General Election 2017

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

General Election 2017

Visit the current forum | Forum Rules

Page 123 of 270 < 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 >

Hrolf The Ganger 22 May 17 5.38pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle I agree it needs attention. The point I'm making isn't that those with more money should pay more towards their own healthcare, but should be paying in more to the system via taxation over the course of their lives, which contributes towards everyone's care (just like how the NHS works). To only make those with certain health issues or care requirements (which don't impact everyone and are often indiscriminate) pay seems contrary to the point of a welfare state. It seems bizarre that Tory voters are saying they want less state involvement and more control over their own money, but when they're asked to fork out for their own care they scream and shout that they can't then give that money to their kids. Having their cake and eating it too springs to mind. It's almost like they're saying they only want the welfare state so far as it benefits them but not so that it benefits those who need it most... The wealthy do pay more in income tax. How much should you be expected to pay because you or your parents have made good money. That would be a tax on success and typical of the mindset of socialists. Making people pay for their own care where that care is long term does not seem unreasonable to me. The alternative is to make everyone pay in which case, those who have least will feel that the most.

Hrolf The Ganger

22 May 17 5.38pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

I agree it needs attention. The point I'm making isn't that those with more money should pay more towards their own healthcare, but should be paying in more to the system via taxation over the course of their lives, which contributes towards everyone's care (just like how the NHS works).

To only make those with certain health issues or care requirements (which don't impact everyone and are often indiscriminate) pay seems contrary to the point of a welfare state.

It seems bizarre that Tory voters are saying they want less state involvement and more control over their own money, but when they're asked to fork out for their own care they scream and shout that they can't then give that money to their kids. Having their cake and eating it too springs to mind. It's almost like they're saying they only want the welfare state so far as it benefits them but not so that it benefits those who need it most...

The wealthy do pay more in income tax. How much should you be expected to pay because you or your parents have made good money. That would be a tax on success and typical of the mindset of socialists.
Making people pay for their own care where that care is long term does not seem unreasonable to me. The alternative is to make everyone pay in which case, those who have least will feel that the most.

Stirlingsays 22 May 17 5.39pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Free Speech only applies to public environments, and notably to the relationship between the citizen and the state. Social Media is private, in that its owned by a company, and as such doesn't enjoy protection. Its never applied. The exception would be social media utilised by government. Which I suspect is why government uses existing social media platforms rather than its own. Free Speech is a problematic area, because it often is viewed as Free from consequence (rather like that 'enjoyed' in the US). Free speech laws are applied to private companies. I can remember libel and other cases involving twitter. Social media outlets like FB and Twitter previous to a few years ago had rather more healthy attitudes towards freedom of speech. Activism and then Governmental interference has altered this. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

22 May 17 5.39pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Free Speech only applies to public environments, and notably to the relationship between the citizen and the state.

Social Media is private, in that its owned by a company, and as such doesn't enjoy protection. Its never applied. The exception would be social media utilised by government. Which I suspect is why government uses existing social media platforms rather than its own.

Free Speech is a problematic area, because it often is viewed as Free from consequence (rather like that 'enjoyed' in the US).

Free speech laws are applied to private companies. I can remember libel and other cases involving twitter.

Social media outlets like FB and Twitter previous to a few years ago had rather more healthy attitudes towards freedom of speech.

Activism and then Governmental interference has altered this.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 22 May 17 5.40pm
Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch The argument being that the breakfast was of more benefit to people who work and have to drop kids off. So they don't lose free meals, they still get one, just not lunch. Also, I was under the impression that low income families and those on benefit will still get free lunches it just wont be a blanket provision. I could be wrong though The argument being most kids don't have breakfast at school so it will save the government £650m pa. Whereas evidence suggests that nutrition is hugely important to both physical health and concentration in school and providing free and nutritious lunches to all students helps give kids a better start in life. However what we should all remember is infants who weren't even born yet that caused the banking crisis so it's them who should suffer.

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 22 May 17 5.40pm

Originally posted by Y Ddraig Goch

The argument being that the breakfast was of more benefit to people who work and have to drop kids off.

So they don't lose free meals, they still get one, just not lunch.

Also, I was under the impression that low income families and those on benefit will still get free lunches it just wont be a blanket provision. I could be wrong though

The argument being most kids don't have breakfast at school so it will save the government £650m pa.

