[QUOTE=xsnaggle;4975963]
Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee View Post

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.