Full Version: Michael Portillo
fess up, tinman - have YOU had a mucky dream about Portillo, too?
QUOTE(tinman @ Dec 7 2005, 04:51 PM)
barmyrob you make me laugh so much i feel i owe you some kind of payment as a comic
why? for being sane?
QUOTE(tinman @ Dec 7 2005, 04:51 PM)
on the motoring stuff suggest u look at abd.org.uk for a while, dont think it merits my repeating it at length, on the tax issue suggest you read the ft or telegraph
cheers
cheers
The ABD are insane nut cases - they have a whole part of there site devoted to whacko theories saying that global warming isn't happening. Flat earth, neo-con nonsense. They believe it's a God given right to drive their cars however they want, wherever they want, for free and fuck anyone who gets in their way!
I do read the FT thanks very much and jolly good it is to - the most unbiased news coverage out there - can't say the same for the Torygraph although it's "foreign" coverage is generally good.
Why don't YOU explain the tax issue - or are you scared that you are wrong - your diatribe was full of total tosh - don't try and hide behind newspapers - come on - give us all some answers.
QUOTE(tinman @ Dec 7 2005, 04:47 PM)
re "you will be saying you support geneticism and enforced contraceptive medical procedures next."
no i will not, but i do find it sad that for the poor kids on the larger and worst council estates they are actively incentivised to have kids by various govt policies and benefits, and for the middle classes forced into the mobile workforce and doing long hours the tax and other regimes imposed by the govt actively discourage bringing kids into the world
seems a shame thats all
no i will not, but i do find it sad that for the poor kids on the larger and worst council estates they are actively incentivised to have kids by various govt policies and benefits, and for the middle classes forced into the mobile workforce and doing long hours the tax and other regimes imposed by the govt actively discourage bringing kids into the world
seems a shame thats all
I think you will find that working class families have been generally bigger than middle class familes for centuries - this is nothing new.
Tax does not disincentivise middle class people from having babies - total rubbish.
Barmy. Is paying over 70% tax on fuel and 40% inheritance tax classed as Stealth and are they included in your 'Tax burden' graph.Also what value for money do the british people get for their tax burden compared with countries like Sweden.
Official tax and the amount of money being paid into government coffers ,are two seperate issues.I presume the hundreds of millions of pounds that Britains pay in parking fines are not included, or speeding fines.If a country has many more speed cameras than other countries and many more traffic wardens ,it is obvious that that particular government will be talikng more money off it citizens than other less zealous governments,eevn though the same offences are happening all over europe.
Are things like the exorbatant 'stamp duty' added to the 'Tax burden graph'.Is VAT included or is the 'tax burden' figures just income tax figures,because countries like Sweden pay higher income tax ,but are taxed much less on the smaller (stealth) taxes.What about council tax that has doubled under this government, is that included.
Also the figures are per national income, not the actual amounts.
Official tax and the amount of money being paid into government coffers ,are two seperate issues.I presume the hundreds of millions of pounds that Britains pay in parking fines are not included, or speeding fines.If a country has many more speed cameras than other countries and many more traffic wardens ,it is obvious that that particular government will be talikng more money off it citizens than other less zealous governments,eevn though the same offences are happening all over europe.
Are things like the exorbatant 'stamp duty' added to the 'Tax burden graph'.Is VAT included or is the 'tax burden' figures just income tax figures,because countries like Sweden pay higher income tax ,but are taxed much less on the smaller (stealth) taxes.What about council tax that has doubled under this government, is that included.
Also the figures are per national income, not the actual amounts.
QUOTE(the klf @ Dec 7 2005, 09:52 PM)
Barmy. Is paying over 70% tax on fuel and 40% inheritance tax classed as Stealth and are they included in your 'Tax burden' graph.Also what value for money do the british people get for their tax burden compared with countries like Sweden.
Official tax and the amount of money being paid into government coffers ,are two seperate issues.I presume the hundreds of millions of pounds that Britains pay in parking fines are not included, or speeding fines.If a country has many more speed cameras than other countries and many more traffic wardens ,it is obvious that that particular government will be talikng more money off it citizens than other less zealous governments,eevn though the same offences are happening all over europe.
Are things like the exorbatant 'stamp duty' added to the 'Tax burden graph'.Is VAT included or is the 'tax burden' figures just income tax figures,because countries like Sweden pay higher income tax ,but are taxed much less on the smaller (stealth) taxes.What about council tax that has doubled under this government, is that included.
Also the figures are per national income, not the actual amounts.
