What a nerve for Mr Hague

Arthurgray50@blu · 10-03-2013, 19:55

http://news.sky.com/story/1062582/mu...ges-criticised

It always makes me laugh with the Tory party, they want to hit the mothers in the UK with my cuts.

Yet., Mr Hague is going to give Syria £20 million pounds of our money to supply weapons, for which is nothing to do with this country.

Cobbydaler · 10-03-2013, 20:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

http://news.sky.com/story/1062582/mu...ges-criticised

It always makes me laugh with the Tory party, they want to hit the mothers in the UK with my cuts.

Yet., Mr Hague is going to give Syria £20 million pounds of our money to supply weapons, for which is nothing to do with this country.

Congrats for another working link Arthur.

My salary has not increased in line with inflation for the last 5 years. Why should benefits?

**Chris** · 10-03-2013, 20:25

I refer members to my standard right-of-centre response to this issue.

Derek · 10-03-2013, 20:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

It always makes me laugh with the Tory party, they want to hit the mothers in the UK with my cuts.

My wages have dropped over the last year. Why should benefits automatically increase at or above inflation every year when wages don't?

Osem · 10-03-2013, 20:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobbydaler

Congrats for another working link Arthur.

My salary has not increased in line with inflation for the last 5 years. Why should benefits?

... because people like Arthur (and 'prudent' Labour Chancellors) can't see beyond their rose tinted specs and wouldn't recognise economic reality if it stood up and slapped them in the face. Let's face it mate, your 'job' is to carry on working hard for less so people like Arthur can carry on moaning about their subsidised rent and blaming everything under the sun on those who inherited Labour's legacy and are having to deal with it.

TheDaddy · 10-03-2013, 21:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

... because people like Arthur (and 'prudent' Labour Chancellors) can't see beyond their rose tinted specs and wouldn't recognise economic reality if it stood up and slapped them in the face. Let's face it mate, your 'job' is to carry on working hard for less so people like Arthur can carry on moaning about their subsidised rent and blaming everything under the sun on those who inherited Labour's legacy and are having to deal with it.

Who is subsidising Arthur's rent, he has a full time job iirc

Pierre · 10-03-2013, 21:40

That link, unless I missed it, doesn't say anything about the government giving Syria 20 million, or what it would be for?

Osem · 10-03-2013, 21:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Who is subsidising Arthur's rent, he has a full time job iirc

He lives in a council property IIRC. If so, hence subsidised.

GrimUpNorth · 10-03-2013, 22:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

He lives in a council property IIRC. If so, hence subsidised.

Now I don't know the answer, but if Arthur is paying 'full' rent- i.e. no housing benefit, is he being subsidised or is he actually paying the true price? I note he mentioned in another thread that he's paying £180/week, which if you consider annual increases, then I'm sure he won't be that far off paying for the property over say the next 20 years. People seem to forget that the property would still be owned by the council and can be rented out to another tenent in years to come. If during the 'life' of a council property the 'full' rent is payed then the property will probably have been paid for many times over. There's something to be said for supplying affordable housing in high cost areas.

Cheers

Grim

Osem · 10-03-2013, 22:33

Let's be clear, I dpn't have a problem with council houses - I wish there were more of them. I have a problem with some people expecting others, who're also suffering in these hard times, to pay more than they already do in order that benefits etc. can increase faster than salaries.

Stuart · 10-03-2013, 22:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

I refer members to my standard right-of-centre response to this issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek

My wages have dropped over the last year. Why should benefits automatically increase at or above inflation every year when wages don't?

Another way of looking at it is that Government is repeatedly introducing cuts that penalise those who are at the bottom end of the pay scale while seemingly ignoring the measures taken by those at the top end of the pay scale to minimise the amount of tax paid (and I am talking about both individuals and companies). Tax which can amount to 100s of millions of pounds.

The government can reduce the debt in two ways. Decrease expenditure (which is what they are trying) or increase income. This is a concept that, frankly, seems to escape the Tories, as well as the Liberal Democrats.

Sirius · 10-03-2013, 22:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek

My wages have dropped over the last year. Why should benefits automatically increase at or above inflation every year when wages don't?

Indeed

what about those of us that don't get benefits and don't get a pay rise, So what should we do as we cannot go to the benefits office for more.

Osem · 10-03-2013, 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart

Another way of looking at it is that Government is repeatedly introducing cuts that penalise those who are at the bottom end of the pay scale while seemingly ignoring the measures taken by those at the top end of the pay scale to minimise the amount of tax paid (and I am talking about both individuals and companies). Tax which can amount to 100s of millions of pounds.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20559791

Quote:

An HMRC spokesman said: "We relentlessly challenge those that persist in avoiding tax and have recovered £29bn additional revenues from large businesses in the last six years, including £4.1bn in the last four years from transfer pricing enquiries alone."

http://www.fda.org.uk/Media/Whats-ne...tra-3.7bn.aspx

Quote:

"HMRC is on track to deliver an additional £7 billion in tax receipts each year to 2015 as part of the Coalition's £917 million "reinvestment" programme"

It might seem like that to some but I'm not sure these figures amount to ignoring the problem. Although there's no doubt more could be done, it has to be done within the law and legal challenges can take a very long time to resolve in matters as complex as these.

10-03-2013, 23:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

Let's be clear, I dpn't have a problem with council houses - I wish there were more of them. I have a problem with some people expecting others, who're also suffering in these hard times, to pay more than they already do in order that benefits etc. can increase faster than salaries.

It really bugs the crap out of me when people on benefits are moaning they are only getting 1% pay rise per year ,or should that be the Labour party are moaning on their behalf ? because i would hate it if someone in receipt of benefits moaned to me that they are only getting a 1% rise because then i would have to smack in the face with my ever decreasing pay packets

Sirius · 10-03-2013, 23:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

It really bugs the crap out of me when people on benefits are moaning they are only getting 1% pay rise per year ,or should that be the Labour party are moaning on their behalf ? because i would hate it if someone in receipt of benefits moaned to me that they are only getting a 1% rise because then i would have to smack in the face with my ever decreasing pay packets