|
Post by kickinpretty on May 5, 2005 20:22:03 GMT 1
As a Thatcherite, who else could i possibly vote for... Tony Blair gets my vote every time...Hopefully Howard will make way for some bright young prospect after the election as Gorden Brown hasn't a hope in hell of getting my vote next time, but i wont vote for the tories whilst Howard is head of the party!
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 5, 2005 20:22:52 GMT 1
People have a choice in this life. If you want 9-5 hours, flex time, a social life which lets you do everything you want to do then you've got to make the sacrifice that you're probably not going to earn masses of money. Obviously the opposite of that is true too, and people shouldn't be penalised for earning more. I totally agree Ant people should not be penalised for taking opportunities and people should make choices for their own lives and not whinge
|
|
|
Post by ShrewsandRoyals on May 5, 2005 20:38:33 GMT 1
Tory nationally - our present Labour MP is a twit and needs removing.
Green locally - the only one to bother to come and chat with a smile on his face, and not ram his views down your throat. He also said he understood how people felt they needed to vote for other parties at national level if they wanted the situation changed!
|
|
|
Post by scooter on May 5, 2005 20:46:37 GMT 1
Labour (Mike Ion) nationally - never really considered doing anything else. Anne Chebsey (LibDem) for County Council - she only lives round the corner Never heard of the labour candidate, and living in Copthorne, so no point voting Labour any way
|
|
|
Post by Stevenelsonfanclub on May 5, 2005 21:13:35 GMT 1
Right, with voting as at closure at 22:00 (BST), we would get:
Labour 470 seats (+67) Cons 0 seats (-165) Lib Dem 149 seats (+98) Others 27 (0)
This would be Green 13 BNP 12 veritas 2
If we reverse the Con and Lib-Dem vote, we get:
Lab 417 seats (+17) Con 143 Seats (-22) Lib Dem 59 seats (+8)
That is possibly more accurate of what we will get tonight!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2005 21:43:15 GMT 1
I totally agree Ant people should not be penalised for taking opportunities and people should make choices for their own lives and not whinge I assume Ant and Phil are proposing a flat rate of tax for all of course? Because otherwise how could it possible be fair that one classroom teacher pays higher rates of tax than another classroom teacher, with a CEO of an Oil Company paying the same rate of tax as the 1st classroom teacher? I'd raise the top rate of tax to 50% in a blink of an eyelid. And I voted Tory today.
|
|
|
Post by rob on May 5, 2005 22:34:11 GMT 1
missed my winky young Anthony And I disagree, its not quite that black or white. During my Christmas work I came across a single mother, who worked nights at Palethorpes, (doing all the extra time she could) whilst holding down a part time cleaning job in the day time. She certanly wasn't benefiting from all her hard earned effort and work over the last 10 years.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2005 1:13:55 GMT 1
My take on tax is that I disagree with the Lib Dems on wanting to charge 50% for people who earn over 100k a year.
The current tax brackets see the higher earners taxed more.
IMO people who earn over 100k a year generally work harder than those who earn less and hence they deserve more as a reward.
Also I'm a firm believer that higher earners take pressure off the public sector by using private healthcare/schooling and transport.
|
|
TeamWin
Shropshire County League
Posts: 87
|
Post by TeamWin on May 6, 2005 1:22:59 GMT 1
As an accounting student with a tax exam on tuesday i could argue for or against a flat tax rate all day. But the bottom line is a tax system needs to be equitable therefore reflect a taxpayers "ability to pay" this is why we have the progressive income tax system.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 6, 2005 2:07:40 GMT 1
IMO people who earn over 100k a year generally work harder than those who earn less and hence they deserve more as a reward. but are you just talking about the south east? In which casae you can earn 30k a year more just by location, not by working harder
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2005 3:43:07 GMT 1
but are you just talking about the south east? In which casae you can earn 30k a year more just by location, not by working harder And you pay a hell of a lot more for everything too... I was paying £460 a month rent in my final year at uni... As for Rob's comment - I don't think I did suggest it was black and white at all (you missed my winky smiley!!) but I still say people shouldn't be overly penalised for earning more than everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 6, 2005 7:30:35 GMT 1
People earning more have a greater ability to pay but often they are also creating jobs, creating wealth and contributing to the economy via business level taxes already
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2005 7:52:13 GMT 1
but are you just talking about the south east? In which casae you can earn 30k a year more just by location, not by working harder No, I'm not talking just about the South East. I've said this about 4-5 times now - politics is based on the whole country not just a local area or a blumin football club.
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on May 6, 2005 7:58:00 GMT 1
If you want 9-5 hours, flex time, a social life which lets you do everything you want to do then you've got to make the sacrifice that you're probably not going to earn masses of money. The above is being a civil servant
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on May 6, 2005 8:18:12 GMT 1
. IMO people who earn over 100k a year generally work harder than those who earn less and hence they deserve more as a reward. Also I'm a firm believer that higher earners take pressure off the public sector by using private healthcare/schooling and transport. 1) Not necessarily harder, though generally you would expect them to be in a position of more responsibility for the money. 2) Private transport doesn't take pressure off the transport network, it increases it. RANT WARNING RANT WARNING Analogy time: Schoolmums in 4x4's parked along both sides of a road so the school bus can't get to the gate. Which is the more efficient in the wider perspective? The 4x4 mum's get there kids to the gate, but if they sent their kids on the bus, ALL the kids could get there. Think of a trip to the cinema. People grumble about the prices. The cinema provides free parking, for it's customers' convenience, taking up a lot of prime real estate, at no profit, in fact a loss due to maintenance etc. If public transport provision was sufficient, the parking wouldnt be needed. The cinecorp wouldn't have to buy the land, or could lease it to fastfood franchises, thus saving/making money. They could then reduce their own prices, as they would still have a good profit margin. As a bonus, car crime would reduce a small amount, as the cars aren't all lined up like a thief's showroom. Mass use of railfreight would reduce trucks on roads, therefore reducing road wear. This would reduce M-Way closures, allowing all the new shiny buses to get to their destinations faster. Anyone want to steal a train to nab it's cargo in a lay-by in the middle of nowhere? Not unless your name is Biggs! There is such potential in encouraging public transport/mass transit & freight, but everyone is soooo cosy in their little mobile cocoon they never look at the bigger picture. RANT ENDS. GO BACK TO YOUR FAMILIES.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2005 8:20:56 GMT 1
Lol, I like a good morning rant
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on May 6, 2005 8:29:08 GMT 1
Lol, I like a good morning rant Finished work at 6am, so, in Real Terms, it is an evening rant. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2005 9:22:56 GMT 1
The cinecorp wouldn't have to buy the land, or could lease it to fastfood franchises, thus saving/making money. I didn't read all your post Grinners, but am I right in assuming that the main thrust of your argument is that there should be more fast food outlets?
|
|
|
Post by grinfish on May 6, 2005 10:02:35 GMT 1
I didn't read all your post Grinners, but am I right in assuming that the main thrust of your argument is that there should be more fast food outlets? Every politician makes sure there's something in it for himself ;D Let it be known, from this day forth, I shall ne'er sleep nor stop for breath, til every corner on this Sceptered Isle boasts a convenience restaurant!
|
|