Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Britain's totally unfair tax system

136 replies

ivanhoe · 12/10/2010 10:58

Hi everybody, what im about to write maybe will surprise some of you, but nonetheless its all fact. So here goes.

Britain is a low income tax nation, hence increases in Council Tax.

Including Council tax, Britain has the most disproportionate tax system, compared to Western Europe.

The poor in Britain pay more "overall" taxation including Council tax and Income tax, in proportion to income, than the rich.

What do you think of that then ?

OP posts:
ColdComfortFarm · 14/10/2010 13:00

Ivanhoe, you lost my respect when someone posted 'link?' (eg evidence for your assertion) and you replied 'don't need one'. Why do you expect us to believe everything you say is 'all fact' when you refuse to supply even a shred of evidence to back it up?

scaryteacher · 14/10/2010 13:02

'New Labour 1997- 2010 were not a "Labour" Government' Yes, they were; if they were not a Labour government they would have joined the Tory party. You can tell they were socialist by the vast increase in and extension of the welfare state; by the 'buying' of their client state; by the increase in bureaucracy, especially the stealth taxes introduced by Gordon Brown; by the relaxation on immigration; by the underfunding of HM Forces; by the insistence on one size fits all comprehensives; by having Ed Balls as Ed Sec; 'Old' Labour were never far away and lurked beneath the surface.

I didn't vote for them in 97, and have never voted for them because I disagree with the extension of the state into every area of our lives.

FellatioNelson · 14/10/2010 14:39

I'm thinking about this idea that Nes Labour was not a labour government. I suppose Ivanhoe is right in a way - they certainly didn't achieve any of the things that people might hope for in a labour government - like narrow the gap between rich and poor, or improve the chances of working class and disadvantaged children. In fact I'd say the Blair/Brown era gave us all the down-sides of a Labour government but none of the benefits.

Original poster
ivanhoe · 14/10/2010 14:48

///////FellatioNelson Thu 14-Oct-10 14:39:41
I'm thinking about this idea that Nes Labour was not a labour government. I suppose Ivanhoe is right in a way - they certainly didn't achieve any of the things that people might hope for in a labour government - like narrow the gap between rich and poor, or improve the chances of working class and disadvantaged children. In fact I'd say the Blair/Brown era gave us all the down-sides of a Labour government but none of the benefits./////

Congrats on seeing what others on here are failing to.

"Traditional" Labour were kept out of office by 18 years of right wing Tory government.

And it was Neil Kinnoock who instigated the moving of Labour to the right.

But it was Tony Blair and Gordon Brown who carried through Thatcher's right wing agenda
when New Labour came to power in 1997.

OP posts:
Original poster
ivanhoe · 14/10/2010 14:49

//////Ivanhoe, you lost my respect when someone posted 'link?' (eg evidence for your assertion) and you replied 'don't need one'. Why do you expect us to believe everything you say is 'all fact' when you refuse to supply even a shred of evidence to back it up?//////

I know what I know because ive been involved in politics for 30 years.

Im surpised you need proof of what I say ????

OP posts:
Original poster
ivanhoe · 14/10/2010 14:50

///scaryteacher Thu 14-Oct-10 13:02:45
'New Labour 1997- 2010 were not a "Labour" Government' Yes, they were; if they were not a Labour government they would have joined the Tory party. You can tell they were socialist by the vast increase in and extension of the welfare state; by the 'buying' of their client state; by the increase in bureaucracy, especially the stealth taxes introduced by Gordon Brown; by the relaxation on immigration; by the underfunding of HM Forces; by the insistence on one size fits all comprehensives; by having Ed Balls as Ed Sec; 'Old' Labour were never far away and lurked beneath the surface.

I didn't vote for them in 97, and have never voted for them because I disagree with the extension of the state into every area of our lives.///

Bully for you.

OP posts:
FellatioNelson · 14/10/2010 15:24

Ivanhoe - Are you serious? Do you think our population would be careering towards a forecast of 70 million if Thatcher had still been in power? Or that 1 in 5 employed people would be working in the public sector? Or that roughly 45% of school leavers would be going to university, and that the children of even slightly affluent parents would pay for tuition whilst the children of poorer parents don't? Which bit of Thatcher's right wing agenda was that exactly?

