Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

"we're all in this together"


Guest eFestivals

Recommended Posts

Yet rather than put a bit of effort in to collect that money (it's known that the average cost of getting it is just a sixth of the money it costs to get it!), the govt let Vodaphone off £6Bn in tax the courts had ruled they were legally obliged to pay, and then cuts every service they possibly can.

As I keep saying, the level of cuts we're getting is naff all to do with the deficit, and everything to do with ideology.

The bullshit that the Libs keep spouting to justify their policy u-turns of "the country is bankrupt" is utter bollox. If we cut nothing at all our borrowings would still be more managable over an economic cycle than some other major countries have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 633
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Admin

Oway man... its got a bit to do with it surely!

there's certainly a need to manage the deficit, but there's a big gap between what is necessary and what they're actually doing.

What exactly do you think this ideology is then?

Surely you know what the tories stand for? :blink:

They are against "big govt" of any form, so that they are as free as possible to use their wealth to exploit others to the fullest extent, to ensure they stay wealthy and no 'oiks' are able to join their exclusive club. The tory party is essentially the continuation of a Britain ruled by the landed gentry.

And they don't even have to be in power to have that continuation, as the operation of the machine of govt has always remained in the hands of those 'landed gentry'.

The 'reform' of the higher education system announced yesterday is a part of this, reserving (as much as they feel they can on a political level) the personal benefits of University for the richest, and excluding the 'oiks'.

The creation of 'free schools' and the NHS changes are parts of that plan too. They've come to realise over the last 20 years that the public won't accept deep cuts to normal schooling or to the NHS, and so the plan is to channel taxpayers money thru those things to benefit them and their cronies. The 'free schools' aren't going to be allowed to operate a selection policy initially, but that will come in time - and so turn them into 'private schools' where the rich can send their kids away from the oiks but where they no longer have to pay school fees for their private schooling, and giving the NHS budget to doctors changes where that money goes, from being almost always into NHS hospitals to any hospital that any doctor might choose to use. Via these things, public services turn into things for private (and limited) benefit.

The deficit is there... and some steps must be taken. Its the extremes that worry me.

Yep, and those extremes are what their ideology is driving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oway man... its got a bit to do with it surely! What exactly do you think this ideology is then?

The deficit is there... and some steps must be taken. Its the extremes that worry me.

den

Edited by worm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the worrying thing in the long run for me is where to go next, im not voting for the lib dems again after they have climbed into bed with the tory's, i would never vote tory and labour have elected a communist to run their party

equally as worrying is that i fundamentally do not trust cameron and especially george osbourne to manage our finance's

"we're all in this together" sure george but you are still set for life being a multi millionaire while my friends get made redundant due to you threatening to cancel the new warships that are employing so many people (a large majority of which i imagine would never vote tory) across the UK.

I gather there is a deficit that needs managed but massie cuts wont work alone, to get out of debt you have to make money and to make money you have to spend money - its not complicated. Things would be helped greatly if britain got back to making goods

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Conservative ideology is about preserving the social strata so that the fortunate can help the less fortunate.

Complete crap. It's about preserving their social position at the top of the tree. It's about trying to conserve things as they are (or more correctly, as they used to be) - they want to turn back time, to when Lords were really lords-and masters.

That's all there is to it, nothing more.

Anything else that comes along with that basis - such as (patronisingly) wanting to help others (after screwing them in the first place so they're in need of help ;)) - is an aside from that, and driven by of-the-moment ideas which flit in and out and which are not a part of their central ideology. Essentially, they've wised up enough to know that withoin a democracy they can't only f**k people over at every step if they want to keep enough support to give them power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what complete and utter bollocks. Slimy Gideon, Dave Moron and cronies would be so very proud of you, putting out bullshit propaganda like this for the country to believe.

1. the average % tax paid by those in the higher tax brackets (earning £44k+ a year) actually pay a lower proportion of their wages in tax than those on the standard tax bracket. Cos there's so many fiddles open to them that aren't open to 'normal' people.

