London protest

[Catweazle]

To think that when the coalition fix this mess, labour gets voted back in and takes all the glory and starts another spending spree.

 

Did you ever wonder where all that money went ?

 

That "spending spree" was spent on wages that Joe Numpty used to buy essentials like 42" plasma TV and playstation 3.

 

Money out of the country. That's the bottom line.

[Mungler]

Drug, booze and ciggy testing for anyone on benefit.

 

If you want to smoke, drink or do any drugs you can do it on your own money.

 

Job jobbed.

 

That would be enough of a first step to set reform on the right path.

[Vince Green]

Why do we need a benefits system? They don't have one in Spain or Portugal. Nothing at all and people get by just fine without it. More importantly they haven't bred a generation of cradle to the grave workshy layabouts living off the State.

 

Also the so called assylum seekers pass through these countries on route to Britain, funny that

Edited March 19, 2011 by Vince Green

[Doc Holliday]

People should be able to have as many kids as they want as long as they can afford to pay for them

 

Although, in essence, I agree with you there is one thing fundamentally wrong with that approach. In a word... Sustainability! The world wouldn't be able to provide for the populous if everyone had as many kids as they pleased and were able to support them finacially. It really would be a case of survival of the richest as the poorest would rob/steal/murder those who could afford to provide for themselves and their family.

 

Ther human population is set to reach 7 billion this year (that's the U.S. billion not U.K. billion). It has been forecast that the human population will peak somewhere around 9.2 billion by 2050. How on earth we will cope is anyones guess but it doesn't look favourable for those less well off or even for those whom are finacially viable as they will be supporting those further down the economic ladder by one means or another.

[jacksdad]

Can you imagine what will happen when Malaria and all other similar diseases are eradicated...then we really will see a population explosion :blink: Harsh words but true I'm afraid!

[MC]

What happened with this protest?

 

I didn't see anything on the news about a million people descending on Westminster. Mind you it was a nice day, perhaps they all went to Clacton :lol:

[MITCHF]

+1

 

 

+ 2

[bignoel]

What happened with this protest?

 

I didn't see anything on the news about a million people descending on Westminster. Mind you it was a nice day, perhaps they all went to Clacton :lol:

 

it was eddited look at the first post its the 26th of march

[Bagsy]

What happened with this protest?

 

I didn't see anything on the news about a million people descending on Westminster. Mind you it was a nice day, perhaps they all went to Clacton :lol:

 

As usual it kicked off. Muppets.

 

My link

[garjo]

Vince

 

Have you ever been out of work? Do you really know what its like to see people have their house repossesed through no fault of their own? It aint no bed of roses living on £65 a week - being out of work is soul destroying and maybe you need to think about the human cost it has on people who find themeslves out of work - cheers mate.

 

 

 

Why do we need a benefits system? They don't have one in Spain or Portugal. Nothing at all and people get by just fine without it. More importantly they haven't bred a generation of cradle to the grave workshy layabouts living off the State.

 

Also the so called assylum seekers pass through these countries on route to Britain, funny that

[Pheasant Feeder]

Makes my blood boil! heard on radio Ed Milliband joining the protests in hyde park. He's one of the ********* thats helped put the country on the brink of financial and social ruin.

 

Both me and the misses could be subject to the public service cuts but I don't blame the coalition I blame the last Labour government, who when faced with spiralling debt decides to waste millions they just didn't have, on projects that weren't necessary and no-one wanted under the pretence of 'fiscal stimulas'.

 

All it achieved was putting the country further down the slippery slope making it even harder for any elected government to resolve the situation, may be I'm crediting them with too much inteligence but could this have been a deliberate ploy to **** the country beyond repair allowing them to be re-elected at the next general election?

[point and shoot]

Really ****** me off all this protesting about cut backs what the **** do they expect to happen, we haven't got any money to suddenly re-introduce labour style spending and in fact the cost of dealing with this protest is money we haven't got spare.

 

HELLO YOU CAN'T SPEND YOUR WAY OUT OF RECESSION BY INCREASING TAXES AND INVESTING IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR. IT DOESN'T WORK.

 

Imagine the financial horror if Labour had got in power again and tried to spend their way out of this mess??? And now when the coalition steps in to sort it out the morons are all about protesting. Suck it up we have to deal with this mess.

 

 

WORTH READING THIS ONE AGAIN. YOU ARE SO RIGH MATE!

[Boromir]

How can the milliband say he speaks for most of us? Cause he certainly aint speaking for me. We'll be just like Ireland if Labour stayed in and nobody will have jobs.

