Chat Forum
It is currently Sat Aug 08, 2020 1:25 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6435 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 161  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1598
bimboman wrote:
If the money for the pay rise has to come from crippling tax rises it's not particularly sensible is it.


No worries, we can pay for public sector pay rises with the money saved from disbanding the army and MI5, disarming the police, and getting rid of the Royal family and the civil list.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64420
Chuckles1188 wrote:
So teachers, policing and healthcare are all facing massive staffing shortfalls, but we still need to cut lots of public spending. Despite deficits not actually being damaging to economies, and the cost of borrowing remaining pretty low - and bonds being a pretty under-used option for raising more public money.


And you lot wonder why the Tories are unpopular



So unpopular they just won a general election.?

And are you sure if we increased our non damaging deficit by 20% borrowing rates would remain low? Please go on more about bonds being under used how have you reached that conclusion. What about the 1.5 trillion already owed by the state, which generation do you want to pick up the tab for that ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14489
bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
So teachers, policing and healthcare are all facing massive staffing shortfalls, but we still need to cut lots of public spending. Despite deficits not actually being damaging to economies, and the cost of borrowing remaining pretty low - and bonds being a pretty under-used option for raising more public money.


And you lot wonder why the Tories are unpopular



So unpopular they just won a general election.?

And are you sure if we increased our non damaging deficit by 20% borrowing rates would remain low? Please go on more about bonds being under used how have you reached that conclusion. What about the 1.5 trillion already owed by the state, which generation do you want to pick up the tab for that ?

I'd love to know what proportion of each party's potential vote actually votes.

Oldham is somewhere I'd assume has been red for a hundred years or so, but the turnout of 50% is pretty damn low.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 37292
Location: Planet Rock
bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
So teachers, policing and healthcare are all facing massive staffing shortfalls, but we still need to cut lots of public spending. Despite deficits not actually being damaging to economies, and the cost of borrowing remaining pretty low - and bonds being a pretty under-used option for raising more public money.


And you lot wonder why the Tories are unpopular



So unpopular they just won a general election.?

They are not as unpopular as they were when the witch who is now dead was in power but they are still very unpopular in my house


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21422
bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
So teachers, policing and healthcare are all facing massive staffing shortfalls, but we still need to cut lots of public spending. Despite deficits not actually being damaging to economies, and the cost of borrowing remaining pretty low - and bonds being a pretty under-used option for raising more public money.


And you lot wonder why the Tories are unpopular



So unpopular they just won a general election.?

And are you sure if we increased our non damaging deficit by 20% borrowing rates would remain low? Please go on more about bonds being under used how have you reached that conclusion. What about the 1.5 trillion already owed by the state, which generation do you want to pick up the tab for that ?


As I said before, the left are woefully financial illiterate

"We are in too much debt - I know lets borrow more" - sheesh !


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64420
Anonymous. wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
So teachers, policing and healthcare are all facing massive staffing shortfalls, but we still need to cut lots of public spending. Despite deficits not actually being damaging to economies, and the cost of borrowing remaining pretty low - and bonds being a pretty under-used option for raising more public money.


And you lot wonder why the Tories are unpopular



So unpopular they just won a general election.?

They are not as unpopular as they were when the witch who is now dead was in power but they are still very unpopular in my house



Oh let's take them out of power then, I'll write to Cameron and ask for him to resign.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 40610
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
toweliechaos wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
How many other areas of public spend are facing a massive and catastrophic shortage of staff supply in the next few years?


Well, not teachers for one. Heads, that's another question, but as they are not required to be teachers, it doesn't count. There will always be a steady supply of gullible/idealistic/hopeful/ people who will go into ITT. The difficulty is keeping them in the job for more than a few years. I should know.


Well first of all even if that were true the constant migration of experience and expertise out of the profession that you describe isn't and won't be a good thing, but secondly it's just not true. There is a population bulge coming which the profession is not equipped to deal with, and frankly teacher-to-class ratios at the moment in many places are shocking. Primaries especially are coming under serious pressure.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 40610
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
So teachers, policing and healthcare are all facing massive staffing shortfalls, but we still need to cut lots of public spending. Despite deficits not actually being damaging to economies, and the cost of borrowing remaining pretty low - and bonds being a pretty under-used option for raising more public money.


And you lot wonder why the Tories are unpopular



So unpopular they just won a general election.?