Official tax and the amount of money being paid into government coffers ,are two seperate issues.I presume the hundreds of millions of pounds that Britains pay in parking fines are not included, or speeding fines.If a country has many more speed cameras than other countries and many more traffic wardens ,it is obvious that that particular government will be talikng more money off it citizens than other less zealous governments,eevn though the same offences are happening all over europe.
Are things like the exorbatant 'stamp duty' added to the 'Tax burden graph'.Is VAT included or is the 'tax burden' figures just income tax figures,because countries like Sweden pay higher income tax ,but are taxed much less on the smaller (stealth) taxes.What about council tax that has doubled under this government, is that included.
Also the figures are per national income, not the actual amounts.
Yes all those taxes are added. Sorry.
And as for traffic wardens and speed cameras the answer is easy - don't speed and park legally. nil cost - works for me.
"are insane nut cases" is not a rationale argument really is it? they actually talk a lot of sense and do not hold the views you claim they have
tax issue speaks for itself, percentage of of GDP being spent by the governement rather than by the people has been going up very definitely through the new scumabour years
just ask the oil company share holders, probably your pension fund for one
and the hard working middle classes are very definitley discouraged from breeding, there is a whole class of hard working folk now who never have kids, and its not fair on them
tax issue speaks for itself, percentage of of GDP being spent by the governement rather than by the people has been going up very definitely through the new scumabour years
just ask the oil company share holders, probably your pension fund for one
and the hard working middle classes are very definitley discouraged from breeding, there is a whole class of hard working folk now who never have kids, and its not fair on them
QUOTE
"are insane nut cases" is not a rationale argument really is it
i think it is
QUOTE
and the hard working middle classes are very definitley discouraged from breeding, there is a whole class of hard working folk now who never have kids, and its not fair on them
i have serious issues with you about this and will be right back.
QUOTE(tinman @ Dec 7 2005, 10:06 PM)
"are insane nut cases" is not a rationale argument really is it? they actually talk a lot of sense and do not hold the views you claim they have
this is from the ABD website. QED.
QUOTE
Our planet is in 'global warming' mode, isn't it?
No. For the past eighteen months or so it has been cooling. Warming and cooling happen all the time and occur naturally as 'climate change', a better term than global warming which suggests the planet only ever heats up.
How much warmer has the planet become, to cause all the fuss?
About half a degree Celsius (one degree Fahrenheit) over the last 100 years. Even this isn't likely to be the true figure, as a significant portion — up to half of this claimed rise — will be due to 'urban warming'. This is where urban sprawl leads to heat retention around measuring sites on the ground, which then get a false high reading due to the 'urban heat island effect' and NOT any global temperature change. Satellite data confirms this; there is very poor correlation between surface temperature data from the ground and from satellite in recent decades.
So surely if the amount of warming isn't significant, the rate of warming is cause for concern?
No. Planet Earth has warmed up by around 10 degrees Celsius within the space of a human lifetime on many occasions in the recent geological past (and cooled down again in the same timescale) without any help from mankind. Emissions from industrial activity and mechanised transport have been around for less than 200 years.
But if the atmosphere is getting full of carbon dioxide, which the greens say is causing global warming, surely reducing output of this gas is helpful?
There is an atmospheric greenhouse effect, and carbon dioxide plays a role in it, but that's as far as it goes. There is only 0.037% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by volume, and of total global emissions of carbon dioxide each year only 0.6% comes from cars — this is an insignificant contribution. Greens 'forget' that 96.5% of carbon dioxide comes from natural sources so mankind can have but little effect. Also the equilibria, or balance processes, at work in parts of the short-term carbon cycle mean that if we do succeed (we won't) in reducing carbon dioxide levels 'artificially', then nature will boost them again!
Even so isn't it better to be safe than sorry?
As carbon dioxide levels change in response to temperature changes, rather than cause them, and as carbon dioxide is by no means the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas, attempts to influence climate change by reducing mankind's emissions represent a laughable King Canute strategy, so much so that there has to be another motive (read on). This 'precautionary principle' is an abuse of guilt and fear. It should work both ways — as there is overwhelming evidence that the Sun causes climate change on the timescale we are worrying about, politicians should take this possibility on board too, but they just want the carbon taxes and do little or nothing else.
I hear that present levels of carbon dioxide are 'unprecedented' so there must be a problem...
This statement about current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is nonsense. There has been up to 20 times more carbon dioxide in the Earth's past, and levels have fallen and risen naturally. Also, climate change does NOT correlate with carbon dioxide levels or emissions in the way that it does with solar activity.
What are the real causes of climate change?
There are several mechanisms which operate over different timescales. Some are regular, others not. They are:
a) the varying output of the Sun
the varying axial tilt of our planet
c) the varying orbital eccentricity of Earth as it orbits the Sun
d) interaction with the interplanetary and interstellar medium
e) tectonic activity e.g. volcanism
f) sporadic catastrophes e.g. impacts from space (comets, asteroids)
So is there evidence for all this, or is it just theory?