Original poster
ivanhoe · 14/10/2010 15:40

New Labour adopted Thatcher's low tax free market, privatisation, deregulation.

Labour ditched their core values and moved to the right.

OP posts:
scaryteacher · 14/10/2010 15:45

'I know what I know because ive been involved in politics for 30 years.

Im surpised you need proof of what I say ????'

For all we know Ivanhoe, you could be a bored teenager who can't be arsed to do their coursework. You supply no credentials; expect us to believe what you say despite the empirical evidence we see around us that contradicts you.

However I am glad that you agree with Fellatio that Bliar and Brown gave us the downsides of a Labout govt. I have never noticed any benefits from a Labour govt at all, so can't coment on that bit.

And yes! Bully for me and all the other people who decided that Labour needed to go! Yay for us!!

pagwatch · 14/10/2010 15:45

This is like being lectured by a particularly dull yet earnest professor who doesn't make eye contact and doesn't listen so you just end up being fixated by the leather elbow patches on his cardigan and his monobrow.......

scaryteacher · 14/10/2010 15:47

..and the dewdrop on the end of his nasal hair that extends beyond his nostril. Was it geography you were thinking of Pag?

FellatioNelson · 14/10/2010 15:50

And yes, you are right - traditional labour was kept of out government for 18 years by the Tories - because they had had chance after chance and brought the country to it's knees every time. No-one in their right mind wanted a 'traditional' labour government for a very long time. That's why they had to re-brand, and change tack. And it worked for a while - it made people trust them again. And now all those people are finding out there's no such thing as a free lunch, and if something seems to good to be true - it is. And the Tories are back on familiar territory - sorting out the mess.

FellatioNelson · 14/10/2010 15:52

Scary I meant perceived benefits. There are not any actual benefits, obviously. Wink

pagwatch · 14/10/2010 16:08

possibly geog oh scary one. Or economics

Actually it is all a bit of a yawn blur.

ColdComfortFarm · 14/10/2010 16:37

Well if you know all this, and you want to convince others of it, don't you see that providing some evidence (which surely you have at your fingertips) might make your argument more convincing? I have no idea who you are. You could be anyone! Why should I take the pronouncements of some anonymous person on the internet as gospel truth? That would be ridiculous!

scaryteacher · 14/10/2010 19:34

Perhaps Ivanhoe should become Don Quixote - tilting at windmills.

Original poster
ivanhoe · 15/10/2010 12:07

/////That would be ridiculous////

Of course it would, I mean how could you possibly be aware of something that was set in place only 30 years ago. ? tch tch.

OP posts:
Original poster
ivanhoe · 15/10/2010 12:11

////I have never noticed any benefits from a Labour govt at all, so can't coment on that bit.////

Labour brought in the NHS, the Welfare State, the Minimum Wage, all to help working class people after the war.

All were destroyed by Thatcher.

Your memory is pretty bad dont you think ?, no of course you dont think .

OP posts:
catinthehat2 · 15/10/2010 12:14

/////oh noes/////
///they're back/////

MrsWobble · 15/10/2010 12:15

i thought the minimum wage was brought in post Thatcher so it's hard to see how she destroyed it.

PortoFangO · 15/10/2010 12:24

Minimum wage was 1998 I think....

PortoFangO · 15/10/2010 12:34

Here is a interesting snippet about the initial proponent for the Welfare State :

"Beveridge was a proponent of Eugenics. He argued in 1909 that "those men who through general defects are unable to fill such a whole place in industry, are to be recognised as 'unemployable'. They must become the acknowledged dependents of the State... but with complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights ? including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood."

scaryteacher · 15/10/2010 14:44

As I wasn't alive immediately post war Ivanhoe, I wouldn't remember the establishment of the welfare state. I wasn't born until the mid 60s.

I do remember the power cuts, the bins overflowing and the winter of discontent though. Mrs T soon sorted that out!

By the way, resorting to snidey comments means that you subconsciously know you are losing the argument.

pagwatch · 15/10/2010 14:47

and I am subconciously back in double physics in about 1975 wishing the bell would go....

catinthehat2 · 15/10/2010 14:51

////will a sort of screechy violin sound do?//////