And are you sure if we increased our non damaging deficit by 20% borrowing rates would remain low? Please go on more about bonds being under used how have you reached that conclusion. What about the 1.5 trillion already owed by the state, which generation do you want to pick up the tab for that ?


With what percentage of the popular vote? I'm not saying they are unpopular relative to other parties, but a pretty substantial majority of the electorate voted for somebody else earlier this year


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64420
Chuckles1188 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
So teachers, policing and healthcare are all facing massive staffing shortfalls, but we still need to cut lots of public spending. Despite deficits not actually being damaging to economies, and the cost of borrowing remaining pretty low - and bonds being a pretty under-used option for raising more public money.


And you lot wonder why the Tories are unpopular



So unpopular they just won a general election.?

And are you sure if we increased our non damaging deficit by 20% borrowing rates would remain low? Please go on more about bonds being under used how have you reached that conclusion. What about the 1.5 trillion already owed by the state, which generation do you want to pick up the tab for that ?


With what percentage of the popular vote? I'm not saying they are unpopular relative to other parties, but a pretty substantial majority of the electorate voted for somebody else earlier this year



Oh ok, we will have to change how democracy works then. Anything regarding your other slightly silly points?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 221
merry! wrote:
didn't gideon announce a further increase for defence last week, in the wake of the paris attacks (and planned bombing of syria)?

regardless, the uk defence budget is gradually increasing to meet the 2% of gdp target set out by nato.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33448383


Smoke and mirrors - it all depends on how you define defence spending. If you decide to include part of the Foreign Aid budget etc as defence spending - then it's pretty simple to keep to the 2% of GDP spending.

Doesn't mean you are actually spending the money on more military hardware or personnel (what most people would consider as 'defence spending'


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7034
Location: emmerdale
toweliechaos wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
How many other areas of public spend are facing a massive and catastrophic shortage of staff supply in the next few years?


Well, not teachers for one. Heads, that's another question, but as they are not required to be teachers, it doesn't count. There will always be a steady supply of gullible/idealistic/hopeful/ people who will go into ITT. The difficulty is keeping them in the job for more than a few years. I should know.

Now, GPs on the other hand - that is a genuine clusterbomb heading our way. More and more are taking early retirement and there is a distinct lack of backfill occurring or desire to switch.

Neither of these issues will be resolved by any flavour of politics. They're all plums.

yup, it doesn't look good, especially considering the time it takes to train them. reckon they'll have to lean a lot more on the practice nurses in the meantime.

some quite scary figures being talked about.. http://www.rcgp.org.uk/news/2015/february/new-league-table-reveals-gp-shortages-across-england.aspx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64420
merry! wrote:
toweliechaos wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
How many other areas of public spend are facing a massive and catastrophic shortage of staff supply in the next few years?


Well, not teachers for one. Heads, that's another question, but as they are not required to be teachers, it doesn't count. There will always be a steady supply of gullible/idealistic/hopeful/ people who will go into ITT. The difficulty is keeping them in the job for more than a few years. I should know.

Now, GPs on the other hand - that is a genuine clusterbomb heading our way. More and more are taking early retirement and there is a distinct lack of backfill occurring or desire to switch.

Neither of these issues will be resolved by any flavour of politics. They're all plums.

yup, it doesn't look good, especially considering the time it takes to train them. reckon they'll have to lean a lot more on the practice nurses in the meantime.

some quite scary figures being talked about.. http://www.rcgp.org.uk/news/2015/february/new-league-table-reveals-gp-shortages-across-england.aspx



Stuff their mouths with more gold.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7034
Location: emmerdale
bimboman wrote:
merry! wrote:
toweliechaos wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
How many other areas of public spend are facing a massive and catastrophic shortage of staff supply in the next few years?


Well, not teachers for one. Heads, that's another question, but as they are not required to be teachers, it doesn't count. There will always be a steady supply of gullible/idealistic/hopeful/ people who will go into ITT. The difficulty is keeping them in the job for more than a few years. I should know.

Now, GPs on the other hand - that is a genuine clusterbomb heading our way. More and more are taking early retirement and there is a distinct lack of backfill occurring or desire to switch.