There is overwhelming evidence that natural forces are at work in climate change. For example, the last mini ice age (1645–1715) occurred at the same time as a prolonged period of very low activity in the Sun. Of course, this was no coincidence. Now, as solar activity builds to very high levels, we have seen modest warming during the last century. Evidence from space and from observatories show a direct link between solar activity and climate for nearly 500 years. Over longer timescales, hot and cold periods where climate change has occurred to a larger degree are coincident with periods when the astronomical factors (known together as the Milankovitch cycles) can explain them precisely.
Why then is there such a widespread consensus that mankind is having an impact on climate change and that cars are responsible for global warming?
This question has been answered by Dr Moore, co-founder of greenpeace, and many other political activists whose quotes are to be found on the ABD website. Moore stated last year — publicly — that he was very concerned about the organisation he helped to found, that in the mid-eighties it was taken over by extremists and ultra-leftists and now operates from political ideology rather than objective science. There is no better way to secure a high tax (on enterprise) and high control (on mobility and freedom of the individual) than to scare people so much that they are willing to endure punitively high taxes on energy and transport in order to "save the planet". Of course the planet doesn't need saving, it's in no danger whereas we cannot save ourselves from the planet; ironic.
But doesn't the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) maintain there IS a consensus on mankind's influence, and that we are heading for Armageddon?
See above (scare stories) and note that it is governments which appoint these 'experts'. "He who pays the piper" may be at work. Also, note that there is a petition signed by over 17000 scientists — including more than 2000 leading climatologists, meteorologists and atmospheric scientists from across the world, called the OREGON PETITION, which has the following statement at its heart:
"There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere or disruption of the Earth's climate"
Predictions of Armageddon are scaremongering. Computer models used to make dire predictions are notoriously unreliable — they use far too large an element size to model atmospheric physics and chemistry adequately, and the computing power to do so properly is estimated to be at least 5 years away as at 2000.
The importance of carbon dioxide is artificially boosted in these models, and the influence of the Sun is either under-estimated or absent.
No. For the past eighteen months or so it has been cooling. Warming and cooling happen all the time and occur naturally as 'climate change', a better term than global warming which suggests the planet only ever heats up.
How much warmer has the planet become, to cause all the fuss?
About half a degree Celsius (one degree Fahrenheit) over the last 100 years. Even this isn't likely to be the true figure, as a significant portion — up to half of this claimed rise — will be due to 'urban warming'. This is where urban sprawl leads to heat retention around measuring sites on the ground, which then get a false high reading due to the 'urban heat island effect' and NOT any global temperature change. Satellite data confirms this; there is very poor correlation between surface temperature data from the ground and from satellite in recent decades.
So surely if the amount of warming isn't significant, the rate of warming is cause for concern?
No. Planet Earth has warmed up by around 10 degrees Celsius within the space of a human lifetime on many occasions in the recent geological past (and cooled down again in the same timescale) without any help from mankind. Emissions from industrial activity and mechanised transport have been around for less than 200 years.
But if the atmosphere is getting full of carbon dioxide, which the greens say is causing global warming, surely reducing output of this gas is helpful?
There is an atmospheric greenhouse effect, and carbon dioxide plays a role in it, but that's as far as it goes. There is only 0.037% of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by volume, and of total global emissions of carbon dioxide each year only 0.6% comes from cars — this is an insignificant contribution. Greens 'forget' that 96.5% of carbon dioxide comes from natural sources so mankind can have but little effect. Also the equilibria, or balance processes, at work in parts of the short-term carbon cycle mean that if we do succeed (we won't) in reducing carbon dioxide levels 'artificially', then nature will boost them again!
Even so isn't it better to be safe than sorry?
As carbon dioxide levels change in response to temperature changes, rather than cause them, and as carbon dioxide is by no means the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas, attempts to influence climate change by reducing mankind's emissions represent a laughable King Canute strategy, so much so that there has to be another motive (read on). This 'precautionary principle' is an abuse of guilt and fear. It should work both ways — as there is overwhelming evidence that the Sun causes climate change on the timescale we are worrying about, politicians should take this possibility on board too, but they just want the carbon taxes and do little or nothing else.
I hear that present levels of carbon dioxide are 'unprecedented' so there must be a problem...
This statement about current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is nonsense. There has been up to 20 times more carbon dioxide in the Earth's past, and levels have fallen and risen naturally. Also, climate change does NOT correlate with carbon dioxide levels or emissions in the way that it does with solar activity.
What are the real causes of climate change?
