Voted Tory or Libdem? Dont moan about the cuts...

[amanda277]

It makes me laugh when people seem shocked at the Condems and their cuts. What did people expect when they voted Tory? The mega rich don?t care about the working class and I can only see it getting worse. My Local Sure Start Centre has just shut and there rest are sure to follow, I think it will soon be similar to the ?Thatcher? years again and im sure David Cameron and his cronies dont give a damn about the NHS....

Only a hardened socialist would argue that there is no need for cuts. The structural budget deficit is £155 billion and failure to deal with it would to lead a loss of confidence on the bond markets leaving us paying far higher rates of interest on our debts which would drag on our economy. If you wished to take a socialist approach then you could argue that the Government should just raise taxes but this would damage compettiveness and would also lead extremely high levels of tax on all people.

Earthworm

Or didn't you mean to make such a ludicrously sweeping generalisation, in the manner of an ill informed adolescent?

Does a sweeping generalisation remain so when it is true.

Tories;

Cause unemployment (always highest under the Tories)

Cause child poverty (always increases under the Tories)

Cause social damage.

Destroy industry (bail out the banks but throw Sheffield Forgemasters to the wolves) mining, steel.

Always favour the elites with their policies. (lets scrap the 50p tax band asap)

Always try to find scapegoats (unions, immigrants)

Are not called the "nasty party" without good reason.

Are toxic to the NHS.

These may be, as you say "sweeping generalisations" but are also in the main, true.

sweep on, newwave!

Yes you are quite right, they are all sweeping generalisations; the Left is fond of them because they muddy the waters and stifle debate so I do applaud you for continuing the tradition.

I will respond to two of your points, as most are demonstrably subjective :

Anyone can have low unemployment if willing to employ 50% of the population in the public sector (in an entirely short sighted and unsustainable way).

Of course the 50% tax band should be abolished - if you are genuinely interested in maximising revenue rather than punishing the rich.

Oh, and who did you claim had bailed out the banks?

Anyone can have low unemployment if willing to employ 50% of the population in the public sector (in an entirely short sighted and unsustainable way)

I would debate the 50% but for argument I will agree.

So you think the better idea is to increase unemployment with the loss of tax revenues, the loss of public services, the damage to individuals, families and society in general along with all the other ills of unemployment, evictions, homelessness, rough sleeping.

The increase in benefit payments.

Just shows kinnock was right, Tories know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Of course the 50% tax band should be abolished - if you are genuinely interested in maximising revenue rather than punishing the rich.

Still as Thatcher or one of her cabinet said, "unemplyment is a price worth paying"

I will settle for both if by the "rich" you mean the offshoring tax avoiding/evading type of rich person who wants to live in society but wants to avoid paying his/her fair share after all "we are all in this together" or are their exceptions?.

As for the other points I note you have not (or cannot) refute them.

Newwave - the bank bailout?

New Wave - the bank bailout? oops, I was wrong.

Should have said never "punished" the bankers and allowed their obscene bonuses to continue even in the "state owned" banks.

with, whatever happened to Cameron/Osbourn policy of "no bonus of over £2600 in the "state owned" banks. Miliband asked this during PMQs and Dave did not answer, does anyone know when this policy is to be implemented.

It might have been implementable if Brown and Darling had made it part of the bailout conditions. I'm guessing it was too difficult to post date....

Anyway on one level cash bonuses are good as up to 50% comes straight back in tax. Bonus in shares leads to a delay in tax revenue.

It might have been implementable if Brown and Darling had made it part of the bailout conditions. I'm guessing it was too difficult to post date....

As the major shareholders we had the whip hand and could/should have stopped it. If we could not why did Cameron tell lies about it.

Anyway on one level cash bonuses are good as up to 50% comes straight back in tax. Bonus in shares leads to a delay in tax revenue.

Doubt it, I have no doubt they are "offshoring/avoiding/trust funding" for all they are worth.

You arguments are emotive but they still don't make sense.

If we follow your logic, why not aim for full employment and recruit 60% or 70% to the public sector? At what point would this be uneconomic?

What do you consider rich? Top 1%? It doesn't matter how rich you are, handing over more than half of your earnings is inherently unfair and encourages people to change their behaviour accordingly - not just emigration and evasion, but early retirement, reducing working hours, increasing pension contributions and deferring income. It also discourages business from staying or relocating here.

Your other points are subjective and thus merely your opinion..I believe that the onus is on you to prove them. Go on, find some statistics because I will enjoy finding some to throw back at you.

So when the Coalition is unable to curb bank excesses they are 'favouring the elite' but when Labour missed their opportunity they were...well, what exactly? Either similarly favouring the elite or presumably incompetent?

handing over more than half of your earnings is inherently unfair
Are you being serious? It's 50% of your income over £150,000.

And I take it you are ignoring lfn's sweeping generalisations: scroungers (I think he/she means benefit claimants); the usual public-sector-gold-plated-pension rubbish?

It doesn't matter how rich you are, handing over more than half of your earnings is inherently unfair.

Dont agree, my partner and I whilst not rich have a joint income of between £82k and £90k a year which is comfortable and I pay a lot of tax which I see as my duty so as to live in a fair and (mostly) decent society.

My cousin and I inherited our Grandmothers house we did not try to avoid inheritance tax nor will I when I inherited my Mothers house when she passes on.

