2014, 09:26 AM
Post #50
|
- Posts:
- 4,040
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #54
- Joined:
- Jul 23, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Oct 30 2014, 09:04 AM
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 08:56 AM
Maybe In your mind asking a question instead of answering one is not moving the goalposts,but in most peoples it (expletive deleted ) is
It isn't moving the goal posts at all. Still not answering,it's ok I think everyone on here knows that you always defend people who live on benefits,like it's there right to sit in the house and get money whilst others go out and work for a living
|
|
|
| |
|
papasmurf
|
Oct 30 2014, 09:42 AM
Post #51
|
- Posts:
- 17,279
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 09:26 AM
I think everyone on here knows that you always defend people who live on benefits, Exist on benefits. Your use of live shows your attitude. There are more people in work and on benefits than there are out of work and on benefits so which benefits are you referring to?
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Oct 30 2014, 09:54 AM
Post #52
|
- Posts:
- 17,674
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Oct 29 2014, 08:31 PM
- C-too
- Oct 29 2014, 07:45 PM
I think we must have come to a misunderstanding somewhere along the way.
Quite possibly I was asking for examples of your "I find it really really peculiar the way in which some people seem to jump to the defence of wealthy people.
And the way some people are quick to jump and dump on those who are in receipt of welfare."As for your £400 bottle of wine point don't you think that might have been the man bites dog example that gets repeated far more than the humdrum reality. My limited experience of the stonking rich is they can be very parsimonious. One I recall would have holes in his shirts darned rather than throw them away. Jumping to the defence of rich people? --- I would suggest Stan Still is an example and RJD used to be an example, not sure if he still is. And both have jumped and dumped on the poor before today. Often by insinuation that most of the unemployed are just too lazy to work.
The price of wine is irrelevant, the point was that the rich could stand a reduction in their spending power without it being a hardship for them. IMO the poor and the low paid feel and suffer with every reduction in their spending power.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Oct 30 2014, 10:02 AM
Post #53
|
- Posts:
- 17,674
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Oct 30 2014, 09:04 AM
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 08:56 AM
Maybe In your mind asking a question instead of answering one is not moving the goalposts,but in most peoples it (expletive deleted ) is
It isn't moving the goal posts at all. It couldn't be as it was not a question it was statement you replied to in the first place.
|
|
|
| |
|
Pro Veritas
|
Oct 30 2014, 10:37 AM
Post #54
|
- Posts:
- 7,023
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
As the whole world seems to be in debt to one another surely the ONLY logical things to do is for a reciprocal debt amnesty to take place thereby reducing the overall debt burden while not actually reneging on any debt.
This, of course, won't happen, because as Affa has pointed out debt is a nice socio-economic cudgel to be able to beat people with, even when much of that debt isn't actually real - and never was.
All The Best
|
|
|
| |
|
HIGHWAY
|
Oct 30 2014, 10:49 AM
Post #55
|
- Posts:
- 4,040
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #54
- Joined:
- Jul 23, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Oct 30 2014, 09:42 AM
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 09:26 AM
I think everyone on here knows that you always defend people who live on benefits,
Exist on benefits. Your use of live shows your attitude. There are more people in work and on benefits than there are out of work and on benefits so which benefits are you referring to? If you read back you will see what I and others are talking about, Or is your hatred for one group of people who might be breaking the law,blind you to a group of people who are breaking the law
|
|
|
| |
|
HIGHWAY
|
Oct 30 2014, 10:50 AM
Post #56
|
- Posts:
- 4,040
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #54
- Joined:
- Jul 23, 2014
|
- C-too
- Oct 30 2014, 09:54 AM
- Steve K
- Oct 29 2014, 08:31 PM
- C-too
- Oct 29 2014, 07:45 PM
I think we must have come to a misunderstanding somewhere along the way.
Quite possibly I was asking for examples of your "I find it really really peculiar the way in which some people seem to jump to the defence of wealthy people.
And the way some people are quick to jump and dump on those who are in receipt of welfare."As for your £400 bottle of wine point don't you think that might have been the man bites dog example that gets repeated far more than the humdrum reality. My limited experience of the stonking rich is they can be very parsimonious. One I recall would have holes in his shirts darned rather than throw them away.
