[Archived] The General Election 2015

[K-Hod]

You know what den you're absolutely right of course the Tories are concentrating on hurting the poorest in society whilst still rewarding the rich with tax breaks and ignoringing 100bn in tax avoidance/evasion.

But if one thing came out of the last election it was that the country as a whole don't care about anyone else, they care about themselves only., that's why the Tories, who said they'd hit the poor got 37% of the vote and won at a canter.

That's the salient point for me Gav.

[thenodrog]

Well it's all about wealth distribution. Is it right to prioritise taking money away from poorer, working families who have three or more children, while at the same time cutting taxes for the richest?

There's no point debating this because we'll never agree.

Well whose fault is it if you can't keep your dick in your pants den?

[thenodrog]

You know what den you're absolutely right of course the Tories are concentrating on hurting the poorest in society whilst still rewarding the rich with tax breaks and ignoringing 100bn in tax avoidance/evasion.

But if one thing came out of the last election it was that the country as a whole don't care about anyone else, they care about themselves only, that's why the Tories, who said they'd hit the poor got 37% of the vote and won at a canter. They're rely on people believing a lie that all benefit claimants are scroungers and people have fallen for it hook line and sinker.

I was watching a program the other night about a chap that was sleeping in a public toilet in Portsmouth, he was homeless and couldn't get social housing, private renting was saturated also, so he was sleeping in a public toilet. The reason he was homeless was because his son had died suddenly at 21 and he just went off the rails with grief. He was a hard working professional guy with a good job, 3 kids and a wife, but hit the bottle after losing his son and ended up on the streets. He's typical of someone who's life just changed for the worse and it wasn't really his fault, nobody knows how they'll react if they lose a son/daughter suddenly and he ended up sleeping in a public toilet due to lack of social housing, he didn't qualify as he wasn't an urgent case. The Tories want to sell off more social housing by the way when we don't have enough to go round now.

I can categorically say that we would glad have let that chap live in my soon to be rented house for free until he got himself back on his feet. Anyone that knows us would back up that statement, but how many more people would be willing to do that? not many I’d wager because as a society we're all looking after number 1 and **** everyone else.

Now I didn't see this and I doubt you have the full facts but why should you do all that when it sounds like his own wife had kicked him out? "wasn't really his fault" I don't want to be heartless but plenty of people suffer personal loss without going to the dogs just as plenty hit the bottle for no good reason. Alcoholism doesn't happen overnight does it? Anyway have you considered that his wife and surviving kids probably now have to face up to the loss of their son / brother without a father figure and presumably with significantly less income. Maybe you should allocate some of your sympathy for them gav.

[thenodrog]

That's the salient point for me Gav.

When has it ever been any different K-Hod?

[K-Hod]

When has it ever been any different K-Hod?

The country's not just about you or I, the election is no different.....

[Gav]

He hasn't hit working families who HAVE three children. He has hit families who produce a third child in two year's time. It's their own choice and two kids are enough for any family. More than that and you are increasing the population of an already over populated world and that is irresponsible and selfish which is what you accuse the Conservatives of being. It also stops the irresponsible production of children for the benefits they attract.

A family with one person working on average earnings stands to lose over £2,000 in tax credits, thats top up money because of poor wages.

This new living wage, which is to be applauded by the way, will be for the over-25s only, which will exclude many on low pay currently. He's also cut housing benefit for 18-21yr olds, what will this achieve other than more people living on the streets?

Now I didn't see this and I doubt you have the full facts but why should you do all that when it sounds like his own wife had kicked him out? "wasn't really his fault" I don't want to be heartless but plenty of people suffer personal loss without going to the dogs just as plenty hit the bottle for no good reason. Alcoholism doesn't happen overnight does it? Anyway have you considered that his wife and surviving kids probably now have to face up to the loss of their son / brother without a father figure and presumably with significantly less income. Maybe you should allocate some of your sympathy for them gav.

The point being made is not everyone is trying to get welfare/social housing etc because they're scroungers, you've highlighted that point also which is most welcome

[den]

Well whose fault is it if you can't keep your dick in your pants den?

Who are you to decide that families shouldn't have three kids Gord? Three - why not no kids? Why should families have support for any kids?

I see a lot of support on here for prioritising hitting the working poor, but no criticism for giving tax cuts to many hereditary millionaires who've never done a proper days work in their life.

