I disagree. If you'd said The Telegraph then fair enough, but the Mail is a hate-filled scaremongering rag.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Tory plans to rob from the poor and give to the rich. Again...
- Thread starter Nibble
- Start date
I disagree. If you'd said The Telegraph then fair enough, but the Mail is a hate-filled scaremongering rag.
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
Is means testing child benefit a ridiculous idea then? That was one of the topics for discussion in that paper in 2012 and means testing was adopted in 2013 - thereby the plebs are getting something that the non-plebs are not. Very un-Tory like.
Stato
Well-known member
- Dec 21, 2011
- 6,583
It doesn't matter whether what Alexander has released was ever going to be Tory policy. It is a tactic to raise the £12 billion from welfare as an issue.
By saying this is what they were considering in 2012, he has flushed them out to say 'We won't be doing that,' prompting everyone to remember that they have said that they can save £12 billion, but are refusing to tell the electorate what savings they included when calculating this figure.
Alexander stated this pretty clearly in an interview on the Today programme this morning.
By saying this is what they were considering in 2012, he has flushed them out to say 'We won't be doing that,' prompting everyone to remember that they have said that they can save £12 billion, but are refusing to tell the electorate what savings they included when calculating this figure.
Alexander stated this pretty clearly in an interview on the Today programme this morning.
lawros left foot
Glory hunting since 1969
I realise this, but surely this massive tax cut should not be an qouted aspiration, when the majority of us have suffered the worst depression in our lifetime. Just shows where their priorities lie.
Lord Bracknell
On fire
There's no denying that part of the Tory package will be a load of as yet unspecified cuts in welfare. I'd be interested to hear [MENTION=15046]peterward[/MENTION]'s thoughts on what they might be, or what they should be.
- Nov 11, 2009
- 11,349
spot on
Publius Ovidius
Well-known member
Have you ever been on a training course where someone puts up a flip chart and you have a " Brain storming session" where no idea is stupid and you discuss each on its merits and take forward those that pass the discussion test!
- Apr 13, 2015
- 3,469
Of course it is, but you wouldn't expect any of the notable lefties on this site to actually read the article would you?.... that would mean they couldn't get all militant at the mere whisper of the words Conservative and good economics.
First of all, there is no proof it is / was true but lets assume it was / is. Your statement that it is robbing the poor to give to the rich is somewhat wrong. The money wouldn't be handed to the rich, it would remain in government coffers. Equally, child benefit isn't JUST paid to the poor.
The answer is to scrap child benefit entirely and allow all parents free school uniforms and free, hot, school meals for all children up to the age of 18. That way we wouldn't get the middle earners using it to top up holiday money or buy gadgets.
Nibble
New member
- Jan 3, 2007
- 19,238
- Thread starter
- #31
But it IS robbing from the poor. If individuals and corporations were forced to pay tax we would not need to reduce welfare. The average citizen pays around 20% of their income to tax. Starbucks pays 0.05%
There's your national debt solved right there. Right there. Solved.
There's your national debt solved right there. Right there. Solved.
Everyone agrees that Starbucks (Amazon etc) should be paying. All of the major parties agree. But none of them have come up with a workable way of charging them yet. They should, it would be a vote winner.
Hotchilidog
Well-known member
- Jan 24, 2009
- 8,692
Absolutely spot on. The arguments on here just show how easy it is to demonise those in need at the expense of those who have plenty but still seek to evade their responsibilities. Corporations are fleecing this country of 10s of billions and yet we are still happy to stick the boot in on those who have to rely on benefits, many of whom are actually in work and have contributed through tax and NI anyway.
I cannot recall a government that has been so brazen in it's trickle-up economic policy.
Nibble
New member
- Jan 3, 2007
- 19,238
- Thread starter
- #34
Quite easy if you want it to be. You send them a letter saying pay up or cease trading. It's question of having the balls to risk losing them as a business, but they avoid paying more than they make for our economy so as far as I'm concerned they can pay up or **** off. Italy doesn't allow them in their country for that exact reason.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
The problem is that they are getting away with not paying corporation tax, but do pay NI, and, via the workers, income tax. Is it better to keep unemployment down or lose the company? As you say, it's finding a workable way to collect it.
Just out of sheer interest, what happens to the thousands of people employed in this country by the likes of Starbucks if Starbucks called the bluff and went, OK, we're off ?
Also, on earth do you stop Amazon trading here ? They trade on the internet. They could easily do what Play247 used to do and hold their stock offshore and post it in.
Have you been on the same courses as Natalie Bennett? They haven't failed to pay up, they don't owe money because they make use of tax loopholes etc. We need the government to change the system, but it's obviously not easy as none of them have come up with a solution.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,303
the most interesting thing highlighted by this, and ignored in the ranting, is just how large the child benefits must be. the savings which do not remove the benefits, are apparently worth £8Bn. that's a lot. welfare costs a lot, is it all justified or calculated correctly?
if we go into the details, why shouldn't it be means tested, why should it be applied to 18-19 year olds (good argument for 16-17), why should there be a never ending benefit for as many children as you want. its not the poor most affected by this anyway (except those who breed beyond their means), its the lower middle classes that got dragged into tax credits when earning some decent money. i mean are we really saying that those earning enough for 40% tax should still be getting a hand out from the state? old ground i know, and apparently still confused.
if we go into the details, why shouldn't it be means tested, why should it be applied to 18-19 year olds (good argument for 16-17), why should there be a never ending benefit for as many children as you want. its not the poor most affected by this anyway (except those who breed beyond their means), its the lower middle classes that got dragged into tax credits when earning some decent money. i mean are we really saying that those earning enough for 40% tax should still be getting a hand out from the state? old ground i know, and apparently still confused.