May 25, 201015 yr Most of it is paper wealth though, shares in their company typically, it is not cash in the bank that they have, shares can crash and so on, their wealth increase is not cash in the bank it is slips of paper (share certificates) The point is though that some people are so wealthy that they could, if they chose to do so, reduce the deficit massively - after all, they could donate the shares to the Treasury if they wished - without actually noticing the difference. Of course, it's not going to happen and it's nothing like as simple as that. But it doesn't alter the fact that there are people - many of whom inherited their wealth - who won't notice any of the cuts announced this week while others will suffer badly.
May 25, 201015 yr The point is though that some people are so wealthy that they could, if they chose to do so, reduce the deficit massively - after all, they could donate the shares to the Treasury if they wished - without actually noticing the difference. Of course, it's not going to happen and it's nothing like as simple as that. But it doesn't alter the fact that there are people - many of whom inherited their wealth - who won't notice any of the cuts announced this week while others will suffer badly. They are contributing to the UK economy way more via other means, some of them Branson for example employ tens of thousands of people, if I remember correctly the Barclay brothers employ over 50,000 in their various businesses so by employing so many people they are generating tax for the UK economy by employing people who might otherwise be on welfare, sure Branson probably wouldn't notice a couple of billion missing but it is the principle of the matter, instead of sneering at him and looking at ways to raid his bank account we should be grateful to him for providing tens of thousands of jobs.
May 25, 201015 yr They are contributing to the UK economy way more via other means, some of them Branson for example employ tens of thousands of people, if I remember correctly the Barclay brothers employ over 50,000 in their various businesses so by employing so many people they are generating tax for the UK economy by employing people who might otherwise be on welfare, sure Branson probably wouldn't notice a couple of billion missing but it is the principle of the matter, instead of sneering at him and looking at ways to raid his bank account we should be grateful to him for providing tens of thousands of jobs. It's a pity the Barclay brother choose not to pay any tax though. And I'll sneer at Branson as much as I like. I used to use Virgin Trains and I still use Virgin Media.
May 25, 201015 yr It's a pity the Barclay brother choose not to pay any tax though. And I'll sneer at Branson as much as I like. I used to use Virgin Trains and I still use Virgin Media. Agreed about the trains, fukkin dire and his planes are no better tbh but I love his internet service, has pioneered 10mb, 20mb, 50mb and now 100mb and often upgrades customers for free etc, it goes down occasionally but every net company does
May 25, 201015 yr Author They are contributing to the UK economy way more via other means, some of them Branson for example employ tens of thousands of people, if I remember correctly the Barclay brothers employ over 50,000 in their various businesses so by employing so many people they are generating tax for the UK economy by employing people who might otherwise be on welfare, sure Branson probably wouldn't notice a couple of billion missing but it is the principle of the matter, instead of sneering at him and looking at ways to raid his bank account we should be grateful to him for providing tens of thousands of jobs. And do you really think that Branson doesn't have loads of money sitting in savings accounts? If he was taxed at a higher rate, it wouldn't make a single difference to his company's employment rates.
May 25, 201015 yr Author ANYWAY - Craig, even if you personally disagree with these proposals, do you agree that they would get Labour elected if there was an election within the next two years?
May 25, 201015 yr Cameron is probably the best political orator since Churchill WHAAAAAAAAT?!?!? :rolleyes: :lol: :o :rolleyes: :lol: :o Oh please.... he performed, at best, fair-to-middling on each of the three televised debates. To make a statement like this is so wide of the mark it's pretty unintentionally hilarious.
May 25, 201015 yr I personally think that inheritance tax DOES need reforming, but only simply - by taxing based on the wealth of the recipient, rather than the person giving. Voila, a quick way of turning it into a self-redistributive system!
May 25, 201015 yr Author WHAAAAAAAAT?!?!? :rolleyes: :lol: :o :rolleyes: :lol: :o Oh please.... he performed, at best, fair-to-middling on each of the three televised debates. To make a statement like this is so wide of the mark it's pretty unintentionally hilarious. Yeah, I was particularly baffled by Craig saying that Cameron's speech on the day after the election was so great. Literally all he said in that speech were words to the effect of "Clegg, call me"! It barely even counted as a speech, it was more a press conference.