There are several mechanisms which operate over different timescales. Some are regular, others not. They are:
a) the varying output of the Sun
the varying axial tilt of our planetc) the varying orbital eccentricity of Earth as it orbits the Sun
d) interaction with the interplanetary and interstellar medium
e) tectonic activity e.g. volcanism
f) sporadic catastrophes e.g. impacts from space (comets, asteroids)
So is there evidence for all this, or is it just theory?
There is overwhelming evidence that natural forces are at work in climate change. For example, the last mini ice age (1645–1715) occurred at the same time as a prolonged period of very low activity in the Sun. Of course, this was no coincidence. Now, as solar activity builds to very high levels, we have seen modest warming during the last century. Evidence from space and from observatories show a direct link between solar activity and climate for nearly 500 years. Over longer timescales, hot and cold periods where climate change has occurred to a larger degree are coincident with periods when the astronomical factors (known together as the Milankovitch cycles) can explain them precisely.
Why then is there such a widespread consensus that mankind is having an impact on climate change and that cars are responsible for global warming?
This question has been answered by Dr Moore, co-founder of greenpeace, and many other political activists whose quotes are to be found on the ABD website. Moore stated last year — publicly — that he was very concerned about the organisation he helped to found, that in the mid-eighties it was taken over by extremists and ultra-leftists and now operates from political ideology rather than objective science. There is no better way to secure a high tax (on enterprise) and high control (on mobility and freedom of the individual) than to scare people so much that they are willing to endure punitively high taxes on energy and transport in order to "save the planet". Of course the planet doesn't need saving, it's in no danger whereas we cannot save ourselves from the planet; ironic.
But doesn't the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) maintain there IS a consensus on mankind's influence, and that we are heading for Armageddon?
See above (scare stories) and note that it is governments which appoint these 'experts'. "He who pays the piper" may be at work. Also, note that there is a petition signed by over 17000 scientists — including more than 2000 leading climatologists, meteorologists and atmospheric scientists from across the world, called the OREGON PETITION, which has the following statement at its heart:
"There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere or disruption of the Earth's climate"
Predictions of Armageddon are scaremongering. Computer models used to make dire predictions are notoriously unreliable — they use far too large an element size to model atmospheric physics and chemistry adequately, and the computing power to do so properly is estimated to be at least 5 years away as at 2000.
The importance of carbon dioxide is artificially boosted in these models, and the influence of the Sun is either under-estimated or absent.
QUOTE(tinman @ Dec 7 2005, 10:06 PM)
"tax issue speaks for itself, percentage of of GDP being spent by the governement rather than by the people has been going up very definitely through the new scumabour years
no - it went down at first - now it is back up to about where it was.
QUOTE(tinman @ Dec 7 2005, 10:06 PM)
just ask the oil company share holders, probably your pension fund for one
ask them what? - i don't understand. OIl companies have been making record profits. are you talking about the new windfall tax? you have a problem with that?????
QUOTE(tinman @ Dec 7 2005, 10:06 PM)
and the hard working middle classes are very definitley discouraged from breeding, there is a whole class of hard working folk now who never have kids, and its not fair on them
prove it. you can't just say crap like that without backing it up - it is nonsense.
why dont you prove some of the bollocks you talk?
and yes i object to yet another random tax chipping away at the wealth of this country
nhs still fucked, government is crap at running big organisations like this and always has been and its getting worse
schools still crap
too many homeless people on the streets
new labour is crap get used to it
and yes i object to yet another random tax chipping away at the wealth of this country
nhs still fucked, government is crap at running big organisations like this and always has been and its getting worse
schools still crap
too many homeless people on the streets
new labour is crap get used to it
QUOTE
and the hard working middle classes are very definitley discouraged from breeding, there is a whole class of hard working folk now who never have kids, and its not fair on them
tinman please explain this statement
QUOTE
the uk is now suffering from reverse natural selection as the only people breeding are the very families least able to bring up decent kids
and this one
QUOTE(tinman @ Dec 7 2005, 10:48 PM)
why dont you prove some of the bollocks you talk?
i did - you haven't
are you saying that only certain "classes" of people should have reproductive rights?
if you are, then how would you impose it?
and what would your criteria be?
you said about hardworking middleclass families not being able to have children? why are they not? and why is it "not fair?"
you said about people least able to bring up decent kids having the most children. i am assuming you are talking about those less economically advantages than others? does having less money make you a less caring parent? does it makeyou morally deficient in anyway?
if you are, then how would you impose it?
and what would your criteria be?
you said about hardworking middleclass families not being able to have children? why are they not? and why is it "not fair?"
you said about people least able to bring up decent kids having the most children. i am assuming you are talking about those less economically advantages than others? does having less money make you a less caring parent? does it makeyou morally deficient in anyway?
