Game changer for Election 2017?

A forum for all things Cardiff City

Re: Game changer for Election 2017?

Postby Jock » Mon May 22, 2017 10:36 am

piledriver64 wrote:
Steve Zodiak wrote:
piledriver64 wrote:
Tony Blue Williams wrote:
Pant-Yr-Awel Oldie wrote:People's houses have been used to pay for homes for years. Right through Labours 13 years in power. I am on a pension and it won't affect me a lot. But it will affect me if and when Corbyn bankrups the country.


Yes people have been paying for their personal care for years including under the previous Labour Government. However, Labour introduced the triple lock and winter fuel payments (which you failed to mention)

I would also point out that the Tories have borrowed more money in the past 7 years than all previous Labour Governments put together :shock: So much for their so called economic competence. :lol: :roll:


Spot on !!

We keep hearing about the terrible overspending of Labour governments but nobody is looking at the facts. That Tories borrowed more money !!

I just don't get how people aren't recognising these FACTS !! Must be taking the Tory spin and control of the Press as gospel rather than simply looking it up for themselves. So frustrating!!

The lack of knowledge of care costs also worries me. I have a mother and mother-in-law in care. We've had to sell two houses for care costs and, having looked at the Tory proposals, I can assure you that the money would have been used up even quicker if this was in place.

Personal care isn't the only thing involved in this change, read up about it and then someone tell me how this will result in families being able to keep more of the money that their loved ones worked so hard to accrue.

By the way, if you still think you'll be able to pass some of your assets to your kids do it now. Anything re-assigned within 7 years of it needing to be used for your care can be re-claimed by them !! Think ahead !!


Like I have said before on here, are you (I presume you are working and are a tax payer) happy enough to pay for me and my upkeep so that I can hand over hundreds of thousands of pounds to my children who are obviously now adults and earning themselves, so that they can buy new cars and go on exotic holidays, or do you think that I should take responsibility for myself. If the taxpayers are happy to pay for me, that's fine by me and will give my adult children money for cars and holidays. If the taxpayer thinks that as I have the means to look after myself, that's fine as well. I had nothing handed down to me, and neither did my parents. We all took responsibility for our own upkeep, lived within our means, and never expected or believed that the state owed us a particular lifestyle. We also agreed that our taxes should be used to help those in desperate need. Done my bit for those who needed help, but I don't believe any of you should pay for me when I have assets of my own.


Yes I've been a tax payer for 37 years solid and in the privileged position, over the last 6-7 years, of paying 40% tax on a proportion of my wage.

I would happily accept another 1-2% on top if it was ring fenced to social/health care. Something that simply won't happen under May

May has given no commitment to keeping the lower tax bands the same because she wants to safeguard her rich Tory voters.

Labour have commuted to not raising taxes other than for the top earners.

The choice is simple, if your looking after yourself vote Tory is you think they do it for you. But for many with a social conscience Labour will clearly fit the bill.

Time after time it's been proven that raising tax rates for high earners actually reduces tax collected. Labour would do exactly what they've always done, create millions of pretend jobs in an already bloated inefficient public sector, flood the NHS with bean counters and paper shufflers and push the politics of envy. Their plans for the economy don't include the cost of renationalising the railways and water companies but don't worry they'll just give the magic money tree a shake and everything will be ok
Jock
 
Posts: 3404
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:37 pm

Re: Game changer for Election 2017?

Advertisement

Advertisement
Login or Register to remove this ad.

Re: Game changer for Election 2017?

Postby piledriver64 » Mon May 22, 2017 10:56 am

Jock wrote:
piledriver64 wrote:
Steve Zodiak wrote:
piledriver64 wrote:
Tony Blue Williams wrote:
Pant-Yr-Awel Oldie wrote:People's houses have been used to pay for homes for years. Right through Labours 13 years in power. I am on a pension and it won't affect me a lot. But it will affect me if and when Corbyn bankrups the country.


Yes people have been paying for their personal care for years including under the previous Labour Government. However, Labour introduced the triple lock and winter fuel payments (which you failed to mention)

I would also point out that the Tories have borrowed more money in the past 7 years than all previous Labour Governments put together :shock: So much for their so called economic competence. :lol: :roll:


Spot on !!

