C-too

Dec 7 2014, 09:54 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 6 2014, 11:41 PM

krugerman

Dec 5 2014, 10:19 AM

We all know that there are two basic methods of cutting the deficit, either spend less or raise more money ( cut services or raise taxes ).

The present government has decided that the "spend less" method is much prefered over raising more money, infact at a time when there is not enough money to fund the level of public services we have, the government has handed out tax give-aways to the very wealthy.

Something on Question Time last night struck me, a question was posed "would people be willing to pay a bit more tax to help the NHS and other public services", the suggestion got a rousing applause from a large proportion of the audience.

I am no supporter of this government, and especially the Conservatives, though last night I felt a bit sorry for Sajid Javid, the Tory culture minister, he had a rough time of it on QT, the autumn statement and future cuts debate is doing Labour the world of good.

As several speakers last night said - there is a level of public services to which the public simply wont tollerate, in other words I very much doubt that cuts of the magnitude Osborne is proposing will gain any votes.

Those who want to raise taxes seem to be those that don't really expect to pay more themselves , certainly not very much, but expect others to pick up the tab.
I believe that we need to save more for future eventualities , as we do for our holidays or major consumer goods, and then spend more for our own needs as they arise for so many other things in our lives, not being entirely dependent on other taxpayers. Having a degree of independence is so much more invigorating than being dependent on others all the time. The more dependent we are on others, the less freedoms we have, and the less personal choices we can make for ourselves.

Once again you defend wealth while the less well off carry the damaging economic burden caused by wealthy people. Is it time for you to question your position?

krugerman

Dec 7 2014, 10:43 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 6 2014, 11:41 PM

krugerman

Dec 5 2014, 10:19 AM

We all know that there are two basic methods of cutting the deficit, either spend less or raise more money ( cut services or raise taxes ).

The present government has decided that the "spend less" method is much prefered over raising more money, infact at a time when there is not enough money to fund the level of public services we have, the government has handed out tax give-aways to the very wealthy.

Something on Question Time last night struck me, a question was posed "would people be willing to pay a bit more tax to help the NHS and other public services", the suggestion got a rousing applause from a large proportion of the audience.

I am no supporter of this government, and especially the Conservatives, though last night I felt a bit sorry for Sajid Javid, the Tory culture minister, he had a rough time of it on QT, the autumn statement and future cuts debate is doing Labour the world of good.

As several speakers last night said - there is a level of public services to which the public simply wont tollerate, in other words I very much doubt that cuts of the magnitude Osborne is proposing will gain any votes.

Those who want to raise taxes seem to be those that don't really expect to pay more themselves , certainly not very much, but expect others to pick up the tab.
I believe that we need to save more for future eventualities , as we do for our holidays or major consumer goods, and then spend more for our own needs as they arise for so many other things in our lives, not being entirely dependent on other taxpayers. Having a degree of independence is so much more invigorating than being dependent on others all the time. The more dependent we are on others, the less freedoms we have, and the less personal choices we can make for ourselves.

I reckon that if Labour or the Lib Dems announced that they would slam 1p on the basic rate of income tax to invest in the NHS if elected, it would attract votes and it would be popular, of course the two types of people who would not like the idea are (1) Conservatives, and (2) the selfish.

What I completely and utterly fail to comprehend, is that at a time of austerity, and when essential public services are now at red warning light levels, the Tories somehow find money to give away in tax cuts, and are talking about wanting to cut taxes - what about our ambulance service. ?

Moderate increases in income tax is a sensible way to raise extra money in unison with savings, because those on the lowest incomes wont be affected, and the more you earn, the more you pay, but of course this principle is diametrically opposite to Tory belief - we couldnt possibly take more from the wealthiest, could we. ?

ACH1967

Dec 7 2014, 05:46 PM

krugerman

Dec 7 2014, 10:43 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 6 2014, 11:41 PM

krugerman

Dec 5 2014, 10:19 AM

We all know that there are two basic methods of cutting the deficit, either spend less or raise more money ( cut services or raise taxes ).

The present government has decided that the "spend less" method is much prefered over raising more money, infact at a time when there is not enough money to fund the level of public services we have, the government has handed out tax give-aways to the very wealthy.

Something on Question Time last night struck me, a question was posed "would people be willing to pay a bit more tax to help the NHS and other public services", the suggestion got a rousing applause from a large proportion of the audience.

I am no supporter of this government, and especially the Conservatives, though last night I felt a bit sorry for Sajid Javid, the Tory culture minister, he had a rough time of it on QT, the autumn statement and future cuts debate is doing Labour the world of good.

As several speakers last night said - there is a level of public services to which the public simply wont tollerate, in other words I very much doubt that cuts of the magnitude Osborne is proposing will gain any votes.

Those who want to raise taxes seem to be those that don't really expect to pay more themselves , certainly not very much, but expect others to pick up the tab.
I believe that we need to save more for future eventualities , as we do for our holidays or major consumer goods, and then spend more for our own needs as they arise for so many other things in our lives, not being entirely dependent on other taxpayers. Having a degree of independence is so much more invigorating than being dependent on others all the time. The more dependent we are on others, the less freedoms we have, and the less personal choices we can make for ourselves.

I reckon that if Labour or the Lib Dems announced that they would slam 1p on the basic rate of income tax to invest in the NHS if elected, it would attract votes and it would be popular, of course the two types of people who would not like the idea are (1) Conservatives, and (2) the selfish.

What I completely and utterly fail to comprehend, is that at a time of austerity, and when essential public services are now at red warning light levels, the Tories somehow find money to give away in tax cuts, and are talking about wanting to cut taxes - what about our ambulance service. ?