Whereas evidence suggests that nutrition is hugely important to both physical health and concentration in school and providing free and nutritious lunches to all students helps give kids a better start in life.

However what we should all remember is infants who weren't even born yet that caused the banking crisis so it's them who should suffer.

Hrolf The Ganger 22 May 17 5.40pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Surely murdering someone for being catholic is as bad as murdering someone for being a British solider in Hyde Park. That's to say, I don't think there is anything wrong with being a republican, a loyalist or a royalist or any persuasion - But when you're murdering people for politics, irrespective of your flavour, you have crossed the same line. Similarly, those people burn out catholics from their home, were as responsible for the terrorism, as those who would 'give shelter and assistance' to IRA men on the run. Edited by jamiemartin721 (22 May 2017 5.37pm) The main difference is that the IRA were trying to subvert democracy.

Hrolf The Ganger

22 May 17 5.40pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Surely murdering someone for being catholic is as bad as murdering someone for being a British solider in Hyde Park.

That's to say, I don't think there is anything wrong with being a republican, a loyalist or a royalist or any persuasion - But when you're murdering people for politics, irrespective of your flavour, you have crossed the same line.

Similarly, those people burn out catholics from their home, were as responsible for the terrorism, as those who would 'give shelter and assistance' to IRA men on the run.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (22 May 2017 5.37pm)

The main difference is that the IRA were trying to subvert democracy.

Hansy 22 May 17 5.41pm
I believe a slight tax rise is needed, to gain a new revenue stream. But I wouldn't call it a hike; maybe also review the tax allowance to those on the higher bands?

Hansy

22 May 17 5.41pm

I believe a slight tax rise is needed, to gain a new revenue stream. But I wouldn't call it a hike; maybe also review the tax allowance to those on the higher bands?

pefwin Where you have to have an English ... 22 May 17 5.44pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle I agree it needs attention. The point I'm making isn't that those with more money should pay more towards their own healthcare, but should be paying in more to the system via taxation over the course of their lives, which contributes towards everyone's care (just like how the NHS works). To only make those with certain health issues or care requirements (which don't impact everyone and are often indiscriminate) pay seems contrary to the point of a welfare state. It seems bizarre that Tory voters are saying they want less state involvement and more control over their own money, but when they're asked to fork out for their own care they scream and shout that they can't then give that money to their kids. Having their cake and eating it too springs to mind. It's almost like they're saying they only want the welfare state so far as it benefits them but not so that it benefits those who need it most... I've already said that I would put 2 pence on basic rate tax. This being one of many causes that require attention. "Everything is air-droppable at least once." "When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

pefwin

Where you have to have an English ... 22 May 17 5.44pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

I agree it needs attention. The point I'm making isn't that those with more money should pay more towards their own healthcare, but should be paying in more to the system via taxation over the course of their lives, which contributes towards everyone's care (just like how the NHS works).

To only make those with certain health issues or care requirements (which don't impact everyone and are often indiscriminate) pay seems contrary to the point of a welfare state.

I've already said that I would put 2 pence on basic rate tax. This being one of many causes that require attention.

"Everything is air-droppable at least once."

"When the going gets tough, the tough call for close air support."

hedgehog50 Croydon 22 May 17 5.47pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Maybe I'm a radical, but I think it would be a benefit to the UK to ensure that all children were entitled to a nutritional breakfast and lunch as part of their education, even if they're in private schools. Regardless of their income. Then again, I think that companies should also provide 'free meals' for their staff (Breakfast and lunch and possibly dinner). Obviously, we'd have to pay for it in taxes. How is this 'radical'. The second most randomly used word these days after 'progressive'. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

hedgehog50

Croydon 22 May 17 5.47pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Maybe I'm a radical, but I think it would be a benefit to the UK to ensure that all children were entitled to a nutritional breakfast and lunch as part of their education, even if they're in private schools. Regardless of their income. Then again, I think that companies should also provide 'free meals' for their staff (Breakfast and lunch and possibly dinner). Obviously, we'd have to pay for it in taxes.