We keep hearing about the terrible overspending of Labour governments but nobody is looking at the facts. That Tories borrowed more money !!

I just don't get how people aren't recognising these FACTS !! Must be taking the Tory spin and control of the Press as gospel rather than simply looking it up for themselves. So frustrating!!

The lack of knowledge of care costs also worries me. I have a mother and mother-in-law in care. We've had to sell two houses for care costs and, having looked at the Tory proposals, I can assure you that the money would have been used up even quicker if this was in place.

Personal care isn't the only thing involved in this change, read up about it and then someone tell me how this will result in families being able to keep more of the money that their loved ones worked so hard to accrue.

By the way, if you still think you'll be able to pass some of your assets to your kids do it now. Anything re-assigned within 7 years of it needing to be used for your care can be re-claimed by them !! Think ahead !!


Like I have said before on here, are you (I presume you are working and are a tax payer) happy enough to pay for me and my upkeep so that I can hand over hundreds of thousands of pounds to my children who are obviously now adults and earning themselves, so that they can buy new cars and go on exotic holidays, or do you think that I should take responsibility for myself. If the taxpayers are happy to pay for me, that's fine by me and will give my adult children money for cars and holidays. If the taxpayer thinks that as I have the means to look after myself, that's fine as well. I had nothing handed down to me, and neither did my parents. We all took responsibility for our own upkeep, lived within our means, and never expected or believed that the state owed us a particular lifestyle. We also agreed that our taxes should be used to help those in desperate need. Done my bit for those who needed help, but I don't believe any of you should pay for me when I have assets of my own.


Yes I've been a tax payer for 37 years solid and in the privileged position, over the last 6-7 years, of paying 40% tax on a proportion of my wage.

I would happily accept another 1-2% on top if it was ring fenced to social/health care. Something that simply won't happen under May

May has given no commitment to keeping the lower tax bands the same because she wants to safeguard her rich Tory voters.

Labour have commuted to not raising taxes other than for the top earners.

The choice is simple, if your looking after yourself vote Tory is you think they do it for you. But for many with a social conscience Labour will clearly fit the bill.

Time after time it's been proven that raising tax rates for high earners actually reduces tax collected. Labour would do exactly what they've always done, create millions of pretend jobs in an already bloated inefficient public sector, flood the NHS with bean counters and paper shufflers and push the politics of envy. Their plans for the economy don't include the cost of renationalising the railways and water companies but don't worry they'll just give the magic money tree a shake and everything will be ok


And there you go, yet another post completely ignoring the FACT that borrowing is higher under the Tories than Labour.

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of the Tory spin !!

They've missed every economic growth target that they set themselves. Just where exactly is the country's finances safer under the Tories ? Just the facts please not Tory press rhetoric. Google will do it unless they have successfully hidden it like they've tried !!
piledriver64
 
Posts: 4588
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: Game changer for Election 2017?

Postby Merlin11 » Mon May 22, 2017 10:57 am

Jock wrote:
piledriver64 wrote:
Steve Zodiak wrote:
piledriver64 wrote:
Tony Blue Williams wrote:
Pant-Yr-Awel Oldie wrote:People's houses have been used to pay for homes for years. Right through Labours 13 years in power. I am on a pension and it won't affect me a lot. But it will affect me if and when Corbyn bankrups the country.


Yes people have been paying for their personal care for years including under the previous Labour Government. However, Labour introduced the triple lock and winter fuel payments (which you failed to mention)

I would also point out that the Tories have borrowed more money in the past 7 years than all previous Labour Governments put together :shock: So much for their so called economic competence. :lol: :roll:


Spot on !!

We keep hearing about the terrible overspending of Labour governments but nobody is looking at the facts. That Tories borrowed more money !!

I just don't get how people aren't recognising these FACTS !! Must be taking the Tory spin and control of the Press as gospel rather than simply looking it up for themselves. So frustrating!!

The lack of knowledge of care costs also worries me. I have a mother and mother-in-law in care. We've had to sell two houses for care costs and, having looked at the Tory proposals, I can assure you that the money would have been used up even quicker if this was in place.