Moderate increases in income tax is a sensible way to raise extra money in unison with savings, because those on the lowest incomes wont be affected, and the more you earn, the more you pay, but of course this principle is diametrically opposite to Tory belief - we couldnt possibly take more from the wealthiest, could we. ?

Nope there are a third group of people who don't like that Idea.

Those who have seen that money isn't the solution and don't want to give it anymore.

krugerman

Dec 7 2014, 10:43 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 6 2014, 11:41 PM

krugerman

Dec 5 2014, 10:19 AM

We all know that there are two basic methods of cutting the deficit, either spend less or raise more money ( cut services or raise taxes ).

The present government has decided that the "spend less" method is much prefered over raising more money, infact at a time when there is not enough money to fund the level of public services we have, the government has handed out tax give-aways to the very wealthy.

Something on Question Time last night struck me, a question was posed "would people be willing to pay a bit more tax to help the NHS and other public services", the suggestion got a rousing applause from a large proportion of the audience.

I am no supporter of this government, and especially the Conservatives, though last night I felt a bit sorry for Sajid Javid, the Tory culture minister, he had a rough time of it on QT, the autumn statement and future cuts debate is doing Labour the world of good.

As several speakers last night said - there is a level of public services to which the public simply wont tollerate, in other words I very much doubt that cuts of the magnitude Osborne is proposing will gain any votes.

Those who want to raise taxes seem to be those that don't really expect to pay more themselves , certainly not very much, but expect others to pick up the tab.
I believe that we need to save more for future eventualities , as we do for our holidays or major consumer goods, and then spend more for our own needs as they arise for so many other things in our lives, not being entirely dependent on other taxpayers. Having a degree of independence is so much more invigorating than being dependent on others all the time. The more dependent we are on others, the less freedoms we have, and the less personal choices we can make for ourselves.

I reckon that if Labour or the Lib Dems announced that they would slam 1p on the basic rate of income tax to invest in the NHS if elected, it would attract votes and it would be popular, of course the two types of people who would not like the idea are (1) Conservatives, and (2) the selfish.

What I completely and utterly fail to comprehend, is that at a time of austerity, and when essential public services are now at red warning light levels, the Tories somehow find money to give away in tax cuts, and are talking about wanting to cut taxes - what about our ambulance service. ?

Moderate increases in income tax is a sensible way to raise extra money in unison with savings, because those on the lowest incomes wont be affected, and the more you earn, the more you pay, but of course this principle is diametrically opposite to Tory belief - we couldnt possibly take more from the wealthiest, could we. ?

C-too

Dec 7 2014, 02:54 PM

RJD

Dec 7 2014, 01:56 PM

krugerman

Dec 7 2014, 10:43 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 6 2014, 11:41 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

I reckon that if Labour or the Lib Dems announced that they would slam 1p on the basic rate of income tax to invest in the NHS if elected, it would attract votes and it would be popular, of course the two types of people who would not like the idea are (1) Conservatives, and (2) the selfish.

What I completely and utterly fail to comprehend, is that at a time of austerity, and when essential public services are now at red warning light levels, the Tories somehow find money to give away in tax cuts, and are talking about wanting to cut taxes - what about our ambulance service. ?

Moderate increases in income tax is a sensible way to raise extra money in unison with savings, because those on the lowest incomes wont be affected, and the more you earn, the more you pay, but of course this principle is diametrically opposite to Tory belief - we couldnt possibly take more from the wealthiest, could we. ?

There is enough money within the NHS budget they just need to learn to organise themselves and spend with some prudence. I do not think that Joe Public would be happy to see more of their taxes, at basic rates, swallowed up into the black hole that calls itself the NHS, they want others to pay. It is rather stupid to give the NHS more and more financial resources on demand without obtaining efficiency improvements and also understanding what the NHS is there for? We have little or no debate on the objectives of the NHS and the left seem to have the lazy idea that whatever they want to spend on whatever is by definition OK therefore cut them a cheque. Such attitudes are not in the long term interests of Patients, but might suit employees.

Enough money in the NHS?

http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/006_health-care-oecd

I hear that 1,800 nurses left the NHS, June to August this year. Won't concern many as they will just go private.

Heinrich

Dec 8 2014, 07:23 AM

Right wingers, that is, the Tories and New Labour, have no concept of civilized society requiring those with the ability to pay, the stinking rich, to carry the burden while those in need, low-paid working class and unemployed, should get all they need to live with dignity.

Heinrich

Dec 8 2014, 07:23 AM

Right wingers, that is, the Tories and New Labour, have no concept of civilized society requiring those with the ability to pay, the stinking rich, to carry the burden while those in need, low-paid working class and unemployed, should get all they need to live with dignity.

C-too

Dec 8 2014, 08:25 AM

Heinrich

Dec 8 2014, 07:23 AM

Right wingers, that is, the Tories and New Labour, have no concept of civilized society requiring those with the ability to pay, the stinking rich, to carry the burden while those in need, low-paid working class and unemployed, should get all they need to live with dignity.

NL were demonstrably not right-wing. Anyone who thinks they were must be so far left they are out of sight.

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 08:11 AM

C-too

Dec 7 2014, 02:54 PM

RJD

Dec 7 2014, 01:56 PM

krugerman

Dec 7 2014, 10:43 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

There is enough money within the NHS budget they just need to learn to organise themselves and spend with some prudence. I do not think that Joe Public would be happy to see more of their taxes, at basic rates, swallowed up into the black hole that calls itself the NHS, they want others to pay. It is rather stupid to give the NHS more and more financial resources on demand without obtaining efficiency improvements and also understanding what the NHS is there for? We have little or no debate on the objectives of the NHS and the left seem to have the lazy idea that whatever they want to spend on whatever is by definition OK therefore cut them a cheque. Such attitudes are not in the long term interests of Patients, but might suit employees.