Jumping to the defence of rich people? --- I would suggest Stan Still is an example and RJD used to be an example, not sure if he still is. And both have jumped and dumped on the poor before today. Often by insinuation that most of the unemployed are just too lazy to work. The price of wine is irrelevant, the point was that the rich could stand a reduction in their spending power without it being a hardship for them. IMO the poor and the low paid feel and suffer with every reduction in their spending power. If the price of the wine is irrelevant,why have you mentioned it a few times
|
|
|
| |
|
HIGHWAY
|
Oct 30 2014, 10:53 AM
Post #57
|
- Posts:
- 4,040
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #54
- Joined:
- Jul 23, 2014
|
- C-too
- Oct 30 2014, 10:02 AM
- papasmurf
- Oct 30 2014, 09:04 AM
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 08:56 AM
Maybe In your mind asking a question instead of answering one is not moving the goalposts,but in most peoples it (expletive deleted ) is
It isn't moving the goal posts at all.
It couldn't be as it was not a question it was statement you replied to in the first place. Why are you replying to me, After all you have said a few times in the past you won't ever do that again Plus you have said if I reply in anyway to you,you will report me,, Must be a reason??
|
|
|
| |
|
Tytoalba
|
Oct 30 2014, 11:09 AM
Post #58
|
- Posts:
- 7,583
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #36
- Joined:
- Jun 29, 2014
|
- Tigger
- Oct 29 2014, 08:38 PM
- AndyK
- Oct 29 2014, 04:55 PM
- Tytoalba
- Oct 29 2014, 02:14 PM
- AndyK
- Oct 29 2014, 01:36 PM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep Summary●The government’s finances are currently on an unsustainable trajectory. ● Whilst current levels of government debt are below the levels seen in previous periods in history, accumulating such large levels of debt during a long period of peacetime is more or less unknown. ●Government debt figures do not include commitments to future spending either: governments do not account in the same prudent way that companies are required to account. An ageing population means that on unchanged policies the cost of providing age-related spending such as healthcare, pensions and social care will rise substantially over the next five decades, seeing overall debt on an upward trajectory. ●According to the government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) a permanent fiscal adjustment (tax increases and/or spending cuts) of 1.3 per cent of national income will be necessary from 2018/19 in order to ensure that the debt-to-GDP ratio falls to 20 per cent by 2063/64. ●However, the OBR figures make heroic assumptions about healthcare productivity and also assume that there will be a fiscal adjustment of 5.2 per cent of national income before 2018/19. In other words, spending needs to be cut by around 6.5 per cent of national income from now and for the foreseeable future to hit a government debt target of 20 per cent of national income by 2063/64. Such a measure will not create room to reverse recent tax increases.●If more realistic assumptions about healthcare productivity, immigration and spending priorities are made, spending would need to be cut by 9.6 per cent of national income now and for the foreseeable future tohit a debt target of 20 per cent of national income in 50 years’ time. This is equivalent to about one quarter of all government spending or one half of all social protection spending. Other approaches to the analysis of the public finances reach similar conclusions. The Debt Time BombThe Debt deniers can continue to bury their heads, but the truth is that their/our selfishness is piling up a massive headache a Time Bomb for our children and grandchildren. This Gov. should have cut deeper and faster removing the overhang within a single Parliament and then setting course to prune down the National Debt. Failure to do so was a crass act of selfishness. As an aside the Gov. should not tolerate any increase in the EU Budget and this needs to be reeled in to that agreed between the Heads of Governments. Those that claimed that the proceeds of growth would claw our way out of our financial difficulties have, as warned, been proven to be wrong. Cutting Big Nanny down to an affordable size is what we can
Wealth is relative., just as in the land of the blind where the one eyed man is King. When I was at school the boy with a paket of biscuits had the power, and was envied by all, and so it goes on.
Yes, that's why I asked what a rich person was. If its someone who earns over £1m pa then its going to be hard graft getting much extra tax out of them because there's only 20,000 of them. If its measured on the value of property (as many measures of wealth seem to include property) then a lot of people are going to be made bankrupt by such things as mansion taxes. Which means a lot of property will be put up for sale so people can pay their bills which means the value of the properties fall, which means they are no longer wealthy, which means they are no longer liable for tax bills. What I am trying to say is that much of the wealth that some people think exists, only exists by virtue of someone attaching a value to it. Its implied wealth, not real.