Neither of these issues will be resolved by any flavour of politics. They're all plums.

yup, it doesn't look good, especially considering the time it takes to train them. reckon they'll have to lean a lot more on the practice nurses in the meantime.

some quite scary figures being talked about.. http://www.rcgp.org.uk/news/2015/february/new-league-table-reveals-gp-shortages-across-england.aspx

Stuff their mouths with more gold.

well, if you insist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15435
bimboman wrote:
Sefton wrote:
As a homeowner who earns more than 40k I can't say I'm lying in bed at night frozen with fear at the thought of a bit more tax. Whereas if I was a low income earner with children I'd know I was going to be poorer under Call Me Dave.



Indeed, that's why you vote for him, but most people are much less altruistic. Low earners wih children will not be worse off though.

The IFS and The Resolution Foundation both say you're talking rubbish.

Quote:
IFS director Paul Johnson also warned "this is not the end of austerity" as he described Mr Osborne's spending plan as "one of the tightest in post-war history" with a swathe of government departments left facing real-terms cuts.

Although the Chancellor's tax credits reversal means British families won't take an "immediate cash hit" the country's poorest workers will still face their welfare payments being cut "just as much as was ever intended" in Mr Osborne's July Budget, added Mr Johnson.

He said the planned consolidation of a number of benefits into a single Universal Credit "will now involve 2.6 million working families being an average of £1,600 a year worse off than they would have been under the current system, while 1.9 million will be £1,400 a year better-off".


http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ge-osborne


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 37292
Location: Planet Rock
Leeds United 'pie tax': Group of fans plan walkout in protest

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/35006222


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 40610
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
So teachers, policing and healthcare are all facing massive staffing shortfalls, but we still need to cut lots of public spending. Despite deficits not actually being damaging to economies, and the cost of borrowing remaining pretty low - and bonds being a pretty under-used option for raising more public money.


And you lot wonder why the Tories are unpopular



So unpopular they just won a general election.?

And are you sure if we increased our non damaging deficit by 20% borrowing rates would remain low? Please go on more about bonds being under used how have you reached that conclusion. What about the 1.5 trillion already owed by the state, which generation do you want to pick up the tab for that ?


With what percentage of the popular vote? I'm not saying they are unpopular relative to other parties, but a pretty substantial majority of the electorate voted for somebody else earlier this year



Oh ok, we will have to change how democracy works then. Anything regarding your other slightly silly points?


When did I say we had to change anything? You are the absolute master of taking something somebody has said and running about 10 miles with it. I can't see much benefit in getting into an extended discussion with someone whose response to the statement "the Tories aren't very popular" with a sarcastic "we will have to change how democracy works then". I'm not challenging their legitimacy to govern.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9980
theo wrote:
Deficits are damaging to economies. The longer you leave it the more interest you end paying and therefore more of the public purse is used up on interest rather than public services.


Rubbish

Govt deficits = exactly increased non Govt savings

So we all become wealthier when the UK Govt runs a deficit. So within reason deficits are not only not damaging but are essential as we all age and save.

The looniest fear is a fear of deficit spending to buy or invest in assets. We can do it but Govt's should not for some irrational reason. Pure madness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9980
backrow wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
So teachers, policing and healthcare are all facing massive staffing shortfalls, but we still need to cut lots of public spending. Despite deficits not actually being damaging to economies, and the cost of borrowing remaining pretty low - and bonds being a pretty under-used option for raising more public money.


And you lot wonder why the Tories are unpopular



So unpopular they just won a general election.?

And are you sure if we increased our non damaging deficit by 20% borrowing rates would remain low? Please go on more about bonds being under used how have you reached that conclusion. What about the 1.5 trillion already owed by the state, which generation do you want to pick up the tab for that ?


As I said before, the left are woefully financial illiterate

"We are in too much debt - I know lets borrow more" - sheesh !


You are the financially ignorant one. Focusing on the irrelevant liability side but forgetting about the critical asset side.

The non Govt sector can not net save without the Govt sector taking on debt. This is a fact. Govt bonds are held as an asset by the non Govt sector. Often by pension funds. Without this one entities savings = another entities debt = no non Govt net savings.


Last edited by Silver on Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7034
Location: emmerdale
Silver wrote:
theo wrote:
Deficits are damaging to economies. The longer you leave it the more interest you end paying and therefore more of the public purse is used up on interest rather than public services.


Rubbish

Govt deficits = exactly increased non Govt savings

So we all become wealthier when the UK Govt runs a deficit. So within reason deficits are not only not damaging but are essential as we all age and save.