[Al]

A family with one person working on average earnings stands to lose over £2,000 in tax credits, thats top up money because of poor wages.

This new living wage, which is to be applauded by the way, will be for the over-25s only, which will exclude many on low pay currently. He's also cut housing benefit for 18-21yr olds, what will this achieve other than more people living on the streets?

Why are you quoting me on this GAV. You can't take half a sentence and twist the context. I was talking about child benefits for people who already have three children not tax credits.

Anyway how can a person on average earnings have poor wages. I had to bring up a family on one wage and there were no tax credits then.

In answer to Den. No Gordon cannot stop families from having more that two children but he is perfectly entitled to object to paying for them.

[Biddy]

You know what den you're absolutely right of course the Tories are concentrating on hurting the poorest in society whilst still rewarding the rich with tax breaks and ignoringing 100bn in tax avoidance/evasion.

where do you get that from? I thought the budget specifically said they were targeting tax avoidance.

Quote from BBC

• £7.2bn to be raised from clampdown on tax avoidance and tax evasion with HMRC budget increased by £750m

OK, nothing like the 100bn that's plucked out the air but definitely states a clampdown and the desire to recoup money from such activities.

[Gav]

where do you get that from? I thought the budget specifically said they were targeting tax avoidance.

Quote from BBC

• £7.2bn to be raised from clampdown on tax avoidance and tax evasion with HMRC budget increased by £750m

OK, nothing like the 100bn that's plucked out the air but definitely states a clampdown and the desire to recoup money from such activities.

How do you think he's going to be able to do that when he's cut HMRC staff by 20%, and yes you're right 7.2bn is small change when the figures for evasion/avoidance stands at 100bn!

The numbers prosecuted last year 915, but that was better than 200 the year before! and I can say with confidence none of prosecuted will be the big boys!

He'll not go after the big boys and will continue to hit the poorest in society.

Why are you quoting me on this GAV. You can't take half a sentence and twist the context. I was talking about child benefits for people who already have three children not tax credits.

Anyway how can a person on average earnings have poor wages. I had to bring up a family on one wage and there were no tax credits then.

In answer to Den. No Gordon cannot stop families from having more that two children but he is perfectly entitled to object to paying for them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33463864

[Biddy]

I'm not saying how he's going to do it or to whom. My point is that they have committed to do more yet the same old rhetoric says "nothing to combat avoidance/evasion" when something is quite clearly there in the budget. Also, like I say, 100bn plucked out of the air and differs significantly if you read left wing rags or right wing rags (yes, they are all rags and not worth the trees)

This particular budget appears to be a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" budget. They announce non-dom status changes and its all "stolen from labour". They increase minimum wage (I'm not calling it living wage as they were clever enough to not fix it to a "living wage" alliance scale as that would more than likely be higher than £9 in 5 years time) and people say its a gimmick and doesn't go far enough. The Income Tax thresholds are raised and its "only helping the wealthy"

[Gav]

They also pledge to eradicate the deficit and reduce borrowing, they've increased borrowing and the defecit is down by only 40%.

Theyre lying swines only interested in punishing the poorest in society, the worst thing is the 37% that voted them in actually believe them!

[Al]

.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33463864

Sorry GAV but I fail to see the relevance of that quote for a family that already have three children.

If you are referring to your statement that someone on average wages is on a low wage I see that your quote uses a figure of £9.35 per hour (£18,500 pa). The average wage is more like £23,000 pa) so I don't see the relevance there and at least he has increased the minimum wage to help the lowest paid. This is a budget to encourage people to find a job and go out to work. You can't have it all ways.

[jim mk2]

Sorry GAV but I fail to see the relevance of that quote for a family that already have three children.

If you are referring to your statement that someone on average wages is on a low wage I see that your quote uses a figure of £9.35 per hour (£18,500 pa). The average wage is more like £23,000 pa) so I don't see the relevance there and at least he has increased the minimum wage to help the lowest paid. This is a budget to encourage people to find a job and go out to work. You can't have it all ways.

No it isn't. It's another attack on the poor.

And Gideon is doing it by borrowing more and taxing more than Labour ever did.

This is verdict on the Budget from the IFS, a politically independent think-tank.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33463864

[yoda]

No it isn't. It's another attack on the poor.

