The Politics Thread

[TANGODANCER]

in other words - this election is a poisoned chalice.

Tango in total agreement with the bish shocker

There's an air of resignation amongst the voters ( at least those I've talked to) that almost nothing is going to get better, whoever gets in. Consequently, the vote is a total lottery. The banks screwed everybody and are still giving themselves large bonuses. Nobody will absolutely admit the country is in deep shxt and unlikely to get out of it in any short term. Job creation? What jobs will that be in an era when every kid wants to be a footballer or pop star, their mothers think sunbeds, boob implants and anti-ageing creams are a priority, and their fathers all want to be a 4 x 4 driving self employed roofer, builder or landscape gardner? (plumbing and plastering a speciality). Makes the "Job-seekers allowance" almost mandatory as a target amongst working-class school leaver families. Work, in the strict sense has lost it's "hard" adjective in favur of "less".

There isn't a politician in the land who can guarantee anything except they'll have a go at starting again. Crack-papering never was a solution and, until somebody has the balls to admit it, four years from now we'll have it all again.

Just my opinion, of course.

[thebish]

I don't think it's fair that someone who has spent all their life paying down a mortgage on a family home worth £2million, all the time paying progressive taxation on their earnings anyway, then has to leave their family with a huge IHT bill if the home is to stay within the family.

there are lots of things in the world that are "not fair" - the point is that where cash is limited - choices have to be made - and this particular choice is in favour of those who are very comfortably off. with a limited amount of cash - then choices are crucial and they reflect your principles. Dave said he'd make hard choices - this isn't a hard one - it is a vote-winning one from a sector of the community whose votes all parties lust after... not hard at all..

in fact - dave said this a few times last night - he said he was ready to make hard choices and has shown that.

I'm hard-pressed to think of ONE hard choice he has made or has proposed....

[BWFC_Insane]

I don't think it's fair that someone who has spent all their life paying down a mortgage on a family home worth £2million, all the time paying progressive taxation on their earnings anyway, then has to leave their family with a huge IHT bill if the home is to stay within the family.

there are lots of things in the world that are "not fair" - the point is that where cash is limited - choices have to be made - and this particular choice is in favour of those who are very comfortably off. with a limited amount of cash - then choices are crucial and they reflect your principles. Dave said he'd make hard choices - this isn't a hard one - it is a vote-winning one from a sector of the community whose votes all parties lust after... not hard at all..

in fact - dave said this a few times last night - he said he was ready to make hard choices and has shown that.

I'm hard-pressed to think of ONE hard choice he has made or has proposed....

Aye what Bish said. I'd not agree with this policy whenever. But what makes it indefensible is when on one hand you've got DC saying that we've got to make hard choices, can't bury our heads, emergency budgets blah blah blah.....

But seemingly we can do this. Is this the main urgency? Or is it as usual the Tories looking after their own.

It seems to be "public sector cuts and pay freezes, not fair but a necessity. Helping out the richer end of society, bit of a luxury but we're Tories so we'll do it even though or main message is about how the country can't afford a bag of chips".

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I don't think it's fair that someone who has spent all their life paying down a mortgage on a family home worth £2million, all the time paying progressive taxation on their earnings anyway, then has to leave their family with a huge IHT bill if the home is to stay within the family.

there are lots of things in the world that are "not fair" - the point is that where cash is limited - choices have to be made - and this particular choice is in favour of those who are very comfortably off. with a limited amount of cash - then choices are crucial and they reflect your principles. Dave said he'd make hard choices - this isn't a hard one - it is a vote-winning one from a sector of the community whose votes all parties lust after... not hard at all..

There are lots of things in the world that are unpleasant, unfortunate and undesirable, but give me an example of something in government activity that is more glaringly unfair than stopping so many families passing their family homes onto their children? Are people better advised to spend every penny they have during their lifetimes.... to rent a penthouse flat and live a hedonistic lifestyle, rather than strive to pass something on to the next generation of their family?

Now it's not a priority, but it's a moral question that the Conservatives made a pledge on a while back, and are sticking to. The IHT thresholds have not moved with house prices and inflation and that is not right.

The Conservatives have had to say that they will keep the 50% rate of income tax - that's a difficult choice.