Personal care isn't the only thing involved in this change, read up about it and then someone tell me how this will result in families being able to keep more of the money that their loved ones worked so hard to accrue.

By the way, if you still think you'll be able to pass some of your assets to your kids do it now. Anything re-assigned within 7 years of it needing to be used for your care can be re-claimed by them !! Think ahead !!


Like I have said before on here, are you (I presume you are working and are a tax payer) happy enough to pay for me and my upkeep so that I can hand over hundreds of thousands of pounds to my children who are obviously now adults and earning themselves, so that they can buy new cars and go on exotic holidays, or do you think that I should take responsibility for myself. If the taxpayers are happy to pay for me, that's fine by me and will give my adult children money for cars and holidays. If the taxpayer thinks that as I have the means to look after myself, that's fine as well. I had nothing handed down to me, and neither did my parents. We all took responsibility for our own upkeep, lived within our means, and never expected or believed that the state owed us a particular lifestyle. We also agreed that our taxes should be used to help those in desperate need. Done my bit for those who needed help, but I don't believe any of you should pay for me when I have assets of my own.


Yes I've been a tax payer for 37 years solid and in the privileged position, over the last 6-7 years, of paying 40% tax on a proportion of my wage.

I would happily accept another 1-2% on top if it was ring fenced to social/health care. Something that simply won't happen under May

May has given no commitment to keeping the lower tax bands the same because she wants to safeguard her rich Tory voters.

Labour have commuted to not raising taxes other than for the top earners.

The choice is simple, if your looking after yourself vote Tory is you think they do it for you. But for many with a social conscience Labour will clearly fit the bill.

Time after time it's been proven that raising tax rates for high earners actually reduces tax collected. Labour would do exactly what they've always done, create millions of pretend jobs in an already bloated inefficient public sector, flood the NHS with bean counters and paper shufflers and push the politics of envy. Their plans for the economy don't include the cost of renationalising the railways and water companies but don't worry they'll just give the magic money tree a shake and everything will be ok

The tories have taken the voters for granted. The Tory manifesto has not even been costed unlike Labours. Wooden Theresa may is running a poor campaign and the polls between the parties is narrowing. Only 9% difference in two polls out today. I think it will narrow even further once more pensioners know that war has broken out against them. 2.5 million more voters have registered to vote mostly under 40 year olds inspired by Corbyn.
Merlin11
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 9:10 am

Re: Game changer for Election 2017?

Postby Sneggyblubird » Mon May 22, 2017 11:22 am

Jock wrote:
piledriver64 wrote:
Steve Zodiak wrote:
piledriver64 wrote:
Tony Blue Williams wrote:
Pant-Yr-Awel Oldie wrote:People's houses have been used to pay for homes for years. Right through Labours 13 years in power. I am on a pension and it won't affect me a lot. But it will affect me if and when Corbyn bankrups the country.


Yes people have been paying for their personal care for years including under the previous Labour Government. However, Labour introduced the triple lock and winter fuel payments (which you failed to mention)

I would also point out that the Tories have borrowed more money in the past 7 years than all previous Labour Governments put together :shock: So much for their so called economic competence. :lol: :roll:


Spot on !!

We keep hearing about the terrible overspending of Labour governments but nobody is looking at the facts. That Tories borrowed more money !!

I just don't get how people aren't recognising these FACTS !! Must be taking the Tory spin and control of the Press as gospel rather than simply looking it up for themselves. So frustrating!!

The lack of knowledge of care costs also worries me. I have a mother and mother-in-law in care. We've had to sell two houses for care costs and, having looked at the Tory proposals, I can assure you that the money would have been used up even quicker if this was in place.

Personal care isn't the only thing involved in this change, read up about it and then someone tell me how this will result in families being able to keep more of the money that their loved ones worked so hard to accrue.

By the way, if you still think you'll be able to pass some of your assets to your kids do it now. Anything re-assigned within 7 years of it needing to be used for your care can be re-claimed by them !! Think ahead !!


