Is the proposed Lib Dem tax on £1 million plus homes . . .

**** me, that's boring.

Don't read it then, even if it is important and clouds your brain.

I'm sure there's something funny there Dolittle, but I can't figure it out.

But please, no need to explain.

Johnson.

Curiosity in children nature has provided, to remove that ignorance they were born with; which, without this busy inquisitiveness, will make them dull.

Don't read it then, even if it is important and clouds your brain.

Don't be such a pompous bellend. Anyway, it's too late, I read it.

El-bent – Dolittle always posts that sort of stuff at about this time, presumably after he's had a few sherbets.

Dolittle always posts that sort of stuff at about this time,

What sort of stuff?

And anyway, I don't have all day to post my musings.

Dolittle always posts that sort of stuff at about this time, presumably after he's had a few sherbets.

His spelling is still good ernie, So I think he's quite sober when he posts this sort of stuff.

Which is a worry.

that sort of stuff.

this sort of stuff.

What sort of stuff?

Good point El-bent. Maybe he acts like an obnoxious **** because he needs a drink 💡

…… or a shag ?

Maybe he acts like an obnoxious **** because he needs a drink

…… or a shag ?

Hoho….glasshouses, stones etc…anyway, I can't sleep tonight until someone let's me know what "sort of stuff" I'm responsible for. Does anyone know?

Why not just simplify it further and tax everyone at the same % rate regardless of what they earn, no tax relief, no allowances, no rebates except expenses, nice and simple flat rate taxation.

There are very few countries that do this and with good reason, it's only fair to those who earn the most.

How the **** do you work that out?

Fairness? How on earth is it fair for someone to not pay anything at all into the pot – if everyone pays an equal proportion of their wage, regardless of income, then it is de-facto a fair and equitable system, everybody is treated exactly the same, and everyone contributes equally in proportion to their ability to pay. those who earn less pay less, those who earn more pay more, and you don't have huge government departments pissing money up the wall processing paperwork and costing us all money.

I mean, REAL right winger loonies would say that everyone should pay according to their consumption of services, you know, things like remove income based taxation and tax only on purchases and usage, like we do with fuel, those who consume more pay more tax – you could just as equally claim that is "fair"

There are very few governments who do it? I wonder why that really is, is it because, once again, turkeys don't vote for Xmas, and government departments employing tens of thousands of staff don't propose their own abolition…

Come on ElBent, or Ernie tell me exactly WHY its unfair, and why it wouldn't work – play the ball. Its fine to shouot 'Dan Hannans a right wing nutter' but until you can construct a coherent argument saying how 'the plan' would be a problem then you simply sound like a Bob Crow apparachic

tell me exactly WHY its unfair, and why it wouldn't work

Well there's no reason to actually stop it from working, however some arguments as to why it would be unfair go like this.

The rich, and I include myself in this group, less as a proportion of their income on the basics of life (things like food, heating, transport that sort of thing) because these costs are effectively fixed. Consequently a much larger proportion of their overall income is disposable and they can therefore afford to pay tax on this portion of their income at a higher rate without having too much of a detrimental effect. There are other arguments against it too.

The major problem with the flat rate tax system as it has been proposed is that it is sold as something where everyone will win. The rich will pay less and the poor will pay nothing at all. This is clearly nonsence as assuming the tax take must remain the same an assuming that the country's earnings are also constant it is impossbile for everyone to pay less tax. The "improved effeciency" of the tax system that is always promised will never materialise. Efficiency savings never do.

Has anyone blamed Thatcher yet?

Has anyone blamed Thatcher yet?

CFH, you should probably see someone about your obsesion with Thatcher as you bring her up more than anyone else on here.

Those in glass houses….
http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2009/09/18/will-the-tories-axe-the-royal-air-force/
EEK, seems a bit harsh.
What about closing the loopholes which allow the rich to avoid income tax?
Afghanistan, right or wrong is not economically sustainable at the moment.
Can we afford the level of welfare/disability benefit that's being dished out?
Having been involved with surveying some schools recently, I must disagree with cutting funding there. In all honesty, some of the schools were at a dangerous level of neglect (no fire alarms etc).

What about closing the loopholes which allow the rich to avoid income tax?

Yep, much needed.

That bit about the RAF is certainly not something I could support if it were ever to be a policy.

As to the schools thing – If Balls can suddenly find £2bn of savings/cuts without harming the system, one does have to ask, why has he been spending that £2bn to date?

What about closing the loopholes which allow the rich to avoid income tax?
The Tories aren't going to do that, they'd loose their deputy chairman for a start. I imagine the other parties would also loose half their donations too.

Ah, but therein is the key, it relies on a government being bold enough to ensure that the efficiency savings DO happen – the variable in the equation has to be the overhead running costs of the government and the system in general.

The goal of simplifying the system has to be to reduce the scope and expense of the state.

Z11, I did not understand a word of that mate. Are you in politics (seriously)?.

