To ask who you're voting for next May?

[NickiFury]

Me, Labour.

UKIP as in Labour stronghold otherwise would vote Tory. Labour brought this country to its knees. I'm amazed anyone wants them back.

How, Marylou did Labour bring this country to its knees?

Tory, dear me do not want a repeat of Labour balls up that has taken years to correct

What exactly has been corrected? I'm struggling to think of anything.
Tory are not exactly financial whizzes : if they were they wouldn't have sold Royal Mail for a fraction of its true value.
If labour were financial whizzes they wouldn't have sold the gold reserves when they did.
Both parties have their financial failings but I am struggling to see what the Tories have 'corrected'.
They put a cap on benefits. Lots of people agreed with this and it seemed a sure vote winner, but actually lots of families (particularly in London ) have been left unable to pay their rent and are now in temporary accommodation due to evictions which is costing the taxpayer more than their benefits before the cap.
They bought in the bedroom tax which again seemed like a vote winner. The reality of the benefit cap is that lots of families are receiving additional support with housing costs due to the fact that there are no smaller available properties. Many other people are just falling into arrears or facing eviction. This policy is not saving taxpayers any money.
They fiddled the job statistics so that unemployment rates appear to have fallen significantly when the sad reality is that a lot of people now deemed to be in employment are actually on zero hour contracts and might not be earning anything most weeks.
They increased student tuition fees threefold but all that has done has pushed up student loans because students are now borrowing significantly more and many will never be able to repay the loans.

What exactly has been corrected (actual stuff, not the biased bullshit that is reported in newspapers who have a political agenda due to their support of specific parties)?
I'm willing to change my views if somebody can show me actual evidence of what the current government has corrected and how it is beneficial to the majority of the population.

Am unsure. I voted lib dem last time and am not happy with the way things have turned out. Before that i had voted Plaid Cymru. I know it won't be UKIP. We are regarded as a Labour safe seat now but before 1997 we were a Conservative safe seat so things do change

Labour.
Anything else is abhorrent and immoral.

Wow. Shedloads of SNP voters on this thread, which, considering it's UK-wide and Scotland only has 8% of the UK population, is pretty striking.

Me, I'm voting Sensible Party.

In other words, SNP, of course.

Also, how can any woman vote UKIP and still claim to have self-respect? Serious question.

Here the LDs and Tories shared 80% of the vote between them in 2010 and our two nationalist parties struggled to make 2% so, as I could never vote Tory and consider the LDs a bunch of self-serving turncoats who prop up the Tory government I will probably chuck away my vote on Mebyon Kernow.

What exactly has been corrected? I'm struggling to think of anything

I would like an answer to this too. All the welfare 'reforms' seem to have done is push the burden onto local councils in the form of discretionary housing payments and crisis loans and emergency housing. Nothing appears to have been done to address the problems of lack of jobs or affordable childcare or housing. It hasn't saved money, just shifted the figures from one department to another and allowed a little vilifying.

Competitive tendering is costing the NHS millions (and destroying it, but that's not purely a financial issue)

The academy schools programme has been a hugely expensive exercise, involving a lot of weird stuff such as Gove handing over the title deeds to hundreds of state schools to private companies for no payment. We even paid the legal fees. Free schools also dodgy as fuck.

The subsidy for Private Residence Relief (not paying capital gains tax when you sell your house) costs twice as much as unemployment benefit. The tax relief on private pensions plus the subsidies given to banks costs almost as much as the entire education budget.

I'm all for encouraging savings and pensions but the tax relief on these subsidies is 10x the cost of unemployment benefit and give nothing to the people trapped at the bottom with no hope of ever having savings or a pension.

There is money sloshing around that will never be labelled as a 'benefit' or 'welfare' and will remain untouchable while the Tories scrag around trying to get £7 a week out of someone who is already on the bones or their arse.

The 'hardworking families' line makes it very easy to pretend you aren't on benefits when 'all' you get is stuff like tax relief on savings and capital gains tax exemption, but it costs the country a fortune.

