Question Time

[Stars]

The poor spend more and that is precisely why they are poor.

The poor earn what they get by adding value, while many of the rich don't bother themselves with this

[Guest BetterOffOnBenefits]

Cable looks uncomfortable.

He's doing well though.

If I had to sit on the same table as Balls, you'd need half a dozen bouncers to restrain me

[Realistbear]

A general expectation among the young now, they will never see a pension in their lifetimes.

We have extended life, but we have not extended quality of life. The human body begins to break down at the same age in 2010 as it did in 2000 BC. We are simply better at dragging life out after we get old and sick.

Just read that we are the richest people in Europe earnings-wise but more wretched in every other category. We work FAR longer hours, have worse health and are poorer after housing costs are taken into account. Our country has been ruined over a generation and Brown just accelerated the process that bit more. Retirement age is increasing because the pension system is a classic PONZI and was never going to work due to insufficient new people coming into the system to keep the earlier people going.

I sense collective depression is setting in on this country.

[Guest BetterOffOnBenefits]

Some bloke has just cricitised Balls and see how swiftly Dumblebore moved on to the next person.

[Pauly_Boy]

With the VAT stuff it's got to be quite simple.

Poor people spend all there money on 'stuff'.

Richer people got get housing benifit, so they spend their money on a mortgage/rent (vat free), by the stuff they need/want and then place any spare into savings.

So proportantly, poor people spend more on goods with VAT, but only because all of there income is spent, not because they actually pay more in VAT than anyone else.

[Tiger Woods?]

Why does VAT hit the poor more?

Are they the only ones who buy goods?

Supposedly because they necessarily must spend more of their income than wealthier people to live. Small increases in VAT therefore eat a bigger proportion of their discretionary income. Of course the flaw with this argument is that major expenses for the poor, council tax, housing, food, etc. are VAT free.

Edited June 24, 2010 by D'oh

[Concrete Jungle]

I want to kill Ed Balls. I must plot a way to bump the pillock off.

[Realistbear]

You're joking right ?

I have quite a few friends who earn very little and they go out to eat 3 or 4 times a week. They tend to live for today, spend more on holidays and booze/fags. Rich people are often tight with their money and spend proportionately less.

I can recall a certain club in the US that has rules that say you cannot buy anything new except underwear and socks. It has a lot of very rich people as members.

[JimDiGritz]

I want to kill Ed Balls. I must plot a way to bump the pillock off.

Count me in....

[Si1]

Cable looks uncomfortable.

He's doing well though.

isn't this due to him always having been in ideological opposition in the past - getting used to the rigours of practical decisions must be tricky, cognitive dissonances and all - bright bloke, doing well tho

[Realistbear]

I want to kill Ed Balls. I must plot a way to bump the pillock off.

He is the prodigy of Gordon Brown. I find myself referring to him as the Balls creature.

If he becomes the leader of the opposition it will be difficult watching PMs QT as I like my Tele.

[Guest BetterOffOnBenefits]

Supposedly because they necessarily must spend more of their income than wealthier people to live. Small increases in VAT therefore eat a bigger proportion of their discretionary income. Of course the flaw with this argument is that major expenses for the poor, council tax, housing, food, etc. is VAT free.

and a lot of the poor don't even climb out of bed to got work, so they should zip it

[JimDiGritz]

+1 to Peter Hitchens.

[Stars]

Supposedly because they necessarily must spend more of their income than wealthier people to live. Small increases in VAT therefore eat a bigger proportion of their discretionary income. Of course the flaw with this argument is that major expenses for the poor, council tax, housing, food, etc. is VAT free.

That isn't a flaw with the rationale

Vat takes a larger portion of the poor's income despite the fact that vat isn't charged on some of the major expenses of the poor

The bigger issue is that VAT is direct attack on the productive part of society and the poor tend to survive by producing rather than collecting rents

[Guest BetterOffOnBenefits]

Is Diane Abbott the black, female Ed Balls?

They're both fat, goggly eyed, unable to roll their 'R's and of course repulsive.

[Timm]

I'm surprised he isn't wearing a red rosette

Or a pale blue bow tie.

PS. Cable was dying inside IMHO.

[Tiger Woods?]

The bigger issue is that VAT is direct attack on the productive part of society and the poor tend to survive by producing rather than collecting rents

This is a problem with income tax as well. When one buys a service over 50% of the cost of that service is tax of some form or another. This means that the person providing the service has to be twice as efficient as you for it to be worth your while purchasing the service.

[erranta]

He is the prodigy of Gordon Brown. I find myself referring to him as the Balls creature.

If he becomes the leader of the opposition it will be difficult watching PMs QT as I like my Tele.

Balls has been 'programmed' whilst taking a 'spell' in the USA, just like his wife, Clegg and loads of others (if you research their backgrounds) - automaton 'products' of the illuminati doing their biDDing!

Edited June 24, 2010 by erranta

[eightiesgirly]

Is it wrong to hope Ed Balls dies of a horrific heart attack live on TV ?

Just wondering. Not at all related to the subject matter. Of course.

His main purpose is to increase the sales of blood pressure medication... he is very good at it.

[Stars]

This is a problem with income tax as well. When one buys a service over 50% of the cost of that service is tax of some form or another. This means that the person providing the service has to be twice as efficient as you for it to be worth your while purchasing the service.

Yes, i agree

It makes all kinds of worthwhile trade unviable

However, vat is especially pernicious because it is only applied when value is added

Edited June 25, 2010 by Stars

[@contradevian]

isn't this due to him always having been in ideological opposition in the past - getting used to the rigours of practical decisions must be tricky, cognitive dissonances and all - bright bloke, doing well tho

I'm sure he would be happier pontificating from the sidelines. Anyway switched off the programme after the third round of applause for Ed Balls. The audience represent the "entitled generation" to a T and just don't get that we are not a rich country any more (whatever Balls/Brown told them).

[SarahBell]

Why does VAT hit the poor more?

Are they the only ones who buy goods?

To pay the extra £400 bantered about you need to spend over £2k on vatable stuff.

As long as they don't put VAT on food the poor are ok. IMO.

[europbaron]

I was quite pleased to see that Cable stood up for himself and the policies being implemented. After Ball's double standard laden rants it was nice to see a reply that basically amounted to a polite version of "you are a lying hypocritical bullshitter". Or perhaps,that's what I wanted to hear. I would have loved it if Starkey had been a guest last night.

[Tired of Waiting]

Why does VAT hit the poor more?

Are they the only ones who buy goods?

Since housing and food are exempt from VAT in Britain, how can VAT be regressive?!

These people are just reading from some basic economics text books that correctly say that (if there are no exemptions), that VAT is then regressive (in terms of share of income, as the poor spends all of their income, whilst the rich saves some of theirs). But in Britain we do have exemptions! In food and housing! And the poor spends a much larger share of their income on these 2 items! Probably a much larger share of their income than the share of income the rich save.

[Si1]

I was quite pleased to see that Cable stood up for himself and the policies being implemented. After Ball's double standard laden rants it was nice to see a reply that basically amounted to a polite version of "you are a lying hypocritical bullshitter". Or perhaps,that's what I wanted to hear. I would have loved it if Starkey had been a guest last night.

but did you see Balls and Cable chumming up at the end? maybe this is normal as both are sitting MPs and will have plenty of small talk to make, sharing taxis etc. However, it is in Balls interests to chum up for future lab-lib coalitions