We cannot afford the levels of rent seeking currently acting like a millstone round the neck of the UK economy, whether that is the lazy landlord sucking up his tenants meagre pay rises or banks ripping off businesses with small print or sharp practice to City spivs helping themselves to public money or the hard earned cash of ordinary workers and acting as little more than privatised taxation. Sort out the top end of society Attlee style and watch the UK flourish. Don't be distracted by cute puppies! Market forces decide the price of everything, and the price is decided by those who are willing to pay what is asked. You can ask what you like for anything, even your labour, or rent, and value it as high as you wish, but you will only get what someone is willing to pay for it, and that is decided by what they can afford or are willing to pay. Of course one can skew it artificially , or support some sections for a time but eventualy there is always a bottom line below which everything collapses . Simples . Definition. The effect of supply and demand on trading within a free market
The left think they can controll everything, but eventually reality will set in and the markets will win.
Now learn this by heart,
http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Oct 30 2014, 11:24 AM
Post #59
|
- Posts:
- 17,674
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 10:53 AM
- C-too
- Oct 30 2014, 10:02 AM
- papasmurf
- Oct 30 2014, 09:04 AM
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 08:56 AM
Maybe In your mind asking a question instead of answering one is not moving the goalposts,but in most peoples it (expletive deleted ) is
It isn't moving the goal posts at all.
It couldn't be as it was not a question it was statement you replied to in the first place.
Why are you replying to me, After all you have said a few times in the past you won't ever do that again Plus you have said if I reply in anyway to you,you will report me,, Must be a reason?? I didn't reply to you, I posted to papasmurf.
|
|
|
| |
|
HIGHWAY
|
Oct 30 2014, 11:29 AM
Post #60
|
- Posts:
- 4,040
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #54
- Joined:
- Jul 23, 2014
|
- C-too
- Oct 30 2014, 11:24 AM
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 10:53 AM
- C-too
- Oct 30 2014, 10:02 AM
- papasmurf
- Oct 30 2014, 09:04 AM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
It couldn't be as it was not a question it was statement you replied to in the first place.
Why are you replying to me, After all you have said a few times in the past you won't ever do that again Plus you have said if I reply in anyway to you,you will report me,, Must be a reason??
I didn't reply to you, I posted to papasmurf. Your still replying to me,, very bizarre
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Oct 30 2014, 11:32 AM
Post #61
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Oct 30 2014, 07:22 AM
- Cymru
- Oct 30 2014, 01:58 AM
I am very interested in knowing just who it is we owe so much money to.
I would like to know that as well, other than the massive of amount of American sub-prime mortgage debt British banks lumbered themselves with. In many cases it's owed to ourselves
Pension funds buy up government bonds as a secure investment to balance off the riskier investments in companies. (Not sure this was anyone's drift but) If we default we will have a large number of defaulting pension companies and pensioners on the warpath.
And hell have no fury like . . . . .
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Oct 30 2014, 11:34 AM
Post #62
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Oct 30 2014, 08:36 AM
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 08:29 AM
So instead of answering that question,you ask another one,,,some people would say you have moved the goalpost others on here would say were used to that kind of thing from you
I merely ponder at the illogicality of frothing at the mouth about benefit fraud costing you 16p a week and not being bothered at all by industrial size tax evasion costing you £50 a week. Oh PLEASE give your false and previously completely discredited imagined stats a break
Most of us gave up on fairy tales before we were 10
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Oct 30 2014, 11:40 AM
Post #63
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Oct 30 2014, 09:54 AM
- Steve K
- Oct 29 2014, 08:31 PM
- C-too
- Oct 29 2014, 07:45 PM
I think we must have come to a misunderstanding somewhere along the way.
Quite possibly I was asking for examples of your "I find it really really peculiar the way in which some people seem to jump to the defence of wealthy people.
And the way some people are quick to jump and dump on those who are in receipt of welfare."As for your £400 bottle of wine point don't you think that might have been the man bites dog example that gets repeated far more than the humdrum reality. My limited experience of the stonking rich is they can be very parsimonious. One I recall would have holes in his shirts darned rather than throw them away.
