The harsh truth about Tory policies

LauraW10

chucky wrote: »

nice sound bite but the last time i looked outside my window i was in the UK - what has that got to do with what Heyman said!?

This I think

Originally Posted by Heyman
I think it was in one of the Michael Moore films where George Bush was talking to a woman who held down 3 jobs to support her family. And everyone clapped! So, let me get this right - it's a good thing that a woman has to work likely 70-80 hours a week just to get by?

Generali

LauraW10 wrote: »

Why should I work hard and pay my taxes whilst rich people don't pay taxes and contribute nothing? Why do they get to keep their money in off shore bank accounts and pay a fortune to tax accountants to make sure they avoid paying tax whilst the rest of don't? They don't call them the "Idle Rich" for nothing.

Stop picking on the little guy.

What would you do about it?

LauraW10

Generali wrote: »

What would you do about it?

No idea The world's not equal I see that. Why just focus on one part of the inequality equation?

Maybe it's easier for people to focus on poor people because they are vulnerable. No point in us all tearing each other to bits however. Divide and rule and all that, innit.

Generali

LauraW10 wrote: »

No idea The world's not equal I see that. Why just focus on one part of the inequality equation?

Maybe it's easier for people to focus on poor people because they are vulnerable. No point in us all tearing each other to bits however. Divide and rule and all that, innit.

The trouble is if you whack up the taxes on rich people they just spend more on avoiding taxes. When Howe and later Lawson cut the top rate of income tax as Thatcher's Chancellors tax take went up.

the_ash_and_the_oak

Surely the 'actual rich' avoid tax reasonably easy - it is 'high earners' that pay the higher rates of tax (tho only on the amount they earn above thresholds - they are taxed the same as everyone else on the rest of their income) - as salaried people they are still 'working class' in that they are salaried and therefore paid for their labour

Entertainer

Johann Hari attempting economics. Don't give up the day job.:T The fact is, whoever wins the next election we are in for spending cuts, we wont have any choice in the matter, no one will lends us 12% of GDP every year ad infinitum. Any idea of a further fiscal stimulus is a pipe dream- even Alastair Darling only spent a paltry 2% of GDP because the cupboard was totally bare.

Entertainer

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

David Cameron November 2008.

Was he trying to distance himself from his time as advisor to one Norman Lamont - who put it that unemployment "was a price worth paying" to get inflation down?

Not for me thanks - I remember them the last time, only too well - a leopard and spots springs to mind.

If people think unemployment is high now - I shudder to think what it actually was under the last Conservative gov't - today we have 2 figures the claimant count - 1.6million and the International Labour Office figure - which includes those who can't claim but are looking for work - this figure is about 2.5million (undifferentiated unemployed) the reported figure.

In the recession of the 1990s there was only the claimant count reported - of 3million. It would be interesting to know what the ILO figure would have been then. 4million? More?

They changed the definition of unemployed after the recession the 1980s because it rose to something over 3million of undifferentiated unemployed.

The interesting thing for me is that the media keep saying unemployment will reach the levels of the 1990s recession - but they aren't comparing like for like - if they were using like for like, current unemployment levels today are about half of what were reported in the 1990s.

ILO figure was about 400,000 more than the claimant count so your "double in the 1990's" is completely wrong. "90's" is a long time as well, by the end of the decade the unemployment rate was below 5%.

Thrugelmir

carolt wrote: »

No it's not - read on. Lots of issues. All pretty terrifying.

I think there is a real danger that when faced by the everyday horrors of life under Gordon, we forget how much worse it was under the Tories.

The desperate Labour spin machine in full flow.

With comments like yours above no wonder we are fed up with politics as a nation.

Just because some is red, yellow or blue doesn't make them one thing or another. In many ways the parties aren't that far apart.

StevieJ

This Cameroon-cocoon is best captured by the soon-to-be Tory MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg, who at the age of forty is accompanied at public events by his nanny, who he calls "Nanny." He recently snapped: "If I've got a nanny, I've got a nanny. And if anybody doesn't like it – tough!" He then added: "I do wish you wouldn't keep going on about my nanny. If I had a valet you'd think it was perfectly normal."

:rotfl: Should be interesting, reminds me of that Avengers episode 'Something nasty in the nursery'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHHmw5BHoiY

http://theavengers.tv/forever/peel2-14.htm

bernard_shaw

edit: I thought better of what I said.