|
|
Post by peterdevo on Oct 10, 2010 20:25:01 GMT
Seems to think millionnaires should get child benefit.
I suppose he is one himself so it gives him an excuse to whinge.
I can't see too much wrong with the idea of those who are earning plenty not getting child benefit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Agadoo on Oct 11, 2010 11:21:46 GMT
Seems to think millionnaires should get child benefit. I suppose he is one himself so it gives him an excuse to whinge. I can't see too much wrong with the idea of those who are earning plenty not getting child benefit. Does he think we should borrow the money to pay for it as well? |
|
|
|
Post by Belgian Yellow on Oct 11, 2010 11:45:02 GMT
You idiots don't know how class politics really works.
a) these are token cuts for high earners. They will be followed by much more severe cuts for everybody else. When we complain we'll be told "everybody has to share the pain" and that the child benefit cut will be wheeled out as an example of the rich sharing the pain.
b) there is a principle at stake here - do you lot understand what a principle is? Once you get rid of something like universal benefits, the whole welfare structure is open to attach. This has clearly happened with university tuition fees. First the Labour government introduces limited fees. Everyone says this is fair. Now the priniciple of fees has been accepted, all controls are being removed and we'll end up with a US style system where only the rich can afford the top universities.
If you lot are so interested in the rich paying more - WHY DON'T YOU CALL FOR A RISE IN TOP RATE INCOME TAX?
|
|
|
|
Post by Agadoo on Oct 11, 2010 13:24:26 GMT
But this issue is not about the rich paying more, it's a review of the benefits system and removing certain entitlements.
As for the rich paying more, there's only so far you can go with that. These People are often wealth creators and if you tax them to death they will leave. and why do we always assume that wealthier people should pay more? I imagine they have worked hard in life to get where they are and they don't rely on the state for anything. Let's not demonise the wealthy
|
|
|
|
Post by boris on Oct 11, 2010 13:53:33 GMT
The poor and vulnerable are soft targets. They're the ones who suffer most when indirect taxes (such as VAT) are increased and when benefits are cut. It's Tories like Moobs who believe that as long as they're not affected benefit cuts and rises in indirect taxation are good things, but as soon as someone suggests an increase in income tax with a percentage that means the rich are more badly affected he comes out with the "wealth creators" and "don't demonise the wealthy" bollocks.
If Moobs had his way there'd be no equal pay act, no minimum wage and devil take the hindmost.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterdevo on Oct 11, 2010 19:40:29 GMT
The question is should millionnaires get child benefit?
The answer should be an emphatic yes. Would you rather they be left as they were?
Top level taxes could be raised but not by the levels some people are suggesting.
Is it not right too that benefit levels should be addressed? There is nothing as far as I know in the pipeline to suggest that unemployed people looking for work are about to have their benefits cut. That is just malicious scaremongering.
What needs to be looked at are the loopholes that allow the payment of huge amounts of taxpayers money to undeserving causes. And I also think that there are far too many tax loopholes that need to be closed too. Anyone disagree?
If Moobs had his way there'd be no equal pay act, no minimum wage and devil take the hindmost.
Not so sure that many people of any political motive would agree with that one, even Moobs
|
|
|
|
Post by boris on Oct 11, 2010 20:01:06 GMT
Can you provide a link to a respectable source that shows where EM says millionaires should receive child benefit (those exact words or the equivalent)? And being opposed to means testing isn't the same (as Belgian Yellow so eloquently points out).
|
|
|
|
Post by Belgian Yellow on Oct 11, 2010 20:01:08 GMT
The question is should millionnaires get child benefit? The answer should be an emphatic yes. Would you rather they be left as they were? Top level taxes could be raised but not by the levels some people are suggesting. TYPICAL TORY RESPONSEIs it not right too that benefit levels should be addressed? There is nothing as far as I know in the pipeline to suggest that unemployed people looking for work are about to have their benefits cut. That is just malicious scaremongering. What needs to be looked at are the loopholes that allow the payment of huge amounts of taxpayers money to undeserving causes. YOU MEAN THE BANKERS?And I also think that there are far too many tax loopholes that need to be closed too. Anyone disagree? If Moobs had his way there'd be no equal pay act, no minimum wage and devil take the hindmost. Not so sure that many people of any political motive would agree with that one, even Moobs MOOBS IS A SURREY STOCKBROKER - HE DOESN'T GIVE A... |
|
|
|
Post by Agadoo on Oct 11, 2010 20:56:54 GMT
Oh yes it's those horrible bankers again, the usual skapegoat. Change the record. How much revenue do banks bring into this country's economy?
