Lib Dems Driving Me Nuts

[rw42]

Every time i read something like

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/8772159/Liberal-Democrat-Party-Conference-2011-Tim-Farrons-speech.html

Dropping the 50% tax rate is 'morally repugnant' even though it's losing the country money.

"Be absolutely sure of this. Liberal Democrat ministers are the guarantors of fairness in a government that would be an absolute nightmare without them. "

Who the f*ck do they think they are? The last bastion of morality? Hi Huhne.

[fatsam]

I dont know why but i really would like to punch danny alexander in the face really hard.

[rw42]

Meh. Up till now i might have been tempted to vote lib dem at some point - more likely to vote conservative.

Since they've got a sniff of power, they're implying that every other politician would start eating babies without them there to stop them.

Never, ever, going to even consider voting for those yellow streaks again.

[erranta]

Every time i read something like

http://www.telegraph...ons-speech.html

Dropping the 50% tax rate is 'morally repugnant' even though it's losing the country money.

"Be absolutely sure of this. Liberal Democrat ministers are the guarantors of fairness in a government that would be an absolute nightmare without them. "

Who the f*ck do they think they are? The last bastion of morality? Hi Huhne.

Yep

You NEVER see mention of energy companies "Front Loading" Gas-Elec prices on a fixed amount of units then they drop to a more normal rate!

This solely benefits the rich and better off who run larger houses!

This never used to be the case and the poor are being ripped off to the benefit of the rich. All units should be standardised.

There should be outrage and a big campaign against this extra abuse against low energy users & poor

[A.steve]

Dropping the 50% tax rate is 'morally repugnant' even though it's losing the country money.

I heard a quote like this on the radio this morning... and I found myself straining not to find myself arguing back. You see, the problem is that I just don't understand how the Lib Dems can defend their position on opposing the drop of the 50% tax rate - their reasoning, if I accept it, leads me to the exact opposite opinion.

Tax laws that favour the wealthy are morally repugnant - but taxing income on an aggressive sliding scale doesn't favour those less well off - on the contrary - it cements the fate of the underclass - it eliminates social mobility and damns those without to an eternity in relative poverty. The vast majority of the wealthy aren't adversely affected by income tax - as the money that comes into their hands, in the most part, is accounted as capital gains - or, else, the money is spent on their whims before it is even registers as a profit at the companies they hold. I'm no socialist - but I'm adamant that the most repugnant taxation is that which prevents social mobility and condemns all law abiding citizens to a future of eternal servitude. I think that's immoral - and. if I ever got the chance, I'd take take up that argument with any politician. As I see it, there's only one way to bring justice to matters of tax - and that's to fix capital gains tax and income tax at the same rate. Every other argument seems so obviously bogus that I have to wonder if anyone who'd support such ideas is inherently malevolent.

Edited September 18, 2011 by A.steve

[Democorruptcy]

Vince Cable now sees printing money to increase consumer demand as the answer

Here he was in 2007

The last three elections were won by Labour for one major reason: The economy. It remains Gordon Brown’s main weapon; and his Achilles Heel.

The British economy may have been reasonably successful but it is also highly fallible. The House that Gordon Built may not be built on sand but it has certainly been built on a floodplain. It has yet to be fully tested against rising economic sea levels, though the events of the last week suggest that it may be very soon.

The water is now pouring through the defences after the near collapse of Northern Rock; a product of greed and reckless gambling by overpaid executives; lax, indulgent bank regulation; and a complacent Government. I warned Gordon Brown of a looming debt crisis four years ago.

The seductive narrative of Gordon Brown’s moralistic social democracy also bears little connection to the reality of modern Britain in which amoral and anti-social behaviour by the ‘super rich’ is given free rein; where the poor are hounded for small over payments of benefit and the super rich can pay no tax; where a city is refused a super casino but our country is turned into the world’s super casino for speculative investors.

The Treasury team has commissioned a YouGov poll into public attitudes. Over 80% thought that the gap in earnings between rich and poor, and the gap in wealth and property were too large. 84% – and even 80% of Tory voters – thought Chief Execs of top companies were overpaid; the most common word used was ‘obscene’.

How sustainable is the Brown Economic Miracle?

