Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Not at all, my point was that they have pledged stuff but not said how it'll be funded. It makes me nervous and should you, after all they'll probably have to break the pledge when they get in.

Also it's not good to vote for a party on just one issue. Even if they could prove they'd keep the pledge I'd still not trust them on the other issues like the economy, education (as a whole) and the health service.
__________________

.............ands they haven't (have they :confused: ) , not in this term.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

It wasn't in their manifesto. Wonder why? Could it be that it goes against everything that 'old' Labour stood for!

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

On the other hand, if enough people vote LibDems as a protest against Labours unkept promices and mismanagement, and against the lying barstewards that are the Tories, then the LibDema will grab a larger share of seats in parliment. Doing thus warnest the Labour that the people are becomming fed up with their lying, renaging ways. While showing the Tories they havent been forgiven for being a crowd of lying *******s either.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I don't want to play the age card but.......( ;) ) trust me they don't support students (especially if they're working class oiks). Been it, seen it, done it - mind you, Labout these days are certainly no better. Two-faced sods would have been up in arms if the Tories had propsed tuition fees.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

True, I was making the point that the Tories aren't entirely innocent.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I missed those points earlier, they were added after I started my post.

I said before that this system doesn't benefit hardly anyone, and I said that the Lib Dems were "negligent" in doing that, but actually they are pretty smart. They don't want us to benefit from the system - it is a tax. They want to screw as many people as possible, and as much as possible. They is the sole reason a tax exists - to raise money.

You have probably worked it out by now, but in case you haven't, regarding your last point, council tax is charged per house, not per person. 4 people in a house means everyone pays 1/4th of the tax. Income tax affects everyone, it isn't divisible.

You raised a point about people on benefits. Do people on benefits over the minium threshold (£10k isn't it?) pay tax on it, as it is still income? Also, don't forget that there are exemptions to the current system, that won't apply to some people, whereas an income tax will apply to everyone.

Like I said (eventually), it isn't supposed to be nice, or fair, or ethical... It is supposed to milk as much of our (sometimes hard) earned money from us. The Lib Dems are trying to raise tax money, would they suggest the system if it left people better off?

Edit: Link fixed.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

I had worked that point out - though I do enjoy being patronised, even after a beer :). That's why I like the idea. What'sd four people living in a house got to do with anything? That's four people sharing the same bin but not a lot else. Those four individuals can still each use the library, drive on roads, have their kids educated, get policed, etc, etc. The fact that they share the same house has diddly squat to do with the anything.... which is why council tax is unjust.
__________________


Income tax related to earnings is fair. People on 10k pay little (probably nothing), people on £100k pay more. An income tax will apply to everyone but if we have 10, 23, 40 and 50 % rate bands we have a more equitable system. Indirect taxation or home related taxation is a much blunter tool.

Milk? The Lib Dems look, on the face of it, to be trying to raise tax money through more equitable means and reduce what is (under a "Labour" government) growing inequality between rich and poor. The Tories (and increeasingly Labour)are, on the other hand, only interested in ensuring the rich get richer.

Meanwhile those who moan about tax are also the most vociferous in complaining about crime, NHS standards, school resources etc. Do they think these things are free (or should only be available to those who can afford them)?

For the record I've only voted Lib Dem once, and then tactically. But as mainstream parties go, they look the best of a bad, nay rotten, bunch. Of course should they get elected they'll only let me down...... :(

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way.

If 4 people share a house, they share the council tax (if the landlord even forces them to), meaning they will be better off, than if they were taxed individually with extra income tax.

The perfect world senario though, which all governments should be working towards, is that people should pay as few taxes as possible, not as many. The Lib Dems though need a lot of money, and a lot of taxes to get it.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

:) No worries!
__________________

Yeah they might be better off individually but is that system fairer? I personally think not.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Why is everything so charicaturial to you? If you complain about tax, then you must be an evil child-eating conservative. You probably think I have a pin-striped suit, bowler hat and a tightly rolled umbrella.

Everyone complains about tax, because for obvious reasons noone wants to pay 1p more than they have to. However public services have to be paid for, so people accept it. That doesn't mean the government can go power-crazed and pilled their citizens.

