Jump to content

General Election 8th June


faraway saint

Recommended Posts

Guest TPAFKATS
The circle could be rendered less vicious if the companies who extract their profits from our society actually paid taxes that helped pay for society's infrastructures that it uses.
such as roads, transport, education, health police and all the other services necessary for civilisation.
it's not the pensioners nor the poor people that governments need to confront, but the companies leaching wealth out of our societies.

This.
It's about choices that we make as a society and how our government er, governs that. Currently they choose to allow tax avoidance on a scale that could wipe out our entire 'debt'.
They also choose to prioritise bombing people and replacing trident, yet tell us plebs we need austerity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Guest TPAFKATS
Perhaps... but it is intellectually and morally much more acceptable and practical than right wing punishing of the weakest in our society.

My quoted post wasn't left wing. What I said about pensions and pensioners is recognised by left, right, centre and even RickMcD [emoji6]

 

The poster is just being an attention seeking blowhard...again

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, oaksoft said:

£40 a week to live on?

She is splurging £160 a week. Where are you getting £40 a week from? Where are you getting this power card story from? Nobody mentioned that. You have just made that up.

Either way there is no excuse for paying enough welfare that someone can splurge the equivalent of £650 a week on food, soap, bleach and toilet roll. Nobody should be supporting that sort of profligacy. You also failed to realise she is whining that this is not enough!

The £40 is per person.  4 people her weekly shop is £160.  It's mental arithmetic.  You need to have skillset...

The power card story?  I wrote, "I would suggest.."  You could have read that - though that requires yet another skill.

Many people buy cards for their power supply - it's more expensive but the only practical way for those who do not have a bank account nor the excess wealth to enable them to set up cheap standing orders for an all round cheaper energy supply.

Their tv and other supplies would be included in that weekly shop.

 

But you have just made up that she was wasting £160 a week on food.  It was her 'weekly shop'.

Now you are trying to deflect from that lie, which I have already proved to be the case by quoting the article you cite.

And in this latest post, you make up even more numbers to demonise  them.

You've made up £650 'splurging'  It's certainly nowhere in the article.

 

To pay rent and all their other costs a figure of £550 is mentioned.  Her partner works as does another family member, Nicola  (on minimum wage).  So it is a combination of their earned income plus the minimal social aid that pays for all their £550  'splurging'.

 

My 'realisation' is that she is not whining - she is coping  - she expects nothing from political change..

You fail to read and understand the story - as it suits your desire to mock and demonise people less privileged than yourself.

 

I thought you were better than that.

 

 

 

 

Edited by antrin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh its so exciting the snap crackle pop election

  • Tories can only talk about Independence and Brexit, and in living memory only party to change the manifesto before they come to power
  • Labour can refinance everything and have Dianne Abbot
  • UKIP are dead, as are the Liberals
  • And the SNPs keep telling the truth, which goes against them...........

 

Like to thank May for doing a stunning campaign, she is the Raith Rovers of politics and might even get relegated.............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labour - Unelectable just now and I think they need to reinvent themselves again and it could be another 2 elections before they can be considered a 'good option'

( I've always voted labour )

Lib Dem - If the best they can muster while labour continues to be in disarray then that sums that up. Going into coalition was they only way they'd have 'power' but being puppets comes at a cost.

UKIP - Still has a role to play at the moment but after brexit ? Not sure

SNP - Can't comment as haven't lived in Scotland for over 30 years

Conservatives- Never voted for and I have to be honest, they are the best option for stability in the economy- Can't see anything other than comfortable majority

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS

Like to thank May for doing a stunning campaign, she is the Raith Rovers of politics and might even get relegated.............

[emoji23]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whydowebother said:

Labour - Unelectable just now and I think they need to reinvent themselves again and it could be another 2 elections before they can be considered a 'good option'

( I've always voted labour )

Lib Dem - If the best they can muster while labour continues to be in disarray then that sums that up. Going into coalition was they only way they'd have 'power' but being puppets comes at a cost.