Like I have said before on here, are you (I presume you are working and are a tax payer) happy enough to pay for me and my upkeep so that I can hand over hundreds of thousands of pounds to my children who are obviously now adults and earning themselves, so that they can buy new cars and go on exotic holidays, or do you think that I should take responsibility for myself. If the taxpayers are happy to pay for me, that's fine by me and will give my adult children money for cars and holidays. If the taxpayer thinks that as I have the means to look after myself, that's fine as well. I had nothing handed down to me, and neither did my parents. We all took responsibility for our own upkeep, lived within our means, and never expected or believed that the state owed us a particular lifestyle. We also agreed that our taxes should be used to help those in desperate need. Done my bit for those who needed help, but I don't believe any of you should pay for me when I have assets of my own.


Yes I've been a tax payer for 37 years solid and in the privileged position, over the last 6-7 years, of paying 40% tax on a proportion of my wage.

I would happily accept another 1-2% on top if it was ring fenced to social/health care. Something that simply won't happen under May

May has given no commitment to keeping the lower tax bands the same because she wants to safeguard her rich Tory voters.

Labour have commuted to not raising taxes other than for the top earners.

The choice is simple, if your looking after yourself vote Tory is you think they do it for you. But for many with a social conscience Labour will clearly fit the bill.

Time after time it's been proven that raising tax rates for high earners actually reduces tax collected. Labour would do exactly what they've always done, create millions of pretend jobs in an already bloated inefficient public sector, flood the NHS with bean counters and paper shufflers and push the politics of envy. Their plans for the economy don't include the cost of renationalising the railways and water companies but don't worry they'll just give the magic money tree a shake and everything will be ok


I'd like to point out Jock the renationalising the railways is actually reducing the burden on the treasury coffers in the medium to long term.First of all the railway infer structure is still owned by gov and currently costing us the tax payer about 8bn per year.The franchises are making a tidy profit thank you very much on the back of this.Eastern Railway was taken back into gov ownership after the franchise failed and was only returned to franchise once it became profitable again.If you look into it further the Labour Party are saying they won't throw a blanket over the whole thing but rather than paying compensation to the private companies they'll wait until existing contracts are up and would also like to keep some of the elements of the business in private hands to keep it competitive.TBH Jock I'm glad I don't need the trains to get to work as the people that rely on them have been given the rawest deal of all and something drastic needs to happen.Oh,and BTW the NHS bean counting army was a Tory invention of the 80's when they decided to take financial decisions out of the hands of clinicians and other trained medical staff and put it in the hands of an Army of non-medical staff.And a bit of careful googleing will show that I'm not making this up.
User avatar
Sneggyblubird
 
Posts: 7498
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 11:22 am

Re: Game changer for Election 2017?

Postby Jock » Mon May 22, 2017 2:57 pm

piledriver64 wrote:
Jock wrote:
piledriver64 wrote:
Steve Zodiak wrote:
piledriver64 wrote:
Tony Blue Williams wrote:
Pant-Yr-Awel Oldie wrote:People's houses have been used to pay for homes for years. Right through Labours 13 years in power. I am on a pension and it won't affect me a lot. But it will affect me if and when Corbyn bankrups the country.


Yes people have been paying for their personal care for years including under the previous Labour Government. However, Labour introduced the triple lock and winter fuel payments (which you failed to mention)

I would also point out that the Tories have borrowed more money in the past 7 years than all previous Labour Governments put together :shock: So much for their so called economic competence. :lol: :roll:


Spot on !!

We keep hearing about the terrible overspending of Labour governments but nobody is looking at the facts. That Tories borrowed more money !!

I just don't get how people aren't recognising these FACTS !! Must be taking the Tory spin and control of the Press as gospel rather than simply looking it up for themselves. So frustrating!!

The lack of knowledge of care costs also worries me. I have a mother and mother-in-law in care. We've had to sell two houses for care costs and, having looked at the Tory proposals, I can assure you that the money would have been used up even quicker if this was in place.

Personal care isn't the only thing involved in this change, read up about it and then someone tell me how this will result in families being able to keep more of the money that their loved ones worked so hard to accrue.

By the way, if you still think you'll be able to pass some of your assets to your kids do it now. Anything re-assigned within 7 years of it needing to be used for your care can be re-claimed by them !! Think ahead !!