[Yellow Bear]

How can the milliband say he speaks for most of us? Cause he certainly aint speaking for me. We'll be just like Ireland if Labour stayed in and nobody will have jobs.

 

Except those created by the state - Last time round virtually all the jobs created were in the public sector - only 45% of working population net tax payers.

 

Communism by the back door I suspect if we are not careful

 

I agree I am the last person he speaks for :mad:

[Vince Green]

Vince

 

Have you ever been out of work? Do you really know what its like to see people have their house repossesed through no fault of their own? It aint no bed of roses living on £65 a week - being out of work is soul destroying and maybe you need to think about the human cost it has on people who find themeslves out of work - cheers mate.

No I haven't fortunately, but that wasn't the point I was making. much of the current benefits bill doesn't go to support the genuinely needy. It just provides for people who make lifestyle choices and would be forced to moderate those choices if the benefits were not there. Then, perhaps, those genuine cases would get the help they need.

I was just trying to point out that the benefits model employed in this country is almost unique in the world. Systems in other counties, although vastly different, some very minimalist, some non existant do work and work well. In America for example,if you lose your job you get six months on welfare to sort yourself out and thats it.

The idea that an 18 year old single girl who gets herself (intentionally?) pregnant could be housed, fed, clothed etc for the rest of her life by the state would cause amazement in these countries. I don't really see why it doesn't cause amazement here.

 

I honestly do think we need to question the fundamental principals rather than just accept that thats the way it is.

 

So many things could be streamlined. For example why do I receive Child Tax Credit? do I need it? did anyone ask? If somebody wants to give me free money then fine, but its crazy.

 

I know of people within my own extended family, cousins, who haven't worked for years, perfectly fit and healthy but "on the sickness" with no justification that I can see. Just bone idle and getting away with it IMHO

 

I believe the system needs to be changed. Labour let the whole thing come to this because they were buying votes, I think everyone accepts that now, which ever way you vote.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Vince Green

[Zapp]

may be I'm crediting them with too much inteligence but could this have been a deliberate ploy to **** the country beyond repair allowing them to be re-elected at the next general election?

 

A 'scorched earth' policy is hinted at in the memoirs of both Alistair Campbell and Peter Mandelson, so I dont think that such an assumption is unreasonable.

[Jaguar Warrior]

No I haven't fortunately, but that wasn't the point I was making. much of the current benefits bill doesn't go to support the genuinely needy. It just provides for people who make lifestyle choices and would be forced to moderate those choices if the benefits were not there. Then, perhaps, those genuine cases would get the help they need.

I was just trying to point out that the benefits model employed in this country is almost unique in the world. Systems in other counties, although vastly different, some very minimalist, some non existant do work and work well. In America for example,if you lose your job you get six months on welfare to sort yourself out and thats it.

The idea that an 18 year old single girl who gets herself (intentionally?) pregnant could be housed, fed, clothed etc for the rest of her life by the state would cause amazement in these countries. I don't really see why it doesn't cause amazement here.

 

I honestly do think we need to question the fundamental principals rather than just accept that thats the way it is.

 

So many things could be streamlined. For example why do I receive Child Tax Credit? do I need it? did anyone ask? If somebody wants to give me free money then fine, but its crazy.

 

I know of people within my own extended family, cousins, who haven't worked for years, perfectly fit and healthy but "on the sickness" with no justification that I can see. Just bone idle and getting away with it IMHO

 

I believe the system needs to be changed. Labour let the whole thing come to this because they were buying votes, I think everyone accepts that now, which ever way you vote.

 

+1

 

Agree totally with this.

I resent paying other peoples Child Tax credit when we have no kids. Its unfair wealth redistribution.

I'm a middle aged socialist. My dad was a miner, my mother a dinner lady.

 

I don't think the majority of the voting public understand the difference between a % and flat rates of tax.

Explain to me, anyone, why it is necessary to pay not just more Tax and NI contributions as a % by earning more, but at higher % to start with.

Is it because they 'can afford it' ? This extra money isn't a state gift - IT WAS HARD EARNED.

 

Now lets say you have two sons. One is lazy and thick, the other smart and hardworking

Your thick and lazy son earns 15K and will only be taxed on about 8K of that, and pay less than 1600 in tax.

Smart and hardworking son earned **** all until he was 23 after a-levels and university. Thick and lazy has already had 8k + 9k etc in increasing salary ending at 15K at 23, yet paid less than 10k in tax in 8 years!

