Government scientists working just down the corridor from the health secretary way overestimated the number of people that would die from swine flu and called it a pandemic, in the end instead of 100,000+ dying the death toll was about 40

The difference being that the Health Secretary isn't in charge of the laws of science, whereas the Chancellor is in charge of the country's economy.

The difference being that the Health Secretary isn't in charge of the laws of science, whereas the Chancellor is in charge of the country's economy.

 

Only time will tell but I bet when we are debating the 2015 election campaign on here assuming BJ is still in existence/I haven't been banned I have no doubt that you will be admitting you were wrong and they were wrong about the 1.2m or whatever job losses

Only time will tell but I bet when we are debating the 2015 election campaign on here assuming BJ is still in existence/I haven't been banned I have no doubt that you will be admitting you were wrong and they were wrong about the 1.2m or whatever job losses

Oh, I didn't say I actually expected the scenario to happen - I just said, on the government's current plans of 25-40% cuts, there would be that many job losses. But now, it's pretty clear that within the next couple of years, either the Coalition will fall from office, or the Lib Dems will force the Tories to majorly row back their plans.

Oh, I didn't say I actually expected the scenario to happen - I just said, on the government's current plans of 25-40% cuts, there would be that many job losses. But now, it's pretty clear that within the next couple of years, either the Coalition will fall from office, or the Lib Dems will force the Tories to majorly row back their plans.

 

I think you over estimate the Lib Dems tbh, power corrupts, I think the Lib Dems in the cabinet bar possibly Cable couldn't be further up Cameron's arse if they tried now that they have got a whiff of power, the Lib Dems are morphing into Tories, Danny Alexander seems further to the right than the bulk of the shadow cabinet for instance.

Government scientists working just down the corridor from the health secretary way overestimated the number of people that would die from swine flu and called it a pandemic, in the end instead of 100,000+ dying the death toll was about 40

The highest estimate for swine flu was more like 30,000 IIRC and that use using the worst case scenario for a number of different estimates. No scientist claimed that that figure was likely. It was completely overblown by the press.

Because they have lumped all the poor in together in the same basket working and unemployed and have come up with an average of the 3 without taking into account circumstances

 

Suppose 1 sector is going to be 10% better off (lets say for arguments sake the working poor who are going to not pay tax any more and will have increased tax credits)

Suppose 1 sector is going to be about the same (lets say for arguments sake the unemployed poor)

Suppose 1 sector is going to be 20% worse off (for arguments sake they are being moved from incapacity benefits they dont need as they are fit for work)

 

+10

0

-20

 

= the average of the 3, THAT is my point

 

They are going for headline grabbing doomsday scenarios instead of seperating the working poor, the unemployed who want to work and the cheats who are ripping us off in their calculations

 

800,000 people in work are going to be better off substantially thanks to being taken out of tax ENTIRELY, on top of that a gain thanks to child tax credits

I think it's fair to assume that, if that was the case, at least one of the Mirror, Guardian or Independent would have carried a headline along the lines of "Poorest up to 20% worse off under coalition".

 

The highest estimate for swine flu was more like 30,000 IIRC and that use using the worst case scenario for a number of different estimates. No scientist claimed that that figure was likely. It was completely overblown by the press.

 

Was using it as an example that "experts" can get things wrong and overestimate things really and the swine flu thing was the first thing that entered my head

I think it's fair to assume that, if that was the case, at least one of the Mirror, Guardian or Independent would have carried a headline along the lines of "Poorest up to 20% worse off under coalition".

 

Indeed, I wasn't speaking literally I was showing him how I believed they calculated their 5% total as it did seem a very sweeping generalisation given the near 800,000 taken out of tax and the increase in tax credits

Indeed, I wasn't speaking literally I was showing him how I believed they calculated their 5% total as it did seem a very sweeping generalisation given the near 800,000 taken out of tax and the increase in tax credits

 

800,000 doesn't come close to the 7m who make up the poorest 10% of society. And even for that 800,000, they'll be affected by VAT increases, child benefit freeze and various other things.

Indeed, I wasn't speaking literally I was showing him how I believed they calculated their 5% total as it did seem a very sweeping generalisation given the near 800,000 taken out of tax and the increase in tax credits

And I too was using an example. If the figures showed what you suggested, at least one paper will have picked on the highest loss and run that as a headline.

800,000 doesn't come close to the 7m who make up the poorest 10% of society. And even for that 800,000, they'll be affected by VAT increases, child benefit freeze and various other things.

 

Exactly, it's about 10% of the poorest in society... What about the rest...? As far as VAT goes, it's all very well for Craig to say , "oh, it doesn't affect food prices", well, okay, what about utilities...? You pay VAT on those.... It's a disgusting Stealth Tax which should be only applied to luxury items (cars, plasma TVs, etc), it shouldn't be put upon your phone, internet or utility bills... VAT is basically theft in my book because it doesn't take into account a person's actual income..

 

It's pretty obvious to me that cuts in Public Services will affect certain groups in society (such as the disabled) to their detriment, and there will be obvious inequalities there as it will affect a disbled person's quality of life, even moreso than the working poor, especially if certain vital services are cut-back or scaled down as a result of Govt spending cuts... If this were to happen, it would more than likely be in contravention of the Disabled Rights Act...