Cutting down government costs..

you dont have to be rich to live in a 1m house

errrrrrr……………..
Last time I thought about it, being a millionaire makes you rich in my book. And as for the old widdows living in 1m houses, i suspect thats a very small population group, and i'm guessing they could manage quite well (probably better in fact) in a smaller house.

I still blame thatcher.
Although without here we wouldnt have places like Wales and Northern England crying out for lottery/european money to build trail centers 🙂

Where there's a financial "interest", and there always is, in every political situation that has ever and will ever occur – people will/can rarely do what would actually be "the right thing".

It seems to me if a Political Party relies on wealthy business men to finance its existance, it would be foolish to shoot those business men?

Likewise a party that is financed by working men and/or unions, would be foolish to hammer the working man and/or unions.

I think (imho) that it is impossible for them (any government anywhere)to make the right decision when there's a profit involved somewhere, and if you take the profit (which for 99% of people is the motivation) out of the equation then surely your entering socialist/communist territory?

And when I say "profit being the motivation" I don't just mean greedy billionaire business men. I mean anyone who gets up and goes to work.

Politics is not my fav subject – so that prob doesn't make any sense.

In short "it's every man/woman/country for him/her/their self"

lol

Fairness? How on earth is it fair for someone to not pay anything at all into the pot – if everyone pays an equal proportion of their wage, regardless of income, then it is de-facto a fair and equitable system, everybody is treated exactly the same, and everyone contributes equally in proportion to their ability to pay. those who earn less pay less, those who earn more pay more, and you don't have huge government departments pissing money up the wall processing paperwork and costing us all money.

Because it will treat some fairer than others. The richer will proportionally pay the least. Are you too stupid to spot this? Quite clearly you are. I mean this was tried my a certain PM(no mentioning of names CFH) and it ended in a riot and said PM getting the boot.

Hannan is a right wing nutter, he has already caused serious offence to this country by going on fox news in the US and attacking the NHS, He just doesn't understand how much damage he cause to the right wing freak circus…long may it continue.

As for Bob crow…

Don't see him anywhere in my party. 😉

Don't see him anywhere in my party.

I hope your party is better than ernie's…no drinking, no shagging waste of time it was…

The richer will proportionally pay the least. Are you too stupid to spot this? Quite clearly you are.

I guess I'm stupid then 😳 I'm no great fan of flat rate tax, but I'm struggling to see how it would mean the rich paying "proportionally" less.

Aren't percentages generally proportional??

Can you explain?

why should the rich pay for the poor!
they have worked hard and took risks to get where they are.
why should they subsidise benefit cheats and the work shy?
don't we live in a capitalist country?
surely its upto ourselves to get out of poverty not sit around waiting for handouts because that never works!
just look at africa!

" just look at africa! "

😀 PSML !

hehe just had my 4th glass of wine sorry!

I've just finished my second bottle and the seventh shag of the day, and even I wouldn't come out with shite like that. You should be ashamed of yourself.

well if you met some of the people i have to deal with you might change your opinion dr dolittle

if you met some of the people i have to deal with

Is that the African layabouts who ponce off their government's "handouts" ?

…….. have another bottle of wine me ol' fruit 8)

I worked at Hackney Mare Street jobcentreplus, so I know more about poor people, lazy people, ****, ****-ups and the **** over than you do.

Unless your friends are especially special in that regard.

na just the toothless longterm sick who drink all day then go home to watch football on their 50" plasma hd sky boxes whilst their neighbours go out to work !!!!!!!!!!

**** me dr you don@t even know where i live so how can you have an opinion on that

well if you met some of the people i have to deal with ……….the toothless longterm sick

Are you a doctor ?

just the toothless longterm sick who drink all day then go home to watch football on their 50" plasma hd sky boxes whilst their neighbours go out to work !!!!!!!!!!

All of them, or just your neighbour? If the former, there's a vacancy coming up in a few months that requires omnipresence. Requires wearing a false beard and a CRB check though. Doesn't pay much but for the mince pie bonus.

I work with a guy, nice bloke, not the brightest light on the tree, but bright enough to know that he's best off working only 16 hrs a week and getting the £259 per week "not earning much" handout the state gives him. He also gets his rent paid, he has 4 kids under 7 so he gets child benefit and his wife gets something for being a "housewife"

Total weekly income, £600. I shit you not.

this is my opinion
i have a brother who has lost his leg in an accident
has broke his pelvis twice in seperate accidents and has since retrained and works full time.
i have a sister who has arthritus,she's never worked since she was 18 but travels the country with her 11 dog's to various shows whilst claiming incapacity benifits… which one should i respect more..the one who picked himself up or the one who lay down and died.. you tell me you're the expert dr..

sst my point exactly!!

I work with a guy, nice bloke, not the brightest light on the tree, but bright enough to know that he's best off working only 16 hrs a week and getting the £259 per week "not earning much" handout the state gives him. He also gets his rent paid, he has 4 kids under 7 so he gets child benefit and his wife gets something for being a "housewife"

Considering that he could work 70 hours a week on a minimum wage and be worse off, I think he's quite sharp really. Does he have an option of an alternative?

being on benefits should not be a lifestyle option