The looniest fear is a fear of deficit spending to buy or invest in assets. We can do it but Govt's should not for some irrational reason. Pure madness.

with a sovereign currency, which i know you're keen on, constant deficits result in a devaluing of the currency (and people's savings).

without a sovereign currency, you end up like greece.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64420
Sefton wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Sefton wrote:
As a homeowner who earns more than 40k I can't say I'm lying in bed at night frozen with fear at the thought of a bit more tax. Whereas if I was a low income earner with children I'd know I was going to be poorer under Call Me Dave.



Indeed, that's why you vote for him, but most people are much less altruistic. Low earners wih children will not be worse off though.

The IFS and The Resolution Foundation both say you're talking rubbish.

Quote:
IFS director Paul Johnson also warned "this is not the end of austerity" as he described Mr Osborne's spending plan as "one of the tightest in post-war history" with a swathe of government departments left facing real-terms cuts.

Although the Chancellor's tax credits reversal means British families won't take an "immediate cash hit" the country's poorest workers will still face their welfare payments being cut "just as much as was ever intended" in Mr Osborne's July Budget, added Mr Johnson.

He said the planned consolidation of a number of benefits into a single Universal Credit "will now involve 2.6 million working families being an average of £1,600 a year worse off than they would have been under the current system, while 1.9 million will be £1,400 a year better-off".


http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ge-osborne



The tax threashholds rising and the minimum wage going up will compensate though as it's coming later in the cycle. Plus the report and article point out that no one will be worse off in cash terms. New claimants of some benefits will be worse off compared to "if" they claimed today.


Last edited by bimboman on Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21422
Silver wrote:
theo wrote:
Deficits are damaging to economies. The longer you leave it the more interest you end paying and therefore more of the public purse is used up on interest rather than public services.


Rubbish

Govt deficits = exactly increased non Govt savings

So we all become wealthier when the UK Govt runs a deficit. So within reason deficits are not only not damaging but are essential as we all age and save.

The looniest fear is a fear of deficit spending to buy or invest in assets. We can do it but Govt's should not for some irrational reason. Pure madness.


You are both right and wrong

As you say, deficit maintenance is a handy financial tool of monatary policy - but total deficit is a problem if it becomes burdensome, and the total interest spending (even at current low rates, like that bird brain chuckles pointed out) becomes a significant portion of government spending.

In short, running a deficit is fine providing it is not too large - and labour left it far too big to be manageable , so borrowing more is not viable .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9980
merry! wrote:
Silver wrote:
theo wrote:
Deficits are damaging to economies. The longer you leave it the more interest you end paying and therefore more of the public purse is used up on interest rather than public services.


Rubbish

Govt deficits = exactly increased non Govt savings

So we all become wealthier when the UK Govt runs a deficit. So within reason deficits are not only not damaging but are essential as we all age and save.

The looniest fear is a fear of deficit spending to buy or invest in assets. We can do it but Govt's should not for some irrational reason. Pure madness.

with a sovereign currency, which i know you're keen on, constant deficits result in a devaluing of the currency (and people's savings).

without a sovereign currency, you end up like greece.


Greece is no longer monetary sovereign. They are no different to you and me. They must borrow from the markets. They really are f++ked in the Euro with no way out.

The Uk can, should and do use the BoE. And must continue doing so otherwise the UK will crash. All because of an irrational fear of journal entries. And appalling economic ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9980
backrow wrote:
Silver wrote:
theo wrote:
Deficits are damaging to economies. The longer you leave it the more interest you end paying and therefore more of the public purse is used up on interest rather than public services.


Rubbish

Govt deficits = exactly increased non Govt savings

So we all become wealthier when the UK Govt runs a deficit. So within reason deficits are not only not damaging but are essential as we all age and save.

The looniest fear is a fear of deficit spending to buy or invest in assets. We can do it but Govt's should not for some irrational reason. Pure madness.


You are both right and wrong

As you say, deficit maintenance is a handy financial tool of monatary policy - but total deficit is a problem if it becomes burdensome, and the total interest spending (even at current low rates, like that bird brain chuckles pointed out) becomes a significant portion of government spending.

In short, running a deficit is fine providing it is not too large - and labour left it far too big to be manageable , so borrowing more is not viable .


Where do you think collective company profits come from. As one companies revenue = another companies expenses. So from where?

Or what about savings. How can one person save money without another entity taking on debt. It's impossible but still people hate Govt debt. Without realizing the (dreadful) implications of a debt free world. Greece today would be great times in comparison.