Jumping to the defence of rich people? --- I would suggest Stan Still is an example and RJD used to be an example, not sure if he still is. And both have jumped and dumped on the poor before today. Often by insinuation that most of the unemployed are just too lazy to work. The price of wine is irrelevant, the point was that the rich could stand a reduction in their spending power without it being a hardship for them. IMO the poor and the low paid feel and suffer with every reduction in their spending power. A specific post example would have been good
I believe they (and I) have expressly excluded the genuinely needy from any criticism. As for the wealthy you can shout at me. I'll defend someone for being wealthy as long as they got their money within both the letter and intent of the law, pay the required taxes and continue to do so when a wealth tax is introduced.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Oct 30 2014, 11:40 AM
Post #64
|
- Posts:
- 17,674
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 11:29 AM
- C-too
- Oct 30 2014, 11:24 AM
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 10:53 AM
- C-too
- Oct 30 2014, 10:02 AM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Why are you replying to me, After all you have said a few times in the past you won't ever do that again Plus you have said if I reply in anyway to you,you will report me,, Must be a reason??
I didn't reply to you, I posted to papasmurf.
Your still replying to me,, very bizarre My post was to papasmurf and was about his position, it was not posted to you or about you. If you have a problem with my post then challenge the post, don't resort to distorting who my post was meant for.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Oct 30 2014, 11:46 AM
Post #65
|
- Posts:
- 17,674
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Oct 30 2014, 11:40 AM
- C-too
- Oct 30 2014, 09:54 AM
- Steve K
- Oct 29 2014, 08:31 PM
- C-too
- Oct 29 2014, 07:45 PM
I think we must have come to a misunderstanding somewhere along the way.
Quite possibly I was asking for examples of your "I find it really really peculiar the way in which some people seem to jump to the defence of wealthy people.
And the way some people are quick to jump and dump on those who are in receipt of welfare."As for your £400 bottle of wine point don't you think that might have been the man bites dog example that gets repeated far more than the humdrum reality. My limited experience of the stonking rich is they can be very parsimonious. One I recall would have holes in his shirts darned rather than throw them away.
Jumping to the defence of rich people? --- I would suggest Stan Still is an example and RJD used to be an example, not sure if he still is. And both have jumped and dumped on the poor before today. Often by insinuation that most of the unemployed are just too lazy to work. The price of wine is irrelevant, the point was that the rich could stand a reduction in their spending power without it being a hardship for them. IMO the poor and the low paid feel and suffer with every reduction in their spending power.
A specific post example would have been good I believe they (and I) have expressly excluded the genuinely needy from any criticism. As for the wealthy you can shout at me. I'll defend someone for being wealthy as long as they got their money within both the letter and intent of the law, pay the required taxes and continue to do so when a wealth tax is introduced. Nice to know you would defend me and my wealth.
How long did Stan Still and Ty attempt to defend the bedroom tax?
I'm not after the 'rich' per se, I'm looking for fairness, you know, the "we are all in it together" claim.
|
|
|
| |
|
Steve K
|
Oct 30 2014, 12:04 PM
Post #66
|
- Posts:
- 33,960
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
Well I'll defend the principle of the spare room subsidy rules. So should you as it was Labour that first brought them in
The problem has been the pathetic and at times callous failure to apply attention to detail when they were extended to housing association tenants
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Oct 30 2014, 12:44 PM
Post #67
|
- Posts:
- 17,674
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Steve K
- Oct 30 2014, 12:04 PM
Well I'll defend the principle of the spare room subsidy rules. So should you as it was Labour that first brought them in
The problem has been the pathetic and at times callous failure to apply attention to detail when they were extended to housing association tenants I disagree with more than a few things that Labour did. And I have listed them in the past.
As I see it the bedroom tax as brought in by this government, is badly thought out and means that many, I believe most people who had a financial need for rent allowance, are forced to pay more of their rent because they have no alternative, others were forced to move.
Someone sitting on a £2m jackpot and who may or may not also be financially wealthy, is in a far better position.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Oct 30 2014, 12:59 PM
Post #68
|
|
Deleted User
|
- papasmurf
- Oct 30 2014, 08:17 AM
- Major Sinic
- Oct 30 2014, 08:14 AM
I do have a problem with benefit fraudsters and scroungers who I hold in contempt.
But do you have a problem with tax evaders who in around 70 cases are evading a £billion plus each per year, out of the economy abroad. Evidence please PS on your assertion as well as clarification on whether you mean evasion (a criminal act) or aggressive avoidance ( an arguably immoral but legal act)
|
|
|
| |
|
HIGHWAY
|
Oct 30 2014, 01:31 PM
Post #69
|
- Posts:
- 4,040
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #54
- Joined:
- Jul 23, 2014
|
- C-too
- Oct 30 2014, 11:40 AM
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 11:29 AM
- C-too
- Oct 30 2014, 11:24 AM
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 10:53 AM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
I didn't reply to you, I posted to papasmurf.
Your still replying to me,, very bizarre
My post was to papasmurf and was about his position, it was not posted to you or about you. If you have a problem with my post then challenge the post, don't resort to distorting who my post was meant for. Am not distorting anything,,i am finding it bizarre that you are still replying to me after the warnings you have gave me in the past about messaging you
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Oct 30 2014, 01:39 PM
Post #70
|
- Posts:
- 17,674
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 01:31 PM
- C-too
- Oct 30 2014, 11:40 AM
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 11:29 AM
- C-too
- Oct 30 2014, 11:24 AM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Your still replying to me,, very bizarre
My post was to papasmurf and was about his position, it was not posted to you or about you. If you have a problem with my post then challenge the post, don't resort to distorting who my post was meant for.
Am not distorting anything,,i am finding it bizarre that you are still replying to me after the warnings you have gave me in the past about messaging you Please yourself, I know you are wrong I also know that you will convince yourself you are right.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Oct 30 2014, 01:59 PM
Post #71
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Oct 29 2014, 05:50 PM
- Steve K
- Oct 29 2014, 04:36 PM
Gives it no more credibility that when you were called a dimwit on here and did not challenge it
Calling people names is against the rules of this forum. That HMRC figure is a fairy story from back when a lax person was the senior civil servant at HMRC. That Cameron did not challenge the £100 billion plus figure today is significant. 10 minutes 30 second in. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04mv3p8/prime-ministers-questions-29102014 The size is less relevant than the quanta that HMRC can attach itself to. I do not wish to debate Mr Smurf's BS claims but I would like to hear of positive ways in which HMRC can improve it's revenue take from these sources. So best break down the numbers, understand the sources and then decide on an action plan. For starters how are we going to clamp down on The Black? A simple solution would be to outlaw all cash transactions, but is that practical? As for those that minimise within the Law the only solution is to simplify taxes and at the moment, after Brown's fiddling, these are exceedingly complex and full of loop holes. Those that defraud HMRC should have the book thrown at them, every heavy volume of Tax Laws, but finding out who they are is, by definition, especially when such funds are elsewhere or disguised, is extremely difficult and probably nigh impossible without international cooperation. By the way in international terms the UK is considered one of the least porous and HMRC one of the most efficient Collectors. That saiod we can always do better.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Oct 30 2014, 02:05 PM
Post #72
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Oct 30 2014, 12:44 PM
- Steve K
- Oct 30 2014, 12:04 PM
Well I'll defend the principle of the spare room subsidy rules. So should you as it was Labour that first brought them in
The problem has been the pathetic and at times callous failure to apply attention to detail when they were extended to housing association tenants
I disagree with more than a few things that Labour did. And I have listed them in the past. As I see it the bedroom tax as brought in by this government, is badly thought out and means that many, I believe most people who had a financial need for rent allowance, are forced to pay more of their rent because they have no alternative, others were forced to move. Someone sitting on a £2m jackpot and who may or may not also be financially wealthy, is in a far better position. In truth both situations should be considered independently of each other. The left however always loves to put an emotional spin on things. The bedroom subsidy issue is absolutely nothing to do with the proposed wealth tax.
Changes in bedroom subsidies are sensible, however, they should have been a lot more relaxed on rate of implementation. That said we know exactly what happens when the lid is taken off, the head of steam dissipates and we will be left with the iniquitous situation where some will continue to occupy such subsidised accommodation which is larger than their requirements denying others who have a justified claim for more space.
