Bolitics The New Condem Government

[snowychap]

Snowy has argued ( i think)  it shouldn't come down to incomes as the poor still pay 20% VAT etc

Are you talking about my post above? If so, I was just pointing out that whilst income tax is obviously a tax burden it is not the tax burden.

p.s. I think you're coming at it wrong thinking that you need to earn a million pounds a year gross to be a millionaire.

Having net assets of a million pounds makes someone a millionaire (and for that reason your complaint about the phraseology is probably fine ).

Edited April 8, 2013 by snowychap

[Eames]

Is it wrong that i feel a massive compulsion to kill gideon osbourne? Such a rocket polisher

Why ? He wouldn't be the first politican to shamelessly use tragic events for political purposes , surely you all remember the shadow Home Secretary who came out and cited the James Bulgar killing as evidence of the failings of Thatchers Britain ..

Sorry Tony, I'm afraid you can't use that arguement since it falls within the boundaries of the "Ahhh.... but Labour" exclusion.  

 

The fact it is relevent to the discussion and a suitable response is neither here nor there.

[colhint]

who is this Albert Labour bloke?

[Jon]

 without the full list you just look like someone with an unhealthy fixation on Osborne

That may not be too far wide of the mark.

 

Of the current lot, he's top of my list.

 

Next for the chop would be Gove or IDS. They can battle it out for that honour.

[snowychap]

without going into a lot of quoting, but thinking about what Tony wrote. 

 

If at 45% they pay £382,000. So at 50% they would pay £425,000. That's an extra £43,000. So where's this extra £100,000 tax break figure come from?

 

It's a suggested 'average' for all top rate bods, I'd guess, but a bit of a finger in the air figure.

 

Edited April 8, 2013 by snowychap

[Jon]

Just to extrapolate opn my hatred of Gideon.

 

It isn't just his use of ther Philpott case to further his political ends. That is despicable and bad enough in itself.

 

It is, furthermore, his use of that incident to push his agenda of social injustice further.

 

he's basically linking Philpott to all 'benefit scroungers', and telling us all that this is what people on benefits are like.

 

He's using that case to encourage and increase social injustice, and to get people onboard by giving an 'evil face' to those that need/rely on state help to survive. 

 

That is what sickens me as much as his use of the case per se.

 

As a rule, I do tend to have a dislike for anyone trying to further social (and economic) injustice, which is exactly what Gid and IDS and their ilk are in the process of doing.

[bickster]

Is it wrong that i feel a massive compulsion to kill gideon osbourne? Such a rocket polisher

Why ? He wouldn't be the first politican to shamelessly use tragic events for political purposes , surely you all remember the shadow Home Secretary who came out and cited the James Bulgar killing as evidence of the failings of Thatchers Britain ..

Sorry Tony, I'm afraid you can't use that arguement since it falls within the boundaries of the "Ahhh.... but Labour" exclusion.  

 

The fact it is relevent to the discussion and a suitable response is neither here nor there.

See here we go again with the automatic assumption that anyone who criticises the Tories must therefore be Labour. And then Labour get attacked as some kind of rebuttal, because they did it too. So what?

This absolutely daft "My Dad's bigger than your Dad" argument spoils a good debate and the idea that the Tories get criticised for stuff Labour also did is just a nonsense. So bloody what if Labour (AKA the red tories) did it, it doesn't make it right.

It's not relevant at all, there's more to political debate than all this red vs blue shite. What' relevant is what you think is right

[Jon]

[tonyh29]

Snowy has argued ( i think)  it shouldn't come down to incomes as the poor still pay 20% VAT etc

Are you talking about my post above? If so, I was just pointing out that whilst income tax is obviously a tax burden it is not the tax burden.

p.s. I think you're coming at it wrong thinking that you need to earn a million pounds a year gross to be a millionaire.

Having net assets of a million pounds makes someone a millionaire (and for that reason your complaint about the phraseology is probably fine ).

yeah was referring to your post , thought you'd put that pov across before as well , apologies if misrepresenting you

 

it's probably the way the "other" side have been phrasing it that is making my words look muddled , the net assets aren't being taxed here but , the way the labour party is trying to spin this is that everyone with a Million gets a £43k tax cut , which is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth

[tonyh29]

 

 

Is it wrong that i feel a massive compulsion to kill gideon osbourne? Such a rocket polisher

Why ? He wouldn't be the first politican to shamelessly use tragic events for political purposes , surely you all remember the shadow Home Secretary who came out and cited the James Bulgar killing as evidence of the failings of Thatchers Britain ..

 

Sorry Tony, I'm afraid you can't use that arguement since it falls within the boundaries of the "Ahhh.... but Labour" exclusion.  

 

The fact it is relevent to the discussion and a suitable response is neither here nor there.

 

See here we go again with the automatic assumption that anyone who criticises the Tories must therefore be Labour. And then Labour get attacked as some kind of rebuttal, because they did it too. So what?

This absolutely daft "My Dad's bigger than your Dad" argument spoils a good debate and the idea that the Tories get criticised for stuff Labour also did is just a nonsense. So bloody what if Labour (AKA the red tories) did it, it doesn't make it right.

