Pre-election party conferences

[pap]

I dont pretend to understand the complexities of why we should or not be in the EU, but it does unnerve me if Britain tries to go it alone in this very competitive world.

 

Weird, isn't it?

 

The Briton of a century ago would have said the complete opposite.

 

Guess that's the difference between having your own Empire and being part of someone else's.

[Whitey Grandad]

Weird, isn't it?

 

The Briton of a century ago would have said the complete opposite.

 

Guess that's the difference between having your own Empire and being part of someone else's.

 

It's a different world, completely different. Nation states are a relatively modern invention and are now being superceded by supra-national companies.

[bridge too far]

This shines an interesting light on Dave's promises

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/01/david-cameron-tax-pledges-graphs_n_5912072.html?1412167530

[OldNick]

Weird, isn't it?

 

The Briton of a century ago would have said the complete opposite.

 

Guess that's the difference between having your own Empire and being part of someone else's.

i find it interesting that you compare the Empire with the EU.

I would love to be British in an Empire situation, the worlds goods and commodities at our behest.

[Chopper71]

This shines an interesting light on Dave's promises

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/01/david-cameron-tax-pledges-graphs_n_5912072.html?1412167530

 

You missed the bit where he said something like 'you don't lift somebody up by pulling others down'? I think he was clear that if you work hard (ergo improve your prospects & earn more money) you should see the fruits of your labour.

[OldNick]

This shines an interesting light on Dave's promises

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/01/david-cameron-tax-pledges-graphs_n_5912072.html?1412167530

it is not rocket science that an increase on the threshold of the 40p tax rate would help the richest.

I always find it amusing when the word rich is thrown in. There are 100000's thousands of people living in homes worth 500k up who you may call rich but are still struggling to afford their mortgages. Just look at London, the are not all champagne swigging millionaires.

When the tax rate is reduced the exchequer gets more revenue in.

We have a set amount of money coming in and have only so much to spread it about. Who and how is the problem, IMo your Labour friends will go back to the Pompey way, spend as much as you like and hope that nobody notices.

[bridge too far]

You missed the bit where he said something like 'you don't lift somebody up by pulling others down'? I think he was clear that if you work hard (ergo improve your prospects & earn more money) you should see the fruits of your labour.

 

I'm not talking about his actual speech - I'm highlighting what a lot of economic experts and think-tanks are saying about his promises about tax in 2020. They're pointing out that, far from helping people who are poorly paid, his plans will benefit the better off disproportionately. In fact a spokesman from the Institute for Economic Affairs is on the BBC saying just this.

 

And of course it's based on the premise that we'll be out of debt by 2020 whereas, in fact, this government has borrowed more in the past 4 years than the Labour government ever did in 13 years.

[Whitey Grandad]

And of course it's based on the premise that we'll be out of debt by 2020 whereas, in fact, this government has borrowed more in the past 4 years than the Labour government ever did in 13 years.

Government spending is determined several years in advance. Borrowing was always going to rise no matter who was on power. It would have risen a lot more under Labour and less if we didn't have a coalition.

[OldNick]

I'm not talking about his actual speech - I'm highlighting what a lot of economic experts and think-tanks are saying about his promises about tax in 2020. They're pointing out that, far from helping people who are poorly paid, his plans will benefit the better off disproportionately. In fact a spokesman from the Institute for Economic Affairs is on the BBC saying just this.

 

And of course it's based on the premise that we'll be out of debt by 2020 whereas, in fact, this government has borrowed more in the past 4 years than the Labour government ever did in 13 years.

yes Mandelson signed off a lot of expensive costs just as he handed over power. Didnt he say 'Good luck with that' or the sort, to the poor incoming minister? It had the whole intention of making life very difficult for anybody coming in, in the hope that the next administration after would be Labour

[Chopper71]

I'm not talking about his actual speech - I'm highlighting what a lot of economic experts and think-tanks are saying about his promises about tax in 2020. They're pointing out that, far from helping people who are poorly paid, his plans will benefit the better off disproportionately. In fact a spokesman from the Institute for Economic Affairs is on the BBC saying just this.

 

And of course it's based on the premise that we'll be out of debt by 2020 whereas, in fact, this government has borrowed more in the past 4 years than the Labour government ever did in 13 years.

 

As Old Nick has said, the fact that the richest benefit from tax cuts is not rocket science.

 

As for your 2nd point, it is true, but without context can be very misleading - it's a lot lower than it would have been under labour because the government has reduced spending (which Balls was advocating increasing) and we've seen unemployment fall (meaning more tax revenue and less benefits).

[bridge too far]

As Old Nick has said, the fact that the richest benefit from tax cuts is not rocket science.

 

As for your 2nd point, it is true, but without context can be very misleading - it's a lot lower than it would have been under labour because the government has reduced spending (which Balls was advocating increasing) and we've seen unemployment fall (meaning more tax revenue and less benefits).