It's so easy for people to get on their soapbox and blame everyone else for this county's problems. All these so called 'hard working' honest working class people, they're always being given a raw deal, no they're not, there's a food chain - deal with it. The thing i've noticed over 13 years of the Labour dictatorship is the blame culture and the fact that ordinary so called poor people are always owed something, why? This country can be prosperous but only because people get off their arses and make it that way. Go and live in Africa and see how bad life really is when you're poor. I honestly believe there should be a better redistribution of wealth but we have to rid this country of the labour mantra of people at the bottom being owed by the better off, it's a load of liberal crap which really drags this country down. I believe in the 'get on your bike' attitude. If you can't find a job or life's done you a bad turn, it's your problem, do something to change it....
|
|
|
|
Post by kenskeen on Oct 11, 2010 21:07:41 GMT
How much revenue do banks bring into this country's economy? I. it's currently minus £2trillion- 2 thousand billion the baks have cost this country in toxic debt. - they have wasted 33,000 pounds for each man woman and child in the country. Let them and the individuals who made the decisions do something to tidy up the mess they have made. not by foregoing child benefit but by returning to the public purse the enormous amounts of money they have siphoned off. |
|
|
|
Post by peterdevo on Oct 12, 2010 7:58:22 GMT
The banks are returning to profit so will be doing that.
Ed Milliband has been quoted in several papers as stating that everyone with children should be entitled to child benefit. Presumably that includes the like of Richard Branson and Duncan Bannatyne.
During this recession lots of people have lost lots of money. This is often based on risks taken. you have to get on with it.
Some have taken the route of self employment like me. If I strike I don't earn. of I put in the effort I can do well.
Bob Crowe is happy though to draw in excess of £100000 and hold the public to ransom when to have a job should be viewed as fortunate.
Society should look after it's less able, and should be there to help with say the NHS but should not be seen as a cash cow by so many who are unprepared to look after their futures.
Moobs is right to a point. We all have a responsibility to put in the effort and get on in life and not let the state take the strain
|
|
|
|
Post by boris on Oct 12, 2010 9:53:10 GMT
It's not the wealthy who create the wealth, it's the workers they employ to do the dirty work for them.
I'm also self-employed, but that doesn't mean I've lost my perspective of what is right and equitable, or that I no longer believe the state has a duty to protect its poorest and most vulnerable members. I'd like the Tories to explain where they have a problem with the sentiment: "From each according to their means, to each according to their needs"?
"Moobs is right to a point." You've just lost any credibility you may have had with that statement right there!
|
|
|
|
Post by peterdevo on Oct 12, 2010 13:52:24 GMT
Everyone has a different viewpoint on what is fair and equitable.
I don't want to see the unemployed on the breadline nor do I want to see the genuinely sick and disabled not cared for by the state.
I just feel like so many that the system needs a radical overhaul. Reduce the scroungers and prevent tax evasion more by the wealthy than the poor, as they have the best accountants to help them
|
|
|
|
Post by Yellow River on Oct 12, 2010 15:07:23 GMT
An orgy of irresponsible lending and the World's Bankers have managed to wreck the global economy, tax payers end up buying the debt to stop the banks going to the wall and the bankers still think they deserve 70 billion in bonuses.
Mervyn King and the Bank of England have failed for 10 consecutive months to beat the 2% inflation target, how come he still has a job?
Real inflation (for things we actually need) somewhere between 5-10%, interest rates at 0.5%, and now George Osborne has given the green light to start money printing, this will lead to higher inflation followed by higher interest rates.
The Bankers are laughing at us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Agadoo on Oct 12, 2010 15:14:49 GMT
Everyone has a different viewpoint on what is fair and equitable. I don't want to see the unemployed on the breadline nor do I want to see the genuinely sick and disabled not cared for by the state. I just feel like so many that the system needs a radical overhaul. Reduce the scroungers and prevent tax evasion more by the wealthy than the poor, as they have the best accountants to help them At the end of the day we need a sound economy, we need to restore growth and you cannot build a sound economy on borrowed money. The coalitions programs of cuts are good, the sooner you pay off debt the less you will pay in future years and money can be put back into the economy rather than wasted on interest |
|
|
|
Post by Sheik Djibouti on Oct 12, 2010 16:30:33 GMT
It's always good to put thing in perspective:
Our current Budget Deficit stands at £178 billion
We (and yes it is our money)have bailed out/propped up the banks to the tune of £889 billion pounds
£400 billion in asset purchases and lending
£200 billion in cash bailouts
£289 billion in nationalising banks (including £56bill to Lloyds, HBOS & RBS, £48 billion to Northern Rock & Bradford & Bingley)
Seeing as just about all of these that received our money are now back to the good old days of obscene profits and bonuses, perhaps they'd like to spend a small amount of our money wiping out the budget deficit for us each year - seeing as we've been so good to them.
Is the severity of the coming spending cuts really that necessary or is this more about the government abdicating responsibility to Dave's "Big Society" instead?
|
|
|
|
Post by peterdevo on Oct 12, 2010 18:10:24 GMT
The thing that gets me too is that there is a lot of talk about breaking up banks into smaller units.
Why then is Santander allowed to buy up Abbey and Bradford and Bingley, then allowed to take over the operation of Natwest and RBS branches
|
|
