soretooth

Osborne's being politically very clever in bringing in the new tax statements that show exactly what tax you've paid and how it has been spent. For example someone on 25 grand pays around

If he really wanted to help poor people he would cut VAT. He should also cut pension tax relief for people on +150K which would save him 7 billion a year if he is serious about the rich contributing more.

Positive: Corporation tax down.

I'm no tax expert but I found this blog on corporation tax interesting.

http://treasureislands.org/cutting-corpora...quack-medicine/

As Budget Day approaches the UK Chancellor is vowing to press ahead with cuts in the UK corporate tax rate and to create new loopholes for corporations using offshore tax havens. The 2010 budget announced four annual drops in the main rate of corporation tax from 28 percent in 2010 to 24 percent in 2014, with the stated aim of making Britain more

Mr Seven should win a "Shite Noise" award for his risible top 50 songs thread.

[Homer's edited interview on "Rock Bottom"]

Homer: Somebody had to take the babysitter home, then I noticed she was sitting on / her / sweet can... / so I grabbed / her / sweet can... / Ohhhh, just thinking about / her / can... / I just wish I had / her / sweet, sweet / s/s/sweet can...

Godfrey Jones: So, Mr. Simpson, you admit you grabbed her can. What do you have to say in your defense?

(scene shows a still video shot of Homer looking lustful)

Mr. Simpson, your silence will only incriminate you further!

(the frozen image of Homer begins to slowly zoom in)

No, Mr. Simpson, don't take your anger out on me! Get back! Get back! M-Mr. Simpson! NOOOO!

(The screen freezes on the screaming Godfrey)

TV Announcer: Dramatization. May not have happened.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...sector-pensions

Really agree with this article on the Guardian blog, especially the bit I highlighted.

Public sector pensions are facing a highly political attack

 

When we in the PCS union announced the result of our strike vote on Wednesday, Francis Maude declared, "there is no justification for any civil servant going on strike while discussions are continuing".

 

Today, Danny Alexander, the chief secretary to the Treasury, has proved our union and our members right, and we welcome the decision of the headteachers' union to ballot for action in the autumn. Alexander has now publicly said what ministers have been saying in private for weeks, in effect: "We're happy to talk, but we will raise the pension age, increase contributions, lower accrual rates and we've already imposed reduced indexation through CPI". What's left to negotiate?

 

My union and others engaged in the talks in the honest hope of a settlement. We talked with the previous government, when part of the ministerial team was John (now Lord) Hutton, and the agreement reached in 2006 was described by Labour cabinet ministers as "a properly negotiated settlement" that "saved

What I found funny about Vince Cables speech yesterday was the fact that Trade Unions are seen purely for starting and conducting strikes these days, even to the point where their members boo when stopping a strike is mentioned, when theres not even a strike planned yet.

This is enough to back up any government claims that tougher strike and union laws should be in place. Recession? What recession?

 

The RMT said the offer of a 4.5% rise this year, and inflation plus 0.25% for the next four years, was not enough.

 

Last week, RMT leader Bob Crow said he wanted a deal similar to one agreed for Network Rail staff - a 10% rise over two years and a one-off

Vince Cable says you are welcome to your democratic right to strike, but if you use it, we'll take it away.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/ju...espread-strikes

Vince Cable warns unions against widespread strikes

 

Business secretary heckled as he tells GMB conference that widespread action would increase pressure for tightening of anti-strike laws

 

The business secretary, Vince Cable, was booed and heckled as he warned unions that widespread industrial action over spending cuts could ratchet up pressure on the government to make it harder for workers to strike.

 

Cable's comments

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/ma...me-improvements

David Cameron spent

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/05/came...hen-photoshoot/

As new household spending figures hit a two-year low and families suffer the the worst income squeeze since the early 1980s, the Camerons have caught the national mood by, erm, showcasing their newly-fitted

I came here to post that Johann Hari article, he always writes good stuff. False Economy's take on it:

The Budget was a non-event. The real story is the worsening forecasts

 

Despite Osborne hailing

The Andrew Lansley Rap

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/03/max...edit-card-myth/

The UK

Yeah, Happ Hazzard is one very well fed troll in this thread. Shame he is spoiling it for everyone else

The Independent journalist blamed the bankers for the fact that services for the homeless were being cut.

No he didn't, he blamed the bankers for causing the financial crisis. He blamed David Cameron for cutting the services to the homeless:

All of these cuts to services for the homeless could have been stopped if Cameron had moved one figure on a spreadsheet: if he had taken the

How in the shit could the Coalition specify with any real conviction what they would cut until they got into power and saw the state of the public finances themselves, though?

The public finances are, er, public? They knew all the figures and costed them into their pre-election budgets. The whole "we didn't know how bad things were" is a smokescreen. The size of the deficit was revised down immediately following the election. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10136055

Hold up, guy who said "nobody voted for cuts." If I recall right, the Tories got the most seats, but not a majority. So some people obviously voted for cuts

I never said nobody voted for cuts, I said the coalition are making cuts that nobody voted for because they weren't in the manifestos.