 

I would question that since something like 1.4m people are on zero hours contracts and 1.4m are on workfare (counted as jobs) and 1.4m are on JSA sanctions. The greatest welfare spend by far is on state pensions and a huge amount is paid to people IN WORK to top up their paltry wages - in other words lining the pockets of wealthy companies with taxpayers' money.

[sunrise]

[video=youtube_share;GtxLAIIxLOQ]

 

A brick held by a *****....

[Chopper71]

I would question that since something like 1.4m people are on zero hours contracts and 1.4m are on workfare (counted as jobs) and 1.4m are on JSA sanctions. The greatest welfare spend by far is on state pensions and a huge amount is paid to people IN WORK to top up their paltry wages - in other words lining the pockets of wealthy companies with taxpayers' money.

 

Big companies = bad - such a simplistic view! Whilst recognising that some companies take the mick, what do you think companies do with profit, what impact do you think that has on governement income, etc? I could go on, but I know you will have a different view to me and I'm too tight to pay my fiver so this is my last post and I am out - I'll agree to disagree (as we are all entitled to our views and to express them thanks to those who made sacrifices before us)

[bridge too far]

Big companies = bad - such a simplistic view! Whilst recognising that some companies take the mick, what do you think companies do with profit, what impact do you think that has on governement income, etc? I could go on, but I know you will have a different view to me and I'm too tight to pay my fiver so this is my last post and I am out - I'll agree to disagree (as we are all entitled to our views and to express them thanks to those who made sacrifices before us)

 

Nowhere did I say big companies were bad. Many big companies pay decent wages and still remain profitable. It's the likes of tax avoiders and zero contract hours employers like Amazon that are happy to have their wage bills subsidised by you and me.

[trousers]

Great speech from Dave

[View From The Top]

Great speech from Dave

 

*****

[OldNick]

Nowhere did I say big companies were bad. Many big companies pay decent wages and still remain profitable. It's the likes of tax avoiders and zero contract hours employers like Amazon that are happy to have their wage bills subsidised by you and me.

BTF, one thing I really agree on is companies like E-Bay,Starbucks,Amazon etc making fortunes and not paying their tax here. The same for Sir Phillip Greens empire. They make their money here and so they should pay for the future welfare of their employees who are making the money by paying into the system. Sadly they can shift their business and the ones hurt by the tax system are the hardworking businesses and workers in the UK.

To penalise the standard British business because of the Global companies is not right. Those are the people who make employment and help the taxes come in to pay for the welfare. As i said before, you have to be in a good financial state before you can start helping the weak and needy. iam sure there are a percentage of the envious who would be happy for all to be on their uppers, but anyone with a bit about them understands,rewards breeds hard work and then others can prosper from that.

[trousers]

*****

I can't compete with such intellectual contributions. You win.

[Whitey Grandad]

I would question that since something like 1.4m people are on zero hours contracts and 1.4m are on workfare (counted as jobs) and 1.4m are on JSA sanctions. The greatest welfare spend by far is on state pensions and a huge amount is paid to people IN WORK to top up their paltry wages - in other words lining the pockets of wealthy companies with taxpayers' money.

 

State pensions are not welfare. In most cases they have been paid for by contributions. Successive governments have tried to lump them together but that only applies for those who have never contributed over their working life.

[bridge too far]

WG have a look at this - it shows that almost 50% of welfare spending is on the State Pension

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state_in_the_United_Kingdom

[Whitey Grandad]

*****

 

He wasn't talking to you

[solentstars]

A brick held by a *****....

Apparently the brick has defected to ukip.

[Whitey Grandad]

WG have a look at this - it shows that almost 50% of welfare spen

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state_in_the_United_Kingdomding is on the State Pension

 

Yes, we've been through all this before. Going back over half a century these payments were 'earned' by NI contributions and the amount you received was dependent on these. Then successive governments have gradually tried to integrate them into the general welfare budget and people like Pillock Brown made things even worse by intoducing credits. The fact remains that when contributions began they were not classed as welfare. If only these contributions had been properly invested instead of being raided to pay current government spending then the older generation might have a better living standard. As far stealing from pension funds goes there's no difference between the government and Robert Maxwell.

[buctootim]

What an utter kn ob Cameron is. With debt at £1.45 trillion pounds, budget deficit of 5.5% and the interest alone on debt repayments heading towards £68bn he is promising to both cut taxes and increase spend on the NHS.

 

 

Edited 1 October, 2014 by buctootim

[pap]

It's not often I say this, but fúcking genius.

 

[buctootim]

State pensions are not welfare. In most cases they have been paid for by contributions.

 

They really havent. Contributions were based on thre average worker surviving around 6.5 years in retirement - not the 17 or 18 which is typical today.

