Who are you voting for?

[marc_p]

Remember, if you vote labour, your keeping all those benefit scum on benefits

[marc_p]

I know a few people who really like the UKIP but believe the only real chance of removing labour is with the conservatives so giving them the vote instead.

 

I'd be one of them people:)

[Snooze]

Remember, if you vote labour, your keeping all those benefit scum on benefits

 

Okay - so who's manifestos include updates to the benefits system?

[marc_p]

Okay - so who's manifestos include updates to the benefits system?

 

The conservatives have this for a start:

 

http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/04/Three_strikes_policy_to_crack_down_on_benefit_fraud.aspx

 

Edit: This aswell:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7176032.stm

[Snooze]

The conservatives have this for a start

 

meh. Harder penalites for those actually caught commiting benefit fraud? From my understanding, that's a pretty insubstantial percentage.

 

 

EDIT:

 

Edit: This aswell:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7176032.stm

 

Ooh - that's more like it. Sounds promising.

[marc_p]

meh. Harder penalites for those actually caught commiting benefit fraud? From my understanding, that's a pretty insubstantial percentage.

 

Here's a more up to date version of the one in my last post:

 

http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk/conservative-policies-welfare-and-pensions.html

[tbourner]

What I want to know is whether this election is likely to put interest rates up very quickly? I don't want to end my fixed rate in a year to find the rates have gone up to 10%!

[Snooze]

If you're at all worried about interest rates, then the best policy is to take out a long-term fixed rate mortage as soon as possible - fixed rates are literally NEVER going to be better than they are at the moment.

 

If I wasn't on 0.8% interest rate myself at the moment, I'd be all over a 15/20-year fixed policy (if I could find one). As it is, I'm trying to gamble and see how long I can leave it before making the jump.

[tbourner]

I've got no chance of a remortgage though.

[downimpact]

How is thatcher responsible for the state of the country today (12 years under labour).....

 

We pay far too much in tax as it is, you seem to think that its not enough....

 

As an example think of rust on a car, if you treat it at the first stage the effort is minimal. If you leave it for a few years you have a bigger problem and will cost more to fix.

 

Now look at the governments income, if you reduce tax they have less money to spend on public services. Say they reduce tax 0.5% a year (as they cut funding on public services), what the tories did in the 80s.

 

You can't then increase revenue without increasing taxes, which is never popular. In the mean time you you've now stopped treating the rust problem, so the cost to fix this goes up and you have less income.

 

Obviously this model doesn't work long term, though it's popular reducing taxes to keep you in govt.

 

I believe taxes for the rich should go up and down for the poor. It was the Tories who took away the higher rate of tax for top earners before. Labour should have reinstated it but are too weak.

[TTRickeh]

 

I believe taxes for the rich should go up and down for the poor. It was the Tories who took away the higher rate of tax for top earners before. Labour should have reinstated it but are too weak.

 

There's already a progressive income tax system, to the point where the government will take half your earnings. I don't think you should discourage people who do well for themselves. People on those sorts of incomes can easily go and be productive in another country that respects the contribution they make.

 

Bankers ftw.

[Digsy]

I believe taxes for the rich should go up and down for the poor. It was the Tories who took away the higher rate of tax for top earners before. Labour should have reinstated it but are too weak.

 

Obviously I have no idea of your personal circumstances but you drive Supra so I'm guessing you have a bob or two to spend.

My issue with "tax the rich, don't tax the poor" is that in my experience people generally really mean "tax people who earn more than me and tax me less". I don't think I see too many people saying:

"Yes, when I was a struggling student I was taxed too much but now I'm on a decent income the amount of tax I pay is completely fair"

or

"Things were a bit tight before but now I'm a 40% taxpayer I don't begrudge giving nearly half of that payrise I worked my @ss off for straight to the government".

Most people's lifestyles expand to consume whatever they bring in. Its always the perception that people who earn more have more money to throw away, but in reality I believe they just take on more responsibilities (a decent sized house, family, etc) and wind up being more comfortable rather than better off.

Perhaps a "luxury tax" would be more fair? For example: If you can afford to spend £2000 on a Rolex you can probably afford £2200 so we'll take the extra 10%, thanks you flash git. On the flip side basics like bread and milk could be tax free.

[tbourner]

Perhaps a "luxury tax" would be more fair? For example: If you can afford to spend £2000 on a Rolex you can probably afford £2200 so we'll take the extra 10%, thanks you flash git. On the flip side basics like bread and milk could be tax free.