2. the NI rate for higher rate tax payers is just 1% on those higher earnings, compared to the 11% paid on lower rate earnings (with the 11% due to increase from next April).

3. no NI contributions are paid by those over retirement age, irrespective of wealth or income.

So if you add standard tax rate and standard NI you get a tax rate of: 20% + 11% = 31%

So if you add the higher tax rate and higher NI you get a tax rate of: 40% + 1% = 41%

That's of course before factoring the legal tax fiddles open to higher earners, which easily gets to wipe the 10% differencde in those rates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Stopped reading most of this thread, but got this far. I'd just like to point out this is not true.

It is you know. The govt admits that it is.

If you earn £20K you pay about 21% of your gross salary out again in tax and NI. If your earn £50K, you pay about 28% out in tax and NI. All things being equal, the exact reverse of what you said is true. The more you earn, the more proportionally and absolutely you pay in taxes.

those things only apply if all income goes thru the tax system as income that's taxable using the standard income tax regime.

I'd also like to see what evidence there is that "legal tax fiddles" are avaiable to someone earning £50K. Can you describe one?

The majority of people with an income of £44k or greater don't get all of that income from their day-to-day job.

Income that comes from elsewhere is taxed in a different way from the standard income tax way.

Check out the tax on interest ('lost' I think posted only yesterday how easy it is to avoid higher rate tax on that); check out tax on dividends; check out tax on capital gains. Etc, etc, etc.

(those three are, I think, the main ones that higher earners exploit, but there's many many many more of them).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stopped reading most of this thread, but got this far. I'd just like to point out this is not true.

If you earn £20K you pay about 21% of your gross salary out again in tax and NI. If your earn £50K, you pay about 28% out in tax and NI. All things being equal, the exact reverse of what you said is true. The more you earn, the more proportionally and absolutely you pay in taxes.

Edited by sifimaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is you know. The govt admits that it is.

those things only apply if all income goes thru the tax system as income that's taxable using the standard income tax regime.

The majority of people with an income of £44k or greater don't get all of that income from their day-to-day job.Income that comes from elsewhere is taxed in a different way from the standard income tax way.

Check out the tax on interest ('lost' I think posted only yesterday how easy it is to avoid higher rate tax on that); check out tax on dividends; check out tax on capital gains. Etc, etc, etc.

(those three are, I think, the main ones that higher earners exploit, but there's many many many more of them).

Edited by paddydog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I dispute this absolutely.

Dispute it all you like, it doesn't make you right. The govt's own figures get to show that you're wrong.

I'm trying to google something to back up what I've said, but you clearly weren't paying attention during the election, as Vince Cable was making a big thing of it, and it was never disputed by anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

That's not an ideology. It's the corruption of an ideology.

Conservatives wanting to preserve social status for their own selfish reasons is a corruption of conservative ideology. Much like you get corrupt socialists.

OK, so it might not strictly fit as an "ideology".

But it is, without any doubt whatsoever, what they primarily stand for - ensuring they stay rich, by ensuring that they keep their hands on effective power (whether in govt or not).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so it might not strictly fit as an "ideology".

But it is, without any doubt whatsoever, what they primarily stand for - ensuring they stay rich, by ensuring that they keep their hands on effective power (whether in govt or not).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Yes, VAT. Not PAYE, not NI. Or CGT or tax on interest or savings. The bit on bold is critical.

A household with and income of £50K from benefits alone will pay a huge amount of indirect tax using that logic. I fear you are falling for the Daily Mail's subeditor's idealogical leaning when the article puportedly written by a member of David Cameron's cabinet was publihed.

If I earn only £1 and spend it on a bag of sweets I'll pay more tax than someone who earns £10,000 and buys nothing.

It's far more than just the simple scenario you insist on sticking to.

The UK tax regs is 10,000 pages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
    • 1, The Menzingers- Everything I Ever Saw 2, Quicksand- Bring On The Psychics 3, Radkey- Bedroom Sand  
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...