[OldNick]

http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedkingdom if you want a scare watch that ticking away, then tell us that we should be spending more

[Batman]

http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedkingdom if you want a scare watch that ticking away, then tell us that we should be spending more

 

really shocked to see that we score better than france, germany and the USA, considering he government is supposed to be destroying everything

Edited 1 October, 2014 by Batman

[hypochondriac]

http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedkingdom if you want a scare watch that ticking away, then tell us that we should be spending more

 

Why would you be scared? It gets to a point where the numbers become meaningless. The whole financial system and "debt" is just something man made. People get so wrapped up in it and it's utterly pointless.

[pap]

http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/unitedkingdom if you want a scare watch that ticking away, then tell us that we should be spending more

 

Don't read a lot of fiction these days.

[pap]

Why would you be scared? It gets to a point where the numbers become meaningless. The whole financial system and "debt" is just something man made. People get so wrapped up in it and it's utterly pointless.

Superb post, hypo.

[View From The Top]

He wasn't talking to you

 

It was more the anger I felt that I couldn't post up the youtube link I was trying to!

[View From The Top]

FFS. I get home and Pap has already posted it! I'm having a mare.

[OldNick]

Why would you be scared? It gets to a point where the numbers become meaningless. The whole financial system and "debt" is just something man made. People get so wrapped up in it and it's utterly pointless.

That reply is what is scary, that people look at that debt that is rising by the second and it brushed off as man made. That is your future and my childrens and grand childrens to have to pick up.

The west do not have a divine right to a pampered life. That money has to be earnt to pay it off. Every year the third world are making more, improving their quality and want the food that is going to our families mouths. Sit back and be complacent at your peril.

Pap may be right and the figures fiction, but I suspect they are not far from the truth, unless it is a Government/CIA/actors conspiracy of course

[pap]

That reply is what is scary, that people look at that debt that is rising by the second and it brushed off as man made. That is your future and my childrens and grand childrens to have to pick up.

The west do not have a divine right to a pampered life. That money has to be earnt to pay it off. Every year the third world are making more, improving their quality and want the food that is going to our families mouths. Sit back and be complacent at your peril.

Pap may be right and the figures fiction, but I suspect they are not far from the truth, unless it is a Government/CIA/actors conspiracy of course

I would advise watching the Money As Debt video before making financial statements.

[aintforever]

Why would you be scared? It gets to a point where the numbers become meaningless. The whole financial system and "debt" is just something man made. People get so wrapped up in it and it's utterly pointless.

 

That's a bit of a head in the sand attitude, all debt has to be paid back at some point.

 

Or written off.

[OldNick]

I would advise watching the Money As Debt video before making financial statements.

. Oh no not another video to watch, is it by the crank who said 9/11 was a conspiracy?

The point is that even if the debt is half that is publicised, it has to be paid back. All the whining about cuts could mean nothing if the IMF pull the plug. Unlikely now, but you will be too young to remember when the Labour Party had to go cap in hand to the IMF when it looked like the country was doomed and in massive debt in the 70s .

Also please do not lecture me about making financial statements, I have managed my personal budget correctly, not the Pompey model for me in my personal life thanks very much.

[hypochondriac]

That's a bit of a head in the sand attitude, all debt has to be paid back at some point.

 

Or written off.

 

No it isn't. Once a debt reaches a certain size it is impossible to pay back. It's rather like the huge amounts of debt written off from the third world. We will never be able to pay back the amount we owe and besides, much of it is due to bankers and the city which is nothing at all to do with the man on the street. The majority of "debt" that I am being told to pay back is in reality absolutely nothing to do with me.

[pap]

. Oh no not another video to watch, is it by the crank who said 9/11 was a conspiracy?

The point is that even if the debt is half that is publicised, it has to be paid back. All the whining about cuts could mean nothing if the IMF pull the plug. Unlikely now, but you will be too young to remember when the Labour Party had to go cap in hand to the IMF when it looked like the country was doomed and in massive debt in the 70s .

Also please do not lecture me about making financial statements, I have managed my personal budget correctly, not the Pompey model for me in my personal life thanks very much.

 

Watch it. Don't watch it. Your choice, but you don't seem to have an idea of how the monetary system works, or how money is created. Banks create it from nothing, and add interest, when people promise to pay. Look at your banknotes. They work on exactly the same principle, and it's in writing. They've no intrinsic value, and the small print says "promise to pay the bearer"; that phrase again - "promise to pay".

 

As starting this thread should illustrate, I'm interested in loads more areas than conspiracy theories. This is one of them. It was a scam, made law, which is now inexplicably our financial system. Money is created by fiat as debt when someone promises to pay. Our collective belief, credit rating systems and most importantly, the authorities are the only thing that hold it together. Those promises to pay are enforced, yo.

 

But if you can't be arsed watching the video, here's the long and short of it, in bold.