How is this 'radical'. The second most randomly used word these days after 'progressive'.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 22 May 17 5.48pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger The wealthy do pay more in income tax. How much should you be expected to pay because you or your parents have made good money. That would be a tax on success and typical of the mindset of socialists. Making people pay for their own care where that care is long term does not seem unreasonable to me. The alternative is to make everyone pay in which case, those who have least will feel that the most. How do you think the NHS works? If you increase taxes on the wealthiest by a small amount (say 5% for top income brackets) then that would seem fair to me. It's not a tax on success. The evidence actually shows that top earners in financial services are paid above what should be paid if the market was efficient and fair. Also CEO's pay has skyrocketed way above what normal people's wages in the past 30 years despite the performance of their companies by and large not warranting such ludicrous pay packages. It's the top 0.5% we're talking about who already earn a premium on their value. Also how much your parents made should be irrelevant but is actually part of the problem. Grace and favour and getting a leg up because of who your father is, are actually counterproductive if you want to argue that success and merit should be handsomely rewarded. The Tory policy on this is abhorrent, but the reason for the strong and stable "U-turn" isn't because of any qualms with the ethics or costings, it's because the papers and traditional Tories want to get free care but keep all their money and give it to their kids. So they just add smoke to the issue to make people think that they won't do what they actually will do. Edited by CambridgeEagle (22 May 2017 5.53pm)

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 22 May 17 5.48pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

How do you think the NHS works?

If you increase taxes on the wealthiest by a small amount (say 5% for top income brackets) then that would seem fair to me. It's not a tax on success. The evidence actually shows that top earners in financial services are paid above what should be paid if the market was efficient and fair. Also CEO's pay has skyrocketed way above what normal people's wages in the past 30 years despite the performance of their companies by and large not warranting such ludicrous pay packages.

It's the top 0.5% we're talking about who already earn a premium on their value.

Also how much your parents made should be irrelevant but is actually part of the problem. Grace and favour and getting a leg up because of who your father is, are actually counterproductive if you want to argue that success and merit should be handsomely rewarded.

The Tory policy on this is abhorrent, but the reason for the strong and stable "U-turn" isn't because of any qualms with the ethics or costings, it's because the papers and traditional Tories want to get free care but keep all their money and give it to their kids. So they just add smoke to the issue to make people think that they won't do what they actually will do.

Edited by CambridgeEagle (22 May 2017 5.53pm)

steeleye20 Croydon 22 May 17 5.48pm
Just a low tax code change then to clear the 1.7 trillion debt to be paid by dementia cases or disability claimants.

steeleye20

Croydon 22 May 17 5.48pm

Just a low tax code change then to clear the 1.7 trillion debt to be paid by dementia cases or disability claimants.

Hrolf The Ganger 22 May 17 5.50pm
Originally posted by Hansy I believe a slight tax rise is needed, to gain a new revenue stream. But I wouldn't call it a hike; maybe also review the tax allowance to those on the higher bands? Raising income tax is never desirable. Better for people to pay tax on goods and services.

Hrolf The Ganger

22 May 17 5.50pm

Originally posted by Hansy

I believe a slight tax rise is needed, to gain a new revenue stream. But I wouldn't call it a hike; maybe also review the tax allowance to those on the higher bands?

Raising income tax is never desirable. Better for people to pay tax on goods and services.

hedgehog50 Croydon 22 May 17 5.54pm
The most unfair tax is VAT, 20% on most things. If you buy something costing £100 you have to pay an extra £20 regards of whether you are on minimum earnings or a millionaire, Income tax is fairer. We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

hedgehog50

Croydon 22 May 17 5.54pm

The most unfair tax is VAT, 20% on most things. If you buy something costing £100 you have to pay an extra £20 regards of whether you are on minimum earnings or a millionaire, Income tax is fairer.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Stirlingsays 22 May 17 5.57pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Surely murdering someone for being catholic is as bad as murdering someone for being a British solider in Hyde Park. That's to say, I don't think there is anything wrong with being a republican, a loyalist or a royalist or any persuasion - But when you're murdering people for politics, irrespective of your flavour, you have crossed the same line. Similarly, those people burn out catholics from their home, were as responsible for the terrorism, as those who would 'give shelter and assistance' to IRA men on the run. Edited by jamiemartin721 (22 May 2017 5.37pm) I'd agree with your first sentence. Personally the areas where I'd agree with the idea of 'murdering' someone are practically at nil....For example, if we reverse the situation where the two British soldiers were murdered at that IRA funeral...I would have released IRA guys to go home to their families. So I'd agree that your loyalties shouldn't mean that your ethics are compromised. The behaviour of criminals using the troubles to gain status and influence was definitely a situation that existed on both sides. But I completely and utterly reject any equivalency at all between a British soldier's life and an IRA member's. Not one of our soldier's lives was or is worth their entire membership. The IRA were responsible for around about sixty percent of the death during the conflict....loyalists thirty percent and the British state ten. The loss of any innocent is a crime. The loss of a British soldier a disaster. The loss of an active IRA member....Well, that's goodbye to human rubbish in comparison. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 May 2017 6.18pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Stirlingsays

