BoneDog Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 I wasn't sure where to post this video so I'll stick it in here (similar subject matter). Couple of months old but it's a rant and a half!
Jon the Hat Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 So the pensioners tax allowances are frozen/stopped because the current system is particularly complicated and needs to be simplified and yet introduce child benefits cuts based on earnings where they'll have to rely on people owning up to earning above the cut off points for it to work. I would be interested to hear a justification as to why a higher tax allowance should be available once you are retired. Increasing the pension and aligning allowances seems sensible to me. That effectively means everyone gets more, but those with lower incomes benefit more than those with higher incomes. Surely that is reasonable in retirement as much as it is in work.
davieG Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 I would be interested to hear a justification as to why a higher tax allowance should be available once you are retired. Increasing the pension and aligning allowances seems sensible to me. That effectively means everyone gets more, but those with lower incomes benefit more than those with higher incomes. Surely that is reasonable in retirement as much as it is in work. I wasn't questioning it per se more their reasons for it which when coupled with the family benefits change strikes me as contrary.
Daggers Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 Seem to recall a certain Gordon brown having a degree in history and look at the mess he got us into so perhaps there is something in what you say. Bang! I was unaware of that but it totally supports my hypothesis. Although I see Brown as more of a bumbling, incompetent, bad-tempered oaf and not quite the coke-snorting, spoilt little whore fùcker and all-round cùnt that is Osborne. In other news, it's a good job the this bunch of cùnts have the media on their side. I'd hate to think of the mauling they'd have received if papers supported a change...
Daggers Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 I wasn't questioning it per se more their reasons for it which when coupled with the family benefits change strikes me as contrary. And that it has existed since 1922 so it would be reasonable to expect that pensioners factor this into their budgeting. So whip it away strikes me as the act of a man who doesn't fully appreciate where the Tories tenuous support comes from.
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 The Govt are trying to sort out the financial mess they inherited. People always want something for nothing, particularly those lower down the chain of society. The budget always gives and always takes away.
NeilyBoy Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 The Govt are trying to sort out the financial mess they inherited. People always want something for nothing, particularly those lower down the chain of society. The budget always gives and always takes away. Please elaborate. I don't want to get angry at that sentence only to find it veiled a coherent point.
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 People always want something for nothing = it means that people always want something for nothing.
Jon the Hat Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 And that it has existed since 1922 so it would be reasonable to expect that pensioners factor this into their budgeting. So whip it away strikes me as the act of a man who doesn't fully appreciate where the Tories tenuous support comes from. Calm down, all they did was freeze the allowance, and signal intent to align it with everyone else, while at the same time increasing the pension so non one loses out. You would think they stole billions from people's pensions funds in a one off tax heist or something from the response today!
Parafox Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 . There's not a single person on Foxestalk who isn't more qualified to do the Chancellor job than that coke-loving gimp. I Possibly so, but it isn't Osborne who calculates and sets the budget, he is merely the "figurehead" with the title of Chancellor. He has loads of experts in the Ministry and in other institutions that devise, advise, and create budgets. He probably has to ratify their results but in reality I doubt he has much understanding of the actual implicationns of the budget. How could any single person possibly know or understand all the intricate financial considerations and calculations of a nations finances and how they're balanced. At the end of the day in simplistic terms it's moving money, income and expenditure, around to suit whatever party's doctrine, beliefs and supporters require, whoever is in power. So for some it's good, others it'll be indifferent, and some (in this case, most) it will be bad. In November we will go through it all again. The world will continue to turn...
NeilyBoy Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 People always want something for nothing = it means that people always want something for nothing. I was more concerned with the sentence as a whole (so including the "people lower down the chain of society" bit) but you've done enough to clarify that you genuinely are a pig-ignorant Tory. (Not that I have anything wrong with Tories per se - people are welcome to their views when they're held rationally and can be justified. You don't fall into that category though.) So it's the poor people who are selfishly screwing the economy out of billions of pounds with their bonuses and lobbying to not be held to account for their behaviour by an independent watchdog? Fvck right off.
Webbo Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 Calm down, all they did was freeze the allowance, and signal intent to align it with everyone else, while at the same time increasing the pension so non one loses out. You would think they stole billions from people's pensions funds in a one off tax heist or something from the response today!