People are never going to vote for cuts to anything to do with them. Yet cuts still have to be made.

Perhaps, but not to the extent they are doing now. From http://falseeconomy.org.uk/cure/the-false-...-to-the-deficit

Why the cuts won

I don't think anyone is denying he is a hypocrite, but I'm pragmatic enough to see there are more positives in letting the coalition work then forcing a minority government, nothing happening and more Labour continuing it's march to hell.

But you said you were a Liberal voting person, so you are content to vote for a hypocrite? Pragmatism's got nothing to do with it. It guts me that the party I misguidedly voted for are propping up this coalition and putting through cuts that no-one voted for, because they were not in either manifesto, and in many cases directly contradict what both parties promised they would do when they were trying to get elected.

Did you vote Lib Dem in the general election? And you're happy with how things turned out, you feel like you got what you voted for? I voted for them and now I feel like a gullible twat. I felt totally betrayed, lied to and stabbed in the back when I watched the coalition be formed and Cameron made prime minister. I will never vote for that party again as long as I live.

What did you vote for?

I'll freely admit that I was taken in by "Cleggmania", especially after the TV debates. Here's his introduction to their manifesto, I've bolded the bits that stand out the most to me as his blatant hypocrisy now he's in power.

Elections that can really make a difference don

It's weird, as a Liberal voting person even I feel like a minority on here, admittedly I am more centrist then a lot but it's quite ridiculous.

 

Take solace in the fact in spite of them positive changes for the medium and long term security of the UK are happening. For all the rhetoric, they're on the back foot. And it is a good thing.

Did you vote Lib Dem in the general election? And you're happy with how things turned out, you feel like you got what you voted for? I voted for them and now I feel like a gullible twat. I felt totally betrayed, lied to and stabbed in the back when I watched the coalition be formed and Cameron made prime minister. I will never vote for that party again as long as I live.

The spending cuts are necessary to balance the books, I don't see how people can still be against them, it's blindingly obvious, but then I find myself expecting a bit more from people then I probably should. Public services are bloated and inefficient and need cutting as they bring nothing in and private companies just can't support it.

 

The current national debt is less than the value of our banking "investments." The deficit is on the large side, but still manageable.

 

I would stress that I support a balanced budget. In fact, I support running a small surplus to be set aside/prudently invested to be used for genuine Keynesian balancing measures when the economy takes another downturn then, as that investment grows, I'd like to see the growth used to fund gradual tax cuts starting from the bottom up. But that's beside the point. The point is that the scale of the cuts is unnecessary and is almost entirely ideologically driven.

Exactly right. Yoghurt and people who have swallowed the line that cuts are unavoidable, have a look at this website, http://falseeconomy.org.uk/ which has a very good clear explanation of why the cuts won't help the economy and will make Britain more unfair.

But most people are a net liability on the state over the full course of their life. We need to ensure that we have the same, or more, of the people that are net contributors over their lifetime, and less of the people that are net recipients, and preferably none of the people who contribute next to nothing and take everything they can get. We can do this by closely analysing the data and formulating public policy using the information gleaned.

That's just such a simplistic view. Aside from the worrying idea that you can divide people into those you deem worthy to reproduce and those who should be wiped out, how would you measure it? Tax paid vs benefit claimed? People contribute to society in so many other ways apart from money, for example by helping others, doing charity work, creating art, raising their children well, and all sorts of other intangible things. I don't believe that most people take out more than they put in either, what is your source for that?

We need to look at the demographics of people, and identify which socio-economic groups contribute the most, which contribute a fair amount, and which contribute the least. Then we should create policies which encourage the former to have many children, the middle group to have some children and the latter group to have few or no children.

That is mad. What are these socio-economic groups? White people, black people, rich people, poor people, Jews, Muslims, Christians, people who work in shops, people who work in offices, gingers, albinos? Who is going to say that one person's child is less worthy of being born than another person's child? You can't really believe that.

Definitely. Gypsies for example. They should be encouraged not to breed.

I'm not in favour of withdrawing benefits for many people, but I could see an argument for single people or childless couples paying less tax, on the basis that they use less. That could work as an incentive not to have children.

I don't get this idea of incentivising people not to have children. That was the great thing about child benefit, before the coalition decided to put an upper earnings limit on it - it was a universal benefit, a recognition of our society's need for people to have children. Where would we be if everyone decided not to have any kids? Our population is aging, we are all living longer, it's simple common sense. Don't try and stop people having children, it will never happen. We need to invest in our children, not try and prevent them from ever existing.

Or alternatively, they'd live with their families, as they did for generations before the welfare state...

Not really, in the past they used to have workhouses, orphanages, Magdalene laundries and all sorts of horrible things that would happen to unmarried mothers and their children. Thankfully our society has moved on since those days.