This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Football Lads Alliance
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
  Hrolf The Ganger  13 Oct 17 9.58am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Oddly I think it was UKIP that got us out. The Tory party would never have proposed a referendum if it wasn't for the effect that UKIP was having in terms of Conservative seats. Whilst I don't like UKIP's politics or its leader, they showed exactly how democracy could work by representing issues of the public, rather than the agenda of the party - and have been the biggest argument as to how unfairly biased the political 'democracy' of the UK is towards two parties (and to a lesser extent the Liberal Democrats) - as well as how unwilling those factions are to give up that power. Exactly. People need to realise this more at elections as well instead of backing one horse in a two horse race. Trouble is that the smaller parties have small funds and, at the last election at least, were a shambles. And you had to be a real shambles to appear more of a shambles than the Tories campaign.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Kermit8  Hevon 13 Oct 17 10.05am |
|
|---|---|
|
All a bit sexist this movement, isn't it? The title ffs. They should merge with the NLE. Netball Lassies Entente.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| npn Crowborough 13 Oct 17 10.23am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
20% tax for all?
Equal 'yes' but fair? Not a chance. Or turn that example on its head, and the lawyer pays £200,000 pa to help run the country, while the shop worker pays £3,000. So the argument that "the well off should pay more" is rubbish, because they already do, significantly more. Why would you want to change that even further? I've never understood progressive percentage rates on tax (aside from reduced rates at the very low end of the scale to help people get by). If I work overtime this weekend, and get to keep 80% of it, why should I only get to keep 70% of it if I work the next weekend just because I've gone past some arbitrary figure for the year?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 13 Oct 17 10.33am |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
Also, an extra £3k a year to a shop worker is going to have a much more significant impact than a lawyer ending up with £700k a year net rather than £800k. The latter wouldn't notice. I agree with you to an extent. The market worth of different roles within society is definitely screwed up....the old 'how much more valuable' is Elton John.... versus a Nurse argument. In these areas the market lets us down. However, I'm also well aware what happened once Labour started saying yes to workers in the seventies.......did those workers thank them? Did they feck....they put their hands out even more.....Those unions essentially brought down that government. The lower paid are no more ethical than the higher paid....They just exist within a different environment. But a government should represent both of them fairly....definitely.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Kermit8 Hevon 13 Oct 17 10.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by npn
Or turn that example on its head, and the lawyer pays £200,000 pa to help run the country, while the shop worker pays £3,000. So the argument that "the well off should pay more" is rubbish, because they already do, significantly more. Why would you want to change that even further? I've never understood progressive percentage rates on tax (aside from reduced rates at the very low end of the scale to help people get by). If I work overtime this weekend, and get to keep 80% of it, why should I only get to keep 70% of it if I work the next weekend just because I've gone past some arbitrary figure for the year? And what if, to use a micro-example, tax of one million quid is needed to refurb three schools and there are a finite 4 x £1mill Lawyers (£200k paid tax) and 40 x £15k shopworkers (£3k paid tax) to finance it. That's £920k tax toward the project. Who should pay the short-fall of £80k The four lawyers between them or not? The shopworkers are already down to £12k per annum after the tax. Should they foot it too?
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Kermit8 Hevon 13 Oct 17 10.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I agree with you to an extent. The market worth of different roles within society is definitely screwed up....the old 'how much more valuable' is Elton John.... versus a Nurse argument. In these areas the market lets us down. However, I'm also well aware what happened once Labour started saying yes to workers in the seventies.......did those workers thank them? Did they feck....they put their hands out even more.....Those unions essentially brought down that government. The lower paid are no more ethical than the higher paid....They just exist within a different environment. But a government should represent both of them fairly....definitely. Commie.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 13 Oct 17 11.03am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
Commie. Fairly not equally. Fairness, opportunity and meritocracy......those would be my tag lines if I were in politics. That and....more hot sex for the over forty fives.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Oct 17 12.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Fairly not equally. Fairness, opportunity and meritocracy......those would be my tag lines if I were in politics. That and....more hot sex for the over forty fives. Mine would be 'Beer, Sex, Chips and Gravy'
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| npn Crowborough 13 Oct 17 12.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
And what if, to use a micro-example, tax of one million quid is needed to refurb three schools and there are a finite 4 x £1mill Lawyers (£200k paid tax) and 40 x £15k shopworkers (£3k paid tax) to finance it. That's £920k tax toward the project. Who should pay the short-fall of £80k The four lawyers between them or not? The shopworkers are already down to £12k per annum after the tax. Should they foot it too? It should be spread. charge whatever percentage rate covers all the costs. Otherwise where does it stop? Do you just keep on hitting the lawyers until their take-home pay is the same as the shop workers? Surely that's communism (doesn't matter what job you do, you get your living expenses as dictated by the state) and that doesn't tend to end well
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 13 Oct 17 4.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
Yes, we have to have VAT because the EU tells us to - and we have to ensure the rate does not fall below 15%. Still we shall be free of their diktats soon. Classic idiotic post. We have indirect taxes for fiscal reasons not because of the EU. Why do you have to always be so reductionist. Every little problem is because of Johnny Foreigner isn't it?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| elgrande bedford 13 Oct 17 4.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Very good piece .
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 13 Oct 17 5.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by npn
It should be spread. charge whatever percentage rate covers all the costs. Otherwise where does it stop? Do you just keep on hitting the lawyers until their take-home pay is the same as the shop workers? Surely that's communism (doesn't matter what job you do, you get your living expenses as dictated by the state) and that doesn't tend to end well The logic of progressive taxation is well established, higher earners can afford to pay in higher proportion as the basics in life have already been covered. You hit discretionary and not necessary expenditure. Sweden has a top tax rate of 56% plus 7% in pension contributions. People still stay there. In fact they appreciate the investments that are made for them as a result of the relatively high tax take. It's a very nice place to live and work.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.