It's not relevant at all, there's more to political debate than all this red vs blue shite. What' relevant is what you think is right

tbf In Jon's case we know that he is Labour

 

I think the point people deliberately miss with this is I feel it is right to ask why someone is so outraged this time around when that outrage has previously never been voiced before ... I call it hypocrisy , others call it Ahhh ..but Labour  ... that they never answer with a coherent  reply shows that Hypocrisy and anti Tory is the reason for the post    ...

 

To a degree you are right , it doesn't make it right  , but if this faux outrage wasn't consistently posted at everything the Tories do when they are following on the previous governments policy or that you know had the previous government done such a thing the poster would be "for " it  .. I wouldn't have to keep highlighting what to me is just hypocrisy

 

Yes I know it's the "CONDEM" thread , but where else is one to post a rebuttal  ....otherwise we could just rename this thread " The slag of the Tories thread , no responses or criticism of the left allowed "   I suppose

Edited April 8, 2013 by tonyh29

[snowychap]

yeah was referring to your post , thought you'd put that pov across before as well , apologies if misrepresenting you

No, I don't think you did misrepresent me (you just bundled it up with my other point ).

I have made the point before that when looking at the tax burden (and marginal withdrawal rates), it's important to look at it in terms of proportion of income as well as actual amounts (and more so when discussing the impact upon lower income groups or the relative impact upon different income groups).

Edited April 8, 2013 by snowychap

[snowychap]

The slag of the Tories thread...

[unPC]I'm trying to work out which of the Conservative MPs you are referring to here. [/unPC]

[Jon]

Maggie's GONE!!

[bickster]

tonyh29, on 08 Apr 2013 - 12:30, said:

tbf In Jon's case we know that he is Labour

Considering Green last time I checked

[Jon]

tonyh29, on 08 Apr 2013 - 12:30, said:

tbf In Jon's case we know that he is Labour

Considering Green last time I checked

Aye. Green if election tomorrow based on their policies. Last time (hangs head in shame) voted Lib Dem. Never again.   

[AVFCforever1991]

 

tonyh29, on 08 Apr 2013 - 12:30, said:

tbf In Jon's case we know that he is Labour

Considering Green last time I checked

 Last time (hangs head in shame) voted Lib Dem. Never again.   

 

Me too. 

Edited April 8, 2013 by AVFCforever1991

[tonyh29]

tonyh29, on 08 Apr 2013 - 12:30, said:

tbf In Jon's case we know that he is Labour

Considering Green last time I checked

My Bad  ...

(Sorry Jon)

[drat01]

 

Is it wrong that i feel a massive compulsion to kill gideon osbourne? Such a rocket polisher

Why ? He wouldn't be the first politican to shamelessly use tragic events for political purposes , surely you all remember the shadow Home Secretary who came out and cited the James Bulgar killing as evidence of the failings of Thatchers Britain ..

Sorry Tony, I'm afraid you can't use that arguement since it falls within the boundaries of the "Ahhh.... but Labour" exclusion.  

 

The fact it is relevent to the discussion and a suitable response is neither here nor there.

Interesting who "liked" that post. Also interesting that it is perfectly "ahh but Labour ...." because as normal the Tory (and UKIP - but we all know they are the same) supporters seemingly rather than discuss matters always seem to reply with a "ahhh but labour ....". Why is that exactly? Is it because you cannot possibly defend the actions of Osborne in  this case or is it that your views are that if seemingly a previous political party figure of the "opposition" did it then it's OK? Surely then all you are saying is that this is OK for Osborne, Cameron etc to make political mileage from a tragedy that had nothing to do with the subject they are claiming. A pretty shameful act really, but the more I have seen of this thread and Tory (and UKIP) supporters of late is that the "nasty" party is alive, well and kicking

[tonyh29]

Many of her "opponents" died during things like the Miners strike, Falklands, Hillsborough etc.

 

After all the Osborne outage , this has to be a new low in hypocrisy surely

 

 

(i quoted it in this thread so as not to make the Thatcher thread go too awol )

Edited April 8, 2013 by tonyh29

[drat01]

Many of her "opponents" died during things like the Miners strike, Falklands, Hillsborough etc.

 

After all the Osborne outage , this has to be a new low in hypocrisy surely

 

 

(i quoted it in this thread so as not to make the Thatcher thread go too awol )

Why Tony? - the comment - and I see what you have done taking out of the thread to take it out of context !! - was about people passing away. Under Thatcher many people did die because of things that she was involved in, surely even you cannot deny that? - cue the Iraq war comments no doubt. How is that hypocrisy exactly? Or is this yet another attempt to try and cause a problem?

 

There were fatalities during the miners strike, there were many fatalities as part of the Falklands conflict, Hillsborough we have seen recently that the Gvmt of the time certainly do not come out of that with any credit and actions of the police, the cover ups, members of her party spreading lies etc, the treatment of fans by Gvmt laws all contributed to the disaster.

 

So in context as a reply to the comment it was fine IMO. You may not like the fact that there were fatalities on "her watch" but history shows that there were.