[CAPSLOCK]

Course people should spend everything they have

Then they should spend more

Then they should keep spending

Without any regard for the future and what might be around the corner

Its the Labour way

[thebish]

I don't think it's fair that someone who has spent all their life paying down a mortgage on a family home worth £2million, all the time paying progressive taxation on their earnings anyway, then has to leave their family with a huge IHT bill if the home is to stay within the family.

there are lots of things in the world that are "not fair" - the point is that where cash is limited - choices have to be made - and this particular choice is in favour of those who are very comfortably off. with a limited amount of cash - then choices are crucial and they reflect your principles. Dave said he'd make hard choices - this isn't a hard one - it is a vote-winning one from a sector of the community whose votes all parties lust after... not hard at all..

There are lots of things in the world that are unpleasant, unfortunate and undesirable, but give me an example of something in government activity that it more glaringly unfair than stopping so many families passing their family homes onto their children? Are people better advised to spend every penny they have during their lifetimes.... to rent a penthouse flat and live a hedonistic lifestyle, rather than strive to pass something on to the next generation of their family?

Now it's not a priority, but it's a moral question that the Conservatives made a pledge on a while back, and are sticking to. The IHT thresholds have not moved with house prices and inflation and that is not right.

The Conservatives have had to say that they will keep the 50% rate of income tax - that's a difficult choice.

I'm not convinced it is a matter of trying to scale one person's "fairness" against another's - I think it is a matter of judgement how you use a limited budget in the most effective way.

how you judge "effective" depends on your values and what you are trying to achieve in government.

if i had £3billion to play with (the cost of the Inheritance Tax changes) then there are any number of choices I would make before spending it on an inheritance tax cut - nurses wages... increasing the basic state pension.... school buildings modernisation....

if i had £550million to play with - then I would not spend it on some social-engineering experiment to favour marriage through the tax system

if I had £1billion to play with I would not prioritize a 2-yr council-tax freeze

there are lots of ways of spending the cash (even of NOT spending it) - but Cameron's spending choices are not even close to what I would call priorities.

the 50% tax rate? Keeping something at its current level - that you can easily blame Labour for - is hardly a top-level brave or hard choice!


Incidentally, the estates of Mr Cameron, shadow foreign secretary William Hague and shadow chancellor George Osborne will all benefit by more than £500,000 each with the inheritance tax changes....

[CAPSLOCK]

4.5 billion, it's a lot of money

Now, if I had 950 (NINE HUNDRED AND FIFTY in a teleprinter stylee) billion, I'd give 4.5 away

[BWFC_Insane]

Course people should spend everything they have

Then they should spend more

Then they should keep spending

Without any regard for the future and what might be around the corner

Its the Labour way

Are you making out the 80's didn't happen?

Loaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadddddddddddddddddsaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa maaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrnnneyyyyyyyyyyy!

[Puskas]

There are lots of things in the world that are unpleasant, unfortunate and undesirable, but give me an example of something in government activity that is more glaringly unfair than stopping so many families passing their family homes onto their children?.

OK - how about laying off people on the lower end of the wage scale and making them take pay-cuts so you can pass on more of their money - through tax reductions - to people with £2million houses?

Redistribution of wealth from ordinary folk to the uber-rich. Marvellous.

No one's stopping them from passing the family home to their children - they just have to pay a fair amount of tax.

And let's face it, children of people with £2million homes will hardly be badly off - they'll have been sent to the best schools money can buy, paid through university, essentially insulated from real life by said doting parents. They don't need extra government hand-outs. But the whining b*stards will probably demand one anyway. Like demanding a new Porsche from daddy.

[TANGODANCER]

Course people should spend everything they have

Then they should spend more

Then they should keep spending

Without any regard for the future and what might be around the corner

Its the Labour way

Are you making out the 80's didn't happen?

Loaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadddddddddddddddddsaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa maaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrnnneyyyyyyyyyyy!

All started way before, with Harold-You've never had it so good- MacMillan

[CAPSLOCK]

Course people should spend everything they have

Then they should spend more

Then they should keep spending

Without any regard for the future and what might be around the corner

Its the Labour way

Are you making out the 80's didn't happen?

Loaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadddddddddddddddddsaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa maaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrnnneyyyyyyyyyyy!

And the debt when the Tories left office?

You can do it as a percentage if it makes you happier?

[CAPSLOCK]

There are lots of things in the world that are unpleasant, unfortunate and undesirable, but give me an example of something in government activity that is more glaringly unfair than stopping so many families passing their family homes onto their children?.

OK - how about laying off people on the lower end of the wage scale and making them take pay-cuts so you can pass on more of their money - through tax reductions - to people with £2million houses?

Redistribution of wealth from ordinary folk to the uber-rich. Marvellous.

No one's stopping them from passing the family home to their children - they just have to pay a fair amount of tax.

And let's face it, children of people with £2million homes will hardly be badly off - they'll have been sent to the best schools money can buy, paid through university, essentially insulated from real life by said doting parents. They don't need extra government hand-outs. But the whining b*stards will probably demand one anyway. Like demanding a new Porsche from daddy.

And just how much is fair?

[Prufrock]

There are lots of things in the world that are unpleasant, unfortunate and undesirable, but give me an example of something in government activity that is more glaringly unfair than stopping so many families passing their family homes onto their children?.

OK - how about laying off people on the lower end of the wage scale and making them take pay-cuts so you can pass on more of their money - through tax reductions - to people with £2million houses?

Redistribution of wealth from ordinary folk to the uber-rich. Marvellous.

No one's stopping them from passing the family home to their children - they just have to pay a fair amount of tax.

And let's face it, children of people with £2million homes will hardly be badly off - they'll have been sent to the best schools money can buy, paid through university, essentially insulated from real life by said doting parents. They don't need extra government hand-outs. But the whining b*stards will probably demand one anyway. Like demanding a new Porsche from daddy.

Exactly, my heart bleeds for them. Honestly, I can't think of anything more tragically unfair than Tarquin only receiving half of Daddy's £5million quid estate. Coz it's not unfair that everybody else starts off without that is it? Certainly more unfair than the NHS and the education system for the entire country being cut isn't it? Job cuts everywhere, but somehow we can find the cash to help the rich. It's not even as if the Tories have form for it is it?

I'm for high inheritance tax normally, but when Dave (not, repeat NOT, the home of witty banter, that's Gordon) says everyone has had to make cuts and sacrifices, across the board, as a defence for cutting government, cutting spending, cutting funding, he can't turn round then and say we have the cash to give rich folk tax breaks?! It beggars belief. Prioritiy check?!

[Worthy4England]

I've never been able to get my head around the concept of paying tax on items, that you've already had the money you've bought them with taxed. I could stretch to VAT - as it forms part of the overall tax burden.

Tax on savings and IHT etc. are just ridiculous concepts.

[Puskas]

There are lots of things in the world that are unpleasant, unfortunate and undesirable, but give me an example of something in government activity that is more glaringly unfair than stopping so many families passing their family homes onto their children?.

OK - how about laying off people on the lower end of the wage scale and making them take pay-cuts so you can pass on more of their money - through tax reductions - to people with £2million houses?

Redistribution of wealth from ordinary folk to the uber-rich. Marvellous.

No one's stopping them from passing the family home to their children - they just have to pay a fair amount of tax.

And let's face it, children of people with £2million homes will hardly be badly off - they'll have been sent to the best schools money can buy, paid through university, essentially insulated from real life by said doting parents. They don't need extra government hand-outs. But the whining b*stards will probably demand one anyway. Like demanding a new Porsche from daddy.

And just how much is fair?

99%

[Prufrock]

I've never been able to get my head around the concept of paying tax on items, that you've already had the money you've bought them with taxed. I could stretch to VAT - as it forms part of the overall tax burden.

Tax on savings and IHT etc. are just ridiculous concepts.

That's because they don't pay the tax, your kids do, who have done absolutely fook all to earn it.

And IIRC you only pay tax on the interest earned on savings accounts. Which you hadn't earned, but now have, hence the tax.

[Prufrock]

There are lots of things in the world that are unpleasant, unfortunate and undesirable, but give me an example of something in government activity that is more glaringly unfair than stopping so many families passing their family homes onto their children?.