UKIP - Still has a role to play at the moment but after brexit ? Not sure

SNP - Can't comment as haven't lived in Scotland for over 30 years

Conservatives- Never voted for and I have to be honest, they are the best option for stability in the economy- Can't see anything other than comfortable majority

Mate, totally respect your opinion

 

Can I ask though , just out of curiosity- What is stable about the Tories? They brought Brexit to the table and totally destabilized the country and our kids futures, they cut cut public services, destabilized NHS. Police . They have lied on  NI contributions, Brexit, and Mental Health, plus brought in the barbaric Rape Clause....

Whilst I appreciate you don't have the SNPs down there, is this just them over a slightly worse bunch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How or why would millionaire cabinet ministers vote against their own interests, their own financial stability if not improvement, for the greater good of the electorate in general ?

Why is the FTSE at a record high in a country that is shuffling along just above another recession?

Just asking like......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate, totally respect your opinion
 
Can I ask though , just out of curiosity- What is stable about the Tories? They brought Brexit to the table and totally destabilized the country and our kids futures, they cut cut public services, destabilized NHS. Police . They have lied on  NI contributions, Brexit, and Mental Health, plus brought in the barbaric Rape Clause....
Whilst I appreciate you don't have the SNPs down there, is this just them over a slightly worse bunch?

Last paragraph captures it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the record high FTSE is due to the weak pound.  Multinationals, registered in UK but doing most of their business elsewhere, get more pounds for their dollar/yen/ euro/whatever when it is converted into (or, to be more precise, reported in) pounds for accounting purposes.


Hmmm.

As an apolitical type I'm just asking simple questions or opining on certain observations but it strikes me that yet again, as if it were ever in doubt that politicians just look after themselves first.

I mean why not go after offshore tax havens, corporation tax, oh that's right, sets a precedent. That could damage the PM's husbands finances [emoji1]

Naive of me, yup, for sure.

Just why make such a cnunt of a country's governance. The hypocrisy is truly mind bending.

We have far too many politicians and they are a source of irritation. Where are the honourable types, the leaders and those of some standing, presence and gravitas. It's all self seeking dipsticks that we have now. Our current PM looks like a scared rabbit when asked anything she does not have a sound bite reply scripted for her.

It's all yaboo, bah, boo, petty squabbling he said she said stuff.

Tomorrow, hmm , ballot paper, is it meat n two veg or simply the "not worthy" of my vote party.

[emoji23]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, antrin said:

Perhaps... but it is intellectually and morally much more acceptable and practical than right wing punishing of the weakest in our society.

 No it isn't because it assumes that money taken from the rich will boost benefits.

It won't because fundamentally we should not be paying people enpugh money that they can turn benefits into a life of dependency along with associated costs in policing, health, education and the generational cycle which blights people's lives.

Benefits should only be about providing assistance unless you have specific disabilities which prevent you from working.

That is why it is irrelevant to keep banging on about the 1% number.

The cost is far higher than that, personally, financially and socially.

I am beginning to wonder who actually cares most about those at the bottom.

There is no moral case for targetting successful people and handing their cash over to fund feckless lifestyles at the bottom.

None whatsoever.

Keep this nonsense up and you'll have me voting Tory tomorrow instead of SNP.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, antrin said:

The £40 is per person.  4 people her weekly shop is £160.  It's mental arithmetic.  You need to have skillset...

The power card story?  I wrote, "I would suggest.."  You could have read that - though that requires yet another skill.

Many people buy cards for their power supply - it's more expensive but the only practical way for those who do not have a bank account nor the excess wealth to enable them to set up cheap standing orders for an all round cheaper energy supply.

Their tv and other supplies would be included in that weekly shop.

 

But you have just made up that she was wasting £160 a week on food.  It was her 'weekly shop'.

Now you are trying to deflect from that lie, which I have already proved to be the case by quoting the article you cite.

And in this latest post, you make up even more numbers to demonise  them.

You've made up £650 'splurging'  It's certainly nowhere in the article.

 

To pay rent and all their other costs a figure of £550 is mentioned.  Her partner works as does another family member, Nicola  (on minimum wage).  So it is a combination of their earned income plus the minimal social aid that pays for all their £550  'splurging'.

 

My 'realisation' is that she is not whining - she is coping  - she expects nothing from political change..

You fail to read and understand the story - as it suits your desire to mock and demonise people less privileged than yourself.