Enough money in the NHS?

http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/006_health-care-oecd

I hear that 1,800 nurses left the NHS, June to August this year. Won't concern many as they will just go private.

You know that the numbers of Nurses actually working for the NHS is more that those employed directly by them. Best you look for savings in the purchasing programmes where there are massive disparities between Trusts for exactly the same items, this alone will net ~£1b. Best you look at what the NHS is actually spending £120b PA on and wonder whether all of this is justified. It is very lazy lefty thinking that accepts all claims, just because it is the NHS, as justified. Look where the majority of the spend is going and then engage some of your analytical brain cells. Searching for productivity improvements is hard work that is why the lefties never bother, but it is the daily bread and butter for Managers in the private sector. The productivity levels in the NHS declined every year of NL's notorious misrule despite the demands of each and every report on NHS funding.
Let's face facts and one is that Labour are only interested in size of spend, not who pays nor effective use. Labour are not now and never have been prudent, the claim that they were in 1997 to 2000 hides the fact that they adopted and ran with budgets already established by their predecessors. History shows and Joe Public understands this "Labour are not to be trusted with the economy".

krugerman

Dec 7 2014, 06:55 PM

ACH1967

Dec 7 2014, 05:46 PM

krugerman

Dec 7 2014, 10:43 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 6 2014, 11:41 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

I reckon that if Labour or the Lib Dems announced that they would slam 1p on the basic rate of income tax to invest in the NHS if elected, it would attract votes and it would be popular, of course the two types of people who would not like the idea are (1) Conservatives, and (2) the selfish.

What I completely and utterly fail to comprehend, is that at a time of austerity, and when essential public services are now at red warning light levels, the Tories somehow find money to give away in tax cuts, and are talking about wanting to cut taxes - what about our ambulance service. ?

Moderate increases in income tax is a sensible way to raise extra money in unison with savings, because those on the lowest incomes wont be affected, and the more you earn, the more you pay, but of course this principle is diametrically opposite to Tory belief - we couldnt possibly take more from the wealthiest, could we. ?

Nope there are a third group of people who don't like that Idea.

Those who have seen that money isn't the solution and don't want to give it anymore.

In other words you are part of the "selfish" group, perhaps someone who has private health cover

Let me tell you a true story which happened last night (Saturday 6th December) - somebody colapsed in a social club in Whitby, an ambulance was called and after about 10 minutes people began to worry, bearing in mind that Whitby ambulance station is less than 5 minutes away by road.

An ambulance did eventually arrive, all the way from Scarborough over 20 miles away along the A171 road which crosses the North York Moors, a road often dangerous or impassable in winter.
It seems that ambulance cover is now so stretched, and has been cut so much, that this now frequently happens.

We often hear people like yourself suggesting that medical staff, doctors and ambulance crews are inefficient, and that resources is not the problem, you are part of the minority of people who do not want to pay for decent public services, but most DO actually want good and adequate public services.

Organisations like the Yorkshire Ambulance Service have been economizing and "putting money to better use" as you put it, for four years now, and supporters of this failed government want the Yorkshire Ambulance Service to continue on with this policy for another 5 years. ?

When people actually begin to die because of the lack of even basic essential services, would you then be happy and satisfied. ?

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 08:31 AM

C-too

Dec 8 2014, 08:25 AM

Heinrich

Dec 8 2014, 07:23 AM

Right wingers, that is, the Tories and New Labour, have no concept of civilized society requiring those with the ability to pay, the stinking rich, to carry the burden while those in need, low-paid working class and unemployed, should get all they need to live with dignity.

NL were demonstrably not right-wing. Anyone who thinks they were must be so far left they are out of sight.

You have some evidence that can be put up to prove your claim and can you use the same technique to position the current lot on the political spectrum? I think you will find that on matters relating to the economy that NL were to the right of Thatcher and in particular their attitude towards the Financial Services Sector. On welfare, NHS etc. they reverted to form "spend, spend, spend and look for reasons later".

C-too

Dec 8 2014, 09:05 AM

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 08:31 AM

C-too

Dec 8 2014, 08:25 AM

Heinrich

Dec 8 2014, 07:23 AM

Right wingers, that is, the Tories and New Labour, have no concept of civilized society requiring those with the ability to pay, the stinking rich, to carry the burden while those in need, low-paid working class and unemployed, should get all they need to live with dignity.

NL were demonstrably not right-wing. Anyone who thinks they were must be so far left they are out of sight.

You have some evidence that can be put up to prove your claim and can you use the same technique to position the current lot on the political spectrum? I think you will find that on matters relating to the economy that NL were to the right of Thatcher and in particular their attitude towards the Financial Services Sector. On welfare, NHS etc. they reverted to form "spend, spend, spend and look for reasons later".

"To the right of Thatcher". Utter nonsense.

NL were unashamedly capitalist but the care they took of the low paid, the investments in the NHS and schools and the huge reduction in long term high/mass unemployment are all indications of a caring 'one nation' government. Something that is absent in right-wing politics as witnessed under the Tories.

Tytoalba

Dec 7 2014, 11:40 PM

krugerman

Dec 7 2014, 10:43 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 6 2014, 11:41 PM

krugerman

Dec 5 2014, 10:19 AM

We all know that there are two basic methods of cutting the deficit, either spend less or raise more money ( cut services or raise taxes ).