May 25, 201015 yr Yeah, I was particularly baffled by Craig saying that Cameron's speech on the day after the election was so great. Literally all he said in that speech were words to the effect of "Clegg, call me"! It barely even counted as a speech, it was more a press conference. And the bit after ... where he said "and bring me a Starbucks while you're on the way over". Norma
May 26, 201015 yr ANYWAY - Craig, even if you personally disagree with these proposals, do you agree that they would get Labour elected if there was an election within the next two years? Nah I don't tbh, politics is cyclical, Labour will be out of power for at least 10 years IMHO, with the 5 year fixed terms now I don't believe we will see Labour again before 2025 Labour believe in control, nanny state, big brother, Conservative believe in independence, freedom, personal choice, even if there is some economic pain ahead I think we will win the next 2 elections
May 26, 201015 yr Nah I don't tbh, politics is cyclical, Labour will be out of power for at least 10 years IMHO, with the 5 year fixed terms now I don't believe we will see Labour again before 2025 Labour believe in control, nanny state, big brother, Conservative believe in independence, freedom, personal choice, even if there is some economic pain ahead I think we will win the next 2 elections Freedom for the minority. Also, a simple question - if you're not doing anything wrong, why are you so bugged about being watched? If you don't like it get the hell out of the country, it's not like we'll know since the Tories got rid of exit checks :P I have such a problem with people who are against the DNA database and the like. It's for OUR benefit, do you really think they have some ulterior motive? There wasn't some basement below Downing Street where a mad scientist was making clones of us all, get real. It's the 21st century, welcome.
May 26, 201015 yr Freedom for the minority. Also, a simple question - if you're not doing anything wrong, why are you so bugged about being watched? If you don't like it get the hell out of the country, it's not like we'll know since the Tories got rid of exit checks :P I have such a problem with people who are against the DNA database and the like. It's for OUR benefit, do you really think they have some ulterior motive? There wasn't some basement below Downing Street where a mad scientist was making clones of us all, get real. It's the 21st century, welcome. I am not fussed about the DNA database either way The Labour government curtailed huge numbers of our civil liberties and privacy in the name of prevention of terrorism, they also spied on us like no government has before with excessive CCTV and speed cameras (speed cameras are a particular hate of mine) and the ID cards that would have come in had they got in again and that is not to mention how they could spy on our emails/phone calls/texts/websites we visit, we had the least privacy in the civilised world. On top of that we could not smoke (I am a non smoker btw), they made jobsworths at councils act like gestapo with regards our bins and they would not let us protest in parliament sq, they told us how many hours we could work too Labour ran a nanny state and borderline police state where they loved telling us what to do, a conservative government will set us free, let us make our own decisions, spend less time telling us what we can do.
May 26, 201015 yr Author Nah I don't tbh, politics is cyclical, Labour will be out of power for at least 10 years IMHO, with the 5 year fixed terms now I don't believe we will see Labour again before 2025 Ahahahaha. You realise that, even in the government's honeymoon period, and with the incompetent Harriet Harman leading the opposition, the opinion polls even now are showing the Tories still wouldn't get close to a majority if another election was held today? If they're not topping 40% in their honeymoon, how on earth do you think they would when the cuts were starting to bite? Imo, the key point will be mid-2012. If the coalition is still going at that point, they'll probably benefit from a successful Olympics and the substantial economic boost and public goodwill that will bring, and they'll probably be able to sell off the government's shares in the banks at a profit by then. So if they can survive two years, then unfortunately the Tories might win the next election. BUT, if the coalition falls apart before mid-2012, then Labour are practically guaranteed a majority. It all depends on Vince Cable - I think when he walks out, the coalition's days are numbered -- and if we believe the press, it's a matter of months before he has enough. :wub: Anyway, you can't deny that a pledge to "soak the rich" as you put it WOULD be hugely popular with a majority of the public, who aren't going to understand why the hell the multi-millionaires in the Cabinet are telling us we have to make cutbacks. Admittedly, it would probably make Labour even more unpopular in the rural shires of the South, so admittedly Labour wouldn't get the landslides of the Blair years - but frankly, that's something I'd welcome, as it would stop them trying to ram through silly things like their civil liberties bills over the last 13 years.