QUOTE
are you saying that only certain "classes" of people should have reproductive rights?
I think he is.
QUOTE
if you are, then how would you impose it?
I lived on a Council Estate once (honest) where the Health Visitor regularly toured the blocks sticking needles in young women to stop them having babies.
He'd just have to organise it on a larger scale. Employ more Health Visitors (He's always banging on about the NHS not having enough dosh - Now we know why!!!) and up the dosage.
QUOTE
and what would your criteria be?
Tax returns of course Derr Head.
ONLY THE RICH SHALL REPRODUCE!
QUOTE
And as for traffic wardens and speed cameras the answer is easy - don't speed and park legally. nil cost - works for me.
Who decides whats illegal?.The individual governments, thats who. In europe millions of people everyday park outside their homes with their wheels slightly up on the pavement ,as a courtesy to allow other motorists to pass freely. Britains are hit in the pocket to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds each year by traffic wardens, for doing the same.Millions of europeans break just as many petty traffic laws each day ,but they do don't have to pay for doing so, ie..they are not taxed for doing so..In Britain, for every policeman on the beat at any given time, there are ten traffic wardens.
Makes you proud to be British ,doesn't it. 
Does the tax burden, include raiding the indivudual countries pension fund , to the tune of 5 billion pounds each year. If you add the total money paid back to the government by the indivudual, combined with the value for money that individual recieves for that lay-out. The figures would be a whole lot different.
PS.. Also i presume things like tax credits (which run into billions of pounds each year) are wiped from the burden because the money is given back to the population (albeit, only a small percentage of the popualtion). So whilst a small percentage are credited,the majorty are burdened further, but that is not shown on the final tax burden figures. (PPS...Let me state that i agrree with tax credits, i'm just saying things like that can skew the figures, and can be described as a stealth tax.I wish there was a chart or graph for each countries stealth taxes.That woulld make fasinating reading.
QUOTE(pink shay @ Dec 7 2005, 10:06 PM)
are you saying that only certain "classes" of people should have reproductive rights? No just the same rights
if you are, then how would you impose it?
and what would your criteria be? working class families receive much more monatary help in bringing up children that middle class families do. Tax credits play a big part in that.
you said about hardworking middleclass families not being able to have children? why are they not? and why is it "not fair?" A much higher percentage of working class families have one or more of the parents out of work,so find it possible to look after more children. The restaints of the middle class in both parents having to work long hours and high child care costs..etc, restricts the number of childen they are likely to reproduce.
you said about people least able to bring up decent kids having the most children. i am assuming you are talking about those less economically advantages than others? does having less money make you a less caring parent? does it makeyou morally deficient in anyway? Yes, there are many great working class parents and many great working class kids, but i'm afraid the reality is that poverty and living amongst crime and disorder, will produce a far higher percentage of children with both emotional and behavioural problems.I'm not say this is a reason to discourage certain sections of society from having as many kids as they want.I'm saying that measures should be put into place ,in order to let ALL classes have equal oppotunities and equal support in order to raise families.
if you are, then how would you impose it?
and what would your criteria be? working class families receive much more monatary help in bringing up children that middle class families do. Tax credits play a big part in that.
you said about hardworking middleclass families not being able to have children? why are they not? and why is it "not fair?" A much higher percentage of working class families have one or more of the parents out of work,so find it possible to look after more children. The restaints of the middle class in both parents having to work long hours and high child care costs..etc, restricts the number of childen they are likely to reproduce.
you said about people least able to bring up decent kids having the most children. i am assuming you are talking about those less economically advantages than others? does having less money make you a less caring parent? does it makeyou morally deficient in anyway? Yes, there are many great working class parents and many great working class kids, but i'm afraid the reality is that poverty and living amongst crime and disorder, will produce a far higher percentage of children with both emotional and behavioural problems.I'm not say this is a reason to discourage certain sections of society from having as many kids as they want.I'm saying that measures should be put into place ,in order to let ALL classes have equal oppotunities and equal support in order to raise families.
QUOTE(the klf @ Dec 7 2005, 10:29 PM)
In europe millions of people everyday park outside their homes with their wheels slightly up on the pavement ,as a courtesy to allow other motorists to pass freely. Britains are hit in the pocket to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds each year by traffic wardens, for doing the same.
Is it possible that you Brits just haven't learned how to parallel park yet:
http://www.break.com/articles/paralellparking.html
QUOTE
working class families receive much more monatary help in bringing up children that middle class families do. Tax credits play a big part in that.
As I'm always saying to my Mrs...We can afford it.