Webbo Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 Did a lady with short hair once touch you inappropriately? I wish. How can Osbourne not be qualified to make economic policy because he has a degree in History but Caroline Lucas can be considered and expert opinion when her degree is in English Lit?
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 you've done enough to clarify that you genuinely are a pig-ignorant Tory. <snip> Fvck right off. The people I consider to be "lower down the chain of society" are those who bleed the system dry, those who pop out kids they can't and never will be able to afford, those lazy barstewards who rely on the hard-working to subsidise their fags, booze, plasma tellies etc. I suspect the majority of these live in poorer areas and would vote Labour. My folks didn't really have a pot to piss in when I was a kid - b&w telly, second hand clothes, a week at Butlins if we were lucky - but they taught me the value of hard work and never expecting something for nothing. Too many want something for nothing these days and those "down the chain" would appear - certainly from my anecdotal evidence - to believe things are their god-given right. I am a Tory, yes. And totally proud of it, too.
Greg2607 Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 Surely the reality is this..............as a country, we are financially "in the shit". we have record levels of debt and a large budgetary deficit. A declining "employed" population and as such less people contributing to the "coffers". Whichever party was in power, the budget was never going to be one which made people better off on the whole. The fuel duty rises have already been factored in to the governments balance sheet, so any reduction here would have had to be re-couped elsehwere. The rise on fags is predictable, as a smoker myself, I absolutely have a choice as to whether I want to pay that amount for cigarettes and it's getting close to a point where I say I dont. That clearly is a benefit and once which in theory reduces the future impact on the NHS. i'd get used to the idea of being worse off and contributing more. The financial mess we are in will be with us for a generation.
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 Spot on, Greg. But the lefties will still moan that the Tories are to blame for everything because, well, that's what they always do.
NeilyBoy Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 The people I consider to be "lower down the chain of society" are those who bleed the system dry, those who pop out kids they can't and never will be able to afford, those lazy barstewards who rely on the hard-working to subsidise their fags, booze, plasma tellies etc. I suspect the majority of these live in poorer areas and would vote Labour. My folks didn't really have a pot to piss in when I was a kid - b&w telly, second hand clothes, a week at Butlins if we were lucky - but they taught me the value of hard work and never expecting something for nothing. Too many want something for nothing these days and those "down the chain" would appear - certainly from my anecdotal evidence - to believe things are their god-given right. I am a Tory, yes. And totally proud of it, too. What does a barsteward do exactly? Secure the perimeter around the barman in a nightclub? In response to the points you made (something I'm disappointed to see you didn't do me the courtesy of, instead choosing to ignore the truths inconvenient to your views and steamrolling onwards to more ignorance): Please provide examples of these people popping out kids they can't afford and never will be able to. I'm not denying there's an alarming rate of teen pregnancies in this country (I presume that's what you're talking about), but do you honestly believe that these people all think that providing for their children isn't their responsibility and choose not to pursue work? The truth is most people on benefits don't want to be but are obviously relying on the state when they have to. Yes there are benefit frauds out there who do use children to screw the system, but they are a minority and don't necessarily even have the kids they claim benefits on. This is undoubtedly a problem but it's nowhere near as much of a detriment to our country as the few rich people who have hoovered up our stimulus packages, left the economy teetering and jetted off to some sunny tax haven. I'm sorry that your parents didn't have access to a toilet when you were growing up. The fact that you had a b&w telly isn't hardship. YOU HAD A TELLY. Besides, I had a b&w set growing up until about the age of 6 and I'm 22, so from a more recent era where colour TV's actually were the norm. I'm not whining about it. I'm pleased you understand the importance of working hard but that's not exactly a revelation to shout about. As for the final bit: " Too many want something for nothing these days and those "down the chain" would appear - certainly from my anecdotal evidence - to believe things are their god-given right." Jesus wept. You have every right to be proud of your political alignment. I'm sure it makes you feel all peachy inside knowing you backed the winners of the election. I just wouldn't be so proud of my ability to apply reason if I were you.