I'm not saying Labour would have done anything differently, but I just can't bring myself to think of the Torys as financially competent (unless you happen to be a pal, then you get the Royal Mail at a knock down price, or an NHS contract or a state owned school)

Good post, MrSheen.

I'd vote Green - but my main concern is to get the Tories out and try to prevent a Tory/UKIP coalition ( the horror!) so I'll be voting Labour.

Spot on MrSheen!

I normally would vote conservative as my local MP is very good and council tax has gone down loads every year for the past at least 5 years and he has done so much. Am thinking maybe UKIP though as I want a referendum to get out of the EU.

ukip of course, no question about it

ukip of course, no question about it
Am thinking maybe UKIP though as I want a referendum to get out of the EU.

Despite the huge financial losses?
Despite the repatriation ideals?
Despite the ending of maternity leave?
Despite wanting to destroy disability benefits?
Despite wanting to ensure no parity within the education system?

Great posts Missunreasonable and Mr Sheen!

I disagree that not having to pay capital gains tax where the government decides that none is due is 'costing' the country.

It just doesn't make sense to me. It's like me saying that it costs me £20k a year to only work part time. Except my choice not to spend more hours earning money doesn't cost me anything, because it's not money that I have to pay out. Something can only cost me money if I have to part with cash that I already have, what I don't have is irrelevant.

The 'hardworking families' line makes it very easy to pretend you aren't on benefits when 'all' you get is stuff like tax relief on savings and capital gains tax exemption, but it costs the country a fortune.

Where's the pretending? People that don't claim benefits don't claim benefits, it's either a fact or it's not, there's nothing to pretend about.

Good post dawndonna. Unfortunately too many people just read newspapers like the daily fail and believe it all and don't stop to look for the other side of the argument (the reality rather than the media biased rhetoric and panic causing bullshit).

I disagree that not having to pay capital gains tax where the government decides that none is due is 'costing' the country

The government has decided that tax has to be paid on capital gains above the annual exempt amount, then they have given capital gains on property an exemption that it didn't have to do. The money does exist. If you buy a house for 200K and sell it for 300K you have made a 100K capital gain and the money is right there in your bank account, alongside the wages that you pay tax on. Under the current system this is tax free i.e. tax relief i.e. a subsidy i.e. a benefit - If it wasn't property but, for example, shares that the 100K was made on it would be taxable, save for the exempt amount, which is about 10k, so there is 90k that should have tax paid on it amounting to about 25k.

Tax should be paid on savings, assuming that you have enough income pay tax. But the government subsidises the tax on 'tax free savings'. You can invest £15000 a year and all the interest is tax free for as long as you keep it in the tax free account. The next year you can invest another £15000 so now you are getting tax free interest on £30000, then £45000 and then some (I'm not going to do the compound income calculations). If you use a stocks and share ISA then you are exempt from capital gains tax.

It costs the country because it is tax over the personal allowance, but not collected due to an exemption. It is a government subsidy to savers and home owners, to be nice and to encourage saving and to not commit political suicide by making people pay capital gains tax on their homes but it is a subsidy and it costs £25 billion a year.

Something can only cost me money if I have to part with cash that I already have, what I don't have is irrelevant

Just say you owe your friend £10 because she walked your dogs. She decides that it doesn't really matter, and tells you not to bother paying. It's a nice gesture, but she's lost £10. That's the same as the government saying tax must me paid on anything over the personal allowance because they run the schools and hospitals for you, then saying 'but don't bother about that £10'. It's a nice gesture but it costs £25 billion. It doesn't suddenly not matter because you didn't hand over the cash and then have it handed back to you.

You can pretend that people don't gain from tax relief as much as you like, but they do.

You even have a problem with ISAs?

To use your dog walking analogy, if my friend decided she was willing to do me a favour by walking my dog, as friends sometimes do for each other, then it wouldn't owe her a tenner at all. If I don't owe it in the first place, she doesn't have it to lose.

Why shouldn't the government look after it's citizens and not tax every penny they possibly can out of them. The government is there to serve all of us, including those of us that might want to save our own money for the future in an ISA.