QUOTE
The restaints of the middle class in both parents having to work long hours and child care costs..etc, restricts the number of childen they are likely to reproduce.
Absolute Bollocks.
We're too knackered actually.
QUOTE
I'm saying that measures should be put into place ,in order to let ALL classes have equal oppotunities and equal support in order to raise families.
Like...Tax Credits?
No. Tax credits mean that some people are paid extra for having children ,and some are not.Thats not equal.
QUOTE(Dickie @ Dec 7 2005, 11:35 PM)
QUOTE
The restaints of the middle class in both parents having to work long hours and child care costs..etc, restricts the number of childen they are likely to reproduce.
Absolute Bollocks.
We're too knackered actually.
You wouldn't be too knackered if you lounged around all day watching Jeremy Kyle and Trisha.
QUOTE(the klf @ Dec 7 2005, 11:51 PM)
You wouldn't be too knackered if you lounged around all day watching Jeremy Kyle and Trisha.
I only watch News and current affairs programmes and Lost and Richard and Judy and Tracey Beaker and The Simpsons and Eastenders and What Not to Wear and re-runs of 24 and The Sopranos and Blue Peter and Jungle Run and Jackie Chan and...No wonder I'm fucking knackered.
QUOTE
No. Tax credits mean that some people are paid extra for having children ,and some are not.Thats not equal.
No. Tax credits are given because some people earn more than others.
That's not equal...?
But you have to have children to GET tax credits.Thats not fair.
Tax credits should be based on earnings, not amount of children.We've already got family allowance for that purpose.
Tax credits should be based on earnings, not amount of children.We've already got family allowance for that purpose.
Tax credits should be based on earnings.
The family tax credit is based on earnings.
Family Allowance is paid at the same rate to every family i.e. Tony Blair or David Cameron get more than me because they have more kids.
What do you want? Something for nothing?
The family tax credit is based on earnings.
Family Allowance is paid at the same rate to every family i.e. Tony Blair or David Cameron get more than me because they have more kids.
What do you want? Something for nothing?
If i was earning £15,000 a year and getting NO tax credits .I don't think its fair that i should support (through tax credits), someone earnings £5,000 a year more than me .
re "are you saying that only certain "classes" of people should have reproductive rights?" no, but i have a problem with people who clearly cannot afford one kid having 5 or 6 kids or more and being kept by the state
re "if you are, then how would you impose it?
and what would your criteria be?" all i am saying is that the tax and benefits shambles of a system should be equally fair to all kinds of folk, and not bias its encouragement to have kids to one sector of society or another, it is perfectly clear to me that there are sectors of hard working folk for who having kids is a practical and financial impossibility, however many folk living entirely on the state are financially encouraged to have kids
means tested benefits etc sound ok, but in the long term they just discourage people from working to get on in life and saving for their own families
re "if you are, then how would you impose it?
and what would your criteria be?" all i am saying is that the tax and benefits shambles of a system should be equally fair to all kinds of folk, and not bias its encouragement to have kids to one sector of society or another, it is perfectly clear to me that there are sectors of hard working folk for who having kids is a practical and financial impossibility, however many folk living entirely on the state are financially encouraged to have kids
means tested benefits etc sound ok, but in the long term they just discourage people from working to get on in life and saving for their own families
QUOTE(Dickie @ Dec 8 2005, 12:10 AM)
Tax credits should be based on earnings.
The family tax credit is based on earnings.
Family Allowance is paid at the same rate to every family i.e. Tony Blair or David Cameron get more than me because they have more kids.
What do you want? Something for nothing?
The family tax credit is based on earnings.
Family Allowance is paid at the same rate to every family i.e. Tony Blair or David Cameron get more than me because they have more kids.
What do you want? Something for nothing?
FAMILY
tax credit. Lower earners are being paid extra TWICE they because have children.Once through the family tax credit and again through family allowance.
What i'm say is, that family allowance should be standard across the board ,as it is now (the more kids you have, the more you get). And then people should receive tax credit based on their earnings alone.Paying tax credit based on the amount of children a person has (or whether they have children),is giving the working class a financial advantage in having children. A situation that other classes do not have.This creates inbalance.
QUOTE
If i was earning £15,000 a year and getting NO tax credits .I don't think its fair that i should support (through tax credits), someone earnings £5,000 a year more than me .
I refer the honourable member to the reply I gave some moments ago.
QUOTE
Paying tax credit based on the amount of children a person has (or whether they have children),is giving the working class a financial advantage in having children. A situation that other classes do not have.This creates inbalance.
Family tax credit is based on earnings not number of ankle biters.
i think i will recite the names of britains war dead outside downing street tomorrow, lets hitlers i mean blairs britain lock me up the bastards, and ill be heckling jack straw when i see him
somehow i think the labour party is acting more like nazis than any other british government in history
soon as they are kicked out the better
somehow i think the labour party is acting more like nazis than any other british government in history
soon as they are kicked out the better
QUOTE(tinman @ Dec 8 2005, 12:16 AM)
re "are you saying that only certain "classes" of people should have reproductive rights?" no, but i have a problem with people who clearly cannot afford one kid having 5 or 6 kids or more and being kept by the state
re "if you are, then how would you impose it?
and what would your criteria be?" all i am saying is that the tax and benefits shambles of a system should be equally fair to all kinds of folk, and not bias its encouragement to have kids to one sector of society or another, it is perfectly clear to me that there are sectors of hard working folk for who having kids is a practical and financial impossibility, however many folk living entirely on the state are financially encouraged to have kids
means tested benefits etc sound ok, but in the long term they just discourage people from working to get on in life and saving for their own families
re "if you are, then how would you impose it?
and what would your criteria be?" all i am saying is that the tax and benefits shambles of a system should be equally fair to all kinds of folk, and not bias its encouragement to have kids to one sector of society or another, it is perfectly clear to me that there are sectors of hard working folk for who having kids is a practical and financial impossibility, however many folk living entirely on the state are financially encouraged to have kids
means tested benefits etc sound ok, but in the long term they just discourage people from working to get on in life and saving for their own families
The way the tax credit and welfare system is operated in Britain,an unemployed man with a wife and four kids living in council accomadation would have to find a job worth at least £30,000 a year, in order for his family to be better off with him working. Its a crazy state of affairs.Tax credit was brought in to stop this anomaly, but paying it to unemployed people also,totally negates its effectivness.
QUOTE(tinman @ Dec 8 2005, 12:27 AM)
i think i will recite the names of britains war dead outside downing street tomorrow,
Well that's another thing you have to thank the Tories for. The closure of asylums. Cos boy from where I'm sitting….
QUOTE
somehow i think the labour party is acting more like nazis than any other british government in history
then i would imagine you and klf will be voting for them next time round. they had just peachy family policies.
QUOTE
soon as they are kicked out the better
were you actually around in the eighties?
I'm only factionally slighly right-of-centre in the big scheme of things. The fact that you see me as someone who would support Nazi policies shows how far to Left and extreme you really are.
I'm still going to miss you though.
QUOTE
The way the tax credit and welfare system is operated in Britain,an unemployed man with a wife and four kids living in council accomadation would have to find a job worth at least £30,000 a year, in order for his family to be better off with him working. Its a crazy state of affairs.Tax credit was brought in to stop this anomaly, but paying it to unemployed people also,totally negates its effectivness.
That's simply not true. Yes the unemployed do receive benefits that keep them under cover, with heat usually withrunning water and enough money to eat and I can tell you because I've been there it ain't no gravy train.
Th idea of (and it's a fucking good one) to give it the full title "working family tax credit" was to redress this anomaly by directly paying the credit to families on low incomes so they could go out to work and get out of the benefits trap and all the stigma attached.
There are abusers of the system but the benefits to ORDINARY LAW ABIDING DECENT people far out weigh that.
klf i was only referring to family policies. the reason i said it was because the only way you are ever going to stop people having children is through enforced sterilisation.
what thefuck right has anyone got to intefere with the reproductive rights of others. intefering with those rights means intefering with someones body =mutilation
imposing enforced sterilisation on certain sectors of society = geneticism
and i know youre gonna miss me
what thefuck right has anyone got to intefere with the reproductive rights of others. intefering with those rights means intefering with someones body =mutilation
imposing enforced sterilisation on certain sectors of society = geneticism
and i know youre gonna miss me
yep i was around in the 80's, and the government encouraged good democratic debate, you may not have liked their policies but you would not have been arrested for heckling a cabinet minister, and you would not have been arrested and convicted for peacefully reading out the names of british war dead outside downing street
the police are acting like nazi fucking henchmen, in exactly the same way as they spend so much time nicking people for speeding while the thugs walk the streets with no fear
we are sleepwalking into an elected dictatorship
the police are acting like nazi fucking henchmen, in exactly the same way as they spend so much time nicking people for speeding while the thugs walk the streets with no fear
we are sleepwalking into an elected dictatorship
QUOTE(tinman @ Dec 8 2005, 12:52 AM)
yep i was around in the 80's, and the government encouraged good democratic debate, you may not have liked their policies but you would not have been arrested for heckling a cabinet minister, and you would not have been arrested and convicted for peacefully reading out the names of british war dead outside downing street
the police are acting like nazi fucking henchmen, in exactly the same way as they spend so much time nicking people for speeding while the thugs walk the streets with no fear
we are sleepwalking into an elected dictatorship
the police are acting like nazi fucking henchmen, in exactly the same way as they spend so much time nicking people for speeding while the thugs walk the streets with no fear
we are sleepwalking into an elected dictatorship
Shouldn't you be calling all night local radio by now?
You'd get more of an audience there.
if a conservative govt was acting like this you would probably be on the streets
sadly the historic name labour seems to allow these wankers to get away with all sorts of outrageous nonsense, despite it having long lost any fight for the sectors of society labour was originally set up to represent
sad very sad
if the nhs waiting list figures were this corrupt under a conservative govt again you would probably be on the streets
sadly the historic name labour seems to allow these wankers to get away with all sorts of outrageous nonsense, despite it having long lost any fight for the sectors of society labour was originally set up to represent
sad very sad
if the nhs waiting list figures were this corrupt under a conservative govt again you would probably be on the streets
There's a lot wrong with this Government and I and I suspect many others here have been on the streets protesting about some of their policies and actions.
But constantly saying the "NHS is shit" "Schools are crap" "Thugs roam the streets" etc without backing up your arguement is just bollocks.
I don't know what you're really pissed off about because you spout so much random garbage.
Have you had a kinky dream about Tony Blair or something. Is it guilt?
If it is don't worry I had Blair, Portillo and Prescott in my dream.
But constantly saying the "NHS is shit" "Schools are crap" "Thugs roam the streets" etc without backing up your arguement is just bollocks.
I don't know what you're really pissed off about because you spout so much random garbage.
Have you had a kinky dream about Tony Blair or something. Is it guilt?
If it is don't worry I had Blair, Portillo and Prescott in my dream.
QUOTE
If it is don't worry I had Blair, Portillo and Prescott in my dream.
i had that dream too. did you see me?
QUOTE(pink shay @ Dec 8 2005, 01:14 AM)
QUOTE
If it is don't worry I had Blair, Portillo and Prescott in my dream.
i had that dream too. did you see me?
I'm not sure...Were you the bird with the big tongue wearing the Cherie mask?
ETA to take away an 'h' and add 'with'. Tits weren't mentioned once.
QUOTE(tinman @ Dec 8 2005, 02:01 AM)
if a conservative govt was acting like this you would probably be on the streets
sadly the historic name labour seems to allow these wankers to get away with all sorts of outrageous nonsense, despite it having long lost any fight for the sectors of society labour was originally set up to represent
sad very sad
sadly the historic name labour seems to allow these wankers to get away with all sorts of outrageous nonsense, despite it having long lost any fight for the sectors of society labour was originally set up to represent
sad very sad
hoorah a tinman post i can relate to.
QUOTE
what thefuck right has anyone got to intefere with the reproductive rights of others. intefering with those rights means intefering with someones body =mutilation
imposing enforced sterilisation on certain sectors of society = geneticism
imposing enforced sterilisation on certain sectors of society = geneticism
this is a public announcenet from the" maybe i over-reacted party"
maybe i did
QUOTE
Were you the bird with the big tongue wearing the Cherie mask?
twas me . but ssshhh
QUOTE
Tits weren't mentioned once
yeah they were.and variuos other body parts too
QUOTE(tinman @ Dec 8 2005, 02:01 AM)
sadly the historic name labour seems to allow these wankers to get away with all sorts of outrageous nonsense, despite it having long lost any fight for the sectors of society labour was originally set up to represent
you mean like ending child poverty - like yeah that's so outrageous.....
yeah like fighting for and helping the poorest and least able to fend for themselves.....
QUOTE
and helping the poorest and least able to fend for themselves.....
..........not if you're an imaginary cleaner !
QUOTE(the klf @ Dec 8 2005, 01:13 AM)
If i was earning £15,000 a year and getting NO tax credits .I don't think its fair that i should support (through tax credits), someone earnings £5,000 a year more than me .
If you are earning £15,000 a year you will pay apoximately £3,606 of Income tax and National insurance. Which goes towards the total govt tax revenue of £454.7 billion*.
Total cost of child tax credit in 2003-4 was 8.8 billion pounds*. That about 1.94% of govt tax revenue.
So if we breakdown YOUR personal taxes then I reckon you pay about £70 of your hard earned money annually, or about £5.83 a month, or £1.34 a week towards helping to end child poverty.
If you think that forgoing enough cash to pay for about half-a-pint of beer a week is too much to pay for helping to end child poverty then frankly i think you are a very selfish individual.
(*sourse: institue for fiscal studies)
(edited to fix typographical errors)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.