The present government has decided that the "spend less" method is much prefered over raising more money, infact at a time when there is not enough money to fund the level of public services we have, the government has handed out tax give-aways to the very wealthy.

Something on Question Time last night struck me, a question was posed "would people be willing to pay a bit more tax to help the NHS and other public services", the suggestion got a rousing applause from a large proportion of the audience.

I am no supporter of this government, and especially the Conservatives, though last night I felt a bit sorry for Sajid Javid, the Tory culture minister, he had a rough time of it on QT, the autumn statement and future cuts debate is doing Labour the world of good.

As several speakers last night said - there is a level of public services to which the public simply wont tollerate, in other words I very much doubt that cuts of the magnitude Osborne is proposing will gain any votes.

Those who want to raise taxes seem to be those that don't really expect to pay more themselves , certainly not very much, but expect others to pick up the tab.
I believe that we need to save more for future eventualities , as we do for our holidays or major consumer goods, and then spend more for our own needs as they arise for so many other things in our lives, not being entirely dependent on other taxpayers. Having a degree of independence is so much more invigorating than being dependent on others all the time. The more dependent we are on others, the less freedoms we have, and the less personal choices we can make for ourselves.

I reckon that if Labour or the Lib Dems announced that they would slam 1p on the basic rate of income tax to invest in the NHS if elected, it would attract votes and it would be popular, of course the two types of people who would not like the idea are (1) Conservatives, and (2) the selfish.

What I completely and utterly fail to comprehend, is that at a time of austerity, and when essential public services are now at red warning light levels, the Tories somehow find money to give away in tax cuts, and are talking about wanting to cut taxes - what about our ambulance service. ?

Moderate increases in income tax is a sensible way to raise extra money in unison with savings, because those on the lowest incomes wont be affected, and the more you earn, the more you pay, but of course this principle is diametrically opposite to Tory belief - we couldnt possibly take more from the wealthiest, could we. ?

If legally and honestly acquired its their money. Why should we seek to take it off them? When you go out with friends do you expect the better off to pay your bills, or a disproportionate part of them. or do we all contribute equally? When we talk about 'fairness' what exactly is meant by that.
If we all partake what is available to us , do we partake equally, and therefore contribute equally?

We know that the better off already pay more in taxes than the rest of us, and the poor are not asked to contribute until they reach a set level of income., except through VAT, and we mostly have a choice in what we purchase with VAT added. I don't see this as a right or left issue, but a matter of fairness as I understand it to be
We should all be taxed to meet the bills, and a rise in income tax for all, meaning all of us that benefit from taxes, not just the better off.
We want what taxes provide then we should pay equally for them where we can.
Just saying the better off SHOULD pay more to pay off the debts is to my mind very selectively mean, and tinged with jealousy and envy, and supporting our own brand of idealism at other peoples expense

ACH1967

Dec 8 2014, 04:30 PM

Given how many people were declaring that the last round of cuts would be the end of civilisation and their would be rioting and civil dosorder and none of this came to pass you will have to forgive the scepticism amongst people about any future declarations that disaster is iminent.

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 12:42 PM

C-too

Dec 8 2014, 09:05 AM

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 08:31 AM

C-too

Dec 8 2014, 08:25 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

You have some evidence that can be put up to prove your claim and can you use the same technique to position the current lot on the political spectrum? I think you will find that on matters relating to the economy that NL were to the right of Thatcher and in particular their attitude towards the Financial Services Sector. On welfare, NHS etc. they reverted to form "spend, spend, spend and look for reasons later".

"To the right of Thatcher". Utter nonsense.

NL were unashamedly capitalist but the care they took of the low paid, the investments in the NHS and schools and the huge reduction in long term high/mass unemployment are all indications of a caring 'one nation' government. Something that is absent in right-wing politics as witnessed under the Tories.

You really do regurgitate a load of Labour HQ political twaddle. There is no possibility of a sensible debate with you. You just mouth these inanities without every looking at the real World.

Tytoalba

Dec 6 2014, 11:41 PM

Those who want to raise taxes seem to be those that don't really expect to pay more themselves , certainly not very much, but expect others to pick up the tab.
I believe that we need to save more for future eventualities ,

ACH1967

Dec 8 2014, 04:30 PM

Given how many people were declaring that the last round of cuts would be the end of civilisation and their would be rioting and civil dosorder and none of this came to pass you will have to forgive the scepticism amongst people about any future declarations that disaster is iminent.

Personally I wouldn't be opposed to paying more taxes to fix the deficit. But these declarations of disaster only succeed in making those who have made them look rather foolsih.

C-too

Dec 7 2014, 09:54 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 6 2014, 11:41 PM

krugerman

Dec 5 2014, 10:19 AM

We all know that there are two basic methods of cutting the deficit, either spend less or raise more money ( cut services or raise taxes ).

The present government has decided that the "spend less" method is much prefered over raising more money, infact at a time when there is not enough money to fund the level of public services we have, the government has handed out tax give-aways to the very wealthy.

Something on Question Time last night struck me, a question was posed "would people be willing to pay a bit more tax to help the NHS and other public services", the suggestion got a rousing applause from a large proportion of the audience.

I am no supporter of this government, and especially the Conservatives, though last night I felt a bit sorry for Sajid Javid, the Tory culture minister, he had a rough time of it on QT, the autumn statement and future cuts debate is doing Labour the world of good.

As several speakers last night said - there is a level of public services to which the public simply wont tollerate, in other words I very much doubt that cuts of the magnitude Osborne is proposing will gain any votes.