Tax exemptions are not a dirty, immoral thing that only apply to the mega rich who have London apartments, holiday homes in Cornwall and a wife drawing a fake salary for being a PA. Lots of people are homeowners, or people that can afford to save a bit of money for their future or their children, and they deserve consideration from their government too. The money that exists when you buy a property for £200k and sell it for £300k is practically worthless in real terms when any other home you might like to buy to live in has also gone up by that much. It's not money just sitting in a bank account dodging tax, it's buying someone a home.

I find it odd that you begrudge normal people their own money so much.

No, I don't have a problem with ISAs. I think they're great. I have a problem with the vilification of the poor and the way this government begrudges every penny they get and stacks the system in favour of the rich whilst all the time pretending that it doesn't.

I have a problem with GO sending 24 million letters (how much will that cost?) containing misleading election propaganda to rile people up about 'welfare spending' without acknowledging that he has fudged the numbers to include public sector pensions under the welfare bill and has conveniently not mentioned other things at all.

I have a problem with the fact that people have died, actually died, because of these welfare 'reforms' which have saved little actual money, have placed a huge burden on council budgets, and the sole purpose of which seems to be to create a 'them and us' mentality where 'they' are work shy scroungers and 'we' are skimming off £25billion in tax relief.

Why shouldn't the government look after it's citizens and not tax every penny they possibly can out of them

They bloody should look after them. All of them. Not just the ones who've sold a house or can afford to save. All of them. Especially the poor, the sick and the disabled. That isn't what is happening. They are looking after the people who least need it and shitting on the ones who do. If they looked after savers and home owners and actually said 'here's £25 billion' and managed to not at the same time make up lies about '3 generations out of work' and 'work shy scroungers' and look after the rest of the population too then I would be on board with that but they aren't and I have a problem with that. If they addressed housing or employment law or wages or childcare costs or transport or many of the other barriers that keep the working poor, poor then I would be much more on board with tax subsidies but this is not 'looking after it's citizens' it's 'looking after the citizens who are likely to vote for us'.
Poor people are citizens too.

I find it odd that you begrudge normal people their own money so much.

Don't be so fucking ridiculous. I don't begrudge normal (??) people their own money, or even abnormal people. It may not be coming across, but I am a 'normal person' . I begrudge handwringing about scroungers from people who are quite happy to take tax subsidies and I abhor the governments policies of placing the most burden on those least able to bear it and creating spiralling inequalities which are extremely damaging to society and somehow getting a load of people thinking they are actually good with money.

To use your dog walking analogy, if my friend decided she was willing to do me a favour by walking my dog

OK, it was a crap analogy, because your friend probably didn't encounter much expense by walking your dog. Lets say she's homeschooling your kid, or being a carer for you, then times you and your kid by millions of people and she can no longer afford to do it as a favour. She has to gather in some money to do it. You can't seriously say people shouldn't pay tax because the government should run the country for free, as a favour.

No, I don't have a problem with ISAs. I think they're great. I have a problem with the vilification of the poor and the way this government begrudges every penny they get and stacks the system in favour of the rich whilst all the time pretending that it doesn't.

You've lost me then, it came across to me as if you have a problem with ISAs and areas where CGT isn't due, because I don't really see how those things are relevant to the points you seem to be trying to make.

Of course the poor shouldn't be vilified, but the vast majority of the country falls somewhere between rich and poor, and ISAs and the like are there for their benefit, as they should be. They don't cost the government just because the government has decided that there is no tax to pay on certain things. The government doesn't earn from children's clothes and basic food either, that doesn't mean it's costing them.

I think I can see the point you're trying to make, but using things that are irrelevant to illustrate it.

You can't seriously say people shouldn't pay tax because the government should run the country for free, as a favour.

I'm not saying that at all, of course people should pay tax, it pays for things we all need, including the poor. But the country can afford not to tax it's citizens on every single possible thing it could, but I doubt that most homeowners could afford to pay CGT just because their property has earned meaningless equity at the same rate as everyone else's property.