-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Dear oh dear Ed Milliband, what a joke of a man !!!
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
That just makes it clear how little respect people have for him. Changing his job title won't make a bit of difference.
Robspur12
John Lacy
I feel that inheritance tax is immoral. Not because I am against paying tax. But if you have paid for your assets with money that has already been subject to tax, be it income tax, VAT etc I think you should not be forced to hand over another 40 % to the state when you die. You should be able to give it to who you like. However, I am all for increasing property tax rather than income tax as the former is "unearned" income. I do not like increases in income tax, as to a certain extent it is a tax on work and we should incentivise work. I would however, re evaluate the council tax bands to ensure those with the most valuable properties pay more tax. It is IMO ridiculous that the £2 million pound home owners in the Borough of Wandsworth pay less council tax than me living in outer london in a much cheaper property.
Btw the person who says pay is linked to what the market dictates is a little naive IMO. A lot of where you end up in life is luck, and knowing the right people not about hard work. The market does not come into it. A physiotherapist on the NHS can work all the hours GHod sends but still not be wealthy whereas footballers with very little talent can earn fortunes even in the championship because their clubs have become the play thing of a super rich sugar daddy. Or perhaps they are the manager of a football club who fail time and time again and are given huge playoffs to get them out of the club. Or a politician with inherited wealth who milked the expenses system then got an executive position on a board by scratching a few backs. It happens all the time. I am all for hard working people doing well but that is so often not the case.
Btw the person who says pay is linked to what the market dictates is a little naive IMO. A lot of where you end up in life is luck, and knowing the right people not about hard work. The market does not come into it. A physiotherapist on the NHS can work all the hours GHod sends but still not be wealthy whereas footballers with very little talent can earn fortunes even in the championship because their clubs have become the play thing of a super rich sugar daddy. Or perhaps they are the manager of a football club who fail time and time again and are given huge playoffs to get them out of the club. Or a politician with inherited wealth who milked the expenses system then got an executive position on a board by scratching a few backs. It happens all the time. I am all for hard working people doing well but that is so often not the case.
Last edited:
Baleforce
Ron Henry
sorry, Twitter link dropped off
White Van Man confounds the sneering stereotypes. By writing a manifesto containing the phrase "send them back" http://t.co/wmlTuXKNM9
That's true, but Labour are supposed to be the party of "salt of the earth white van man" .
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
No, that is not socialism, that is a prejudiced rant! You really are the master of the poorly expressed invalid generalization.
I think it's fair to say that a main aim of socialism is redistribution of wealth (if you can find a form that doesn't involve the redistribution of my wealth I'd be impressed).
All RC has done is describe the real world outcome of redistributing wealth.
Robspur12
John Lacy
Nonsense. For people to succeed they don't just need to work hard they need to break glass ceilings. They need good public services, education, health care and social housing among other things. The Tories opposed all such things and continue to attack them. Perhaps you should look back 150 years ago when many of these things were not around and most ordinary people lived in true abject poverty. Yes Labour are not perfect but thank GHod for these less than perfect individuals to give us a progressive society. By the way Labour Party values are not about stopping people who work hard doing well. It's about when you have done well contribute to help others too as others would have done not just hold on to everything for yourselves.
Last edited:
Robspur12
John Lacy
While the Tories and Ukip are falling over themselves to woo them to their side.
Robspur12
John Lacy
That is too simplistic. They believe in the "wealth" of the Country being shared amongst more than just the elite. Their aim IMO is not to make people poorer, although some go too far, but in reality it should be to make more people have a better standard of living. And if you look back 150 years ago you will see people living in poverty whilst an elite just kept their money moving amongst themselves. That is the roots of the modern Labour Party.
The current party is a long way from those roots.
I agree that there is some need for those who have succeeded to provide for those who can't. That can't justify more than 40% of my earnings being taken away though, that's just obscene. That amount is not helping others that's just a cruel and unusual punishment.
Robspur12
John Lacy
I agree with you I am uncomfortable with taking so much from working people and I certainly do not agree with paying 50% or more of my earnings to the state but on the other hand the costs of not having good public services would be greater to many people. Even the wealthy need the army, police nurses, doctors etc.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
The is no real need for more social housing in this country we already have far more social housing then Germany and a lot of other European countries(taking population size into account) utter myth that we need more social housing we do not. Agree on the others though, which is why Grammar schools are so good for helping people break the education glass ceiling.
Aren't the rental laws in Germany much more in favour of the tenant though? Either way, you need secure, good value and affordable accomodation to be provided somehow, at the lower end of the market. How you get there perhaps isn't so important -- but a market heavily in favour of landlords added to a lack of social housing being built = a long waiting list for social housing. So sure, don't build anymore social housing, but then legislate for the private rental sector accordingly.
All most people want is a roof over their head that they can afford and that isn't in danger of being taken away from them at the drop of a hat. I say this as a tenant of social housing, who appreciates his good fortune.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
Yeah I will go along with that, perhaps limiting the amount of properties a person can own, 2 maximum? we are a small country so two is enough. I open myself up to a call of hypocrisy here because I own a house where I live and another house and a flat in Worthing to rent out. Maybe if I and others had not gone so heavily into the buy to let mortgages then maybe Gordon Brown's shamble of pension reform would have come under more scrutiny.
I've got no issue with social housing being built, it's a good investment for the government. The thing that blocks up housing at the moment is that you get to keep it even when you don't need it any more.
I agree that, given the current shortage of social housing, it's a bit ridiculous that someone could earn £100k a year and live in a council house. Though I would say that most people who occupy social housing aren't in that situation and they do need an affordable rent. Certainly that's the case of the people I know.
Richie
Naybet
Sadly I don't think this is true. Sure people want an affordable roof over their head, but they want it in the area that they want, with each of their kids getting their own room etc...
I don't have a problem with the 'bedroom tax' in principle, but the implementation has been woeful. Those with disabilities should have been exempted on a case by case basis, and nobody should have to pay extra unless there is somewhere for them to move to and they have chosen not to. It's unfair to charge someone for staying put when they had no alternative.
Well, you can want whatever you like, but if you're that picky you won't get a place. My place is about 15 miles further out from where I used to live, but we just had too many people ahead of us on the list for that area. Further out, in the countryside there wasn't so many people (mainly imo, because you need to be able to drive to live where I do) ahead of us on the list and we were able to get this place.
Your kids only get their own room (for the purposes of social housing) when they reach a certain age, or if the room is just way too small for 2 kids. Else you won't be classed as overcrowded, so your kids will share the room.
The problem with the 'bedroom tax' is that there aren't enough smaller properties available for people to downsize into, because rents are so high for people on low incomes that the demand for the smallest (and therefore, cheapest) places is already very high. So the squeeze is being put on a lot of people for a scheme that doesn't really make the government any decent money, due to the cost of having to implement it in the first place.