Like I have said before on here, are you (I presume you are working and are a tax payer) happy enough to pay for me and my upkeep so that I can hand over hundreds of thousands of pounds to my children who are obviously now adults and earning themselves, so that they can buy new cars and go on exotic holidays, or do you think that I should take responsibility for myself. If the taxpayers are happy to pay for me, that's fine by me and will give my adult children money for cars and holidays. If the taxpayer thinks that as I have the means to look after myself, that's fine as well. I had nothing handed down to me, and neither did my parents. We all took responsibility for our own upkeep, lived within our means, and never expected or believed that the state owed us a particular lifestyle. We also agreed that our taxes should be used to help those in desperate need. Done my bit for those who needed help, but I don't believe any of you should pay for me when I have assets of my own.


Yes I've been a tax payer for 37 years solid and in the privileged position, over the last 6-7 years, of paying 40% tax on a proportion of my wage.

I would happily accept another 1-2% on top if it was ring fenced to social/health care. Something that simply won't happen under May

May has given no commitment to keeping the lower tax bands the same because she wants to safeguard her rich Tory voters.

Labour have commuted to not raising taxes other than for the top earners.

The choice is simple, if your looking after yourself vote Tory is you think they do it for you. But for many with a social conscience Labour will clearly fit the bill.

Time after time it's been proven that raising tax rates for high earners actually reduces tax collected. Labour would do exactly what they've always done, create millions of pretend jobs in an already bloated inefficient public sector, flood the NHS with bean counters and paper shufflers and push the politics of envy. Their plans for the economy don't include the cost of renationalising the railways and water companies but don't worry they'll just give the magic money tree a shake and everything will be ok


And there you go, yet another post completely ignoring the FACT that borrowing is higher under the Tories than Labour.

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of the Tory spin !!

They've missed every economic growth target that they set themselves. Just where exactly is the country's finances safer under the Tories ? Just the facts please not Tory press rhetoric. Google will do it unless they have successfully hidden it like they've tried !!

A spurious comparison, GDP has risen by 8x. Do you seriously think debt will reduce under Corbyn?
Jock
 
Posts: 3404
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:37 pm

Re: Game changer for Election 2017?

Postby Jock » Mon May 22, 2017 3:01 pm

Sneggyblubird wrote:
Jock wrote:
piledriver64 wrote:
Steve Zodiak wrote:
piledriver64 wrote:
Tony Blue Williams wrote:
Pant-Yr-Awel Oldie wrote:People's houses have been used to pay for homes for years. Right through Labours 13 years in power. I am on a pension and it won't affect me a lot. But it will affect me if and when Corbyn bankrups the country.


Yes people have been paying for their personal care for years including under the previous Labour Government. However, Labour introduced the triple lock and winter fuel payments (which you failed to mention)

I would also point out that the Tories have borrowed more money in the past 7 years than all previous Labour Governments put together :shock: So much for their so called economic competence. :lol: :roll:


Spot on !!

We keep hearing about the terrible overspending of Labour governments but nobody is looking at the facts. That Tories borrowed more money !!

I just don't get how people aren't recognising these FACTS !! Must be taking the Tory spin and control of the Press as gospel rather than simply looking it up for themselves. So frustrating!!

The lack of knowledge of care costs also worries me. I have a mother and mother-in-law in care. We've had to sell two houses for care costs and, having looked at the Tory proposals, I can assure you that the money would have been used up even quicker if this was in place.

Personal care isn't the only thing involved in this change, read up about it and then someone tell me how this will result in families being able to keep more of the money that their loved ones worked so hard to accrue.

By the way, if you still think you'll be able to pass some of your assets to your kids do it now. Anything re-assigned within 7 years of it needing to be used for your care can be re-claimed by them !! Think ahead !!


