The poor voted in Labour who created this mess in the first place remember that.

 

Even if that was true, are you now advocating punishing people for who they vote for?

Even if that was true, are you now advocating punishing people for who they vote for?

 

LOL... Good point...

 

Then I guess I should go round to Craig's place and beat the crap out of him for voting in Thatcher who stole Scotland's North Sea oil.... :P

 

Meanwhile, it seems as though there's a good chance the Budget will be declared illegal, as, by the Treasury website's own admission, the government failed to carry out the required tests to check no minorities would be disproportionately hindered by these measures. Theresa May actually privately warned them of this a few days before the Budget was announced.

Meanwhile, it seems as though there's a good chance the Budget will be declared illegal, as, by the Treasury website's own admission, the government failed to carry out the required tests to check no minorities would be disproportionately hindered by these measures. Theresa May actually privately warned them of this a few days before the Budget was announced.

When I heard that this morning my opinion of Theresa May actually went up. Not that it could have gone much further down.

On Radio 4 this morning, Treasury minister Mark Hoban appeared to confirm they hadn't carried out the legally-required equalities tests. Transcript:

 

Justin Webb: Can I just ask you this quick question: have you conducted an assessment which you are required to do by law by the equalities act of 2010 to find out what affect this budget has on ethnic minorities, disabled, other vulnerable groups?

 

Mark Hoban (Treasury minister): Look Justin, we went through a very detailed distributional analysis at the time of the Budget, it was the most extensive piece of work anyone has done.

 

JW: But have you conducted this assessment?

 

MH: And it looked across a wide range of households in a way that other governments haven't done, and I think the choice that we faced...

 

JW: So hold on, can I just get straight from you, have you conducted this legal assessment or not?

 

MH: Justin, we have gone through the most detailed and rigourous assessment of the distributional impact of this Budget than any government...

 

JW: So you've not, you've not actually done the assessment that you're required to do under the 2010 act?

 

MH: We've gone through the most rigorous assessment of the impact of this Budget on families...

 

JW: But not this formal assessment?

 

MH: We've gone through, Justin, this is the best and most detailed piece of work any government has done on the impact of their Budget on families and households...

 

JW: Can I just get it clear from you, you've not done the formal assessment some people think you are required to do under the equalities act 2010?

 

MH: Justin, I think you know you are looking at detail rather than actually at recognising the fact we had to take some difficult decisions in the Budget to tackle the deficit we inherited from Labour, the choice we faced was either to take action now or to do nothing...

 

 

The last line had me in stitches! :lol: God forbid people actually look at "the detail". It's so "old politics" of those pesky thinktanks to look at such technicalities as facts - why can't the public just accept that the Cuddly Coalition and the "new politics" is progressive because George and Nick said it was?

When I heard that this morning my opinion of Theresa May actually went up. Not that it could have gone much further down.

 

Sometimes things have to be done for the greater good as opposed to being hamstrung by political correctness or legal technicalities.

 

Take the disabled for instance, no genuinely disabled person will be having benefits cut, those that are faking and trying it on and playing the system will lose out but the happiest people at that happening should be the genuinely disabled themselves as the fakers and shirkers are getting genuinely disabled tarred with the same brush

 

 

Sometimes things have to be done for the greater good as opposed to being hamstrung by political correctness or legal technicalities.

 

Take the disabled for instance, no genuinely disabled person will be having benefits cut, those that are faking and trying it on and playing the system will lose out but the happiest people at that happening should be the genuinely disabled themselves as the fakers and shirkers are getting genuinely disabled tarred with the same brush

 

It's nothing to do with "PC" or "legal technicalities", if this lot haven't done what is legally REQUIRED, then the budget is illegal, full stop... I for one hope that this happens and Georgie-boy ends up with egg all over his face...

 

I just dont buy this crap that the disabled wont suffer under this, of course they will, I dont see how a 25% cut to Public Services for example, wouldn't adversely affect the disabled, seeing as how they would be a group who would rely on Public Services much more than anyone else....

 

Oh dear, oh dear, so aren't the ConDems in a right pickle, the Budget may be declared illegal and Unison are mounting a legal challenge against their NHS "reforms"... Brilliant..... :lol: :lol:

It's nothing to do with "PC" or "legal technicalities", if this lot haven't done what is legally REQUIRED, then the budget is illegal, full stop... I for one hope that this happens and Georgie-boy ends up with egg all over his face...

 

I just dont buy this crap that the disabled wont suffer under this, of course they will, I dont see how a 25% cut to Public Services for example, wouldn't adversely affect the disabled, seeing as how they would be a group who would rely on Public Services much more than anyone else....