 

Ten years later, thick and lazy is still on 15K - rightly so in my book, after all, he's thick and lazy.

He takes home 13.4K

 

Smart and hardworking finally gets up to 50K, 35k is taxed at 20% = 7k in tax and 15k taxed at 40% = 6k more. He takes home 37k, having paid 13k in tax.

 

TL son pays a poxy 1600 in tax per year

SH son pays 13,000 in tax per year. This is over 8 times more. That's 800% more by the way.

 

YOUR smart and hardworking son is penalised to support the pseudo-middle class lifestyle of YOUR thick and lazy son. You love both your sons the same, therefore you can be fair and objective, and man up to the facts. You ought to feel sorry for SH and think TL doesn't know he's born.

 

Why is this relevant? - mark my words, this economic crisis won't be paid for by Joe Bloggs or lazy thick son, it will be paid off the only way we can, to continue to take vast more money from those who have worked hard for it (more than 800% more is vastly more in my book). Pensions will be cut too. Ultimately, the best entrepreneurs will move to somewhere they don't get shafted.

 

Ps. show your sons the figures and remind smart and hardworking son that he will be at least in his early forties before he has finally earned more than your thick and lazy son. You will probably find that you now have one thick and lazy son and one smart but not-particularly-hardworking son.

After all, whats the point? :o

 

Or, if SH DOES decide to go the higher education route, he will probably end up working abroad and you will rarely ever see him. Sad really.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Jaguar Warrior

[UKPoacher]

Milliband has no right to be associated with ths protest. He and his kind contributed to the depth of the problem.

 

As for those living on benefits; I deal with a lot of people from all walks of life in my job and can say from personal experience that there is a huge number of people who have never worked, never intend to work and can't be made to work. They do not just draw on the financial system of our country in receiving benefits, but a great number of them also receive far more in associated benefits that you wouldn't normally think about. You would be amazed at how many of these terminal claimants also have social workers, nominated health workers and also are a drain on police, hospitals and schools with their special needs.

 

I've a lot of sympathy for those genuinely seeking work. I wish they could receive more than those who never intend to contribute anything, but the fact of life is that many of the claimants I come across can afford luxuries that the lower paid workers can only dream about and that can't be right.

[Piebob]

Explain to me, anyone, why it is necessary to pay not just more Tax and NI contributions as a % by earning more, but at higher % to start with.

Is it because they 'can afford it' ?

Yes. Even as it stands right now, at 50% tax, the rich pay proportionately less of their disposable income that low/middle earners. So there is scope to further increase tax rate for big earners.

 

TL son pays a poxy 1600 in tax per year

SH son pays 13,000 in tax per year. This is over 8 times more. That's 8000% more by the way.

No it's not. You've added an extra 0 into your calculation.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Piebob

[Jaguar Warrior]

Oh Man, you've just p ee d on my rug! Thats NOT COOL!

 

Editing will be done. Your right and i'm wrong.

 

There are so few 50% tax earners that if you took all their money like Stalin would, it wouldn't cover even the rent on your nicely built local hospital built by PPE, built simply because the investors could make money doing it. This costs us more in the long run. :mad:

 

If I was paying 50% tax I honestly wouldn't care about money at all as all my relatively simple needs would have long been taken care of. I'd finally be able to get that Xbox 360 and play with my mates.

 

ATB !

[Flashman]

One hopes that the soap dodgers who attacked Fortnum & Mason at least had the good sense to steal some toiletries on the way out.

 

The new weapon of choice appears to be the camera: provoke the police and then use photos of the subsequent thrashing out of context. I for one believe the damage to property that's now part and parcel of any demonstration in London warrants a free fire zone for the police. Anybody even looking at a bank, shop, hotel etc, gets it.

[SHOOTEMUP]

+1

 

Agree totally with this.

I resent paying other peoples Child Tax credit when we have no kids. Its unfair wealth redistribution.

I'm a middle aged socialist. My dad was a miner, my mother a dinner lady.

 

I don't think the majority of the voting public understand the difference between a % and flat rates of tax.

Explain to me, anyone, why it is necessary to pay not just more Tax and NI contributions as a % by earning more, but at higher % to start with.

Is it because they 'can afford it' ? This extra money isn't a state gift - IT WAS HARD EARNED.

 

Now lets say you have two sons. One is lazy and thick, the other smart and hardworking

Your thick and lazy son earns 15K and will only be taxed on about 8K of that, and pay less than 1600 in tax.

Smart and hardworking son earned **** all until he was 23 after a-levels and university. Thick and lazy has already had 8k + 9k etc in increasing salary ending at 15K at 23, yet paid less than 10k in tax in 8 years!