Like I have said before on here, are you (I presume you are working and are a tax payer) happy enough to pay for me and my upkeep so that I can hand over hundreds of thousands of pounds to my children who are obviously now adults and earning themselves, so that they can buy new cars and go on exotic holidays, or do you think that I should take responsibility for myself. If the taxpayers are happy to pay for me, that's fine by me and will give my adult children money for cars and holidays. If the taxpayer thinks that as I have the means to look after myself, that's fine as well. I had nothing handed down to me, and neither did my parents. We all took responsibility for our own upkeep, lived within our means, and never expected or believed that the state owed us a particular lifestyle. We also agreed that our taxes should be used to help those in desperate need. Done my bit for those who needed help, but I don't believe any of you should pay for me when I have assets of my own.


Yes I've been a tax payer for 37 years solid and in the privileged position, over the last 6-7 years, of paying 40% tax on a proportion of my wage.

I would happily accept another 1-2% on top if it was ring fenced to social/health care. Something that simply won't happen under May

May has given no commitment to keeping the lower tax bands the same because she wants to safeguard her rich Tory voters.

Labour have commuted to not raising taxes other than for the top earners.

The choice is simple, if your looking after yourself vote Tory is you think they do it for you. But for many with a social conscience Labour will clearly fit the bill.

Time after time it's been proven that raising tax rates for high earners actually reduces tax collected. Labour would do exactly what they've always done, create millions of pretend jobs in an already bloated inefficient public sector, flood the NHS with bean counters and paper shufflers and push the politics of envy. Their plans for the economy don't include the cost of renationalising the railways and water companies but don't worry they'll just give the magic money tree a shake and everything will be ok


I'd like to point out Jock the renationalising the railways is actually reducing the burden on the treasury coffers in the medium to long term.First of all the railway infer structure is still owned by gov and currently costing us the tax payer about 8bn per year.The franchises are making a tidy profit thank you very much on the back of this.Eastern Railway was taken back into gov ownership after the franchise failed and was only returned to franchise once it became profitable again.If you look into it further the Labour Party are saying they won't throw a blanket over the whole thing but rather than paying compensation to the private companies they'll wait until existing contracts are up and would also like to keep some of the elements of the business in private hands to keep it competitive.TBH Jock I'm glad I don't need the trains to get to work as the people that rely on them have been given the rawest deal of all and something drastic needs to happen.Oh,and BTW the NHS bean counting army was a Tory invention of the 80's when they decided to take financial decisions out of the hands of clinicians and other trained medical staff and put it in the hands of an Army of non-medical staff.And a bit of careful googleing will show that I'm not making this up.

Under Labour we actually had more bean counters than nurses. Re the railways there would be a cost for rolling stock and plant it wouldn't be as simple as letting contracts run down and the government simply taking everything over.
Jock
 
Posts: 3404
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:37 pm

Re: Game changer for Election 2017?

Postby dogfound » Mon May 22, 2017 7:44 pm

Sneggyblubird wrote:
Jock wrote:
piledriver64 wrote:
Steve Zodiak wrote:
piledriver64 wrote:
Tony Blue Williams wrote:
Pant-Yr-Awel Oldie wrote:People's houses have been used to pay for homes for years. Right through Labours 13 years in power. I am on a pension and it won't affect me a lot. But it will affect me if and when Corbyn bankrups the country.


Yes people have been paying for their personal care for years including under the previous Labour Government. However, Labour introduced the triple lock and winter fuel payments (which you failed to mention)

I would also point out that the Tories have borrowed more money in the past 7 years than all previous Labour Governments put together :shock: So much for their so called economic competence. :lol: :roll:


Spot on !!

We keep hearing about the terrible overspending of Labour governments but nobody is looking at the facts. That Tories borrowed more money !!

I just don't get how people aren't recognising these FACTS !! Must be taking the Tory spin and control of the Press as gospel rather than simply looking it up for themselves. So frustrating!!

The lack of knowledge of care costs also worries me. I have a mother and mother-in-law in care. We've had to sell two houses for care costs and, having looked at the Tory proposals, I can assure you that the money would have been used up even quicker if this was in place.

Personal care isn't the only thing involved in this change, read up about it and then someone tell me how this will result in families being able to keep more of the money that their loved ones worked so hard to accrue.

By the way, if you still think you'll be able to pass some of your assets to your kids do it now. Anything re-assigned within 7 years of it needing to be used for your care can be re-claimed by them !! Think ahead !!


