[Archived] The General Election 2015

[Paul]

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.

When I get home I'll have a think about which one of my three to shoot........... probably best to pick the one who costs the taxpayer the most.

[yoda]

When I get home I'll have a think about which one of my three to shoot........... probably best to pick the one who costs the taxpayer the most.

Would that not be like blaming the victim

[jim mk2]

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

Childish pots and kettles, Norman.

[imy9]

I am benefiting from the latest budget, however morally wrong to give tax breaks to rich and hit the poorest.

The bankers got us into the financial crisis not the poor. Yet the poorest are tasked with cutting the deficit.

A society should be judged by how we treat the most vulnerable. Absolutely disgusted by how the poor are being priced out of a university place too.

[Baz]

The tory MP on question time is allowed to say Cameron was only asked about child benefit, without correction.

Very poor.

[Gav]

Why aren't we taxing the banks we bailed out?

How many bankers went to jail for crashing the world economy?

Let's hammer the poor....

[thenodrog]

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.

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

And how exactly did labour attack tax evasion during their thirteen years in charge?

[thenodrog]

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."

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

Rubbish. Any Inheritance has been paid for by their parents \ relations. All that's been done is raise inheritance tax to a more realistic level. The "richest" will still have to pay inheritance tax to subsidise the weaker and work shy within society.

The Tories have yet again done what the Tories do

The rich get richer the poorer get poorer

Thats just tired old socialist rhetoric from a previous era abbey. Means nothing unless you explain the reason for your comments.

[thenodrog]

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.

Another definition of your attitude could be 'theft'. If someone takes money from whilst you are alive its robbery. Why should that change the minute you die? It's already been subject to taxation once hasn't it?

[thenodrog]

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.

Born? Christened more like.

Could have been worse..... He could have started out as Doris or John perhaps? People change their names for all sorts of reasons don't you know?

[thenodrog]

I am benefiting from the latest budget, however morally wrong to give tax breaks to rich and hit the poorest.

The bankers got us into the financial crisis not the poor. Yet the poorest are tasked with cutting the deficit.

A society should be judged by how we treat the most vulnerable. Absolutely disgusted by how the poor are being priced out of a university place too.

When I went to school people who earned the right through academic achievement were offered a grant to attend university. Pretty sure Blair would have benefitted from the same. Odd then that his govt introduced tuition fees and the horrific student loan system whilst advocating a crazy 'uni for all' policy. As far as I can see instead of being primarily to provide conditions for the most intelligent to realise their potential to the benefit of all further education is now just another stealth tax.

Why aren't we taxing the banks we bailed out?

How many bankers went to jail for crashing the world economy?

Let's hammer the poor....

"However, it will be replaced by an 8pc tax on annual profits, on top of the corporation tax that lenders already pay. It means well actually raise more from the banks this parliament, but at the same time make our country a more competitive place to do business, said Mr Osborne.

Http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11727332/Budget-2015-Banks-hit-by-1.6bn-tax-hike.html[/url]

[thenodrog]

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?

What a parasitical attitude you have developed den. If you have no responsibity to the planet you can have as many kids as you want den.... Just don't expect anybody else to pay for them.

BTW just as an aside are you a Roman Catholic? I only ask because the Catholic church ruled against contraception, advocated indicriminate procreation for centuries and indoctrinated their subjects accordingly.

[T J Hooker]

Kin el, 6 posts in a row from the same person(all ignored i might add), zzzzzzz

This forum really could do with some new blood.

[Biddy]

. Absolutely disgusted by how the poor are being priced out of a university place too.

How is that the case? What's actually happening is that loans are replacing grants so the same money is still there so everyone who wants to go can still go to Uni.

The current system is unfair on families that earn enough money to get by. If parents earn just over the threshold, no grant is paid to a person going to Uni. That person already has to get a FULL loan with no possibility of the parents having any spare cash to subsidise.

Personally I think it's much fairer everyone having loans. None of it will ever get paid back anyway so everyone's a winner but the tax payer.