 

Oh dear, oh dear, so aren't the ConDems in a right pickle, the Budget may be declared illegal and Unison are mounting a legal challenge against their NHS "reforms"... Brilliant..... :lol: :lol:

 

The country can't spend what it hasn't got, I would love a utopia where everyone works, where everyone is happy, where everyone is healthy, where fluffy bunnies hop majestically through the fields but instead we have harsh economic realities having come through the deepest recession for over 70 years, the country can't afford to spend like it has and to borrow like it has, harsh economic realities, if the budget is overturned in court there is 2 choices

 

1) Keep things as they are and slide deeper and deeper into debt

2) Scrap the cuts in services and raise income tax steeply

 

Both of those measures are economic suicide, I bet these Unison workers will be the first to complain when their income tax is put up by 10p, I bet the lawyers who are bringing the case against Osborne to court will be the first to complain when Osborne scraps the budget and instead puts another 10p on top rate tax

 

 

The country can't spend what it hasn't got, I would love a utopia where everyone works, where everyone is happy, where everyone is healthy, where fluffy bunnies hop majestically through the fields but instead we have harsh economic realities having come through the deepest recession for over 70 years, the country can't afford to spend like it has and to borrow like it has, harsh economic realities, if the budget is overturned in court there is 2 choices

 

1) Keep things as they are and slide deeper and deeper into debt

2) Scrap the cuts in services and raise income tax steeply

 

Both of those measures are economic suicide, I bet these Unison workers will be the first to complain when their income tax is put up by 10p, I bet the lawyers who are bringing the case against Osborne to court will be the first to complain when Osborne scraps the budget and instead puts another 10p on top rate tax

 

And yet sacrificing our Triple-A credit rating isn't?

And yet sacrificing our Triple-A credit rating isn't?

 

That isn't going to happen, the IMF not long ago praised us for taking measures to curb the debt, even the report that was put on here yesterday was a misleading headline and the danger of it happening are minimal not to mention countries like USA and Germany who are more powerful than us were mentioned.

 

The country can't spend what it hasn't got, I would love a utopia where everyone works, where everyone is happy, where everyone is healthy, where fluffy bunnies hop majestically through the fields but instead we have harsh economic realities having come through the deepest recession for over 70 years, the country can't afford to spend like it has and to borrow like it has, harsh economic realities, if the budget is overturned in court there is 2 choices

 

1) Keep things as they are and slide deeper and deeper into debt

2) Scrap the cuts in services and raise income tax steeply

 

Both of those measures are economic suicide, I bet these Unison workers will be the first to complain when their income tax is put up by 10p, I bet the lawyers who are bringing the case against Osborne to court will be the first to complain when Osborne scraps the budget and instead puts another 10p on top rate tax

 

Let him put a further 10p on the top tax rate.. TBH, I think that people earning over 250k per year should be paying at least 60% tax anyway... Because, let's face it, it was that wage group that caused the financial catastrophe in the first place, why should I or other basic rate payers be made to suffer for something that wasn't our fault...? This is question you refuse again and again to answer.... You earn 44k, well, I wouldn't make you pay for it either as astonishing as that may be to hear, I'd keep the likes of you and anyone else earning less than 100k per year down at 40% (with a 50% rate for those earning over 100k - 250k, and then 60% for 250k+, with a 70% tax on bonuses) because you're a middle-income earner, and I have no particular beef with the likes of yourself, it's only the top 5-10% who should be made to suffer for this crisis as it was their doing mainly and they can afford to shoulder the burden far better than anyone else in society can... I'd put a Robin Hood Tax on the banks as well, no question, that would likely bring in billions, I would make the likes of Lord Ashcroft pay up everything they owe, and yeah, that would work retrospectively too, right from the point that c'unt was made a bloody "lord" and William fukkin' Hague was assuring us he'd be contributing to the system... I'd also make rich corporations pay what they owe the country, these tax-dodging buggers have been getting away with taking liberties for FAR TOO LONG.....

 

ALL of these measures would have the desired effect of bringing down the deficit and the added bonus of NOT making the poor suffer... But stupid arch-Capitalist apologists such as yourself refuse to see this...

 

I seem to remember Osbourne and Cable talking tough with the banks while in opposition, now they're in power and actually in a position to do something, they're just rolling over on their bellies like tame kittens... Fukkin' w'ankers, and to think that I had respect for Vince Cable at one point.....

