To think it is clear where Corbyn will get the money from?

[malificent7]

Taxes of course... especially the rich.
Which is how it should be.

It's not, ohcrepe. It really isn't.

Oh yes, JMcD is my dream chancellor. Hang on....Nope, the other one

John McDonnell’s Mao moment is a dirty trick on his own party

If you're going to make out cuts are to stop benefit fraud you really have been duped.

Well I have planted my own magic money tree today and I bloody hope it works.

Oh and then I woke up and voted Tory.

Been chased off the other thread by the usual suspects.

Have a great day make

All pay a flat rate of 45%? Nobody would work at all. And why should all those low earners the Tories took out of taxation give half their income to the state?

Yes let's make Britain less attractive to businesses post Brexit.

Crepe. You are not listening to me!

I am saying it's about changing the mentality. If you see benefits as an entitlement, it fosters a culture.

If you see benefits as a pot of money that should be spent on the most deserving, it fosters a better culture.

Too much of the former shrinks the pool for the latter and THEN the cuts happen.

I understand completely.
My initial point was that cuts in my job that directly affected disabled children began to happen immediately in 2010 and they have continued having a real effect on children's access to learning (alongside a restrictive and backward curriculum). I believe children should be entitled to an education that suits them, with staff and physical aids that enable them to access life.
If you want to shoe horn in a gripe about unworthy people claiming benefits you are the one not listening.

So not getting an answer from calmshambala about how the poor are cared for in Dubai I did a quick google. Found this story which shows shanty towns for the poor and migrants working in 50C heat building investment properties for the rich; the flip side of the luxurious life styles for the rich. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7985361.stm

So the rich leaving here to amass their own wealth are basically saying they couldn't give a shit about poor people, unless they need their labour of course at bargain prices. Fortunately not all rich people are so greedy.

So keeping money that you've earned by working hard is "greedy"? Ok. Guess I can see why you can't get the other point!

None of the parties are looking where they should for money - i.e. actually growing our economy by supporting & stimulating entrepreneurship, manufacturing, industry, creative sector, research & university education.

We can't squeeze more money out of a smaller pot, we need to grow the pot.

Very well put, Strange.

Are you actually asking that dan?
Are you actually saying that rich people don't have a moral obligation to care for the poor?

Yes of course it is greedy if you're happy to see others suffering whilst counting your cash.
As for the rich working hard for money, the very richest don't, they invest and let the money grow whilst fox hunting etc. ()
I'm from a privileged background. I was also brought up with a social conscience.

If you want to educate people as to why they should contribute, calling them greedy is not a good start.

If you had read my earlier post, as you claimed to have understood it, you would have seen that I said a civilised society must provide for those who need it.

But language is important. If you want the rich to contribute more and the not so rich but not in need to take less, using words like "greedy" and "taking money from the needy" is going about it the wrong way IMOz

You know what?
Greedy people know they are greedy
those who give to the needy know that too.
For the many not for the few.

Pinkpanda101, Corbyn has a vastly different definition of a small business than everyone else does then. The 26% will affect my business even though it employs less than 15 people and has a turnover of less than a million pounds.

So keeping money that you've earned by working hard is "greedy"? Ok. Guess I can see why you can't get the other point!

Poor people work hard, in fact probably harder. The top 5% don't have the monopoly on hard work, there is a degree of luck and coasting, and let's not forget they would not be there without employees working for a fraction of their salary, and unfortunately not deemed worthy of good healthcare and education and housing that does not eat up 60% of their salary. Not exactly a recipe for a healthy workforce, but don't worry, when poor health means they can't work any more you can label them scroungers.

yeah, that's convincing. And you say you work in education?!

Sinister. Nobody is talking about people who work.

However if you want to say that people who don't earn as much all view high earners as "greedy" then that's exactly the point I was making to crepe.

I don't care if he doesn't manage to achieve 70% of what he's claiming he will, at least he's trying to address the obscene differences in money between the rich and the poor.

Well that depends on whether or not you actually want to help the poor. You can reduced the 'obscene differences' by chasing all the rich away and then we are all equal in poverty.... Or you can tax the rich a reasonable amount and help 'the poor' as best you can.

I don't care if he doesn't manage to achieve 70% of what he's claiming he will, at least he's trying to address the obscene differences in money between the rich and the poor.

Walking has a point. Back to my earlier point - you need to be clear about exactly what it is you want and what potential fall in living standards you are prepared to accept. If an equal society is the most important thing to you, then I wholly respect your point of view - but you have to accept that this may well only come about at the expense of growth and absolute living standards for everyone.

Most of the rich, people refer to, were once poor.

I know many who grew up in complete poverty left school with no qualifications and got where they are through hard graft.

Dp and I worked 7 days per week sometimes 18/20 hours per day to afford our first tiny studio. We have always been careful with money and have struggled sometimes. Just spent £50k on an operation to extend dps life because not only did the NHS not diagnose in time despite dp asking to be tested but refused to do the operation as it didn't they thought improved his prospects . A friend laughed at us because she and her partner walked in to a council house . They have always been on some sort of benefit.
These are the ones who JC would say are in need and need money from us the"rich"

Forgive me for not being very generous with the money that I was laughed at for earning and investing. We took the chance that owning a place would one day mean we would have a place we could call our own and have no mortgage and little outgoings not being treated ike the bad guy for owning a house.

Sorry if that was a bit garbled my phone is playing silly beggars and wouldn't let me see what I was typing

Why should it be like that?! Whats the incentive to work?

For me the "rich" are the people who inherit titles, heavily evade inheritance and income tax through highly paid accountants and offshore accounts, and have never done am actual "day of work" in their life.

One Tory MP thought teachers were on £80k a year while another had no idea that minimum wage was £7.50 an hour (he took a stab at £6, then £8, an hour). These people are completely out of touch with the average Brit (I'm defining this roughly as someone earning approximately £26,000 according to most statistics) and yet they are representing our views in parliament. And yes, I'm sure many labour MPs have made similar mistakes across their careers but with Corbyn and his values leading the party at the moment I would prefer to side with them I'm afraid.

I completely understand why people do vote Tory. From my perspective however the only people who do are the ones earning far above the average salaries or those who have read The Sun and the Mail a few too many times. I just wish people would educate themselves from other sources before voting.