Kin el, 6 posts in a row from the same person(all ignored i might add), zzzzzzz

This forum really could do with some new blood.

and what was the point in that post?

[T J Hooker]

I thought it was pretty self explanatory.

[adopted scouser]

Kin el, 6 posts in a row from the same person(all ignored i might add), zzzzzzz

This forum really could do with some new blood.

Yeah, yours all over it.

Knob.

[T J Hooker]

I thought it was pretty self explanatory.

[den]

What a parasitical attitude you have developed den. If you have no responsibity to the planet you can have as many kids as you want den.... Just don't expect anybody else to pay for them.

BTW just as an aside are you a Roman Catholic? I only ask because the Catholic church ruled against contraception, advocated indicriminate procreation for centuries and indoctrinated their subjects accordingly.

Here we go. Parasitical attitude. Am I a Roman Catholic? I knew we'd finish at this point.

I'll just say this. I don't understand how normal, everyday working people take the first chance they can to label anyone in receipt of a benefit as lazy dole dolloper or a benefit scrounger, while at the same time defending any tax reduction that any of the richest people are given. Especially at times like this, where were told that were broke. As for families with children, well yes I believe they should be supported. I don't think there's any evidence that the country is going to collapse if some families have a third child, nor do I believe they shouldn't be supported for that child.

So I'll leave it there Gordon.

[Al]

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.

Then it's even more childish because it isn't his name any more.

I may not have your knowledge of politics but I do know that I am now comfortable from having worked all my life and much as you would love to take it off me there is nothing you can do about it Red Jim.

[Al]

When I get home I'll have a think about which one of my three to shoot........... probably best to pick the one who costs the taxpayer the most.

Try shooting yourself. That would even things up.

[Al]

Here we go. Parasitical attitude. Am I a Roman Catholic? I knew we'd finish at this point.

I'll just say this. I don't understand how normal, everyday working people take the first chance they can to label anyone in receipt of a benefit as lazy dole dolloper or a benefit scrounger, while at the same time defending any tax reduction that any of the richest people are given. Especially at times like this, where were told that were broke. As for families with children, well yes I believe they should be supported. I don't think there's any evidence that the country is going to collapse if some families have a third child, nor do I believe they shouldn't be supported for that child.

So I'll leave it there Gordon.

The difference is Den that tax is taking from people what they have rightfully earned whereas benefits is giving to people what they have not earned.

When it comes to the third child, have one if you must but don't expect it to be supported. Why should you?

[adopted scouser]

Kin el, 6 posts in a row from the same person(all ignored i might add), zzzzzzz

This forum really could do with some new blood.

Yeah yours all over it

[Al]

Yeah yours all over it

Pot, kettle, black. He embarrasses himself with every post. Give it up TJ.

[imy9]

How is that the case? What's actually happening is that loans are replacing grants so the same money is still there so everyone who wants to go can still go to Uni.

The current system is unfair on families that earn enough money to get by. If parents earn just over the threshold, no grant is paid to a person going to Uni. That person already has to get a FULL loan with no possibility of the parents having any spare cash to subsidise.

Personally I think it's much fairer everyone having loans. None of it will ever get paid back anyway so everyone's a winner but the tax payer.

and what was the point in that post?

A young person from a poor background is less likely to go to university without the financial assistance that the grants provide. If you Google The Sutton Trust they have done research in this area to support this.

Universities will become for the elite again and generations of kids will have little/no expectations. From a personal point of view, I would not have gone to university without the grants that were offered.

[Al]

A young person from a poor background is less likely to go to university without the financial assistance that the grants provide. If you Google The Sutton Trust they have done research in this area to support this.

Universities will become for the elite again and generations of kids will have little/no expectations. From a personal point of view, I would not have gone to university without the grants that were offered.

I'm actually in agreement with this. If we want this country to be successful we have to educate the most intelligent youngsters from whatever background. Grants should be available to anyone who is intelligent enough.