Authoritarian

Income tax, VAT, national insurance and various duties etc etc, basically the inflationary taxes that make it more difficult for consumers to get their hands on what they want. We're already aliented within the EU. The Eurocrats hate us because Farage berates them on a monthly basis and Cameron's promises of reform aren't winning us any friends either. If we can't trade with the EU without first entering into a political union (which is crazy when you think about it) then lets look at the pros and cons and make a sensible decision. Personally I'd still want out. But News Corporation don't sponge off the taxpayer unlike the BBC. There's nothing wrong with biased news as long as nobody is being forced to subsidise it. No we don't. Good. Yet another person who doesn't understand the difference between a proper free market and a crony capitalist monopoly. If your logic was correct then why aren't people starving on the streets due to our evil, profit chasing supermarket oligopoly? Because there's enough competition to keep the major players on their toes. As long as the market remained competitive with low barriers to entry it would offer levels of service that the NHS can only dream of for a fraction of the cost. What I want to do is save this country from the leftist snake-oil salesmen who assured us that the state had the answers to all our prayers. More immigration, more debt and more public sector nannying won't solve the very real problems this country faces, unless we're prepared to cut the fat and put an end to the insanity that is mass immigration I don't see thsi country recovering for a very long time.

This increase in defence could easily be covered by slashing foreign aid or by cutting overall spending by a measly 2%, sure public sector workers would kick up a fuss but I'm sure they could accomodate a 1-2% pay decrease at a time when budgets are so obviously strained.

Yes it's easy to be populist when you don't have any MPs in Westminster, but the Liblabcon have become so arrogant and enclosed within their own little bubble that they're no longer even attempting to say the right thing, let alone act out of principle (save for a few Tory backbenchers of course). UKIP won't be able to create utopia but I think they'll fix a lot of commonsense things that the public want dealing with, like immigration and foreign aid for example.

No, the free riders acquire massive, tax-free house price gains at the expense of other people. LVT will stop this practice dead in it's tracks and introduce a bit of sanity into the UK housing market.

1) Scrap all productivity taxes 2) Implement a land value tax that is equal to the rental income of unimproved land 3) Withdraw from the EU 4) Scrap the smoking/hunting bans 5) Reform the BBC 6) Deport all illegals 7) Consider the deportation of immigrants with criminal convictions 8) End foreign aid 9) Privatise healthcare. 10) Scrap all public sector non-jobs.

UKIP won't implement a land value tax which is the only way of stopping the massive free rider problem endemic in the housing market. But they may put a stop to some of the crazy government schemes that are blatantly there to line the pockets of landlords and create public sector non-jobs. It's not great but it's a start.

So edgy! I'd take ageing generals, spotty libertarians and white van men over career politicians and corporate shysters any day of the week. UKIP have their faults but at least Farage etc have broken free of the Liblabcon's Politically Correct, nanny knows best approach to policy formulation. For that they should be commended.

Why would any sane person vote Tory when: 1) They have no vision for the economy other than keeping house prices high (parasitism) 2) They seem intent on replicating Labour's mistakes 3) UKIP are speaking far more sense on a broader range of issues, from climate change, to the EU, to public sector spending. If house prices are too HIGH then we should perhaps look at ways of making them LOWER instead of throwing yet more taxpayers' money at a market that was directly responsible for the crash.

Yeah I've been looking to buy a place recently. I can't afford it alone so I'm looking with my brother. It's not ideal, for either of us, but I was ~25 when the crash first hit so I'm at a stage where I need to make some important decisions.

When I see topic where the op is whining about their discretionary outgoings I always assume that we're meant to marvel at their unstated incomings. If I started a thread about the inflated cost of fine wine for example it's obvious that what I'm really saying is that "I'm a well paid job and I want you all to know it so I'm going to talk about it adjacently" You've obviously got a lot of savings. Go you!!

Wasn't the whole point of the thread a thinly veiled attempt by the OP to boast about how much s/he earns? You can afford to give £400 p/a to charity so therefore you must be in a well paid job with lots of responsibilities, go you! That's what I was supposed to think, right?

The reality of the EU's "free movement of goods, capital, people and services" is that while the government will quite happily allow thousands of Eastern European migrants into my community no questions asked but HMRC are entitled to jump on me if I attempt to bring back more than 800 fags. The sooner this whole project is confined to the dustbin of history the better. It's an illogical, undemocratic, expensive mess.

Housing would be cheaper if it wasn't for the existence of Liar Loans but this kinda misses the point. Have you ever played the game Monopoly? The idea (as I'm sure you're aware) is to monopolise all the locations, raise the rents and eventually force the other players into bankruptcy. This is pretty much how the UK 'economy' works. The landowners/homeowners help themselves to as much free cash as possible via rents and rising asset prices and financial system responds by gravitating towards house price speculation. If the government stopped plying homeowners with gargantuan tax-free capital gains Liar Loan would be non-existent because they'd be nothing to speculate against. Treat the cause I say, not the symptoms. A derranged financial system is the product of an unjust housing market.

The lecture is tomorrow in London if anyone is interested. http://www.schooleconomicscience.org/news/

Sorry, I thought you were arguing for subsidies for those with assets worth hundreds of thousands of £'s. If this wasn't the case I apologise.

You don't want homeowners to pay for their own care because it apparently conflicts with their right to enjoys HPI. This is a pro home-ownerist position, why should the members of HPC be concerned with the unearned gains of British landowners? I certainly don't want to see my taxes fund the care home industry so they can continue to keep the housing stock all to themselves.

Yes, the state spends its money very badly. So why do you want to nationalise care homes? This sounds like an enlargement of the state to me, but I suppose its money well spent when its being used to ringfence the assets of homeowners?

What you're arguing for, it seems, is the nationalisation of the care home industry because you believe this is the best way to protect the unearned gains of HPI. Your first principles are a tad different to my own.

Am I in favour of corporate largess? No. That's why I'm against unlimited taxpayer funded subsidies for the care-home industry. Something you seem to be in favour of when it suits you.

I don't think you quite understand the nature of tax. Asking someone to foot a bill for a service they're receiving doesn't constitue a tax in any meaningful sense. Its unfortunate that someone may face a bill in excess of £75k but that doesn't automatically mean the correct answer is subsidies all round generously paid for by the taxpayer. All things being equal that just makes things worse as care home providers inflate their bills accordingly to get their hands on this unlimited pot of honey.

People are expected to meet their own food bills too, does this count as a tax in your eyes because we've already paid NICs?

Its not a tax at all. It just isn't a subsidy. There's quite a difference.

Theft is theft is theft. If the state steals £100 and then hands person A £10 and person B £90 can person A really complain when the state asks for their money back? The landed have been the beneficiaries of a massive boom in house prices since 1997, while some undoubtedly gained more than others they were all gorging on statist economic privileges to a greater or lesser degree. I don't see how finger pointing deals with the underlying point that HPI = a massive arbitrary and unearned transfer of wealth to the Haves from the Have-nots. Homeowners were laughing all the way to the bank during the boom years, now they might get a taste of what its like to see gains eroded away.

Yes it is. HPI = a direct transfer of wealth from the landless to the landed. If the landed have to hand back their assets in exchange for care in their old old then so be it, easy come easy go. Or do they think they're entitled to endless state privileges at the expense of the young and indebted?

The whole system is designed to funnel large amounts of unearned wealth into the pockets of idle homeowners, so excuse me if I don't shed a tear when the tables are turned for once. We live in a high cost economy because of the unrealistic expectations of homeowners, so they can hardly complain when these costs eventually feed back through to them!