And Gideon is doing it by borrowing more and taxing more than Labour ever did.

This is verdict on the Budget from the IFS, a politically independent think-tank.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33463864

Who is he taxing more ?

The tax threshold is being raised

[Al]

If people are working it should not be necessary to top them up with benefits. The wages should be enough. Which is why he is increasing the minimum wage and the tax free allowance. Gifting money is not the right way. People should go out and earn it but you are so red Jim that you will never allow yourself to be convinced so there is little point in trying.

By the way if you think that calling George Osborne "Gideon" is somehow smart arse, it's his middle name and I'm sure he is not insulted by it. Rather childish to be honest.

[den]

If people are working it should not be necessary to top them up with benefits. The wages should be enough. Which is why he is increasing the minimum wage and the tax free allowance. Gifting money is not the right way. People should go out and earn it but you are so red Jim that you will never allow yourself to be convinced so there is little point in trying..

From the IFS:-

"There is simply not enough money going in to the new minimum wage to anywhere near compensate - in cash terms - people on tax credits," said Mr Johnson."

In answer to Den. No Gordon cannot stop families from having more that two children but he is perfectly entitled to object to paying for them.

Does he object to the idle rich getting tax cuts Al? Because we pay for them.

[Baz]

I'm not saying how he's going to do it or to whom. My point is that they have committed to do more yet the same old rhetoric says "nothing to combat avoidance/evasion" when something is quite clearly there in the budget. Also, like I say, 100bn plucked out of the air and differs significantly if you read left wing rags or right wing rags (yes, they are all rags and not worth the trees)

This particular budget appears to be a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" budget. They announce non-dom status changes and its all "stolen from labour". They increase minimum wage (I'm not calling it living wage as they were clever enough to not fix it to a "living wage" alliance scale as that would more than likely be higher than £9 in 5 years time) and people say its a gimmick and doesn't go far enough. The Income Tax thresholds are raised and its "only helping the wealthy"

6 years he's been promising to bring out legislation on tax evasion Biddy. In that time the government has reduced the number of people working in investigating it. Lets see, but I'll be amazed if there's another 7.2bn raised this year. And if 750m can raise 7.2 bn then why only 750m?

[ABBEY]

The Tories have yet again done what the Tories do

The rich get richer the poorer get poorer

[Al]

From the IFS:-

"There is simply not enough money going in to the new minimum wage to anywhere near compensate - in cash terms - people on tax credits," said Mr Johnson."

Benefits are to allow people to live, not to have a life of luxury on the taxpayer.

Does he object to the idle rich getting tax cuts Al? Because we pay for them.

No you don't den. It's not your money! It just allows people to keep more of the money that is rightfully theirs.

[den]

From the IFS:-

Does he object to the idle rich getting tax cuts Al? Because we pay for them.

No you don't den. It's not your money! It just allows people to keep more of the money that is rightfully theirs.

If the top people pay less tax Al, those below have to pay more.

I cant understand why hard working folk on low wages have to contribute money they can't really afford to help pay off the debt, while lazy inheritance millionaires need a tax break.

[jim mk2]

If people are working it should not be necessary to top them up with benefits. The wages should be enough. Which is why he is increasing the minimum wage and the tax free allowance. Gifting money is not the right way. People should go out and earn it but you are so red Jim that you will never allow yourself to be convinced so there is little point in trying.

By the way if you think that calling George Osborne "Gideon" is somehow smart arse, it's his middle name and I'm sure he is not insulted by it. Rather childish to be honest.

He was born Gideon and changed his name to George when he was 13 because he was so embarrassed by it.

One again, you've got your facts wrong because you know nothing.

[yoda]

He was born Gideon and changed his name to George when he was 13 because he was so embarrassed by it.

One again, you've got your facts wrong because you know nothing.

He would not be legally old enough at 13 to do that

[Biddy]

I get the impression he didn't legally do it at 13, just decided to adopt a different name as he hated the one he had. Can't see a problem with that but it's obviously something to bash him with and as always it's amazingly hilarious when its repeated over and over and over and over .....

[adopted scouser]

He was born Gideon and changed his name to George when he was 13 because he was so embarrassed by it.

One again, you've got your facts wrong because you know nothing.

It's still childish, and coming from a defender of a one eyed Scottish scruff that gulps like a landed trout.