Smores
Full Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2011
- Messages
- 26,423
How so?
Wait what? How is the difference not obvious...
How so?
Wait what? How is the difference not obvious...
Because immigrants coming to this country need credit to build their lives and no financial institution is going to lend to someone who doesn't make enough money to even pay taxes.
That's why I asked you that question.
Its like a breath of fresh air.May & Trump press conference:
May was less effusive, but she said she thought their relationship was good. She also said she thought they shared a commitment to acting in the interests of “ordinary working people”.
As the president himself said, I think we have already struck up a good relationship. You ask what we have in common. I think if you look at the approach that we are both taking, one of the things we have in common is that we want to put the interests of ordinary working people right up there centre stage.
One thing Brexit has brought about, which I thought I would never see in my lifetime is how much "the ordinary working people" love the Conservatives and how much the Conservatives care about "ordinary working people"
Its like a breath of fresh air.
Next labour will be offering tax breaks to the rich and introducing austerity plans.
Its like a breath of fresh air.
Next labour will be offering tax breaks to the rich and introducing austerity plans.
Its like a breath of fresh air.
Next labour will be offering tax breaks to the rich and introducing austerity plans.
Nah. To match what May and Trump are doing they'd lie about doing all that shit, then do the exact opposite.
Politicians being politicians basically.
Pretty much. Although Trump had taken blatant bullshit to a whole new level.
The question was about paying taxes, not lending money.
Just to answer the question on why aren't Labour members up in arms like they were over the welfare bill, the answer is while Labour members are in the Remain camp they aren't anti the result. They (Like the rest of the public)know that the EU referendum result has to be respected and to be seen through. Plus after the referendum result, Labour(At the leadership level anyway)have always been about a different Brexit .How so?
Its like a breath of fresh air.
Next labour will be offering tax breaks to the rich and introducing austerity plans.
If you are self employed and don't make enough money to pay taxes you are not a good lending prospect. Can you see how the two are intertwined?
If you are self employed and don't make enough money to pay taxes you are not a good lending prospect. Can you see how the two are intertwined?
I'm confused now. Most self employed folks are self employed to lower their tax exposure, under IR35. So are you saying that they want to be PAYE employees?
Subprime/Crappy mortgages are back, coincidentally.You seem to be completely oblivious to what I am saying. If you are not paying tax that means you are earning less than £11k which is the current personal allowance. That's less than minimum wage for normal 35 hour weeks and even lesser for the hours that they actually do. What financial institution post 2008 crash is going to lend to these people?
Just to answer the question on why aren't Labour members up in arms like they were over the welfare bill, the answer is while Labour members are in the Remain camp they aren't anti the result. They (Like the rest of the public)know that the EU referendum result has to be respected and to be seen through. Plus after the referendum result, Labour(At the leadership level anyway)have always been about a different Brexit .
Just by chance who was comparing this to the welfare bill ?
You seem to be completely oblivious to what I am saying. If you are not paying tax that means you are earning less than £11k which is the current personal allowance. That's less than minimum wage for normal 35 hour weeks and even lesser for the hours that they actually do. What financial institution post 2008 crash is going to lend to these people?
Its like a breath of fresh air.
Ah come on the parallels are completely different - one was a debate that spread across 4 countries, biggest political decision since maybe WW2 and had more people voting it than any general election in the past. The other was hardly a public outcry over benefits but a plege in a tory manifesto(Which isn't worth the paper it's written on, ''we will safeguard British interests in the single market'' is one of it's pledges)by a tiny majority tory government.When polled during the leadership contest last year a majority of Labour members favoured having a second referendum, 54% yes to 34% no (slightly bigger among full members).
I'm not sure what you mean by a different kind of Brexit, but obviously we're facing a Tory Brexit and that's what Labour are voting for.
The parallels with the reform bill seem pretty clear. Both were unpopular with Labour members but both had an electoral mandate, in both cases Labour didn't want to be seen to ignore what the public was saying, but wanted to use amendments to soften the worst of the blow.
As for who's saying it, it's just social media chat.
As if credit evaluation would happen solely on the basis of current income. If he can forward a coherent business plan he will be able to take a loan.
A coherent business plan might be able to secure a start up loan for the business. Barely making ends meet for years won't get you a loan regardless of any magical business plan you can come up with.
Income, expenses and credit rating are the sole criteria used to assess mortgage applications. It requires 2-3 years of accounts to be assessed before any decision is made. If income is ploughed into limited companies and no salary is withdrawn then banks will not do any sort of lending to the individual regardless of the profit the business might be making.
I agree with the first sentence, if we're talking about mortgages. I though the issue at hand was credit for business. However it shouldn't really make any difference for the bank whether what you earn is called "income" or "profit from a limited company" (if you take it as dividends, that is, but somehow you have to make ends meet, so...)
Ah come on the parallels are completely different - one was a debate that spread across 4 countries, biggest political decision since maybe WW2 and had more people voting it than any general election in the past. The other was hardly a public outcry over benefits but a plege in a tory manifesto(Which isn't worth the paper it's written on, ''we will safeguard British interests in the single market'' is one of it's pledges)by a tiny majority tory government.
I'm not downplaying the welfare bill(I was one of those people who would have loved to see MPs deselected because of it)all I'm trying to do is give reasons why the Labour membership this time isn't up in arms about the Party voting for something they don't like.The referendum may be more important, but its revisionist to downplay the Welfare Reform bill. It was the culmination of austerity, which had dominated politics for 5 years. Brexit will have much longer ramifications, probably, but austerity was to the last Parliament what Brexit is to this one, the overarching theme. Anyway the suggestion that Corbyn stuck to his guns when it didnt matter, but not when it did, is hardly complementary.
Besides, the scale of the thing works both ways. 5 million more people voted for Remain than voted for the Tories in 2015. If the show of support for Brexit was greater then any recent General Election, so was the scale of opposition to it.
You're right to point out that sometimes manifestos contain little noticed promises that people don't really consider, but you can't argue that austerity wasn't central to the last general election. The Tories said they'd shrink Government and the welfare state if they won, and they won, so they started to do just that. Whether you argue the letter of the law or the spirit of it, the Tories had electoral justification for what they wanted to do.
Doesn't it just make you proud to be British?This is where Brexit has brought Britain today. May is in Ankara to talk with the man responsible for putting all of the journalists in jail, supporting ISIS, and currently in the process of running the economy into the ground by way of rewriting the constitution that states certain articles cannot be amended, although he'll break the law and do it anyway. Looking forward to seeing the shitty propaganda that's an attempt to spin this one.
Freedom of the Union without anything in returnWhat's exactly been offered?
What's exactly been offered?
Freedom of the Union without anything in return
erm what?
I am having a blonde moment here. What's exactly is Clegg talking about? What's this material change on FOM? Also what Germany can offer is support to an idea, nothing more
In fairness we turned a blind eye to plenty of total cnuts when it comes to selling weapons systems before brexit as wellThis is where Brexit has brought Britain today. May is in Ankara to talk with the man responsible for putting all of the journalists in jail, supporting ISIS, and currently in the process of running the economy into the ground by way of rewriting the constitution that states certain articles cannot be amended, although he'll break the law and do it anyway. Looking forward to seeing the shitty propaganda that's an attempt to spin this one.
Because it should?Glad to see May's conscience will not inconvenience business.
erm what?
I am having a blonde moment here. What's exactly is Clegg talking about? What's this material change on FOM? Also what Germany can offer is support to an idea, nothing more