The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[Coach]

Well he didnt introduce the tax. The Treasury recommended it rise cos it was designed to reclaim the lost income tax/tax relief if someone died early. Sort of. And it is/was pretty much voluntary, insofar that the surviving spouse/dependants had a choice to make upon death of the pensioner. One choice resulted in the tax being levied. 3 other choices did not.

He introduced the 55% rate and clearly thought it a good idea - today he announced it was a load of codswallop. LOL.

 

[roydo]

He introduced the 55% rate and clearly thought it a good idea - today he announced it was a load of codswallop. LOL.

He announced about 90% of what he said today last year. That 55% tax was not his idea. It was originally introduced about 15 years ago, and the Treasury always believed it to be too low. It never raised a dime, (in government terms), but the Treasury wanted it increased anyway.

If you think that it was abolished as some kind of sop to his millionaire pals, then you are just wrong. It was more of a low cost, political move that would be welcomed by a lot of working people, and that Labour would hate.

BTW, I know my stuff on this. (Only this mind you)

 

[toffee matt]

I don't think any politician on either side of the spectrum knows how to sort the benefits system out .

The two main party's in this country's are both a joke atm

 

[peteblue]

Just a thought on the benefit cap:

73% of the people hit by the benefit cap are children

http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2014/09/73-per-cent-of-the-people-hit-by-the-benefit-cap-are-children/

Bloody kids........

 

[peteblue]

Can't the kids just be placed in workhouses?

You may have something here........it worked for our Oliver.......

 

[Coach]

He announced about 90% of what he said today last year. That 55% tax was not his idea. It was originally introduced about 15 years ago, and the Treasury always believed it to be too low. It never raised a dime, (in government terms), but the Treasury wanted it increased anyway.

If you think that it was abolished as some kind of sop to his millionaire pals, then you are just wrong. It was more of a low cost, political move that would be welcomed by a lot of working people, and that Labour would hate.

BTW, I know my stuff on this. (Only this mind you)

Gordon Brown introduced it at 35%. Gideon thought it was such a good idea he stuck it up to 55% - now he thinks it is crap and is getting shot.

Oh and as for who benefits - this is a pretty good summary

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/sep/29/who-benefits-abolition-55-percent-tax-pensions

 

[red1]

Ive employed English people and they were all punctual as well. Are you English? Are you punctual?

When did it become fashionable to [Poor language removed] off English people. It just comes across as a bit Guardianista try-hard. Just saying.

Do you have a victim mentality or something, where did I say English people are not punctual? Are you a BNP/British First member? Your unhinged reaction reminds me of their rhetoric and you need to calm down.

 

[red1]

There's only one aspect of the benefit system that annoys me most and it is child benefit. I would like it to be restricted to only two kids per parent.

That's a good idea. I'm also worried about the 50 billion pounds worth of discretionary spending. There's an entire area of spending also called "personal social services" worth 30 billion, I would cut a good amount of that.

 

[rascal]

That's a good idea. I'm also worried about the 50 billion pounds worth of discretionary spending. There's an entire area of spending also called "personal social services" worth 30 billion, I would cut a good amount of that.

Disagree there.

 

[Minimeister]

I wish the Tories would stop banging on about a referendum on Europe as if that's going to win them the next election. I'm more concerned with the privatisation of the NHS, my wages remaining static and people not being able to find work. I couldn't care less about Europe and would rather someone I voted in for who should no more than I do makes that decision for me.

Credit to Osborne again today. He now sells freezing benefits by saying they shouldn't go up as much as wages. That'll please the Mail. How's about you actually start putting my wages up then? I don't want 10% like they're getting but just the amount my bills are going up would be nice.

 

[L4Everton]

I wish the Tories would stop banging on about a referendum on Europe as if that's going to win them the next election. I'm more concerned with the privatisation of the NHS, my wages remaining static and people not being able to find work. I couldn't care less about Europe and would rather someone I voted in for who should no more than I do makes that decision for me.

Credit to Osborne again today. He now sells freezing benefits by saying they shouldn't go up as much as wages. That'll please the Mail. How's about you actually start putting my wages up then? I don't want 10% like they're getting but just the amount my bills are going up would be nice.

Very noticable that certain promises regards the energy companies haven't been followed up. Oh wait, winter is coming, let it hit and people feel it then in Spring its another stage to use. "We'll make the energy companies accountable" - yeah, just like the sockcucking banks.

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

Hitting 10 million working households, way to go Georgie.... that'll be a vote catcher.

 

[red1]

Disagree there.

That's fair enough. I'm a social conservative that's why, I don't think the government should be in the business of social work, I think there's far too much of that and I wouldn't rely on the government to take care of my elderly parents or disabled family members either, I can't imagine something more horrifying honestly. People should do it themselves, I know it's a controversial opinion but I think spending 30 billion is just an out-of-control nanny state.

 

[Tubey]

He announced about 90% of what he said today last year. That 55% tax was not his idea. It was originally introduced about 15 years ago, and the Treasury always believed it to be too low. It never raised a dime, (in government terms), but the Treasury wanted it increased anyway.

If you think that it was abolished as some kind of sop to his millionaire pals, then you are just wrong. It was more of a low cost, political move that would be welcomed by a lot of working people, and that Labour would hate.

BTW, I know my stuff on this. (Only this mind you)

Nope. Correct assessment here:

https://medium.com/@tom_watson/anot...mous-tax-cuts-for-the-super-rich-313f55890158

 

[Reidy's Bottle Of Grecian]

That's fair enough. I'm a social conservative that's why, I don't think the government should be in the business of social work, I think there's far too much of that and I wouldn't rely on the government to take care of my elderly parents or disabled family members either, I can't imagine something more horrifying honestly. People should do it themselves, I know it's a controversial opinion but I think spending 30 billion is just an out-of-control nanny state.

What if they were unfortunate enough to need that help though ?
as they say, once its gone its gone, they wouldnt be able to say "Ive paid in all my life and now I want/need something back" cos if some get their way it'll all be gone.