General Election 2019

[Seymour M Hersh]

2 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

I knew someone would say that.

 

My response...you can still buy horses and carts too you know!

 

That's the Green Party that want you to do that.

[Pans Jambo]

Just now, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

That's the Green Party that want you to do that.

True

[doctor jambo]

12 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

It's a good point, we can't have rich people suddenly struggling to pay for things...that hardship is reserved for the poor.

 

If one is on 80k+ per year and don't have a sizeable contigency fund in accessible cash then more fool them

 

 

We are talking about >£80 k hiking to 45%

then more than £125k hiking to  50 %

this is not a small rise...

its also not going to benefit anyone on low incomes-

mainly because all your Dr's will simply leave, or reduce their hours

[Unknown user]

7 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

We are talking about >£80 k hiking to 45%

then more than £125k hiking to  50 %

this is not a small rise...

its also not going to benefit anyone on low incomes-

mainly because all your Dr's will simply leave, or reduce their hours

 

Let's just tax the skin off the working poor then eh?

 

Won't someone think of those earning 6 figure incomes?? 

Oh yeah, the Tories.

[Taffin]

13 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

We are talking about >£80 k hiking to 45%

then more than £125k hiking to  50 %

this is not a small rise...

its also not going to benefit anyone on low incomes-

mainly because all your Dr's will simply leave, or reduce their hours

 

My heart bleeds for them. 

 

Maybe if poorer people had more income and access to public services we wouldn't need so many doctors anyway as they could live a healthier life rather than endless stress about money, struggling to afford nutritional food and exercise, living in poor conditions and increased risk of turning to junk food, drugs and alcohol as escapism

 

Also what use are lots of Dr's if the treatments they refer people for/provide are so under-funded that people have to wait an inordinate amount of time for an appointment or cannot afford to take the time off work to go to those appointments? 

 

It's not an argument I want to get into at a more detailed level but you are effectively saying 'rich people shouldn't have to suffer the impact of struggling to meet their outgoings'. 

Edited November 22, 2019 by Taffin

[Seymour M Hersh]

[Cade]

I've said it before and I'll say it again now:

 

If a tax rise of £15 a month is enough to destitute someone earning over £80k a year then they have clearly been living far beyond their means and deserve no sympathy.

Edited November 22, 2019 by Cade

[Pans Jambo]

1 minute ago, Cade said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again now:

 

If a tax rise of £15 a month is enough to destitute someone earning over £80k a year then they have clearly been living far beyond their means and deserve no sympathy.

This. Cut back on Waitrose & Range Rover FFS!

[The Mighty Thor]

8 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

We are talking about >£80 k hiking to 45%

then more than £125k hiking to  50 %

this is not a small rise...

its also not going to benefit anyone on low incomes-

mainly because all your Dr's will simply leave, or reduce their hours

 

As with all discussions on taxation, the headline belies the reality of tax banding and the actual potential increase in tax.

 

Over £80k 'hiking' to 45% or you pay 45% on earnings over the £80k threshold (currently 41% in Scotland). The sub £80k element would attract the current rates of taxation in the bands as set out in England or Scotland (19% up to £14,500/20% up to £25,000/21% up to £43,500)

 

  

[Taffin]

26 minutes ago, Cade said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again now:

 

If a tax rise of £15 a month is enough to destitute someone earning over £80k a year then they have clearly been living far beyond their means and deserve no sympathy.

 

Correct. You could drop your pension contribution by 0.5% and not only save more than enough to cover the tax increase but still be paying far more into it monthly than most people could ever dream of putting into theirs.

 

Or is there an expectation that it's only poor people who should have to work into their old age as well? Probably I guess given then attitude from some.

 

Or, just, you know, not spend over £4500 a month. There must be something that could be cut out of the £200 a day budget to save 50p a day?

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by Taffin

[Spitonastranger]

 

 

[Francis Albert]

36 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Let's just tax the skin off the working poor then eh?

 

Won't someone think of those earning 6 figure incomes?? 

Oh yeah, the Tories.

 

Working poor?

Something like 40% don't pay income tax at all. 

 

[Unknown user]

Just now, Francis Albert said:

 

Working poor?

Something like 40% don't pay income tax at all. 

 

 

Yes, the working poor.

[Francis Albert]

3 hours ago, Victorian said:

It's all about entitlement.     Accustomed comfort.    Complacency.      A conditioned belief that one is already paying too much tax or the maximum amount possible without it being unfair.     Belief in obsolete tropes.     This not only applies to very high earners and those with accumulated wealth.    It applies all the way down to the lower end of mean / median income.

