Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#41
Keith, post 34:
If the Tories and UKIP divide the vote, Labour could get a resounding majority, owing to the first past the post method.
I'm surprised you still haven't sussed this one out!
To prevent this, there have to be some spectacular decisions soon, certainly well before the next GE.
DC will have to make some straight-forward decisions, and make them soon, if he wants to prevent a total demise of the Tories.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#42
Andrew Marr programme............Osborne what a plonker....
Osborne ( we are all in it together....2010 ) finally after two and a half years he `thinks` the rich should ``now`` pay more ...
...ie,contribute to the deficit kitty which Joe Public has been savaged to reduce on it`s own......
After 3,000 HMRC redundancies he ``now``decides to increase HMRC staff to tackle Tax Avoidance.......after two and a half
years of ignoring the problem......
When asked about Plan ``B`` he says to ``turn back now would be a complete disaster ``......only for him and Cameron......not
for 90 % of us....who have to still suffer 80 % more cuts plus another £ 10 Billion more off Well-fare benefits....
They really are the Party of the Rich.....
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#43
The Chancellor only decided to tackle corporation tax avoidance when the scandal blew up a week ago and it became public.
And when Starbucks customers started boycotting Starbucks.
Clearly the Cabinet understood that people would boycott the Tory party too!
That we're not all in this together is common knowledge. Unless Gov. does something really significant, we will assist the demise of two parties from British reality.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#44
Osborne told ``Benefits cuts will be tragedy for millions and Britain``
A coalition of charities and campaigners tell Osborne not to penalise the poor at a time when food and Utility prices are rising
and will put more children in ``Poverty``
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#45
Well, people in work have taken pay cuts and freezes its time for those on benefits take some of the strain. Why should those on benefits get off scot free while those generating the wealth to pay those benefits see their pay and standard of living eroded? Benefits are far too high anyway and, as such, are one of the economic problems we have. I exclude pensioner from this, of course.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#46
# 45....``I exclude pensioner from this of course ``.....could that be because Osbornes attack on Four Million ```high earners`
Osborne`s Autumn Statement ``will reduce Pensions of.......``£ 50,000 pa may be cut.............
Surely the Party for the Rich............
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#47
A history lesson for you Reg that in the 2006 pension 'simplification' Gordon Brown set an annual allowance of £215,000 for pension contributions. Osborne brought that down to £50,000 - quite a sensible move I thought. Your attempt to point score falls flat on it face.
Bringing it down to below £50k would cause problems for people, particularly self-employed and small business people, who spend all their money building up businesses when younger and then heavily fund a pension in the last years before retirement.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#48
Must agree History is important but the present is essential of life which could soon become a disreputable History......
...your fixation on Gordon Brown `could` damage your health........
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#49
Not a fixation - informing you of a fact that left your point scoring somewhat redundant Reg - it is specifically relevant to what you were saying.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
#50
Can't say I agree or disagree with you on benefits Barry as I am clearly not au fait with the various available.
Maybe you could tell us what benefits you would cut, firstly, of course telling us what the current benfits are.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#51
Read Barry's post 45.
Then read this from Sky News today:
"Over the last financial year, the chief executives of Britain's top companies have seen pay increase by 12% on average to £4.8m - or 185 times the average wage - the High Pay Centre said in a report."
Deborah Hargreaves, the High Pay Centre's director, said:
"It's wrong that Britain's bosses are taking home more and more money as their companies shrink, their employees are squeezed and jobs are being lost."
"Chief executives are hoping that their big bonus and their inflated rewards culture will escape attention, now that the banking crisis has passed."
She added that the pay increases were "damaging to the economy and to the morale of Britons struggling to make a living".
"The majority of growth has not been in salaries, the report found, but in bonuses, grants of restricted shares, long-term incentive plans and new pay structures."
The think tank said a "dramatic simplification" of top pay packages was needed, because "in the vast majority of cases, the way leaders are rewarded remains complex and hidden from public scrutiny".
"High pay - with rewards that are out of kilter with results - is having a corrosive impact on our living standards, our economy and our society," Ms Hargreaves added."
Then reread Barry's post!!!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#52
just had a brief glance but i cannot see how jobseekers allowance is enough to encourage people to lay in bed all day.
https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowanceGuest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#53
Chief Executives are not paid by the taxpayer but a market rate for doing a job. The public do not have any rights to scrutinise your pay Alexander so what is different to a company chief exec?
Very different issue to benefits.
Howard - you know as well as I do that you cannot take that one benefit in isolation.
Woops - nearly missed you Dave.
I did not say cut them but to freeze them. I would freeze benefits for 5 years. Which ones? - all of them except the State Pension.
I start from the basis that these benefits are all far too high and should be returned to being only a more basic safety net as they were before Brown. Doing so gradually by freezing them over a long period is a better way than cutting them. It allows people to adjust.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
#54
Not quite an answer to my question Barry. Surely before you say that benefits should be cut or frozen you must know how much an individual receives, you also broaden your knowledge by claiming that benefits were merely a safety net before Brown.
Clearly your knowledge is greater than mine so my question will be easy for you to answer.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#55
Dave - the benefit system is a complex one and in fact its far too complex. Freezing them all is simple enough to understand. Some such as tax credits need to be phased out all together but one step at a time.
Plenty of people make benefits a lifestyle choice.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
#56
Yes freezing them is perfectly simple to understand and yes the benefits system is complex but the fact is you neither care or know what the current rate of benefits is now so how are you qualified to make such a sweeping statement?
With food increasing in price and everything else going up, you believe that a single person can live on £71.00 per week and I'm talking about the genuine unemployed not the scroungers.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#57
Dave - I do actually have a pretty good idea what they are. Believe it or not I have some clients who are on benefits, either because they are temporarily our of work, suffer ill health or get tax credits.
Sometimes you have to be hard to be kind and the benefit system is too generous overall. There is no shortage of people who have never worked a day in their lives, living on benefits, who have smart-phones, 42" tvs and smoke/drink. That is all I need to justify saying that benefits are too high.
That though is not the point.
People in work have had to make sacrifices such as pay freezes and pay cuts, it is time that those on benefits carried some of the burden with a benefit freeze. Why should only people who work hard take all the knocks?
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#58
i know someone who has a 50quid tax credit cut,and there council tax bill has gone up 50quid a month.and yes they are working.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#59
Surely the same can soon be said of those in work, but who pay no income tax because they earn less that the £10-£12K allowance threshold you propose Barry, it's not their money then that pays the benefits?
Why is it that some in employment take the knocks and others, paid through some imagined market-force mechanism, are above all of this?
The ceiling on benefit payments is often spoken of as there to reduce the amount of money paid to the claimant, when really the bulk of this money goes straight to the landlord, and much of the rest to EDF etc.
Your arguments are no more than;he who has gets more, he who has not gets less. It's like the last two hundred years never took place.
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
#60
Barry, working tax credit is NOT a benefit!
By trying to get rid of a working income, you'd be stealing people's hard-worked for money.