As for the Wealth Tax proposals Milliband has not said he needs this money to increase housing subsidies.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Oct 30 2014, 02:10 PM
Post #73
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Oct 30 2014, 08:36 AM
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 08:29 AM
So instead of answering that question,you ask another one,,,some people would say you have moved the goalpost others on here would say were used to that kind of thing from you
I merely ponder at the illogicality of frothing at the mouth about benefit fraud costing you 16p a week and not being bothered at all by industrial size tax evasion costing you £50 a week. Not related and as usual you are blowing smoke. Justice is blind and needs to be seen to be so, you cannot justify a 16P fraud on the basis that a £16m fraud exists. That said 1m 16P frauds oddly add up to £16m. Me thinks you best look closely and review who is and who is not frothing at the mouth.
|
|
|
| |
|
HIGHWAY
|
Oct 30 2014, 02:52 PM
Post #74
|
- Posts:
- 4,040
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #54
- Joined:
- Jul 23, 2014
|
- C-too
- Oct 30 2014, 01:39 PM
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 01:31 PM
- C-too
- Oct 30 2014, 11:40 AM
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 11:29 AM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
My post was to papasmurf and was about his position, it was not posted to you or about you. If you have a problem with my post then challenge the post, don't resort to distorting who my post was meant for.
Am not distorting anything,,i am finding it bizarre that you are still replying to me after the warnings you have gave me in the past about messaging you
Please yourself, I know you are wrong I also know that you will convince yourself you are right. You know do you,you mean you think you do, Its being caught out by me, who has not got 6 letters after there name you hate.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Oct 30 2014, 05:10 PM
Post #75
|
- Posts:
- 17,674
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 02:52 PM
- C-too
- Oct 30 2014, 01:39 PM
- HIGHWAY
- Oct 30 2014, 01:31 PM
- C-too
- Oct 30 2014, 11:40 AM
Quoting limited to 4 levels deep
Am not distorting anything,,i am finding it bizarre that you are still replying to me after the warnings you have gave me in the past about messaging you
Please yourself, I know you are wrong I also know that you will convince yourself you are right.
You know do you,you mean you think you do, Its being caught out by me, who has not got 6 letters after there name you hate.
|
|
|
| |
|
Boxter
|
Oct 30 2014, 05:19 PM
Post #76
|
- Posts:
- 261
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #103
- Joined:
- Oct 26, 2014
|
I read somewhere that the United States national debt is larger than the combined total debts of every known civilisation on earth since records began up to the present day added together. Ie since Roman times
Edited by Boxter, Oct 30 2014, 05:20 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Oct 30 2014, 05:28 PM
Post #77
|
- Posts:
- 17,674
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- RJD
- Oct 30 2014, 02:05 PM
- C-too
- Oct 30 2014, 12:44 PM
- Steve K
- Oct 30 2014, 12:04 PM
Well I'll defend the principle of the spare room subsidy rules. So should you as it was Labour that first brought them in
The problem has been the pathetic and at times callous failure to apply attention to detail when they were extended to housing association tenants
I disagree with more than a few things that Labour did. And I have listed them in the past. As I see it the bedroom tax as brought in by this government, is badly thought out and means that many, I believe most people who had a financial need for rent allowance, are forced to pay more of their rent because they have no alternative, others were forced to move. Someone sitting on a £2m jackpot and who may or may not also be financially wealthy, is in a far better position.
In truth both situations should be considered independently of each other. The left however always loves to put an emotional spin on things. The bedroom subsidy issue is absolutely nothing to do with the proposed wealth tax. Changes in bedroom subsidies are sensible, however, they should have been a lot more relaxed on rate of implementation. That said we know exactly what happens when the lid is taken off, the head of steam dissipates and we will be left with the iniquitous situation where some will continue to occupy such subsidised accommodation which is larger than their requirements denying others who have a justified claim for more space. As for the Wealth Tax proposals Milliband has not said he needs this money to increase housing subsidies. Yes the two situations should be considered independently, that is a little too obvious. What cannot be separated is the levels of fairness.
The basic idea of the bedroom (or should that be boxroom?) tax makes sense and will certainly be seen as right by the over logical in society. The problem is, it is miles away from being applied in a practical, sensible and fair way. The bottom line is that it is just an extra cost to the resident.
