UK General Election 2015 | Conservatives win with an overall majority
- Thread starter langster
- Start date
Do you deny the role of an increasing population and the density of such in creating a sustainable society? Let's not return to the folly of the Labour years in which the debate only seemed to operate at extremes. For the benefit of both communities and migrants these parties actually need to demonstrate some management skills, as opposed to just bandying around arbitrary targets by way of political fodder.
After having read further into the story, her daughter presently occupies one of the properties and presumably Ms Evans another, the status of the third is not mentioned.
Last edited:
They support UKIP based on the parties views and policies therefore I made an observation that they'll have to get back to work if they ever succeed in stopping immigration. I didn't say they are (on the) dole scum that's what you said. I said there's a fundamental difference between those who are on benefits for one reason or another and those who blame immigration for everything that is wrong with with Britian and their life, including being on benefits.
As opposed to working all your life and then getting hit with ridiculous sanctions when you need help under the Tories
I do not deny that there is an housing crisis. But to blame it on immigration is a populist myth.
Its been a while since I did immigration work but I think you can apply for a work visa if your claim takes over 12 months (which was the maximum target for turning a case around at the time I used to do it). That used to be true under Labour, but Ive been out of that line of work since before the Tories took over, so it may have changed.
If asylum seekers are not allowed to work then the state pays for their benefits. If they are allowed to work then they pay their way through life. 12 month turnaround is the biggest joke government will tell you. Try 3 years plus as a minimum with cases going on for 5-10 years and in some rare ones for 15 years by which time they would have qualified for indefinite leave to remain under long residency (abolished recently). Can you imagine someone not being able to work for 15 years. The choice would be scrape by on benefits or work illegally. What would you choose?
Amusingly asylum seekers can be given National Insurance cards, so if they work illegally they can still pay national insurance.
Nigh on a year in limbo, during which time the state uses inadequate support as some form of block against their actions.
Well i'd like to think that the remainder my original post clarified my position on the matter. I can certainly understand why someone might feel compelled to work outside of the system if you will, but such a existence must leave a person forever looking over their shoulder, and prey to gangmasters or worse.
Last edited:
Just walked past John Prescott at a train station, we can now say the campaign has truly begun.
The principle reason for having a delay is to deter short term economic migrants. You fairly obviously couldn't have a situation where anyone can come and work immediately because it could be financially advantageous to come, make a completely spurious claim and just work your ass off at minimum wage for a few months before going back.
The other thing is that you'd have to means test genuine asylum seekers month after month, otherwise you'd have a situation where people were claiming NASS funding despite working full time. Means testing is hugely time consuming pro-active process, and you'd significantly increase your caseworker costs at a stroke.
They also pay tax depending on if they reach the threshold. Its called illegal work because they're not allowed to actually work but they pay all taxes. Obviously there are the odd cash in handers but this doesn't happen on a large scale because businesses are afraid of the repercussions. Commonly they'd be employed with other people's legal insurance numbers and details through an agency.
When people migrate there are reasons behind it. Helping them to integrate as soon as possible is the best solution. Another one which is equally important is foreign aid. The more poverty and insecurity there is around the world, the more people will tend to migrate for a a better safer life.
In a claim to win the vote of the British pigeon UKIP will unveil a plan to stop bird migration... Farage has claimed that foreign birds are to blame for litter shortages on London streets...
Yep, that's why Cameron upped the foreign aid budget.
20% VAT, which hits the poorest hardest
Not too cheap for Cameron, he'll use his son as a prop to defend his buggering up the NHS and what went wrong at Mid Staffs to score points against Labour
Depends how you look at I guess.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/2011/01/vat-rise-affecting-people-poverty
Spot on about foreign aid. People moaning about foreign aid AND immigrants don't seem to realise that if their countries were nice places to live they wouldnt wanna come here. The amount of aid we give is still pretty miniscule compared to the amount of money the third world loses on debt interest and dodgy trade rules but that's a whole other can of worms that I'm not really clued up enough on to talk about.