 

Damn straight!! I've said before it's not fair that there are blanket limits on benefits and similar as well, I earn a reasonable wage and so does the missus, so we can't claim bugger all - but I'm in £40k more debt than a homeless person!! I know that's my own fault but it's everyone's fault that they're in their position isn't it? How come single mums can claim a house and benefits but I can't, even though I struggle probably a lot more to cover my massive debt outgoings as well as feeding me, the wife and the dog.

Life is relative but taxes and benefits definitely aren't.

[downimpact]

There's already a progressive income tax system, to the point where the government will take half your earnings. I don't think you should discourage people who do well for themselves. People on those sorts of incomes can easily go and be productive in another country that respects the contribution they make.

 

Bankers ftw.

 

Yes it used to be much higher 83% in the 70's. The people leaving a country due to tax is a myth, this is a good independent report that goes through some popular politcal myths

 

http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/bit-rich

[Thorin]

On the flip side basics like bread and milk could be tax free.

 

erm, aren't they already?

[downimpact]

Obviously I have no idea of your personal circumstances but you drive Supra so I'm guessing you have a bob or two to spend.

My issue with "tax the rich, don't tax the poor" is that in my experience people generally really mean "tax people who earn more than me and tax me less". I don't think I see too many people saying:

"Yes, when I was a struggling student I was taxed too much but now I'm on a decent income the amount of tax I pay is completely fair"

or

"Things were a bit tight before but now I'm a 40% taxpayer I don't begrudge giving nearly half of that payrise I worked my @ss off for straight to the government".

Most people's lifestyles expand to consume whatever they bring in. Its always the perception that people who earn more have more money to throw away, but in reality I believe they just take on more responsibilities (a decent sized house, family, etc) and wind up being more comfortable rather than better off.

Perhaps a "luxury tax" would be more fair? For example: If you can afford to spend £2000 on a Rolex you can probably afford £2200 so we'll take the extra 10%, thanks you flash git. On the flip side basics like bread and milk could be tax free.

 

That's why people tend do lean to the right politically as you get older, to protect what they have and are more idealistic when a student. I know that the increase in the top rate effects me but I still have enough to live on, though going single sooner would be nice.

 

I also think benefits should be earned with community service, so I'm not about free handouts.

[Digsy]

erm, aren't they already?

 

 

 

Well... that just proves what great idea it was

[Thorin]

Vote Digsy.

[Digsy]

Assuming the long URL works, here is a list of all the food items that are tax exempt or otherwise.

 

I actually had no idea that in general food was tax exrmpt. I thought it was taxed but at a lower rate than 17.5%. This clearly shows how out of touch I am with the common man and underlines why I should therefore be a politician.

[TTRickeh]

Yes it used to be much higher 83% in the 70's. The people leaving a country due to tax is a myth, this is a good independent report that goes through some popular politcal myths

 

http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/bit-rich

 

No offence intended mate, but I don't attribute any credibility to that document or organisation. As aesthetically pleasing as their website is I think they are entirely biased in their views and they lack the ability to adequately and objectively model data. They seem to have an unrealistically fluffy-toy view of the world that frowns upon people who make money, which is shown by their support for national wage caps.

 

They reference statistics from some guys blog post

[merckx]

I checked that voterpower site ?

 

My voter power was 0.021

 

The average UK voter has 12.5x more voting power than voters in my constituency.

 

If there was proportional representation then every vote would be obviously equal.

 

It's totally ridiculous for a party that could have the greatest number of votes but may not have enough MP's to form the next government.

[tbourner]

It's totally ridiculous for a party that could have the greatest number of votes but may not have enough MP's to form the next government.

 

Not really, imagine if it went on numbers and we were voting for a world government, we'd always be under Chinese control!

[merckx]

Not really, imagine if it went on numbers and we were voting for a world government, we'd always be under Chinese control!

That's true, we couldn't have that.

[Supra-Brett]

I don't mind supporting a party as long it was a party I shared ideals with. The chances of seeing any party with Anarcho-something in their title on polling day is extremely remote.

 

Your kidding yourself !! we live in an anarcho sinocalist commune where we take it in turns to be an executive officer of the week. Every decision made by that officer need to be ratified at a special bi weekly meeting in the case of purely internal affairs -Arrahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh help help im being repressed. Come and see the violance inherant in the system

[Konrad]

Seems that what i think match with this what I will vote for - Conservative 63%.

BUT UKIP 54%

and Liberal Democrats 17%

Not bad at all