 

Why should I pay more?    Someone else should pay.    Some people aren't paying the correct amount.    It will be wasted on inefficiencies anyway.     

 

Society needs to challenge itself to discard this stupor.

I have this strange concept that those who try to improve their lot, who take education seriously, who work hard should be entitled to "accustomed comfort". 

I am not talking about inherited wealth or those who have a privileged education paid for them.

[Francis Albert]

3 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Yes, the working poor.

Who are having the skin taxed off them?

 

And 40% are "poor"? In relative terms about 50% are by definition poor.

Edited November 22, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Who are having the skin taxed off them?

 

And 40% are "poor"? In relative terms about 50% are by definition poor.

 

You're so keen to disagree you're making up my side of an argument!

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I have this strange concept that those who try to improve their lot, who take education seriously, who work hard should be entitled to "accustomed comfort". 

I am not talking about inherited wealth or those who have a privileged education paid for them.

 

I've yet to see anyone suggest that wealth cannot still be accumulated and that high earnings should be subjected to vicious rates of tax.     

 

As others have pointed out,   it needs only a small adjustment to how disposable income is spent to be able to 'afford' more tax.      It beggars belief if £80,000pa earners are not prepared to pay a few quid extra per week.     It shouldn't even register for them.      That kind of level of income can easily afford to pay £50 per week.    Very easily.    In every case.

[Ray Gin]

13 minutes ago, Spitonastranger said:

 

 

 

 

   

[Victorian]

I'm on less than a third of £80k and the stark honest truth is that I could afford to pay an extra £50 per week,    so I wont be giving any credence to bleatings from much higher earners about a few quid a week.

Edited November 22, 2019 by Victorian

[Ray Gin]

2 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

I've yet to see anyone suggest that wealth cannot still be accumulated and that high earnings should be subjected to vicious rates of tax.     

 

As others have pointed out,   it needs only a small adjustment to how disposable income is spent to be able to 'afford' more tax.      It beggars belief if £80,000pa earners are not prepared to pay a few quid extra per week.     It shouldn't even register for them.      That kind of level of income can easily afford to pay £50 per week.    Very easily.    In every case.

 

Selfish, greedy, pricks. Welcome to the mindset of the average Conservative voter.

 

I'm not anywhere close to £80k a week and would quite happily pay the extra £10 a month towards improved public services.

 

 

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Ray Gin said:

 

Selfish, greedy, pricks. Welcome to the mindset of the average Conservative voter.

 

I'm not anywhere close to £80k a week and would quite happily pay the extra £10 a month towards improved public services.

 

 

 

It demonstrates just how difficult it would be to convince people that tax rises are justified and reasonable.     The sad thing is that the modest earners will be more realistic than the more comfortable.

[Ray Gin]

Just now, Barack said:

I should hope not.

 

 

 

 

  Oops. I'm not close to £80k a year either.

 

 

[Spitonastranger]

10 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

   

made me think of a few posters on here, you know who you are

[Ray Gin]

3 minutes ago, Barack said:

80k a week...aye, go on, **** it. Here's a tenner, lads.👍🏻

 

 

 

 

There's probably a Tory reading this still aghast at the suggestion.

[Francis Albert]

35 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

I've yet to see anyone suggest that wealth cannot still be accumulated and that high earnings should be subjected to vicious rates of tax.     

 

As others have pointed out,   it needs only a small adjustment to how disposable income is spent to be able to 'afford' more tax.      It beggars belief if £80,000pa earners are not prepared to pay a few quid extra per week.     It shouldn't even register for them.      That kind of level of income can easily afford to pay £50 per week.    Very easily.    In every case.

You claimed that those of lower/median level of  income have a "conditioned belief" that they are already paying too much tax and any increase would be unfair. If so I tend to agree with them. I am sure they too could afford to pay "a few quid extra per week" but I don't think they should.

Whether increasing taxes on those earning high incomes would actually generate more revenue is debatable. 

I can remember when the marginal rate of income tax was 98%. It didn't help anyone much.

Edited November 22, 2019 by Francis Albert

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, doctor jambo said:

We are talking about >£80 k hiking to 45%

then more than £125k hiking to  50 %

this is not a small rise...

its also not going to benefit anyone on low incomes-

mainly because all your Dr's will simply leave, or reduce their hours

Aw poor GPs. The thought of the poor doctors signing 20 prescriptions for less money.

[Ray Gin]

If you're on 80k and get taxed 45%, your income is still over double the UK average. Forgive me if my heart doesn't bleed for you. 

[The Mighty Thor]

2 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

If you're on 80k and get taxed 45%, your income is still over double the UK average. Forgive me if my heart doesn't bleed for you. 