This current boom does not depend on long term investment or on exports or on the cultivation of a more educated, skilled, labour force. It is powered by debt financed consumer spending, some reckless lending and the optimism generated by a house price boom. Household savings have virtually collapsed in the rush to spend. Personal debt has more than doubled in a decade to well over 1 trillion pounds. Almost 20% of all household income is now set aside for debt service; as against 13% in 1997. For first time buyers the figure is around 40%. I have been warning of this for over three years. But repeatedly, and complacently, Gordon Brown denied that there was a problem. Now, those who are over borrowed, or suffer loss of income, job, illness or relationship breakdown, are increasingly unable to pay. Every day nearly 300 people face insolvency and 75 family homes are repossessed; Gordon Brown must take personal responsibility.

The United States has already produced a lending crisis built on the back of high risk credit, such as NINJA loans; to people with ‘No Income, No Job and No Assets’. Yet some of ours have done the same; and this is high street banks - not just the cowboys. When I ask our banks why they are behaving recklessly, lending four, five, six times peoples’ income they say: ‘what is the problem? 80% of our loans are secured against borrowers’ houses. And, as we all know, property prices can only go up?’ They say.

We can see the frenzied signs of collective madness which always accompany an economic bubble. From Dutch tulips to dotcom shares to Japanese land prices, and now UK house prices, we see banks and individuals entrusting their money to a market which seems to offer a one-way bet. Until it bursts the bubble has a logic of its own, inflated by uncontrolled credit expansion and rampant speculative demand.

etc

unlike the Tories, we have a fully costed, independently assessed, alternative package – leading to a 4p cut in national income tax, financed by green taxes and higher taxes on the wealthy – we’re honest about it.

http://www.libdems.org.uk/speeches_detail.aspx?title=Brighton_2007%3A_Vince_Cable%2C_Treasury_Speech&pPK=52562510-da25-4961-a7ee-4464601235b8

[monks]

I dont know why but i really would like to punch danny alexander in the face really hard.

[winkie]

It is 50% tax on any earnings over £150,000 only per year, so would only affect the wealthy......it is only supposed to be a temporary measure to show the rest of the world we mean business in trying to reduce our deficit (whether it makes that much difference or not is debatable) and more importantly to keep our debt interest rates low and ratings high......that is what matters the most to the government.

[winkie]

Yep

You NEVER see mention of energy companies "Front Loading" Gas-Elec prices on a fixed amount of units then they drop to a more normal rate!

This solely benefits the rich and better off who run larger houses!

This never used to be the case and the poor are being ripped off to the benefit of the rich. All units should be standardised.

There should be outrage and a big campaign against this extra abuse against low energy users & poor

I agree....something should be done about this, in some cases the front loading units have increased 30% this month the secondary units have hardly gone up at all....daylight robbery.

[Milton]

I'll never be voting Tory / Lib Dem / Labour [Need I say this?] again.

[MrPin]

I agree....something should be done about this, in some cases the front loading units have increased 30% this month the secondary units have hardly gone up at all....daylight robbery.

Indeed it would be strange if beer or petrol were sold on this basis.

[fatsam]

If only he was as usefull

[CrashConnoisseur]

Yep

You NEVER see mention of energy companies "Front Loading" Gas-Elec prices on a fixed amount of units then they drop to a more normal rate!

This solely benefits the rich and better off who run larger houses!

This never used to be the case and the poor are being ripped off to the benefit of the rich. All units should be standardised.

There should be outrage and a big campaign against this extra abuse against low energy users & poor

+225 (kWh).

Almost all my consumption is now rip-off units (only used £3 worth of secondary units last quarter). I noticed that the recent price increase was made entirely on the rip-off units. Secondary units remain the same price. One wonders which units are used for the CPI basket of goods?

Edited September 18, 2011 by CrashConnoisseur

[A.steve]

It is 50% tax on any earnings over £150,000 only per year, so would only affect the wealthy.....

I'm happy to define as wealthy anyone with a net worth of over £3,000,000 (20xIncome) so, Care to guess what proportion of, such defined, wealthy people record incomes in excess of £150,000?

I don't have the statistic to hand - but I strongly suspect it would substantially undermine your argument.

Edited September 18, 2011 by A.steve

[MarkG]

It is 50% tax on any earnings over £150,000 only per year, so would only affect the wealthy.....