The rich will paym most in absolute terms, but not as a proportion of their income, no shit sherlock
Actually it has not hit people equally and here is the study to explain why:
It will catch up by 15/16 unless we have another VAT increase. It was calculated by IFS at the time and not a simplification. Here's the table below.
Conservatives say that we have increased personal allowance, we have made the economy strong and blah blah blah, but people are worse off. And this is just one of the many reasons.
If you want we can go into healthcare, £3bn is what the reorganization they pledged not to do cost. £3bn that could have paid for a lot of things the NHS is struggling with. There's videos circulating of them pledging to inject £8bn in the NHS however not a single answer of where the money will come from. It was avoided 18 times by Osborne. Pickles did the same when asked where the money to fund 3 days leave for people to do volunteering would come from.
From what I see the Conservatives have decided we're not staying another term after this anyway so lets just lie our way through by promising people what they want to get into power and then do what we want anyway like we did last time.
Another ducking of an important question. Tories not committing to not cutting the 45p rate of tax.
Labour still not understanding the difference between millionaires and high earners then.
So millionaires are not included in that 45p tax bracket?
Generally I'd say not, depends on your definition of a millionaire, assets or income.
Where did I say that?
I said there's a difference between millionaires and people who earn over £150k.
What is there not to understand?
Because if there are millionaires in the 45p tax bracket, and the 45p tax bracket is given a cut, then some millionaires have had a tax cut. So Labour aren't misunderstanding anything, according to that logic.
I posted a video and you said Labour still not understanding the difference between millionaires and high earners. The video does not give any indication that they don't understand it so I asked you if millionaires were included in the 45p rate of tax which the Tories are being asked about.
You're clutching at straws here.
By the same logic, the benefit cuts have caused a loss to millionaires, and the cut to 45% has helped the poor.
I should have said that Labour were misleading rather than misunderstanding of course - I guess for some that's preferable.
Whether you want to call them millionaires or just very rich, I think we all know that cutting income tax for people earning over £150k should not be a priority right now.
Sure, we're the ones clutching at straws.
I don't want to call them "millionaires" or "very rich". They're high-earners - a different set of people. A tax on those groups exclusively would be a completely different type of tax.
If it raises taxes then it should be a priority.
Besides which, the top rate of tax is 5% higher than Labour had it for 90% of their term, and 5% higher than they planned it to be this term. Not to mention the NI changes that exclusively affect those earning over £150k.
Last edited:
oh the irony.
Do either of you have an argument?
Are you seriously suggesting the advertisement is not misleading?
It's imprecise but gets across the point of the potential tax cut clearly enough. It's just a soundbite, nothing to get too picky about.
I'd be interested in seeing some data to suggest that there aren't enough millionaires in that tax bracket for Labour's claim to be legitimate. The point of the line is that millionaires benefit from the cut, 99% of the country don't. As Mike says, it's a soundbite to convey a message. The message is neither untrue nor misleading.
It is not misleading at all because if the 45p rate was to be cut by 5p millionaires are the ones who benefit the most.
Someone earning £250k would get an extra £5k to take home while someone earning £1.15m would get an extra £50k to take home.
Not difficult to understand unless you don't want to, move on.
"High earners" would be merely imprecise. It's not as if the term "millionaires" is some broad metaphor for an ill-defined set of people.
Millionaires are one set of people defined by their wealth.
People earning over £150k are another set - defined by their income.
To say that it's a tax cut for millionaires is misleading - it's an entirely different sort of tax cut for a different set of people.
I'm not sure that's true, I think there's a perfectly reasonable argument to be made that we would increase tax revenues by cutting the top rate. In addition, it would encourage talented people to relocate to England and keep the City competitive.
In terms of tax revenues, it likely makes little difference either way. http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066
For the left a more progressive tax system (i.e. higher taxes on the wealthy) is a matter of reducing inequality as much as it is about raising revenue.
If the point of the line is to make people think that "millionaires benefit" (they don't necessarily), and that "99% of the country don't" (a meaningless phrase if those 99% aren't defined), then it's not doing any sort of job other than mislead.