The rough calculation of the difference in tax on a £85000 salary between 41% tax and 45% tax would be less than £1700 per year or 32 quid per week

[gjcc]

39 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

The rough calculation of the difference in tax on a £85000 salary between 41% tax and 45% tax would be less than £1700 per year or 32 quid per week

Exactly. Which is less than half the real term effect the pay freeze and cap had on nurses etc. 
 

Who’s going to feel harder hit?
 

Someone on £85k losing 1700 a year through taxation. (2% of salary)
 

Or someone on £25k losing 3400+ a year through pay stagnation. (13.6%+ of salary)

 

(fag packet calculations so apologies if it’s wrong!) 

Edited November 22, 2019 by gjcc

[LeftBack]

I genuinely don't know who i despise more Corbyn or Johnson. What a cluster***** of a country when these are the choices for our Prime Minister. And before people say that's why we need an independent Scotland.... I agree

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, The Mighty Thor said:

The rough calculation of the difference in tax on a £85000 salary between 41% tax and 45% tax would be less than £1700 per year or 32 quid per week

Two issues really. Would you want to lose £1700  a year? Would you trust a Corbyn government to use it wisely ? And not just create a need soon for another £1700.

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by Francis Albert

[manaliveits105]

How do these activists get into the audience to ask the right questions ?

lookin forward to spotting the brigadooners when nippy gets her turn

[manaliveits105]

Bingo

[Shanks said no]

So does everyone in South Korea get free broadband?

[manaliveits105]

bending over for Jezza

embarrassing 

 

[dicksojo]

I had to switch that question time off. Three of the audience members said there was a mandate for a second Scottish independence referendum. Is there? If there is, by which measure?

 

[manaliveits105]

Great question mate

she hasn’t answered it 

one policy party 

[manaliveits105]

Guy with the afro 

are you saying you would put independence before ending austerity

 

snp are the Scottish govt and partly responsible for austerity

 

she didn’t answer the question

 

Fiona Bruce owning her

[manaliveits105]

Bingo

who promised once in a generation 

 

Bus load doon fae Brigadoon !

[redjambo]

4 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

As ignorant about wildlife as about politics (and humour, it appears).

 

Polar bears are found in the northern hemisphere. Penguins, apart from around the Galapagos Islands, are found in the southern hemisphere.

 

The only place a polar bear is going to meet a penguin is in a zoo.

 

[Fourcandles]

What currency would an Independent Scotland have. ?

Assuming as was the case in 2014 that we cant have the pound?

 

.

[redjambo]

D.P.

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by redjambo

[Victorian]

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

You claimed that those of lower/median level of  income have a "conditioned belief" that they are already paying too much tax and any increase would be unfair. If so I tend to agree with them. I am sure they too could afford to pay "a few quid extra per week" but I don't think they should.

Whether increasing taxes on those earning high incomes would actually generate more revenue is debatable. 

I can remember when the marginal rate of income tax was 98%. It didn't help anyone much.

 

You can keep arguing that people should expect not to pay more tax.     But if we're destined to retain the status quo levels of taxation,    you might like to consider where the country is going to get sufficient revenues to continue funding everything.      The current settlement and economic model is no longer working.     The cost base of services is growing faster than economic growth and tax receipts can sustain.      You might like to explain how our already ragged services will be funded under the same settlement in 20 to 30 years time.

[LeftBack]

Sturgeon is the best leader of any political party imo. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

3 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

As ignorant about wildlife as about politics (and humour, it appears).

 

Polar bears are found in the northern hemisphere. Penguins, apart from around the Galapagos Islands, are found in the southern hemisphere.

 

The only place a polar bear is going to meet a penguin is in a zoo.

 

 

You do realise it's just a cartoon and not a David Attenborough documentary don't you? 

Edited November 22, 2019 by Seymour M Hersh

[Seymour M Hersh]

Just now, LeftBack said:

Sturgeon is the best leader of any political party imo. 

 

[redjambo]

Just now, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

You do realise it's just a cartoon don't you? 

 

Of course, but it is a shite cartoon on at least a couple of levels, the main one being ignorance.

 

Or do you prefer folk to go around not knowing fact from fiction?

[Seymour M Hersh]

Just now, redjambo said:

 

Of course, but it is a shite cartoon on at least a couple of levels, the main one being ignorance.

 

Or do you prefer folk to go around not knowing fact from fiction?

 

[Class of 75]

3 minutes ago, LeftBack said:

Sturgeon is the best leader of any political party imo. 

An utter embarrassment to Scotland. 

[Class of 75]

This one is worse.