Ulfar

Using the term over-firmly should be a reason to be taken out and shot. It is this sort of misuse of the language that pervades politics at the moment. It is morally corrupt. Shapps has been clumsy in his use and will be castigated for it, George Osborne , IDS and many other ministers get away with language misuse to hide more wide ranging lies. These lies cover up the true agenda which is sinister.

Maybe Harriet thinks they are literally Pirates, raping and pillaging as they go.

So its a flat. I see their insurance doesn't cover it but is that because it is only contents. Was the building not insured by the freeholder ? Or was the buildings insurance negated as the lower flat had no right to extend into the basement in the first place. Too many missing details. Who I really feel sorry for are those in the top flat.

Slave boxes. This doesn't seem practical, but when did that ever matter.

Maybe this is what the news this morning about the ineffectiveness of the flu jab was about, softening us up for mass death at the hands of a virus.

Cancel the DD, setup Standing order. Otherwise they will take it anyway.

Government expenditure was 690+ billion last year, so yes 960 billion is more than that. I note you ignored the fact that the 960 billion figure is if we paid everyone in the country including children £16k which I wouldn't, while also ignoring the other items for raising revenue. Firstly there would be no tax free allowance or upper limit on income earned which would attract a flat rate of tax. This would apply not only to individuals but companies as well, for those using transfer pricing to move profits to other countries I would use VAT to catch this income. In fact I would use VAT all round seen as it seems to be much harder to avoid. Then we come to taxing land ownership instead of subsidizing it, how much would this raise quite a bit I would say seen as the owners can't move it. There is also the positive benefit of CI that there is no benefits trap, which can in turn lead to more people working and more tax being taken. Now if we take the last census 23.9% where under the age of 20 so this reduces the bill to £690.6 billion. Personally I wouldn't set the CI at £16k, I was using someone else's numbers, how about £12k gets you down to £517.95 billion or £10k for a total off £431.36 Billion. I think £10k would be about right as it would be affordable when taken as a whole package. One other thing I would do is build lots of social housing, when combined with CI it is a way for the government to effectively reduce the bill further, why shouldn't the public purse capture landlord profits instead of the private sector. Without raising taxes on land we could afford £6k and actually save money on the current spend of £230billion (this doesn't include savings for no longer needed departments). So to say no it can't be afforded is shortsighted thinking, eventually it will have to be done unless there is a huge cull of people. This is not an option for those at the top, another world war is would causes damage here not just on foreign soil. Nuclear weapons mean everybody is toast not just the lower orders.

If we set CI at £16k a year then it would cost £960 billion for 60million people. Sounds like a lot but then when you start looking at what the total benefit spend is already and all benefits have to be included in that not just JSA, ISL, UC but housing benefit, state pension, tax credits and so on, you begin to wonder why we don't go for CI. We already spend over a third and closer to half this amount in benefits and departments that would no longer be needed for CI(based on ONS figures). To add to this I would add a residency qualification based on 18 years continous living in the country up until the claim date. This means Children, immigrants and emigrants would not get it unless they had the required amount of time. This would reduce the bill somewhat. This residency requirement would also apply too free health care, social housing, etc. All other earned income would be subject to a flat rate of tax and land value tax would be put in place. Why don we do this, easy the answer is control.

I despair for a welfare system that leaves people destitute for up to 3 years(the length of time for a third offense) with no money. The sanctions regime is evil. IDS wants people to have to work to earn money, will his family be handing back any of the land subsidies they get for just owning land.

Why employ and pay people when you can get them free on "work experience".

I think you are right the majority of people don't think like this. They have been indoctrinated into not thinking this way so they are prepared to take on more and more debt. Those in charge however know how the system is rigged because they rigged it. To quote someone else "If you owe the bank thousands, then you have a problem. If you owe the bank millions, then the bank has a problem." There should be a limit, it used to be by currency being linked to gold/silver, now it is linked to how much debt people can service.

Even if things go very badly tits up, the indebted will get bailed out. The more debt you have the better off you are.

Anything that removes some of the power from Westminster and its London centric view of the world should be a good thing. I believe it will lead to Scotland going independent. Hopefully the next time the SNP will insist on independent running of the referendum with stringent controls.

Given that I don't think you are in the 1% or close at the moment, I would support you in this as it would benefit everyone else too by lowering the gap.

I also have no sympathy for Germany and lots of sympathy for Greece. Plentiful credit inflates prices of everything making borrowing a certainty. To then bail them out by loading on more debt is just criminal. To me a bailout is some of the debt being written off. A currency union with such imbalances cannot last, either the Euro zone becomes one massive country with one budget or eventually it is doomed to fail.

Well instead of printing billions and giving it to the already well off, we could give it to the indebted to pay off their debts which are owed to the well off. The well off benefit, the indebted benefit and the system clears a whole chunk of debt out the way. They are going to print anyway so lets try trickle up seen as trickle down isn't working.

Cameron doesn't have to deal with the downsides of large scale immigration, in fact he benefits from it in the short term. What happens in the long term though is you end up with a fractured country.

Loosen planning rules, improve build standards, execute any nimbys.

They are a lot of things that could be done, they won't be. Follow Scotland's lead and ban letting agent fees. Currently in the rest of the UK it is in the lettings agents interest to churn tenants. Removing this incentive would help security of tenure. Change AST minimum length to 1 or 2 years.

She should go tell Obama that social media is useless, he used it too devastating effect. I would argue that it is the mainstream media in particular newspapers that are becoming less relevant as time passes. As the older generation dies off, we will have a populace that is completely at home with the internet.

The only thing city link had going for them was the were better than Yodel(formerly Home Delivery Network, big hint changing the name didn't improve your business). This is why I know check when ordering that I can have parcels delivered by royal mail.

No need to mess about with multiple tax levels, one flat rate of tax for all income. Citizens income won't happen as you cannot have people living free from fear of debt, much harder to control if you do that.

There is no more room for private debt. They aren't going to even be able to get those coming out of university to take on more debt as they are going to be loaded up to the eyeballs in student debt. Cutting the benefits will make people more inclined to save. What is needed is an increase in wages and any support mechanisms removing from the housing market. I would even go as far as making mortgages "no recourse", lets add some real consequences for banks in loose lending. A majority of our problems can be traced either directly or indirectly to the over availability of credit. Eidt : Agree with Byron, we can't afford our own expenditure why are we subsidizing other countries. If you watched the Sunday politics this point was bought up and the BBC couldn't change the subject quick enough.

As I understand it and I would be happy to be corrected here. A civil offence is one committed by a person/corporation against another person/corporation, a criminal offense is one committed by a person/corporation against society. The crucial point for this discussion is that a civil offence cannot result in a custodial sentence, which is what the council are proposing. So by this definition the council are acting on the behalf of society and the result could be a custodial sentence, this makes it a criminal offence. Make it more expensive to hoard property is the correct way, making it a criminal one is the wrong way in my opinion. Also we don't need another tax, just add bands to council tax, remove any subsidies for empty property, add a penalty for an empty property.

Did I miss the bit were owning property as an investment became a criminal offense. Yes it is wrong that properties are left empty when people need homes, but this is a step too far. If this was imposed there would be a lot of very red faced rich people, so it won't happen.