Ken Clarke

[Vindec]

[QUOTE=B. Oddie;4975816]

I voted for Labour in the last General Election because I truly believe that a Labour Government led by Jeremy Corbyn is what we need to level to the social divides that exist in this country.

I have yet to hear from any Labour spokesperson how their policies are to be implemented. Privatisations, eliminating student debt, housing, increasing Benefits to eliminate so called poverty etc etc has to be paid for. We know Labour want to increase taxation on businesses but that will mean more unemployment. The upshot is that anyone on a half decent wage will be taxed to oblivion and in all probability we will return to the days when people chose not to work as a career choice. Why work when you can earn as much or even more on Benefits - we have been there before.

Labour is not the answer; but neither is any Party. Something needs to change in politics but the answer alludes me.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

[QUOTE=Vindec;4975828]

I have yet to hear from any Labour spokesperson how their policies are to be implemented. Privatisations, eliminating student debt, housing, increasing Benefits to eliminate so called poverty etc etc has to be paid for. We know Labour want to increase taxation on businesses but that will mean more unemployment. The upshot is that anyone on a half decent wage will be taxed to oblivion and in all probability we will return to the days when people chose not to work as a career choice. Why work when you can earn as much or even more on Benefits - we have been there before.

Labour is not the answer; but neither is any Party. Something needs to change in politics but the answer alludes me.

You don't think major corporations should pay the correct amount of tax, then?

[xsnaggle]

[QUOTE=Eric the Half a Bee;4975946]

You don't think major corporations should pay the correct amount of tax, then?

Shirley you are not suggesting that the amount corporations pay is 'incorrect' just because it is not as much as you think they should pay? If they pay the rate set then that is correct. If they avoid paying using the legal means to do so then that is correct.
If you mean that the should be made to pay more that is a different thing. But as the previous poster says, once you have taxed them out of business where are you going to get the money to pay all the increased benefits and hand-outs planned? Less tax because companies gone out of business plus less tax because there are less people working and paying income tax, balanced against more people wanting higher benefits is a recipe for financial disaster. If you don't understand that look at almost any labour government.

I'm all in favour of helping people be better off but when you try to level things off, like wealth, it never levels up, it only ever levels down. Which sometimes leads me to think the people who want it are preaching the politics of envy.
Of course this is just an opinion.

[surge]

[QUOTE=xsnaggle;4975963]

Shirley you are not suggesting that the amount corporations pay is 'incorrect' just because it is not as much as you think they should pay? If they pay the rate set then that is correct. If they avoid paying using the legal means to do so then that is correct.
If you mean that the should be made to pay more that is a different thing. But as the previous poster says, once you have taxed them out of business where are you going to get the money to pay all the increased benefits and hand-outs planned? Less tax because companies gone out of business plus less tax because there are less people working and paying income tax, balanced against more people wanting higher benefits is a recipe for financial disaster. If you don't understand that look at almost any labour government.

I'm all in favour of helping people be better off but when you try to level things off, like wealth, it never levels up, it only ever levels down. Which sometimes leads me to think the people who want it are preaching the politics of envy.
Of course this is just an opinion.

The previous poster also said "anyone on a half decent wage will be taxed to oblivion" (in order to end "so called poverty") when Labour's manifesto said it would increase tax for those earning £80,000 a year or more. I'm guessing the overall counter argument would be more people having more money and therefore spending more money, but that is going down arguing over personal opinion about politics and likely to get this moved to the over forum. Perhaps what I can say is that it sounds as if the previous poster will never vote for the labour party no matter what is in their manifesto which is surely just the other side of the always voting for the labour party no matter what is in their manifesto coin - something that leads to Westminster not really reflecting our society and therefore leading to greater levels of disgruntlement with the system.

[xsnaggle]

[QUOTE=surge;4975968]

The previous poster also said "anyone on a half decent wage will be taxed to oblivion" (in order to end "so called poverty") when Labour's manifesto said it would increase tax for those earning £80,000 a year or more. I'm guessing the overall counter argument would be more people having more money and therefore spending more money, but that is going down arguing over personal opinion about politics and likely to get this moved to the over forum. Perhaps what I can say is that it sounds as if the previous poster will never vote for the labour party no matter what is in their manifesto which is surely just the other side of the always voting for the labour party no matter what is in their manifesto coin - something that leads to Westminster not really reflecting our society and therefore leading to greater levels of disgruntlement with the system.

But part of the argument, whether right or wrong, is that the extra tax burden on those so called high-earners will go to the people in society who do nothing to earn it, (Whether through their own faults or the faults of others) so that money is long term just being poured away as this 'new money' will never generate the amount it was already contributing to society where it was.

As for the voting, well those in parliament are there because we, the electorate put them there in our stupidity, so we can hardly now say that they do not reflect our society or the opinions of our society. If people vote for historic reasons it is their wish and any attempt to prevent it might be seen as a little undemocratic wouldn't you agree?

[surge]

[QUOTE=xsnaggle;4975975]

But part of the argument, whether right or wrong, is that the extra tax burden on those so called high-earners will go to the people in society who do nothing to earn it, (Whether through their own faults or the faults of others) so that money is long term just being poured away as this 'new money' will never generate the amount it was already contributing to society where it was.

As for the voting, well those in parliament are there because we, the electorate put them there in our stupidity, so we can hardly now say that they do not reflect our society or the opinions of our society. If people vote for historic reasons it is their wish and any attempt to prevent it might be seen as a little undemocratic wouldn't you agree?

My first point was changing the voting system so that people don't vote for "not Corbyn" and instead vote for party that they believe in. I can't see that as being an undemocratic change.

[xsnaggle]

[QUOTE=surge;4975984]

My first point was changing the voting system so that people don't vote for "not Corbyn" and instead vote for party that they believe in. I can't see that as being an undemocratic change.

Why should people be prevented from voting for "Not Corbyn" or not anyone else, if that is the message they want to convey? Are you suggesting the law should be changed to prevent people from tactically voting to prevent someone whom they think is totally unsuited for office from coming to power? Or only being prevented for voting for "not corbyn"?