OK - how about laying off people on the lower end of the wage scale and making them take pay-cuts so you can pass on more of their money - through tax reductions - to people with £2million houses?

Redistribution of wealth from ordinary folk to the uber-rich. Marvellous.

No one's stopping them from passing the family home to their children - they just have to pay a fair amount of tax.

And let's face it, children of people with £2million homes will hardly be badly off - they'll have been sent to the best schools money can buy, paid through university, essentially insulated from real life by said doting parents. They don't need extra government hand-outs. But the whining b*stards will probably demand one anyway. Like demanding a new Porsche from daddy.

And just how much is fair?

99%

If all dependent kids were over 18 then idealistically I'd say that's fair.

[BWFC_Insane]

There are lots of things in the world that are unpleasant, unfortunate and undesirable, but give me an example of something in government activity that is more glaringly unfair than stopping so many families passing their family homes onto their children?.

OK - how about laying off people on the lower end of the wage scale and making them take pay-cuts so you can pass on more of their money - through tax reductions - to people with £2million houses?

Redistribution of wealth from ordinary folk to the uber-rich. Marvellous.

No one's stopping them from passing the family home to their children - they just have to pay a fair amount of tax.

And let's face it, children of people with £2million homes will hardly be badly off - they'll have been sent to the best schools money can buy, paid through university, essentially insulated from real life by said doting parents. They don't need extra government hand-outs. But the whining b*stards will probably demand one anyway. Like demanding a new Porsche from daddy.

Exactly, my heart bleeds for them. Honestly, I can't think of anything more tragically unfair than Tarquin only receiving half of Daddy's £5million quid estate. Coz it's not unfair that everybody else starts off without that is it? Certainly more unfair than the NHS and the education system for the entire country being cut isn't it? Job cuts everywhere, but somehow we can find the cash to help the rich. It's not even as if the Tories have form for it is it?

I'm for high inheritance tax normally, but when Dave (not, repeat NOT, the home of witty banter, that's Gordon) says everyone has had to make cuts and sacrifices, across the board, as a defence for cutting government, cutting spending, cutting funding, he can't turn round then and say we have the cash to give rich folk tax breaks?! It beggars belief. Prioritiy check?!

Pru the Tories have always been immoral. They know they are, and those who vote for them on the whole know they are. They are happy with it. Its called "I'm alright Jack" or "looking out for your own".

And however much they try and dress it up as "fairness" and "necessity" and "time for change" they can't hide from it, just as Cameron had to deflect rather than really deal with it.

Under the Tories the corporate fat cats, the well off in the private sector and those who are wealthy through privilege will prosper. They will do a few "token gestures" for everyone else, and probably cover it all up by talking about "immigration" and "cutting waste" and it'll keep the masses happy for a while.

[Worthy4England]

I've never been able to get my head around the concept of paying tax on items, that you've already had the money you've bought them with taxed. I could stretch to VAT - as it forms part of the overall tax burden.

Tax on savings and IHT etc. are just ridiculous concepts.

That's because they don't pay the tax, your kids do, who have done absolutely fook all to earn it.

And IIRC you only pay tax on the interest earned on savings accounts. Which you hadn't earned, but now have, hence the tax.

It doesn't matter whether I pay the tax (which I can't coz I'm dead) or the kids. Tax has already been paid on the money that made the purchase - most of it at 40% if you're in a £2m gaff.

As to the tax on interest, not really a good method of encouraging savings is it, and the money that's in there has still had the tax paid on it, all the taxation is effectively doing is reducing the overall interest you're gaining?

[thebish]

It naty be true in a very small number of cases - but I do not really believe that the people who own £2million houses have achieved that simply by "hard work" as is often claimed.

I used to work in an aluminium foundry - I was fortunate to only have to do it for a year - and it was never going to be a lifetime's work for me.

now - that was fecking hard work - and hot and dirty - and dangerous - and I will wager that NONE of those I worked with back then are currently living in houses worth £2million - nor will they ever, however "hard" they work.

so - the "we live in this house because we have earned it" doesn't really wash (in my opinion) - there are 100 other factors to do with privilege that are also involved - and because of that - I think it is entirely fair that such unearned privilege is taxed for the benefit of those who wedre not so fortunate as to have such unearned privilege land in their laps.