My posts are not about what he needs the money for, it is about the claim "we are all in it together".
|
|
|
| |
|
C-too
|
Oct 30 2014, 05:32 PM
Post #78
|
- Posts:
- 17,674
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #49
- Joined:
- Jul 12, 2014
|
- Boxter
- Oct 30 2014, 05:19 PM
I read somewhere that the United States national debt is larger than the combined total debts of every known civilisation on earth since records began up to the present day added together. Ie since Roman times That shows you just how devastating the misselling of sub prime mortgages was, and its power to affect every economy in the West.
|
|
|
| |
|
Affa
|
Oct 30 2014, 10:31 PM
Post #79
|
- Posts:
- 11,999
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #58
- Joined:
- Jul 26, 2014
|
- papasmurf
- Oct 30 2014, 07:22 AM
- Cymru
- Oct 30 2014, 01:58 AM
I am very interested in knowing just who it is we owe so much money to.
I would like to know that as well, other than the massive of amount of American sub-prime mortgage debt British banks lumbered themselves with.
RJD will not produce a definitive list, in any case it doesn't need one. The interest payments the tax payer makes, the money is in the lender Banks, then invested (stocks & shares), little of which is apparently aiding recovery.
At the height of the crisis I did see figures that demonstrated which country owed what and who to (country). Not surprisingly the UK and the US being most exposed. Here's the thing .... The debts of other nations owed to the UK far exceed UK total debts to other countries ..... America alone is more indebted to the UK than the UK is in total. In other words the UK is owed far more than it owes. Which is why Brown & Darling were so intent on getting a rescue package agreed (and some others like France and Germany reticent - they were much less exposed). If it had not been for these two Labour leaders and the banks were allowed to fail then none would have fared as badly as the UK.
Today there is still a lack of confidence in the FS sector, Banks are existing largely on those old debts (the crisis debts) and repayments coming as nations slowly recover a semblance of normality. And pay the interest. The housing market collapse which was responsible for Banks being over exposed has largely recovered ......
There is no need for Austerity, there never was a need ....... It has been the blameless, the most fragile, the worker that has suffered - no others have! That's plutocracy for you!
Edited by Affa, Oct 30 2014, 10:35 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
RJD
|
Oct 31 2014, 09:17 AM
Post #80
|
- Posts:
- 12,499
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #9
- Joined:
- Jun 27, 2014
|
- C-too
- Oct 30 2014, 05:28 PM
- RJD
- Oct 30 2014, 02:05 PM
- C-too
- Oct 30 2014, 12:44 PM
- Steve K
- Oct 30 2014, 12:04 PM
Well I'll defend the principle of the spare room subsidy rules. So should you as it was Labour that first brought them in
The problem has been the pathetic and at times callous failure to apply attention to detail when they were extended to housing association tenants
I disagree with more than a few things that Labour did. And I have listed them in the past. As I see it the bedroom tax as brought in by this government, is badly thought out and means that many, I believe most people who had a financial need for rent allowance, are forced to pay more of their rent because they have no alternative, others were forced to move. Someone sitting on a £2m jackpot and who may or may not also be financially wealthy, is in a far better position.
In truth both situations should be considered independently of each other. The left however always loves to put an emotional spin on things. The bedroom subsidy issue is absolutely nothing to do with the proposed wealth tax. Changes in bedroom subsidies are sensible, however, they should have been a lot more relaxed on rate of implementation. That said we know exactly what happens when the lid is taken off, the head of steam dissipates and we will be left with the iniquitous situation where some will continue to occupy such subsidised accommodation which is larger than their requirements denying others who have a justified claim for more space. As for the Wealth Tax proposals Milliband has not said he needs this money to increase housing subsidies.
Yes the two situations should be considered independently, that is a little too obvious. What cannot be separated is the levels of fairness. The basic idea of the bedroom (or should that be boxroom?) tax makes sense and will certainly be seen as right by the over logical in society. The problem is, it is miles away from being applied in a practical, sensible and fair way. The bottom line is that it is just an extra cost to the resident. My posts are not about what he needs the money for, it is about the claim "we are all in it together". Again that emotional word fair n ess so loved by the left. Unless you are to apply some metrics then it is just hot smoke. Unless you are prepared to understand that the earnings on capital in our western economies surpassed that of Labour (small l bloody Tab) decades ago you will not find solutions, maybe you will also not fin d the will to make changes in direction. The truth is that those with capital and those with t h educations and skills are making gains, however, the growing legions of those without are not they only accentuate the statistic. If you wish to increase the rates of pay for those at the bottom then stop taxing them and their jobs and consider the possibility of negative income taxes as our membership of the EU and other e r Treaties ban us from the direct subsidy of industry and commerce.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|