Those who want to raise taxes seem to be those that don't really expect to pay more themselves , certainly not very much, but expect others to pick up the tab.
I believe that we need to save more for future eventualities , as we do for our holidays or major consumer goods, and then spend more for our own needs as they arise for so many other things in our lives, not being entirely dependent on other taxpayers. Having a degree of independence is so much more invigorating than being dependent on others all the time. The more dependent we are on others, the less freedoms we have, and the less personal choices we can make for ourselves.

Once again you defend wealth while the less well off carry the damaging economic burden caused by wealthy people. Is it time for you to question your position?

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 08:11 AM

Best you look for savings in the purchasing programmes where there are massive disparities between Trusts for exactly the same items, this alone will net ~£1b. Best you look at what the NHS is actually spending £120b PA on and wonder whether all of this is justified. It is very lazy lefty thinking that accepts all claims, just because it is the NHS, as justified. Look where the majority of the spend is going and then engage some of your analytical brain cells. Searching for productivity improvements is hard work that is why the lefties never bother, but it is the daily bread and butter for Managers in the private sector. The productivity levels in the NHS declined every year of NL's notorious misrule despite the demands of each and every report on NHS funding.

Rich

Dec 8 2014, 07:44 PM

C-too

Dec 7 2014, 09:54 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 6 2014, 11:41 PM

krugerman

Dec 5 2014, 10:19 AM

We all know that there are two basic methods of cutting the deficit, either spend less or raise more money ( cut services or raise taxes ).

The present government has decided that the "spend less" method is much prefered over raising more money, infact at a time when there is not enough money to fund the level of public services we have, the government has handed out tax give-aways to the very wealthy.

Something on Question Time last night struck me, a question was posed "would people be willing to pay a bit more tax to help the NHS and other public services", the suggestion got a rousing applause from a large proportion of the audience.

I am no supporter of this government, and especially the Conservatives, though last night I felt a bit sorry for Sajid Javid, the Tory culture minister, he had a rough time of it on QT, the autumn statement and future cuts debate is doing Labour the world of good.

As several speakers last night said - there is a level of public services to which the public simply wont tollerate, in other words I very much doubt that cuts of the magnitude Osborne is proposing will gain any votes.

Those who want to raise taxes seem to be those that don't really expect to pay more themselves , certainly not very much, but expect others to pick up the tab.
I believe that we need to save more for future eventualities , as we do for our holidays or major consumer goods, and then spend more for our own needs as they arise for so many other things in our lives, not being entirely dependent on other taxpayers. Having a degree of independence is so much more invigorating than being dependent on others all the time. The more dependent we are on others, the less freedoms we have, and the less personal choices we can make for ourselves.

Once again you defend wealth while the less well off carry the damaging economic burden caused by wealthy people. Is it time for you to question your position?

But I am not wealthy by any means and what is more we have had to cut our cloth accordingly because of my spinal situation whereby I am now on adjusted duties at work (delivering and collecting internal mail and franking them ready for collection by RM and delivering drugs/medications to the wards,) mind you my annual wage has been cut by 10k......YES...10k, and we have now learnt to cope with that, every able bodied and normal minded person starts out with the same opportunity in life in this country, unfortunately, some shun the opportunity and drop out of society and then come cap in hand later on in life, obviously this is not the case with the disabled and those suffering unseen serious health problems but there is a sector of society that is just not interested in being independent and carrying their own weight and there always will be whilst the state panders to them. !nono!

Tigger

Dec 8 2014, 07:52 PM

Rich

Dec 8 2014, 07:44 PM

C-too

Dec 7 2014, 09:54 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 6 2014, 11:41 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Once again you defend wealth while the less well off carry the damaging economic burden caused by wealthy people. Is it time for you to question your position?

But I am not wealthy by any means and what is more we have had to cut our cloth accordingly because of my spinal situation whereby I am now on adjusted duties at work (delivering and collecting internal mail and franking them ready for collection by RM and delivering drugs/medications to the wards,) mind you my annual wage has been cut by 10k......YES...10k, and we have now learnt to cope with that, every able bodied and normal minded person starts out with the same opportunity in life in this country, unfortunately, some shun the opportunity and drop out of society and then come cap in hand later on in life, obviously this is not the case with the disabled and those suffering unseen serious health problems but there is a sector of society that is just not interested in being independent and carrying their own weight and there always will be whilst the state panders to them. !nono!

I'd send IDS's boys round to check you out and put you through the full range of humiliating tests just to make sure you were not swinging the lead, can't be too careful these days can you? Way to many scroungers about faking illness or disability in my opinion,what with smoking, drinking, unhealthy diets and so on, who do these people take us for?.........

Rich

Dec 8 2014, 07:44 PM

C-too

Dec 7 2014, 09:54 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 6 2014, 11:41 PM

krugerman

Dec 5 2014, 10:19 AM

We all know that there are two basic methods of cutting the deficit, either spend less or raise more money ( cut services or raise taxes ).

The present government has decided that the "spend less" method is much prefered over raising more money, infact at a time when there is not enough money to fund the level of public services we have, the government has handed out tax give-aways to the very wealthy.

Something on Question Time last night struck me, a question was posed "would people be willing to pay a bit more tax to help the NHS and other public services", the suggestion got a rousing applause from a large proportion of the audience.

I am no supporter of this government, and especially the Conservatives, though last night I felt a bit sorry for Sajid Javid, the Tory culture minister, he had a rough time of it on QT, the autumn statement and future cuts debate is doing Labour the world of good.