I have proved that most poor people will be worse off under Lib Dems ditch council tax plan. You seem to have agreed, but you are still arguing thats a good thing? First you say the poor should pay the least, then you say that everyone should pay as much as possible.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Nobody wants to pay more taxes than they need and we should ensure our politicians are accountable for our tax pennies (whicxh is harder when we are forced into indirect taxation). But at the same time, people seem to think public services pay for themselves.

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

:handshake: :)

Fairer? Maybe not in all cases, but if poor people will pay less tax, then that is better on them, and surely that is what the government should be doing?

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

100k ? - I wish I earned that. According to that calculator I would be worse off on 25k.
__________________

and who says they use the library ? or that they have kids ? They already pay for the roads with extortionate road tax, fuel tax (and speeding tax ;)) - and as for policing - that's a joke (for another thread) these days. :erm:

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

A bloke called Punky in a pin stripe? It's a nice image I'll admit :)

My comment was, admittedly, based on anecdotal rather than scientific evidence but as I've had a few Guinesses I'm sticking with it! ;)

The 1p more comment is important though because it does - I think! - illustrate that we get hung up on basic income tax rates instead of the total tax take and the equality of the tax regime. I don't want to pay more tax than I need but equally I want a fair and just society which offers equality to all (hey, we all can dream).

I'm not sure at all that you have proved poor people will be worse off. You may have proved that four people with incomes sharing a house will be worse off but that's a decidely different issue.

Ok, getting to the roots. If your mate has no money this weekend, do you buy him a beer?No, because if he can't afford a beer so tough doo-dah or yes, cos that's the decent thing to do. Extrapolate that out........










Yeah, yeah, might be time for another drink
__________________

[QUOTE=punky]:handshake: :) :hugs: QUOTE] Aaaah!
__________________

We're at cross purposes here in that we both seem to think poorer people should pay less tax (and talking as a proportion rather than pounds. shillings and pence). As far as I can judge people on the, lowest incomes, the most vulnerable, will be better off. If stands to reason ifd the the tax regime is hierarchical.

Final point before I depart for the evening. We are a rich country. As a nation (not me and thee necessarily) we can afford to pay more tax. Clamp down on tax avoidance that's what I say (said it mant times before but avoidance csts circa £25 billion annually which is an awful lot of council tax!).

Cheers all. Will check in too see if this debate is just as lively tomorrow!
__________________

So we only pay for what we personally use/do? Not sure that argument holds a lot of aqueous substance. I might not make as much rubbish as you (obviously a very keen recycler! :o ) but that doesn't mean I should pay less for it to be collected. We all make burdens on the tax system, some more than others but that''s why we're a society and not 60m individuals (motivated puely by self interest).

Re: UK General Election 2005
 

Getting down to the root of the matter, you are in favour of the income tax solution because you think it is fairer. Don't forget, I am opposing (in principal) a tax cut (and a considerable one too) because I am one of the few lucky ones. I oppose it, because of the greater good - it benefits more people

Fairer, isn't always better. Take the idea (which I support in principal only) for example. People say that gender shouldn't be a factor in car insurance premiums. Is it fair that women get charged less for car insurance, because they won the gender lottery? Of course not. Is it in everyone's best interests? Yes. If this enforced equality takes place, will men get a discount? No, women will pay more. Okay, until you look at the real world data. In quite a few households, men are the only source of income, and in the majority of the rest, they represent the bigger income. If this fairer car insurance system comes into affect, rather than improving men's lives, it will harm them because they'll be paying more, than the sexual-discriminatory previous system. Men and women will be paying more, and so be poorer. Noone wins, except for batchelors who will have their morale boosted a bit.

The idea is to burden as few a people as possible, not to burden everyone fairly. A fairer tax system that makes many poor people poorer. Is that a good idea?

Oh, one last point (I promise) :)

It depends, does he deserve a beer? There are a lot of people I am sure, can't afford a beer - do I have to go out and buy them all beers? What if my mate doesn't deserve a beer, do I still have to buy him a beer, even though I have more than him?

We should help the needy, by all means, but the emphasis should be on people that deserve our help and support - not supporting everyone regardless of the situation.