Parafox Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 What does a barsteward do exactly? Secure the perimeter around the barman in a nightclub? In response to the points you made (something I'm disappointed to see you didn't do me the courtesy of, instead choosing to ignore the truths inconvenient to your views and steamrolling onwards to more ignorance): Please provide examples of these people popping out kids they can't afford and never will be able to. I'm not denying there's an alarming rate of teen pregnancies in this country (I presume that's what you're talking about), but do you honestly believe that these people all think that providing for their children isn't their responsibility and choose not to pursue work? The truth is most people on benefits don't want to be but are obviously relying on the state when they have to. Yes there are benefit frauds out there who do use children to screw the system, but they are a minority and don't necessarily even have the kids they claim benefits on. This is undoubtedly a problem but it's nowhere near as much of a detriment to our country as the few rich people who have hoovered up our stimulus packages, left the economy teetering and jetted off to some sunny tax haven. I'm sorry that your parents didn't have access to a toilet when you were growing up. The fact that you had a b&w telly isn't hardship. YOU HAD A TELLY. Besides, I had a b&w set growing up until about the age of 6 and I'm 22, so from a more recent era where colour TV's actually were the norm. I'm not whining about it. I'm pleased you understand the importance of working hard but that's not exactly a revelation to shout about. As for the final bit: " Too many want something for nothing these days and those "down the chain" would appear - certainly from my anecdotal evidence - to believe things are their god-given right." Jesus wept. You have every right to be proud of your political alignment. I'm sure it makes you feel all peachy inside knowing you backed the winners of the election. I just wouldn't be so proud of my ability to apply reason if I were you. WOW!!!
NeilyBoy Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 Looks like we'll agree to differ then, Neil I agree that we differ. That's the first thing you've got right so far.
Daggers Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 I agree that we differ. That's the first thing you've got right so far. I refer the honourable gentleman to the survey carried by the Daily Mail about right-wing voters published some moments ago.
NeilyBoy Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 I refer the honourable gentleman to the survey carried by the Daily Mail about right-wing voters published some moments ago. Link? I can't find it.
Daggers Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 How can Osbourne not be qualified to make economic policy because he has a degree in History but Caroline Lucas can be considered and expert opinion when her degree is in English Lit? Her reference was in connection with the priorities of the budget and their Green credentials in relation to the Tory election manifesto promises. Do you not think that someone who has been working within and been one of the leading people within the Green movement since 1986, and as her professional job as a politician since the turn of the century, could possibly have gained some insight into this facet of politics by now? Not to mention that she actually got a First by her own merit rather than spending time being a drugged-up incompetent twat and having Daddy lob a sweetener at the University to guarantee a 2:1. I would consider her to be his intellectual superior by some distance...but then I consider one of my chickens to be intellectually superior to Osborne. Do I agree with all of her viewpoints? Absolutely not - her position on homeopathy is an absolute joke, but when she highlights the abject failure of this government to be "the greenest ever" she speaks with authority and knowledge. As I point out below, it really isn't compulsory for you to blindly follow a party warts and all and it does the nation no favours that so many of you do. You would think they stole billions from people's pensions funds in a one off tax heist or something from the response today! And yet again you seem to be mistaking me for someone who votes or cares about Labour, despite having been told numerous times, but at least you seem to see the equivalence in the unfairness of both of the policies even if you are struggling with the impact of Osborne's party piece he mumbled his way through yesterday. Your response, but more so the anecdotal garbage being spouted by willy puller, typifies everything that is wrong with the current party based system - none of you in your little gangs can bear to take on board policy criticism without trying to blame it upon whoever preceded you in power; you always assume the critic must obviously bat for the other side.
Daggers Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 Link? I can't find it. Daily Mail, 8th February "Right-wingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study" Which came as a surprise to, err, nobody except those who are devout readers of the Daily Mail.
Webbo Posted 22 March 2012 Posted 22 March 2012 Her reference was in connection with the priorities of the budget and their Green credentials in relation to the Tory election manifesto promises. Do you not think that someone who has been working within and been one of the leading people within the Green movement since 1986, and as her professional job as a politician since the turn of the century, could possibly have gained some insight into this facet of politics by now? Osbourne been an MP since 2001 knows nothing Caroline Lucas a professional politician since the turn of the century must have gained insight. Hmm, I don't see it myself.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.