 

When you take out a loan or mortgage, no one is deprived of anything. The bank creates new money based on your promise, which you then pay back over the years with interest.

 

Please bear that in mind.

[OldNick]

QUOTE=hypochondriac;2060968]No it isn't. Once a debt reaches a certain size it is impossible to pay back. It's rather like the huge amounts of debt written off from the third world. We will never be able to pay back the amount we owe and besides, much of it is due to bankers and the city which is nothing at all to do with the man on the street. The majority of "debt" that I am being told to pay back is in reality absolutely nothing to do with me.

Oh my god :mcinnes:

[Whitey Grandad]

No it isn't. Once a debt reaches a certain size it is impossible to pay back. It's rather like the huge amounts of debt written off from the third world. We will never be able to pay back the amount we owe and besides, much of it is due to bankers and the city which is nothing at all to do with the man on the street. The majority of "debt" that I am being told to pay back is in reality absolutely nothing to do with me.

 

It is to do with you if you vote for the wrong party.

[OldNick]

Watch it. Don't watch it. Your choice, but you don't seem to have an idea of how the monetary system works, or how money is created. Banks create it from nothing, and add interest, when people promise to pay. Look at your banknotes. They work on exactly the same principle, and it's in writing. They've no intrinsic value, and the small print says "promise to pay the bearer"; that phrase again - "promise to pay".

 

As starting this thread should illustrate, I'm interested in loads more areas than conspiracy theories. This is one of them. It was a scam, made law, which is now inexplicably our financial system. Money is created by fiat as debt when someone promises to pay. Our collective belief, credit rating systems and most importantly, the authorities are the only thing that hold it together. Those promises to pay are enforced, yo.

 

But if you can't be arsed watching the video, here's the long and short of it, in bold.

 

When you take out a loan or mortgage, no one is deprived of anything. The bank creates new money based on your promise, which you then pay back over the years with interest.

 

Please bear that in mind.

Yep backed by nothing, the Bank of Nigeria, Sierra Leone and Ethiopa must do the same as its so easy.

I agree that we should be on the Gold Standard, rumour was that China was trying to go that way. Hence why Gold and silver was so high (it has crashed recently)

[View From The Top]

No it isn't. Once a debt reaches a certain size it is impossible to pay back. It's rather like the huge amounts of debt written off from the third world. We will never be able to pay back the amount we owe and besides, much of it is due to bankers and the city which is nothing at all to do with the man on the street. The majority of "debt" that I am being told to pay back is in reality absolutely nothing to do with me.

Oh my god :mcinnes:

 

He is, in essence, correct.

[hypochondriac]

Nice one nick. Cracker of a response.

[Whitey Grandad]

They really havent. Contributions were based on thre average worker surviving around 6.5 years in retirement - not the 17 or 18 which is typical today.

 

You're ignoring the number of contributors who don't live long enough to collect their pension. My wife's sister at 54, my business partner at 64, my colleague at 63, my dentist at 55, I could go on and on... The life expectancies you quote are for different sets of people. The contributions that they made when they started work at 16 (15 in some cases)weere sufficient at the time.

 

The confusion now is that there are different classes of pensioners, those who contributed all their lives and have never lived off the state, those who have never contributed anything yet still get a pension and a whole range of people in between.

[OldNick]

Oh my god :mcinnes:

 

He is, in essence, correct.

VFTP any chance of editing your quote back as it alludes to the fact that I put up the original post about not paying back. I Don't need any help posting drivel let alone that stuff thanks

[OldNick]

Nice one nick. Cracker of a response.

Ok, the moment we fail to pay back any of the loan the risk factor to the lendes rise and we can't as a nation borrow so easily or not at all. Even if we can the rates become untenable. That then gets passed on to our mortgages and living costs. A nation defaults on its debt at its peril.

[hypochondriac]

VFTP any chance of editing your quote back as it alludes to the fact that I put up the original post about not paying back. I Don't need any help posting drivel let alone that stuff thanks

 

If you hadn't mucked it up in the first place it wouldn't be a problem. Would probably be more useful to the thread if you actually responded to the points raised rather than facepalming all over the place.

[hypochondriac]

Ok, the moment we fail to pay back any of the loan the risk factor to the lendes rise and we can't as a nation borrow so easily or not at all. Even if we can the rates become untenable. That then gets passed on to our mortgages and living costs. A nation defaults on its debt at its peril.

 

Where did I suggest we default on our debts? The system is ridiculous because we will never pay back what we owe under the current financial system. It's unrealistic to assume that we will do so because it isn't going to happen.

[OldNick]

If you hadn't mucked it up in the first place it wouldn't be a problem. Would probably be more useful to the thread if you actually responded to the points raised rather than facepalming all over the place.

you have the honour of the first to ever have me use a face palm,