 

I thought you were better than that.

 

 

 

 

You have misunderstood that article.

You have confused the £160 per week figure (which is obviously around £650 per month) and the £550 per month figure for housing and associated costs. That latter figure is what will take care of the TV, the electric and gas and the rent etc.

£160 is clearly just for food. I will accept toiletries as well but FFS what difference do you think that will make? How much does bog paper, soap and dettol cost where you live?

By bringing taxing the rich into a discussion about welfare and moving TV and heating costs form the "rent and associated costs" pile into the "weekly shop" pile,  you are playing the left wing game of deflection and downright bullshit to defend the completely indefensible.

Nobody should be paying tax to support that amount of money but hey you go ahead and fork out. Fortunately running my own business means I can opt out of a lot of it.

Oh and you can cut out that moral high ground pish.

I want to make sure my tax goes to those who genuinely need it - such as those disabled etc. I certainly am happy to help this seemingly healthy woman whilst she finds a job. I am not prepared to pay for her lifestyle. I am certainly not going to keep quiet and tolerate her bitching that I am not giving her enough cash. Ungrateful bastards don't sit well with me.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Seaside Nipper said:

How or why would millionaire cabinet ministers vote against their own interests, their own financial stability if not improvement, for the greater good of the electorate in general ?

Why is the FTSE at a record high in a country that is shuffling along just above another recession?

Just asking like......

Because the FTSE is measuring the top 100 or 250 companies in the UK.

There are 2 million other companies not listed.

Therefore what the FTSE is doing is not always a reasonable indicator of the country's financial position.

If the general population want to become millionaires there is not a single other person stopping them.

They just need to stop whining and get on with it.

Our country is full of people who grew up in poverty but have worked hard enough to escape (I was one of them).

Many have become financially comfortable as a result.

Many of us are scratching our heads and wondering why so many are prepared to do nothing to help themselves and instead whine about others being "privileged".

Beyond helping those in need and those who need temporary help, why would you possibly think that after a lifetime of struggling to gain financial comfort that those who do so should willingly and happily allow the lazy and the feckless to just help themselves to our hard earned money?

These people are not even prepared to acknowledge the sacrifices successful people make to get rich and show absolutely no appreciation that so many are prepared to help out those at the bottom. And you wonder why the rich get slightly pissed off at being portrayed as bastards?

You must be joking right?

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, oaksoft said:

You have misunderstood that article.

You have confused the £160 per week figure (which is obviously around £650 per month) and the £550 per month figure for housing and associated costs. That latter figure is what will take care of the TV, the electric and gas and the rent etc.

£160 is clearly just for food. I will accept toiletries as well but FFS what difference do you think that will make? How much does bog paper, soap and dettol cost where you live?

By bringing taxing the rich into a discussion about welfare and moving TV and heating costs form the "rent and associated costs" pile into the "weekly shop" pile,  you are playing the left wing game of deflection and downright bullshit to defend the completely indefensible.

Nobody should be paying tax to support that amount of money but hey you go ahead and fork out. Fortunately running my own business means I can opt out of a lot of it.

Oh and you can cut out that moral high ground pish.

I want to make sure my tax goes to those who genuinely need it - such as those disabled etc. I certainly am happy to help this seemingly healthy woman whilst she finds a job. I am not prepared to pay for her lifestyle. I am certainly not going to keep quiet and tolerate her bitching that I am not giving her enough cash. Ungrateful bastards don't sit well with me.

Well... NO.

 

You misunderstood or chose to read what YOU want into it.

She and her working husband and working daughter have taken on the job of helping care for someone else's kids.  (Parenting has been her job?)

When asked about her circumstances by a journo, she has replied - not whining cos she expects this election to help her situation  not one iota - that she thinks it understandably perverted that her help to do that from the state has been cut. (One of the kids is disabled, you know the type you MIGHT help out, but you didn't want to read that, did you?)

And did I speak of taxing the rich? Or taxing successful people?  Or have you made that up also to fit your selfish agenda?

The answers are that I didn't and you have.

 

I spoke of the iniquity of all the companies that are failing to contribute to the Common Weal, paying the minimal or simply no tax back into the communities from which they derive their wealth.