May 26, 201015 yr I am not fussed about the DNA database either way The Labour government curtailed huge numbers of our civil liberties and privacy in the name of prevention of terrorism, they also spied on us like no government has before with excessive CCTV and speed cameras (speed cameras are a particular hate of mine) and the ID cards that would have come in had they got in again and that is not to mention how they could spy on our emails/phone calls/texts/websites we visit, we had the least privacy in the civilised world. On top of that we could not smoke (I am a non smoker btw), they made jobsworths at councils act like gestapo with regards our bins and they would not let us protest in parliament sq, they told us how many hours we could work too Labour ran a nanny state and borderline police state where they loved telling us what to do, a conservative government will set us free, let us make our own decisions, spend less time telling us what we can do. You didn't answer my question, why are you bothered? Who cares they're watching us? They're the Government, not exactly the last people I'd want watching me. The difference is that I believe that speed cameras are there to prevent deaths on the road, CCTV is there to prevent crime, whereas you are convinced that it's for some other benefit or that Gordon Brown sat in Downing Street wanking over people walking down the street. Get real.
May 26, 201015 yr Speed cameras reduce road deaths by 9000 a year. Get over the fact that you can't drive as fast as you can everywhere and get used to the fact that they save lives.
May 26, 201015 yr Ahahahaha. You realise that, even in the government's honeymoon period, and with the incompetent Harriet Harman leading the opposition, the opinion polls even now are showing the Tories still wouldn't get close to a majority if another election was held today? If they're not topping 40% in their honeymoon, how on earth do you think they would when the cuts were starting to bite? Imo, the key point will be mid-2012. If the coalition is still going at that point, they'll probably benefit from a successful Olympics and the substantial economic boost and public goodwill that will bring, and they'll probably be able to sell off the government's shares in the banks at a profit by then. So if they can survive two years, then unfortunately the Tories might win the next election. BUT, if the coalition falls apart before mid-2012, then Labour are practically guaranteed a majority. It all depends on Vince Cable - I think when he walks out, the coalition's days are numbered -- and if we believe the press, it's a matter of months before he has enough. :wub: Anyway, you can't deny that a pledge to "soak the rich" as you put it WOULD be hugely popular with a majority of the public, who aren't going to understand why the hell the multi-millionaires in the Cabinet are telling us we have to make cutbacks. Admittedly, it would probably make Labour even more unpopular in the rural shires of the South, so admittedly Labour wouldn't get the landslides of the Blair years - but frankly, that's something I'd welcome, as it would stop them trying to ram through silly things like their civil liberties bills over the last 13 years. Time will tell but I don't think "soak the rich" would be a vote winning policy at all, it would merely shore up Labour's existing vote tbh and Labour is only really popular in Scotland, Wales, city areas, the NE etc, Labour wouldn't win any seats in rural areas which is very much conservative heartland. A pledge to soak the rich would just be preaching to the already converted. Wouldn't get new votes.
May 26, 201015 yr You didn't answer my question, why are you bothered? Who cares they're watching us? They're the Government, not exactly the last people I'd want watching me. The difference is that I believe that speed cameras are there to prevent deaths on the road, CCTV is there to prevent crime, whereas you are convinced that it's for some other benefit or that Gordon Brown sat in Downing Street wanking over people walking down the street. Get real. I have nothing to hide but I am a very private person, don't like being snooped on, if I wanted that kind of thing I would move to China My emails,texts, phone calls and websites I visit are my business not Labour's
May 26, 201015 yr I have nothing to hide but I am a very private person, don't like being snooped on, if I wanted that kind of thing I would move to China My emails,texts, phone calls and websites I visit are my business not Labour's What's that got to do with CCTV cameras in public places? Labour aren't, and never were, snooping on your e-mails, texts, phone calls and websites :blink:
May 26, 201015 yr Speed cameras reduce road deaths by 9000 a year. Get over the fact that you can't drive as fast as you can everywhere and get used to the fact that they save lives. Everyone just carries on speeding and brake hard just before a speed camera and accelerate away again, that is what I do, that is what everyone I know does, speed cameras are a stealth tax If anything they would CAUSE more accidents as people are watching out for where speed cameras are and watching the speedometer instead of their surroundings, speed cameras would take away people's concentration I am a speeder, I break the speed limit everywhere except in schools areas and residential areas There is a justification having speed cameras near schools but nowhere else
Create an account or sign in to comment