 

Craig can come up with all the useless fukkin "war" metaphors he wants, the facts are that when the war was on, a house in Chelsea was just as likely to be hit by a German bomb as a house in Hackney or Mile End, so rich and poor were equally likely to lose their homes, it's certainly NOT the case here with these cuts.... <_<

Exactly, it's about 10% of the poorest in society... What about the rest...? As far as VAT goes, it's all very well for Craig to say , "oh, it doesn't affect food prices", well, okay, what about utilities...? You pay VAT on those.... It's a disgusting Stealth Tax which should be only applied to luxury items (cars, plasma TVs, etc), it shouldn't be put upon your phone, internet or utility bills... VAT is basically theft in my book because it doesn't take into account a person's actual income..

 

It's pretty obvious to me that cuts in Public Services will affect certain groups in society (such as the disabled) to their detriment, and there will be obvious inequalities there as it will affect a disbled person's quality of life, even moreso than the working poor, especially if certain vital services are cut-back or scaled down as a result of Govt spending cuts... If this were to happen, it would more than likely be in contravention of the Disabled Rights Act...

 

Craig can come up with all the useless fukkin "war" metaphors he wants, the facts are that when the war was on, a house in Chelsea was just as likely to be hit by a German bomb as a house in Hackney or Mile End, so rich and poor were equally likely to lose their homes, it's certainly NOT the case here with these cuts.... <_<

 

Depends what you define as poor

 

Poor to me is not being able to or struggling to afford food, kids having scurvy and rickets, mould built up inside houses, lack of or unclean running water, THAT to me is poor

 

Poor in this country these days seems to be having to make do without the sports channels, only having a 46" plasma in the lounge and not one in the bedroom too etc

 

I refuse to believe that there is 7m in this country who are under fed and are at risk of disease

Depends what you define as poor

 

Poor to me is not being able to or struggling to afford food, kids having scurvy and rickets, mould built up inside houses, lack of or unclean running water, THAT to me is poor

 

Poor in this country these days seems to be having to make do without the sports channels, only having a 46" plasma in the lounge and not one in the bedroom too etc

 

I refuse to believe that there is 7m in this country who are under fed and are at risk of disease

You know as well as I do that the measure of poverty used is relative poverty. The standard yardstick is a household below 60% of median income. In other words, the assumption (a perfectly valid one in my opinion) is that the poorest should benefit from a general increase in the wealth of a country rather than being left behind.

Depends what you define as poor

 

Poor to me is not being able to or struggling to afford food, kids having scurvy and rickets, mould built up inside houses, lack of or unclean running water, THAT to me is poor

 

Poor in this country these days seems to be having to make do without the sports channels, only having a 46" plasma in the lounge and not one in the bedroom too etc

 

I refuse to believe that there is 7m in this country who are under fed and are at risk of disease

 

I can't actually believe the outrageousness of this post. You have in the past said you're in the top tax band (i.e. you earn over £150,000 a year), and you have said you "can't afford" to pay more tax, that it would be "unfair". And yet, even though you apparently can't cut anything out of your £150k income, you have the nerve to tell people who earn £10k a year that they don't know how good they've got it and that they should make more sacrifices?

I can't actually believe the outrageousness of this post. You have in the past said you're in the top tax band (i.e. you earn over £150,000 a year), and you have said you "can't afford" to pay more tax, that it would be "unfair". And yet, even though you apparently can't cut anything out of your £150k income, you have the nerve to tell people who earn £10k a year that they don't know how good they've got it and that they should make more sacrifices?

 

Me earn £150,000 ? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

I bloody wish lol, I earn 44k

Me earn £150,000 ? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

I bloody wish lol, I earn 44k

 

Why did you protest a few weeks ago when I suggested new tax bands for those over £65,000? You implied you'd be affected.

Why did you protest a few weeks ago when I suggested new tax bands for those over £65,000? You implied you'd be affected.

 

I have aspirations yes, in the future I hope I will earn that sort of money, I will be disappointed if I don't but in the last financial year I paid myself £44,800

 

I don't think that any higher tax rates should be set at anything below £500k

I have aspirations yes, in the future I hope I will earn that sort of money, I will be disappointed if I don't but in the last financial year I paid myself £44,800

 

I don't think that any higher tax rates should be set at anything below £500k

 

But according to you, people on the minimum wage should shut up and stop complaining due to the fact they don't have scurvy. Therefore, considering you have four times as big an income as those pampered people, surely you should think that you SHOULD pay more tax?

But according to you, people on the minimum wage should shut up and stop complaining due to the fact they don't have scurvy. Therefore, considering you have four times as big an income as those pampered people, surely you should think that you SHOULD pay more tax?

 

44,800 less 40% tax and other contributions less private healthcare contribution less over 1k a month rent less food less petrol less running a car less broadband, less mobile phone contract, my disposable income after my expenses is probably not much higher than many on welfare who are a couple and have kid/s infact probably less

 

How is it fair that a family that scrounge have more disposable income or as much as someone who works 50 hrs a week

Edited August 27, 201014 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

44,800 less 40% tax and other contributions less private healthcare contribution less over 1k a month rent less food less petrol less running a car less broadband, less mobile phone contract, my disposable income after my expenses is probably not much higher than many on welfare who are a couple and have kid/s infact probably less

 

How is it fair that a family that scrounge have more disposable income or as much as someone who works 50 hrs a week

Don't be RIDICULOUS. Do you seriously think that that much of £120 per week (which would be the highest a couple with kid/s would get in direct benefits a week) ends up being DISPOSABLE? The poor pay for gas, water, electric and food as well, you realise?

 

You have a bizarre definition of disposable income. Your private healthcare bills, luxury food, broadband and mobile phone contract count as disposable income, which is the income you have left over after tax.