As several speakers last night said - there is a level of public services to which the public simply wont tollerate, in other words I very much doubt that cuts of the magnitude Osborne is proposing will gain any votes.

Those who want to raise taxes seem to be those that don't really expect to pay more themselves , certainly not very much, but expect others to pick up the tab.
I believe that we need to save more for future eventualities , as we do for our holidays or major consumer goods, and then spend more for our own needs as they arise for so many other things in our lives, not being entirely dependent on other taxpayers. Having a degree of independence is so much more invigorating than being dependent on others all the time. The more dependent we are on others, the less freedoms we have, and the less personal choices we can make for ourselves.

Once again you defend wealth while the less well off carry the damaging economic burden caused by wealthy people. Is it time for you to question your position?

But I am not wealthy by any means and what is more we have had to cut our cloth accordingly because of my spinal situation whereby I am now on adjusted duties at work (delivering and collecting internal mail and franking them ready for collection by RM and delivering drugs/medications to the wards,) mind you my annual wage has been cut by 10k......YES...10k, and we have now learnt to cope with that, every able bodied and normal minded person starts out with the same opportunity in life in this country, unfortunately, some shun the opportunity and drop out of society and then come cap in hand later on in life, obviously this is not the case with the disabled and those suffering unseen serious health problems but there is a sector of society that is just not interested in being independent and carrying their own weight and there always will be whilst the state panders to them. !nono!

C-too

Dec 8 2014, 08:32 PM

Rich

Dec 8 2014, 07:44 PM

C-too

Dec 7 2014, 09:54 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 6 2014, 11:41 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Once again you defend wealth while the less well off carry the damaging economic burden caused by wealthy people. Is it time for you to question your position?

But I am not wealthy by any means and what is more we have had to cut our cloth accordingly because of my spinal situation whereby I am now on adjusted duties at work (delivering and collecting internal mail and franking them ready for collection by RM and delivering drugs/medications to the wards,) mind you my annual wage has been cut by 10k......YES...10k, and we have now learnt to cope with that, every able bodied and normal minded person starts out with the same opportunity in life in this country, unfortunately, some shun the opportunity and drop out of society and then come cap in hand later on in life, obviously this is not the case with the disabled and those suffering unseen serious health problems but there is a sector of society that is just not interested in being independent and carrying their own weight and there always will be whilst the state panders to them. !nono!

Your post does not alter the fact that poorer people are carrying an extra burden which is making life harder for them while richer people could afford to help the recovery more without feeling any great differences in their lifestyle.

As for coping, that is what every low income individual experiences with or without a recession.

I have just been listening to Andrew Marr's TV programme 'The Making of Britain' (?). In it he refers to the early 20th century when the rich blamed the poor for being poor. Feckless and lazy and responsible for their own problems (same nonsense as today). The Rowntree family investigated the causes of poverty and found many reasons why people got trapped. (just like today).

Why some people who can and do manage, insist on blamaing the less fortunate for their own situation puzzles me, do they think that everyone can or should deal with the world as they do? Or are they making excuses for turning their backs on the problem?

C-too

Dec 8 2014, 08:32 PM

Rich

Dec 8 2014, 07:44 PM

C-too

Dec 7 2014, 09:54 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 6 2014, 11:41 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Once again you defend wealth while the less well off carry the damaging economic burden caused by wealthy people. Is it time for you to question your position?

But I am not wealthy by any means and what is more we have had to cut our cloth accordingly because of my spinal situation whereby I am now on adjusted duties at work (delivering and collecting internal mail and franking them ready for collection by RM and delivering drugs/medications to the wards,) mind you my annual wage has been cut by 10k......YES...10k, and we have now learnt to cope with that, every able bodied and normal minded person starts out with the same opportunity in life in this country, unfortunately, some shun the opportunity and drop out of society and then come cap in hand later on in life, obviously this is not the case with the disabled and those suffering unseen serious health problems but there is a sector of society that is just not interested in being independent and carrying their own weight and there always will be whilst the state panders to them. !nono!

Your post does not alter the fact that poorer people are carrying an extra burden which is making life harder for them while richer people could afford to help the recovery more without feeling any great differences in their lifestyle.

As for coping, that is what every low income individual experiences with or without a recession.

I have just been listening to Andrew Marr's TV programme 'The Making of Britain' (?). In it he refers to the early 20th century when the rich blamed the poor for being poor. Feckless and lazy and responsible for their own problems (same nonsense as today). The Rowntree family investigated the causes of poverty and found many reasons why people got trapped. (just like today).

Why some people who can and do manage, insist on blamaing the less fortunate for their own situation puzzles me, do they think that everyone can or should deal with the world as they do? Or are they making excuses for turning their backs on the problem?

C-too

Dec 8 2014, 08:32 PM

Rich

Dec 8 2014, 07:44 PM

C-too

Dec 7 2014, 09:54 AM

Tytoalba

Dec 6 2014, 11:41 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Once again you defend wealth while the less well off carry the damaging economic burden caused by wealthy people. Is it time for you to question your position?

But I am not wealthy by any means and what is more we have had to cut our cloth accordingly because of my spinal situation whereby I am now on adjusted duties at work (delivering and collecting internal mail and franking them ready for collection by RM and delivering drugs/medications to the wards,) mind you my annual wage has been cut by 10k......YES...10k, and we have now learnt to cope with that, every able bodied and normal minded person starts out with the same opportunity in life in this country, unfortunately, some shun the opportunity and drop out of society and then come cap in hand later on in life, obviously this is not the case with the disabled and those suffering unseen serious health problems but there is a sector of society that is just not interested in being independent and carrying their own weight and there always will be whilst the state panders to them. !nono!

