|
VAT
Jun 27, 2010 17:21:57 GMT 1
Post by MarkRowley on Jun 27, 2010 17:21:57 GMT 1
Interesting charts from Sean. There is of course the old adage that you can prove anything with stats but if we assume these to be correct at face value then that is a very poor indictment of the 13 years of Labour control where they promised to close the gap between rich and poor.
Perhaps rather than sniping about what may or may not have happened in the 1980's, our left-leaning comrades would like to address these points.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
VAT
Jun 27, 2010 17:26:19 GMT 1
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2010 17:26:19 GMT 1
and to think that slimey two faced hypocrit clegg can sit next to osbourne smiling and shouting here here. i sincerely hope his actions in betraying his country and all lib dem voters makes his disgrace of a party unelectable for another 50 years. we all expect this kind of thing from the tories, but from the lib dems? the man is a disgrace. I notice you entirely forget Browns raids on the private pensions that ruined peoples retirement budgets, yet bleat when it's your own pot of gold. I also don't agree that it is entirely the bankers fault, you seem to ignore the actions carried out by Brown etc and just focus you normal attck tactics on Mr Clegg or Mr Cameron. Everybody is hurting but that doesn't matter just the public sector right ? And it was a yacht ! afternoon pike, hope you enjoyed your weekend :)ker. in an interview today on the andrew marr show, even vince cable admitted that this crisis was caused by the banks, and then had to back track when pressed by AM. i dont have a pot of gold. i do not have an nhs pension. if i did it would be costing me @ £150 per month out of my salary, which we cant afford at the moment, and i certainly havent been able to since 2001. so any pot of gold you are referring to certainly pays nothing out to me.
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 27, 2010 19:05:32 GMT 1
Post by shrewsace on Jun 27, 2010 19:05:32 GMT 1
Interesting charts from Sean. There is of course the old adage that you can prove anything with stats but if we assume these to be correct at face value then that is a very poor indictment of the 13 years of Labour control where they promised to close the gap between rich and poor. Perhaps rather than sniping about what may or may not have happened in the 1980's, our left-leaning comrades would like to address these points. Left leaning comrade reporting for duty - but not quite sure why you want me to explain the sins and omissions of the centre right Nu-Lab party. Late in 2002 Lady Thatcher came to Hampshire to speak at a dinner for me. Taking her round at the reception one of the guests asked her what was her greatest achievement. She replied, "Tony Blair and New Labour. We forced our opponents to change their minds." But in a very real sense that only happened between 1992 and 1997. The 1992 Labour proposition to the country was very different from the 1997 offering. And that was due to the defeat of 1992. The Conservative government of 1992-1997 by simply sitting there and existing forced Labour to change.source: conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2008/04/making-history.htmlHave to plead not guilty to mentioning the 1980s, either. Jonah, you don't need a definition of rich and poor, just to understand that there is an inverse relationship between the level of your income and the proportion you spend on VAT. This little nugget from billionaire Warren Buffet springs to mind "Let's face it – if there's a class war, my side's winning" source: www.johannhari.com/2010/04/09/if-youre-looking-for-class-war-you-can-find-it-in-david-camerons-policies
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 28, 2010 8:00:18 GMT 1
Post by SeanBroseley on Jun 28, 2010 8:00:18 GMT 1
That isn't a conclusion that I would draw from those charts Mark, obviously, particularly that the gradient of the line in the last graph is steeper through the 80's is OK because the Tories didn't promise a more equal society.
The inequality in society is mediated by the economy rather than by Whitehall.
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 28, 2010 8:08:41 GMT 1
Post by SeanBroseley on Jun 28, 2010 8:08:41 GMT 1
"Raids on private pensions" - chestnuts, chestnuts....
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 28, 2010 12:39:58 GMT 1
Post by Jonah on Jun 28, 2010 12:39:58 GMT 1
jonah, i cant find a definition of rich that would have any kind of revelance to this discussion. i guess you already knew that anyway didnt you. bit disappointing to be fair that you would rather play "give us a clue" than discuss the issues. the usual tory tactic, try and bog you down with semantics and definitions so as to avoid questions they cant answer Me a Tory Monkee I wasnt trying to dodge anything or bog anyone down. TBH I was reading this thread and wondered what rich and poor incomes were/are. Like Matron I looked but could not find anything which got me wondering if there is no definition just how could people continue to mention it in discussions. VAT is so predictable as an easy revenue target. I wonder just how much revenue would be raised if 5% was charged on all food except for the necessities such as bread and milk. Not just the revenue raised but it may just have an impact on the countries health etc. Just a tory thought
|
|
|
VAT
Jun 28, 2010 13:11:01 GMT 1
Post by monkee on Jun 28, 2010 13:11:01 GMT 1
the usual tory tactic, try and bog you down with semantics and definitions so as to avoid questions they cant answer Me a Tory Monkee I wasnt trying to dodge anything or bog anyone down. TBH I was reading this thread and wondered what rich and poor incomes were/are. Like Matron I looked but could not find anything which got me wondering if there is no definition just how could people continue to mention it in discussions. VAT is so predictable as an easy revenue target. I wonder just how much revenue would be raised if 5% was charged on all food except for the necessities such as bread and milk. Not just the revenue raised but it may just have an impact on the countries health etc. Just a tory thought there are plenty of cuts we could make without touching V.A.T or public services. We could be tougher with the banking sector, the g20could have agreed on that so that these supposedly important bankers dont move to other countries like is feared by the right. We could cut Trident and keep what we have got, that would save £20B. they could tighten up the loopholes in the tax system that big business abuses to the tune of an estimated £13b +. But that wasnt the focus of the cuts, the focus was the general population, tax everyone for the mistakes and crimes of the few. It seems that we all lose out, whilst the banks, arms manufacturers and businesses that got us into the mess we are in get away with their cash. how can you support this?
|
|