And the UK only borrows money (= issue bonds) to drain reserves. Monetary sovereign Govt can do this as required when required without limit. Its a myth that the UK Govt will ever run out of money. Promoted by those who benefit from the fib.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15435
bimboman wrote:
Sefton wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Sefton wrote:
As a homeowner who earns more than 40k I can't say I'm lying in bed at night frozen with fear at the thought of a bit more tax. Whereas if I was a low income earner with children I'd know I was going to be poorer under Call Me Dave.



Indeed, that's why you vote for him, but most people are much less altruistic. Low earners wih children will not be worse off though.

The IFS and The Resolution Foundation both say you're talking rubbish.

Quote:
IFS director Paul Johnson also warned "this is not the end of austerity" as he described Mr Osborne's spending plan as "one of the tightest in post-war history" with a swathe of government departments left facing real-terms cuts.

Although the Chancellor's tax credits reversal means British families won't take an "immediate cash hit" the country's poorest workers will still face their welfare payments being cut "just as much as was ever intended" in Mr Osborne's July Budget, added Mr Johnson.

He said the planned consolidation of a number of benefits into a single Universal Credit "will now involve 2.6 million working families being an average of £1,600 a year worse off than they would have been under the current system, while 1.9 million will be £1,400 a year better-off".


http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ge-osborne



The tax threashholds rising and the minimum wage going up will compensate though as it's coming later in the cycle. Plus the report and article point out that no one will be worse off in cash terms. New claimants of some benefits will be worse off compared to "if" they claimed today.


They had already accounted for the changes announced in the minimum wage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64420
And tax threashholds ? Any ways no one is having their benefits cut in cash terms and inflation X almost at zero.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15435
Have they announced tax thresholds for the future or are you precognitive?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64420
Sefton wrote:
Have they announced tax thresholds for the future or are you precognitive?



At the low end yes they have:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news ... 43-3k.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5575
Location: A gaf in Bracknell
Hmmm the choice is between an honest fool with his heart in the right place, a bigoted fucktard and a slimy, conniving, fat-cheeked, pig fucking cunt...choices!

It's planetrugby...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15435
bimboman wrote:
Sefton wrote:
Have they announced tax thresholds for the future or are you precognitive?



At the low end yes they have:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news ... 43-3k.html

So if they have been announced how do you know these independent studies haven't accounted for them?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64420
houtkabouter wrote:
Hmmm the choice is between an honest fool with his heart in the right place, a bigoted fucktard and a slimy, conniving, fat-cheeked, pig fucking cunt...choices!

It's planetrugby...



But he isn't honest, only the naive believe that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5575
Location: A gaf in Bracknell
bimboman wrote:
houtkabouter wrote:
Hmmm the choice is between an honest fool with his heart in the right place, a bigoted fucktard and a slimy, conniving, fat-cheeked, pig fucking cunt...choices!

It's planetrugby...



But he isn't honest, only the naive believe that.

Only dicks think Cameron is good for the country.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Posts: 37292
Location: Planet Rock
bimboman wrote:
Anonymous. wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
So teachers, policing and healthcare are all facing massive staffing shortfalls, but we still need to cut lots of public spending. Despite deficits not actually being damaging to economies, and the cost of borrowing remaining pretty low - and bonds being a pretty under-used option for raising more public money.


And you lot wonder why the Tories are unpopular



So unpopular they just won a general election.?

They are not as unpopular as they were when the witch who is now dead was in power but they are still very unpopular in my house



Oh let's take them out of power then, I'll write to Cameron and ask for him to resign.
:nod:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64420
Sefton wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Sefton wrote:
Have they announced tax thresholds for the future or are you precognitive?



At the low end yes they have:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news ... 43-3k.html

So if they have been announced how do you know these independent studies haven't accounted for them?


These independent studies disagree by 100% on the potential loss, you quoted em you tell me. Then again the iFS one is sure no one loses in cash terms.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64420
houtkabouter wrote:
bimboman wrote:
houtkabouter wrote:
Hmmm the choice is between an honest fool with his heart in the right place, a bigoted fucktard and a slimy, conniving, fat-cheeked, pig fucking cunt...choices!

It's planetrugby...



But he isn't honest, only the naive believe that.

Only dicks think Cameron is good for the country.