22 May 17 5.57pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Surely murdering someone for being catholic is as bad as murdering someone for being a British solider in Hyde Park.

Similarly, those people burn out catholics from their home, were as responsible for the terrorism, as those who would 'give shelter and assistance' to IRA men on the run.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (22 May 2017 5.37pm)

I'd agree with your first sentence.

Personally the areas where I'd agree with the idea of 'murdering' someone are practically at nil....For example, if we reverse the situation where the two British soldiers were murdered at that IRA funeral...I would have released IRA guys to go home to their families. So I'd agree that your loyalties shouldn't mean that your ethics are compromised.

The behaviour of criminals using the troubles to gain status and influence was definitely a situation that existed on both sides.

But I completely and utterly reject any equivalency at all between a British soldier's life and an IRA member's. Not one of our soldier's lives was or is worth their entire membership.

The IRA were responsible for around about sixty percent of the death during the conflict....loyalists thirty percent and the British state ten.

The loss of any innocent is a crime. The loss of a British soldier a disaster. The loss of an active IRA member....Well, that's goodbye to human rubbish in comparison.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 May 2017 6.18pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Hrolf The Ganger 22 May 17 6.00pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle How do you think the NHS works? If you increase taxes on the wealthiest by a small amount (say 5% for top income brackets) then that would seem fair to me. It's not a tax on success. The evidence actually shows that top earners in financial services are paid above what should be paid if the market was efficient and fair. Also CEO's pay has skyrocketed way above what normal people's wages in the past 30 years despite the performance of their companies by and large not warranting such ludicrous pay packages. It's the top 0.5% we're talking about who already earn a premium on their value. Also how much your parents made should be irrelevant but is actually part of the problem. Grace and favour and getting a leg up because of who your father is, are actually counterproductive if you want to argue that success and merit should be handsomely rewarded. The Tory policy on this is abhorrent, but the reason for the strong and stable U-turn isn't because of any qualms with the ethics or costings, it's because the papers and traditional Tories want to get free care but keep all their money and give it to their kids. You seem to have a problem with inheritance that I don't understand. Are you not getting any? So you throw an arbitrary figure of extra tax on the rich, I assume you mean people earning over £150k a year? Are they really rich? Only in relative terms. Would a tax hike for them really pay for care for millions of people? Can you produce figures?

Hrolf The Ganger

22 May 17 6.00pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

How do you think the NHS works?

If you increase taxes on the wealthiest by a small amount (say 5% for top income brackets) then that would seem fair to me. It's not a tax on success. The evidence actually shows that top earners in financial services are paid above what should be paid if the market was efficient and fair. Also CEO's pay has skyrocketed way above what normal people's wages in the past 30 years despite the performance of their companies by and large not warranting such ludicrous pay packages.

It's the top 0.5% we're talking about who already earn a premium on their value.

The Tory policy on this is abhorrent, but the reason for the strong and stable U-turn isn't because of any qualms with the ethics or costings, it's because the papers and traditional Tories want to get free care but keep all their money and give it to their kids.

You seem to have a problem with inheritance that I don't understand. Are you not getting any?
So you throw an arbitrary figure of extra tax on the rich, I assume you mean people earning over £150k a year? Are they really rich? Only in relative terms.
Would a tax hike for them really pay for care for millions of people? Can you produce figures?

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 22 May 17 6.01pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Raising income tax is never desirable. Better for people to pay tax on goods and services. You amaze me with your thesis on tax theory. This is a terrible idea. How would it be at all progressive as a tax? Different bands of sales tax? Way too complicated. Also likely to be very unfair. Also how do you tie in with corporation tax (income tax for businesses effectively). Having a sales tax instead of corporation tax is a very bad idea. [Link]

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 22 May 17 6.01pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Raising income tax is never desirable. Better for people to pay tax on goods and services.