Let him put a further 10p on the top tax rate.. TBH, I think that people earning over 250k per year should be paying at least 60% tax anyway... Because, let's face it, it was that wage group that caused the financial catastrophe in the first place, why should I or other basic rate payers be made to suffer for something that wasn't our fault...? This is question you refuse again and again to answer.... You earn 44k, well, I wouldn't make you pay for it either as astonishing as that may be to hear, I'd keep the likes of you and anyone else earning less than 100k per year down at 40% (with a 50% rate for those earning over 100k - 250k, and then 60% for 250k+, with a 70% tax on bonuses) because you're a middle-income earner, and I have no particular beef with the likes of yourself, it's only the top 5-10% who should be made to suffer for this crisis as it was their doing mainly and they can afford to shoulder the burden far better than anyone else in society can... I'd put a Robin Hood Tax on the banks as well, no question, that would likely bring in billions, I would make the likes of Lord Ashcroft pay up everything they owe, and yeah, that would work retrospectively too, right from the point that c'unt was made a bloody "lord" and William fukkin' Hague was assuring us he'd be contributing to the system... I'd also make rich corporations pay what they owe the country, these tax-dodging buggers have been getting away with taking liberties for FAR TOO LONG.....

 

ALL of these measures would have the desired effect of bringing down the deficit and the added bonus of NOT making the poor suffer... But stupid arch-Capitalist apologists such as yourself refuse to see this...

 

A Robin Hood tax on the banks would lead to even less lending to businesses than there is now, instead of a Robin Hood tax I would impose on banks a minimum % of their revenue has to be lent to businesses (they are not doing anywhere near enough to help businesses) if they do not reach that minimum then 50% of their profits or whatever have to be given to the treasury, that gives them a carrot and stick approach and businesses are ultimately what will get us out of this mess.

 

Again I have no objection to the closing of all tax loopholes, were I an MP and that came before the house I would vote in favour of it

 

I would go further than you and impose a windfall tax on energy companies and oil companies, they are taking the p*** out of us with obscene prices while at the same time lining their pockets.

 

Again I would have no objection to the likes of Ashcroft being hammered.

 

But I am against the idea of 60% tax on the very high earners, I would have no objection at 500k or 1m but £250k includes a lot of doctors, surgeons, scientists, engineers, company directors, sports people and so on, taxing them highly would be counter productive, footballers for example if all the best ones left the premiership because of tax rates then that would not be a good thing because of the revenue that they generate, the typical F1 senior engineers and designers all earn over £250k, would it be good for this country if they left the country ? motor racing alone in this country and the spin off services employ over 100,000 people in this country, doctors/surgeons/scientists etc would leave the country for countries with lower tax. Raising tax so high at £250k would be counter productive.

Both of those measures are economic suicide, I bet these Unison workers will be the first to complain when their income tax is put up by 10p, I bet the lawyers who are bringing the case against Osborne to court will be the first to complain when Osborne scraps the budget and instead puts another 10p on top rate tax

 

You don't seem to understand what the law states. It says no Budget can widen the inequality gap - there's no legal discourse for anyone to complain about any measures which impact the richest most.

 

It seems this thing just gets better and better! It seems the Equality Act expressly forbids ANYTHING which will widen the inequality gap, meaning the Coalition may have to abandon pretty much all of their public service cuts (as it's pretty easy to prove public service cuts impact on the poorest the most). The only way the Coalition could get around it is if they repeal the act -- but I really can't see the Lib Dems repealing something called the Equalities Act. I think even Clegg would draw the line at that. I have to say, my respect for Harriet Harman (who devised the legislation) has gone up about tenfold! :lol: As the Spectator says, the Act is a "political landmine" that Labour left behind which is about to explode.

Edited August 26, 201014 yr by Danny

You don't seem to understand what the law states. It says no Budget can widen the inequality gap - there's no legal discourse for anyone to complain about any measures which impact the richest most.

 

It seems this thing just gets better and better! It seems the Equality Act expressly forbids ANYTHING which will widen the inequality gap, meaning the Coalition may have to abandon pretty much all of their public service cuts (as it's pretty easy to prove public service cuts impact on the poorest the most). The only way the Coalition could get around it is if they repeal the act -- but I really can't see the Lib Dems repealing something called the Equalities Act. I think even Clegg would draw the line at that. I have to say, my respect for Harriet Harman (who devised the legislation) has gone up about tenfold! :lol: As the Spectator says, the Act is a "political landmine" that Labour left behind which is about to explode.

 

Labour did far more to squeeze the working poor (scrapping the 10p tax band for example) than this government has ever done or ever will do, Labour have no moral right to call themselves the champion of the poor

Labour did far more to squeeze the working poor (scrapping the 10p tax band for example) than this government has ever done or ever will do, Labour have no moral right to call themselves the champion of the poor

 

Firstly, the legislation wasn't in place then, so Labour were legally entitled to scrap the 10p tax rate (even though it was morally reprehensible). Secondly, I suggest you again read the IFS's report - it expressly states that the Coalition's budget is "clearly regressive" contrasting it with Labour's "on balance, progressive" Budgets. Thirdly, it doesn't actually matter whether Labour have a "moral right" - the fact is, the Coalition is not ALLOWED to do what they're doing. If they're so committed to being progressive as they say they are, then complying with the legislation should be no problem.

