Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Oh, deary, deary me, but we do tend to see just what we want to see...Mr. Newsam.
I get no sense of anybody here promoting the actions (proposed actions) of the IMF or the ECB, except Barry, with a proviso or two.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
Tom Austin wrote:Oh, deary, deary me, but we do tend to see just what we want to see...Mr. Newsam.
True of all of us Tom, but some more than others.
btw Tom, thanks for the memory, I haven't been Deary Deary Me'd since I left my primary school teacher a present in my pants!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Promoting the actions of the ECB - not me Tom, not at all. You are the one defending the EU/Cypriot action.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
One road to a deficit free UK is by implementing my proposals of local Government becoming self-financing, through a higher proportion of local tax revenue and less taxes going to the Treasury.
So long as it remains clear that local Administration cannot make debt or issue any paper values, then it will work.
It is in fact the way forward, but will require Britain to leave the EU.
However, some of this could be (have been) implemented even before we leave the EU.
Some assets would belong to the local Community, others would be free enterprise.
But no asset belonging to the local Community could be in a state of debt.
This was the basis for my Port proposal, which I kept true to all along.
One day, the People will realise this, and as all is well documented, even officially, I have something to build upon for my future aspirations.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
No Alexander. There is only one road to getting rid of the deficit, cutting spending and taxes to boost growth. Playing pass the parcel will not work.
Leaving the EU would be helpful though along with freeing us from their interfering and red tape.
Councils are part of the state and their costs are therefore part of the problem.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
glad only you thought of it alexander
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Of-course only I thought of it, Keith. Which is why the it remains a standing policy of mine.
And it's also a reason why the State is in a bad financial situation that's worsening all the time, because the Government is adhering to the current system of enormous centralised taxing and denying local Administration any effective say assuring a sane economy.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Alexander
now you have convinced me your deluded lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 868- Registered: 25 Jan 2013
- Posts: 490
Alexander D wrote:Of-course only I thought of it, Keith. Which is why the it remains a standing policy of mine.
And it's also a reason why the State is in a bad financial situation that's worsening all the time, because the Government is adhering to the current system of enormous centralised taxing and denying local Administration any effective say assuring a sane economy.
Still don't know how you can call your strange ideas 'policies' - they are just your pipe dreams and nothing more....
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Trouble is Paul
This is nothing new,
even my buddies paulw and barryw have been saying the same for years
yet suddenly its only alexanders idea
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, cutting taxes IS part my policy (post 44): " less taxes going to the Treasury".
That's what I've been writing all along.
And self-financing local Government would also be responsible for all unemployment-related benefit payments within its administrative area, AND have the duty to assure employment to the residents of British citizenship.
The result would be a significant drop in benefit payments, and therefore in Government spending.
I suppose one day, people will realise that what I'm writing here makes sense, and that even you, Barry, are saying "no" to exactly that which you yourself are preaching, namely a cut in taxes and a cut in Government spending.
Because clearly, once unemployment-related benefits are cut significantly, people will not need to pay so much tax, will they??
Because a lot of tax we pay goes on benefits, does it not??
And with more people in employment, there'd be greater spending-power among the populace, which in turn enhances production and trade (be it internal commerce or international). Which in turn stimulates further - and continuous - employment.
As said, we need to leave the EU to put this policy into practice, as it will only work when employment is offered to local people first, and, as a second option, to British citizens in general.
And local economic administration boards need to make sure the rules are applied within their area and that people are not left to languish in unemployment when they want to work.
Hence, free enterprise employers need to be monitored, to make sure they are not busily importing workers from abroad and dumping local people on the benefit system. And dumping the extended families of these imported workers on the benefit and social service system.
After all, we pay for it!
And where there is no production at all in any given sector, or insufficient production, it needs to be introduced/enhanced, even if this means factories run and owned as a community asset. So if all the textile and electronics industries have been outsourced to China, the Authorities will simply reintroduce them and employ US.
This way, we would not have millions of people coming over from other countries and getting jobs, while placing wife and children on housing and child benefit at our expense, and sending their earnings home (abroad). while forcing up the cost of housing.
We would not have millions of unemployed British people living on unemployment and housing benefits and being unable to live a decent life. We would not have a housing shortage and hyper-inflated house and rent prices.
We would not be importing just about everything from China and India.
Result: unemployment and housing benefits (Government spending) would fall drastically and so there'd be no need to pay so much tax to cover these benefits.
Also, millions of people and their families would have a decent income rather than being forced into benefits and sheer poverty.
To suggest this is insanity, and keep arguing and bickering and rubbishing it off, deserves no further comment!
I won't change my views, and there is no alternative.
The current economic system is insane.
This goes as much for Labour, Keith, as for the Conservative party, Barry!
Guest 868- Registered: 25 Jan 2013
- Posts: 490
Back to the real world....
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Its not realy a political thing alexander
as probably barryw and I are at one on this
your incorrect alexander lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander seems to imagine that just passing the parcel of taxes between local government and central government is the same as cutting taxes. weird. As Paul says, lets get back to the real world and yes Keith, we are.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
I'm unsure if alexander understands national govt/local govt etc
whilst not wanting to muddy the waters on a recent peoples port thread alexander was indicating control should be given to DHB and local councils I wouldn';t gove control to either
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
It's always the same group of people who keep having a go at me all the time and every time.
Looks like a systematic campaign of non-stop demoralisation in the name of a few political parties.
Then they try to take my ideas away from too and claim them as their own.
Guest 868- Registered: 25 Jan 2013
- Posts: 490
Alexander D wrote:It's always the same group of people who keep having a go at me all the time and every time.
Looks like a systematic campaign of non-stop demoralisation in the name of a few political parties.
Then they try to take my ideas away from too and claim them as their own.
You really think that the 'government' look at Dover Forum to nick 'your' ideas??
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Why else Paul?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The Government has turned down my proposals, as has everyone else they came in contact with.
Something to do with finances, officially, and "the real world".
The "real world" can be a hard one. Especially when you've lost the sense of orientation.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Or the will to live lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS