saintfully Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 By taxing someone at a higher rate of tax, the system is basically saying you're better off than most. The better off should not receive benefits in the present climate. The interesting question to the Labour chancers who will jump all over this will be "if you return to Govt, will you give this benefit back to higher rated taxpayers?" You can bet your life that their next election campaign wont include pledges around giveaways for people on nearly 1,000 a week. Would you rather the black hole left by Labour was filled by taxing people on less that £44,000 a year more? I'd rather the black hole that was generated by trying to stimulate/maintain the economy through the largest global recession in the past 70 (?) years was filled (in part) by a wealth tax, since income is only one measure of pros[perity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 Why did the Labour Govt pay child benefit to bankers and CEO's of FTSE 100 companies? None of the lefties seem to mind that, but as soon as the Tories come up with a solution, their suddenly all on the side of families struggling to make ends meet on £1000 a month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 Why did the Labour Govt pay child benefit to bankers and CEO's of FTSE 100 companies? None of the lefties seem to mind that, but as soon as the Tories come up with a solution, their suddenly all on the side of families struggling to make ends meet on £1000 a month. So, like the Chancellor, you don't see the ambiguity in his proposal then? No doubt the parent earning £88K in a single earning household will find a loophole to ensure that the non-earning partner gets 'paid' to qualify for the benefit. Child Benefit and its precursor, Family Allowance, has always been paid to all families since its inception in 1946. So the previous government carried on what countless administrations had done before. And yes I would definitely be on the side of a family struggling to make ends meet on £1000 a month (£12K a year) - wouldn't everyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 According to the boy George on R4 this morning, they are going to manage this by putting an extra box on the form used for annual tax returns, effectively asking the question "Does anybody in your household get paid the Child Benefit ?". If you are a higher rate payer and answer yes, the value of the benefit will be added to your tax liability. Q1) Who will answer 'yes' ? Q2) How will it work for PAYE ? Q3) Is this merely a quick and dirty sap for the blue-rinse brigade ? Definitely a 'back of a fag packet' job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 And yes I would definitely be on the side of a family struggling to make ends meet on £1000 a month (£12K a year) - wouldn't everyone? Sorry meant a week, but I'm sure you suspected that. The new proposals may not be perfect, but they are better than they were before. Personally as I posted yesterday the rate should have been 50%, before losing this benefit. I just find the whole double standards of Labour laughable. They had a reduction plan in place, but so far have opposed every single cut that the Govt intends to make. To see them sticking up for people who earn £1,000 a week is bizzare, but then again they were the party of the 10% tax band. They seem perfectly happy to bash the bankers, but pay them benefit if they have children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 An easy reply to make, but an example of exactly what is wrong with the British economy. Why struggle to earn a little bit more if it's going to mean extra tax? 44k is not a lot if there is only one earner in the family, which is very likely if there are young children. This proposal is yet one more tax on the hard-working middle classes. I think I would like to see some stats about the working habits of parents. There will obviously be exceptions, yet I'm sure that there are numerous families with parents who work in executive jobs and have combined salaries pushing 90-95k. Any family that has that amount of income does not need child support unless of course a child has a disability etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 (edited) Sorry meant a week, but I'm sure you suspected that. The new proposals may not be perfect, but they are better than they were before. Personally as I posted yesterday the rate should have been 50%, before losing this benefit. I just find the whole double standards of Labour laughable. They had a reduction plan in place, but so far have opposed every single cut that the Govt intends to make. To see them sticking up for people who earn £1,000 a week is bizzare, but then again they were the party of the 10% tax band. They seem perfectly happy to bash the bankers, but pay them benefit if they have children. You still don't get it, do you This is the proposal. If a family has only one wage earner and that wage earner earns over £44K a year, the family will lose its entitlement to Child Benefit. If, however, a family has two wage earners and, jointly, they earn £88K a year, they will continue to receive Child Benefit. Do you now understand what I'm querying? I'm not commenting on whether or not Child Benefit should be withdrawn from high earning families. I'm commenting on the crazy proposal to penalise one sort of family but not an even wealthier sort of family. Stark raving mad! Afterthought how can Labour oppose thecuts when even the Coalition doesn't know what the cuts are going to be? So far, all we're seeing is, for example, "we're going to change the benefit system but not until 2013" and "we're going to consider Trident but not until after the next election". Edited 4 October, 2010 by bridge too far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 I just find the whole double standards of Labour laughable. They had a reduction plan in place, but so far have opposed every single cut that the Govt intends to make. If this suggestion on Child Benefit is the standard that the brokeback coalition are working to, I would expect them to oppose it all the way. It's just a headline grabbing piece of BS; not properly thought through, no plan for how to implement it, and no idea as to what the real saving might be. The only real way to tackle 'universal' benefits is to means test them. Why stop at Child Benefit ? Why does somebody on £100K pa pay the same for their prescriptions as me ? Why does everybody currently reaching retirement age qualify for a free bus pass, regardless of whether they use public transport or not ? I just think GO is having to toss something, however small, out to the media and the Tory faithful at the conference, when we all know that the main event comes with the announcements from the CSR in 3 weeks time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 You still don't get it, do you This is the proposal. If a family has only one wage earner and that wage earner earns over £44K a year, the family will lose its entitlement to Child Benefit. If, however, a family has two wage earners and, jointly, they earn £88K a year, they will continue to receive Child Benefit. Do you now understand what I'm querying? I'm not commenting on whether or not Child Benefit should be withdrawn from high earning families. I'm commenting on the crazy proposal to penalise one sort of family but not an even wealthier sort of family. I] Course I get it, it's not perfect and personally I'd rather see it cut for all families with more than 44K coming in, despite this affecting mine. Is the Lefties line that it doesn't go far enough or that it goes too far? The point about other charges and bus passes ect is also valid. My Father in Law is very wealthy, yet he gets Winter Fuel allowence and I believe free TV licence as well. I find a few of the sacred cows of the Welfare state bizzare. The obsession with free doctors visits is another. You see the Doc for free but then have to pay for a prescription. People are happy with that, but if you charged them £3 to see the Doc all hell would be let loose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 Get back up that Chimney SainttMikey and do what your paid to do? rolly eye thing here I sometimes think that some members of this forum are living in the 1800s... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 ...... I find a few of the sacred cows of the Welfare state bizzare. The obsession with free doctors visits is another. You see the Doc for free but then have to pay for a prescription. People are happy with that, but if you charged them £3 to see the Doc all hell would be let loose. According to the Government, 88% of prescription items are dispensed free of charge. http://www.politics.co.uk/briefings-guides/issue-briefs/health/nhs-prescription-charges-$366605.htm If people were charged to visit the doctor, many of the poorest might not attend, in spite of the fact that they might well have a serious but undiagnosed problem. However, once the condition was diagnosed and prescribed for, the poorest wouldn't have to pay for the prescription anyway because they'd be exempt. If people truly felt the need to pay to see a GP, they could always see one privately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 I'm not querying the underlying principle at all - I'm pointing out the anomaly whereby a family with two wage earners and a JOINT salary of over £88K WILL get the benefit but a family with one wage earner earning over £44K won't. Obviously Gorgeous George hasn't done his sums Obviously he doesn't have time for the red tape and cost of establishing a system that regulates the benefit in a more complicated way. This will apparently save £1bn each year and is quick and easy to implement and isn't going to push anyone into poverty IMO. A sensible way of trying to balance the ridiculous balance sheet he inherited. Over time, once the absurd finances have been put back on an even keel then maybe the rules can be adjusted to take account of that anomoly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 The announcement is quite interesting. I see the BBC have rolled out the usual suspects who will suffer these changes. one female is saying that her child costs are £1300 per month (thats £15.6k per year) and not recieving child bennefits will have a serious impact on her. No doubt she gets child care vouchers etc on top of the child care allowance. wht she is not saying is how much her actual salary is to be able to afford 15.6k a year in child care costs. Probably Ms Thornton in disguise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 According to the boy George on R4 this morning, they are going to manage this by putting an extra box on the form used for annual tax returns, effectively asking the question "Does anybody in your household get paid the Child Benefit ?". If you are a higher rate payer and answer yes, the value of the benefit will be added to your tax liability. Q1) Who will answer 'yes' ? Q2) How will it work for PAYE ? Q3) Is this merely a quick and dirty sap for the blue-rinse brigade ? Definitely a 'back of a fag packet' job. Presumably anyone to whom the answer "yes" applies who doesn't want to commit benefit fraud? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 Obviously he doesn't have time for the red tape and cost of establishing a system that regulates the benefit in a more complicated way. This will apparently save £1bn each year and is quick and easy to implement and isn't going to push anyone into poverty IMO. A sensible way of trying to balance the ridiculous balance sheet he inherited. Over time, once the absurd finances have been put back on an even keel then maybe the rules can be adjusted to take account of that anomoly. I won't hold my breath Sweet of the boy to think of his friends though - I admire him for that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 Get back up that Chimney SainttMikey and do what your paid to do? rolly eye thing here I sometimes think that some members of this forum are living in the 1800s...more like the stone age:rolleyes: lets get the kids up chimneys and give the tax avoiders more tax breaks rather than the hard working majority at the lower rungs of society. remember we are all in this together:lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 I won't hold my breath Sweet of the boy to think of his friends though - I admire him for that Eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 I suppose the question is - should someone who earns almost twice the national average salary get benefits at all? Probably not. Obviously the situation that BTF highlights is ridiculous and should be stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 Obviously he doesn't have time for the red tape and cost of establishing a system that regulates the benefit in a more complicated way. This will apparently save £1bn each year and is quick and easy to implement and isn't going to push anyone into poverty IMO. A sensible way of trying to balance the ridiculous balance sheet he inherited. Over time, once the absurd finances have been put back on an even keel then maybe the rules can be adjusted to take account of that anomoly. i expect you are right but i,m still upset we had to bail out the bankers and we all have to pay for their greed and mismanagement thank god we,ve got a left wing tory party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 The announcement is quite interesting. I see the BBC have rolled out the usual suspects who will suffer these changes. one female is saying that her child costs are £1300 per month (thats £15.6k per year) and not recieving child bennefits will have a serious impact on her. No doubt she gets child care vouchers etc on top of the child care allowance. wht she is not saying is how much her actual salary is to be able to afford 15.6k a year in child care costs. Probably Ms Thornton in disguise? My daughter's child care costs her £50 per day per child. That's roughly £1K a month for one child. She also gets child care vouchers but remember these are just a way of paying for childcare pre-tax. Not all employers give them (my other daughter's employers don't). http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/family/childcare-vouchers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 i expect you are right but i,m still upset we had to bail out the bankers and we all have to pay for their greed and mismanagement thank god we,ve got a left wing tory party. It is indeed upsetting that a load of public money has been given away and that very little was demanded or achieved in return (see previous government for explanation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 If both parents earn 43,999 a year, they get to keep child benefit. That's dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony13579 Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 The way I see it is we all need to repay about £1500 each to repay the national debt caused by the banks. we have two choices, the painfull way and the excruciatinly painfull way. the painfull way, increase income tax and vat by a couple of percent and decrease benifits by 10% till it is paid. the excruciating painfull way: sack a load of teachers, police fire, ect reduce every government budget by 15-25% increase all the leasure center prices, issue more fines and penalties. Give the bankers and top civil servents loads of bonuses. Guess which we have chosen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 If GO is correct in his estimation of £1Bn saving, by my rough and ready calculation that means about 1 million children, ( approx 1 in every 12 ) live in a household where there is at least one higher rate tax payer. Not too sure this is correct, ( just a gut feeling you understand ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 The way I see it is we all need to repay about £1500 each to repay the national debt caused by the banks. we have two choices, the painfull way and the excruciatinly painfull way. the painfull way, increase income tax and vat by a couple of percent and decrease benifits by 10% till it is paid. the excruciating painfull way: sack a load of teachers, police fire, ect reduce every government budget by 15-25% increase all the leasure center prices, issue more fines and penalties. Give the bankers and top civil servents loads of bonuses. Guess which we have chosen I agree with you up to this bit. The two options are not related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 Quite right - but do you not agree that it is very, very odd that a family where both earn c £44K will continue to receive this benefit, whereas a family with only one wage-earner earning this amount will no longer receive it? Yes, this is a silly anomaly which illustrates the flaws in this ill-thought proposal. Child benefit should be payable to all parents. The issue about whether those considered too 'wealthy' should receive it is covered by charging those who earn more ever-increasing rates of tax and NI. This is yet one more tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintfully Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 It is indeed upsetting that a load of public money has been given away and that very little was demanded or achieved in return (see previous government for explanation). (And current goverment for maintaining policy). I think both governments would argue that this policy is/was necessary to keep this sector of the economy viable - and to maintain the essential tax credits that it generates. To the extent that the banks have survived and to a large extent rebuilt their balance sheets, the policy has been a success. Its not fair though is it... IMO they should have nationalised the banks entirely - but then I'm a hideous lefty without a brain/spine (delete as appropriate). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 Don't we get our money back when we sell the publicly owned bank shares back into the open market ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 Don't we get our money back when we sell the publicly owned bank shares back into the open market ? Looks like they want us to bail them out some more! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11462440 Perhaps if they'd saved the 'bonus' money, they'd have enough in the coffers to avoid a further bailout. You know - rainy day and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 The way I see it is we all need to repay about £1500 each to repay the national debt caused by the banks. we have two choices, the painfull way and the excruciatinly painfull way. the painfull way, increase income tax and vat by a couple of percent and decrease benifits by 10% till it is paid. the excruciating painfull way: sack a load of teachers, police fire, ect reduce every government budget by 15-25% increase all the leasure center prices, issue more fines and penalties. Give the bankers and top civil servents loads of bonuses. Guess which we have chosen If the national debt caused by the bankers is £1500 per head, then what will we do about the £20,000+ per head caused by New Labour? Tax those that voted for them perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 Don't we get our money back when we sell the publicly owned bank shares back into the open market ? Absolutely. I think the break-even figure for RBS shares is just over £0.50. Effectively we have bought colossal money-making enterprises at a very low cost. Even the guarantees that we gave them came at a very high price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 If the national debt caused by the bankers is £1500 per head, then what will we do about the £20,000+ per head caused by New Labour? Tax those that voted for them perhaps? I like the cut of your jib, Sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 Fred Goodwin-Knighted in the Queen's 2004 Birthday Honours list, for his services to banking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 Fred Goodwin-Knighted in the Queen's 2004 Birthday Honours list, for his services to banking I see you and raise you Lord Ashdown. I don't need to say any more than that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 I'm not querying the underlying principle at all - I'm pointing out the anomaly whereby a family with two wage earners and a JOINT salary of over £88K WILL get the benefit but a family with one wage earner earning over £44K won't. Obviously Gorgeous George hasn't done his sums Plus a couple each earning just below the threshold are both getting the personal tax-free allowances so already enjoy a tax advantage over the single-earner family before you factor in the benefits reduction. This idea financially penalises parents (mainly mothers) who want to stay at home and bring up their kids - surely the family values loving Tories aren't going to force middle-class mums into work?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 I see you and raise you Lord Ashdown. I don't need to say any more than that He only had a fling, that's hardly in the global banking crash bracket. Anyway I'm not sure Paddy supports the coalition that much. Labour lefties spend their whole life blaming the bankers and yet they turned a blind eye to their gambling and in some cases rewarded it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 He only had a fling, that's hardly in the global banking crash bracket. Anyway I'm not sure Paddy supports the coalition that much. Labour lefties spend their whole life blaming the bankers and yet they turned a blind eye to their gambling and in some cases rewarded it. That's one error each then. I meant Lord Ashcroft (as you well know). The point stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 I haven't seen anyone blame Ashcroft for the banking problems. Labour rewarded the bankers they are now blaming for the Country's problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 I haven't seen anyone blame Ashcroft for the banking problems. Labour rewarded the bankers they are now blaming for the Country's problems. Labour rewarded one banker and that was a couple of years before the global crisis. If Lord Ashcroft paid his dues instead of farming off his fortune to his wife, his taxes would go some way to reducing the need to cut benefits for those who need it most. He feels so strongly about being a Conservative that he's forgone the Treasureship of the party rather than pay his taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 Wasn't Lord Paul a non Dom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 (edited) The lefties on here do my head in. Yes, the bankers screwed up and are PARTIALLY responsible for the National Debt and the Defecit. No one disputes that. However, New Labour are MOSTLY responsible for the position we are in as we had record National Debt BEFORE the Credit Crunch / Banking Crisis / Recession. This is without allowing for the fact that they failed to control / regulate the banks (who are partially responsible). Vince Cable is often credited with predicting the problem, however even Oliver Bleeding Letwin raised the issues in the Commons around the same time (in his "Our Green and Pleasant Land is in the Red" speech Feb 2004). If that knob can see it coming, what is New Labour's excuse? As for Lord this and Lord that, there is only one name to mention here.......Gordon Brown.........he has caused far more damage than 1000 Ashcrofts and Goodwins put together. You can blame both the Banks and New Labour or neither in my opinion (but the lefties would never have it that their precious Gordon had anything to do with it). Edited 4 October, 2010 by Johnny Bognor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 Wasn't Lord Paul a non Dom? He was - but he gave up his non-dom status in March this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 this is what ive been saying for YEARS!!!.....if they want handouts, then they spend the money on what it was designed for....food and clothing....not beer,fags, drugs and Sky+HD ffs! I agree with this 100% And also believe that you should not gain any extra benefit if you have more than 2 children. Why should i pay for anymore ? There is enough free contraceptive out there to be used. And what is worse is some people are pretty much abusing the system and having children as another form of gaining an income. I heard the chancellor this morning. What a w*nker. As if removing the child benefits if you earn over 44k isn't bad enough, coming out with a sentance that says 'If you earn over this why should those paying 20% pay for your children ?' Well, why should i pay double to pay for all of the work shy and child machines out there today FFS ? There are better and easier ways out there to make much bigger dents in the national debt, but it may involve gaining a backbone and actually sorting out the mess that is the benefit system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 He only had a fling, that's hardly in the global banking crash bracket. Anyway I'm not sure Paddy supports the coalition that much. Labour lefties spend their whole life blaming the bankers and yet they turned a blind eye to their gambling and in some cases rewarded it. trouble is i wish they were lefties,its silly when you got two tory partys and the the real conservative party are more left wing than the present labour party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 If the national debt caused by the bankers is £1500 per head, then what will we do about the £20,000+ per head caused by New Labour? Tax those that voted for them perhaps? Section them under the mental health act more like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 The lefties on here do my head in. Yes, the bankers screwed up and are PARTIALLY responsible for the National Debt and the Defecit. No one disputes that. However, New Labour are MOSTLY responsible for the position we are in as we had record National Debt BEFORE the Credit Crunch / Banking Crisis / Recession. This is without allowing for the fact that they failed to control / regulate the banks (who are partially responsible). Vince Cable is often credited with predicting the problem, however even Oliver Bleeding Letwin raised the issues in the Commons around the same time (in his "Our Green and Pleasant Land is in the Red" speech Feb 2004). If that knob can see it coming, what is New Labour's excuse? As for Lord this and Lord that, there is only one name to mention here.......Gordon Brown.........he has caused far more damage than 1000 Ashcrofts and Goodwins put together. You can blame both the Banks and New Labour or neither in my opinion (but the lefties would never have it that their precious Gordon had anything to do with it). sorry the blame lies squarely with the bankers worldwide for causing the worldwide slump,i don,t think gorden brown caused the meltdown in america under bush a rightie using your terminology .i don,t blame bush either but governments around the world for not regulating the casino banking system. the labour party like thatchers tories before them had been in power to long and run out of ideas like all government do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 sorry the blame lies squarely with the bankers worldwide for causing the worldwide slump,i don,t think gorden brown caused the meltdown in america under bush a rightie using your terminology .i don,t blame bush either but governments around the world for not regulating the casino banking system. the labour party like thatchers tories before them had been in power to long and run out of ideas like all government do. Part of the cause, but by no means the only one. There were plenty of other contributory factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 Part of the cause, but by no means the only one. There were plenty of other contributory factors. i would think it was the main cause of the slump hence the billions pumped in around the world to stop a depression like the 1930,s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 i would think it was the main cause of the slump hence the billions pumped in around the world to stop a depression like the 1930,s I went to a lecture on this very subject last Saturday at Cambridge by Dr. William Peterson. He said that it was like 'Murder on the Orient Express' They all did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 4 October, 2010 Share Posted 4 October, 2010 (edited) sorry the blame lies squarely with the bankers worldwide for causing the worldwide slump,i don,t think gorden brown caused the meltdown in america under bush a rightie using your terminology .i don,t blame bush either but governments around the world for not regulating the casino banking system. How do you explain national debt going up to record levels (£500 billion) BEFORE 2007? I make that an increase of £200 Billion (up from the £300 billion inherited from the tories, which was incurred during a recession) after a long "boom". Will you at least hold Gordon responsible for this? I repeat, this £200 billion additional borrowing (and I am ignoring the fact that national debt fell in the first two years of his reign after following tory spending plans) was BEFORE the banking crisis/credit crunch/recession. How can this possibly be the bankers fault? I too blame bankers for part of the National Debt (and I have made my views known to the point where I believe some of them were criminal negligent and should be on trial) and the current defecit we face, but I also blame the other culprit(s). Why can't you lefties bring yourself to blame Labour (even if it is just partially)? Are you that blinkered? Are you that biased? Does union membership preclude you from thinking for yourself? Does logic desert you when you join the Labour party? Edited 4 October, 2010 by Johnny Bognor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now