But I am against the idea of 60% tax on the very high earners, I would have no objection at 500k or 1m but £250k includes a lot of doctors, surgeons, scientists, engineers, company directors, sports people and so on, taxing them highly would be counter productive, footballers for example if all the best ones left the premiership because of tax rates then that would not be a good thing because of the revenue that they generate, the typical F1 senior engineers and designers all earn over £250k, would it be good for this country if they left the country ? motor racing alone in this country and the spin off services employ over 100,000 people in this country, doctors/surgeons/scientists etc would leave the country for countries with lower tax. Raising tax so high at £250k would be counter productive.

 

I dont agree at all.. We used to have a top rate of 90% in this country in the 60s, never exactly saw the likes of Mick Jagger, Roger Daltrey or John Lennon buggering off out of the country did you.... They were still leading comfortable lives of rock-star excess regardless, so I simply dont buy it... Democratic govts all over the world, not just the UK, have to stand up to the rich, and make them pay, maybe not to the extent of 90%, but certainly a fairer proportion than they currently are... As Michael Moore pointed out in his documentary "Capitalism - A Love Story", the rich only have 1% of the vote, we have 99%.... That's called "Democracy", where the system is supposed to represent the MAJORITY, and not the MINORITY.... :rolleyes:

 

And frankly, I couldn't give a tuppeny sh!t if a bunch of over-pampered, overpaid foreign football players left the country.... GOOD... It may than force clubs to have better youth policies and look for more raw talent at home.... Too many football clubs are at the brink of bankruptcy from paying excessive wages to players... It cant be good for the game... And, frankly it's the rampant commercialism and the money that soured my love of the game in the first place....

Labour did far more to squeeze the working poor (scrapping the 10p tax band for example) than this government has ever done or ever will do, Labour have no moral right to call themselves the champion of the poor

 

And what did the Tories do for the poor then..? Must've missed that one....

 

I criticised Labour for taking it away, but hell, at least they actually had it there in the first place, the Tories never brought in that measure, EVER....

Labour did far more to squeeze the working poor (scrapping the 10p tax band for example) than this government has ever done or ever will do, Labour have no moral right to call themselves the champion of the poor

Even Gordon Brown now admits that was a mistake. And don't forget it was Brown who introduced the 10p rate in the first place.

Firstly, the legislation wasn't in place then, so Labour were legally entitled to scrap the 10p tax rate (even though it was morally reprehensible). Secondly, I suggest you again read the IFS's report - it expressly states that the Coalition's budget is "clearly regressive" contrasting it with Labour's "on balance, progressive" Budgets. Thirdly, it doesn't actually matter whether Labour have a "moral right" - the fact is, the Coalition is not ALLOWED to do what they're doing. If they're so committed to being progressive as they say they are, then complying with the legislation should be no problem.

 

I would just go ahead with the cuts anyways, what are the courts going to do ? they are hardly going to jail the chancellor, after that I would put legislation before the house to scrap the act and if the house vote it down use the royal perogative that gives the government the right to veto parliamentary decisions, it is ridiculous, a nonsense that this act should get in the way of nuking the deficit.

 

I don't deny that the poor will lose out with these measures, do I take any satisfaction out of it ? no, but these measures that were bought in to nuke the deficit are for the greater good, quicker the deficit is tackled quicker jobs can be created and taxes can be cut then everyone benefits including the poor.

 

God knows how the current generation would have coped in WW2 where we all poor and rich bonded together for the greater good to beat the enemy and rich and poor lived on rations plus Churchill would not have been able to do anything to Germany under human rights legislation and the elf n safety executive would have clamped down on every measure and we would have ended up facing the germans with peashooters, mind you the elf n safety executive would have probably banned that too incase a pea blinds a German :rolleyes:

Edited August 26, 201014 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

I would just go ahead with the cuts anyways, what are the courts going to do ?

 

Declare it illegal and compel the Chancellor to do it again. Fyi, the "royal prerogative" cannot be used to carry out an act that Parliament rejects (such as repealing the Equalities Act) but the royal prerogative CAN be used to oust a government that refuses to comply with court orders.

 

 

God knows how the current generation would have coped in WW2 where we all poor and rich bonded together for the greater good to beat the enemy and rich and poor lived on rations plus Churchill would not have been able to do anything to Germany under human rights legislation and the elf n safety executive would have clamped down on every measure and we would have ended up facing the germans with peashooters, mind you the elf n safety executive would have probably banned that too incase a pea blinds a German :rolleyes:

 

If you're seriously complaining about a requirement that insists the poorest aren't disproportionately affected by measures, then that says everything about your charater.

Edited August 26, 201014 yr by Danny