Edited by antrin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

 No it isn't because it assumes that money taken from the rich will boost benefits.

IT DOESN'T ASSUME THAT, AT ALL.

It won't because fundamentally we should not be paying people enpugh money that they can turn benefits into a life of dependency along with associated costs in policing, health, education and the generational cycle which blights people's lives.

Benefits should only be about providing assistance unless you have specific disabilities which prevent you from working.

That is why it is irrelevant to keep banging on about the 1% number.

WHERE DOES THIS LATEST MAGIC NUMBER YOU'VE CONJURED COME FROM?  :o

The cost is far higher than that, personally, financially and socially.

I am beginning to wonder who actually cares most about those at the bottom.

NOT YOU, CERTAINLY.

There is no moral case for targetting successful people and handing their cash over to fund feckless lifestyles at the bottom.

THERE IS HOWEVER A CASE FOR GETTING COMPANIES TO PAY TAXES IN THE COMMMUNITY FROM WHICH THEIR PROFITS ARE GENERATED....  WHICH IS ALL THAT I SAID.

None whatsoever.

Keep this nonsense up and you'll have me voting Tory tomorrow instead of SNP.

 IT'S YOU WHO HAS THE MONOPOLY ON NONSENSE...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

 No it isn't because it assumes that money taken from the rich will boost benefits.

It won't because fundamentally we should not be paying people enpugh money that they can turn benefits into a life of dependency along with associated costs in policing, health, education and the generational cycle which blights people's lives.

Benefits should only be about providing assistance unless you have specific disabilities which prevent you from working.

That is why it is irrelevant to keep banging on about the 1% number.

The cost is far higher than that, personally, financially and socially.

I am beginning to wonder who actually cares most about those at the bottom.

There is no moral case for targetting successful people and handing their cash over to fund feckless lifestyles at the bottom.

None whatsoever.

Keep this nonsense up and you'll have me voting Tory tomorrow instead of SNP.

While I'm disgusted by your generalisation of people who need benefits and your utterly contemptible defence of the better off, many of  whom, at the top end, do all they can to take from society without giving back, I do agree, (shock, horror), that there are some who abuse the benefits system. The state pays no more than they believe necessary to all who request assistance. The bad apples at the lower end need to be stopped from milking the system. BUT. This goes just as much for those at the top end who make their cash on the back of working people. I, for one, am not saying they don't deserve their money for their entrepreneurial psyche but, having made this cash, it is morally indefensible for them to attempt to give nothing back. I personally know of one such individual who actually demands one of his workers collects a prescription for things like suntan lotion or paracetamol from the pharmacist for his wife at all hours of the day while employing an accountant to ensure he pays next to nothing in taxes. And I'm sure he's not alone. To clarify. If it were up to me I, and many others who don't need the assistance, should be paying something toward my medicines. I said this before the free deal was in place as I had an exemption certificate due to the type of condition I have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS


Hmmm.

As an apolitical type I'm just asking simple questions or opining on certain observations but it strikes me that yet again, as if it were ever in doubt that politicians just look after themselves first.

I mean why not go after offshore tax havens, corporation tax, oh that's right, sets a precedent. That could damage the PM's husbands finances [emoji1]

Naive of me, yup, for sure.

Just why make such a cnunt of a country's governance. The hypocrisy is truly mind bending.

We have far too many politicians and they are a source of irritation. Where are the honourable types, the leaders and those of some standing, presence and gravitas. It's all self seeking dipsticks that we have now. Our current PM looks like a scared rabbit when asked anything she does not have a sound bite reply scripted for her.

It's all yaboo, bah, boo, petty squabbling he said she said stuff.

Tomorrow, hmm , ballot paper, is it meat n two veg or simply the "not worthy" of my vote party.

[emoji23]

Going after tax dodgers is something Corbyn has been getting pilloried for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TPAFKATS

The amount of money cheated out of the welfare system is miniscule in comparison to what is list through tax avoidance by individuals, small companies and large corporations.
As a society we laud corporations who pay minimum wage to zero hours contract workers while castigating the same workers for needing benefits to get by partly due to exorbitant rents created by a housing bubble that has removed the ability for most to get on the housing market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...