Finnegan Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 "I'm not convinced by democracy" - Thracian, 2016.
Manwell Pablo Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 "I'm not convinced by democracy" - Thracian, 2016. As an aside I think Tories's are magnificent creatures.
bovril Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 As an aside I think Tory's are magnificent creatures. Tory's apes?
Claridge Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 On the other hand when the bird at the top of the tree shits, it trickles down on the poor buggers at the bottom. Either blame the bird or make an effort to climb the tree I suppose
davieG Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 .........or start a business making umbrellas for birds
Webbo Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 I suppose the argument is it stimulates the economy in some way. What kind of tangible benefit any normal person will see from it is beyond me. Just read what you've written and tell me honestly you believe that.
Jon the Hat Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 Interesting to think that the cuts to the disabled benefits that were change would have saved 4.2bn. The tax cuts cost 4.8bn. More people would be affected by the cuts than those that benefit from the cuts to tax at the higher level. Just saying. Fortunately the outrage and IDS resignation seems to have done for those particular cuts, and Osborne's leadership chances in one go.
Jon the Hat Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 Is this right and moral? Nothing to do with envy or jealousy it is to do what is right and fair. It is not just Tory MP's at fault but those that use the position the electorate have placed them in to take advantage. It makes it look bad for the ones who do not take advantage. In fact there are one or two that hardly claim at all yet are criticised in other areas which seem to hit the headlines more than their miniscule expenses claims. This is not personal expenses, or even all his travel, this was paid for by for his department, and no doubt for a number of people. Still a huge amount of money though.
Darkon84 Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 Jon is correct above, that was the total spending for the department to serve 6 MPs. At the time, the department maintained 6 cars to cover all of their travel, though reduced the number to 2 in an effort to cut costs, which they successfully did, by roughly two thirds, from around £490,000 in 2009-2010, to roughly £180,000 in 2013-14.
Thracian Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 "I'm not convinced by democracy" - Thracian, 2016. On July 31, 1932, the Nazis won 230 out of 608 seats in the German Reichstag, making them its largest party. Great advert for democracy that!
bovril Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 On July 31, 1932, the Nazis won 230 out of 608 seats in the German Reichstag, making them its largest party. Great advert for democracy that! That's majoritarianism, a sometimes unfortunate negative result of democracy. No way can you say Nazi Germany was a democracy.
MC Prussian Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 On July 31, 1932, the Nazis won 230 out of 608 seats in the German Reichstag, making them its largest party. Great advert for democracy that! Winning 230 seats out of 608 is one thing (democratic elections) and please remember that it doesn't equal the absolute majority - getting a Bundestag (then Reichstag) coalition together, another. You omit the fact that most parties in Germany at that time were hopelessly at odds with each other and the National Socialists preyed on that. The rise of the Nazi party in Germany at that time was also down to many other factors, but mainly due to massive unemployment, a near-bankrupt state, the military inferiority complex after the defeat in WWI and the heavy reparations that came along with it (look up "Dolchstosslegende" or "stab-in-the-back myth").
Mark_w Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 Party politics is pathetic and fosters hypocrisy. I'm not convinced by democracy at all. Majorities can, and do, vote wrongly and can end up making the most dreadful mistakes. The trends of recent years have been appalling and all the deceit that's gone with them. We need strong, visionary leadership with a consistent philosophy. It sounds simple, and is simple in essence. But corruption and vested interest seems to blight every good intention before long. Dictatorships have always been great for challenging corruption and vested interests.
Bryn Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 Just read what you've written and tell me honestly you believe that. I honestly believe I won't notice the economic benefits but will notice the increase in the spectrum of socioeconomically vulnerable coming into my emergency department because they have no alternative.
Webbo Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 I honestly believe I won't notice the economic benefits but will notice the increase in the spectrum of socioeconomically vulnerable coming into my emergency department because they have no alternative. And "the spectrum of socioeconomically vulnerable" would be better off if the economy wasn't stimulated?
Bryn Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 Depends which end of the economy you're stimulating doesn't it? Not really sure how £4.8b of tax cuts for our wealthiest really benefits the disabled, the single mothers and the like.
The Blur Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 Oh great, another party bashing thread. I am not keen on Tories but surely it is pointless arguing with Tories, most of them are dead set in their ways (you could say the same for majority of lefties tbf) and it always end with mud-slinging.
Webbo Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 Depends which end of the economy you're stimulating doesn't it? Not really sure how £4.8b of tax cuts for our wealthiest really benefits the disabled, the single mothers and the like. Wealthiest in society? Wasn't it an increase in the tax threshold for people earning in the 40 odd thousands? Hardly billionaires
Alf Bentley Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 Wealthiest in society? Wasn't it an increase in the tax threshold for people earning in the 40 odd thousands? Hardly billionaires income figures treasury
Webbo Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 income figures treasury You'll have to tell the relevance of that chart, and if you could make it a bit bigger that would help too.
Alf Bentley Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 You'll have to tell the relevance of that chart, and if you could make it a bit bigger that would help too. Sorry can't increase image size, but it's larger in here with the full article: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/25/uk-incomes-how-salary-compare(2014 data) "The top decile of single adults earn a median income of £60,500, compared to just £8,600 among the bottom decile. [...] It may come as a surprise to some people that an income for a single adult of less than £39,800 is enough to be among the top 20% of earners for that group". ["decile" = 10%] Very roughly, looks like it's about the top 15% who benefit from the cut in the higher rate of tax. Not very effective as a stimulus either, due to the lower "propensity to spend" of higher earners....though the Tories never claimed that it was intended as a stimulus, as far as I'm aware.
Webbo Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 Sorry can't increase image size, but it's larger in here with the full article: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/25/uk-incomes-how-salary-compare(2014 data) "The top decile of single adults earn a median income of £60,500, compared to just £8,600 among the bottom decile. [...] It may come as a surprise to some people that an income for a single adult of less than £39,800 is enough to be among the top 20% of earners for that group". ["decile" = 10%] Very roughly, looks like it's about the top 15% who benefit from the cut in the higher rate of tax. Not very effective as a stimulus either, due to the lower "propensity to spend" of higher earners....though the Tories never claimed that it was intended as a stimulus, as far as I'm aware. Kinell, and teachers are supposed to be under paid. Teachers, who outside of London earn between £34,523 and £37,124 in the "upper pay ranges" according to the Department for Education, fall into the bottom third and fourth decile of households with two children, although if their partner works then they will be further up the decile ranges.
Alf Bentley Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 Kinell, and teachers are supposed to be under paid. Nice diversion! Those pay rates are for teachers in the "upper pay ranges" - more senior and very experienced teachers. Here are all the pay scales: https://getintoteaching.education.gov.uk/why-teach/competitive-salary-and-great-benefits So, starting salary for a qualified teacher is £22,244. (Edit: So about half the income needed to benefit from the higher-rate tax cut for those on £40k+....whom you consider to be "hardly billionnaires" ]
Guest MattP Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 My Dad was going mental about the Tories today re taxation so they have clearly done something wrong (he's top rate, self employed) for the so called well off. He's even cutting down his hours to avoid taking the loss.
Izzy Posted 31 March 2016 Posted 31 March 2016 Big respect to you dudes on here who take Politics so seriously and debate it so passionately. I genuinely hope you all make a difference and manage to change the world with your views. Me, I'll just continue to play the hand I'm dealt every four years and let the argumentative school kid politician twats get on with it. Peace. Out.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.