You amaze me with your thesis on tax theory.

This is a terrible idea. How would it be at all progressive as a tax? Different bands of sales tax? Way too complicated.

Also likely to be very unfair.

Also how do you tie in with corporation tax (income tax for businesses effectively). Having a sales tax instead of corporation tax is a very bad idea.

[Link]

CambridgeEagle Sydenham 22 May 17 6.02pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger You seem to have a problem with inheritance that I don't understand. Are you not getting any? So you throw an arbitrary figure of extra tax on the rich, I assume you mean people earning over £150k a year? Are they really rich? Only in relative terms. Would a tax hike for them really pay for care for millions of people? Can you produce figures? For figures see Labour manifesto. I will receive a reasonable inheritance but I try not to be totally selfish.

CambridgeEagle

Sydenham 22 May 17 6.02pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

For figures see Labour manifesto.

I will receive a reasonable inheritance but I try not to be totally selfish.

Hrolf The Ganger 22 May 17 6.05pm
Originally posted by hedgehog50 The most unfair tax is VAT, 20% on most things. If you buy something costing £100 you have to pay an extra £20 regards of whether you are on minimum earnings or a millionaire, Income tax is fairer. People have a choice to buy things, outside of necessities. How many people smoke, drink, eat take away and have SKY TV when they claim to be hard up? I do believe that the wealthy should have a higher burden of tax but not to the extent that it discourages ambition.

Hrolf The Ganger

22 May 17 6.05pm

Originally posted by hedgehog50

The most unfair tax is VAT, 20% on most things. If you buy something costing £100 you have to pay an extra £20 regards of whether you are on minimum earnings or a millionaire, Income tax is fairer.

People have a choice to buy things, outside of necessities.
How many people smoke, drink, eat take away and have SKY TV when they claim to be hard up?
I do believe that the wealthy should have a higher burden of tax but not to the extent that it discourages ambition.

Hrolf The Ganger 22 May 17 6.06pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle For figures see Labour manifesto. I will receive a reasonable inheritance but I try not to be totally selfish. lol.

Hrolf The Ganger

22 May 17 6.06pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

For figures see Labour manifesto.

I will receive a reasonable inheritance but I try not to be totally selfish.

lol.

matt_himself Matataland 22 May 17 6.07pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Just to jump in I thought Farron was perfectly reasonable about this. And that's not something I say very often about the lib dems. I thought the attempted attack on him was unfair. It's the policy that is important not his adherence to the morality of an ancient book. There is an issue here. Fallon is appearing, rightly or wrongly, to be incapable of defending his beliefs. That demonstrates a lack of leadership. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

matt_himself

Matataland 22 May 17 6.07pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Just to jump in I thought Farron was perfectly reasonable about this.

And that's not something I say very often about the lib dems.

I thought the attempted attack on him was unfair. It's the policy that is important not his adherence to the morality of an ancient book.

There is an issue here. Fallon is appearing, rightly or wrongly, to be incapable of defending his beliefs.

That demonstrates a lack of leadership.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Hrolf The Ganger 22 May 17 6.08pm
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle You amaze me with your thesis on tax theory. This is a terrible idea. How would it be at all progressive as a tax? Different bands of sales tax? Way too complicated. Also likely to be very unfair. Also how do you tie in with corporation tax (income tax for businesses effectively). Having a sales tax instead of corporation tax is a very bad idea. [Link] I never suggested that.

Hrolf The Ganger

22 May 17 6.08pm

Originally posted by CambridgeEagle

You amaze me with your thesis on tax theory.

This is a terrible idea. How would it be at all progressive as a tax? Different bands of sales tax? Way too complicated.

Also likely to be very unfair.

Also how do you tie in with corporation tax (income tax for businesses effectively). Having a sales tax instead of corporation tax is a very bad idea.

[Link]

I never suggested that.

matt_himself Matataland 22 May 17 6.09pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 Lib Dems are more your bag, surely? Run by a puritan. No, deffo yours. What do you think? Or are you going to dodge the answer again? "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

matt_himself

Matataland 22 May 17 6.09pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

Lib Dems are more your bag, surely? Run by a puritan.

No, deffo yours.

What do you think? Or are you going to dodge the answer again?

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Page 123 of 270 < 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 >

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

General Election 2017

Site Map