Like I have said before on here, are you (I presume you are working and are a tax payer) happy enough to pay for me and my upkeep so that I can hand over hundreds of thousands of pounds to my children who are obviously now adults and earning themselves, so that they can buy new cars and go on exotic holidays, or do you think that I should take responsibility for myself. If the taxpayers are happy to pay for me, that's fine by me and will give my adult children money for cars and holidays. If the taxpayer thinks that as I have the means to look after myself, that's fine as well. I had nothing handed down to me, and neither did my parents. We all took responsibility for our own upkeep, lived within our means, and never expected or believed that the state owed us a particular lifestyle. We also agreed that our taxes should be used to help those in desperate need. Done my bit for those who needed help, but I don't believe any of you should pay for me when I have assets of my own.


Yes I've been a tax payer for 37 years solid and in the privileged position, over the last 6-7 years, of paying 40% tax on a proportion of my wage.

I would happily accept another 1-2% on top if it was ring fenced to social/health care. Something that simply won't happen under May

May has given no commitment to keeping the lower tax bands the same because she wants to safeguard her rich Tory voters.

Labour have commuted to not raising taxes other than for the top earners.

The choice is simple, if your looking after yourself vote Tory is you think they do it for you. But for many with a social conscience Labour will clearly fit the bill.

Time after time it's been proven that raising tax rates for high earners actually reduces tax collected. Labour would do exactly what they've always done, create millions of pretend jobs in an already bloated inefficient public sector, flood the NHS with bean counters and paper shufflers and push the politics of envy. Their plans for the economy don't include the cost of renationalising the railways and water companies but don't worry they'll just give the magic money tree a shake and everything will be ok


I'd like to point out Jock the renationalising the railways is actually reducing the burden on the treasury coffers in the medium to long term.First of all the railway infer structure is still owned by gov and currently costing us the tax payer about 8bn per year.The franchises are making a tidy profit thank you very much on the back of this.Eastern Railway was taken back into gov ownership after the franchise failed and was only returned to franchise once it became profitable again.If you look into it further the Labour Party are saying they won't throw a blanket over the whole thing but rather than paying compensation to the private companies they'll wait until existing contracts are up and would also like to keep some of the elements of the business in private hands to keep it competitive.TBH Jock I'm glad I don't need the trains to get to work as the people that rely on them have been given the rawest deal of all and something drastic needs to happen.Oh,and BTW the NHS bean counting army was a Tory invention of the 80's when they decided to take financial decisions out of the hands of clinicians and other trained medical staff and put it in the hands of an Army of non-medical staff.And a bit of careful googleing will show that I'm not making this up.



my first two jobs were for nationalised industries{that lost buckets of money } nobody cared. about production,qualty,profits. my first real job working for a private company was the biggest eye opener ive ever had. 23 years old and all of a sudden all the above were important..sorry mate but nationalising profitable things doesnt mean they will remain profitable my real life experience is that they just create a comfort zone enviroment.
dogfound
 
Posts: 12529
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2016 6:52 pm

Re: Game changer for Election 2017?

Postby wez1927 » Mon May 22, 2017 7:48 pm

:lol:
Attachments
FB_IMG_1495481899496.jpg
FB_IMG_1495481899496.jpg (18.19 KiB) Viewed 930 times
CARDIFF CITY TILL I DIE !
wez1927
 
Posts: 18680
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2011 8:00 pm

Re: Game changer for Election 2017?

Postby epping blue » Wed May 31, 2017 12:07 pm

What a difference in10 days.
epping blue
 
Posts: 1749
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: Game changer for Election 2017?

Postby Drive » Wed May 31, 2017 2:47 pm

Dont forget Conservatives are paedophile sympathisers.... They 'lost' the dossier containing the evidence....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westmin ... le_dossier
Drive
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:12 pm

Previous


Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: FOOTSOLDIER, Google [Bot], Grapeshot [Bot], ias [Bot], Igovernor, Proximic [Bot], Semrush [Bot], worcester_ccfc and 229 guests

Disclaimer :
The views and comments entered in these forums are personal and are not necessarily those of the management of this board.
The management of this board is not responsible for the content of any external internet sites.