Again, the really wealthy don't pay much income tax, because most of their income is not classed as income. This primarily affects the people who could become wealthy if the government wasn't stealing most of their income and preventing them from building up the capital required to join the uber-rich.

The really wealthy love income tax because it keeps out the riff-raff who might compete with them.

it is only supposed to be a temporary measure to show the rest of the world we mean business in trying to reduce our deficit (whether it makes that much difference or not is debatable) and more importantly to keep our debt interest rates low and ratings high......that is what matters the most to the government.

Income tax was only going to be a temporary measure, only going to be a small tax, and only going to affect the very richest people. Every time government says they're introducing something temporarily it just means they can't justify it as a permanent measure and think the voters are stupid enough to not realise that what's temporary today will be permanent after the next election.

The great thing about the coalition government is that it's finally destroying any belief that the Lib Dims know what they're doing.

Edited September 18, 2011 by MarkG

[tonytramcar]

"Be absolutely sure of this. Liberal Democrat ministers are the guarantors of fairness in a government that would be an absolute nightmare without them. "

What baffles me is that the Conservatives appear to be running scared of the LibDems and seem to constantly bend over backwards to appease them. If push came to shove and the LibDems withdrew their support Cameron should be able to call an election and win it. Or are Cameron and his merry men much further to the left than they would have us believe ?

[MarkG]

If push came to shove and the LibDems withdrew their support Cameron should be able to call an election and win it.

Why do you think Cameron would win an election? The voters didn't want him last time and I don't see that he's done anything to change their mind.

[tonytramcar]

Why do you think Cameron would win an election? The voters didn't want him last time and I don't see that he's done anything to change their mind.

Who do you think would win an election - can you imagine Milliband as PM ? But then again, you could be right, the UK electorate would probably vote for whoever promised them the softest option, no matter how unlikely it would be that a soft option would materialise.

[Timak]

Not sure I agree with the "evidence" that the 50p rate is costing the economy money. A right wing think tank says it is but without any actual empirical evidence just a few anecdotals about "pretty brassed off actually" hedge fund managers moving to Switzerland.

[gf3]

Every time i read something like

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/liberaldemocrats/8772159/Liberal-Democrat-Party-Conference-2011-Tim-Farrons-speech.html

Dropping the 50% tax rate is 'morally repugnant'even though it's losing the country money.

"Be absolutely sure of this. Liberal Democrat ministers are the guarantors of fairness in a government that would be an absolute nightmare without them. "

Who the f*ck do they think they are? The last bastion of morality? Hi Huhne.

Do you have any evidence that the 50p tax rate is costing the country money (I don't except VI's word)

[Executive Sadman]

My nearest Libdum MP, Julian Hypocritre, sorry, Huppert berates the A-global warming 'skeptics' as not having a worthy view bccause their position is based on 'blind faith'

More recently he goes all out to support the muslim community and getting a mosque built in Cambridge, and tries to surpress the right for the EDL to protest this.

I guess blind faith of a religion that has the blood of millions on its hands is preferable to blind faith otherwise known as scientific dialogue.

I dont get it either.

[rw42]

Do you have any evidence that the 50p tax rate is costing the country money (I don't except VI's word)

Don't you think the yellow portion of the government would be shouting from the rooftops if the 50p tax rate was actually bringing in significant amounts of money?

To me, a fair tax is one paid equally by all. You earn more, you pay more. Same percentage makes it fair. If you want to tax the rich more, then cut down on avoidance schemes.

I don't agree that it's 'showing the rest of the world we mean business' - i don't think it's a good thing that a supposedly responsible government has been reduced to arguing that appearances are more important than reality.

If they want to show that they're serious about reducing the deficit, maybe they should try stopping spunking so much money up the wall on housing benefits.

[Chuffy Chuffnell]

Without the boundary changes the Lib Dems will have about 40 seats at the next general election.

With the changes they're on course for about 25.

Irrelevance here they come! (Again. As they should be.)

Edited September 18, 2011 by Chuffy Chuffnell

[billybong]

Currently it's the LibDem branch of the 5th Column having their conference, broadcasting their policies and telling their lies.

Don't worry soon it'll be the Labour branch and then the Conservative branch.

Edited September 18, 2011 by billybong

[tinker]

Politicians... what's not to like?