Your post does not alter the fact that poorer people are carrying an extra burden which is making life harder for them while richer people could afford to help the recovery more without feeling any great differences in their lifestyle.

As for coping, that is what every low income individual experiences with or without a recession.

I have just been listening to Andrew Marr's TV programme 'The Making of Britain' (?). In it he refers to the early 20th century when the rich blamed the poor for being poor. Feckless and lazy and responsible for their own problems (same nonsense as today). The Rowntree family investigated the causes of poverty and found many reasons why people got trapped. (just like today).

Why some people who can and do manage, insist on blamaing the less fortunate for their own situation puzzles me, do they think that everyone can or should deal with the world as they do? Or are they making excuses for turning their backs on the problem?

Tigger

Dec 8 2014, 08:56 PM

C-too

Dec 8 2014, 08:32 PM

Rich

Dec 8 2014, 07:44 PM

C-too

Dec 7 2014, 09:54 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

But I am not wealthy by any means and what is more we have had to cut our cloth accordingly because of my spinal situation whereby I am now on adjusted duties at work (delivering and collecting internal mail and franking them ready for collection by RM and delivering drugs/medications to the wards,) mind you my annual wage has been cut by 10k......YES...10k, and we have now learnt to cope with that, every able bodied and normal minded person starts out with the same opportunity in life in this country, unfortunately, some shun the opportunity and drop out of society and then come cap in hand later on in life, obviously this is not the case with the disabled and those suffering unseen serious health problems but there is a sector of society that is just not interested in being independent and carrying their own weight and there always will be whilst the state panders to them. !nono!

Your post does not alter the fact that poorer people are carrying an extra burden which is making life harder for them while richer people could afford to help the recovery more without feeling any great differences in their lifestyle.

As for coping, that is what every low income individual experiences with or without a recession.

I have just been listening to Andrew Marr's TV programme 'The Making of Britain' (?). In it he refers to the early 20th century when the rich blamed the poor for being poor. Feckless and lazy and responsible for their own problems (same nonsense as today). The Rowntree family investigated the causes of poverty and found many reasons why people got trapped. (just like today).

Why some people who can and do manage, insist on blamaing the less fortunate for their own situation puzzles me, do they think that everyone can or should deal with the world as they do? Or are they making excuses for turning their backs on the problem?

I've slowly come to the conclusion over the years that some people actually revel in a certain amount of hardship or financial discomfort, they seem to feel it gives them some sort of moral superiority, perhaps as a way of nullifying the powerlessness they feel?

The majority of them would not accept help official or otherwise even if it was thrown at them, and they often expect others to do exactly the same, hence the resentment when others do accept charity.

Rich

Dec 8 2014, 08:38 PM

C-too

Dec 8 2014, 08:32 PM

Rich

Dec 8 2014, 07:44 PM

C-too

Dec 7 2014, 09:54 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

But I am not wealthy by any means and what is more we have had to cut our cloth accordingly because of my spinal situation whereby I am now on adjusted duties at work (delivering and collecting internal mail and franking them ready for collection by RM and delivering drugs/medications to the wards,) mind you my annual wage has been cut by 10k......YES...10k, and we have now learnt to cope with that, every able bodied and normal minded person starts out with the same opportunity in life in this country, unfortunately, some shun the opportunity and drop out of society and then come cap in hand later on in life, obviously this is not the case with the disabled and those suffering unseen serious health problems but there is a sector of society that is just not interested in being independent and carrying their own weight and there always will be whilst the state panders to them. !nono!

Your post does not alter the fact that poorer people are carrying an extra burden which is making life harder for them while richer people could afford to help the recovery more without feeling any great differences in their lifestyle.

As for coping, that is what every low income individual experiences with or without a recession.

I have just been listening to Andrew Marr's TV programme 'The Making of Britain' (?). In it he refers to the early 20th century when the rich blamed the poor for being poor. Feckless and lazy and responsible for their own problems (same nonsense as today). The Rowntree family investigated the causes of poverty and found many reasons why people got trapped. (just like today).

Why some people who can and do manage, insist on blamaing the less fortunate for their own situation puzzles me, do they think that everyone can or should deal with the world as they do? Or are they making excuses for turning their backs on the problem?

The day I ask you or anyone else to pay my way in life is the day you can pose that last question to me.

gansao

Dec 8 2014, 09:02 PM

Tigger

Dec 8 2014, 08:56 PM

C-too

Dec 8 2014, 08:32 PM

Rich

Dec 8 2014, 07:44 PM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Your post does not alter the fact that poorer people are carrying an extra burden which is making life harder for them while richer people could afford to help the recovery more without feeling any great differences in their lifestyle.

As for coping, that is what every low income individual experiences with or without a recession.

I have just been listening to Andrew Marr's TV programme 'The Making of Britain' (?). In it he refers to the early 20th century when the rich blamed the poor for being poor. Feckless and lazy and responsible for their own problems (same nonsense as today). The Rowntree family investigated the causes of poverty and found many reasons why people got trapped. (just like today).

Why some people who can and do manage, insist on blamaing the less fortunate for their own situation puzzles me, do they think that everyone can or should deal with the world as they do? Or are they making excuses for turning their backs on the problem?

I've slowly come to the conclusion over the years that some people actually revel in a certain amount of hardship or financial discomfort, they seem to feel it gives them some sort of moral superiority, perhaps as a way of nullifying the powerlessness they feel?