 

Ten years later, thick and lazy is still on 15K - rightly so in my book, after all, he's thick and lazy.

He takes home 13.4K

 

Smart and hardworking finally gets up to 50K, 35k is taxed at 20% = 7k in tax and 15k taxed at 40% = 6k more. He takes home 37k, having paid 13k in tax.

 

TL son pays a poxy 1600 in tax per year

SH son pays 13,000 in tax per year. This is over 8 times more. That's 800% more by the way.

 

YOUR smart and hardworking son is penalised to support the pseudo-middle class lifestyle of YOUR thick and lazy son. You love both your sons the same, therefore you can be fair and objective, and man up to the facts. You ought to feel sorry for SH and think TL doesn't know he's born.

 

Why is this relevant? - mark my words, this economic crisis won't be paid for by Joe Bloggs or lazy thick son, it will be paid off the only way we can, to continue to take vast more money from those who have worked hard for it (more than 800% more is vastly more in my book). Pensions will be cut too. Ultimately, the best entrepreneurs will move to somewhere they don't get shafted.

 

Ps. show your sons the figures and remind smart and hardworking son that he will be at least in his early forties before he has finally earned more than your thick and lazy son. You will probably find that you now have one thick and lazy son and one smart but not-particularly-hardworking son.

After all, whats the point? :o

 

Or, if SH DOES decide to go the higher education route, he will probably end up working abroad and you will rarely ever see him. Sad really.

 

 

Dont forget that the clever son has to pay off his student loan as well

[The Duncan]

What are we protesting about ?

...what have you got?

[Ian750]

 

I resent paying other peoples Child Tax credit when we have no kids. Its unfair wealth redistribution.

I'm a middle aged socialist. My dad was a miner, my mother a dinner lady.

 

I don't think the majority of the voting public understand the difference between a % and flat rates of tax.

Explain to me, anyone, why it is necessary to pay not just more Tax and NI contributions as a % by earning more, but at higher % to start with.

Is it because they 'can afford it' ? This extra money isn't a state gift - IT WAS HARD EARNED.

 

Now lets say you have two sons. One is lazy and thick, the other smart and hardworking

Your thick and lazy son earns 15K and will only be taxed on about 8K of that, and pay less than 1600 in tax.

Smart and hardworking son earned **** all until he was 23 after a-levels and university. Thick and lazy has already had 8k + 9k etc in increasing salary ending at 15K at 23, yet paid less than 10k in tax in 8 years!

 

Ten years later, thick and lazy is still on 15K - rightly so in my book, after all, he's thick and lazy.

He takes home 13.4K

 

Smart and hardworking finally gets up to 50K, 35k is taxed at 20% = 7k in tax and 15k taxed at 40% = 6k more. He takes home 37k, having paid 13k in tax.

 

TL son pays a poxy 1600 in tax per year

SH son pays 13,000 in tax per year. This is over 8 times more. That's 800% more by the way.

 

YOUR smart and hardworking son is penalised to support the pseudo-middle class lifestyle of YOUR thick and lazy son. You love both your sons the same, therefore you can be fair and objective, and man up to the facts. You ought to feel sorry for SH and think TL doesn't know he's born.

 

Why is this relevant? - mark my words, this economic crisis won't be paid for by Joe Bloggs or lazy thick son, it will be paid off the only way we can, to continue to take vast more money from those who have worked hard for it (more than 800% more is vastly more in my book). Pensions will be cut too. Ultimately, the best entrepreneurs will move to somewhere they don't get shafted.

 

Ps. show your sons the figures and remind smart and hardworking son that he will be at least in his early forties before he has finally earned more than your thick and lazy son. You will probably find that you now have one thick and lazy son and one smart but not-particularly-hardworking son.

After all, whats the point? :o

 

Or, if SH DOES decide to go the higher education route, he will probably end up working abroad and you will rarely ever see him. Sad really.

 

Here, here! Bloody love this post, couldn't agree more, where is the incentive to work hard, do well and with any luck be remunerated appropriately??

[UKPoacher]

Around 1985 when I was a milkman, amongst the 500 or so deliveries I delivered to two old people's bungalows. One was occupied by a couple who had worked hard and saved diligently, the other by a couple who had peed everything they earned up against the wall and had no savings. The first couple had to pay full whack on everything as their savings were above the threshold. The second couple got rebates on rent and rates because they had no savings. That unfair anomoly has stuck with me ever since and it is still not addressed.