Your other points are subjective and thus merely your opinion..I believe that the onus is on you to prove them. Go on, find some statistics because I will enjoy finding some to throw back at you

Cause unemployment (always highest under the Tories) this is undeniable

Cause child poverty (always increases under the Tories) Labour brought it down from the level left by Thatcher/Major, not far or fast enough I will admit

Cause social damage. you only have to see the despair caused by the end of steel working and mining in northern, scottish and Welsh mill and mining communities to know this is true

Destroy industry (bail out the banks but throw Sheffield Forgemasters to the wolves) mining, steel. please correct the untruths in this statement and yes I have corrected the "bail out" bit

Always favour the elites with their policies. (lets scrap the 50p tax band asap) self evident

Are not called the "nasty party" without good reason. A quote from I believe Teresa May.

Are toxic to the NHS. So almost everyone except the Tories are wrong about their attempt to privatise overhaul the NHS.

I dont need "statistics" to know this is correct.

Mablemurple - our top rate of tax is one of the highest in the EU, with only three countries (out of 86) having a higher top rate.

I maintain that lowering the top rate would increase tax receipts - see Howe-Lawson tax cuts in the UK, Kennedy tax cuts in US (also Regan tax cuts in 1980s), tax cuts in France from mid 90s, also India, Hong Kong etc.

Even if you don't think it is unfair to tax punitively, it simply doesn't make economic sense no matter how much you really really want to do it.

Newwave - ah, the strategy of repeating what you have already said in a more authoritative voice until the other party loses the will to live.

The 'nasty party' was coined by a Conservative party chairman, but I can't remember which one.

And I grew up in a mining village so I have some sympathy with your comment about social damage; I similarly have reservations about their proposals for the NHS.

You see, most people are not too tribal to look at the policies of a political party - of any persuasion - and disagree with some whilst agreeing with others. Aligning yourself too slavishly makes you look a bit mad.

The 'nasty party' was coined by a Conservative party chairman, but I can't remember which one.

As I said it was Thresa May when she was party Chairman.

Newwave - ah, the strategy of repeating what you have already said in a more authoritative voice until the other party loses the will to live.

And taking the opposing view for the sake of it is rather ridiculous. Dont put your hand in the fire it will hurt. Dont drink poison you may die, some things are self evident. Just correct me where I am wrong, I dont doubt I can be wrong at times.

Even if you don't think it is unfair to tax punitively

I would argue regards the word punitively.

Lets try Bob Diamond, greed earnings approx 9 million, tax 50% take home pay £4.5 million. Lets say he works 80 hours a week for 52 weeks a year.

Hourly rate £1081 is this fair when the minimum wage is below £6 per hour.

No doubt he has loads of perks on top of his salary/bonus.

The top rate doesn't work, I don't care how many populist examples you trot out.

earthworm.

I am neither a socialist nor a Labour party supporter, I have always voted LD except for 1997.

I believe in a fair society where all can flourish not in a Tory one where the devil can take the hindmost.

I detest the old school tie network and our class ridden society where who you know is more important that what type of person you are.

Do you truly believe Osbourn or Cameron would be where they are now if they had been born on a council estate in Burnley.

A prime example of the Tory mindset comes from Westminster council.

The want to cut down the numbers of homeless/rough sleepers so instead of providing/building low cost social housing for them instead they want to outlaw Salvation Army and other charities soup runs and similiar projects so as to "starve" them out of Westminster. Maybe they should move them into asbestos ridden buildings, no maybe not, they have been caught doing that before.

I know my utopian society have never and will never exist but the Tory dystopia does not have to be the alternative.

Mablemurple - our top rate of tax is one of the highest in the EU, with only three countries (out of 86) having a higher top rate.

There aren't 86 countries in the EU. There are 27.

Ttosca - I think earthworm was referring to a KPMG study which put the UK both 4th in the EU and 4th in the world (as EU tax rates tend to be high).

The top rate doesn't work, I don't care how many populist examples you trot out.

I could work if any government had the will to close all the loopholes and make the penalty for evasion very harsh indeed but no government does because they want to join the gravy train at a later date. Blair is a prime example but there are many others. Defence secretaries now working for the murder industry and Health ministers in private medical companies.

Thanks Jackstarb..my muddled thinking but yes it was the 2010 KPMG study that I had in mind.

Newwave - yes, it could work if we had a government that was willing to close the 'loopholes' but I wouldn't want to live in a country where you weren't allowed to emigrate, take early retirement, cut your working hours or increase your pension contributions. Or would there be different legislation especially for rich people? I wonder how many companies would be relocating to the UK if their senior managers were being taxed at, say, 70%?

I also want a fair society but the means to that end is debatable.

I am always surprised at the Tory enthusiasm for unemployment. They want to pay people to do nothing, when they could pay people to do something. Doesnt that seem absolutely perverse?

It is a fact of life that fairer societies are more prosperous. Take Japan for example. Their economy flatlined for decades, and the way they got out of it and turned into the powerhouse they are today is by ensuring one of the highest levels of equality in the world.

I have to disagree with the OP - It is absolutely essential that Tory and Lib dem voters complain. They should complain loudly and write to their MPs, put pressure on them to govern for the people not just the mega rich.

They should put pressure on their MPs to properly support people and the economy, and make our society FAIR and PROSPEROUS.