Concise and detailed there fella. :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5575
Location: A gaf in Bracknell
bimboman wrote:
houtkabouter wrote:
bimboman wrote:
houtkabouter wrote:
Hmmm the choice is between an honest fool with his heart in the right place, a bigoted fucktard and a slimy, conniving, fat-cheeked, pig fucking cunt...choices!

It's planetrugby...



But he isn't honest, only the naive believe that.

Only dicks think Cameron is good for the country.



Concise and detailed there fella. :thumbup:

I was just going to say dick, but I felt like I needed to include more people...it's my generous, inclusive heart.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3063
houtkabouter wrote:
bimboman wrote:
houtkabouter wrote:
Hmmm the choice is between an honest fool with his heart in the right place, a bigoted fucktard and a slimy, conniving, fat-cheeked, pig fucking cunt...choices!

It's planetrugby...



But he isn't honest, only the naive believe that.

Only dicks think Cameron is good for the country.


I think you'd find (if it were possible to unravel this data from all the background noise) that a majority of people thought in May that Cameron was the least bad option. Some may still believe this, but again, the information is not easily found. For what it's worth, I don't support bombing in Syria and believe that the fact Corbyn holds the same view is not a sign that we share the same values, but his opposition is born of never agreeing with the opinion of the leaders (of country or of party). I found it hard to reach a conclusion, but am opposed to bombing on the grounds that for every argument that we should bomb, there is an equally convincing argument against. I do hope I am wrong however.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 64420
The millions who voted for the Tories, and he still polls massively more than any other potential leader, I personally think he's a PR man lacking in conviction but compared to Corbyn he's the second f ing coming of the messiah ....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 8:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 11:46 am
Posts: 2819
Quote:
Jeremy Corbyn now abandoned by everyone apart from voters

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is now so isolated politically that he can only call upon the support of a shadowy group of people known in the UK as “voters”, it emerged today.

Facing certain defeat in the Oldham by-election, Corbyn played a typically dastardly trick in persuading normal English people to come out of their homes in droves to vote for the Labour candidate.

The result, in which Labour scored a huge popular majority with an increased share of the vote, was condemned by commentators as “treason” and “Labour sympathising.


http://eveningharold.com/2015/12/04/jeremy-corbyn-now-abandoned-by-everyone-apart-from-voters/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 8:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4515
c69 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
c69 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
AND-y wrote:
Tories are always a little scared that the socialists are going to seize power. Some of corbyns rhetoric obviously makes them jumpy.



It's what his rhetoric leaves out, he says "tax the wealthy", hurray everyone goes,

"the wealthy are any home owner, anyone earning more than 40k per household per year" is what he means but doesn't say.

I also fit in that bracket and would willingly pay more tax if it means a better health service, better social care and better education.
Scrapping Trident would probably help with that without raising taxes.


Trident would make less than 1% of income tax difference. How much more spending would you like on health in percentage terms ?

So you admit that it could help to lessen the tax burden.
Even 1% is a start.


didnt blair take a penny in the pound income tax for the nhs, (iirc)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 04, 2015 8:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 21422
Silver wrote:
backrow wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Chuckles1188 wrote:
So teachers, policing and healthcare are all facing massive staffing shortfalls, but we still need to cut lots of public spending. Despite deficits not actually being damaging to economies, and the cost of borrowing remaining pretty low - and bonds being a pretty under-used option for raising more public money.


And you lot wonder why the Tories are unpopular



So unpopular they just won a general election.?

And are you sure if we increased our non damaging deficit by 20% borrowing rates would remain low? Please go on more about bonds being under used how have you reached that conclusion. What about the 1.5 trillion already owed by the state, which generation do you want to pick up the tab for that ?


As I said before, the left are woefully financial illiterate

"We are in too much debt - I know lets borrow more" - sheesh !


You are the financially ignorant one. Focusing on the irrelevant liability side but forgetting about the critical asset side.

The non Govt sector can not net save without the Govt sector taking on debt. This is a fact. Govt bonds are held as an asset by the non Govt sector. Often by pension funds. Without this one entities savings = another entities debt = no non Govt net savings.


You need to read up on money creation, leverage, what an actual asset is .... Just about everything really. By your definition countries would just get print as much money as possible because the more govt debt exists, the more private assets we have. Also, how would countries with no debt / vast surpluses exist ?

You utter nob.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 6435 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 161  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Fat Old Git, hlvp, Mr Mike, Normac, usermame, Working Class Rugger, Zakar, ZappaMan and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group