Should Millionaire Mick lead to the abolition of Tax Credits?

PaulF81

LauraW10 wrote: »

Just how ugly?.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/english-defence-league-backs-ukip-in-local-elections-8562350.html

There is very little I agree with Cameron over but when he said that UKIP is the “BNP in suits” and a “bunch of fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists, mostly” he pretty much nailed it.

and this Labour source is right there too. "Last night a senior Labour source said: “Ukip should be ashamed that their rhetoric and policies have such appeal to those on the far-Right who want to stir up hatred.”

Oh joy.

maybe so. but whether you like it or not, they are a bunch of fruitcakes with significant backing from the electorate, with an increasing share of the vote.

Voters dont like being told that the policies they support are fruitcake, which loony lefties absolutely love to do for any issue that they disagree with. Good way of losing any chance of engaging in debate.

You better wish Jockland doesnt get independence.... If they do, Labour are dead.

Interesting to see the Lib dems are electorally extinct.

kabayiri

PaulF81 wrote: »

I think the party that wants to bankrupt all of us to support the hopeless are the nasty party personally.

Yep, I can accept painful adjustments in the economy, but not politicians pretending they have a plan when they have nothing but tinkering at the edges.

They need to grow a backbone and be honest with the electorate. Every party is frightened of raising taxes for fear of upsetting folk.

PaulF81

kabayiri wrote: »

Yep, I can accept painful adjustments in the economy, but not politicians pretending they have a plan when they have nothing but tinkering at the edges.

They need to grow a backbone and be honest with the electorate. Every party is frightened of raising taxes for fear of upsetting folk.

No no no... they are afraid of real terms 10%+ cuts in both retirement benefits and the NHS. You cant milk any more out in taxation. people are already narked and higher/highest rate tax payers are leaving in droves. You have to cut expenditure, not increase taxation.

Political suicide? Maybe. but the morally correct thing to do in the face of our structural deficit.

kabayiri

I think we need to :-
- raise more income for the state
- redirect state spend to investment and training in a big way
- cut back on state spend as a continuous project.

A company has to reallocate spend to adjust, why isn't the same true for an economy?

More can be milked out of taxation. Would it be popular? That's probably No.

PaulF81

fully agree on training and investment on research and infrastructure investments.

If we saw more like mick and his wife out picking potatoes and veg at 6 AM instead of a hard working immigrant workforce, to earn their benefits (linked to their veg picking output) and having a bit more of a rough time, a cap on Child benefit for only 2 kids and a lowering of the universal benefits allowance to the national net (not gross) average salary, I think I probably would be willing to have my tax increased.

Not until. There are other options which need to be enacted, not just published and then U-turned 2 weeks later.

MPD

Maybe the Daily Mail crowd should consider this

2 x Male prisoners (guessing Cat A) £123188
1 x Female prisoner (guessing closed) £39815

Total cost to taxpayer £163003

Source
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/statistics/prison-probation/probation-workforce-stats/prison-costs-summary-11-12.pdf

Benefits is by far the better deal for the taxpayer.

This also applies to all the lock em up type stories.

PaulF81

Cut prison perks and arm the guards for the resulting riots. I don't see why gruel and a bucket should cost so much.

Paying benefits breeders to be chemically castrated would make financial sense though.

CLAPTON

MPD wrote: »

Maybe the Daily Mail crowd should consider this

2 x Male prisoners (guessing Cat A) £123188
1 x Female prisoner (guessing closed) £39815

Total cost to taxpayer £163003

Source
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/statistics/prison-probation/probation-workforce-stats/prison-costs-summary-11-12.pdf

Benefits is by far the better deal for the taxpayer.

This also applies to all the lock em up type stories.

the point of prison is to 'encourage the others' ; it isn't meant to be a cost effective solution for an individual prisoner


otherwise what do you suggest for some-one with a long string of convictions and asks for just one more chance?

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

the point of prison is to 'encourage the others' ; it isn't meant to be a cost effective solution for an individual prisoner

Whilst I accept your point, taking this argument one step further, indiscriminate wholesale cuts in benefits, without real alternatives, will lead to greater enforcement/social costs, both to contain and arising from, the inevitable rise in criminal activity.

Those costs may not be direct but indirect through personal loss and increased "insurance" costs.

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Whilst I accept your point, taking this argument one step further, indiscriminate wholesale cuts in benefits, without real alternatives, will lead to greater enforcement/social costs, both to contain and arising from, the inevitable rise in criminal activity.

Those costs may not be direct but indirect through personal loss and increased "insurance" costs.

Indiscriminate wholesale cuts aren't currently planned.

Except for the exceptional 100,000 rents the other cuts are very modest.