The majority of them would not accept help official or otherwise even if it was thrown at them, and they often expect others to do exactly the same, hence the resentment when others do accept charity.

They like to claim prevailing over hardship to feel superior over the people presently suffering it.

Tigger

Dec 8 2014, 08:56 PM

I've slowly come to the conclusion over the years that some people actually revel in a certain amount of hardship or financial discomfort, they seem to feel it gives them some sort of moral superiority, perhaps as a way of nullifying the powerlessness they feel?

The majority of them would not accept help official or otherwise even if it was thrown at them, and they often expect others to do exactly the same, hence the resentment when others do accept charity.

Affa

Dec 8 2014, 09:19 PM

Tigger

Dec 8 2014, 08:56 PM

I've slowly come to the conclusion over the years that some people actually revel in a certain amount of hardship or financial discomfort, they seem to feel it gives them some sort of moral superiority, perhaps as a way of nullifying the powerlessness they feel?

The majority of them would not accept help official or otherwise even if it was thrown at them, and they often expect others to do exactly the same, hence the resentment when others do accept charity.

My Bro-in-law was made redundant and refused to enrol on the dole, preferring to live (for a time) on savings and my sisters modest income from work. He believed it demeaning to himself to be classed as a scrounger.
As with most Tories it was impossible to make him see sense.

Tigger

Dec 8 2014, 09:46 PM

Affa

Dec 8 2014, 09:19 PM

Tigger

Dec 8 2014, 08:56 PM

I've slowly come to the conclusion over the years that some people actually revel in a certain amount of hardship or financial discomfort, they seem to feel it gives them some sort of moral superiority, perhaps as a way of nullifying the powerlessness they feel?

The majority of them would not accept help official or otherwise even if it was thrown at them, and they often expect others to do exactly the same, hence the resentment when others do accept charity.

My Bro-in-law was made redundant and refused to enrol on the dole, preferring to live (for a time) on savings and my sisters modest income from work. He believed it demeaning to himself to be classed as a scrounger.
As with most Tories it was impossible to make him see sense.

That sort of pride should be confined to costume dramas and stiff upper lip 1950's war films, after all pig headed pride does not pay the bills, put food on the table or heat your home, I regard these sort of people as little more than pompous idiots.

And it's those around these people I feel sorry for.

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 08:14 AM

Heinrich

Dec 8 2014, 07:23 AM

Right wingers, that is, the Tories and New Labour, have no concept of civilized society requiring those with the ability to pay, the stinking rich, to carry the burden while those in need, low-paid working class and unemployed, should get all they need to live with dignity.

What a load of left wing drivel. Who is carrying the burden at an ever increasing proportion?
What does "dignity" mean?
What does "fairness" mean? ...

papasmurf

Dec 8 2014, 04:34 PM

ACH1967

Dec 8 2014, 04:30 PM

Given how many people were declaring that the last round of cuts would be the end of civilisation and their would be rioting and civil dosorder and none of this came to pass you will have to forgive the scepticism amongst people about any future declarations that disaster is iminent.

Only a few of the cuts have happened thus far, more are due.

krugerman

Dec 8 2014, 07:26 PM

ACH1967

Dec 8 2014, 04:30 PM

Given how many people were declaring that the last round of cuts would be the end of civilisation and their would be rioting and civil dosorder and none of this came to pass you will have to forgive the scepticism amongst people about any future declarations that disaster is iminent.

Personally I wouldn't be opposed to paying more taxes to fix the deficit. But these declarations of disaster only succeed in making those who have made them look rather foolsih.

I have copied this from facebook, its what a member of staff from a social club posted yesterday concerning ambulances coming over 20 miles to life and death situations. >>

"on one of the occasions we called an ambulance to the club I was chatting to one of the paramedics, when I asked why it had taken so long for them to arrive when the ambulance station was only up the road he told me this "sometimes if a call comes through and staff are on a break, because they don't get paid for breaks they don't get disturbed until their break is over, because of cuts" someone could be laid bleeding to death or having a heart attack and if there is no back up staff then nobody comes, he also told me that approximately 10 people have died in the north east because of this!"

People are dying NOW because of the cuts, and if Dave & George get re-elected, thers an awful lot more cuts to come.

I actually think the tide is about to turn against Cameron and the Tories, and I really dont believe the British public will take any more of them, I sincerely hope I am correct.

C-too

Dec 8 2014, 04:37 PM

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 12:42 PM

C-too

Dec 8 2014, 09:05 AM

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 08:31 AM

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

"To the right of Thatcher". Utter nonsense.

NL were unashamedly capitalist but the care they took of the low paid, the investments in the NHS and schools and the huge reduction in long term high/mass unemployment are all indications of a caring 'one nation' government. Something that is absent in right-wing politics as witnessed under the Tories.

You really do regurgitate a load of Labour HQ political twaddle. There is no possibility of a sensible debate with you. You just mouth these inanities without every looking at the real World.

You have no answer when confronted with the honest truth.

Reality, when it conflicts with your long winded obfuscations, clearly causes friction in your grey matter. I almost feel sorry for you.

Heinrich

Dec 9 2014, 03:37 AM

RJD

Dec 8 2014, 08:14 AM

Heinrich

Dec 8 2014, 07:23 AM

Right wingers, that is, the Tories and New Labour, have no concept of civilized society requiring those with the ability to pay, the stinking rich, to carry the burden while those in need, low-paid working class and unemployed, should get all they need to live with dignity.

What a load of left wing drivel. Who is carrying the burden at an ever increasing proportion?
What does "dignity" mean?
What does "fairness" mean? ...

Forgive me for assuming that English is your first language.